The children’s home plan rejected by the council is approved by the planning inspector

Sandwell Council last year rejected a move to convert the house in Dingle Street, Oldbury, into a new residential home for up to three children, saying it was “inappropriate for the area”.

But the owners of New Era Residence appealed to the Government’s planning inspector in a bid to overturn the ruling and win.

The Government’s planning inspector disagreed with the council and said the children’s home in the “quiet, suburban area” would not create more noise or disruption than a family home with three children.

Nine objections were made by neighbors.

The planning inspector’s report said: “Despite the potential emotional and behavioral needs of the children, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the use of the property or the associated outdoor space, including early morning outdoor play, would result in disturbance that would be significant. different from what might reasonably be expected from a domestic family residence.”

Sandwell Council planners said the proposal for the children’s residential home in Dingle Street would not provide enough parking and would cause problems on the congested street.

The dormitory could accommodate up to three children, as well as three daytime and two overnight staff. Three parking spaces will be provided.

The planning inspector said it would “not be unusual” for existing residents to “hear the comings and goings of their neighbors throughout the day” and the “anticipated movements” would be no greater than that of a “family with three children in a property”. of this size, going about their day-to-day activities.”

In 2016, an application was approved to build a four-bed and three-bed house on an overgrown plot in Dingle Street. An application submitted by Quintella Thompson of New Era Residence for a three and two storey extension and a single storey rear. the extension was approved by the board in 2022.

Another application by Quintella Thompson seeking permission to convert the house into a residential home for up to three children plus up to two overnight staff was then refused in August last year.

In a report outlining the objection, the council said: “While there would be no obvious physical features to distinguish the property from a normal family home, there would be other notable differences in its use.

“These differences included changing staff, early mornings and late evenings, weekdays and weekends. This would be highly visible to neighboring occupiers, marking the property as something other than a residential home.

“It may also result in a number of vehicles being parked at the property and on the street at any one time, including caretakers, a manager and other professionals visiting the site.”