Appeal 6005058

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from C3 dwelling to C2 Children's care home at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 25/00386/COU, subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would meet an identified need for children’s residential care facilities in the Borough. • the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family housing; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to the fear of crime, anti-social behaviour, and noise and disturbance.

The strategy for all types of housing in the Council area is set out in Policy 11 of the Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan (2019) (Local Plan). It supports specialist care accommodation but requires proposals to demonstrate amongst other things how they contribute to achieving identified needs. Housing needs are set out within the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA). There is no dispute that the HEDNA does not identify a need for children’s accommodation within the Borough.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) supports the needs of groups with specific housing requirements. However, although there is a need for such accommodation within the wider Leicestershire area, I have little evidence to suggest a need for additional bed spaces within children’s homes in the Council area. Whether this may change in the future, such that further bed spaces are required within the Borough, is not a consideration within the policy. As such future demand is not determinative to this proposal with regards to current need.

I note the County Council’s statutory duty under the 1989 Children Act. Moreover, I acknowledge its strategic approach to managing the homing of children through the [name] Position & [name] 2024-27, as well as the recent numbers of children in care across the county. As a result, children are frequently placed across boundaries of local authorities, sometimes in response to emergencies. Even so, the policies of the Local Plan do not include a responsibility for demand beyond the local authority area, only local need and or demand within that area. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that there is a need, within the Borough, for a children’s care home for three children.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not meet an identified need for children’s residential care facilities in the Borough. As such it conflicts with Policy 11 of the Local Plan.

Policy 2 of the Local Plan sets out the approach to delivering housing. It identifies housing targets which the Council have stated have increased in the review plan (2025) as well as in the Local Housing Need (2025) document and the HEDNA. In conjunction with Policy 11, which seeks to contribute a mix of dwelling types and tenure, they aim to set out and meet future housing objectives across the Oadby and Wigston area.

The appeal site currently comprises a four-bedroom house and contributes to the family housing stock within the Borough. The proposal would result in the loss of property from the housing market. Despite the overarching intension of the Local Plan to increase the housing numbers in the Borough, Policy 2 does not explicitly safeguard individual houses from changing use to alternative uses. Furthermore, there is little evidence before me that four-bedroom family housing in the local area is in short supply.

[name] note the challenge the Council faces in delivering housing, the appeal site comprises only one house. Despite any greater possible cumulative effects, I must consider the proposal before me against the policies as worded.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision at No [address], Wigston1, which is within the Council area. However, that case involved the loss of a bungalow for which there is a particular identified need. The proposal before me is not a bungalow but a two-storey dwelling. Therefore, I can draw little direct comparison with the proposal before me in respect of this issue.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the supply of family housing. As such, there is no conflict with Policies 2 and 11 of the Local Plan which requires, amongst other matters, for the development needs of the Borough to be met including housing targets, but do not specifically resist the loss of existing dwellings. 1 APP/L2440/W/24/3355109

The appeal site comprises a detached house within a cul-de-sac on a housing estate in a suburban location that is generally tranquil. The proposal would include three children aged 8-16 years old receiving full time care by six adults over the age of 18. The ratio of care is high and constant over a 24 hour period and would be provided by qualified staff.

The children that would be homed at this site would have emotional or behavioural difficulties. However, there is no substantive evidence to show that there would be disruption to the existing neighbouring occupiers and their enjoyment of their properties, over and above that which might occur from children forming part of a typical household. This is particularly the case given the relatively small size of the accommodation, and the high degree of supervision.

The Framework advocates places where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience. However, the Framework is focused on measures that can be taken through the design of the built environment.

Similarly, there is no evidence before me that demonstrates that the transitory nature of future occupiers would result in additional noise or disturbance to the local community. Nor is there any substantive evidence to suggest that their temporary residency would necessarily be linked to emergency care which would result in a greater propensity to have disruptive incidents or actions that would affect local residents.

The proposal may well result in additional comings and goings as well as parking and traffic flow in the immediate area. However, given the size of the proposal, the number of movements is likely to be relatively small. A planning condition can be used to ensure suitable management of movements of parking for staff and visitors, such as staggered change-over times, to minimise these effects.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not unduly harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to the fear of crime, anti-social behaviour, and noise and disturbance. As such, I find no conflict with Policy 6 of the Local Plan which, amongst other matters, relates to design and materials, rather than the fear of crime or noise and disturbance.

A Certificate of Lawfulness was granted in March 2025 for the use of the property for up to three children aged 8-16 years old receiving care by one 18+ adult. While the full details of the Certificate of Lawfulness are not before me, there is no dispute that this allows for the existing dwelling to accommodate the provision of care for three children by one carer. The appellant asserts that this is a fallback position that would have a high possibility of occurring if permission was refused.

The Council states that care by a single carer would not be practical even where a more limited degree of care would be required. However, I have little evidence to substantiate this position. As such, the Certificate of Lawfulness does establish a potential fallback position. The number and age of children would be the same and such a use would result in a similar conflict with Local Plan policy 11 as the proposal before me.

The proposal would result in a more intensive form of development than the fallback. However, I have already found that it would not result in harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers. Therefore, this does not provide a reason to prefer the lawful use over the proposal.

The submitted evidence refers to the proposed children’s home as being specifically for children with emotional and behaviour difficulties. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. In providing supported accommodation for those with the protected characteristics of age and potential disability, including those within the wider Leicestershire area and beyond, the proposal would have positive advantages. Other planning considerations are important but nevertheless I give significant weight to these benefits.

Concerns have been raised about the impact of the proposed use in combination with other children’s homes in the local area and setting a precedent. However, I have considered the proposal on its own merits.

The Council has provided a list of conditions in the eventuality that the appeal was to be allowed. I have assessed and where necessary amended these conditions, with reference to the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

I have imposed a condition requesting adherence to the relevant plans for certainty. In the interest of living conditions of nearby occupiers, and the safety and convenience of road users, I have imposed conditions limiting the number of occupiers to the maximum proposed, and requiring the submission of a scheme for the management of the occupation of the property.

I find that the fallback is possible and would cause similar conflict with planning policy as the proposal. Furthermore, its wider benefits outweigh the conflict with Policy 11 and the lack of identified need. Accordingly, despite the conflict with the Development Plan as a whole, there are material considerations which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, 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 drawing nos: • SSC/53FH/101 (Site and Location Plan); • SSC/53FH/104 ([name]); and • SSC/53FH/105 ([name]).

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, (or the equivalent provisions of any statutory instrument revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) the property shall only be used as a children’s care home for up to three children between the ages of 8 and 17 and up to six carers over the age of 18 at any one time, and for no other purpose.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the operation of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: • The level of care required by the occupants of the site; • A risk assessment for occupants of the site; • A management framework including the needs of occupants and mitigation measures to likely disturbances to neighbouring living conditions; • Management of visiting time and parking for visitors to the site, including those by professional support and family members of occupants; and • Management of parking on site for staff, including a shift changeover time. The use hereby approved shall be operated in accordance with the approved scheme for as long as the use hereby approved continues.