Appeal 6004375

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the change of use of dwelling (Use Class C3) to residential children's home for up to 4No children aged between 7 - 18 and 3No day-time staff and 1No night-time staff working on a rota basis (Use Class C2) at [site address] , Winbrook, Bewdley, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0733/FUL, subject to the conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule.

The description of the application in the application form was altered by the Council without consulting the appellant. However, the appellant has confirmed that no objection is raised to the revised description used in the Council’s decision notice. Since that description aptly describes the proposal, I have adopted it for the purposes of the appeal.

The proposal drew objection and comment from many local residents at application stage. The officer report to Planning Committee is comprehensive and deals with many of the issues raised including parking; highway safety; the principle of the proposed use; fear of crime; noise and disturbance and possible anti-social behaviour. The Council does not support most of the objections raised.

It acknowledges the need for children’s homes of this nature within the district, and points to governmental policy support; indeed, in its appeal documentation it points to the availability of other dwellings on the market, within residential areas, which may be suitable for the use. The Council’s accordingly does not dispute the principle of the use; rather its objections are limited and site-specific, and these are reflected in the main issue identified below.

The site adjoins the Bewdley Conservation Area (CA). In determining the application, members of the Planning Committee did not disagree with the officer view that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the CA or its setting. I share that view for the same reasons as set out in the officer report.

This is the adequacy of the external amenity space proposed and the effects of its use on the living conditions of the residents of neighbouring properties with specific reference to privacy.

The appeal property is a detached 5 bedroomed dwelling set out on three floors. It stands on Winbrook (B4190) which leads westwards from the town centre. A detached dwelling, [address], stands to the east, and several short terraces of relatively modern townhouses are sited westwards. The opposite frontage is verdant and undeveloped.

There is a separate garage, to be used for cycle parking, whilst the area to the front of the dwelling would be used for parking. Open areas for amenity purposes are available behind the garage at ground floor level and just outside the first floor accommodation, near the boundary with [address]. More amenity space is available to the rear of the dwelling. However, this is steep and terraced, being served with steps leading to a modestly sized flat platform at the top of the slope. A fenced roof terrace is also available outside one of the upper floor bedrooms, accessed from the garden by means of a short set of steps.

The Council has no published standards relating to the provision of external amenity spaces for uses of the type proposed. Instead, it relies principally on the guidance and advice provided in its SPDs1 relating to garden proportions for dwellings and how lack of outdoor amenity space or accessibility to nearby public open space may affect the health of housing occupants.

The total area of external amenity space well exceeds that considered acceptable under the terms of the Council’s SPD for a 3 bedroomed house2. There is no requirement or guidance that the space provided should be entirely flat or lawned or entirely accessible to children or not planted. However, the Council takes the view that the different parts of the external area in the appeal property are constrained for various reasons and are unsuitable for use by children for practical or safety reasons. The Council also contends that access to the Town’s public play and recreational areas would prove difficult if not potentially dangerous given the nature of surrounding streets and traffic.

It appears to me however that the dwelling, being 5 bedroomed with generous internal spaces, could be appropriately described as a family house, in which case it could be reasonably be expected to accommodate children. Most of the external areas are in my view entirely suitable for use by children, and I noted that the flat area next to [address] appeared to be covered in a form of synthetic grass enabling it to be used all year, weather allowing.

I understand the Council’s misgivings about the use by children of the steeper part of the garden, but I do not entirely share its concern. Judgments on safety aspects 1 Supplementary Planning Documents – Design, Amenity and [name] 2024 & Health and [name] 2023 2 The SPD contains no specific guidance for 5 bedroomed houses. within domestic environments are in my view best left to parents, if this were to remain a dwelling, or to the appellants, being those directly responsible for the children’s care. Given the proposed age range of the children involved, they should be able to safely negotiate a flight of steps.

I was in Bewdley first thing in the morning, and saw scores of children within the age group 7-18 walking to school. They were either alone, in small groups or accompanied by adults. Since it’s the appellants aim to integrate the children in care within the local community, some of the children attending the proposed home could reasonably be expected to attend local schools. If the streets and pavements of Bewdley are deemed acceptable to be used by the Town’s children to walk to school then, to my mind, no logical reason exists why they should be regarded as unsuitable to access local recreational and play facilities. In some cases, these are closer to the appeal property than the schools, and not unacceptably distant.

I note too that the appellants propose to use the orangery as an indoor amenity space, notwithstanding the presence of other communal space within the house. This would usefully serve some of the amenity needs of children, especially during inclement weather.

Given the sloping nature of the site, the corresponding levels of neighbouring property, and the general absence of screening one can currently see clearly into the rear gardens of neighbouring properties from the upper levels of the appeal site. The extent of overlooking with [address] is mutual, since the boundary between the properties is largely open.

Of particular concern to the Council is the roof terrace and its possible future use by children. However, it is already accessed by the dwelling’s residents – I saw several planted pots set out on the terrace which would need maintenance and watering during the summer. Accordingly, the privacy interests of the residents of [address] and the town houses on the other side of the appeal property are already compromised. The proposed use would not make matters materially different for neighbouring residents with regards to privacy and could be improved by the adoption of screening.

I conclude that the external amenity areas of the property would acceptably serve the needs of future residents of the proposed home without materially affecting the privacy of neighbouring residents. Accordingly, no material conflict arises with those provisions of policies SP20 & DM24 of the Wyre Forest District Local Plan directed to safeguarding the living conditions of neighbours, or with the thrust of the Council’s guidance and advice on external amenity areas contained in its SPDs.

I have already referred to the representations made by local residents and that many of their objections did not gain the Council’s support. I share the Council’s views on these matters for largely the same reasons, subject to the following comments.

Concerns are expressed on the nature of the use and possible impacts on local amenity. On the basis of the appellant’s submissions, there would be one resident child in a bedroom, and 3 members of staff who would be on site during the day. Another member of staff would be there at night.

This would therefore be a small scale care home, and the total number of people in the building would not be significantly different compared to its occupation as a family home. The residents’ needs are such that they would require regular, well-managed routines, and there would be staff on site with caring responsibilities and to oversee the home. Moreover, movements to and from it, which may include school runs, recreational visits, staff shift changes and visits by social workers and others, would not be markedly different compared to the movements generated by a 5 bed family dwelling.

Consequently, I consider that this small care home would not generate significantly more noise or disturbance compared to its use as a family dwelling. Given the site’s location within the Town, and the detached nature of the dwelling, this would be unlikely to result in nuisance.

Reference has been made to parking and highway issues. I attended the site visit by car and was able to park conveniently in the allocated parking area. There was sufficient space for four vehicles. The comments about possible reversing movements onto the highway are noted. However, I saw that the whole of the frontage for the townhouses to the west of the appeal site was dedicated to parking, which was largely occupied. Most vehicles had reversed from the highway into their parking spots, but others had not. I have not been made aware that the parking arrangements there have caused safety problems, and I see no reason why a far more modest parking arrangement, as proposed, should differ in this regard.

I was referred to a recent report by the [name], that of November 2025, in the context of a fear of possible crime and effects on residents. However, paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) sets out that the housing needs of different groups in the community should be assessed, including looked after children. The Council does not dispute the need for such accommodation in the locality, and I have seen no convincing evidence to suggest otherwise. I know of no government policy which seeks or advises local planning authorities to exclude looked after children from established local communities.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, but no other matter raised is of such or significance as to outweigh those considerations leading me to my conclusions.

The appeal is therefore to be allowed. The Council has suggested several conditions upon which the appellant has commented.

It is necessary that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and a condition to this effect is therefore imposed in the interests of certainty.

I have noted the appellant’s comments on aspects of the Council’s proposed conditions on management and security. However, I consider the requirement for such matters to be governed by condition to be necessary in the interests of certainty and local amenity, although the form of the condition imposed enables the parties to discuss and agree the final content of the details.

In the interests of amenity and certainty a condition clarifying the nature of the proposed use as suggested by the Council is imposed.

An additional condition is considered necessary to safeguard the privacy interests of neighbouring residents. This is in respect of boundary screening.

A further condition is necessary to ensure that the proposed parking area is retained.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]: HH01; HH02; HH03; HH04; HHO5; HH06; HH07; HH08 7 HH09.

Prior to the first occupation of the care home, a management plan and a scheme of any security measures proposed shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The care home shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with the approved management plan and security measures.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) the premises shall be used only as a children's care home for up to four children under the age of 18 and for no other purpose (including any other use falling within Class C2 of the Order).

Prior to the first occupation of the care home, a scheme of screening shall be completed in accordance with details previously submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority.

The approved parking area to the front of the property shall always be retained for that purpose.