Appeal 6002304

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to children's residential care home (Class C2) and a loft conversion with a rear dormer at [site address] , Romford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0457.25, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule.

An update to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in draft for consultation purposes in December 2025. The content of this draft consultation document does not materially alter the national policy context for the assessment of this appeal.

It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a primarily residential area comprising mainly of 2-storey semi-detached dwellings. Some of these dwellings have been altered through rear, side and roof extensions. The semi-detached dwelling adjoining the property has been substantially altered. To the other side of this altered dwelling is a verdant area of greenspace.

The property is one of 3 properties which are served by a short cul-de-sac. On the opposite side of this road is an area of greenspace. In addition to the pair of semi-detached dwellings, the third property is [address] which has been extended and is currently a residential care home. Adjacent to [address] and situated on [address] is a bus stop which, from what could be observed, is the terminus for 2 services. There are some shopping and related facilities available at the local centre situated along [address] which is within walking distance.

The proposed development includes the erection of a roof extension in the form of a dormer which would extend across the majority of the property’s rear roofslope. During the site visit, other rear dormer extensions were observed but, with the exception of the addition at [address], these schemes are not of the same scale as the proposed extension. In any event, the full planning circumstances of these other schemes have not been provided and, as such, they are given only limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

The council’s [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) includes guidance that dormer windows should normally be located facing the rear garden so they are not visible from the street and do not harm the appearance or character of the original dwelling. By reason of siting and scale, the proposed dormer would not be subservient to the host property. Instead, it would be a visually dominant addition to the property having the appearance of a third storey being added to the property. This element of the appeal scheme would be visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties and from [address] across the rear garden of [address].

By reason of its scale and siting, the proposed dormer would conflict with the guidance contained in the SPD. It would also conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (HLP) and Policy D4 of the London Plan (LP) which promote the delivery of high quality design.

However, the council has advised a Certificate of Lawful Development (Ref D0462.25) has been issued to confirm that, because the property is currently a dwelling house, a rear dormer extension of a similar scale and design as this element of the appeal scheme could be erected as permitted development. [name] did not exist when the appeal application was determined by the council. It now represents a legitimate fallback position to which significant weight should be given in the assessment of this element of the appeal scheme.

The dormer which could be erected as permitted development pursuant to the Certificate of Lawful Development would have a similar effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area as the appeal scheme. This is, therefore, a case whereby the fallback position is a material consideration of such significant weight that it is judged to demonstrably and clearly outweigh the conflict with the relevant development plan policies. Accordingly, and when compared to the fallback position, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The proposed development includes a change of use of the property to a children’s residential care home. HLP Policy 6 includes a number of criteria for the assessment of proposals for specialist accommodation, including such proposals not being likely to give rise to significantly greater levels of noise and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. This approach is echoed in [name] 7 and 34 and LP Policy D14 whereby, amongst other matters, developments should avoid significant adverse noise impacts on amenity, human health and quality of life.

The appellant has identified that with the proposed roof extension a maximum of 4 children aged between 7 and 18 would reside and be cared for at the property with the maximum daytime number of staff being 5 people. During the night time, 2 carers would be employed and would sleep at the property. The identified shift pattern includes a change of carers at 09:30 hours albeit the management staff would work more typical office hours. The number of children residing at [address] and this would also influence the number of carers required to be employed.

By reason of the proposed use, there would be more comings and goings associated with the children and staff when compared to a typical family dwelling of an equivalent size. Such an increase of comings and goings could well be a source of noise or other disturbance which could be unacceptable within a quiet suburban residential environment whereby the care home might be surrounded by family homes.

Other people may also visit the proposed care home, including family, friends and social workers but the frequency and timing of such visits has not been quantified. Similar types of visits may already occur to see the residents of [address] and there is no evidence to suggest that such visits cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

Although 2 family dwellings neighbour the property, in this case the appeal scheme would be located on the edge of, rather than within, a suburban residential area, would be adjacent to an existing care home and would front an area of open space. The property is also not within a quiet residential area because there was noticeable traffic noise associated with the vehicles travelling along [site address] Road. Further, the front entrance and vehicular access to the property do not directly adjoin the other semi-detached dwelling.

Within the context of the identified characteristics of the surrounding area, the comings and goings from the property, although greater than might occur from a family dwelling of an equivalent size, would not lead to any material or significant change to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring family dwellings by reason of noise and disturbance.

As with any residential property, whether a family dwelling or a care home, it can be expected that the children would make use of the private amenity space. The council’s concerns that the 4 children occupying the proposed care home would generate a greater level of noise than a typical family occupying a similar sized dwelling are generalised concerns which are not substantiated by any specific evidence. It cannot be said with any great certainty that there would be a material difference in the character of noise from the property whether it is being used as a family dwelling or a care home for a maximum of 4 children.

If this appeal succeeds, there is the potential to impose a condition concerning the implementation of a Noise Management Plan which would be expected to include limitations on how late the garden can be used. Overseen by the staff, the measures identified by the appellant in the [name] would also control the potential for unacceptable noise and disturbance from the use of the property as a care home. The implementation of the [name] could be secured by condition.

Accordingly, and subject to the conditions identified, it is concluded that the proposed development would not give rise to significantly greater levels of noise and disturbance which would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and, as such, there would not be a conflict with [name] 6, 7 and 34 and LP Policy D14. There would also not be a conflict with HLP Policy 16 concerning social infrastructure not adversely impacting on residential character and amenity. HLP Policy H12 concerning supported and specialised accommodation and [name] S1 and S2 regarding development of health/social care facilities are not considered to be of direct relevance to this main issue.

Since the determination of the appeal application the council is now claiming that there is no need for the proposed care home. However, although there is reference to the advice from the Children’s Care Department about an oversupply of children’s care homes in the Borough, there is no cogent evidence provided to support this advice, including the actual demand or need for spaces arising from children within the Borough. For example, no updated Children’s Services Sufficiency Needs Assessment and Strategy has been provided. Further, the evidence just references 8 children’s care homes having opened in the past 2- years and the council is only using 1 of these homes. There is no detailed explanation as to why this situation is the case, including whether there is no actual demand for the accommodation provided by the other 7 care homes. Accordingly, limited weight is given to the council’s claim about there being no need for the proposed care home.

Concern has been raised by a local resident that there is both a lack of parking available and a potential to cause traffic congestion. There would be scope within the property’s current front garden to park circa 4 cars. There are no parking restrictions along the cul-de-sac and at the time of the morning site visit there was only 1 car parked on-street. There was also no evidence of traffic congestion associated with the road junctions. Where more than 1 bus was parked at the stop there was a need for vehicles to wait for oncoming traffic to pass the buses but this did not result in any significant delay or potential danger for other highway users. Accordingly, there is no reason to depart from the Highway Authority’s assessment that the proposed development would not cause any adverse parking or highway issues.

By reason of its size, the council’s concerns associated with the limitation on the use of Bedroom 1 on the second floor are well founded and if this appeal succeeds then a condition to preclude its use as a children’s bedroom would be necessary.

The council has suggested conditions in the event that this appeal succeeds which have been assessed against the tests identified in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, the suggested conditions have been amended for reasons of precision and clarity.

For reasons of clarity, a condition is necessary to identify the approved drawings and that the proposed extension is erected in external materials which match the host property. As already identified, conditions are also necessary to secure the implementation of a Noise Management Plan and the [name] and also limit the of use of proposed Bedroom 1 on the second floor.

Conditions restricting the use of the property to the proposed children’s care home and the number of children residing at [address]. The implementation of the Travel Plan to ensure that there are no issues related to highway safety because of unnecessary vehicular trips should also be secured by condition. Clarification about the details of cycle parking and refuse provision are also necessary. The need for a Secure by Design condition has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be necessary in this case.

Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed.

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: Site Location Plan; Exiting Block Plan; Proposed Block Plan; 1 2; 3; 4; and 7.

All new external finishes for the roof extension hereby permitted shall be carried out in materials to match those of the existing building.

Notwithstanding the details on the approved Block Plan, the use hereby approved shall not commence until cycle storage is provided in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved cycle storage shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Notwithstanding the details on the approved Block Plan, the use hereby approved shall not commence until refuse and recycling facilities are provided in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved refuse and recycling facilities shall be permanently retained thereafter.

The use hereby approved shall not commence until a Noise Management Plan detailing measures to control levels of noise and disturbance from the use of he property and its curtilage as a children’s residential care home have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Noise Management Plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved measures.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the submitted [name] Statement dated 15 January 2024.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the submitted Travel Plan Statement.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) (the Order) (or in any provision equivalent to Class C2 in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the use hereby permitted shall be for the provision of residential accommodation and care to no more than 4 children aged at any one time in need of care between the ages of 7 and 18 and shall not be used other use within Class C2 of the Order.

No child shall reside, sleep or be cared for in Bedroom1 on the second floor as identified on approved plan No. 3. Schedule Ends