Appeal 6002307

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from residential dwelling (use class C3) to children's home (use class C2) for up to 2 Children aged 7-17 years, including demolition of existing garage, enlarged parking area and associated internal and external alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/02479/FPA, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of the development in the banner heading above was taken from the application form. However, the description of the development in the decision section was taken from the decision notice as this represents a more accurate description of the proposal.

Prior to submitting the application for planning permission the appellant liaised with [name] as part of their Locality Suitability Risk Assessment, as part of its response [name] provided confidential information regarding criminal activity in the area around the appeal site. This information was submitted as part of the planning application. However, I am not certain that it has been made available to interested parties for inspection. Therefore, it would not be reasonable or fair to accept it and I have not taken it into account in my decision, as to do so may prejudice other parties.

The main issue is whether the appeal property is a safe location for a children’s home, having regard to the levels of crime in the area.

Applegarth is located within a predominantly residential area and is a single storey detached dwelling set back from [site address] within large mature gardens. Crook town centre is a short walk from the appeal site and a public footpath is adjacent to part of the rear boundary. The proposal seeks permission for the change of use of Applegarth to a children’s care home that would accommodate up to two children, with carers working in shifts to provide 24-hour care.

Policy 18 of the County Durham Plan 2020 (CDP) lists several criteria that must be met for new children’s homes in County Durham and requires that applications for homes must include ‘consideration of any new crime or safety concerns in the area, in consultation with [name], Children and [name] and any other appropriate agencies.’ The Council’s reason for refusal is centred on the safety of cared for children, and fear of crime, due to incidents of reported crime in the area.

In response to the application [name] raised no concerns in regard to criminal activity or the safety of children in the area, and made several recommendations which includes measures to ensure the safety and security of future occupants and appropriate management of the home.

Children and [name] also raised no objections to the proposal and stated that there is an identified need for smaller children’s homes in the area. This view is supported by the Council’s Sufficiency Statement for Children in Care and [name] in County Durham 2025–2029, which identified gaps in provision within the County particularly in relation to the provision of homes for a smaller number of children.

In addition to the above the proposed care home would be registered with OFSTED which would involve additional assessments of the suitability of the home itself and its management. This would ensure that any risks from crime and disorder for each child at this location is fully considered.

The Council has raised concerns in regard to crime levels in the area, and Councillors, the Police and [name] for Durham and Darlington and third parties reference high incidents of reported crime in Crook, including within Glenholme Park and the grounds of Lidl supermarket which are a short walk from the appeal site. However, the full geographic spread of these crimes is not clear and both Glenholme Park, and the town itself, cover a large area.

In addition to the above, a [name] Report1 (CIR) was prepared by third parties and submitted in support of several letters of objection. Section five of the report includes a breakdown of incidents of crime within 1.6 kilometres and 400m of the appeal site. It is indicated within section 5.2 that the statistics show a moderate to high prevalence of crime. Still, the statistics also indicate that, over all, the number of reported crimes are reducing within both 400m and 1.6 kilometres of the appeal site. The report also suggests that active policing and investment in CCTV in public areas, including Glenhome Park have contributed to a reduction in crime.

The findings of the CIR and the concerns raised regarding criminal activity in the town are a material consideration. However, they do not provide a clear and convincing justification that the safety of future occupants would be at risk due to criminal activity in the area. As detailed above, Policy 18 of the CDP requires that crime and safety concerns are considered in consultation with both [name] and Children and [name] and both raised no material concerns in this regard. 1 [name], [name], February 2026 1

I acknowledge perceived fears of some local residents about the potential for antisocial behaviour, arising from the use of the property as a children’s home. It is of course possible that some of the children living in the property may need additional support, but there is no reason to doubt that they would be properly cared for and assisted.

In this case, I do not find that it would be reasonable to refuse planning permission, based upon the perceived fears of some, about possible anti-social behaviour or criminal activity. This is particularly the case as there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the children living in the property have or would engage in anti-social or criminal behaviour; or that the use of the building as a care home would increase such behaviour. There is also no substantive evidence before me to suggest that children living in the home would affect police resources any more than children living in a family home.

For the reasons detailed above, the site is a suitable location for a children’s home having regard to the risk of crime in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy 18 of the CDP which promotes the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities; and the requirements of The National Planning Policy Framework in regard to the promotion of healthy and safe communities.

My attention has been drawn to previous appeals for the change of use of dwellings to children’s homes. This includes an appeal for the change of use of a dwelling to a residential care and living unit for children that was dismissed2. Yet, in that instance [name] objected to the proposal due to the number of incidents of criminal activity in the area. As such, I am not certain that the circumstances in that instance are the same as the scheme before me.

In another appeal example3 the Inspector took the position that there was insufficient evidence to support the view that fear of crime as a result of the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. Each case must be determined on its own merits, and in the reasons section above fear of crime is addressed based on the evidence submitted in relation to the scheme before me.

I have carefully considered comments from the Police and [name] for Durham and Darlington, local Councillors and concerns raised within representations made by a significant number of interested parties; some of which have been addressed in my reasoning above.

My attention has also been drawn to examples of when children have been harmed in accidents in the town and the possibility that the odour of cannabis may be detected from the garden ground of the building. However, while unpleasant, such incidents are not unusual in settlements and are not sufficient to clearly demonstrate that future occupants of the home would be at risk.

The English Index of [name] (IMD) uses multiple factors to measure levels of deprivation. The measure of the appeal site, or surrounding areas, does not give a specific indication of crime levels. Furthermore, there is no policy before 2 APP/X1355/W/23/3327530 3 APP/X1355/W/19/3233277 me that states that the IMD is a criteria in the assessment of the suitability of a site for a children’s home.

I note concerns regarding the loss of a bungalow from the local housing supply and the costs associated with the use of the building as a private care home. The evidence before me suggests that the loss of a single home would not have a detrimental effect on the housing supply in the area. The costs associated with the purchase and use of the building are not a planning matter. Similarly, devaluation of properties in the area is not a material planning matter.

Given that the home would accommodate a maximum of two children the number of movements of individuals to and from the building would be similar to a typical family home. In addition, minimal external alterations are proposed as part of the scheme and the parking area would be set back from the highway, obscured by boundary fencing and existing planting. In addition, the installation of CCTV and external lighting, would be controlled via condition which would ensure its positioning is carefully considered. In light of these factors the appeal scheme would not harm the residential character of the area or result in a material degree of harm to the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring dwellings.

I also note several concerns regarding the application procedure, including in relation to the absence of a design and access statement and the notification process. I am not certain that a design and access statement would be required for a development of this type and, based on the evidence provided, the Council notified members of the public as required. There are no planning requirements for the appellant to carry out a separate notification procedure in this instance.

Several representations, as well as the CIR suggest that the company that will manage the children’s home have not been in operation for a long period of time. Still, there is no planning policy before me that sets standards or restrictions in regard to this matter. Also, children’s homes are subject to separate regulations to ensure a suitable standard of care is provided.

The CIR and several representations also highlight inaccuracies in the report provided by [name], including reference to stairs within the building which are not there. While such oversights are unfortunate, the overall report provides clear and justified reasons for its position.

Concerns regarding the number of children resident in the property are addressed through the use of a condition which sets a limit of two. Proposals for additional buildings would be assessed, as required, through further applications for planning permission.

The Council did not include the impact of the development on the privacy or light of neighbouring occupants as a reason for refusal. No extensions to the host property are proposed and boundary treatments and the protection of trees would be controlled by condition. In light of these factors, I see no reason to disagree with the Council in this regard.

The Council raised no concerns in terms of highway safety or parking provision. It is acknowledged that [site address] is a busy vehicular route in the town. Still, the host dwelling is set back from the road, with a wide private access, and is connected to the town centre and surrounding area by a network of footpaths. The proposed plans indicate parking provision for four cars within the property, which given the occupancy level of the home, is considered sufficient. I therefore see no reason to disagree with the Council in regard to this matter.

Concerns regarding the need for the proposed change of use, its potential to set a precedent for additional children’s homes and the overprovision of children’s care homes in Crook are acknowledged. Still, there is no development plan policy before me that restricts or limits the number of children’s homes, within any specific area. Also, each application and appeal must be determined on its individual merits, and generalised concerns of this nature do not justify withholding permission in this case.

Conditions requiring the submission of a landscaping plan and boundary treatments, as detailed below, ensure suitable mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the privacy of neighbouring occupants.

I note concerns over the safety of the path that runs along the eastern boundary of the appeal site and [name]. However, suitable fencing and care procedures would ensure that cared for children would be at no greater risk than children occupying the building as a family home.

The Council’s Ecology team confirmed that the site is not a suitable habitat for bats or owls and raise no concerns regarding the impact of the scheme on local wildlife. Given, the extent of the works proposed I see no reason to disagree with the Council in regard to this matter.

I have considered the suggested conditions, having regard to the six tests set out in the Framework. For the sake of clarity and enforceability, I have amended the suggested conditions as appropriate.

I have imposed conditions specifying a standard time limit of commencement of the development (1) and requiring compliance with the approved plans (2) in the interests of clarity and certainty.

Conditions requiring the submission of a landscaping plan (3) and the protection of retained trees and hedges (4) have been included in order to ensure suitable living conditions for future occupants and neighbours and preservation of the character and appearance of the area.

Condition requiring details of boundary treatments (5), CCTV (8) and external lighting (9) are necessary to create a secure garden area and a safe environment for future occupants and ensure the living conditions of neighbouring occupants are protected.

The provision of electric vehicle charging points (6) and cycle storage (7) is required via condition in order to ensure suitable measures are in place to allow for sustainable travel.

A condition requiring accordance with the submitted Management, Parking and Travel Plan: Applegarth (received by the Council on 10th October 2025) (10), Statement of [name] (dated 14 August 2026) (11) and the Missing from Home Policy (dated 12th August 2025) (12) are required in order to ensure the appropriate management of the building and in the interests of residential amenity.

A condition to limit the number of children that will reside at [address] and restrict the use of the building (13) has been included in the interests of residential amenity.

A condition requiring that external materials match the existing building is considered unnecessary as this is stipulated on the proposed plans.

The proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a decision other than in accordance with this. I therefore 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 7244/01B, 7244/02B, 7244/03D, 7244/04.

No development shall commence until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development.

No site clearance, preparatory work, or development shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery brought on site, until a scheme for the protection of the trees and hedges to be retained on site, to include details of fencing and any other measures, including special construction techniques where appropriate, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall accord with [name] 5837 2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations (or in an equivalent [name] if replaced). The scheme for the protection of the retained trees shall be carried out as approved. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearance, preparatory work, or development taking place and any site cabins, materials or machinery being brought on site, and shall be retained for the duration of construction works. If any access is required into the root protection area of any tree or hedge, this shall only take place in accordance with a method statement provided as part of the approved details. Otherwise there shall be no access, storage, parking, excavation of trenches, or alteration of ground levels within the root protection area of any tree to be retained. No removal of limbs of trees or other work shall be carried out to any tree or hedge to be retained on site during the construction phase of the development unless in accordance with a method statement provided as part of the approved details.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted details of the positions, height, design, materials and type of all boundary treatments, including any entrance gates, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The boundary treatment and any entrance gates, shall be completed as in accordance with the approved details before the use is commenced.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme compliant with the Council's Parking and [name] relating to the installation of electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The EVCP(s) shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development and maintained and retained for so long as the use continues.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted details of all external cycle storage, to be compliant with the Council's most recent parking standards, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external cycle storage provision shall be installed and made available for use in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development to which it relates and retained thereafter.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted details of the location and specification of the CCTV to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CCTV shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development to which it relates and retained for so long as the use continues.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted details of any external lighting to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The detail provided shall demonstrate adherence to the Institution of [name] (ILP) guidance notes for the reduction of intrusive light (or in an equivalent document if replaced) and shall include the hours of operation. The external lighting shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Management, Parking and Travel Plan: Applegarth (received by the Council on 10th October 2025) for so long as the use continues.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Statement of [name] (dated 14 August 2026) for so long as the use continues.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Missing from Home Policy (dated 12th August 2025) for so long as the use continues.

The property shall be used only as a children's care home to accommodate no more than two young persons under the age of 18 and for no other purpose falling within Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987.