Appeal 6003677

The appeal is dismissed.

The change of use of the dwelling to a care home took place in 2024 without the benefit of planning permission and the appellants wish to retain the use. I shall therefore treat the appeal as if the original application had been made under section 73A of the Act1.

Some of the evidence submitted by the appellants indicated that the development was to be used as a children’s home. I therefore sought clarification, since this was not solely the development described in the application form. The responses received provided no satisfactory clarification. Accordingly, the description of the development used in the appeal matches that provided in the application form.

The Appellants’ Site Management Plan (SMP) says the intention is to provide care for up to 3 children or young people. For 12 hours during the day 4 staff members would be in attendance, and this level of staffing would be repeated at night. The Registered Manager and a [name] would also attend on weekdays between 9.00-5.00. Limited information is provided as to the nature of the clientele, but the SMP confirms that one young person being cared for is subject of a Deprivation of Liberty Order.

The Council refused the application for four reasons. However, having visited the site and considered the evidence I regard the main issue as the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents and on the character of the area. 1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

The appeal property, a detached dwelling, is set within a pleasant residential area in a suburban setting on the northern outskirts of the City. The property faces a short driveway shared with its immediate neighbour No 230, and No 234 lies just beyond its rear garden boundary. On the opposite side of the street is [address]’s junction with [address], a short residential cul-de-sac. A sizeable area of public open space is evident to the front of the appeal property and west of No 230.

Unlike the circumstances surrounding the many appeal decisions cited by the appellants in support of the scheme, this development concerns an existing use rather than a proposal. Accordingly, a body of evidence is available as to the conduct of the use thus far. In this regard, conflict arises between the evidence presented by the appellants, local residents and the [name] respectively.

The Police’s representations on the original application reflect the experiences of some local residents, who complain about noise and disturbance emanating from the property, including shouting, swearing and other anti-social behaviour. Reference is made to an occasion when the police were obliged to shut down the nearby highway because of the conduct of one of the residents.

The appellants acknowledge that incidents occurred for a period of about a year following the home’s opening. It is said that the individual mainly responsible has since left the property, and no incidents or anti-social behaviour have occurred since. However, that view is not shared by those residents closest to the property who submitted representations for the appeal.

It is a matter of concern that despite what I would consider a relatively high staff to client ratio that the aims of the SMP regarding the levels of behaviour sought at the home have not been consistently achieved. The evidence peruades me that local residents particularly those at Nos 230 & [address] and those on the opposite side of the street have been subject at times to unacceptable noise and disturbance harming the amenities that they could reasonably expect to enjoy. That such anti-social behaviour has sometimes been displayed during the late hours is an aggravating factor.

I have considered the main findings of the [name] report, and have no reason to dispute them. However, whilst I share the view that the short periods involved in the daily staff turnover and visits should not unacceptably affect local amenity, the report is a study restricted in time. There is no apparent dispute that unacceptable behaviour resulting in nuisance and disturbance to local residents has occurred, particularly late at night, despite the presence of a reasonably high level of staffing.

I conclude that the use has had an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of nearby residents by reason of noise and disturbance. Moreover, the nature of the use, based on its’ conduct and effects to date, is clearly uncharacteristic of a pleasant residential area. I am not convinced that the continuation of the use, given the appellants’ record to date, would not lead to further unacceptable and disruptive conduct. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with some provisions of policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) and policies DM2 & DM12 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (DPD). Considered together these policies require developments to be appropriate to their location and not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbours or the character of the area.

The appellants have referred me to several successful appeal decisions where planning permission has been granted for changes of use to care and childrens’ homes. In these cases, Inspectors have generally attributed significant weight to the need for such accommodation in balancing against the loss of general purpose housing of the type subject of the appeal and other issues. Moreover, the appellants point to decisions taken by the Council itself where similar considerations applied, and planning permission was granted. I am not convinced that a properly managed facility should in itself lead to an increase in the local incidence of crime as the Council suggests.

Based on the evidence, I do not doubt the need for such accommodation as proposed. However, this is a facility, according to the appellants’, not yet inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) or fully registered by the Office for Standards in Education, [name] and Skills (OFSTED). It opened and continues to be operated without planning permission. That it has been operational distinguishes it from the other cases relied upon by the appellants. Its’ operation has materially and harmfully affected local amenities. In this regard the appellants place a high reliance on the SMP, which they describe as ‘robust’. One would have reasonably expected an SMP to be in place before opening, but the past conduct of the use, on occasions, has clearly not matched the aims and aspirations of the SMP in limiting its effects on the local community.

I have considered the representations made in respect of parking and highway considerations. [name] visited works were taking place on the footway outside the property and access was restricted. On-site parking facilities are proposed, but there will be times, I suspect, when parking takes place on the highway outside, but I am satisfied that if this were to take place, the safety of other users would not be put at risk.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the Council’s references to other development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework, but none is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusion on the main issue set out above. This clearly outweighs the other matters favouring the continuation of the use.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.