Appeal 6000931

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for change of use from single dwelling house into a care home at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 1106/25 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 4D-573 E00 – Block and [name]; and 4D-573 P01 – [name].

Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted details of on-site bicycle storage facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved bicycle storage facilities shall be installed prior to occupation and shall be retained thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall be occupied only by persons of 18 years of age or older.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice and is clearer than that on the application form. I am content that it has been accepted by the appellant by inclusion on their appeal form.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been submitted, which seeks to provide financial contributions towards the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) mitigation strategy, which includes Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) and [name] and Monitoring (SAMM). I consider it later in my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal meets the requirements for specialist accommodation regarding need, location and management/care; and • whether there would be a loss of residential accommodation, and whether there is an established lack of demand for the property as a single-family dwelling.

The proposed development is for the change of use of the property from a house to a care home. Although not stated in the description of development, the evidence, including site-specific correspondence with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), suggests that the care home would be for adults with care needs, such as those with mental health conditions. It is also noted that the appellant has not objected to the imposition of a condition restricting the use of the care home to adults only. This therefore forms the basis for my appeal deliberations.

Part 1 of Policy LP4 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (the LP) supports, amongst others, vulnerable residents by aiming to provide a sufficient supply of specialist accommodation to support independent living, subject to criteria (a) to (f).

The Council accepts that the proposed development would comply with criteria (c), (d) and (f) relating to integration with the wider neighbourhood, the living conditions of neighbours, and the standard of facilities, design, and accessibility. I find no reason to disagree. Interested parties have expressed concern regarding the potential for noise disturbance from delivery vehicles and the comings and goings of residents and carers. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the use of the building as a care home, which would also be a residential use, would create additional noise over and above the level of a conventional dwelling. Compliance with criteria (a), (b) and (e) is disputed between the main parties and I consider each in turn below.

Criteria (a) requires such provision to meet a demonstrable need within the borough and be targeted at borough residents. The Council’s Adult Services team, who is best placed to determine the localised need within Redbridge, has confirmed that there is an over-provision within the borough of supported adult living accommodation, including that catering for complex needs. Any additional specialist care home spaces above existing provision have the potential to attract residents from outside of the authority area, which the Council stresses would place substantial pressure on borough services.

The appellant’s assertions that there is a need for the proposed development within the borough is largely anecdotal and based on informal discussions that have taken place with no substantive written evidence of verification. Whilst the CQC is content that the appellant has made the necessary alterations to the property to provide adequate accommodation, their correspondence does not suggest there is a need, which they acknowledge is a matter that should be assessed through the planning process.

Furthermore, I note that the appellant states that the care home places would be restricted to referrals from the borough. However, in the absence of any mechanism of control before me, I am not convinced that this could be achieved and enforced. Notwithstanding, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate the nature and level of harm that would likely transpire from accommodating care home residents from outside of the borough.

Consequently, I favour the Council’s position on the matter of need for the specialist accommodation for borough residents and the proposal is therefore contrary to criteria (a). However, in the absence of any substantive evidence, the level of harm associated with this conflict is limited.

Criteria (b) requires specialist accommodation to contribute to creating a mixed, balanced and inclusive neighbourhood. The Council provides little commentary on this matter, stating that a judgement could not be made due to uncertainty regarding the type of care that would be provided. However, I note that the appellant has undertaken an assessment of planning records in the surrounding area, including a broad sweep of consents for similar shared accommodation such as care homes and houses in multiple occupation (HMO). Whilst the specific planning records are not before me, the appellant asserts that the results show very few similar developments in the area and the proposed development would therefore not give rise to an over concentration of similar uses. I find no reason to disagree having visited the site and its surroundings.

The proposal would contribute positively to providing alternative care accommodation in an area that sits close to the transition between a predominantly residential neighbourhood, containing many conventional homes, and a mixed-use area with retail and commercial uses. Consequently, I find that it would contribute to a mixed, balanced and inclusive neighbourhood and would therefore comply with criteria (b).

Criteria (e) requires the accommodation to have the necessary level of supervision, management and care/support. Again, the Council has provided very little commentary on this matter for the same reason provided in relation to criteria (b). However, the appellant has provided correspondence from the CQC that confirms all aspects of their assessment of the property have been found to be acceptable except for the granting of planning permission. Furthermore, the appellant has experience of providing specialist care within the borough, confirms that the premises will be managed by two full-time carers and would be subject to further inspections once operational. The Council provides no substantive rebuttal to this evidence. I therefore find that the proposal complies with criteria (e).

For the above reasons, the proposed development would fail to meet the requirements of specialist accommodation as articulated at criteria (a) of Part 1 of LP Policy LP4, but with only limited associated harm. The proposed development would comply with the requirements of specialist accommodation as set out at criteria (b) to (f) of the same policy.

In the context of Policy H1 of the London Plan (2021) (the London Plan), which sets out the [name] strategy for increasing housing supply, [name] of London Plan Policy H8 states that any loss of existing housing should be replaced by new housing. This position is supported by LP Policy LP2, which sets out how the Council will deliver the minimum target of new dwellings, including by resisting the net loss of residential accommodation at point 1 d).

Importantly, London Plan Policy H8 and LP Policy LP2 make no distinctions between different categories of accommodation that fall under the banner of housing. In this instance the proposed change of use is without doubt from a dwelling to a care home as set out in the description of development. Care homes provide residential accommodation for occupants requiring specialist support as an alternative to a conventional house and they therefore provide a type of housing. Indeed, there is an absence of development plan or national planning policy before me that specifically resist the loss of single-family homes.

Furthermore, there would be no loss of residential accommodation and accordingly, there is no requirement to provide replacement housing.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposed development would accord with London Plan Policies H1 and H8, and LP Policy LP2.

The proposal would bring forward a care home supporting vulnerable residents and those with disabilities within a well-managed and safe property, who would be unlikely to be able to live wholly independently. They would not only benefit from being at the heart of an existing residential community, but one that is well connected to existing services, facilities and the public transport network, thereby promoting social interaction and providing an inclusive place to live. It would also make efficient use of an existing building. Furthermore, the proposal would support the employment of several carers.

The latest [name] (HDT) demonstrates that the Council has fallen substantially short of meeting its housing delivery target in recent years, which is of severe concern. The provision of a care home within an existing residential building has the potential to come forward quickly and therefore contribute positively to assisting the Council in rectifying its housing delivery deficit.

Any future shared accommodation proposals in the area would be considered on their own planning merits. I therefore disagree with interested parties that allowing this appeal would set a precedent for similar proposals that may over time cumulatively erode the fabric of the community.

The SAC, which the appeal site lies within the zone of influence (ZoI) of, is designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations). It provides important semi-natural woodland and wet and dry heaths that support rare epiphytic species including mosses, and shrub and tree species. Furthermore, the long-standing history of pollarding has resulted in the existence of many veteran trees and consequently makes the SAC rich in fungi and invertebrates such as the stag beetle.

The Habitats Regulations require that the competent authority, taking a precautionary approach, must ensure that there are no significant adverse effects from the proposed development on the integrity of the SAC, either alone or in combination with other projects. Care home development is likely to lead to increased recreational pressure, which would, both alone and in combination with other development within the ZoI, have a likely significant effect on the SAC’s special qualifying features; likely significant effects cannot be ruled out.

The Council has strategic strategies in place for the avoidance and mitigation of additional recreational disturbance, in the form of the Epping Forest SAMM Strategy and the Natural Green Space Improvement Strategy that relates to the provision of SANG. The appellant has submitted a legal obligation in the form of a UU containing provision for the requisite financial contributions to fund the SAMM and SANG measures, which have been calculated based on a formula that recognises the recreational pressure arising from each additional care home room.

The contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. As such, the financial contributions would count as mitigation towards maintaining the integrity of the SAC.

Having consulted Natural England, I am satisfied that the mitigation secured through the UU would ensure that the proposal would avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.

I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council, and I have considered them against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition specifying the approved plans for clarity. Furthermore, a condition should be included to require the submission and approval of bicycle storage facilities, and subsequent implementation and retention, to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport given the limited availability of vehicle parking spaces. Finally, a condition is required to limit the occupancy of the development to adults only in-line with the terms of the proposal sought under this appeal. There may be other considerations associated with the provision of a children’s care home that have not been tested in this case.

It is unnecessary to include a condition requiring compliance with the various supporting documents submitted during the application process. Their contents either do not include requirements necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms or the measures within them could be secured through other means such as Building Regulations.

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with LP policy regarding the localised need for the care home. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

However, the Council’s delivery of housing, as demonstrated by the results of the HDT, has been substantially below the housing requirement over recent years. In these circumstances, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. Following an AA, the proposal would not adversely affect the SAC as a habitats site. Hence, the evidence does not show that there are any protected areas or assets of particular importance where the Framework provides a strong reason for refusing the development under paragraph 11 d) i).

Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11 d) ii) of the Framework applies. This states that planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making efficient use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

I have found conflict with criteria (a) of Part 1 of LP Policy LP4. However, given the lack of substantive evidence to demonstrate the level of harm associated with this conflict, I attribute limited weight accordingly. As discussed above, the proposed development has many benefits, including being sustainably located, making efficient use of an existing building and providing specialist accommodation for vulnerable residents within an established community, which I attribute significant weight to overall.

Taking account of the circumstances of this case, I conclude that the harm found would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as articulated at paragraph 11 d) ii) of the Framework.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. However, material considerations indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.