Appeal 6005193

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of the Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to a Class C2 (residential institution) for a small-scale care home accommodating up to two 16-24 year old young people requiring personal or nursing care at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/01134/PA, subject to the following conditions:

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 drawing numbers: 2119 - 10, 100, 101 and 102.

No more than two young people aged 16 to 24 shall be in residence at the property at any time.

Prior to the first Class C2 use of the property, covered bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in accordance with the [name]. Those spaces shall thereafter be retained.

The proposal is for the change of use of the property from Class C3 (dwellinghouse) of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) to Class C2 (residential institution).

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would result in the loss of a dwelling suitable as family accommodation and, if so, whether it would have an adverse effect on the maintenance of balanced communities with accommodation to meet local needs, Appeal Decision: 6005193 and lead to an over-concentration of non-family residential uses to the detriment of local character; and • the effect of the proposal on nearby occupiers’ living conditions, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

Policy TP35 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 (‘BDP’) seeks to make best use of the city’s existing stock of dwellings. It says that the loss of housing which is in a good condition to other uses will only be permitted if there are good planning justifications, or if there is an identified social need for the proposed use.

Policy DM12 of the Development Management in [name] 2021 (‘DMB’) states that the conversion of properties into specialist accommodation, which includes care homes and supported accommodation, will be supported where it complies with various criteria. This includes at a) that it will not lead to an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity and character of an area taking into account cumulative impacts, and at e) that it will not result in the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to the Council’s objectives, strategies and policies.

The Council maintains that, should the appeal be allowed, 12.5% of properties within a 100m radius of the site would be occupied either as houses in multiple occupation or as ‘supported exempt accommodation’. This, it says, would be an unacceptable over-concentration of non-family dwellinghouses to the detriment of the area’s character, and to the maintenance of balanced communities with an appropriate supply of family accommodation.

In support of that stance, it references the [name] and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2022, which shows that housing completions city-wide have been dominated by one and two bedroom units and that, having regard to its [name] 2023-2038, 45.6% of households on the housing register need three or more bedrooms, and that there has been a significant loss of privately rented family homes.

The appeal site comprises a three bedroom semi-detached house in a predominantly residential area, which has off-road parking to the front and a large private rear garden. As such, I have no doubt that it is suitable as a family home or, having regard to the evidence above, that there is a need for such accommodation within the city.

That said, in its consultation response dated 9 July 2025, Birmingham Children’s Trust (‘BCT’) confirms that there is also a need for small care homes, and that the proposal would be broadly in line with its strategy which seeks to place such homes within the community to enable residents to remain within Birmingham where it is safe and in the young person’s best interests. Moreover, having regard to DMB paragraphs 4.27 to 4.35, a strong and sustainable community responds to the needs of all its residents, and the provision of safe environments for vulnerable residents remains a priority within the city.

Additionally, whilst the Council refers to an over-concentration of non-family uses in the immediate area, as pointed out by the appellant, there is no policy support for Appeal Decision: 6005193 using a 10% figure within a 100m as a threshold; and it is unclear from the evidence what ‘supported exempt accommodation’ includes.

Thus, set against the loss of a dwelling suitable for families, the scheme would provide safe specialist accommodation for vulnerable residents for which there is also an identified social need.

The property’s occupation by a maximum of two young people aged 16 to 24 could be secured by a planning condition. I understand that the residents would typically be on long term placements, and requiring personal or nursing care, that visits would be supervised and routines structured, and that continuous care and management would be provided by up to two staff members, working twelve hour shifts with anticipated changeovers at 07:30 and 19:30.

Given that no external changes to the property are proposed, and as the total number of persons present at any one time would be broadly similar to a typical family home, and that there would be a high level of supervision, I am not persuaded that the scheme would have a significant discernible impact on the character of the local area.

I do not have details of the schemes allowed on appeal which are referred to at paragraph 7.10 of the Council’s officer report. However, for the above reasons, this scheme would not have a harmful impact on the maintenance of balanced and sustainable communities, including accommodation which meets the city’s needs, or a harmful impact on the character of the local area.

It would not therefore conflict with BDP Policy TP35 and DMB Policy DM12, or with Policy PG3 which requires new development to contribute to a strong sense of place and reinforce local distinctiveness. Neither would it conflict with the stance at paragraphs 61 and 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) that the needs of different groups in the community, some with specific housing requirements, should be met.

Given visits by parents and professionals, and staff shift patterns, the frequency and timings of comings and goings could be different compared to a typical family home. However, the total number of people in the property at any one time would be broadly similar. Moreover, although the property has a parking forecourt, the area is also accessible by public transport, and some of those visits may be on foot or by bicycle, thus limiting noise from vehicular traffic, or from the closing of car doors. The anticipated shift changeovers would not be at unsociable times.

Although DMB Policy DM12 states that specialist accommodation is normally most appropriately located in large detached properties in their own grounds, that stance does not appear to be entirely consistent with the representation from BCT. [name] have considered representations by interested parties, including a consultation response from [name], which details a high service demand from its neighbourhood team, I have no evidence that the proposed Class C2 use, which would be managed and supervised, would result in greater security concerns or greater antisocial behaviour compared to the existing Class C3 use. As confirmed by the appellant and BCT the proposed home would also be inspected by a regulator. Appeal Decision: 6005193

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not generate significantly greater noise or disturbance compared to the property’s use as a dwelling, and that it would not have a harmfully adverse effect on adjacent or nearby occupiers’ living

It would not therefore conflict with those parts of [name] DM2 and DM12, which set out that development shall not have an unacceptable adverse impact on amenity, having regard to matters such as noise, safety and compatibility with adjacent uses; nor with the similar stance in the [name], or with the Framework’s requirement to ensure a high standard of amenity for all users.

As set out in the Planning Practice Guidance1, in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, and the protection of purely private interests such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property is not a material consideration.

Whilst the parking forecourt is small, and on-street parking is limited, this is a reasonably sustainable location where there are alternative transport modes to the private car, and I agree with the view expressed by the [name] that the scheme, at this small scale, does not raise significant highway safety concerns.

I have found that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the maintenance of a balanced community where the needs of all residents are met, that it would preserve local character, and that it would not have a harmfully adverse impact on nearby and adjacent occupiers’ living conditions.

I have considered suggested conditions against the Framework’s tests. As well as the standard time limit, in the interests of certainty, a condition is necessary requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In the interests of certainty, and for the reasons set out in my decision, a condition is also necessary limiting the number of residents to two persons aged 16 to 24 years old.

To promote more sustainable transport alternatives to the private car, I have imposed a condition requiring the provision of appropriate bicycle storage facilities.

Finally, whilst the Council has suggested a condition stating that the property shall be occupied only as supported living accommodation, it has not provided a detailed justification for that requirement, or an explanation as to why other Class C2 uses, or uses permitted by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), would be harmful. I have not therefore imposed that condition.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.