Appeal 6002045

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from a dwelling to a residence providing care for one child at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 11/25/0343, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the attached schedule of

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published for consultation during the course of this appeal. Having regard to its content and the nature of the disputed matters, I am satisfied that no prejudice would arise to either party by issuing this decision without seeking comments.

An appeal was dismissed in 20241 for a proposed change of use of the appeal property to form a household comprising a resident mother and baby or for two children, supported by up to three carers. The current appeal proposal is for one child only. The appeals allowed at 30 Bluebell Way2 and 49 Bluebell Way3 are also material considerations. The description of development in these cases referred to either residential care for one child or a resident mother and baby, or for two children, supported by up to 3 carers.

The main issue is whether the location of the proposed development is suitable, with particular regards to the effect on the residential character of the area.

[site address] (No 7) is a detached dwelling located close to the entrance of a housing estate, occupying a corner plot at the junction of [address] and Sedum 1 APP/R2330/W/23/3335566 2 APP/R2330/W/25/3372957 3 APP/R2330/W/23/3329512 Gardens. The proposed home would provide care for one child, and two carers would be in situ at any one time.

[name] 2025, following public consultation and Cabinet approval, the Council adopted the ‘[name] & Supported Accommodation’ Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). This was produced in response to a sharp increase in the number of children’s homes in the Borough, and a rise in applications and lawful development certificates for such uses.

The SPG is a material consideration. It reflects paragraph 63 of the Framework where it states that, in the context of establishing need, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, which includes looked-after children, should be assessed and reflected in planning policies.

However, whilst supplementary planning documents add further detail to policies, they are not part of the development plan4 and should not be used to create new policy. Indeed, the SPG introduction explains that it does not replace the development plan for decision making purposes but has been produced to assist in the understanding of relevant legislation, regulations, guidance and policies that will be taken into consideration in the determination of planning applications for children’s care homes. Accordingly, the SPG policies do not carry the same weight as the policies of the [name] (CS) (2012) or the Development Management Development Plan Document (2018) (DMD).

The Decision Notice cites SPG Policy 1. This states that planning permission will not be granted for the development of a children's care home if Lancashire County Council (LCC) object to the development on the grounds that it would not contribute to meeting a local need. [name] object to the proposal for several reasons. Its ‘[name] 2025: [name] sets out that there are enough solo children’s homes in Lancashire to meet local need and that they would only be used in very specific circumstances and not as a child’s long-term plan. [name] appreciate this position, in the absence of a development plan policy requirement for a need to be demonstrated, the failure to align with the commissioning strategy of [name] is not in itself a reasonable planning objection.

SPG Policy 2 requires proposals for a children’s care home to satisfy criteria i) to iv). The Council do not find any conflict with criteria i) to iii). Criterion iv) is that the development would not result in a concentration or cluster of children’s care homes in that area. The SPG explains the importance that groups of two or more children’s care homes do not have a cumulative adverse impact on a residential area, and a new care home should not be closer than 400m from an existing one.

In this case, the Council’s evidence is that there is a children’s home operated by the same provider within around 220m of the appeal property and a further [name] home within 0.33m. Whilst all within 400m, the presence of three children’s homes on [address] would not amount to an over-concentration in the context of the wider estate which has some 80 houses. Further, it is difficult to see how a such small proportion of uses outside Class C3 would undermine social cohesion, or how the proposal would unbalance the existing community, especially as only one supervised child would be living at [address]. 4

The appellant’s ‘Travel and [name] explains that two care staff would be in situ at any one time. In addition, there would be occasional visits during normal working hours from social workers or medical professionals. The proposed use would clearly give rise to some activity, with the need for staff to work shift-based rotas resulting in vehicles coming and going several times each day. However, such activity would not be dissimilar to a family occupying the dwelling, who would make regular trips for work, school and other activities. Even when considered cumulatively with the other children’s care homes, the level of activity associated with the proposal would not be at odds with, or cause the erosion of, the existing residential nature and character of the estate.

The Council expect that the child placed within the home would be from outside Lancashire, and consequently the proposal would result in a loss of a dwelling which interested parties say is rented to a local family. However, no policies have been cited that seek to prevent the loss of family homes to other uses. Nor would it be reasonable to impose a planning condition requiring that the home is only occupied by children from Lancashire.

The loss of only one four-bedroom dwelling would have a negligible impact on housing land supply, despite the extent of the shortfall suggested by the Council. Moreover, I have very little evidence to demonstrate the cumulative effect of changes of use from dwellings to children’s care homes on housing land supply, or indeed from other uses. Therefore, on the evidence before me, the absence of a five-year housing land supply in this case is not a material consideration which would indicate a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I find no conflict with DMD Policy GC1.

I therefore conclude that the location of the proposed development is suitable, and that there would be no harmful effect on the residential character of the area. In addition to the absence of a conflict with DMD Policy GC1, there would be no conflict with CS Policy ENV7 in so far as it requires that new development will not give rise to unacceptable impacts.

[address] is a meandering road with cul-de-sacs off it. I visited late afternoon and observed cars were parked at regular intervals along much of its length, including in places on the pavements. Photographs from interested parties also show that on-street parking currently occurs in the vicinity of the site.

The proposal would provide two parking spaces on the driveway which would be sufficient for when the two staff are present. This differs from the dismissed appeal for No 75 where the proposed home in that case was for a mother and baby or two children, supported by up to 3 carers. The local parking standard would be met, and the Highway Authority had no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions.

Shift patterns would be managed to avoid more than two staff vehicles being present at any one time, but other visitors are likely to regularly arrive and leave by car. At these times there may well be a need to park along the road. However, the visitors required to support one child would not be significantly higher in number than those associated with a 4-bedroom home. Further, given No 7 currently only 5 APP/R2330/W/23/3335566 has one parking space on the driveway, parking on the road would likely occur if it were occupied by a family, particularly with more than one car.

Such parking appeared from my site visit to be part of everyday life for residents, but I appreciate that there may be occasions when it could be a source of irritation and inconvenience. Interested parties have also advised that a collision with a pedestrian has occurred nearby, which indicates a need for careful consideration. The appeal property is close to the entrance of the estate and visibility from [address] onto [address] is restricted by the topography, curve in the road and the hedgerow along the boundary of [address].

I acknowledge that a vehicle parked over the pavement to the front of No 7 would hinder visibility. However, I observed there to be scope to park on the road on the opposite side of [address]. This is a location where houses have off-street parking for more than one car, and where there is good visibility for all road users, such that highway safety would not be jeopardised.

Interested parties refer to vehicles associated with the other children’s homes on the estate parking across driveways and on pavements, but there is no survey evidence before me to demonstrate this. Further, whilst I appreciate only a ‘snapshot’ in time, at the time of my site visit I did not observe vehicles parking across the driveway of 30 or [address] in such a way that an obstruction was caused to pedestrians using the pavement.

There is concern that the children placed in the home may display challenging or anti-social behaviour, requiring police call outs, and some existing residents may have a perception of fear and be anxious about potential crime. My attention has been drawn to examples of such behaviour elsewhere. However, children’s homes are subject to a separate scheme of regulation to ensure that properties are suitable and that appropriate standards of care are maintained. There are legislative requirements for registering and operating a home as well as guidance to follow. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that other regimes will exercise effective control of the proposed use, as necessary. Matters of safeguarding are outside the scope of this appeal.

There is also reference to the proposal causing anxiety for existing residents and the potential for mental health issues as a result. These are material considerations but the small scale of the use and the other controls that would be in place mean that they are not decisive ones. The appeal property is detached and there would be reasonable separation from nearby residents to mitigate any noise caused by the activities of one supervised child.

Representations have been made that the proposal would be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 as it would infringe the right of nearby residents to a private life and peaceful enjoyment of family homes. Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 are relevant. The findings made above indicate that if planning permission were granted there would be no unacceptable interference with the rights of nearby occupiers in these respects.

Interested parties claim that there is a restriction in place on the title deeds of houses on the estate which precludes business uses, but this is a separate legal matter.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Given that the proposal has been considered on the basis that it would be a children’s home for one child, it is reasonable and necessary to limit the operation of a Class C2 use in this way. In the interests of highway safety, it is necessary to impose a condition which requires the provision of a vehicle cross-over and an additional car parking space. The conditions suggested by the Highways Authority have been amended for clarity and precision.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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 drawing nos 23-015-001, 23-015-300 and 23-015-301.

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

Before the property is brought into use for the purpose hereby granted, a vehicle cross-over shall be constructed across the footway fronting the site in accordance with a scheme to be first approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved vehicle cross-over shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Before the property is brought into use for the purpose hereby granted, an additional car parking space shall be provided in accordance with drawing no. 23-015-301. The additional car parking space shall be surfaced in a bound, permeable material. Thereafter, the car parking space shall be retained and kept available for use at all times in connection with the purpose hereby granted. *End of Schedule*