Appeal 6001991

For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of [site address] , an existing dwelling (Class C3), to a residential institution (Class C2) for up to two children between the ages of 8-17 years old and three staff, in accordance with the terms of the application, No 25/0584, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. That application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The description of development as set out on the original application form was “change of use from dwelling house (class C3) to small scale care home (class C2)”. However, with the appellant’s agreement, that was altered to the wording set out in the header above. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The development originally proposed four parking spaces on the existing frontage, accessed via the existing dropped kerb footway crossing. However, that would have required removal of a magnolia tree. Subsequently, an amended plan was submitted showing retention of the tree and the three existing spaces. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

A number of objectors refer to what is described as unauthorised work being carried out at the property, including conversion of the garage. However, the Council advises that as a private dwelling (currently) the garage could be converted under permitted development rights, confirming that the works were done lawfully.

Objectors refer to a restrictive covenant that requires that the properties here remain as private dwellings, prohibiting commercial activity. However, that is a private matter between the relevant parties. Whether or not that may have implications for implementation were this appeal to succeed, my decision relies only on the planning merits of the respective cases.

The main issues in this case relate to the effect of the proposed development on the character and amenity of the area, its effect on highway safety, and its effect on living conditions for local residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance and fear of crime.

No [site address] comprises a three-bed semi-detached dwelling with a rear garden and parking space within the site frontage for up to three vehicles. The site is located in a run of similar semi-detached properties, within a wider residential area.

Conversion of the garage to habitable accommodation has already been carried out, the resulting appearance being akin to other properties on [address] where similar work has been undertaken1 which has not changed the character of the area. In terms of visual impact, no further external changes to the appearance of the property are proposed.

As for the use itself, the officer’s report confirms that the intention of accommodation such as this is to create as close to a regular family setting as possible. In this instance, the regular number of people on site at the property at any one time (two adults and two children2) would not be dissimilar to the number of occupants that could be expected to reside in a private three-bed family house. Although objectors refer to a full-time office manager, the appellant confirms that associated administration would be undertaken at separate premises. Even if general day to day paperwork did take place on site, I have no reason to suppose that that would materially change the residential character or appearance of the property.

Information submitted with the application indicates that staff changeovers would occur at around 7.30am and at 10.00pm. As confirmed in the officer’s report, these are times when two members of a private household might be expected to be leaving for work/coming home from a night shift. Or when they might be returning after being out for the evening. I also understand that visits, for instance by social workers, would be around two per week, OFSTED would visit once a year, with parental contact managed away from the property. The planning statement also advises that the children would be taken to school and afterschool clubs or activities by the staff carers, with no other vehicles expected to attend the site for the purpose of transporting the children. On that basis, regular traffic movements associated with the use proposed would generally be indistinguishable from use of the property as a private dwelling house, with no change to its character as a residential property in this regard. 1 [name] 22 and [address] 2 Other than briefly at shift change times when there would be a short overlap of staff, with two members on site during the day and one overnight. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 of 6

Other concerns relate to the potential for commercialisation of the area. Fundamentally, however, the nature of the proposal is residential, not commercial. Even noting that there is a residential children’s home around 700m away,3 with others 3 - 4.5 miles away,4 the appeal scheme would not result in what could be considered as an over-concentration of similar uses in close proximity, such that there would be a material change in the prevailing residential character of the area.

Given that the proposal would result in no material changes to the property, which would continue to function in the manner of a family home, I am satisfied that the development would not be materially harmful to the established character and appearance of the area. There would be no conflict, in this regard, with saved policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Unitary Development Plan, or with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which together and among other things seek to protect such interests.

The appeal scheme retains the three existing parking spaces on the site frontage, clear of the street. That provision exceeds the policy requirement of one space per three bedrooms for care homes.5 As noted above, the staff would operate on a rota system. On that basis, I see no reason why the three spaces shown, which would continue to be served via the existing dropped kerb, would not be ample for the proposed operation. In any event, I saw that on-street parking is not formally restricted. As such, even if visitors were, on occasion, to park on the street which I recognise is narrow, such demand would not necessarily be prejudicial to highway safety, in particular the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. Indeed, I saw numerous vehicles parked along [address] in front of properties during my visit, with vehicles able to pass safely.

I am also advised that cycle storage is available on the site and that the site is within walking distance, approximately 1km on foot, from Streetly Local Centre and within 400m walking distance of bus routes serving Walsall and Sutton Coldfield Town Centres6, all of which could encourage access by means other than the private car.

[name] note references to a blind bend at the junction of [address] with Valley Road, a nearby alleyway and the level of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on [address] around the time of the anticipated morning shift change,7 the proposal is not for a high-intensity use. Rather, the evidence before me indicates that day-to-day traffic and activity to and from the site is unlikely to be materially different from that associated with occupation of the property as a private family household of comparable size.

All told, I consider that the development proposed would be unlikely to result in a material increase in traffic movements, or in demand for on-street parking spaces, such that there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, in particular the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. I am particularly mindful, in this regard, that there is no objection from the Highway Authority in support of the objectors’ 3 [name] to the appeal statement submitted by [address] objectors 4 Appellant’s statement of case 5 Policy T13 of the Unitary Development Plan 6 Evidence of the Highway Authority and the appellant, although objectors indicate that buses no longer run along [address]. 7 [name] to the appeal statement submitted by [address] objectors includes survey data. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 of 6 position. I find no conflict, in this regard with saved policy GP2 of the Unitary Development Plan, or with paragraph 117 of the Framework, which together and among other things seek to protect such interests.

Although not a reason for refusal, local residents raise concerns in relation to a number of other matters including noise and disturbance and fear of crime.

Dealing with noise and disturbance first, the property would be occupied by up to two children (between the age of 8-17 years) plus three staff operating on a rota basis. The original garage has already been converted. At first floor, an ensuite bathroom would be created for one of the bedrooms (to be used by staff), with the other two bedrooms occupied by the children. In all other respects, the internal layout would remain as is. I have no reason to suppose in this regard, that any noise, particularly in relation to the adjoining property, would be materially different than might arise through occupation of the property as a private dwellinghouse occupied by a family with two (potentially more) children.

As for comings and goings, the carers, acting in the role of parents, would take the children to and from school/after school clubs –no different to a private household with school age children – with minimal regular visitors. Parental visits would take place off-site. A particular concern of local residents is the timing of the evening staff changeover (around 10.00pm). However, subject to a condition suggested by the Council, restricting the number of children and staff, I see no reason why associated comings and goings at that time would necessarily result in any greater noise and disturbance than might occupation of the property as a private family dwelling and would not be unusual or overly intrusive in this quiet residential area.

I recognise that there is considerable concern about the proposal within the local community and have given careful consideration to those concerns. I am mindful, in this regard that, as confirmed in paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, fear of crime can be a material planning consideration. However, the behaviour of the children resident on the site would be monitored and managed by on-site staff. There seems little material difference to me between that and occupation of the property as a private dwelling by a family of similar size and age range. I also note that [name], who were consulted, are supportive of the proposal. In the absence of any substantiated evidence to support the fears raised in relation to the specific development proposed, I find no harm in this regard.

In addition to the main issues, local residents raised concerns in relation to a number of other matters, including shortage of family homes, marketing of the property in advance of any permission, overlooking of the rear garden of the appeal property by others, pressure on local schools and waste collection arrangements. These are all addressed in the officer’s comprehensive report. For the reasons set out therein, and in the absence of any substantiated evidence to support those concerns, I find no material harm in these regards.

As for concerns about potential devaluation of properties were the development to go ahead, it is well established that this is not a legitimate planning matter that can be weighed in the overall decision balance. Moreover, granting permission would https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 of 6 not set a precedent, as each application falls to be considered on its own merits and site-specific circumstances.

I have found no material harm as a consequence of the development proposed in terms of the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of this quiet residential area, in terms of any unacceptable impact on highway safety, or in terms of living conditions for local residents, and there would be no conflict with the provisions of the development plan. On balance therefore, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

I recognise that this decision will be disappointing for local residents and their representatives, given the strength of local opposition to the proposal, as evidenced by the individual letters of objection and a petition with more than 130 signatories submitted at the time of the application, with a further submission on behalf of residents at appeal stage. I am very aware, in this regard, of the role that local people have to play in shaping their surroundings. However, whilst those views are very important, they must be balanced against other considerations. I have not ignored those views in coming to my conclusion. Indeed, I have taken full and careful account of all the representations that have been made, which I have balanced against the provisions of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. In the overall planning balance, however, for the reasons set out above, the evidence in this case leads me to conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered the conditions referred to in the officer’s report and those cited on the Questionnaire. In addition to the standard condition on commencement of development (1), a condition specifying the relevant plans is required in order to create certainty for all parties (2).

In order to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupants and to control the level of parking demand and vehicle movements at the property (pursuant to saved UDP policies GP2, ENV32, T7 and T13 and in the interests of highway safety), it is necessary to restrict use of the premises as a care home for up to two children (aged 8-17) supported by three members of staff. Any other use within Class C2 would require additional assessment based on the characteristics of those uses (3).

Condition (4) precluding any advertisements on the property frontage, is necessary in the interest of visual amenity, pursuant to UDP policies GP2 and ENV32.

The wording that I used for conditions 3 and 4 varies slightly from that suggested by the Council, in order to aid clarity and enforceability.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, details, and documents: Location Plan, drawing no. 001, submitted 22/05/2025 Site Plan, drawing no. 002A, submitted 01/07/2025 Existing and [name], drawing no.003A, submitted 01/07/2025 Existing and Proposed elevations, drawing no. 005, submitted 01/07/2025 Parking and [name], drawing no. 004A, submitted 16/07/2025 Planning Statement, submitted 22/05/2025

The use hereby permitted is only for a residential care home for up to two children between the ages of 8-17, with a maximum of three staff carers on site, and for no other purpose, including any other use falling within Class C of the Schedule to 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.

No advertisement(s) shall be displayed on the frontage of the property at any time. ---------------------End of Conditions Schedule--------------------- https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 of 6