Appeal 6000705

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The main issues in regard to which are a) whether or not there is an identified need for the proposed development, the effect of the proposal on b) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and c) highway safety with particular regard to free flow traffic, and d) whether or not there would be sufficient facilities for the proper functioning of the proposed development.

The description on the application form differs to the decision notice. I am satisfied that it accurately describes the development and is therefore reflected above.

Policy 6 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 (HLP) focusses on specialist accommodation. Explained to be that which has been specifically designed and built to meet the needs of the elderly, disabled, young or vulnerable adults. This type of housing will be supported where there is an identified need.

The evidence from the appellant in this regard is limited. The type and number of children the proposal is looking to offer housing to has been provided. However, there is no specific evidence to understand how there is currently an undersupply. The appellant advises that the implementation of Policy 6 means there is a requirement for this type of housing, however the policy encompasses all types of specialist housing with many criteria to comply with and resultantly not automatically meaning the housing type is allowed. The Council has advised that there is currently an oversupply of children’s care homes with many housing children from outside the borough. In the absence of any other compelling evidence to the contrary, I am not sufficiently convinced that there is a need for the housing type within the borough.

As such there would be conflict with Policies 6, 7, 24 and 34 of the HLP, Policy H12 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework). Together these seek to ensure that development proposals of this type are appropriately located and required within the locality, amongst other things.

The appeal site is a two-storey terraced property with four bedrooms. To the front of the building is a small walled courtyard with no off-road parking. Parallel parking features on both sides of the road. It sits within a primarily residential street with properties of a similar type surrounding it.

The layout of the property would remain largely the same with one bedroom downstairs and three bedrooms upstairs. There would be a limit of three children in the home at any one time. There would be eight full time equivalent carers with five being full time and five part time. It is likely that there would be an increase in comings and goings by virtue of the children leaving for school or college dependent on age. However, this is not for certain, it is unknown whether they’ll be leaving the property every day which could result in additional noise and disturbance throughout the day within and outside of the building. Three children in a family home are not uncommon with these types of comings and goings; however, the effect of their needs could result in the increased visitors such as educational workers, social workers and deliveries.

Limited details have been given on how many carers would be in the building at any one time. Whilst there would be some form of rota with staggering and shift patterns, there is insufficient information on how this would work. The arrival and departures of staff are likely to be during the day, but without evidence to support this, I can’t be certain that there wouldn’t be change overs during unsociable hours.

Moreover, the property is a mid-terraced house in close proximity to others. In the absence of allocated parking, vehicles associated with visitors and care staff could park anywhere along the street. This would result in increased noise and disturbance from comings and goings, including opening and shutting of car doors and house doors. Given the number of people likely to attend the property throughout a 24-hour period, it would be harmfully disruptive to neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance.

Therefore, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. As such, there would be conflict with Policies 6, 7, 24 and 34 of the HLP, Policy H12 of the LP and the Framework. Together these policies seek, amongst other things for development to be of a compatible use.

The appeal property has no off-street parking and thus relies on road parking with two permanent parking permits along with a number of visitors permits which can be used throughout the year. The appeal site is rated as PTAL1 1b with a limited number of bus services in the local area. There is one within walking distance. 1

[name] have explained, there is limited information pertaining to the likely number of visitors to the property. With the PTAL rating being so low it is more likely the majority of visitors will be arriving in a vehicle. There are some spaces, but the number of staff would exceed those allocated through the permit scheme. There is limited unrestricted parking on surrounding streets which could lead to vehicles parking in dangerous places to avoid restrictions. It is unrestricted between the hours of 18:30 and 08:30, however I have limited information on the parking pressures during these hours. Moreover, the change of use of the building would result in additional regular visitors over and above a residential dwelling including social workers, independent officers, tutors and the residing children’s families.

If the parallel parking is full, it could result in delivery vehicles and pickups/drop offs stopping in the middle of the road or other places. The road is fairly narrow and even the temporary stopping of a vehicle during busy periods would hinder the free flow of traffic. This would resultantly lead to vehicles trying to pass a stationary vehicle with limited intervisibility, which even with a low-speed restriction could result in conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. As such, the proposal would result in harm to the highway safety. Resultantly, there would be conflict with Policy 6 of the HLP, Policy T6 of the LP and the Framework. Together these policies amongst other things seeks to ensure that development would be satisfactory in terms of highway safety and not hindering the free flow of movement.

There would be no dining area aside from a small area within the kitchen. One bathroom may be appropriate in a family home, however, in the circumstance above with children of different ages not in the same family unit along with the carers, the sharing one bathroom would not be appropriate. Moreover, one would expect a care home of this nature to have an area for the members of staff to retire to along with a space for meetings and confidential conversations. The plans do not show any such space or say whether such activities would take place off site. I am not therefore convinced that the proposed facilities would be satisfactory for the use of the building. Resultantly, the scheme would conflict with Policy 6 of the HLP. Together these seek, amongst other things, for development to be of a compatible use and suitable facilities.

The appellant has submitted additional documents to support the appeal in terms of a risk assessment. Whilst this provides additional information, it does not sufficiently address the shortcomings of the proposal which would result in the harms I have found.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan, and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.