Appeal 6004562

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of use of dwelling (Class C3) to a 5 bed family assessment centre ([name]) at [site address] , Bedfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application reference CB/25/03110/FULL, subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by Bold Bespoke Families Limited against Central Bedfordshire Council. The application is the subject of a separate decision.

The existing plans (reference AD-00-00) submitted with the proposal, show the property to have an existing double integral garage. Whilst not part of the description of development, the proposal plans (reference AD-01-00) show the integral garage to be used as a holistic therapy room, with the garage doors replaced with windows. On my site visit I saw that the replacement of the garage door with windows had taken place.

The block plan (reference AD-OS [name]) submitted with the proposal, shows parking across the majority of the front garden. On my site visit I saw that the hardstanding that formed the driveway had been extended in line with that proposed on the block plan in order to provide more parking area.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character of the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, noise and disturbance; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to suitable pedestrian access and the provision of internal and external living space.

Properties along the immediate section of [address] are detached, but otherwise vary in size, appearance and plot formation. The lane is towards the edge of the village with a prevailing character of domestic tranquillity that is reliant on typical domestic vehicular movements, irregular comings and goings, and limited background noise.

The appeal development seeks to change the use of the house to a family assessment centre comprising five bedrooms which would house five parent(s) with infants. Additionally, there would be two staff in attendance, health visitors arriving once a week, along with cleaners twice a week and social workers once every four to six weeks. Food and delivery take-aways will be limited to one per family per week and two visits per family each week. Whilst it can be expected that visiting staff and family would come by car, the residents would rely on a designated vehicle for transport to and from the site.

Whilst the proposal would result in different people residing at [address]. This would include comings and goings of family members as well as deliveries and possible domestic and care support staff. This repeated cycle of arrivals and departures scheduled across days, weeks and months, would not have a frequency or cumulative impact that would change the established residential character of the area. Nore would the arrival and departure of the limited number of residents, staff, deliveries and visitors constitute intensification of the site which would result in [address] feeling greatly different from how it currently functions.

Physically, the appearance of the site would be little altered. The existing changes to the former garage and driveway have assimilated with the other properties in the lane and I am mindful that paraphernalia associated with its proposed use would not be automatically generated. Any such incidental paraphernalia would likely be typical in a residential area and would not harmfully affect its character.

In making my decision my attention has been drawn to an application for a [name] at [address], [name] (CB/23/02215/FULL). Whilst the Council has stated consistency in resisting similar cases, this is not determinative on matters of character in [address], [site address] where the surrounding character is different.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character of the surrounding area. As such, I find no conflicts with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) (Local Plan) which requires, amongst other matters, for development to enhance or reinforce the local distinctiveness of the area.

The appeal sites rear garden is surrounded by three domestic gardens, namely 23 and [address] (either side) and [address] (to the rear). Two of the five bedrooms in the appeal property would have rear facing windows at first floor, and a further attic bedroom would have roof lights to the rear and an obscure gable end window towards No 27.

On my site visit I entered the property and saw that from the second floor attic bedroom, the angle of the roof lights made it difficult to dwell by them and gain views into neighbouring properties. From first floor rear facing bedroom windows, only views towards the rear parts of the gardens to No 23 and No 27 could be gained. Views across much of the rear garden of No 7 was possible, including areas close to the house and much of the rear elevation of the house itself.

The property is well spaced from its neighbours on a generous plot and the position of these existing bedroom windows are appropriately distanced from these neighbours. I find that these bedroom windows generally afford limited overlooking and this would not change with the proposed new use where these would remain as bedrooms.

Future occupants would reside at [address] and 24 weeks and would therefore not have a fleeting residency, but time to establish themselves. As such, with this degree of permanence, these future occupiers would utilise ground floor living spaces and not be confined to their bedrooms. Therefore, I find it unlikely that future occupants would dwell in bedrooms and as such there could be no perceived overlooking to neighbours, over and above incidental actual overlooking.

Future occupants would both individually and in combination have access to the garden and this would not be limited only to warmer weather. Nonetheless, I do not find that this is solely a consideration of numbers that would automatically generate noise and disruption to neighbouring residents. The garden would be used for incidental recreational purposes, much like the garden of a domestic house, and would not habitually generate unreasonable noise.

It is not possible to assume what is a cohesive pattern of occupation of a typical household. As such a comparison between the proposed use and that of a large, multi-generational household for a property of this size is not an unreasonable benchmark to consider matters of impact. As set out above, this house could accommodate a large multigenerational family, including possibly a number of children that would make use of the garden. Use of gardens is typically infrequent and very occasional periods of more intensive use can only be expected in a residential area already.

As set out above, there will be a sequence of comings and goings of residents and staff. During the day staff handovers would be at 08:00 and 20:00 and therefore when residents in the wider area might also expect to have visitors and staff/care support. The rotation of these comings and goings would largely be spread throughout the day, week and months and would not generate noise or disturbance that would be any greater than many other properties in the area. The noise from staff would be limited to vehicular movements and car doors closing and engines being switched on. Again, this would not be at unreasonable times of the day or generate significantly unreasonable noise that would typically be experienced in a residential area such as [address].

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy, noise and disturbance. As such, it complies with Policy HQ1 of the Local Plan which requires, amongst other matters, for development to not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon nearby existing or permitted uses, including impacts on amenity, privacy and noise.

The site is towards the end of the majority of housing in [address], which is a no-through lane, and is devoid of a footpath in the vicinity of the appeal site. There is a 30mph speed limit and a designated footpath starts further along in the direction of the village. Within the appeal property there would be five bedrooms (three with en-suites) and a shared bathroom, on the first floor and within the roof space. At ground floor there would be a shared kitchen, communal lounge and separate holistic therapy room, along with staff office spaces. To the rear is a conventional domestic garden surrounded by privacy fencing.

Future occupants would leave the property with infants on foot and share the carriageway with other road users. This would be no different to the established pattern of pedestrian movement from the appeal property and its immediate neighbours. With traffic limited to that serving a small number of properties beyond the site at the end of the lane, future occupiers are not considered to be any more vulnerable in terms of pedestrian movements than existing residents, when walking along the lane. Whilst this is not ideal, the future occupants will not be solely dependent on pedestrian movement and the number of individuals concerned is limited to a modest number of persons.

Internally, the shared domestic living space is generous and five parents with five infants would share two spacious living rooms and a large kitchen. Furthermore, all five bedrooms are two person bedrooms in which a parent and an infant could comfortably be expected to share. Considering the needs of parents with infants, there are sufficient bathroom facilities, with three parents having exclusive use of their own en-suite. Moreover, I noted on my site visit the generous quantum of circulation space which would ensure comfortable distance between residents and also from staff who would have discretely separate office space.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the [name] (NDSS) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to achieve well-designed places. [name] acknowledge that the NDSS are applicable to new dwellings, I find the standards a useful gauge with regards to the bedroom spaces, which when considered against the overall shared quantum of internal living space, would be adequate.

The garden is of a typical domestic size and proportion, being flat and accessible from the house. Considering the maximum of five parents and five infants and occasional visits, it would provide generous outdoor living space throughout the day.

The Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (2023) ([name]) sets out standards for garden spaces for domestic housing. The dimensions of the rear garden meet the requirements and are a useful guide for the quantum of outdoor living space for the proposed number of future occupants.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to pedestrian access and the provision of internal and external living space. As such, it complies with Policies HQ1 and T2 of the Local Plan which requires, amongst other matters, for development to comprise convenient safe access, inclusive design and promote healthy lifestyles through the design and layout.

In making my decision I have considered Paragraph 63 of the Framework which encourages the provision of, amongst other accommodation, ‘housing-with-care’ and ‘looked after children’. Furthermore, I have given considerable weight to the [name] on ‘Planning for accommodation for looking after children’ (2023) (WMS) which seeks for the planning system not to be a barrier to providing homes for the most vulnerable children in society.

Whilst concerns have been raised in connection with the absence of demand for a family assessment centre in this location, the demonstration of established need is not a requirement of the development plan or national policy. As such, whether the facility is in demand does not weigh materially for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusions on the main issues.

I acknowledge that neighbours and third parties including the Parish Council have raised a number of concerns including in respect of the lack of local facilities including healthcare provision and limited public transport. Further concerns over light pollution, poor lighting, a reduction in housing stock, risk of disturbances through police call-outs, a threat to community cohesion, cumulative impact with other institutional uses, flood risk, poor drainage, creation of commercial waste, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and the future need to modify the building were also raised.

There is no harm with regards these matters and therefore no dispute between the Council and appellant, and I have no substantive evidence before me that would lead to an alternative conclusion. In particular, there are concerns with regards to highway safety, parking, manoeuvring and other operational issues. It is asserted that the difference of opinion between the Council and the appellant in resolving highway matters leaves it open as a live planning concern. However, the Council chose not to object to or refuse the proposal on these matters. It is not for the appeal process to open up new issues following the Council’s decision. Instead, this matter could be overcome by the attachment of a suitably worded condition.

Concerns over the operational limit and assumptions about how the use would function on a day to day basis, including occupancy profile, visitor levels, vehicle ownership, shuttle use, deliveries and external professional visits have been raised. Again, this matter could be overcome by the attachment of a suitably worded condition.

The extent of security measures through CCTV, fire alarms and window restrictors are not measures for the quality of accommodation, but additional safeguards. Likewise, the need for staff does not call into question the suitability of the site for the proposed use, but is necessary to meet the users’ needs. Therefore, this weighs neither for nor against my conclusion on the main issues.

The Council has provided a list of 11 conditions that it suggests should be applied in the eventuality that the appeal was to be allowed. I have assessed those 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. A separate suggested condition relating to site management has been added.

In addition to requiring commencement within the relevant statutory period (1), I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to the relevant plans for certainty (2).

Conditions have been imposed to secure an Operating Management Plan and restricting the type of use, frequency and timing of movements and the number of occupants (3) and (4). These conditions are necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and to manage the site. A have imposed a condition to ensure sound highway access and suitably surfaced parking is secured (5) as well as cycle parking in the interest of highway safety and sustainable transport (6). In the interest of refuse collection I have imposed a condition (7) and finally, to mitigate the risk of flooding from the front forecourt I have also imposed a condition.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: BOL3044/1 (Site location plan); AD-0S [name] (Block plan) AD-01-00 (Proposed drawings).

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, and the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987, as amended, (or the equivalent provisions of any statutory instrument revoking, amending or re-enacting those Orders) the premises shall only be used as a family assessment centre for up to five parents and five infants up to the age of 16 months and for no other purpose.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, an Operating Management Plan (OMP) setting out occupancy profile, the frequency and number and timing of all staff and family visits, vehicle ownership and movements and storage of shuttle bus and its use, timeframe for deliveries and minimum, and maximum periods of occupation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The use hereby approved shall be operated in accordance with the OMP for as long as that use continues.

Notwithstanding plan reference AD-OS [name] (Block plan), the development shall not be occupied until details of:

a widened site access (for the avoidance of doubt, this shall be across the entire width of the frontage);

a visibility splays to the highway (for the avoidance of doubt, this shall include a visibility splay to the south side of the access including the right of way footpath and measuring 1.8m along the south boundary enclosure into the site from the highway / site boundary and free of any obstruction to visibility exceeding a height of 600mm above the adjoining footway level);

parking layout for 6 cars; and

surfacing material for the car parking area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, no gate shall be included across or within the submitted layout. The use of the development hereby approved shall not commence until the widened access, visibility splays and parking area have been constructed in accordance with the approved details and these features shall be retained thereafter with the parking area kept available at all times for the parking of cars.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the secure and covered parking of cycles on the site (including the internal dimensions of the cycle parking area, stands/brackets to be used and access thereto), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied or brought into use and thereafter retained for this purpose.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, details of a refuse collection point located at the site frontage and outside of the public highway and any visibility splays shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the development being brought into use and shall be retained thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, full details of surface water drainage, and management/ maintenance of surface water flood risk, from any increase in hardstanding area shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use until any surface water mitigation measures have been implemented in accordance with the approved details.