Appeal 6002183

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised the description of development as provided on the Council’s decision notice as this provides a succinct form of wording.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed loss of a residential dwelling house; (ii) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise; (iii) the effect of the proposed parking arrangements on highway safety; and (iv) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy HOU1 of the Black Country Core Strategy February 2011 (the CS) seeks to increase the supply of housing across the local area during the plan period. Furthermore, the Council has provided evidence of a shortfall in housing supply, and that the emerging local plan for the area will not identify a sufficient amount of land to meet future needs.

I acknowledge that the loss of a single dwelling from the existing housing stock would, by itself, have little effect. But when considered on a cumulative basis, such schemes can have a negative impact. As such the loss of a dwelling, within C3 use, clearly has the potential to undermine the Council’s housing strategy.

On that basis, the proposal would conflict with the overarching aims of CS Policy HOU1, with particular regard to increasing the supply of homes within the area.

The existing dwelling forms part of a terrace of homes. The appellant has provided details of the shift patterns of staff who would work in the facility. This information confirms that there would be a changeover of staff every day at both 8am and 11pm. While only involving a total of four members of staff, it is highly likely that the changeover in the evening would result in some noise and disturbance for immediate neighbours at an unsociable hour, particularly as a result of vehicle noise. Clearly, existing residents of the dwelling could in theory already leave the house regularly in the evenings to travel to work. However, the fact that this change over would involve four members of staff, all of whom may wish to drive to and from the site, means that the potential for harm in relation to vehicle noise is much greater. The noise associated with these changeovers would likely cause more disturbance than the general background noise associated with the relatively busy arterial road nearby.

On that basis, the proposal could result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It would therefore conflict with Policies H6 and AM12 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan, 2006 (the UDP). The relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development preserves the living conditions of existing residents, including in relation to car parking provision.

The existing home has a total of three off-street parking spaces, including an integral garage. The Council has noted that it does not have any specific car parking standards for children’s care home developments. However, given the number of spaces, and staff involved, it seems inevitable that during staff changeover times at least one vehicle would be parked on the street for a period of time. I note that the appellant has admitted that this would be the case as part of their appeal statement.

The road is narrow, and during my site visit I observed that cars were parked partly on the pavement to avoid causing a blockage to traffic. Such an arrangement clearly has the potential to cause difficulty for pedestrians, particularly those in wheelchairs or pushing prams. Therefore, exacerbating this existing situation, even for short periods of time, could result in harm with regards to highway safety.

Moreover, it seems likely that the integral garage would not be used to park a vehicle given that there is potential to be blocked in by other vehicles parked on the driveway. Therefore, while I acknowledge that there are bus stops nearby, and that staff members could walk or cycle to the site, there is a strong possibility that a vehicle would be parked on the road for longer periods, particularly during the day when three members of staff would be present.

As a result of these considerations, I conclude that the proposal could result in harm in relation to highway safety. It would therefore conflict with the relevant aspects of [name] AM12, AM15 and B5 which seek to ensure that highway safety is maintained for all users, including through the provision of a suitable number of parking spaces.

The existing building forms part of a terrace of residential dwellings. Clearly, any change in use has the potential to effect local character. However, in this instance, given the small scale nature of the scheme, I do not consider that the proposed use of the building as a care home would change the character of the immediate area to a degree that could constitute harm. Moreover, the approved plans demonstrate that the proposal would not result in changes to the external appearance of the building.

On that basis, the scheme would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore not conflict with CS Policy ENV3, which in part, seeks to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance.

I have found that the appeal proposal would cause harm in relation to living conditions and highway safety, as well as the loss of a residential dwelling. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, notwithstanding that I have not found harm in relation to character and appearance.

The proposal would result in some social and economic benefits, including in relation to additional employment and the provision of care space. The relevant aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework require decision makers to consider various accommodation needs, including facilities to look after children.

The Council has produced some details of alternative existing and future care home provision in the city, which seems to indicate that there is likely to be limited demand for the facility in the local vicinity. However, even if there were a clear need for additional care facilities, the small-scale nature of the scheme means that any such benefits are likely to be very limited. Accordingly, there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. For the avoidance of doubt, the potential harm associated with living conditions and highway safety are sufficient by themselves to justify dismissing this appeal.

In conclusion, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.