Appeal 6001944

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant contends that the scheme would not result in a material change of use, referring to case law (SSETR v Waltham Forest LBC and an appeal decision for a certificate of lawfulness (Ref: APP/C5690/X/23/3329560)). Within the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Act, it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the proposed development requires planning permission. If the appellant wishes to ascertain whether the development is lawful, they may make an application under section 192 of the Act. I have assessed the appeal accordingly.

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 on [address]. The property comprises three bedrooms, however it is common ground between the main parties that the existing playroom and study could also be used as bedrooms. The property benefits from a large single storey outbuilding to the rear of the site, which includes a kitchen, bathroom and a bedroom. Surrounding development is mainly characterised by two storey dwellings. The appeal property is larger than most other dwellings in the area, as a result of its integral double garage with accommodation above.

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. The proposed change of use to a children’s care home offering specialist complex care provision would result in the loss of a larger family home.

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 as of March 2023 Redbridge had 2271 children assessed as being in need of support and protection. Additionally, as of April 2022, 16.7% children in Redbridge were living in relative poverty and children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to require access to specialist care. They also outline how according to census data, Redbridge’s population has grown, thereby placing additional pressure on services, including children’s social care.

Whilst the above data may suggest that there may be some future need for such accommodation, in general it lacks precision. Firstly, the data from March 2023 is somewhat outdated and it is not clear whether these children are without and actively seeking such support and protection. Similarly, the fact that a child may live in poverty does not demonstrate a local need for such care, nor does an increase in population. Furthermore, the consultation response from the Council’s Children’s Services, received in October 2025, outlines how needs for looked after children and children with very high or complex needs in the borough are currently being met through existing provision within or near the borough and there is no demonstrated local need for this type of residential provision at present.

[name] may only have 6% of the national total of children’s homes, this again does not demonstrate a local need. An email from the Council’s Children’s Brokerage Manager, dated April 2025, outlines how they were primarily looking for respite placements for children with disabilities. However, the formal consultation response, received after this, clearly sets out that current needs within the borough are being met by existing provision. In any case, only two of the five bedrooms would provide such respite placements. Based on the evidence before me, I am therefore not satisfied that it has 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 a demonstrable 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. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The Council’s concerns relate to noise and disturbance from the use of the outbuilding and the on-site car parking. The submitted rota shows that during the day 3-4 staff would be working from 8am-8pm whilst at night 3 staff would be working. The rota provided is for 3 children, however the care home could accommodate up to 5 children so it is likely that from time to time there would be more staff working than indicated on the rota. Additionally, the appellant outlines how additional staff would be available to support respite residents.

Three parking spaces are provided to the rear of the site, between the rear of the property and the outbuilding, away from neighbouring properties. I am also mindful that the site is located in a residential context, and many of the properties along [address] benefit from [address] parking spaces. Therefore, some noise and disturbance from cars parking would not be unusual. Additionally, any noise and disturbance from parking would likely be concentrated during staff change over times at 8am and 8pm. At these times, some background noise can reasonably be expected in an urban area. Overall, the parking area would result in a generally low level of activity that would not be out of keeping within the residential context. I therefore I do not consider that the use of the parking area would result in harm to neighbouring living conditions by way of noise and disturbance.

Concerns are also raised regarding the lack of detail regarding the use of the outbuilding where a therapy room, education/training room, staff room and office are proposed. The appellant outlines how the therapy room would only be used if a child became dysregulated and needed time away from other children or carers and the education/training would be used for remote learning and tutoring. Given this, it is likely they would be used on occasion, and predominately during the day as children would generally be asleep at night. Any use of the staff room would likely be intermittent during staff breaks and it is unlikely that use of the office would result any unacceptable noise. Additionally, I am mindful that at present there would be some noise associated with the use of the outbuilding. Overall, I do not consider that staff or residents entering and exiting the outbuilding and using the various rooms would result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring residents by way of noise and disturbance.

To conclude, the scheme would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbours by way of noise and disturbance. It would therefore be in accordance 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 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, including those with disabilities, it would relate to persons who share relevant protected characteristics. Given there is not an identified need for the accommodation, I afford this point limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The appellant refers to positive pre-application discussions with the Council, whereby it stated that children’s care homes with a specialist focus could be supported. However, I am mindful that pre-application discussions are informal and not binding on any future decision the Council may make once a proposal has been subject to the formal planning process. In any case, the formal consultation response, which is dated after the pre-application discussion, indicated that existing needs for such care are being met.

The scheme would provide secure cycle storage and ensure fire safety and adequate waste provision. It would also not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area or neighbouring amenity. The appeal property is not situated within a conservation area and is not a listed building. Overall, these are neutral factors that would not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

The scheme would provide a safe, accessible and inclusive care home for children, including those with disabilities. It would meet various safeguarding and care standards and would also support the Council’s statutory obligations under the Children’s Act 1989. I acknowledge that Belmont Care Residential Ltd are registered with Ofsted and benefit from good ratings and strong working relationships with many local authorities. The scheme may create some employment opportunities and there may be some minor improvements associated with privacy and security at the site, however the details regarding this are limited. Overall, there would be some benefits associated with the creation of the children’s care home, and I acknowledge the important role these facilities play in society. However, any benefit would be tempered by, and would not outweigh, the lack of demonstrated need for the scheme, and the loss of the family dwelling, for which there is a need.

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.