Medway Council has refused a three-child children's home at 9 Clive Road, Rochester. The 112 sqm terrace is 8 sqm under the size test and staff traffic would harm a cul-de-sac with no turning space. An appeal is open for six months.

Medway Council has refused permission to turn a terraced house at 9 Clive Road, Rochester into a children’s home. The refusal notice was issued on Wednesday 24 September, the day after the Planning Committee heard the application.

The application, reference MC/26/1348, asked for a change of use from a family house to a Class C2 care home for three children (Medway Council planning register). It was received on 15 July 2026 and drew 27 objections from residents.

The single reason for refusal is that the house is too small and the street is the wrong shape. The decision notice says the property “by virtue of its size (internal floor area) and nature as a mid-terrace property is suitable for continued use as a small family home”, and that a care home in “a quiet residential cul de sac” with “no off street parking and no turning space” would bring comings and goings “harmful to the residential amenities of residents”. It cites Policies H8 and BNE2 of the 2003 Local Plan, Policy T4 of the emerging plan and Policy P3 of the 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.

Eight square metres short

The number that decided it is 112. Officers measured the house from the submitted plans at about 112 square metres over its basement, ground and first floors. The reasoned justification to Policy H8 treats 120 square metres as the point at which a house is large enough to convert to a residential institution. The report calls the property “8 sqm below what is considered acceptable for conversion” (officer report, item 6).

What the applicant proposed, according to the same report:

  • three children living in the home, with a business plan on the file titled for 8 to 17 year olds
  • four staff across each 24 hours: two on days from 8am to 8pm, then one awake and one sleeping in overnight
  • up to seven children and staff on site at shift changeover, plus visits from Ofsted, social workers, family and friends
  • a basement lounge, office, kitchen and bathroom; two bedrooms and a bathroom on the ground floor; one child’s bedroom and a carer’s bedroom on the first floor
  • no off-street parking, on a road with no turning facilities

Officers accepted parts of the case. The report says there is “a significant need for small care homes which facilitate children being supported in an environment as close to that of a ‘normal’ family”. It found the rooms met national space standards and that the home would “offer a high level of occupier amenity”. It also conceded that “in pure car parking need terms, it is difficult to argue that the care home would be fundamentally different from a 4-bed family home”.

The difference, officers said, was who would be driving there. A family choosing Clive Road would accept its parking and turning limits. A care home “will need staff and support workers to drive to the property”, and that is what they judged harmful in a dead-end street of small terraces. The report calls the application “finely balanced” and says it would normally have been decided by officers under delegated powers. It went to committee “due to the balanced nature of the considerations and at the request of local councillors”.

Who objected

The 27 objections raised, in the officer’s summary, a previous period when the house operated as a care home “in a manner that caused issues to neighbours”, noise and disturbance, extra traffic, parking, anti-social behaviour and the loss of a family home.

Three councillors wrote in. Councillor Finch objected, saying he did not oppose supported accommodation for vulnerable people but this house was unsuitable, and that the previous use “caused considerable disruption to residential amenity, with anti-social behaviour and late night disturbance in this quiet road”. Councillor Howcroft-Scott objected on parking, the size of the rear garden and the nearby foyer accommodation for care leavers and almshouses. Councillor Murray called the application to committee, citing the previous issues, parking, space for children with complex needs and the applicant’s track record.

The City of Rochester Society objected too, asking whether the home was for two or three placements. Kent Police did not object but asked to be consulted as designing out crime officers.

Timeline graphic: application received 15 July 2026, neighbour consultation closed 6 August, 27 objections and a councillor call-in, officers recommended refusal, Planning Committee heard it on 23 September, refusal notice issued 24 September, appeal window six months from the notice
How MC/26/1348 moved from application to refusal. Source: Medway Council planning register and the officer report to the 23 September 2026 Planning Committee. Graphic by Medway Live
Share this chartFacebookWhatsAppX

A notice dated before the meeting

One detail on the file does not line up. The register records the Planning Committee hearing on 23 September and the notice as issued on 24 September, but the decision notice itself carries the date 3 September 2026, and the register’s “decision made” field shows the same day (decision notice). That is three weeks before the committee met. The notice also cites Policy T4 of the emerging plan where the officer report’s recommendation cited Policy T8; the body of the report discusses T4. We have asked no one about this yet; it is simply what the documents say, and it matters because the appeal clock runs from the date of the notice.

Medway publishes no prompt minutes, so the committee’s vote is not on the public record yet. It will appear as the record of meeting on the agenda for the next Planning Committee on 21 October. The refusal notice is proof of the outcome.

The same night

Two other applications were heard on 23 September. The register shows no decision yet on either:

  • MC/26/1272, a retrospective change of use of 65 Copenhagen Road, Gillingham to a five-person house in multiple occupation, taken to committee at Cabinet members’ request
  • MC/26/0561, 23 homes at the former St John Fisher School site on Maidstone Road, Chatham, which officers recommended approving subject to a section 106 agreement

All three reached the committee by routes that close on 31 October, when the national scheme of delegation takes effect. We explained what that changes in Medway’s planning committee shrinks and call-ins end.

What it means for you

  • If you live on Clive Road: the use stays residential. The applicant can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate within six months of the date on the notice, and neighbours who commented would be told if that happens.
  • If you are looking for a children’s home site in Medway: the officer report is a useful template. Under the 2003 Local Plan’s Policy H8, a house under about 120 square metres will struggle, and a cul-de-sac with no turning space counts against staff traffic even where parking demand matches a family.
  • If you want to comment on other applications: they are listed on our Medway planning applications page, and the council’s weekly list carries the consultation deadline for each.

Sources