A children’s care home appeal has overturned Wyre councillors’ refusal of a small C2 home in Thornton Cleveleys after planning officers had recommended approval.
The Inspector found the two-child home would not create materially different noise, disturbance or parking effects from an ordinary family dwelling. But the developer’s separate bid for full appeal costs failed because the council had properly explained and defended its refusal.
Officers recommended approval before councillors refused
The application concerned a detached house on Myrtle Avenue, Thornton Cleveleys. Aspirer Care sought to change the lawful C3 dwelling to a C2 children’s residential care home for up to two children or young people aged between 7 and 17.
The operating model was deliberately small. Two carers would form the core staffing arrangement, working extended 24 or 48-hour shifts, with handovers normally around 8am. Management would attend as required, generally during weekday working hours, and be available on call outside those times.
Wyre’s planning officers recommended approval. Lancashire County Council’s highways team estimated that the care home could generate up to eight additional vehicle movements per day compared with a typical dwelling, but raised no objection after revised parking arrangements showed four off-street spaces. The council’s environmental protection response considered that the modest increase in activity was unlikely to cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity.
Councillors nevertheless refused the application on 3rd June 2026. Their concerns focused on the additional activity associated with staff and visitors, noise and disturbance, parking demand and the effect on the residential character of the area.
Why the care home appeal succeeded
Inspector K Lancaster accepted there would be staff movements, including short periods around shift changes when outgoing and incoming carers could overlap. The evidence indicated that most of the time two or three cars would be associated with the property, with a maximum of four for a brief period at handover.
The site could accommodate four cars. More importantly, the Inspector did not find the likely comings and goings fundamentally different in planning terms from the activity that can arise at a family home with several working adults and school-age children.
The Inspector also found no persuasive evidence that the C2 use would create unacceptable noise or disturbance. The scale of the proposed home, its management arrangements and the nature of the surrounding residential area all pointed away from the level of harm feared by members.
The appeal, reference 6012092, was allowed on 23rd September 2026.
Conditions limit the use to a children’s residential care home in Class C2 for no more than two children, require the approved parking arrangements and dropped kerb to be provided, and secure the submitted flood-risk measures.
Full costs claim fails despite the refusal being overturned
The costs decision is what makes the Wyre result a particularly useful contrast with the recent Portsmouth HMO appeal.
In Portsmouth, councillors also refused against officer advice, but the council later failed to produce robust evidence to substantiate its reasons and a full costs award followed. Wyre reached the opposite costs result.
The Inspector stressed that committee members are entitled to disagree with their professional officers. The fact that the appeal succeeded did not make the refusal unreasonable. Wyre had clearly articulated its planning concerns, supplied a coherent case at appeal and relied on evidence capable of being considered on its merits.
That evidence did not ultimately persuade the Inspector to dismiss the appeal, but it was enough to defeat the developer’s full costs claim.
Planning Geek’s Use Class C2 guide explains the wider planning position for residential institutions and care accommodation. You can also read the locally hosted appeal decision, the separate costs decision and Wyre’s committee report. The Planning Inspectorate appeal record is also available.
0 Comments