Three-child residential home at 40 Longleat, Great Barr, Birmingham

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Sandwell Planning Committee on 10 Jun 2026.

DC/26/71390RefusedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

The application proposed converting a five-bedroom house into a home for up to three children aged seven to seventeen, with staff accommodation and no extensions.

“The ground floor would provide a front room and utility room and rear kitchen as well as dining room and w.c. The first floor would provide three children’s bedrooms along with a staff bedroom/office, separate staff room and bathroom. No extensions or external alterations are proposed, and all accommodation is contained within the existing building footprint.”

“During a standard shift, 2 staff members will be present on-site along with a home registered manager. The registered manager would be on site from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. During the night only 2 staff members would be present. Support staff shift patterns are 7.30am to 10.30pm & 10pm to 8.00am for the night shift.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The detached house is in a predominantly residential area, with earlier permissions for a first-floor extension and a pitched roof frontage.

“The Application Site 5.1 The application property is a 5-bedroom detached property located on the eastern side of Longleat, Great Barr within a suburban residential area, site surrounding is predominantly residential in nature characterised by detached properties. Planning History…”

“First floor extension at front of dwelling.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the use compatible with the residential area and found no significant harm to neighbours, highway safety or living conditions.

“National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The NPPF sets out government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Highway safety The framework promotes sustainable transport options for development proposal and states that developments should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”

“I have noted concerns that the proposed development would be an inappropriate use and out of character with the residential area. However, the proposed use falls into a residential use in the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). It does not fall into a commercial, business or service use. As such, the proposed use would be compatible with a residential area and this location.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways and Public Health raised no objections, while West Midlands Police supported the proposal subject to security, lighting and CCTV details.

“Highways The Head of Highways has no objections. The front driveway is considered acceptable to provide sufficient off-road parking provision for staff members. However, the highway officer has requested that the front dwarf wall be removed and that the existing dropped kerb be extended to provide adequate unrestricted access to the parking spaces.”

“They recommend that a plan is provided to include CCTV, lighting and security if permission is granted.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant described the proposed operation, while an objector raised concerns about traffic, disruption, character, amenities and covenants.

What members debated

Members said children’s homes were needed but considered a care home in this area not in keeping with the locality and unsuitable.

“Following further discussions, members highlighted that although children’s homes were needed and served a purpose, the presence of a care home in…”

Minutes

The decision

The Planning Committee refused the application for the proposed conversion into a residential home for up to three children.

“Resolved that Planning Application DC/26/71390 – 40 Longleat, Great Barr, Birmingham (proposed conversion of house (Class C3) into a residential home for up to three children (Class C2)) is refused.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

“As such, members felt the application was not suitable.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Sandwell Planning Committee minutes, 10 June 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Sandwell's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Sandwell
Date
Wednesday 10 June 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Refused, against officer advice
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

41 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →