Appeal 6001655

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed change of use would be acceptable, with regard to the supply of family housing and local need; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property relates to a two-storey end of terrace property located on [address]. The property benefits from parking to the front, and a garden to the rear. Surrounding development is mainly characterised by two storey dwellings of a similar size and style.

The Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (RLP) defines family housing as a property with three or more bedrooms. The property is therefore considered to be family housing. Policy LP5 of the RLP, as identified in the case officer report, states that there will be focus on the provision of larger family homes (three bed plus). The

similarly identifies a need for three bed plus dwellings.

Whilst the scheme may retain the property’s residential character, the proposed change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3 use) and to a children’s care home (C2 use) would result in the loss of a family home, for which there a need. Although it may be argued that the proposed change of use would have a negligible supply of family housing, the cumulative impact of such incremental changes would have significant effects and would undermine the Council’s development plan policies in terms of ensuring the provision of family homes.

Notwithstanding the above, Policy H12 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and Policy LP4 of the RLP seek to support the delivery of supported and specialist accommodation where it meets a demonstratable local need, amongst other criteria.

The appellant outlines how an ongoing shortfall in suitable placements for looked after children is evidenced by regional placement data and Ofsted reports. There is however limited empirical evidence before me to demonstrate this. [name] accept that there are significant numbers of children in England living in care far from their home, the evidence does not indicate that this is a particular issue in Redbridge. Furthermore, the Council’s formal consultation response from [name] outlines how local sufficiency needs are currently being met within the available provision in and around the borough, and overall, there is an oversupply of general care provision. As such, it has not been demonstrated that there is an identified local need for such accommodation.

To conclude, the scheme would result in the loss of family housing, for which there is a need. It has also not been demonstrated that the scheme would meet an identified need within the borough. It would therefore be contrary to Policies LP2, LP4 and LP5 of the RLP, as identified in the case officer report, and Policy H12 of the LP in this regard. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies resist the loss of family dwellings and ensure that supported and specialist accommodation meets a demonstrable need.

I however do not find any conflict with Policy H1 or H8 of the LP. Although the scheme would result in the loss of a family dwelling, it would still provide housing, albeit for different purposes. I do not find Policy LP26 of the RLP to be relevant to this main issue.

The care home would accommodate up to 5 children and would be staffed 24 hours a day by between 2 and 7 full time employees working on a shift system. The site benefits from 3 onsite parking spaces. There is little information before me regarding shift times, the type of care that residents would require and the potential for further visits including those from family.

As a worst-case scenario, 7 staff could be arriving or leaving the site at one time, in addition to any visitors. The noise associated with this, such as doors opening and closing, car engines starting and radio systems playing, would be more than that associated with the use of a single-family dwelling and would be readily apparent to neighbouring properties given the tight knit residential nature of the street. Additionally, shift change over times could be late at night or early in the morning, when background noise levels have dropped and neighbouring residents can reasonably expect some peace and quiet.

Whilst the appellant contends that strict management protocols would control shifts, visitor hours and transport arrangements, I have no such information before me regarding what these controls would be and therefore, I cannot be sure that they would adequately mitigate any noise and disturbance. I am also not satisfied that a planning condition requiring the submission of a management plan and travel plan would be an appropriate solution as the impacts should be fully understood before planning permission is granted. I am therefore not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that a condition would be reasonable.

Overall, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the scheme would not harm neighbouring living conditions by way of noise and disturbance. It would conflict with Policies LP4 and LP26 of the RLP in this regard. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development does not harm neighbouring amenity.

I do not find Policy LP2 of the RLP or Policies H1, H8 and H12 of the LP to be relevant to this main issue.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity. As the proposal would provide a home for children, it would relate to persons who share a relevant protected characteristic. Given it has not been demonstrated that there is an identified need for the scheme, I afford this point limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several other children’s homes approved by the Council. However, these applications were for certificates of lawfulness, which are subject to a more limited set of considerations than a planning application and as such, I do not find these examples to be directly comparable to this appeal.

The scheme may not harm the character and appearance of the area. It may ensure highway safety, adequate parking provision, acceptable living conditions for care home residents and fire safety. The site is not situated within a conservation area or adjacent to any designated heritage assets. These are however neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

The appellant contends that the scheme would enhance the level of accommodation at the property. However, no internal amendments are proposed. How this would be achieved is therefore unclear and of little weight.

Given the nature of the harm identified, particularly the loss of the family dwelling and lack of identified need for the scheme, I am not satisfied that a condition to ensure the submission of an annual monitoring report to the Council would overcome the harm. The use of a unilateral undertaking to prioritise placements at the care home for children from Redbridge would not overcome the harm identified and, in any case, the evidence indicates that local needs are currently being met, and there is an oversupply of general care provision in the area.

There would be no net increase in housing provision, therefore paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework is not engaged. Nonetheless, the scheme would provide an inclusive and nurturing children’s care home in an accessible location, close to various services and facilities. It may provide appropriate levels of care and supervision, whilst complying with various care standards and regulations and contributing towards the creation of a mixed and inclusive community. Overall, I acknowledge the important role such facilities play in society and the subsequent benefits associated with the delivery of a children’s care home. However, these benefits would be tempered by, and would not outweigh, the loss of the family dwelling, for which there is a need, the lack of demonstrated need for the scheme and the harm to neighbouring living conditions by way of noise and disturbance.

In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.