Children’s home and annexe at Avahan Waltham Road, Thorpe Arnold, Melton Mowbray

What was proposed

The application sought to change the dwelling to a children’s home and build a six-bedroom annexe for children and staff.

“This is a complex and finely balanced application. The proposal seeks full planning permission for the change of use of Avahan to a Children’s home and the erection of a six- bedroom annexe to accommodate four children and two staff members.”

“Proposal 4.1 The application seeks full planning permission for: • Change of use of the host dwelling from Class C3 to Class C2 (Children’s Home) for up to four children and two live-in staff. • Erection of a detached annexe within the residential curtilage to provide six bedrooms (four for children, two for staff), creating a second small-scale care unit and increasing the overall site capacity to eight children and four carers.”

Officer report

The site

The existing detached dwelling sits on a one-acre plot, with the annexe proposed on a former tennis court within its residential curtilage.

“Main Report 2 The Site 2.1 Avahan is an existing detached dwelling on a one-acre plot, located on Waltham Road, Thorpe Arnold. The proposed annexe would be sited on a former tennis court within the residential curtilage, screened by mature hedgerows. Access would be via the existing driveway, with a pedestrian link proposed. It is important to note that the annexe would be located within the established residential curtilage of Avahan, not within open countryside.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A certificate confirmed lawful care-related occupation under Class C3(b), while an earlier care-home application was refused and another was withdrawn.

“Planning History 3.1 24/01098/CL – A certificate of Lawfulness was issued on 24 April 2025 confirming that the use of the existing dwelling at Avahan under Class C3(b) for occupation by not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents would be lawful. This was determined on the basis that the proposed use would be consistent with the existing C3(a) use and would not result in a material change of use.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor and an objector spoke against the proposal, citing policy conflict, highway safety, village character and countryside concerns.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned development beyond the village boundary, the area of separation and whether there was a proven local need for the annexe.

“There were concerns as to building beyond the village boundary, the area of separation and whether there was a proven local need for the annex to the children’s home which was questioned due to some contradictory evidence from the Leicestershire County Council. Councillor Allnatt proposed a refusal on this basis. Councillor Higgins seconded the motion.”

“On receiving advice from the Assistant Director for Governance and Democracy which explained that the information contained in the Planning officer’s Report conflicted with the clarification provided by Leicestershire County Council in the evidence relating to need, consideration was required as to whether the ‘need’ referred to was a planning consideration. On this basis, the motion was withdrawn.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Allnatt proposed refusal, Councillor Higgins seconded it, and the committee voted unanimously against the officer recommendation.

“Members were of the opinion there were planning reasons for a refusal on the grounds of location, highways and safety and the following motion was proposed by Councillor Allnatt, seconded by Councillor Higgins:”

“RESOLVED That, contrary to the officer recommendation, the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out below.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The committee refused because intensified vehicle and pedestrian activity would face inadequate footways, crossings, lighting and pedestrian infrastructure, creating unacceptable safety risks.

“The proposed development by introducing an annex to an existing children’s home in this location would result in a material increase in vehicle movements and pedestrian activity associated with staff, visitors, deliveries, supervising professionals and the day to day operation of the facility. The surrounding highway network lacks continuous footways, safe crossing points, street lighting and formal…”

Minutes