Appeal 6001989

The appeal is dismissed.

I have shortened the appellant’s original description of development to just that which is necessary to describe the proposal.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal meets an identified local need for specialist accommodation.

The policy context for specialist accommodation is set by Policy LP4 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 March 2018 (RLP), which supports independent living for older, vulnerable and homeless residents in the borough provided that, amongst other things, it meets a demonstrable need within the borough and is targeted at borough residents. It is common ground between the main parties that the proposal satisfies the remaining criteria in Policy LP4: it contributes to a mixed, balanced and inclusive neighbourhood; integrates with the wider neighbourhood without unduly harming the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; is suitable for the intended occupiers; provides the necessary level of supervision, management and care/support; and offers easy access to facilities and services.

The Council has confirmed that it is on the [name] for [name], which aims to help vulnerable children remain with their families. Whilst there is a significant teenage population in care, the Council has indicated that it places a considerable emphasis on fostering, and as a result only a small number of children require residential care annually. Because the needs of these children can be met through existing provision, the Council has not identified a requirement for additional care homes for children with mental and learning disabilities.

The appellant has referred to reports on failures in private homes in Redbridge between 2018 and 2021, and to the Child Friendly Redbridge Action Plan 2021- 2023 which aims to improve the lives of children and young people. However, these documents do not establish a current local need for specialist accommodation for young people.

A 2025 planning permission for the change of use of a house in multiple occupation (HMO) to a children’s residential institution (use class C2) at [address] Drive1 has been brought to my attention. [name] have not been provided with full details of the proposal, the appellant has advised that it was supported by [name], which the Council has not refuted. The current proposal is not however supported by [name], despite the apparent similarity of the proposals. Circumstances could have changed in the interim, or it may be that the need or otherwise for specialist accommodation requires a balanced assessment of competing factors, which has resulted in a different response from [name] this time. In the absence of detailed information about the circumstances of the planning permission, nothing clearly indicates that the outcome of this appeal should necessarily be the same as the earlier application.

Taking into account the above matters, a need for additional specialist accommodation for residents of the borough has not been identified. In such circumstances, an additional care home may only meet the needs of other local authorities, placing additional pressure on local health services and related resources in Redbridge, thereby impacting on service capacity and quality.

I therefore conclude that, in the absence of a proven need for specialist accommodation in the borough, the proposal would conflict with Policy LP4 of the RLP, the aims of which I have outlined above.

The appeal site is situated within the 6.2km Zone of Influence of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which comprises dry and wet heath habitats along with beech forest habitat and stag beetles. It is a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitats Regulations), and as such it is incumbent upon me as competent authority to consider whether the development is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the site.

Policy LP39 of the RLP states that development which would affect the integrity of the SAC will not be permitted, including development likely to generate a large number of traffic movements on roads within and in close proximity to the SAC. As the proposal is for the change of use of an existing HMO rather than new residential accommodation, there would be no intensification of use and no anticipated increase in traffic movements. Consequently, I am satisfied that there will be no likely significant effect on the SAC.

As the appeal site is already in use as a HMO, the proposal would not materially alter existing traffic or noise levels. Although it would have one full-time resident staff member and visits from professionals and staff from [name] and Ofsted from time to time, there is no indication that such visits would be of sufficient frequency to cause disturbance. 1 LPA reference 1188/25

An interested party believes the appeal site is being used for activities other than a HMO, which is a matter for the Council to pursue if deemed necessary.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under the Equality Act 2010, which identifies both age and disability as protected characteristics. Positive discrimination on the basis of age can be appropriate and legitimate in respect of children, and there is a focus on the removal of environmental, attitudinal or organisational barriers for people with disabilities. The proposal would provide specialist accommodation in the form of a children’s care home for up to four children with mental and learning disabilities. Although there are some likely benefits associated with the provision of a children’s home more generally, it is difficult to quantify these here without more detailed information on the need for the facility in the borough.

Whilst it is therefore a positive consideration that the proposal would provide sustainably-located specialist accommodation for children with mental and learning difficulties, and does not give rise to any other harm, the conflict with the development plan outweighs the benefits of the development. It is therefore proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.