Myrtle Mount, 14 Elm Grove, Hartlepool

Decision

dismissed, 17 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: K Williams

Authority

Hartlepool (North East)

Appeal reference

6008410

Application reference

H/2025/0256

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of 7-bed house (C3) to supported living for up to 5 children with learning difficulties and complex needs (C2), with extension, garage conversion and 8 parking spaces

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(1), HC4

Development plan policies

Hartlepool Local Plan 2018 RC21, QP4

Main issues

residential character; living conditions; need for children's care

Summary

The appeal sought a home for up to five disabled children in a large Hartlepool house. It was dismissed on neighbour amenity. The inspector accepted two points in the appellant's favour. The use was compatible with residential character. And it was "social care infrastructure" under the Framework glossary, attracting substantial weight under HC4. HO1(2)(f) was rejected as plan-making only. Recurring shift-change traffic along a driveway right beside No 12 was treated as a DP3(1) liveability failure, triggering DP3(3). With no operational management plan, the adverse impacts "substantially outweigh" the benefits (DL ¶44).

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were given an opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
• Character: PASS. The use "would remain fundamentally residential in character" (DL ¶14-15).
• Living conditions: FAIL. "Arrivals, departures and staff shift changeovers would therefore be experienced at close quarters ... The principal periods of activity would occur during the morning and evening" (DL ¶20). The absence of SOAEL evidence was not an answer: "national policy requires decision-makers not only to avoid noise giving rise to a SOAEL, but also to mitigate and reduce potential adverse impacts to a minimum" (DL ¶22).
• HO1(2)(f): not applicable. "this is a plan-making rather than a decision-making policy, and Framework Paragraph 8 states that plan-making policies should not be used in the determination of individual development proposals" (DL ¶27).
• HC4: substantial weight. The home "would provide social care infrastructure, which the Framework glossary expressly identifies as a form of public service infrastructure ... I therefore agree that the proposal attracts substantial weight under Framework Policy HC4" (DL ¶28).
• DP3(3). "Policy DP3(3) indicates that permission should be refused where a proposal conflicts with DP3(1) or relevant aspects of DP3(2) ... the proposed access arrangements would not operate comfortably alongside the neighbouring residential property" (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

HC4 and S4 support, together with the best interests of children (UNCRC), got substantial weight (DL ¶41). That was tempered because there was no operational plan and no evidence that the access arrangement was the only option (DL ¶42). The harm to No 12 and the DP3 conflict got "very substantial weight" (DL ¶43). Having regard to the PSED, Article 8, the UNCRC and the UNCRPD, "the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶44).

What made the difference

The shared driveway relationship with one neighbour, and the lack of an operational management plan showing how shift changes and parking would be managed (DL ¶34-35). With a staggered-shift management plan or a different parking layout within the large curtilage, the substantial HC4 weight could well have prevailed.

Transferable points

• Children's care homes can attract substantial weight under HC4 as "social care infrastructure" (glossary: public service infrastructure) (DL ¶28).
• HO1(2)(f) looked-after-children need is a plan-making policy and cannot be relied on in decisions (Framework ¶8) (DL ¶27). The same point is made in PINS-6011521.
• Neighbour disturbance from traffic and activity can be framed as a DP3(1) liveability failure, carrying DP3(3)'s refusal consequence (DL ¶29, 43).
• The absence of noise above SOAEL is not decisive. The policy also requires mitigating and reducing adverse effects (DL ¶22).
• Operational controls fundamental to acceptability cannot be deferred to conditions (DL ¶34).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Up to 12 staff at weekday peaks and shift changes (08:45/21:00); 50% public-transport claim unsupported by a travel plan (DL 10-11)
• Wider residential character not harmed; harm confined to the adjoining house with a side-by-side driveway (DL 15, 18-21)
• No SOAEL evidence needed - policy also requires mitigating and reducing adverse impacts (DL 22)
• No Operational Management Plan; harm could not be deferred to conditions (DL 34)

Related decisions

• PINS-6010909
• PINS-6012370

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.