2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 September 2025 by Mr R Walker BA HONS DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 October 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/W2465/W/25/3368935 2 & 4 Havelock Street, Leicester LE2 7HL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Sublime Care Solution Ltd against the decision of Leicester City Council. • The application Ref is 20250190. • The development proposed is change of use from two dwellings (Class C3) to residential care homes (Both Class C2) (Both max 2 residents in care) Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from two dwellings (Class C3) to residential care homes (Both Class C2) (Both max 2 residents in care) at 2 & 4 Havelock Street, Leicester LE2 7HL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20250190, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: First Floor Plan – Child Only (drawing no A103); First Floor Plan – Adults Only (drawing no A103); and Location Plan at 2&4 Havelock Street, Leicester (Project no DS_07_08). 3) The premises shall be used for residential care homes and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). 4) Neither premises shall accommodate any more than 2 residents in care at any one time. Preliminary Matters 2. As part of the appeal the appellant suggests that the proposal may not ultimately be a material change of use and thus not require planning permission. However, an application has been submitted and in both the description on the application form and the Council’s decision notice it is submitted for the change of use to residential care homes. 3.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, it was held in North Devon DC v FSS & Southern Childcare Ltd [2003] JPL 1191 that the definition of ‘care’ in Article 2 of the Use Class Order restricts the personal care of children to class C2 only. Notwithstanding the appellant’s somewhat narrow definition of personal care, it strikes me that children cannot https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, it was held in North Devon DC v FSS & Southern Childcare Ltd [2003] JPL 1191 that the definition of ‘care’ in Article 2 of the Use Class Order restricts the personal care of children to class C2 only. Notwithstanding the appellant’s somewhat narrow definition of personal care, it strikes me that children cannot https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W2465/W/25/3368935 form a household without the presence of a caregiver and so a children’s care home cannot fall within class C3 unless a caregiver is resident. The same would apply to those who suffer from a disability and need care. There is a need for staff to be present all the time to provide care. However, staff would not be resident in the properties but would work shifts residing elsewhere. In this regard, I am satisfied the C2 use proposed by the appellant at the application stage is correct. Accordingly, I have assessed the scheme on this basis. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: • The character of the area with particular reference to disturbance, parking, and the character of the proposed use; and • The living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed residential care homes with particular reference to external amenity provision. Reasons Character of the area 5. The appeal site comprises two properties located at the end of a row of terraced houses.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision The two properties are located at the end of the terrace, and adjacent to the junction with Martindale Close and opposite the hospital in a busy part of the city, with a mix of other uses found along Havelock Street. To the rear, the appeal site is accessed from Farndale Close, which is a short cul-de-sac characterised by high density housing. The appeal site is therefore not in a distinctly residential area but a mixed area that includes residential properties. 6. The proposal would result in each property being occupied by either one child or two adults. The Council indicate that the scheme would result in up to two staff present per property. However, from the evidence before me, there would be one staff member present per property working on a 12-hour shift pattern. As such, during the handover between shifts up to two staff maybe present. However, mostly there would be one. 7. The properties are currently three-bedroom dwellings and thus each capable of being occupied by a family. In this regard, the number of permanent occupiers and staff at the premises would be similar, or less than if each property were occupied by a single child. 8.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision Whether it is occupied by a family or as proposed, the potential for noise and disturbance exists. Whilst the Council indicate that there have been issues with similar properties, there is no substantive evidence regarding the size and nature of the properties where complaints have been received. Given the small number of occupiers at the properties and staff support I am not convinced that the proposal would increase the risk of noise and disturbance from the baseline use of the two residential properties. 9. The two care homes would be at the end of the row of terraced housing, their front doors would be accessed from the busy Havelock Street. In this context, the comings and goings of occupiers, staff and visitors entering and leaving the properties are unlikely to cause disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W2465/W/25/3368935 10. To the rear, there is one car parking space available per property. On-street parking is not possible due to parking restrictions and so any visitors travelling by private vehicle would likely use one of the car parks along the street. Given its location in the city, other modes of travel are also available including walking, cycling and bus connections. This is also an existing situation for the current houses. 11. The evidence before me indicates a similar amount of vehicle trips would be made during the day between the existing use and the proposed. The nature of the visitors maybe different and include family and friends of the occupiers as well as professional visitors. However, family and friends visiting regularly would, like the current situation, be aware of the parking restrictions and the need to park elsewhere such as the nearby car parks along Havelock Street if travelling by private vehicle. 12. I recognise that professional visitors may not have a good knowledge of the parking restrictions in the area unless prior advised.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision However, it is evident when you arrive that on-street parking is not possible necessitating the need to park elsewhere such as the nearby car parks. These are close to the appeal premises and thus convenient for any visitors. As on-street parking is not available along Farndale Close and considering its width and the turning head, there is sufficient space for vehicles to manoeuvre safely and exit without inconveniencing residents in the cul-de-sac or increasing risks of collision. 13. Overall, I am not persuaded that the proposals, given the nature and scale of the properties and their current use, would result in increased parking congestion that would be to the detriment of the character of the area. 14. I’m told that the area has a high concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation. However, that is not what is before me and the occupiers of the two properties would not share the same characteristics. For example, there is no substantive evidence that they would occupy the properties for short periods. Considering the mixed character of the area I am satisfied that the proposal can be assimilated into the area without harm.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision I have reached this conclusion even if occupiers of nearby residential properties are aware of staff and the occupiers care needs and would not forge the same relationships with those of the appeal premises as they might with occupiers of C3 housing. 15. I therefore find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character of the area with particular reference to disturbance, parking, and the character of the proposed use. As such, I find no conflict with the requirements of Policy PS10 of the Council’s Local Plan (2006), Policy CS03 of its Core Strategy (2014) or paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (2024), when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These say, amongst other things, that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. Living conditions 16. The two properties, and others along the terrace, have small rear gardens. The gardens provide sufficient space to sit and enjoy fresh air and sunshine but only a small amount of space for children to play.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision However, there are areas of open https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision However, there are areas of open https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/W2465/W/25/3368935 space, including a park nearby in walking distance with equipped areas of play. Occupiers would not therefore be solely reliant on the garden space. 17. The Council have referred me to an appeal decision (Ref: 3350799) that considered a similar issue at a different Council. In that case, the proposal involved a four-bedroom property, and I do not have full details of the size of the garden space, or staffing levels and shift patterns proposed in that instance. In this regard, I am mindful that although the Council’s decision notice indicated four staff, paragraph 18 of the appeal decision found that the care home use would be less flexible than a C3 use as the care home would be reliant on staff supervising a number of children. 18. In the case of the appeal before me, each property if occupied by a child would be occupied by a single child, with one staff member supporting them. In this scenario I do not see any impediment to the ability of the staff member to provide regular and quality supervised access to nearby public open space to supplement the existing external amenity space for each child.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision There would also be quality internal space for the child to play in each property with the child benefitting from both a private bedroom and a separate activity/playroom at the first floor along with the downstairs space. Overall, future occupiers would have high quality living conditions. 19. The size of the gardens do not accord with the size expected for three-bedroom terrace properties set out in the Council’s Residential Amenity Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). However, the SPD does not relate to C2 uses. Moreover, given that Nos 2 and 4 Havelock Street are existing three-bedroom properties and would continue to be occupied as such were the appeal to fail, the existing conflict with the SPD from the current use does not alter or outweigh my findings on this matter. Whether each property is occupied by a child or two adults I find future occupiers would have acceptable living conditions. 20. I therefore conclude on this main issue that there would be acceptable living conditions for the future occupiers of the proposed residential care homes with particular reference to external amenity provision.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision As such, I find no conflict with the requirements of paragraph 135(f) of the Framework, which says that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience. Other Matters 21. The appeal site is reportedly in an area of high crime. However, as staff would be present at the properties, and there would be little discernible change in the character of the properties I do not find that the proposal would be at increased risk from crime and anti-social behaviour. Conditions 22. I have adapted the Council’s suggested conditions where necessary in the interests of precision or brevity. I have attached the standard time limit condition (1) and a plans condition (2) as this provides certainty. I have also included conditions (3 & 4) limiting the use to that proposed in the interests of the living https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W2465/W/25/3368935 conditions of the occupiers of the properties and those of nearby neighbouring properties. Conclusion 23. To conclude, the proposal would accord with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed subject to conditions.

2 & 4 Havelock Street, LEICESTER, LE2 7HL — Leicester City Council — Mr R Walker INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5