Appeal 6005470

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was not determined by the Council within the statutorily prescribed 8-week timeframe. As such, following the submission of an appeal it falls to me to determine whether planning permission should be given.

The council has identified, in its Statement of Case, that had it determined the proposal it would have refused the scheme due to the resultant loss of the four-bed dwelling and its effect on the living conditions of [address] (No 40).

Accordingly, in consideration of the Council’s Statement of Case and the other evidence before me, I conclude that the main issues in dispute are: • The effect of the development on the availability of family sized dwellings in the area, and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 40 with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The property of [site address] is a four-bedroom semi-detached dwelling within a residential area. The proposed change of use would result in the loss of the family dwelling and replace it with facility offering respite care services. The proposed use would provide short-term accommodation and care for up to 5 children and young people (aged between zero and 25-years) with learning and physical disabilities. The facility would include 24-hour staff coverage, with a small staff team including overnight care.

Policy DM12 of the Birmingham Development Plan Document (DPD) relates to residential conversions and specialist accommodation. This does not preclude the use of semi-detached properties but includes a range of criteria that must be met to enable such development to be supported. Of relevance to this appeal, subsection a) requires development to not lead to an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of the area and part e) requires development to not result in the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to the Council’s objectives, strategies and policies.

Furthermore, policy TP35 of the Birmingham Development Plan [2017](BDP), with regard to the Council’s housing stock, explains that it seeks to make best use of its existing housing stock. It seeks to do this through improving the condition of older stock, preventing the loss to other uses and by bringing vacant properties back into use. The policy explains that the loss to other uses will be resisted unless there are good planning justifications or an identified social need for the proposed use.

The Council’s Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (HEDNA) [2022] demonstrates that the City’s housing provision is not meeting its needs with respect to the delivery of three and four, or more, bedroom dwellings. It also shows that the City is over providing single-person households, reinforcing the urgent need to retain the City’s existing housing stock. Consequently, the retention of family housing is of particular importance to the Council and the identified policies, and the Assessment, provide a strong reason to resist the proposed change of use.

The appellant suggests that the HEDNA also identifies a need for the proposed use but has not directed me to where such support is provided. However, under ‘specialist housing need’, at paragraph 11.43, the document identifies that there is an estimated need for 4,159 additional dwellings to provide support or care across the study area. Nonetheless, the study area covers the jurisdiction of 14 Council’s and therefore this only shows a generic need. Also, a letter submitted by the appellant from [name] trust demonstrates only a general need for a greater number of residential homes for children, which focusses on Sandwell and its neighbouring boroughs. Therefore, there is no demonstrable need for a care home in the area, or district.

There may be conflicting objectives identified through the HEDNA, where there is a need to address the shortage of care homes in the HEDNA study area, but so too are measures to secure the retention of family housing. These objectives need not be mutually exclusive and buildings in other use and/or new development, could also be used to meet the care home need. In any event, the evidence does not provide an identified social need for the proposed use at the appeal site which would patently result in the loss of a family dwelling.

Furthermore, the Council’s Adult Commissioning Team has objected to the proposal and questioned whether the proposed care home would be fit for purpose. Concerns include the range of ages of people able to be accommodated at the facility, an absence of staff facilities and inadequate details with respect to noise control, safeguarding and security. Whilst these comments are not central to my assessment of the merits of the case, as the operation of the care home would be governed by other legislation, these concerns erode the moderate support given for such facilities through the HEDNA.

Although the appellant asserts that the proposal would retain a domestic function, it would result in the loss of a building that could otherwise be occupied by a family. The appellant suggests that individual occupiers would only stay at the property for short periods and that the proposal would not result in the permanent loss of a family dwelling. However, the proposal is not sought for a temporary period and, as such, the effect of an approval would be to permanently change the use of the property.

Accordingly, the proposal would result in the loss of a family dwelling where insufficient planning justification has demonstrated that an identified social need for the care home use exists. As such, the proposal would conflict with DPD policy DM12 and BDP policy TP35, whose objectives have been set out above.

The appeal site is at the end of a row of houses providing a degree of separation from most immediate neighbours. Its frontage can accommodate at least 4 cars and it has a private garden to its rear, with separate rear access. It is alongside [name] and a trail route through the associated woodland. As such, the site is adjacent to the perimeter of a housing estate. The use would retain many domestic functions which would generally be in keeping and consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area.

Care at the facility would be provided in a structured manner. The submission illustrates that typical staffing levels would include up to 3 daytime staff and 2 night-time staff. Although, if care is needed to be provided for young people/babies, I would expect staff member numbers would need to increase. The building would be occupied by 5 users, at least three supervising adults and visiting specialists. This would create a level of activity that would exceed that which would normally be associated with a typical residential use. Consequently, the proposed activity would cause a moderate adverse impact on the area’s residential character.

Furthermore, the proposed development would be adjacent to a semi-detached family dwelling, and its driveway access would pass in front of No 40. As such, and despite access to the rear garden also being separately available, the commercial elements of the use could cause adverse impacts on the living conditions of No 40 through the regular arrival and departure of staff and vehicles. Also, the temporary nature of occupiers would form a transient population, where adult users may regularly come and go, exacerbating any noise and disturbance issues.

The appellant suggests that structured daily routines, supervision and care arrangements would be in place to minimise noise and disturbance. The appellant also explains that no external shouting, loud music or outdoor disruption would be permitted. Nonetheless, this may be hard to manage on a practical basis. As a result, on site supervision would not necessarily address excessive noise created in the house, the garden or when staff and users arrive or leave the home. Moreover, it is also unclear how the age range of people proposed to be accommodated in the house would be managed. For example, the proposed use would provide care for babies and adults. It is assumed that adults (aged between 18-25) would be allowed to come and go as they please. There are limited details as to the type of care offered, for such a broad age range of ages, in the submission. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied that the associated activity would not cause substantial noise and disturbance.

Consequently, the proposed use would include commercial activities and provide care for an extremely broad age-range of people. This would be likely, in combination, to cause unacceptable noise and disturbance to the neighbouring occupiers of No 40. As a result, the proposal would conflict with DPD policies DM2 and DM12 and principle 13 of the Council’s Design Guide [2023]. These seek, among other matters, for development to ensure new development does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing residential properties.

The proposed use would provide short term respite accommodation for children and young people who require support due to learning difficulties, physical disabilities and/or complex but manageable care needs. This provides families with planned emergency respite, supports independence for users and provides a calm, homely environment consistent with a residential setting. In my assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the wellbeing of future users of the facility, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

Given the nature of the Appellant’s intended market, the group targeted as suitable users of the facility share a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED. I have therefore afforded greater weight to the needs of this group as required by the PSED. The proposal would provide mental and physical health benefits and provide social and emotional support to members within this protected characteristic.

Consequently, the proposed use would advance the equality of opportunity, and foster good relations for a group of persons, within a protected characteristic and would provide specialist accommodation that would meet the requirements of a protected group. Moreover, if the proposal is found to not be acceptable this would deny such users from gaining access to such a facility. Accordingly, the benefits of the proposal through assisting in meeting the needs of a protected group, weigh in favour of the proposal.

Nonetheless, whilst being offered as suitable accommodation, I see no compelling reason why it would need to occupy an existing dwelling or be within the proposed location. As such, the social benefits of the facility, even having applied greater weight, weigh only moderately in favour of the proposal.

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. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.