Appeal 6002838

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the location of the site would provide a safe and suitable environment for occupants of the proposed use.

The appeal property is a three-bedroom, semi-detached house in an established residential area. The proposal would change the use of the property to a children’s care home (Use Class C2) to provide care for children aged 8-17, including those with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The scheme would also provide on-site sleeping accommodation for a member of staff. The proposal is supported by a draft business plan setting out proposed management, staffing and safeguarding arrangements.

[site address] Police have objected to the proposal following a review of the application and supporting material, together with checks of police databases and consultation with internal safeguarding partners. The police objection is not framed by reference to recorded crime statistics. The Council’s assessment, as set out in the officer’s report, places weight on the police objection and the safeguarding concerns identified in respect of the location. I also note that safeguarding considerations relating to the suitability of a home’s location are reflected in the [name] (England) Regulations 2015.

The appellant has referred to publicly available crime data to suggest that recorded incidents in the area are not significantly elevated. However, the matter before me is not whether crime levels are high, but whether the appeal site is in a location that would provide a safe and suitable environment for a vulnerable group of future occupants.

In this regard, I give significant weight to the objection from [site address] Police, which identifies safeguarding concerns specific to the location that bear directly on the safety and suitability of the environment for future occupants.

Moreover, I have had regard to paragraphs 96 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seek to ensure that development provides healthy, inclusive and safe places where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life. I am also mindful of the duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which requires local authorities, and by extension decision-makers, to do all that they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.

In conclusion, the location of the proposed development would fail to provide a safe and suitable environment for the occupants of the proposed use, with particular regard to safeguarding. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy LP1 of the Kirklees Local Plan (2019) (LP), insofar as it seeks to secure development in safe and inclusive environments, and when read in the context of national policy and relevant safeguarding duties.

In coming to the above conclusions, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The intended occupants of the proposal would be children, and I recognise the importance of safeguarding their welfare and advancing equality of opportunity.

However, this duty is not absolute and must be exercised alongside other material considerations. In this case, the concerns identified regarding the suitability of the location carry significant weight. My findings are based on the evidence before me, including the objection from [site address] Police, and do not conflict with the aims of the Equality Act.

The appellant has provided additional information at appeal stage setting out proposed staffing arrangements, including staff roles, supervision and management structures. This information goes beyond that which was before the Council at application stage. The Council has not provided any substantive comments in response to this material. Furthermore, I recognise that such matters are subject to control through the Ofsted regime. As such, on the evidence before me, there is nothing to indicate that appropriate staffing and management arrangements could not be put in place. In any event, this matter does not alter my findings in respect of the suitability of the location.

While the proposal may contribute to the provision of children’s care accommodation, the Council’s Children’s Services team has advised that there is no identified undersupply of such provision in this area. In any event, even if there were a wider need, this would not outweigh my findings above in respect of the safety of future occupants.

Representations from interested parties highlight the potential for the proposal to contribute positively to the local community and to provide accommodation for vulnerable children, including through provision close to existing support networks. I have taken these matters into account. However, they do not outweigh my findings above.

The appellant has referred to two appeal decisions said to demonstrate that crime and safeguarding concerns can be mitigated through operational measures. However, there is no evidence to indicate that they are directly comparable to the current appeal and, as such, do not lead me to a different conclusion.

I have considered all other matters raised, including the effect of the proposal on the character of the area, residential amenity and highway safety. However, they do not lead me to a different conclusion in this instance.

[name] have found that the proposed development would provide for the safeguarding and welfare of its occupants in respect of staffing arrangements, I have also found that it would fail to provide a safe and suitable environment by reason of its location. In my view, this latter matter is determinative. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.