# 1 Rothbury, Sunderland

- **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Clark
- **Authority:** Sunderland (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011401
- **Application reference:** 25/02619/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use from dwelling (C3) to children's home (C2) for up to three children
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(b), TR4(1)(e)
- **Development plan policies:** Sunderland UDP 1998 EN10, Core Strategy 2015-2033 H1, BH1, HS1, SP7, ST2, ST3
- **Main issues:** noise and disturbance, parking and highway safety
- **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, specialist-housing, best-interests-of-children, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Three-child children's home in a semi-detached house on a quiet estate. Dismissed for noise and disturbance from uncapped staffing, and for parking with no independently accessible spaces. Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶6), but the reasoning is entirely plan-based, and no HO7 or HO9 weight is recorded for the specialist provision. Contrast PINS-6010861, where HO7 substantial weight carried a children's home.

## What made the difference
Staffing "subject to change depending on … the needs of the children" could not be capped by condition (DL ¶¶11–13). Parking displaced near a junction would be "an unsafe environment for the children in care" (DL ¶25).

## Policy findings
- **P3(2)(b): fail.** uncapped staffing linked to children's needs → comings and goings beyond a large family on quiet estate (plan policies; no Framework policy named) (DL 9-15)
- **TR4(1)(e): fail.** 5 tandem/overlapping spaces without independent access; displacement to on-street near junction (plan ST2/ST3) (DL 16-20)
- **HO7: neutral.** no weight expressly given to specialist housing benefit despite consulting on 2026 Framework; PSED and best interests of the child applied (DL 24-26)

## Key facts
- Management plan says staffing varies with children's needs, so a "typically 2 staff" limit was not enforceable (DL 11-13)
- Three appellant comparators (APP/X1735/W/25/3367889, APP/P4605/W/25/3371002, APP/A1530/W/25/3374737) distinguished on staffing and public transport

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e7dbd0f6-06fb-4188-b45d-1ae4e2db323f
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011401

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011401.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.