Appeal 6006184

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal in meeting local housing need; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to community safety and cohesion and noise and disturbance.

Policy 11 of the Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan 2011-2031 (adopted

(the Plan) states that all residential development must contribute towards delivering a mix of dwelling types, tenures and sizes that meet the identified needs (and / or demand) of the communities within the Borough. Furthermore, it states all new residential development proposals must demonstrate how they contribute to achieving the identified needs as set out within the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (2017) (HEDNA). Policy 11 also states that the Council will support the development of specialist care accommodation that meets an identified need and is proposed in appropriate sustainable locations.

Specialist care accommodation is included within Class C2 (residential institutions) of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). The proposal is located within an established residential area, where there is good access to surrounding services and facilities by a variety of transport modes. The parties agree that the proposal is in an appropriate sustainable location, and I concur.

I have been referred to recent appeal and planning decisions. I note that the appeal decisions, notwithstanding their individual circumstances, have interpreted the requirements of Policy 11 in differing ways. Appeal decision 3344109 found that Policy 11, when read as a whole, requires proposals for specialist accommodation to meet an identified need within the Borough. In contrast, decision 3336468 concluded that the policy does not specify that the identified need must be local. Decision 3344980 determined that the identification of a countywide need was sufficient, as this could potentially include children from within the Borough. [name] have not been provided with details regarding how the identified planning decisions (24/00358/FUL and 24/00309/FUL) interpreted the requirements of Policy 11, I note that they were determined following appeal decision 3344980.

Having regard to all those decisions, I find that Policy 11 must be read as a whole and, on that basis, the requirement for all residential development to contribute towards the delivery of a mix of dwelling types to meet the identified needs of communities within the Borough is determinative in this case.

The HEDNA makes no specific reference to Class C2 uses relating to the care of children. Consequently, other evidence is required to demonstrate a need for the proposal. The appellant has submitted documents produced by Leicestershire County Council’s (LCC) Children and [name], including a ‘[name] – [name] and [name] 2024-27’ (published in September 2024), an updated statement from 2025, and an extract from an LCC presentation dated April 2024. These documents set out how LCC intend to accommodate children looked after and the challenges it faces. In addition, a [name] ‘Planning for accommodation for looked after children’ (May 2023), Government statistics on children looked after in England (dated 2023), and the ‘Independent review of children’s social care’ ([name], May 2022), have been submitted. Collectively, this material demonstrates a general countywide and nationwide need for Class C2 uses relating to the care of children. However, it does not identify a need specific to communities within Oadby and Wigston Borough.

Furthermore, correspondence has been submitted from the Placements and [name] within [name] at Leicester City Council, together with correspondence from the [name] and [name] at LCC. While this material indicates a general need for such provision, it is unclear whether it relates specifically to Oadby and Wigston Borough. Moreover, the correspondence is not fully dated and it is therefore uncertain whether it reflects current needs.

The Council has submitted an email from the [name] within [name] and [name], dated April 2026, which confirms that there are currently no children from Oadby and Wigston Borough awaiting placement in a children’s residential home. This information relates specifically to Oadby and Wigston Borough and is clearly dated, representing the most up-to-date evidence before me.

Thus, on the basis of all the evidence before me, the need for the proposed use within Oadby and Wigston Borough has not been identified. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy 11 of the Plan, the requirements of which, amongst other things, seek to ensure proposals such as the appeal scheme demonstrably meet the identified needs of communities within the Borough.

Furthermore, the proposal would result in the loss of a Class C3 dwelling from the existing housing stock. Policy 2 of the Plan, and the emerging evidence on local housing needs supporting a review of the Plan, identifies a significant need for additional housing within the Borough.

I have noted comments that the proposal should be regarded as ‘housing’ and would therefore not result in a reduction in housing stock. However, the evidence before me demonstrates that there is no identified need within the Borough for the proposed use, whereas there is a clear and significant identified need for Class C3 housing.

Consequently, on the basis of the evidence before me, I find the proposal would not meet local housing need. It would therefore conflict with Policy 2 of the Plan which, amongst other things, seeks to meet the housing needs of the Borough.

The proposal would provide accommodation for one child and two professional carers. The child in care would be aged between 8 and 18 years. The accommodation would be staffed on a 24-hour basis operating on a shift system with morning and evening changeovers. There would also be occasional visits from professionals and family members.

I note the comments in relation to the fear of crime or anti-social behaviour and noise and disturbance arising from the proposed use, associated with the potential for future residents to be transitory and to have prior issues of anti-social behaviour.

It is not known how long residents would stay at the accommodation or the nature of any specific difficulties they may have. I have no reason to conclude that children in care would be likely to generate noise or disturbance or be involved in crime or anti-social behaviour. In any event, the accommodation would be Ofsted registered and staffed on a 24-hour basis by two professionally trained carers. This level of supervision would minimise the potential for any crime, anti-social behaviour, noise and disturbance to arise from the proposed use.

Having regard to the limited number of occupants and visitors likely to be present at any one time, together with the level of activity associated with staff shift changes and visits, I find no reason to conclude that the effects of the proposal would be materially different from those typically associated with a Class C3 dwelling.

I have been referred to appeal decisions (3284085, 3282627, 2205394 and

and an associated judgment (Smith v [name] of State and Mid-Bedfordshire District Council [2006] JPL 386) where the potential effects of the proposals on the living conditions of neighbouring properties were considered, with particular regard to noise, disturbance, and anti-social behaviour. While noting that this appeal proposal is in a different location and for a smaller care home, I have reached similar conclusions regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Consequently, the proposal would comply with Policy 6 of the Plan which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure safe and healthy communities by designing out opportunities for anti-social behaviour and crime, and seeks to protect local amenity by resisting development that has an unacceptable contribution towards noise pollution.

The proposal would also accord with paragraphs 96 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion through crime and disorder, and the fear of crime.

I have had regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, Article 3 of the [name] (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 19 of the [name] of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010. Disability and age are relevant protected characteristics to which the PSED applies. These rights are engaged in reaching my decision. However, they are qualified rights and interference may be justified where in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key.

The evidence before me demonstrates that there is no identified need for the proposal in a community in the Borough. The harm associated with the loss of the Class C3 dwelling would therefore outweigh the benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of disability and age, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others.

The appellant refers to a separate case in which a proposed change of use from Class C3 to Class C2 was determined not to constitute a material change, and a Certificate of Lawfulness was issued (planning decision 24/00384/CLP). However, the appeal before me relates to a planning application for a material change of use. The approach in that case is not determinative of the matter before me.

Although there would be compliance with some aspects of the development plan, I give greater weight to the lack of identified need for the proposal in a community in the Borough and the loss of a C3 dwelling. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.