Appeal 6002551

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from a residential dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a children's care home for 2 children (Use Class C2) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/01260/PA, and subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan referenced TW/066/201.

There shall be no more than 2 children in residence at the property at any time.

Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use, the proposed cycle parking, as detailed on the approved plan referenced TW/066/201, shall be provided and shall thereafter be retained.

An application for costs has been made by Oakhaven Care Group Limited against Birmingham City Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision

In the banner above, and in my formal decision, I have used the description of development as detailed on the decision notice of the Council. This is because it more concisely describes the proposed development.

The main issues are: a) the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and disturbance, and also the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and, b) the effect of the development on existing housing stock.

No. [site address] is a two-storey semi-detached property. The submitted plan shows the existing building to have three bedrooms and a further study. To the front is an off-street parking area with space for several vehicles, while a private garden is located to the rear. The dwelling is positioned at the end of a cul-de-sac with the vehicular turning head of the street located to the front of the property. [name] is a large cul-de-sac comprising approximately 50 properties which are a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings.

The existing dwelling has up to four bedrooms (on the assumption that the study could be used as a fourth bedroom). Given the size of the dwelling, it would not be unreasonable to assume that it could provide accommodation for a family. In such circumstances the existing use could attract all the activity commonly associated with a family living in the property. This could include daily movements for adults leaving for and returning from work, children leaving for and returning from school, and other movements to attend various social activities throughout the day. It is likely that there would also be visitors and deliveries to the house. At the property, all the internal and external activities associated with family living could occur. All of these activities, amongst other things, would generate a degree of noise and disturbance which is acceptable in a residential area. However, there could be significant variations from one family occupier to another.

The scheme proposes the change of use of the dwelling to a children’s home. This would provide accommodation for up to two children. Care would be provided at a ratio of 1:1, with staff operating on a shift pattern. The day shift would operate from 07:30 to 22:30, while the night shift would operate from 22:30 to 07:30. In addition, it is understood that a manager would be on site during the day time (typically 10:00 to 16:00), 5-days a week. There would also be other pre-arranged ad hoc visits from health care professionals and family members, albeit it is understood that the latter would not be regular occurrences.

I note that the site lies at the end of a cul-de-sac. As such the site would not have a level of passing traffic. That said, [name] includes in excess of 50 dwellings, and could not be considered to be a small cul-de-sac. Given the size of the street it is likely that the adjacent turning head would be well used by occupiers and visitors of the street.

Only 2 children are proposed for care which is a modest and proportionate level for a building of this size. Given this level of occupation, the likely number of persons regularly at the property, at any one time, would by no means be excessive. The level of activity associated with the use would not be significant and would primarily occur during the day. Even taking into account the movements from additional visitors, the degree of activity from this modest care home would not be dissimilar to the existing use.

I accept that there would likely be some daily spikes in activity, primarily during staff changeover. The early morning and late evening timings of the shift change, while not at wholly unsociable hours, are on the cusp of reasonableness for a residential street. Nonetheless, this activity would likely be over a short period of time only and, given the limited number of movements involved, I do not consider that the degree of activity would be unduly intensive within a residential street of this nature.

I acknowledge that the site is closely spaced with its neighbours, particularly its semi-detached pairing. However, the scale of use is modest and I do not consider that the resultant level of activity would be so excessive, intensive or out of character with a family dwelling, that it would result in adverse harm to living

The proposals do not include any physical alterations to the building. Furthermore, the site has sufficient off-street parking, as existing, to meet the demands of the development. Therefore, the external appearance of the building would remain that of a family dwelling while the visual character of the cul-de-sac would remain unchanged. [name] have concluded above, the activities associated with the proposed use would not be materially different to that of the existing family dwelling and, therefore, I do not consider that the character and appearance of the building or area would be diluted by the change of use.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and disturbance. Therefore, the development complies with Policies DM2 and DM12 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 (the DPD). Together, amongst other things, these require that residential conversions, do not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours having regard to noise and compatibility of uses.

In addition, also for the reasons given above, the development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such the development complies with Policy DM12 of the DPD and Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan – Planning for [name] 2017 (the BDP). These, amongst other things, require that development should not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, and should contribute towards creating a strong sense of place.

Policy DM12 of the DPD states that the conversion of buildings to specialist accommodation will be supported where it would not result in the loss of a use which makes an important contribution to the Council’s objectives, strategies and policies1. BDP Policy TP35 advises that best use will be made of existing housing stock and that the Council will seek to prevent the loss of housing which is in good condition to other uses. 1 Criteria e)

The Council is concerned that the development would result in the loss of a family dwelling, for which there is a shortage of and evidenced demand for in the city. It considers that the need for the proposed use has not been evidenced to justify the loss. The Council rely on The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (2022) (the HEDNA). The HEDNA confirms that, between 2011 and 2021, 71% of dwellings delivered in Birmingham have been in the form of one or two-bedroom dwellings. Furthermore, the HEDNA confirms that approximately 13% of dwellings with four or more bedrooms have been built across the city during that period. As such, the evidence from the HEDNA suggests that the Council is under performing in its delivery of larger accommodation while, it appears, is exceeding its targets for small households.

The Council has cited two dismissed appeal decisions which support their case2. While those appeals concerned the delivery of HMOs, the effect of those developments on existing housing stock was a main consideration. In those appeals the Inspector acknowledged the significant shortfall in supply of larger family homes. I note that those appeals do precede, or do not cite, the most up to date HEDNA. Nonetheless, the issue of loss of larger family homes appears to be a prevailing one.

Therefore, the Council identify the retention of larger housing stock as a strategic objective. I agree, based on the evidence before me, that there is an apparent under supply of larger family homes in the administrative area.

The appellant has drawn to my attention that, since the HEDNA was produced, the Council can now demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. However, the information before me3, does not provide any breakdown in what has or is being delivered by way of dwelling size. Therefore, I do not have any information to demonstrate that the identified deficit has been, or is being, addressed.

The HEDNA also identifies that there is a need to deliver specialist accommodation including housing with care. I acknowledge that the Council have relied on the HEDNA in their appraisal of similar development at 56 Camp Lane4 and 93 Copthall Road5. Neither party have directed me to any specific paragraphs of the HEDNA in this regard. My reading of the document relates primarily towards housing for older people, and does not appear to distinguish between specific groups in need of housing with care6. Therefore, I cannot rely on the HEDNA as identifying a need which is specific to this appeal.

For both the [address] and [address] applications a “no objection” consultation response was reported as being received from The Children’s Commissioning/Birmingham Children’s Trust. The appellant considers that this is evidence of a need for such accommodation in the area. I accept that there is some logic to this conclusion although it is by no means demonstrative. The reported response in the Council reports for those applications is very brief. There is some short commentary relied upon by the Council to establish where the nearest registered children’s home is. However, there is very little other substantive evidence in those reports in identifying any actual established need in the area. 2 3282337 and 3300940 3 Birmingham Local Plan – [name] (October 2025) 4 Application Ref: 2024/06331/PA 5 Application Ref: 2024/06330/PA 6 [name] 1.66 – 1.69 and Chapter 11

Therefore, I am not persuaded that evidence of a specific need for the appeal use has been demonstrated.

Notwithstanding the above, in this instance, the proposed development would provide a home for two children, along with accommodation for their carers. While unrelated, the staff and children would be seemingly living together as a household. This would provide a family like environment for the children. In my opinion, the development would provide a similar level of family accommodation which could occur at this property. [name] have concluded on the first main issue, the development could be carried out without causing harm to neighbouring living conditions and the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the Council are satisfied that there would not be an overconcentration of similar uses in the area. Therefore, the development satisfies other criteria of DM12.

Given the nature of the proposed use, I am not persuaded that the loss of a single family home, would undermine the Councils strategic objectives. I am also mindful that the preamble to DPD Policy DM12 states, at 4.27, that “a strong and sustainable community responds to the needs of all residents, including those who are considered to be most vulnerable and requiring access to housing that meets their specific needs”. To my mind, integrating the proposed use into the area would contribute towards the delivery of a mixed and sustainable community.

For the reasons given above, the development would not have a harmful effect on existing housing stock. As such the development complies with Policy DM12 of the DPD and Policy TP35 of the BDP. These, amongst other things, allow for the loss of existing housing stock where there are good planning justifications.

Various concerns have been raised by third parties. Matters relating to noise and disturbance, need and the loss of a family sized home have been considered under the main issues above. My attention has been drawn to the differences between the appeal site and the [address] and [address] sites. I agree that there are contextual distinctions, particularly with regard to the nature of the streets. However, I have concluded that the proposed scheme is modest in scale resulting in a similar level of activity to a family home. This would not give rise to such levels of activity to result in a harmful effect on living conditions.

It is suggested that providing accommodation for two children in this property would not be in the best interests of the children and that the property lacks the necessary safeguards. Care would be provided at a one-to-one ratio and provision would allow the children to integrate into society. Further, the use is at an appropriate scale for the size of the property. Therefore, I do not find these comments to be substantiated or evidenced.

With regard to parking issues, the scheme would provide four off-street parking spaces. This would be sufficient to meet the demands of the development. I note that there is no objection from the Councils Transportation Department and I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions on this matter.

I note that paragraph 4.31 to Policy DM12 states that specialist accommodation should “normally” be provided in large detached properties. However, it goes on to indicate that other size properties may be acceptable if the “amenity of adjoining occupiers can be safeguarded”. [name] have concluded on the first main issue, I am satisfied that the development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours.

Matters regarding crime, and the fear of crime, have been considered by the Council. As the children would be in care 24/7, with support provided on a one to one basis I have no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the Council. Finally, I have no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal would result in a proliferation of C2 uses and HMO’s in the area. Furthermore, the Council have considered this point and concluded that the development would not lead to a concentration of non-family dwellings in the area.

The standard commencement condition is required for clarity. A condition ensuring the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted plans is also necessary in the interest of certainty.

A condition restricting the number of resident children to two, is necessary to safeguard the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties from noise and disturbance. I have not been given any reason for why there should be an age restriction for the children occupying the site. This has not been applied to the other decisions made by the Council before me and, consistent with those decisions, I have removed this wording.

A condition requiring the delivery of cycle parking is necessary in the interest of promoting sustainable travel. This provision is also shown on the approved plan. However, I have amended the wording for precision and clarity.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.