Appeal 6003844

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from class C3 residential dwelling to class C2 social work housing residential care home for 4 children aged 8 – 17 at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00609/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

During the course of the appeal, the Council adopted a new local plan, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (2026) (the ‘Local Plan’). The Council’s position on the appeal was unchanged following the Local Plan’s adoption, and the Council identified it considered the policies most relevant to the determination of the appeal were Local Plan policies SWDPR 06, SWDPR 17, SWDPR 28 and SWDPR 47. The appellant has also had the opportunity to comment on the policies identified. Insofar as relevant to the appeal the requirements of these policies are consistent with those they replaced, and I am satisfied that interested parties would not be prejudiced by my reference to these policies in my decision.

I have removed reference to ‘proposed’ from the description of development as this does not constitute a description of development.

Whilst some concerns have been raised with regards the accuracy of certain aspects of submitted information, I consider the information before me to be sufficiently detailed to assess the proposal without being prejudicial to interested parties.

The main issues are:  whether the proposal would be suitably located, with particular regard to community character and cohesion and housing mix; and  the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The existing property is a residential dwelling set within a largely residential street. The surrounding area is also predominantly residential. On the evidence before me, there are other properties both within the street and in the vicinity of the appeal site used for the purposes of care or supported accommodation, and further similar uses within a one-mile radius.

The proposal would convert the existing dwelling to a children’s residential care home. This would accommodate 4 children aged from 8 to 17, with the objective of medium to long term care being provided. These children would typically be supported by 2 onsite carers who would rotate a number of times a week, with additional professional staff visiting on an occasional basis. Care staff would be professionally trained, and the site subject to regular Ofsted inspections.

The Local Plan does not include a specific policy that limits the number of children’s residential care homes or other similar care uses within a particular area. However, Policy SWDPR 28 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure proposals create a safe and secure environment, and the Local Plan in broad terms seeks to support mixed and balanced communities. The Written Ministerial Statement on accommodation for looked after children also sets out the importance in providing such accommodation in the right places.

The proposal would introduce a care use for looked after children into a residential area. On the representations before me, the area has a large number of older residents.

I acknowledge that certain children who would reside at [address]. However, this would also be the case were a new family with similar characteristics to move into the current dwelling. Children staying at the home, particularly those staying in the medium to longer term, would have the opportunity to integrate with the local community, both within the close itself and the wider residential area beyond. They would be supported by onsite carers which, when coupled with the looked after children, would be likely to have living dynamics not dissimilar to some family living arrangements.

Given this similarity, the proposed change of use would result in similar living arrangements to a residential dwellinghouse. Therefore, even when combined with nearby similar uses, the introduction of 4 children and their carers would not alter the character of the area nor be harmful to community cohesion in this regard.

Whilst the proposal would result in carers onsite who would change a number of times a week, the relative infrequency of these changes of carers, as well as the occasional visits from professional staff and others, would not be of such extent as to result in an institutionalised character. By contrast, there would be likely to be a degree of consistency in terms of the individuals employed as care staff, who may become an established part of the day-to-day street activity. In terms of nearby similar uses, there are limited details before me with regards the patterns of movement at other nearby care facilities. However, I have no reason to conclude that these would be materially different to that of the appeal proposal. Therefore, whilst the use would no longer be as a dwellinghouse, the pattern of activity of visits to the children’s home would not either individually, or cumulatively with other similar uses, result in harm to residential character or cohesion.

I acknowledge that [name] have raised concerns with regards the potential for increased anti-social behaviour, additional calls for service and risk of exploitation. However, the current area is identified as having low levels of anti-social behaviour and there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the quantum of nearby similar uses has resulted in a change in the level of local anti-social behaviour activities as a whole. Nor has evidence been presented to suggest there has been changes in the level of reported crime or how the proposed use would alter the risk of exploitation.

Whilst my attention has been drawn to specific examples of identified anti-social behaviour nearby, it has either not been demonstrated that these have been undertaken by occupants of existing uses where care is provided, or that such events would be less likely were the property to remain a dwellinghouse. Therefore, and although interested parties have raised concerns about the implications of the interaction of future occupants with nearby features of the built environment, I consider such episodes may equally occur were the property to remain within a residential use. Given this, when combined with other nearby similar uses the proposal is not therefore likely to result in an increase in anti-social behaviour.

I also acknowledge that Worcestershire County Council (‘WCC’) have advised caution given the nearby presence of other supported accommodation placements, and the need for appropriate risk assessments. However, no specific harm has been identified by WCC, nor have objections been raised by WCC or the Council with regards the appellant’s management plan, which would be secured by condition. Given the presence of professionally trained staff and ongoing oversight of the care home by Ofsted, when coupled with my conclusions as to the absence of specific harm arising from the proposal either in isolation or cumulatively, I consider that any such operational risk – including that of safeguarding – would be adequately managed.

Given the above, the proposal would not, either individually or in combination with other schemes, alter perceptions of safety, stability and cohesion. The proposal would be consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) insofar as it would not result in crime and disorder, or the fear of crime, undermining the quality of life or community cohesion. The proposal would also not conflict with the intent of the Local Plan in providing mixed and balanced communities. Therefore, the overall residential character and cohesion of the street and wider area would be retained.

My attention has been drawn to a number of existing care uses or future similar changes of use within the local area, and I acknowledge that the proposal would result in the loss of a family dwelling. However, no substantive evidence has been presented that the change of use proposed would undermine the local housing mix, or the impact of such a change on the availability of similarly sized properties.

Whilst the city may have a significant need for housing more broadly, the number of care uses within the area that have been identified is not of such extent that the local housing mix would be fundamentally altered. In addition, both the Council and WCC identify an ongoing need locally for children’s residential care, which the appeal proposal would help meet. Furthermore, no substantive evidence is before me to suggest that the need for additional children’s care provision could be sufficiently met elsewhere. Given this, I cannot conclude the proposal would result in an adverse impact to local housing mix.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would be suitably located, with particular regard to community character and cohesion and housing mix. The proposal would comply with [name] 17, SWDPR 28 and SWDPR 47 of the Local Plan. Amongst other matters, these policies identify that development proposals should create a safe and secure environment, integrate effectively with its surroundings, and in broad terms are supportive of community facilities subject to certain considerations.

The children’s home would host up to 4 children, with typically 2 carers on site working in shift patterns. Care staff handovers would typically take place every few days between late morning and early afternoon. Other professionals and parents would visit the site less regularly.

Whilst the pattern of staff movement would not be identical to that of a dwellinghouse, there would nevertheless be a small number of care staff at the children’s home at any one time. Staff movements would typically take place during daytime hours, and there would likely be some flexibility as to changeover time during the day. Given this, alongside the less frequent visits by other professional staff, the patterns of comings and goings would not be of such difference that it would disturb residents when compared to existing movements associated with other dwellings in the close.

[name] have not been provided with full details as to the location of other similar nearby uses or their associated staff movements, movements associated with care uses outside the close are likely to be imperceptible to residents when set against typical day-to-day movements on the wider network. [name] acknowledge there is existing care provision on the street, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that comings and goings of staff associated with this provision are materially different to the appeal proposal, or that these stand out against other residential movements. Therefore, the proposal would not, either in isolation or cumulatively, result in a pattern of comings and goings that would be harmful to the living conditions of existing residents.

I acknowledge the possibility, as raised by a number of interested parties, that future occupants could result in noise and disturbance audible to nearby properties, or result in visits by emergency services. Evidence is also before me to suggest that emergency services visits may have occurred at a nearby property where care was provided. However, I consider it equally likely that such events could also result from future occupants of the building were it to remain as a dwellinghouse. In the case of the appeal scheme, professional staff would also be onsite and available to manage any difficulties, were they to arise, which would not be the case for a residential use. As such, the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of existing occupants when compared to the current situation.

[name] have been directed to a dismissed appeal at [address], Darfield1, on the evidence before me the change of use proposed would have seen a greater number of staff present on site when compared to the scheme before me. I equally do not have evidence before me as to the likely frequency of visits of other professional staff considered at that appeal. Consequently, I cannot draw a direct comparison between the two appeals and as such this has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this issue.

Therefore, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. There would be no conflict with the requirements of the Framework to deliver a high standard of amenity. The proposal would comply with Policy SWDPR 28 of the Local Plan insofar as this requires development proposals to provide acceptable amenity.

Whilst the Council identified that Policy SWDPR 06 of the Local Plan was of relevance to the appeal, this policy relates to matters of highway safety and sustainable modes of travel. Neither the highways authority nor the Council have raised an objection to the proposal on these grounds. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to this policy, it has not been determinative to my decision.

Interested parties have raised concerns with regards the effect of the proposal on highway safety, external appearance, previous works to the property, refuse and waste, fire safety, the proximity of nearby facilities and services, the identity, experience and past performance of the future operator of the care home, and the proposed management arrangements when operational. The Council and statutory consultees such as the highways authority and WCC have not raised objections in these particular regards, and following my site visit and on the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree. Equally, whilst reference has been made to potential future applications, these are purely hypothetical at this stage and do not alter my assessment of the proposal.

My attention has been drawn to a dismissed appeal at [address], Huddersfield2. However, on the evidence before me this related to the safeguarding of children at that proposed care home due to existing levels of crime and disorder in that local area, rather than the matter of the cumulative impact of children’s homes or similar care provision that is before me in this appeal. As such, that appeal has not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

I acknowledge comments from an interested party that WCC is seeking to increase the number of foster carers across the County. Nevertheless, both WCC and the Council have also identified an ongoing need for additional children’s homes. The need for additional foster places does not alter my conclusions on the appeal. 1 APP/R4408/W/25/3368889 2 APP/Z4718/W/24/3356783

The evidence before me indicates there is a covenant on the land which prevents it being used other than as a private dwelling, alongside certain other restrictions. However, the presence of a covenant is a separate matter of civil law and does not alter my findings with regards the planning merits of the appeal. Equally, although comments have been made with regards the effect of the proposed development on local house prices, Planning Practice Guidance sets out that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, rather than the protection of purely private interests such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s age or disability. Wider planning considerations are paramount but nevertheless the particular effects of the proposed development in this location is a matter to which I give moderate weight in assessing the proposals. I acknowledge that interested parties have raised concerns relating to the potential effects of the proposal on the elderly or those with disabilities, 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 who share a protected characteristic, and would not therefore disproportionately affect such persons.

Both parties have recommended a number of planning conditions to be imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed. I have assessed the suggested conditions with reference to the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended the wording of some, and combined provisions of others, without altering their fundamental aims.

Alongside the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

I have imposed conditions requiring the provision of parking, and the provision of the access and its surfacing in a bound material, to ensure the development does not result in an adverse impact upon highway safety.

Whilst the location of the cycle storage is identified on the plans, full details have not been submitted. In light of this, alongside comments from the [name] with regards the potential use of the garage as an alternative when all parking spaces are in use, I have imposed a condition requiring the submission and implementation of full details of cycle storage to ensure that the availability of alternative modes of transport is prioritised.

I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the submitted management plan in the interests of ensuring local character is preserved, protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and the safeguarding of future residents. As details are set out in the management plan, it is not necessary to refer to specific aspects of it within the condition itself.

To ensure the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are not adversely affected, I have imposed a condition limiting the use to a children’s residential care home within use class C2. As the management plan includes details with regards care provision, and details with regards the number and ages of looked after children, it is not necessary for these to be included within the condition. Equally, for the same reason it is not necessary to condition a requirement for a staff member to be onsite at all times, as this is also secured via compliance with the management plan.

Whilst the appellant identifies that they consider it would not be appropriate to include a condition which would place limits on age restrictions – which is secured by the condition requiring compliance with the appellant’s submitted management plan – planning permission has been sought for a specified age range and I do not have substantive evidence before me to suggest that the implications for the number of staff and related movements would be the same for a different age range. As such, I consider that securing this matter through compliance with the management plan is reasonable and necessary given the evidence before me.

Whilst at application stage the Council’s landscape officer suggested a condition requiring additional planting, given the limited extent of the works proposed I do not consider the removal of the front boundary wall and planting to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, I do not consider a condition on this matter to be necessary.

The proposed development would accord with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: SDC . 01 . 25 Existing /[name], Elevations and [name].

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the means of access for vehicles including kerb works has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and surfaced in a bound material. The access as constructed shall thereafter be retained.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with drawing no SDC . 01 . 25. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of cycle storage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the cycle storage retained thereafter.

The use of the development hereby permitted shall at all times be carried out in accordance with the Management Plan dated 7th July 2025.

The premises shall be used as a residential care home for children and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 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).