Appeal 6001703

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from C3 Dwellinghouse to C2 [name] at [site address] , Hallow, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00477/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The South Worcestershire Development Plan Review was adopted on 26 March

It replaces the policies of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan in place at the time of my decision. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the relevant policies within the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (2026), and I have assessed the proposal against those policies identified as relevant by the Council. No party would be prejudiced by me determining the appeal on this basis.

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding the ownership of the appeal site. Further correspondence with the appellant suggests that this section of the application form was completed incorrectly. There is a discretion to process an appeal and accept it as valid, despite breaches of procedural requirements, if it is appropriate to do so. This discretion should only be exercised following full regard to all the circumstances, including whether any prejudice would arise1. In this case, the landowner was aware of the application and has had the opportunity to comment on the proposal. No prejudice has arisen and, accordingly, I have proceeded to determine the appeal. 1 Maximus Networks Ltd v SSHCLG & Others [2018] EWHC 1933 (Admin)

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance, the amount and adequacy of on-street parking and the perception of the proposed use.

The appeal property is one half of a pair of semi-detached houses, located within a built-up residential area where some noise and disturbance from domestic activity is to be expected. The houses along [address] occupy moderate to large plots, with reasonable spacing between dwellings.

At the time of my visit, excluding the noise of the radio being played by the builders renovating the appeal property, the background noise included vehicles on nearby roads and an airplane passing over. When the level of background noise dropped, for example during a gap in the passing traffic, there were moments of tranquillity where the background noise was predominantly bird song. However, I also heard conversation between residents and sounds of a child playing in a rear garden. These noises are not untypical of a residential area and were not at a level where they would result in any appreciable disturbance or harm to the living conditions of nearby residents.

The appeal property is a four-bedroom dwelling. The proposal seeks to accommodate a maximum of three children aged between 8 and 17, with a minimum of two permanent staff on site at all times, and a daytime manager. This would result in a level of occupation broadly comparable to that expected from a dwelling of this size being used as a family house. The property also benefits from a moderately sized garden, which would provide additional amenity space.

Although the occupants would live more independently and may exhibit a slightly different pattern of use to a single household, the differences would be limited. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that children in care, while possibly in crisis, would create a greater level of noise and disturbance than a typical family household. There may possibly be some increased comings and goings, which could result in additional noise. Nonetheless, such effects would be modest and not to the degree that they would harm the living conditions of nearby residents. From the evidence before me, it has not been demonstrated that there is significant potential for the appeal proposal to generate unacceptable noise nuisance. Neither is there any robust justification for additional sound proofing.

The appeal property benefits from two off-street parking spaces within the frontage, albeit arranged such that one vehicle would obstruct the other due to the existing front boundary fence. The proposed use would involve up to three staff members being on site during the day and I note that the Highway Authority require a minimum of 1 off-street parking space per staff member. Notwithstanding encouragement to use public transport or car share, it is likely, for reasons of convenience and personal circumstances, that staff would travel separately by car.

I saw on my visit that most of the houses along the section of [address] where the appeal property is located, benefit from off-street parking for between one and three vehicles within their frontages or to the side. Consequently, although demand for on-street spaces appeared to be reasonably low, availability was constrained by the prevalence of dropped kerbs.

Nevertheless, suitable on-street parking spaces were evident within a short distance of the appeal property, including along the initial stretch of [address] towards its junction with [name] and along [name] itself. These spaces could accommodate and would provide appropriate provision for a day manager and visiting professionals.

I recognise that the shift changes at 22:00 would occur during a quieter period when neighbouring residents may be resting. However, the associated vehicle movements would be limited in number and comparable to typical residential activity, such as occupants returning home in the evening. There is no substantive evidence to suggest that staff would engage in behaviour likely to give rise to disturbance at this time, such as prolonged conversations outside the property.

Concerns have been raised that the tandem-type parking arrangement within the frontage would result in additional vehicle movements. Nonetheless, similar arrangements are evident at other houses along [address]. Given that the two permanent staff members would commence and finish shifts at the same time, it is unlikely that this would result in an appreciable increase in vehicle movements or manoeuvring.

It is evident from the representations of interested parties, including those who live nearby, that there is concern regarding the vulnerability of both the existing community and the children being cared for, and potential impacts on community safety arising from challenging behaviour. These concerns appear to be informed, in part, by previous issues at the appeal property when it was in use as a family dwelling. While such concerns are understandable, they relate to a different use of the appeal site.

The proposal seeks to retain the appearance of a family home, with no high fencing or alarms. It includes 24-hour supervision of the children by trained staff, with each child receiving an individualised package of support. The operation of the care home would be subject to separate legislative controls, including Ofsted regulation. Planning decisions should proceed on the basis that such regimes operate effectively and should not duplicate those controls. Safeguarding matters therefore fall outside the scope of this appeal.

There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposal would compromise the safety or wellbeing of the local community. While this may not fully allay the concerns of local residents, the modest scale of the use, together with the operation of other regulatory controls, means this perception attracts limited weight in this case.

Accordingly, for the reasons above, based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, the proposal would not give rise to significant adverse impacts on the health or quality of life of nearby residents, either from noise and disturbance, the amount and adequacy of on-street parking or the perception of harm. It would therefore accord with Policies 28 and 35 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (2026), which seek to ensure that development proposals create a safe and secure environment with a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

I have taken careful account of the representations of interested parties. These raise concerns regarding inconsiderate parking, the suitability of the property for the intended use, loss of a family dwelling, effects on character, and provision for those with disabilities.

Concerns regarding inconsiderate parking, including obstruction of traffic flow, emergency access, and driveways, do not alter my findings. Given the modest shortfall in off-street parking and the availability of suitable on-street parking within a short distance of the appeal property, there is no substantive reason to expect such impacts to arise.

At the time of my visit, the appeal property was undergoing renovation, and it appeared that concerns regarding its condition were being addressed. Ongoing maintenance, including fire safety measures, would be secured through other legislative controls. While the proposed staff bedroom would be small, I have no reason to assume that both members of staff on ‘sleep-in’ shifts would require sleeping accommodation at the same time. I am therefore of the view that the appeal property could satisfactorily accommodate the proposed use.

Although the proposal would result in the loss of a family dwelling, it would deliver a form of accommodation for which there is an identified need, and there is nothing to indicate that the property must cater specifically for people with disabilities.

The proposal would reuse an existing dwelling, retaining a residential use with only limited differences from a single household. Any associated activity would be modest and would not harm the residential character or dynamics of the area. [name] may have limited street lighting and services, the Council regards it as a sustainable location, and I can find no reason to disagree. In any event, the care provision would include tailored educational, social and recreational arrangements.

There is no evidence that the proposal would adversely affect biodiversity, drainage or the existing level of overlooking. Concerns regarding property values are purely private interests and therefore carry no weight in my decision.

In addition to concerns regarding ownership of the appeal site, interested parties have questioned the validity of the application. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that either the application or the appeal is invalid. There is no requirement for the applicant’s name to correspond with a registered business name, and the use of a trading name is acceptable; in this case, a representative of the business is clearly identified. Matters relating to notification of any mortgagor are private and fall outside the planning system. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement to submit a [name], and such local list requirements are a matter for the Council.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary for reasons of certainty.

The Council has suggested conditions restricting the use of the appeal property to a care home for a maximum of three children and requiring it to be operated in accordance with the submitted Management Plan. These conditions would be necessary to protect the living conditions of occupants of the appeal property and neighbouring properties. I have combined some of these requirements into a single condition.

I have found that the proposal would accord with the development plan, read as a whole. Having had regard to all other material considerations, it has not been demonstrated that there are any of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be allowed, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, [name]: 25.24OA.P03, 25.24OA.P04, 25.24OA.P05.

The development hereby approved shall operate in accordance with the KAE Care Homes Management Plan submitted as part of the application.

The premises shall only be used for a care home for a maximum of three children and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class C2 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended), or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.