Appeal 6002024

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is being used as a care home. The appeal seeks retrospective permission for the development. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Within the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Act it is not within my remit to formally determine whether or not a development requires planning permission. However, I shall consider the evidence as to whether permission is required so far as it is material to this appeal.

The main issues are: • whether the loss of a dwelling has been suitably justified; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance, the fear of crime, and availability of on-street parking.

Paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that, to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay, and that the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community.

Similarly, part 1 of Policy H1 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 2001 – 2011 (adopted 2006) (UDP) provides that the Council will seek to maintain existing residential populations in the City. Paragraph 13.2.1 of the UDP explains that, in order to meet regeneration objectives and create a balanced, sustainable urban community, it is important to retain and attract a variety of people to live and work in Wolverhampton, and that this can only be achieved if the City’s existing and future residents have access to a high-quality housing stock that meets their varied needs and aspirations. I concur with the Inspector’s statement in appeal decision [name]/D4635/W/24/3352490 that the existing residential population (referred to in Policy H1) would be typically associated with a dwellinghouse within the city.

The appellant has referred to a number of statistics, but the sources of these statistics have not been provided. This includes those statistics published on 20 th November 2025, which the appellant states serve to demonstrate that Wolverhampton are not able to provide suitable local accommodation for all children and young people. Moreover, in their Statement of Case the Council have provided a number of compelling reasons why the number of child placements in Wolverhampton and elsewhere across the country can be misleading. These reasons have not been contested by the appellant. As a result, limited weight is given the statistics referred to by the appellant.

The 2023 Ministerial Statement1 provides that, amongst other things, Local Planning Authorities should give due weight to and be supportive of applications, where appropriate, for all types of accommodation for looked after children in their area that reflect local needs. In this regard, the Council’s Children’s Services have stated that there is a sufficient supply of premises to meet planned and future need for children’s care homes in Wolverhampton. Specifically, the amount of private children’s homes in the local area, alongside the Council’s own provision, is meeting the need in this neighbourhood. Indeed, the [name] have identified an oversupply of children’s care home accommodation in the area.

Given the data presented by Council’s Children’s Services and noting their expertise in this area, I give significant weight to this evidence. It strongly indicates that there is not an existing nor a future need for any additional children’s homes in this particular local community. Although the care home the subject of this appeal has accepted placements, it has not been demonstrated that the individuals the subject of those placements are from the local area. Hence, this factor does not alter my finding that the development does not reflect local needs.

In appeal decision [name]/D4635/W/25/3369523, the Inspector referred to a lack of supporting information to substantiate the Council’s claim that they did not have a need for any more private children's homes. That is not the case here. The Council’s Children’s Services have provided figures showing that 90.6% occupancy is either empty or supporting children from other local authorities which puts a strain on specialist services across the city that support vulnerable children such as health and educational provision.

Moreover, the Inspector indicated that they were not provided with a copy of the recently-published [name] 2025 – 2028. A copy has been submitted as part of this appeal. Importantly, the strategy aims to 1 Planning for accommodation for looked after children (Minister of State for Housing and Planning, 2023) reduce the need for children and young people to live in [name], which the development is at odds with.

The Inspector was also not provided with a copy of appeal decision [name]/D4635/W/24/3352490, where it was found that the change of use to a small children’s care home would reduce the supply of family housing within the area and therefore would not maintain the existing residential population which would be typically associated with a dwellinghouse within the city, in conflict with Policy H1 of the UDP. Given these notable differences in evidence submitted, appeal decision [name]/D4635/W/25/3369523 does not alter my findings on this main issue.

In appeal decision [name]/P4605/W/25/3365351, the Inspector found that there was a shortfall in children’s care homes in the Council area in question. As explained above, that is not the case with respect to Wolverhampton. Furthermore, as I have not been provided with copies of the development plan policies under consideration in that appeal, it has not been demonstrated that these policies are directly comparable with those under consideration in this appeal. It follows that appeal decision [name]/P4605/W/25/3365351 does not change my findings on this main issue.

As well as not meeting an identified need, the development has effectively removed a 4-bedroom dwellinghouse from potential occupation by a family in the local community. This is in the context of the Council’s acknowledged lack of housing land supply. The evidence before me indicates that the Council can demonstrate only approximately 1.17 years supply, set against its 5 year housing land supply requirement. This is clearly a significant shortfall, which lends greater weight to the loss of a single family-sized dwellinghouse from the housing stock than would otherwise be the case.

I therefore find that the loss of one family home is not suitably justified by the provision of a care home for young persons, for which, as explained above, there is not an identified need in the local community. The development conflicts with part 1 of Policy H1 of the UDP which provides that the Council will seek to maintain existing residential populations in the City. The development does not best meet local needs, with respect to the overall mix of house types, in conflict with HOU2 of the Black Country Core Strategy (adopted 2011) (BCCS).

[site address] (No 24) is a 2-storey mid-terrace property with a small rear garden situated in a predominantly residential area near to a church and an area of green space, although commercial and industrial uses are also present in the locality.

A key difference between the development now under appeal and that considered by the Inspectors in appeal decision [name]/C1950/W/23/3325982, APP/C4615/W/24/3341958, APP/P4605/W/25/3371002, APP/P4605/W/25/3365351, and APP/D4635/W/25/3369523, is that in this case the use of the property as a care home has been ongoing for several months. Local residents have submitted representations detailing their experiences regarding frequent noise and disturbance. Specifically, local residents have referred to loud disturbances at all hours.

Although mention has been made of the use of a management plan covering issues such as staffing, noise control, and procedures for complaint, as the care home is already in operation, some management procedures / arrangements must already be in place. Clearly, these have not been effective in preventing undue noise and disturbance to local residents.

The submitted [name] is dated July 2025. There is no indication that it has been reviewed and / or updated subsequent to the submission of residents’ concerns to the Council in September 2025. The appellant has suggested the submission of a management plan to the Council which would detail how noisy outbursts are managed, how any problems affecting neighbours could be recorded and managed, contact details for neighbours to report any concerns, and other measures and safeguards to deal with any identified issues. However, few details have been provided to explain how these measures would differ from those already in place. This does not instil confidence that they would be effective in appropriately managing the noise and disturbance already identified by local residents.

Given the general nature of the ideas put forward and the lack of detail as to what practical changes are envisaged to how the care home is managed, and noting the ongoing concerns raised by local residents, I am not assured that a condition requiring the submission of a management plan to the Council for their approval would overcome the harm identified with respect to noise and disturbance. It would not be reasonable to impose such a condition in these circumstances.

No 24 is attached to [address] West (No 22), which is likely the main receptor of the noise generated by the care home referred to by local residents. No structural details of the walling between No 24 and No 22 has been provided, which might provide some indication of the degree to which No 22 is protected from the noise and disturbance referred to by local residents. As no details of any acoustic attenuation measures have been put forward, it has not been demonstrated that such measures would be effective in reducing noise to an acceptable level. It has not been shown that a condition requiring the implementation of acoustic attenuation measures would overcome the harm identified with respect to noise and disturbance impacting the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22.

If the development were acceptable in all other respects, a planning condition could be imposed limiting occupancy of the care home to 3 persons aged 18 or under. However, this would merely maintain the status quo, and would not alter the adverse impacts identified.

Whilst at the time of my site visit [address] West had the appearance of a quiet residential street, local residents have described frequent Police attendance and verbal altercations escalating into aggressive confrontations. [name] have corroborated the concerns of local residents. For reasons of privacy and operational security, I will not set out the evidence here, but nevertheless I find it to be persuasive. Given the corroboration provided by [name], the representations of local residents detailing their concerns regarding the fear of crime have been given great weight.

As no draft security and / or management strategy has been submitted, it has not been possible to assess whether suitable management and / or security provisions could adequately address the concerns cited above. This is in contrast to appeal decision [name]/C4615/W/25/3362614 & APP/C4615/W/25/3362616, where site-specific security and management measures were put forward, including but not limited to CCTV, controlled access to the building, and external lighting. For this development now under appeal, few details have been provided to illustrate what practical measures could implemented on site to assist in mitigating concerns relating to the fear of crime. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that such a condition would be effective in addressing the fear of crime. It would not be reasonable to impose a condition requiring the submission of a security and management strategy in these circumstances.

Of the copies of the appeal decisions provided, only appeal decision [name]/G4620/W/24/3336919, APP/P4605/W/22/3313619, APP/C4615/W/25/3362614 & APP/C4615/W/25/3362616, and APP/G4620/W/23/3333937 involved retrospective applications. In appeal decision [name]/G4620/W/23/3333937, the Police did not object to the proposed development. In appeal decision [name]/G4620/W/24/3336919 and APP/P4605/W/22/3313619 no mention was made of any representations by the Police, and I have not been provided with the underlying evidential basis which led the Inspectors to conclude that those developments would not be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Thus, it has not been demonstrated that these examples are directly comparable with the development now under appeal.

In appeal decision [name]/C4615/W/25/3362614 & APP/C4615/W/25/3362616, the Inspector found that there was no substantiated evidence that there would be increased Police demand as a result of the proposals, which is not the case for the development now under appeal. As a result, these appeal decisions do not change my findings on this main issue.

It is clear that on-street parking is at premium in the locality, partly due to the fact that the site’s side of the street is marked with double-yellow lines. Indeed, I observed that despite Council-led street cleaning works being undertaken on [address] West at the time of my site visit, with street signs asking residents to park their vehicles elsewhere, only a limited amount of parking spaces were available in the vicinity of the site.

I have taken account of the submitted [name]. The development requires 3 care workers during the day and 2 overnight to care for 3 young people, with changeovers occurring at 09:00 and 20:00 every day. Additionally, a manager may occasionally visit during the daytime, and there would likely be visits from social workers and other professionals on a less regular basis. The use of bicycle, car-sharing, or public transport may occur, but cannot be mandated. Comings and goings would also occur due to travel to healthcare facilities, food shopping destinations, and for social outings.

Despite the care home being operational, I have not been provided with figures detailing the actual volume and frequency of comings and goings. Nonetheless, given that there are a maximum of 3 care workers undertaking the shifts mentioned above, and noting that a dwelling occupied by a family could typically generate comings and goings via household deliveries which would not likely occur with respect to the development now under appeal, I find that the development has not likely resulted in significantly more comings and goings requiring parking than before No 24 was converted. This finding does not however overcome the other concerns identified above.

I therefore find that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance and the fear of crime. It conflicts with Policy EP5 of the UDP which provides that, amongst other things, developments which are likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of noise pollution will not be permitted, unless measures can be taken to reduce noise emissions or intrusion to acceptable levels, and with parts 3 and 7 of Policy H6 of the UDP which seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents and promote community safety. The development conflicts with Policy D10 of the UDP which provides that proposals should take full account of the need to prevent crime, reduce the fear of crime and promote community safety throughout the design process.

HOU1 of the BCCS and emerging Policies HOU1 and HOU2 of the emerging Wolverhampton Local Plan primarily relate to the delivery of new homes and so are not directly relevant to the main issues above. Nevertheless, the policies of the development plan cited on each main issue above are sufficient for me to come to a view on each main issue. Reference has been made to emerging Policy HOU4, but as no copy of this policy has been provided I am unable to assess the development against it.

The appellant has asserted that the BCCS is out-of-date, due to it having been adopted in 2011 and with the 4 Black Country Authorities having agreed to cease work on development of a new Black Country Plan in October 2022. However, I have not been referred to any particular inconsistencies with national planning policies. A review of a development plan document is a normal part of the strategic planning cycle. As such, the weight attached to the development’s conflict with the relevant policies of the BCCS is not reduced on this ground.

The appellant has argued that the development does not require planning permission, due to it not amounting to a material change of use. I have had regard to appeal decision [name]/F1040/X/21/3283867 and APP/C1950/X/23/3325924 which granted Lawful Development Certificates (LDCs) for children’s care homes (with appeal decision [name]/C1950/W/23/3325982 also granting planning permission for the same development considered in appeal decision [name]/C1950/X/23/3325924). However, no LDC appeal is before me. As mentioned above, this matter is not within my remit to formally determine as part of a planning appeal. It only has relevance insofar as the former lawful use on site represents a potential fallback position.

I have found on the 2nd main issue above that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance and the fear of crime. It is not the case that the former lawful use had worse effects in these respects than the development now under appeal. As such, the fallback position constitutes a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the development.

Due to the range of unresolved concerns identified on the main issues above, it would not be reasonable for a planning condition to be imposed requiring an Ofsted license to be in place within a certain timescale.

It follows from my findings on main issues above that the development does not contribute towards an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community, in conflict with paragraph 61 of the Framework, and that conflict arises with paragraph 135 f) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life. The evidence does not indicate that the benefits of the development to the local area are sufficient to outweigh the harms identified. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.