Appeal 6003277

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to residential care home (Class C2) for up to three children at [site address] , Lancashire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00709/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

It is acknowledged that the Council changed the description of development from that in the application form and banner heading above. The revised description is the “change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to residential care home (Class C2) for up to three children”. This is reflected in the appellant’s appeal form. It more accurately reflects the development proposed and has therefore been used in the formal decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • highway safety with particular regard to the provision of off-street car parking and the potential for restricting vehicle and pedestrian movements.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling, set back from the road with a small front garden and driveway. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character and comprising of mostly detached and semi-detached dwellings, as well as a mix of two-storey and single storey dwellings.

The proposed development seeks approval for the change of use of an existing residential dwelling (Use Class C3a) to a residential care home (Use Class C2) for up to three children (aged between 8 - 16 years) with care provided by no more than 5 staff members at any one time.

The appellant states that the proposal represents a small-scale, family-style care home which mirrors the functioning of a domestic household, with a professional care team providing round-the-clock supervision and support.

Policy CDMP3 of the Wyre Local Plan 2011-2031 (incorporating partial update of 2022), adopted January 2023 (the WLP) states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of occupants and users of surrounding or nearby properties.

In the reason for refusal, the Council raises concerns about activity associated with the number of movements to and from the building and that this would give rise to cumulative harm in regard to noise and disturbance. However, it is not uncommon for a family with three children to occupy a single dwellinghouse and for the occupants, as well as friends and visitors, to move to and from the property several times a day. Whilst the proposal may result in slightly more visitors than would be the case if the property were used as a single dwellinghouse, the number of visits, movements and activity would not be likely to result in any materially harmful effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

[name] understand that some building works have been taking place at the appeal property, for the purposes of this appeal, the proposal seeks approval for the change of use only. Based on the submitted details, the building would not be extended, and the number of bedrooms would remain unchanged. As such, I find that there would not be a significant difference in the level of activity and comings and goings of a children’s home of the scale proposed and that of a single family. Therefore, in this regard, I do not find the concerns of the Council to be persuasive. I consider that the proposal would not lead to harm to the living conditions of neighbours from noise and disturbance from the coming and goings of staff and visitors.

Furthermore, staff would be present on-site at all times to manage the property and help guard against any noise, disturbance or anti-social behaviour which could occur as a result of the proposed use. Additionally, I understand that children’s homes are required to be registered and approved by OFSTED, ensuring that there are other legislative controls in place to oversee the site's management.

Consequently, I therefore find that subject to a planning condition restricting occupancy to a maximum of three children, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to noise and disturbance. Thus, it would comply with Policy CDMP3 of the Wyre Local Plan 2011-2031, which requires amongst other things, that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of occupants and users of surrounding or nearby properties.

Policy CDMP6 of the WLP requires that appropriate provision is made for vehicular access, off-street servicing and parking in accordance with the Council’s standards set out in [name], unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highways Authority that different provision is justified taking into account local circumstances.

The appeal site is located on [address] which is a 2-way residential street with footpaths to either side lit by street lighting. It has a 20mph speed limit, providing access to the residential properties that front onto it, most of which appear to have off-street parking. The appellant states that the existing private driveway can accommodate up to five cars. However, the submitted parking plan indicates that three spaces would be provided at the front of the property.

I observed that it is a quiet residential street with low volumes of traffic moving along the road and at low speeds. At the time of my site visit, there were several on-street parking spaces available and little evidence of parking stress. I acknowledge that my visit is only a snapshot in time and was carried out during normal business hours. However, there is no firm evidence to indicate that the parking conditions that I observed at that time of the day, when the highest number of staff members would be present at the appeal site, were abnormal.

The appellant has set out that the changeover of staff and any associated vehicle movements would be staggered to reduce demand for parking at any one time. They also state that staff will be encouraged to use sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling or public transport. A suitably worded planning condition could require cycle parking provision to be put in place before the use is commenced.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that demand for on-street parking is likely to be higher during the evening and night when residents are most likely to be at home. However, this is also when staff presence would be reduced to a maximum of three carers for which parking could be accommodated within the appeal site. Whilst the changeover of staff shifts at the proposed children’s home will likely result in a modest increased demand for parking, it would be expected to be temporary in nature with no substantive evidence that it would harm highway safety. Therefore, even if there is a high level of parking stress on [address], there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that a small increase in the level of on-street parking would be detrimental to highway safety, were it to arise from the appeal use.

I have had regard to the concerns of neighbouring occupiers with regards to the potential for inconsiderate parking, and in particular the impact this could have on access to driveways particularly for those with mobility issues or blue badge holder. Nonetheless, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that on-street parking from the proposed development would unacceptably cause harm to highway safety.

I have also had regard to third party concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on traffic generation, as well as concerns about the speed of drivers and proximity of nearby busy junction. However, as noted above, [address] is a quiet residential street, with a 20mph speed limit. The level of vehicle movements associated with the proposed development are not likely to result in significant traffic generation over and above what might be expected from a large family home. Furthermore, the Highway Authority raised no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds.

Taking all the above into account, I am satisfied that should there be any additional parking demand created by the proposal, it would not be at a level that would be harmful to traffic congestion or highway safety, nor would it result in any significant inconvenience to the occupiers of existing properties in the area.

Consequently, subject to the imposition of a planning condition to require off-street parking to be provided in accordance with details to be submitted and cycle parking provision to be provided prior to the development being brought into use, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not be harmful to highway safety with particular regard to the provision of off-street car parking and the potential for restricting vehicle and pedestrian movements. Thus, it would comply with Policy CDMP6 which requires, amongst other things, that appropriate provision is made for vehicular access, off-street servicing and parking.

The appeal site is located within [name] 2 which identified as being at a medium risk of flooding. I note that the [name] of Engineering (Draining) objected to the proposal on the basis that there would be bedrooms on the ground floor with no emergency exits in case of flood and that the emergency evacuation plan is inadequate. However, I note from the submitted plans that the existing dwelling has two-bedrooms on the ground floor, which would be unchanged and the appeal proposal seeks approval for change of use only. [name] am aware from the submissions and my own observations that building works, including the possible extension of the property may be underway, the appeal proposal relates solely to the change of use of the property from a C3 to a C2 use. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this would not result in increased flood risk to the site.

I acknowledge that the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission was reached unanimously by members of its Planning Committee and that the decision taken was contrary to the advice of its officers. The Council’s Members were entitled to take the opposite view, contrary to its officers having particular regard to third party concerns. However, for the reasons set out above I have reached different conclusions on the main issues.

I acknowledge that the appeal site is located in a quiet residential street where many of the residents are stated to be elderly or vulnerable. However, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposed change of use would result in harm to the character of the area.

Concerns have also been raised in relation to potential damage which has been caused to the pavement and a tree to the front of the property. It is alleged that this damaged has been caused by works which are or have been carried out to the appeal property. However, as outlined above, this appeal seeks approval for the change of use of the property only. Therefore, any works which have been carried out are not a matter for this appeal.

In respect of [name], Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has the effect that planning permission granted for the development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the biodiversity gain condition. However, Paragraph 17 of Schedule 7A lists certain statutory exemptions which mean that the condition does not always apply. This includes the de minimis exemption, which includes development that does not impact a priority habitat and impacts less than 25 sqm of onsite habitats and 5 m of linear habitats.

The PPG explains that the exemption is designed to cover planning permissions for change of uses to development where there is no, or only a de minimis impact on onsite habitat. Given that the proposal would not involve any external changes, except for the provision of off-road parking, which would replace an area of artificial grass, I am satisfied that it would not result in the loss of more than 25m2 of on-site habitat. Therefore, the proposal would not require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because a statutory exemption applies.

My attention has been drawn to a potential covenant on the land which it is suggested would restrict the use of the site for any business or commercial purpose. However, this is a civil matter that falls outside of the planning regime.

Concerns have been raised about a lack of consultation on the proposed development. Whilst the precise details of the consultation are not before me, a copy of the site notice and neighbour notification letter has been provided. I am also aware that the application attracted comments from members of the public and was discussed at planning committee. It therefore has not been demonstrated that the consultation was insufficient.

I do not underestimate the concerns of local residents and the strength of objection to the proposed development. However, whilst I have had regard to these, the strength of objection to the proposed development is not reason alone to withhold the grant of planning permission.

In addition to the points raised by concerned neighbours that I have addressed above, concerns have also been expressed including but not limited to the following: waste management, anti-social behaviour, fear of crime, concerns about the operation and management of an existing property within the local area, a lack of facilities/amenities for children, vulnerable adults living close by and potential inaccuracies within the submitted documentation. I have also had regard to the third-party comments in relation to the lack of need, number of children’s homes located in the [name] and the suggestion that the application is for a private/commercial benefit only.

However, I note that these matters were considered, where relevant, by the Council at the application stage and did not form part of the reason for refusal, which I have dealt within the assessment above. [name] can understand these concerns, there is no compelling evidence before me that would lead me to reach a different conclusion to the Council on these matters. I have considered this appeal on its own merits and concluded that it would not cause harm for the reasons set out above.

I have had regard to the Council’s suggested conditions and considered them against the statutory tests outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have made minor amendments, where necessary, to ensure the conditions comply with these documents.

Section 100ZA(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sets out that if an Inspector is minded to grant planning permission subject to pre-commencement conditions, they may only do so with the written agreement of the appellant. Therefore, I sought the appellant’s written agreement to these conditions.

I have imposed standard conditions concerning commencement and compliance with the submitted plans. It is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

Conditions in relation to parking provision, electric vehicle charging and provision of a dropped kerb are necessary in the interests of highway safety. Further conditions relating to waste management and cycle parking were not included with the conditions suggested by the Council but are also required to ensure that the proposed development promotes sustainable travel and provides adequate facilities for waste and recycling.

A condition is necessary in the interests of certainty to restrict the use of the appeal site to a children’s residential home (Use Class C2) and in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring residents. I have also imposed a condition restricting the maximum number of children who can occupy the property at any one time.

For the reasons given and taking into account all matters raised, the appeal should be allowed.

The development must be begun before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: • Site Location Plan received 1 September 2025 • Proposed Floor Plan Drawing No 4432 received 1 September 2025

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the parking/turning area(s) shown on the approved parking layout plan received 12 November 2025 has been laid out, surfaced and drained. The parking / turning area(s) shall thereafter be retained and maintained and not used for any purpose other than for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles without express planning consent from the local planning authority first being obtained.

An electric vehicle recharging (EVCP) scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority unless it is demonstrated that such provision of EVCP is not practical in communal parking areas or due to other identified site constraints. The development shall not be first used until the agreed electric vehicle recharging point scheme has been provided and such electric vehicle recharging point scheme shall be maintained and retained for that purpose thereafter.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, the off-site works of highway improvement(namely the installation of a vehicle dropped crossing to allow for vehicular access) shall be fully carried out, unless an alternative timetable for implementation is submitted to and approved inwriting by the Local Planning Authority. The off-site highway works shall be carried out in accordance with any alternative approved timetable for implementation.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, suitable waste management including dedicated residential refuse and recycling facilities have been provided and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, details of secure cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full, prior to commencement of the hereby approved use and shall be retained thereafter.

The premises shall be used for a children's residential care home (C2 use) and shall be used for no other purpose at any time (including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987, (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) without prior express planning permission from the local planning authority.

The number of children to be cared for at the premises shall be limited to 3 at any one time. End of Schedule