Children’s care home bid refused

The application, submitted by Pearl Homecare Ltd, sought permission to change the use of a detached four-bedroom house on Verona Rise into a care home for up to three children at a time. The facility would have operated on a 24-hour basis, staffed by a rotating team of carers, with up to six staff on site during the day and four overnight.

According to the applicant, the aim was to provide a ‘home away from home’ for children in need, with minimal changes to the building’s appearance. The proposed internal alterations included the addition of a sensory room and storage space in the garage, while the external layout and access would remain largely unchanged.

In support of the application, Pearl Homecare highlighted the property’s location in a residential area with access to public transport and nearby amenities. They also stated the care home would offer short-term support in a comfortable setting, causing little disruption to neighbours.

However, BMBC ultimately refused the application on several grounds, including the loss of a larger family home from the market.

The council received three objections from residents, raising concerns about increased vehicle movements, noise during staff changeovers, and a potential impact on property values. Some also expressed concerns about safeguarding and the impact of losing a family-sized home in a community where larger dwellings are already in short supply.

The council’s highways officers also raised objections, stating that the proposal did not provide enough parking for the number of staff expected to be on site. Although the driveway could technically fit two cars, the garage was earmarked for storage, and the layout would require vehicles to reverse more than 30 metres along a shared private drive.

The report stated this posed a risk to road safety and would likely lead to on-street parking, particularly during shift changes or in poor weather when staff are less likely to walk or use public transport.

BMBC refused the application on several grounds, citing concerns about noise, road safety, and the loss of valuable housing stock.

Planning officers concluded that the level of staff activity involved in running the home, particularly during early mornings and late evenings when shifts would change, would create noise and disturbance beyond what is typical for a residential property. They added that this may affect the peace and quiet of neighbouring homes, especially given the location at the end of a shared drive.

The council also deemed the plans unacceptable from a highways perspective, stating that the development could compromise both the safety and efficiency of the surrounding roads.

Another reason for refusal was the loss of a larger family home from the market. The council stressed the importance of preserving such properties to maintain a balanced mix of housing in the borough. They noted that the continued conversion of larger dwellings into other uses is contributing to an increasing shortage in this segment of the housing market.