Appeal 6000185

The appeal is dismissed.

It was clear from my site visit that the appeal dwelling (No [site address] ) was already in use to provide care to its residents. I have therefore determined the appeal use as being retrospective in nature.

This use is described in the appellant’s appeal statement as a small-scale care home or facility for up to three residents falling within C3 (b) (supported house) of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 ([name]). The Council however assessed this use as a material change of use to Class C2, which includes the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within class C3 (dwelling houses)). The submitted evidence before me does not demonstrate that care residents within No [site address] live as a single household. I have therefore determined the appeal use as one that falls within Class C2 as set out above.

The main issues are: • the effect of the use on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • whether the use is in a suitable location with particular regard to parking and public transport availability.

Policy 6 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (HLP) (Adopted 2021) requires specialist need housing to demonstrate, amongst other things, avoidance of significantly unacceptable greater levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential properties. In a similar vein, [name] 7, 16 and 34 collectively seek to protect the amenity of existing and future residents, including through avoiding unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance.

No [site address] comprises a two-storey end-terraced dwelling within [site address] , a residential cul-de-sac of mainly terraced dwellings. I found No [site address] to be within a tight suburban built environment, including relatively shallow rear garden depths. No [site address] is therefore within close proximity to neighbouring residential windows.

The appeal use provides care and support for up to three residents. It is put to me that this is comparable to a typical household. This is not however borne out in the evidence before me. Whilst the appellant’s willingness to adapt No [site address] to meet various specific care needs and lengths of stay is laudable, this will inevitably lead to the need for regular visits from professionals such as social workers, doctors, nurses, health care assistants, and emergency services when required.

The varying potential nature, level and duration of support needed for the respective care residents would also lead to irregular patterns of abovementioned professional visits, including at night time when most residents would be asleep. Such trip movements to and from No [site address] go significantly over and above a typical single dwellinghouse use.

Furthermore, neighbouring representations refer to residents of No [site address] screaming and shouting both within the main dwelling and its environs, and regular ambulance and police attendance to No [site address] since the appeal use commenced in August 2024. In their consultation response, the Council’s Public Protection Department confirms that it has received a number of complaints regarding noise and other disturbance from No [site address] . Whilst the full circumstances of the above events are not before me, they undoubtedly harm the living conditions of nearby residents, especially given the proximity to neighbouring windows and garden areas.

Neighbouring representations also refer to noise and disturbance from the rear garden. Overnight use of No [site address] ’s outbuilding has also been reported. Whilst the outbuilding did not appear to be occupied during my site visit, it contains toilet and shower facilities.

The appeal use caters for a variety of care needs for younger and older adults over a 24-hour period, which could include more than one carer within No [site address] . I am therefore not satisfied that a full overnight use restriction of the rear garden and outbuilding is achievable in practice to avoid harm to neighbouring living conditions, especially given the location of a staff room within the main dwelling with direct door access to the rear garden.

The supporting text to HLP Policy 7 advises that all residents should feel at ease within their home. If people feel safe and comfortable in their homes, they are more likely to be positive about their surroundings and this can help ensure that they will wish to live and stay in an area and mix with their neighbours to create mixed, inclusive and integrated communities. Whilst supporting text does not have the force of policy and cannot trump it, it is nonetheless relevant to its interpretation.

Nearby neighbour representations have expressed anxiety regarding the existing use of No [site address] , due to the nature and extent of noise and disturbance they have experienced, and they perceive their safety to be at risk. The evidence before me indicates that this has led to a lone resident relocating to their family members during the week, and other residents considering permanent relocation. To my mind, this demonstrates that the noise and disturbance generated by the appeal use is unacceptably disrupting the existing community.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal use significantly harms the living conditions of nearby residents in terms of noise and disturbance, in conflict with Policies 6, 7, 16 and 34 of the HLP, the relevant requirements of which are already set out above.

It is put to me that planning conditions could address operational management concerns, such as a noise management plan as also recommended by the Council’s Public Protection Department. The appellant is also willing to accept a condition to review the interior layout to optimize space allocation. However, given the location and characteristics of the appeal use, involving varying occupancy types, care needs and lengths of stay, I am not satisfied that the identified harm to neighbouring living conditions can be avoided by such planning conditions.

The first reason for refusal cites conflict with Policies H12, S1 and S2 of the London Plan. The policies however do not refer to neighbouring living conditions and are therefore not relevant to this main issue.

Policy 6 of the HLP also requires, amongst other things, adequate provision for visitor and carer parking facilities, compliance with the parking requirements as set out in HLP Policy 24, and to not have an unacceptable impact on parking conditions and traffic congestion in the area. Policy 24 of the HLP and Policy T6 of the London Plan both require a minimum residential parking provision of 1.5 spaces per 3+ bedroom residence within [name] areas such as the appeal site that have low public transport access (PTAL 0-1).

Policy 16 of the HLP supports the provision of new social infrastructure provided it is accessible by public transport and active travel. HLP Policy 6 also requires such sites to be well served by public transport. [name] [site address] has a low PTAL rating, it is within short walking distance to a bus stop near to the [site address] entrance. The use is therefore not wholly reliant on the private car.

Both the existing and proposed site plans indicate three vehicles parked alongside each other within No [site address] ’s front driveway. However, I found this space to be large enough for only two vehicles to park in a manner that allows for either vehicle to exit independently. This is due to the width of the existing vehicular crossover, a front boundary enclosure, and a tree and landscape area adjacent to this boundary within No [site address] ’s front garden. The application form indicates that no new or altered vehicular access is proposed. I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme as put before me will only be served by two off-street parking spaces.

The Council’s Highway Authority stated in their consultation response that a car parking survey is required. However, I have not been directed to any specific planning policy basis for this. I found that surrounding dwellings mainly have their own driveways. I also noted some vehicles parked along the cul-de-sac highway within unrestricted marked bays on a raised footway along [site address] , with several free spaces within these bays.

At the time of my visit, there were no vehicles parked within No [site address] , although there was only one worker and one resident present on site. I saw a number of safe, lawful and unrestricted parking spaces available within short walking distance to No

My visit was only a snapshot in time and there are undoubtedly more intensive periods of use, and busier parking periods in the area such as outside of normal daytime working hours. Despite this, [site address] and surrounding streets does not appear to form an area of adverse parking stress.

There is no substantive evidence before me that care residents of No [site address] generate a significant amount of car ownership. Given the nature of accommodation and care that is provided, I anticipate that such average car ownership levels could remain low or non-existent. I have no reason to dispute that care staff use public transport. Other visiting healthcare professionals would likely often visit by driving. Even if some care workers also drive to No [site address] , the two parking spaces within the site and the nearby parking bays can cater for this.

Whilst administrative and management staff also travel by car, their visits are infrequent and often by appointment. I have also no reason to doubt that visiting times can be managed appropriately. Based on the evidence before me and my own observations, the appeal use can be accommodated without leading to adverse parking congestion. There is sufficient space within the rear garden to accommodate a cycle store that could have been secured by a planning condition to encourage alternative means of travel, had I been minded to allow the appeal.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal use is in a suitable location in respect of parking and public transport availability. In this respect, there is no conflict with Policies 6, 16 and 24 of the HLP and Policy T6 of the London Plan, the relevant requirements of which are already set out above.

Although not amounting to a reason for refusal, the officer report raises concerns as to whether No [site address] is suitable for its occupiers in terms of the standard of facilities, the level of independence and the provision of support and care.

Although the dining area is small, it forms part of a larger open-plan communal living space. This larger area is indicated as a sensory room on the proposed floorplans but at the time of my visit, it had a more conventional living area layout, including TV and sofas. I found the overall communal living and dining space to be of sufficient size and layout, bearing in mind that the maximum residential occupancy would be three persons, who would likely have staggered meal times commensurate with their individual care plans. Care staff are provided with their own secure rooms. I have therefore found no conflict with HLP Policy 6 in respect of the above matters.

It is put to me that numerous similar small-scale care home uses have been approved in suburban areas without adverse impacts. The precise details of such examples are however not before me. I have nonetheless determined the appeal based on the site-specific circumstances and all submitted evidence before me.

I have found no conflict with Policies 6, 16 and 24 of the HLP and London Plan Policy T6 in respect of No [site address] ’s location with regard to parking and public transport availability. I have however found significant harm to neighbouring living conditions in terms of noise and disturbance, contrary to Policies 6, 7, 16 and 34 of the HLP. The extent of harm in which I have identified amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes includes addressing the needs of groups with specific housing requirements. Housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies, and such groups include those who require housing-with-care and care homes.

I have no doubt that there is a level of need for care residences in the Borough. No [site address] is currently partially accessible for individuals with disabilities and could be further adapted, through the installation of a stairlift and other internal adaptations. Its use supports the Council’s obligation to provide care for vulnerable adults, although there is no evidence provided to demonstrate a shortage of such facilities in the Borough. Taken in the round, the above matter is therefore afforded moderate positive weight in favour of the appeal use.

The Public Sector Equality Duty contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s disability or age. As such, I am obliged to have due regard to these considerations in my assessment of the positive effect of the appeal use on the wellbeing of its residential occupiers.

The submitted evidence indicates that the care provided by the appeal use can cater for persons with autism, persons with physical and learning disabilities, along with persons requiring end-of-life care. Dismissing the appeal may therefore necessitate care residents with such protected characteristics having to relocate to other accommodation. However, there is no demonstrable evidence before me that appropriate residential care cannot be provided elsewhere in the Borough, which would at least partially mitigate potential effects including separation from family and support networks, and on physical and mental health.

The above matters must also be weighed against relevant local planning policies related to neighbouring living conditions. The material considerations before me are not of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the primacy of, and conflict found with, the development plan. Dismissing the appeal would therefore be proportionate within these circumstances.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.