Plans to establish a children’s home for those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in a Somerset village have been rejected once again following an appeal. Evoo Health Care Group had sought permission to convert Homefield, a four-bedroom bungalow situated on the outskirts of Wedmore, into a residential facility to support children aged seven to 17.
Somerset Council initially refused the application in late February, citing the site’s “unsustainable location” and its considerable distance from essential local services. This decision was upheld after an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, with Inspector S. McIntyre concluding that the proposed development would leave children socially isolated.
Homefield is located to the south-west of Wedmore along Heath House Road, also known as Little Ireland Road, an area characterised by detached properties. The conversion would have accommodated up to two children and two staff members working 12-hour shifts at any given time.
READ MORE: Post Office in Bath City Centre to Close Soon with Replacement Branch Months Away
READ MORE: RSPCA Warns of Wildfire Risks from Common Litter During Hot Weather
A spokesperson for Evoo Health Care Group emphasised their commitment to creating a safe, non-institutional environment with high-quality private bedrooms and facilities designed to support educational and personal needs. They highlighted that the home planned to enable children to access local schools, healthcare, recreational activities, and social networks, aiming to integrate them into the community and avoid placements far from their familiar surroundings.
Inspector McIntyre, who visited the site on 2 June, expressed concerns over pedestrian safety on Little Ireland Road. Issues noted included the road’s narrowness, absence of pavements, a 60 mph speed limit, and limited street lighting, all of which make it an unsafe route for walking into Wedmore.
He acknowledged the development would meet an existing need under professional management but stressed that reliance on private car travel would be significant due to the remote location and lack of sustainable transport options. The inspector found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that alternative, better-situated sites were unsuitable or unavailable.
While the inspector accepted that the development would not notably increase vehicle movements or affect neighbouring residents' amenity, he concluded that the potential social isolation faced by vulnerable children was a significant drawback. He stated that the proposal was not proportionate to the children’s needs given the site’s limitations.
This outcome reflects ongoing challenges in balancing care facility provision with location suitability, particularly in rural settings where access to services and safe transport routes are critical considerations.