Appeal 6007064

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/01661/CU for retrospective application of change of use of a house of six residents (care included) (C3b) to a care home up to three children aged 8-18 (C2) at [site address] , [site address] , Norfolk [postcode] granted on 4 February 2026 by [name] and West Norfolk Borough Council, is varied by deleting condition 4.

Planning permission was granted for the change of use of [site address] (No 10) from a house of six residents (care included) 1 (Use Class C3(b)) to a care home for up to three children (Use Class C2) 2 (the original permission), subject to conditions including Condition 4 which limits the permission to a temporary period expiring on 04 February 2027. The Council state that this was to enable further review of the effects of the development on neighbouring occupiers. The appellant seeks its removal, contending that it is unnecessary and unreasonable.

The main issue is the effect of removing condition 4 on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

Before transitioning into the countryside, [address] is predominately residential, comprising mainly bungalows. No 10 occupies a triangular shaped plot at the end 1 Council ref: 23/01333/LDP 2 Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) of a row of bungalows and sits adjacent to an agricultural field. It is a detached bungalow with a driveway/parking area to its front and a detached outbuilding and garden to its rear. The appeal development relates to a children’s care home for up to three children (aged 8-18) who may have emotional and behavioural support needs, staffed on a 24-hour basis, intended to function as far as practicable as a family home.

The evidence indicates that care is typically provided by three staff at any one time, albeit staff numbers could exceed this level when the registered manager is present, and when staff overlap occurs during shift changes. The use also gives rise to visits from professionals including social workers and Ofsted, as well as deliveries, family visits and maintenance workers as required.

The Planning Practice Guidance advises that temporary permissions may be appropriate to trial a use or where planning circumstances may change by the end of the temporary period3. In this case, the development is retrospective. Although this does not alter the assessment, the use had already commenced before the Council’s decision, and there was therefore already some evidence available of its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The evidence indicates that activity levels are at times notable and more than would be the case if No 10 was occupied as a single dwellinghouse. Interested parties have also submitted records of vehicle activity both prior to and following the Council’s decision and refer to CCTV footage in support of their concerns. However, this does not in itself demonstrate material harm. The activities associated with vehicle movements arising from the occupancy level of the home, including engine noise, vehicles manoeuvring on gravel driveways, doors closing and brief front door exchanges, are not, by their nature likely to generate noise levels that would be atypical of a residential environment.

A single dwellinghouse could reasonably accommodate several children requiring care, with comparable levels of indoor and outdoor activity, including general domestic noise and outdoor play. Furthermore, its shared boundary with [address] is bound by a close boarded fence, and in part by an outbuilding which assists in limiting any disturbance and privacy for adjoining occupiers. While children residing at No 10 may be less likely to attend school, potentially extending periods of activity during weekdays, this would not automatically give rise to effects that are uncharacteristic of a residential area.

In respect of parking, four vehicles were present on the appeal site at the time of my visit, and the application indicates capacity for at least five spaces, albeit I observed on site that the driveway is sufficient in size to accommodate more than this number. As the majority of regular movements are associated with staff changes, these tend to be staggered throughout the day. [address] is narrow with limited on-street parking capacity, the Local Highways Authority raised no objection to the original permission. Having regard to my site observations, there is no reason to depart from this view, and it is considered that parking levels are acceptable and it is unlikely that the development leads to unacceptable levels of indiscriminate parking.

Concerns have been raised, regarding the potential for antisocial behaviour and trespassing including perceived safety risks and disturbance from police visits at 3 Use of planning conditions - Paragraph: 014 [name]: 21a-[phone] unsociable hours. The appellant explains that police attendance, when it occurs, is generally for safeguarding purposes rather than in response to criminal activity. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the use has resulted, or would be likely to result, in increased levels of crime. In any event, such matters are for the police and other relevant authorities and fall outside the scope of the planning system.

Nevertheless, the fear of crime and its potential effects on health are a material consideration. The evidence indicates that episodes of challenging behaviour including shouting and screaming have occurred. Even so, such incidents are isolated in occurrence, subject to more management and controls than a typical dwellinghouse and do not demonstrate a pattern giving rise to unacceptable planning harm. Moreover, planning permission relates to the use of land, not to the individuals occupying it and it is unclear what material planning circumstances would alter at the end of the temporary period.

There remains a likelihood that incidents could occur, even with individual care plans in place and appropriate staff training. Such matters are more appropriately addressed through other regulatory regimes rather than the planning system, such as Ofsted4. Ofsted imposes controls over the management of children’s homes, including in relation to staffing, occupancy levels, quality of care, behaviour management and welfare and regular checks to make sure the home is safe, well-run and providing appropriate care to children. In considering the planning merits, I have had regard to land use effects and proceed on the basis that the use should be properly operated in accordance with that regime. Fears that may arise from assumptions about occupants, do not in themselves, render the use unacceptable nor provide a sound basis for the imposition of the disputed

Taking these matters together, I am not satisfied that activity associated with the care home, including comings and goings from staff, police or other visitors would give rise to a material increase in noise or disturbance when compared to its fallback use. Even when considered cumulatively alongside a similar development at 8 Folgate Lane5, no unacceptable harm should arise when the site is managed accordingly. Although noise complaints have been made, the Council’s Community Safety and [name] team raised no objection to the original application. I am also satisfied that activity associated with the proposed use would be unlikely to cause a discernible change to the residential character of the area. As such, there are no adverse effects requiring mitigation through a temporary restriction and the development would be acceptable in planning terms on a permanent basis.

Furthermore, there are clear difficulties with the imposition of a temporary permission in this instance. The purpose of the development is to provide a stable and secure home based around daily routines and a predictable environment for vulnerable children. A temporary permission introduces uncertainty that would not meet the needs of the children.

Overall, no clear justification for the imposition of Condition 4 has been provided. It does not meet the tests for planning conditions set out in Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that planning conditions should 4 Under the [name] (England) Regulations 2015 5 Appeal ref: 6007061 be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The disputed condition is therefore not reasonable or necessary to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. In this regard, there is no conflict with Policy LP21 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021 – 2040 which requires development that has a significant adverse impact on the amenity of others to be refused, and for proposals to be assessed against a number of factors including noise. For the same reasons, there would be no conflict with the Framework insofar as it requires a high standard of amenity for existing users.

The representations made by interested parties have been carefully considered. The strength of local concern regarding the location of the development, the lack of services and facilities for children and the need for the development is acknowledged. However, the reason for the disputed condition relates to living conditions and this matter is the focus of the assessment. There is no dispute between the main parties that the development occupies a suitable village location and aligns with Paragraph 63 of the Framework, which requires the housing needs for different groups in the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including the needs of looked after children.

Consideration has been given to the potential effect on the peaceful enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers’ homes. In doing so, regard has been had to the Human Rights Act 1998, including Article 8, and to the Public Sector Equality Duty, under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, including in respect of age. The proposal seeks to meet a need for homes for looked after children, which is a legitimate planning objective. My assessment leads me to conclude that the development is acceptable for the reasons set out and so there would not be interference with the rights of neighbouring occupiers sufficient to give rise to a violation of the rights of neighbouring occupiers in these regards.

Interested parties have alleged that their concerns, and the evidence underpinning them, were not properly considered by Council Officers and have also questioned the accuracy of the appellant’s evidence. Whilst the case officer recommended approval of the application without the disputed condition, their reasons were explained. This decision has been made on the basis of all the evidence before me having regard to the requirements of the development plan and my own planning judgement. Any concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application is a matter that would need to be pursued separately with them.

The appellant confirms that they are the owner and operator of the property. Any unrelated or ongoing investigations concerning other individuals fall outside the scope of this appeal, as do any separate matters relating to floodlights and the outbuilding. Similarly, any enforcement matters relating to potential breaches of any other conditions are for the Council to address. Should the use expand in the future, planning permission would likely be required.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.