Appeal 6002865

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a residential institution (Use Class C2) for up to 2 children and 3 staff at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0940, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

The description of development given above is that used by the Council in their determination of the application, and accords with that adopted by both main parties for the appeal. This is a more accurate description than that given on the application form submitted to the Council, as it specifies the number of children and staff. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The appellant has submitted a Parking & Home Management Plan (PHMP). I consider the proposal before me (should the PHMP be included), is essentially the same as the scheme that was considered by the Council and therefore that the appeal process is not being used to evolve the scheme. Furthermore, the Council has had the opportunity to comment on this information. As such I am satisfied that the information does not alter the proposed development to an extent that anyone involved in the appeal would be prejudiced or impacted should I accept the PHMP.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character of the area; and, • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with particular regards to on-street parking.

The appeal site is a three bedroom, detached dwelling in an established residential area. It is at the end of a cul-de-sac and immediately to the east of the site is a small park.

It is proposed that the dwellinghouse would be occupied by up to two children, with one adult member of staff always present on site, and one or two members of staff in attendance during the day on a regular shift pattern, to provide continuity of care for the children. The children would attend schools and other day-to-day off-site activities. Whilst this would represent a different pattern of occupation, its intensity and nature would not be dissimilar to that which would reasonably be expected of a dwelling occupied as a three bedroom family dwelling.

There would be no physical changes to the appeal property and its appearance in the street. For these reasons, the proposed development would have little, if any, discernible impact on the residential character of the area, nor would it have a commercialising influence on the street. Furthermore, the appeal site is located in a discreet location at the end of [address], and is well screened by vegetation in views from the east, so any impact on the character of the area would be very much localised.

I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character of the area. The development, therefore, accords with Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the saved Unitary Development Plan 2019 (the UDP), 2019, which taken together seek to ensure development properly takes into account its context and surroundings and does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding environment. It would also accord with advice in Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character.

The appeal site is at the end of a cul-de-sac, facing a hammerhead turning area. In common with most other houses in the street, the site has an integral garage and a driveway with dropped kerb access from the road. It is proposed to provide two external car-parking spaces, parallel to each other, to the front of the building.

Policy T13 of the UDP requires one parking space per three bedrooms for care facilities. The proposed development would have three on-site parking spaces which would be well in excess of that required by the UDP. Given the nature of the use, parking demand generated would not be from the occupants, but from staff associated with the use. Three on-site parking spaces would be sufficient to meet the needs of up to three staff working on a shift basis. Whilst the proposed use would represent a different pattern of occupation, no substantive evidence has been presented to suggest that the intensity of vehicular movements would be significantly different to that which would reasonably be expected of a dwelling occupied as a three-bed family house.

Whilst there may be the need to accommodate parking requirements of visitors to the site, additional to on-site staff, I am not persuaded that this would be appreciably different to the situation with regards to possible visitors to the appeal property in use as a dwellinghouse. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that visitor parking cannot reasonably be accommodated using the on-site provision or without placing unacceptable demands on existing on-street provision, in a way that would be likely to harm the proper functioning of the highway.

At my site visit, I observed that the majority of houses along the cul-de-sac had off-street parking and there were very few cars parked in the available parking areas on the street. I appreciate that the parking conditions was only a snapshot of the parking at this particular time, however no compelling evidence has been put forward to support the assertion that there is a significant highway safety issue caused by car-parking on [address].

Concerns have been raised in respect of access for refuse and emergency vehicles, along with ongoing issues with cars being parked in the hammerhead turning area. However, I have not been presented with any evidence to suggest that the proposed development would contribute to such issues, to any greater or lesser extent, than were the appeal property to remain in use as a dwellinghouse.

The Local Highway Authority have reviewed the proposed parking arrangement, including the use of the integral garage for car parking, and consider it acceptable and sufficient to accommodate the needs of the proposed development. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree.

The appellant has put forward a proposed management plan to mitigate any potential impacts on amenity and highway safety through the ongoing proposed use of the site, with particular reference to the provision of adequate car parking, and avoidance of car parking in the hammerhead. In addition to a condition requiring retention of three on-site car parking spaces, I consider this a reasonable safeguard to ensure that there is no potential for inadvertent impact on highway safety and possible conflict with the UDP in future.

Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would have an undue detrimental impact on highway safety, with particular regards to on-street parking. There would, therefore, be no conflict with Policies GP2 and T13 of the UDP, which taken together seek to ensure adequate and parking provision for new development. Ongoing compliance could be secured through a condition attached to any permission. The proposed development would therefore accord with advice in Paragraph 115 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that there is no impact on highway safety.

There have been a number of representations from local residents concerning the proposal. Some of the matters raised are not of direct relevance to the planning considerations of the appeal, including the impact on property values. It has not been demonstrated that such a development would impact on values and, furthermore, it is a well-founded principle that the planning system does not exist to protect private interests such as the value of land and property.

Concerns have also been raised that the proposed development would set a precedent for other residential institutions in the street. However, any future proposals would be assessed on an individual basis and, in this case, I have found no adverse impacts or conflicts with the UDP.

Interested parties have also expressed concerns around impacts on the safety and security of local residents due to future occupants of the appeal scheme. Generally, local residents consider that the appeal site is not a suitable location for a children’s home. However, since the future occupants of the proposal are unknown, it would be conjecture and unreasonable to withhold planning permission on the basis of preconceptions about their propensity to indulge in antisocial behaviour. The children’s home would be registered with Ofsted and, being limited for use by up to two children and three staff, it would not represent a large scale institution. Submissions linked solely to the assumed characteristics of future occupiers would not justify a refusal of permission.

Other concerns relate to the potential adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents, such as through noise, disturbance and traffic. There is nothing to suggest that the intensity or nature of the use of the proposed development would be appreciably different to that which would reasonably be expected as occupied as a three-bed family dwelling. The Council has raised no objection to the proposed development on the grounds of impact on the living conditions of nearby residents and I see no reason to disagree.

I have had due regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010. Age and people living with disabilities are relevant protected characteristics to which the PSED applies. Article 8 of the HRA requires that decisions ensure respect for private and family life and the home. These rights are engaged in reaching my decision and I have kept these interests at the forefront of my mind. I acknowledge that interested parties have raised concerns relating to the potential effects of the proposal on the elderly, and I am equally mindful of the needs of looked after children. Given my conclusions with regards the main issues, and subject to the imposition of the conditions set out in this decision, the proposal would not have unacceptable effects on persons with a protected characteristic, and would not therefore disproportionately affect such persons.

Further concerns relate to the potential obstruction of a fire hydrant on the public footway in front of the drive to the appeal site and possible obstruction of the access from [address] to the adjacent park, for Council maintenance vehicles. The appeal site contains adequate on-site parking provision, and there is no evidence to indicate that the risk of unauthorised parking on the public footway would be increased by the proposed development. It is noted that the [name] and the Council have raised no objection to the development based on impacts on access for maintenance vehicles to the park. There is nothing to suggest that the proposed change of use would increase the likelihood of vehicular access to the park being impeded, and a management plan prohibiting parking in the hammerhead area would address this concern.

Concerns have also been expressed with the Council’s handling of the planning application, particularly with regards to consultation of residents; however, this is not a matter for my deliberation in the context of a planning appeal. Similarly concerns have been raised that the appellant did not seek pre-application advice from the Council before submitting the application. However, there is no requirement for an applicant to seek such advice and it is not determinative to the outcome of the appeal.

I have considered the Council and appellant’s lists of suggested conditions in light of advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary and in the interests of precision and brevity I have combined or amended the suggested wording. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on the appellant’s suggestion of a condition relating to a management plan.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved documents and plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

A condition restricting the use to a children’s home is appropriate and necessary given the potential of other uses within Use Class C2 to give rise to other planning harms. A condition limiting the maximum number of children and staff accommodated at the property is necessary to adequately control the use of the site to protect the amenity of the area.

A condition requiring three parking spaces at the appeal site to be retained for the lifetime of the development is required to ensure adequate parking provision. In the interests of amenity and highway safety I have imposed a condition requiring that a management plan for the site is put in place.

The Council has suggested a condition relating to the prohibition of advertisements on the site. However, any would be subject to separate controls and permissions; therefore, the suggested condition may not pass the tests of necessity. Consequently, it is not reasonable to impose such a condition.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, along with other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

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

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the following approved plans, details, and documents: i) Drawing no. CR 00/12/01, showing existing plans and elevations, dated July 2025. ii) Drawing no. CR 00/12/02, showing proposed plans and elevations, dated July 2025. iii) Drawing no. CR 00/12/03, Car Parking Plan, dated August 2025. iv) Planning Statement, prepared by Garnet Business Solutions, submitted 13 August 2025.

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details of a residential care home in planning use class C2 for a maximum of two children between the ages of 7 and 18, with a maximum of three staff carers on site, except in emergencies, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Schedule 1, Class C of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended), or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

The three parking spaces at the site, as shown on the Car Parking Plan, shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, a Parking and Home Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include measures to ensure staff park on-site; that visitors are also directed, when possible, to use on-site parking for the duration of their stay; and to include explicit prohibition on staff/visitors parking in the hammerhead. Thereafter, the Plan shall be implemented at all times, in accordance with the approved details and for the lifetime of the development. ***END OF CONDITIONS***