Plans to convert Homefield, a four-bedroom bungalow on the outskirts of Wedmore, into a residential children’s home have been denied following a planning appeal. Evoo Health Care Group sought permission in January to establish a facility catering to children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). However, Somerset Council refused the application in February, citing the site’s “unsustainable location” and its distance from essential local services.
The Planning Inspectorate upheld the council’s decision. Inspector S. McIntyre concluded that the location would result in social isolation for the children placed there, emphasising the site’s remoteness. Situated to the south-west of Wedmore along Heath House Road, also known as Little Ireland Road, Homefield is part of a series of detached properties.
The intended children’s home would have supported two staff members working 12-hour shifts and accommodated two children aged between seven and 17. A spokesperson for Evoo Health Care Group highlighted their aim to create a safe and nurturing environment resembling a home rather than an institutional care facility. They noted that each child would have a private, well-furnished bedroom with amenities to support their educational needs. They also pointed to plans enabling children to access local schools, healthcare, leisure facilities, and social opportunities, aiming to integrate them within the community and avoid disruptive placements far from familiar surroundings.
READ MORE: Part of New Housing Estate Near M5 Could See Faster Completion
READ MORE: Choosing Stairs Over Lifts Could Cut Heart-Related Death Risk by 39%
Inspector McIntyre visited the site in early June and reported his findings prior to the council’s planning committee meeting on August 11 in Bridgwater. He described Little Ireland Road as “not a safe route for pedestrians,” citing its narrow layout, lack of pavements, a 60mph speed limit, and limited street lighting. He stressed that the development would rely heavily on private transport, with no evidence provided to justify the site’s relatively remote location nor to show alternative, better-connected sites were unavailable.
While acknowledging that vehicle movement levels would not significantly increase or disturb neighbours, McIntyre concluded that the potential social isolation caused by limited travel options would be detrimental, especially for vulnerable children requiring support. The inspector stated he was “unable to conclude that the proposed development is proportionate to the needs of the children,” leading to the appeal’s dismissal.