Ludlow children’s care home plan refused

A plan to convert a Ludlow residential property into a care home for children with special educational needs has been refused by Shropshire Council.

Council planners rejected the application, earmarked for Clifton Villas, Temeside, due to ongoing concerns over parking and loading at the property.

The scheme would have provided up to six placements for young people with autism with extra care or educational needs.

A previous application was rejected in July 2023, leading to applicant Mrs Lena Greatwich submitting a revised plan, this time containing a transport assessment.

“The proposed change of use of the property would fulfil an important social need in providing accommodation for the young people resident at the site, each of whom will have a learning disability,” said a planning statement submitted by the applicant.

“The applicants have worked with Local Authorities and have identified a local need in Shropshire for therapeutic placements for young people with disabilities, and are keen to offer placements to young people from the County so that their family relationships can easily be maintained, whilst also permitting the occupants of the premises the opportunity to continue living within their home community.”

The transport statement prepared by the applicant said one company vehicle would be parked on a newly created hardstanding area in front of the property, which would be used to take the residents to school and to activities at evenings and weekends. Staff would be encouraged to use public transport to get to work, with the company offering to pay for park and ride passes and for parking at the nearby Smithfield car park.

But Shropshire Council’s Highways department remained unconvinced, objecting on the grounds that visitors and staff were likely to park on the “busy but narrow” Temeside thoroughfare.

“The recently submitted technical note states that there would be space for three vehicle parking spaces on the front driveway. One to be used for the company car, the other space would be used for visitors. The so called third space would be directly in front of the side communal access gate, so vehicles parked in front of the gate would block off access to both other residents of the terrace and also staff using bicycles,” they said.

“No provision has been made on this hardstanding to provide a dedicated safe corridor to the front door from the highway to allow unhindered access/egress for staff and residents without having to negotiate parked cars.

“It is still considered that the parking situation at the property is inadequate to serve the intended use taking account of the need to provide parking for resident supervisory staff, visiting medical, educational or social workers, as well as any visiting family or friends and deliveries.”