The Leicester City Council Planning and Development Control Committee met on Wednesday 11 June 2025, to discuss a planning application for a change of use at 14 Brunel Avenue and to review the outcomes of planning appeals. The committee voted to approve the application for 14 Brunel Avenue, subject to conditions. They also noted a report on planning appeals determined in the past year.

Planning Application: 14 Brunel Avenue

The committee approved a change of use application for 14 Brunel Avenue from a residential dwelling (Class C3¹) to a children's residential care home (Class C2²) for up to three children. This decision came after hearing from the applicant, an objector, and discussing the merits of the application.

The planning officer, Jack, presented the report, highlighting that there were no approved care homes within a 400-metre radius of the site. Clive Corrala, representing Blossom Care Group, the applicant, spoke about their proactive engagement with neighbours, including a coffee morning to address concerns and inform residents about the nature of children's homes. He also noted that the home would cater for children with learning difficulties, potentially including autism, and that they would only house two children initially to ensure proper integration.

Christina Wright, an objector, raised concerns about the impact on the quiet cul-de-sac, increased traffic, safety, and the suitability of the location for children with complex behavioural needs. She also referenced a restrictive covenant³ on the property, arguing that a commercial care home would breach it.

Several councillors raised questions and concerns:

• Councillor Hammond noted the applicant's intention to house children with learning difficulties and autism, and asked whether a noise impact assessment had been conducted.
• Councillor Dalbrick expressed reservations, calling it a borderline case and questioning whether the proposal was a commercial venture in a residential area. He also raised concerns about the number of staff, the lack of a secure area or sensory room for the children, and parking issues.
• Councillor Dr Lynn Moore spoke in favour of the application, highlighting the experience of the staff and the need for such facilities in the city.
• Councillor asked whether a new build would be recommended for approval on the same conditions.
• Councillor ATA supported the application, noting the lack of other care homes within 400 metres.
• Councillor Alton raised concerns about the suitability of the location and the lack of a decompression area for the children.

In response to the councillors' concerns, officers clarified the following:

• The proposed use is classified as residential under government legislation, despite the commercial element.
• Noise management conditions are typically applied to substantial operations, not residential uses, and noise complaints can be addressed through the noise reporting team.
• The report's statement about the acceptability of the proposal reflected the officer's view, and councillors were free to disagree.
• The suitability of the internal environment and management of the home are matters for Ofsted⁴, not the planning committee.
• The amenity guidance regarding garden size is only guidance and not a strict requirement.
• The shift patterns would avoid peak school traffic times.
• It is reasonable to assume that staff could use public transport, given the proximity to bus stops.

Ultimately, Councillor Surti proposed approving the application, with Councillor Raffiq Moosa Mohammed seconding. The committee voted in favour of the approval, with Councillor Surti urging the applicant to continue working with residents to address their concerns, particularly regarding noise and traffic.

Appeals Report: 2024/5 Municipal Year and April to May 2025

Grant Bushworth, Head of Planning, presented a report on the outcomes of planning appeals received in the 2024/5 municipal year and between 1 April 2025 and 28 May 2025. The report indicated that the council had a pretty good record, winning almost over 70% of cases.

Key points from the report:

• Out of 50 appeals in the 2024/25 municipal year, 36 were dismissed, 12 were allowed, 1 was withdrawn, and 1 was unclassifiable.
• Out of 7 appeals received since the start of the current 2025/26 municipal year, 5 were dismissed, 1 was allowed, and 1 was a mixed decision.
• The report included examples of recent appeal decisions, including cases involving changes of use, enforcement notices, and student accommodation.
• One case highlighted the importance of adhering to planning policies, as the council was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs after losing an appeal due to weak grounds for refusal.

Bushworth also presented some examples of appeals, including:

• An appeal that was won regarding a change of use from a house to two flats, where the inspector gave considerable weight to the new emerging local plan policy HO9.
• An enforcement notice appeal that was dismissed regarding the removal of chimneys in a conservation area.
• An enforcement appeal that was allowed regarding the conversion of a house to seven flats, where the inspector found student accommodation acceptable due to the small size of the flats.
• An appeal that was allowed regarding the demolition of an antiques warehouse and redevelopment for student accommodation, where the inspector felt the council was being too harsh given a fallback position of an approval.
• An appeal that was dismissed regarding an outline application for a nine- and seven-storey building to provide 104 flats, due to concerns about the design, impact on a listed building, and amenity.
• An appeal that was allowed against a condition restricting the hours of use of an adult gaming centre, as the inspectors felt the council had not evidenced the need for the restriction.
• An appeal that was dismissed regarding substantial extensions to a residential property, with the inspector using assertive language to describe the severe detriment to the neighbourhood.

Councillor Darwin recalled a case regarding a co-op on London Road and Stoughton Road, where the council's decision was overturned on appeal, but the development had worked well in practice.

The committee noted the report and thanked the officers for the update.