Appeal 6004012

The appeal is dismissed.

The description above has been taken from the application for planning permission form. Amended plans were submitted during the application process to show the home would be for a single child. The Council made its decision on this basis as shall I.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, noise and disturbance; and • whether the proposed development would be a suitable location for future occupiers, with particular regard to safeguarding.

The appeal site is a mid-terrace property, located on a residential cul-de-sac. There is one parking space to the front of the dwelling, which is a shared driveway with the adjoining property of No 26. The immediate surrounding uses are residential. [address] is accessed from the A57, named Kensington in this section. This is a busy road with public transport routes and has a wider range of uses, including commercial.

The proposed change of use of the property to a care home would result in a single bedroom for a child and two rooms for staff use for sleep ins and as an office. Two staff members at a time would work on a 48 hour rota, with a changeover at 11am. A manager would also be present at the property for part of the week. The driveway would provide a single parking space, which would likely be occupied by the company car associated with the property.

Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 3 [name] provides guidance on the size and type of property for care homes. This is to protect the amenities of immediate neighbours. The guidance advises that detached properties are most appropriate for care home use. It further adds that terraced houses will normally be inappropriate.

The shared driveway provides the only access to the front door of No 27. The layout of the dwellings means that this is in very close proximity to the ground floor habitable room window of the adjoining property.

The appellant contends that the comings and goings to the care home would not be materially different to a typical dwelling. Evidence has not been provided to me to confirm this, and neither can I limit or restrict these movements by a planning condition. The comings and goings at staff changeover would be busier than usual for a residential dwelling of this size. Whilst this is for a limited time period only, it would occur regularly.

There would also be additional comings and goings from the manager, day-to-day activities of the child and visitors to the property, including other professional staff involved with the child. In combination, these would exceed what would be typical for a residential dwelling of this size and would be particularly disturbing for residents in a quiet cul-de-sac location.

The appellant has not provided information regarding the total number of staff that would be employed at the care home. To allow for two members of staff on a 48- hour rota with time off, it is likely to be a larger number of people than would be resident in a typical dwelling of this size. This number of people and them being at the property on a transient basis means that they could be less familiar to neighbouring residents. Consequently, any comings and goings from the proposed use would be more noticeable and intrusive for the occupiers of No 26.

The proposed change of use would not introduce institutional features, would not negatively impact highway safety and would generally maintain the residential character of the area. These do not, however, overcome the harm identified above.

To conclude, the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, noise and disturbance. It would conflict with Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (adopted January 2022) (Local Plan) policies H7, UD2 and R1. Collectively, these seek to ensure development proposals do not have an adverse impact on residential amenity, ensure adequate privacy and require the impact of noise to not be significant.

The Council has raised concerns regarding the safeguarding and safety of the future children and young people residing at [address]. Concerns are not highlighted regarding any increase in crime, disorder or negative impact on community cohesion. Comments from [name] state that the appeal site is in an area for high crime and high risk, which is disproportionate compared to other areas. They also refer to the risk of future residents going missing, due to the location of the property in close proximity to public transport routes.

Whilst the area referred to by [name] is wider than the appeal site location, Kensington, which [address] is accessed from, is identified as a key demand street. There are other key demand streets identified, which are also in the vicinity of the appeal site. These comments are, therefore, specific to the locality and are a material consideration relevant to this case.

The appellant considers that OFSTED requirements will provide safeguards to manage the risk and safety of future occupiers. However, the Management Plan does not include specific details, for example, under which circumstances the child would be allowed to leave the property and whether this would be unaccompanied. It makes reference to risk assessments, but none are provided. Consequently, it has not been shown that the concerns highlighted by both the Council and [name] would be addressed by the way in which the children’s home would be operated.

To conclude, the proposed development would not be a suitable location for future occupiers, with particular regard to safeguarding. It would conflict with Local Plan Policy STP2, which requires proposals to contribute towards the creation, improvement or maintenance of healthy, safe, sociable and inclusive communities.

The appellant has made reference to recent appeal decisions for other children’s residential care in urban areas, however, has not provided specific details and so I cannot be certain that these are comparable. In any case, I am required to assess this appeal on the basis of its own merits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.