Appeal 6003391

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of use from Class E office use to a care home for people with learning difficulties and special needs (Class C2) at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/1358, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Since the application was determined, the Council have adopted the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2025) (RLP2) and policies LP20, LP22, LP25, LP26, LP28, LP30, LP36, LP37B and LP42 of the Richmond Local Plan (2018) (RLP) have been replaced with policies 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24. The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on this. I am required to determine the appeal against the current development plan for the area at the time of my decision. I therefore have had regard to these policies.

2 [name] (UU) have been submitted with the appeal for contributions towards the Council’s affordable housing fund: one with a contribution of £164,584 and one with a contribution of £34,447. The Council has been given the opportunity to comment on these UUs. On this basis, I do not consider that any party would be unfairly prejudiced, and I therefore have had consideration to these in my decision. I will return to this matter later in my

The main issues are: -the effect of the proposal on the availability of employment space in the borough; -whether the site is in a suitable location for the development proposed; - whether the development makes an appropriate contribution towards affordable housing; and - whether the development is acceptable in relation to development plan policies relating to sustainable design and construction.

The appeal property is a 3-storey purpose-built office building located in the [site address] Local Centre. The proposal seeks to change the use of the property to a care home for people with learning difficulties and special needs. It is proposed that 18-20 persons would be employed on a shift rota basis.

RLP2 policy 21 states that the Council will seek to retain and attract investment from existing and emerging sectors to support the existing business base and create a diverse and enterprising local economy. To achieve this the policy states that proposals will be supported which protect existing employment floorspace, with a no net loss approach. The loss of the existing purpose-built office floor space would not be supported by the protectionist development plan policies.

In support of the proposal the appellant has provided evidence of a marketing campaign covering a period of 5 1⁄2 years during which the premises were marketed for office/ E use class through multiple agents for rent and sale through commercial websites and databases, commercial property portals and targeted mailings to potential tenants and purchasers. It is stated that this marketing period resulted in few enquiries for office use and no offers from prospective office occupiers, citing parking constraints as one of the reasons for the lack of commercial interest in the property. I am satisfied that the appellant has provided evidence of a robust and active marketing campaign which demonstrates a lack of demand in the use of the site for office/ class E use, and that evidence has been provided that the property was marketed for a price reflective of the local market.

Nonetheless, whilst the evidence indicates a lack of demand for the use of the site for office/ class E use, the loss of office floorspace would still be contrary to the development plan’s no net loss approach to employment floorspace. Conflict therefore arises with those aims of RLP2 policies 17, 18 and 21 and policy E2 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which seek to retain and protect employment space and provide spaces for businesses and services.

Whilst referenced in the reason for refusal, there is no indication that the proposal would be sited in close proximity to established or planned uses with late night licences or that it would result in a net loss of industrial land or an essential shop or service. I therefore find no conflict with RLP2 policies 19, 20 and 24.

The building would accommodate 6 residents with learning difficulties and special needs with bedrooms to the first and second floors. Residents would have their own room with en-suite facilities and would share 3 communal lounges, a kitchen, dining room, laundry and sensory room. To the rear of the site is a garden which includes a bin and cycle store. The development does not include lift access to the upper floors.

RLP2 policy 12 states that planning permission will be granted for new accommodation where housing is providing for an identified local need, providing they are on a site and in a location suitable for that particular use, and in accordance with environmental, transport, parking and other relevant policies. The policy requires that proposals demonstrate how higher standards of accessible and inclusive design have been met and that proposals for supported housing are designed to meet identified local needs in accordance with the Council’s housing and commissioning strategies and LP policy H12, demonstrating how the design will address the level of support needed for future residents, and should be informed by discussions with providers, demonstrating accordance with the Council’s commissioning and housing strategies.

LP policy H12 is supportive of the delivery of specialised housing which meets an identified need, acknowledging that the form this takes will vary, and should be designed to satisfy the requirements of the specific use or group it is intended for whilst providing options within the accommodation offer for the diversity of London’s population, including disabled Londoners, within a wider inclusive community setting. The appellant states that Richmond and [name] has confirmed that there is a need for placements in which there is appropriate expertise and skill to support occupiers and that the proposal would relieve pressure on NHS-funded institutional settings, sheltered accommodation and residential school settings.

The submission sets out that occupiers are likely to be non-car owners. Whilst the site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2, it is nonetheless within walking distance of a range of services and facilities and public transport options which would enable occupiers to undertake shopping and leisure trips on foot and by public transport. It is stated that occupiers would undertake shopping and leisure trips in small groups accompanied by a carer, facilitating integration into society and independent living. The site frontage is set back from the adjacent highway and there is no compelling evidence that the site’s location would render it unsuitable for its intended occupiers. The site’s location would therefore appear to be well-suited to the development’s intended occupiers.

The appellant sets out that occupiers are best served by small-scale residential provision with specialist care and support in which specialised small-scale individualised provision can be provided. The building’s layout would support independent living and social integration, providing an appropriate level of support for residents in an inclusive community setting meeting an identified local need.

In considering the merits of the proposal I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which specifies the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have also had regard to rights conveyed within the Human Rights Act. The development would enable 6 residents with learning difficulties and special needs to live in the community with access to appropriate specialist care and support, enabling them to gain independence. The development’s benefits insofar as it would advance equality of opportunity to a group who share a particular characteristic (the development’s occupiers with learning difficulties and special needs) weighs in favour of the proposal. On the other hand, the development does not include lift access to the upper floors and thus would exclude physically disabled persons from gaining equal access to the development. The development therefore fails to meet the needs of a group with a protected characteristic.

There is no indication that the development would be targeted at persons with a physical disability and it is clear that the development has been designed to meet the intended occupiers’ specific requirements. In these circumstances the grant of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to the legitimate aim of the provision of housing which meets an identified need for a particular group. I therefore conclude that in these particular circumstances the failure to accommodate physically disabled persons (and any resultant conflict with those aims of LP policy H12) is outweighed by the significant benefits to the development’s intended occupiers who also share a protected characteristic.

Drawing on the above, I find that the site and location would be suitable for the proposed use. I therefore find no conflict with those aims of RLP2 policy 12, the aims of which are set out above.

RLP2 policy 11 states that a contribution towards affordable housing will be expected on all housing proposals and that on sites below the threshold of 10 units a financial contribution to the [name] will be sought as a percentage of the gross value of the development. Where there is a loss of employment floor space a contribution on a sliding scale of between 10 and 90% of the gross value of the development is required, dependent on the number of units. The appellant has provided 2 UUs with contributions towards the [name], one with a contribution of £34,447 (UU 1), and one with a contribution of £164,584 (UU 2).

The Council calculates that a contribution of £164,584 is required based on the contributions for 3 units based on the [name] measurement rule book which applies a ratio of 1.9 to the number of bed spaces reflective of the national average number of adults in all households. However, I have not been directed to any part of RLP2 policy 11 or the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2014) (SPD) which sets out that such an approach should be taken. The appellant considers that the lower contribution is applicable. [name] agree that the contribution should be calculated on the basis that the proposal is one unit, the appellant’s contribution appears to have been calculated on the basis that the development generates a contribution of 4% of the gross value of the development. The site is not listed, and the proposal would result in a loss of employment floorspace and thus RLP2 policy 11 specifies that the development would require a 10% contribution, which the Council states would amount to £88,950.

Drawing together the above the obligations in UU 1 would fail to make a policy-compliant contribution towards affordable housing. Given this only UU2 includes the minimum affordable housing contribution sufficient to make the development acceptable and therefore this is the obligation on which my decision is based. The obligations in UU 2 would significantly exceed the contribution required by RLP2 policy 11. It is stated that the higher contribution would render the development unviable, however no viability evidence has been presented in support of this to give substantial credence to. I have had regard to the obligation in UU 2 in so far as it makes provision for a policy-compliant contribution towards affordable housing, although the additional sum that would be secured is not a matter which weighs in the development’s favour.

Drawing on the above the proposal makes provision for a policy-compliant level of affordable housing in accordance with those aims of LP policy H4 and RLP2 policies 10, 11 and 13 which seek to ensure that proposals contribute towards affordable housing. I also find compliance with the SPD which has similar aims.

The Council’s 4th reason for refusal states that in the absence of any documentation regarding sustainable design and construction the scheme does not comply with the sustainability requirements of RLP policies LP20 and LP22. Since the determination of the application the RLP has been replaced by the RLP2 and, unlike the other reasons for refusal which referenced the (then emerging) policies in the RLP2, I have not been alerted to any current development plan policies with which there would be a conflict on this matter. [name] have not been directed to any development plan conflict in relation to this main issue there is no compelling evidence before me of harm in this regard.

The Council raised no objections to the proposal’s impact on the highway network and based on the evidence before me and my observations on site I see no reason to conclude otherwise. I have given due consideration to concerns regarding the potential impact of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties. However, given the scale of the building, its separation from neighbouring buildings and the limited scale of occupation there is no evidence that the change in the use of the site would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties.

The development would result in the creation of 18-20 jobs and would generate a meaningful level of employment. There would be substantial benefits in terms of the provision of specialist housing which would meet an identified housing need, supporting the independence and community-integration of the development’s occupiers, resulting in benefits in terms of quality-of-life outcomes to a group sharing a protected characteristic. The development would also make a policy-compliant contribution towards affordable housing. This is a matter that weighs in favour of the proposal, though the additional sum included within the UU is not a matter which weighs in the development’s favour. Cumulatively these benefits attract substantial weight in favour of the proposal, and I find that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm arising from the loss of employment floorspace. In these circumstances material considerations indicate that the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council in their statement of case, on which the appellant has had the opportunity to comment. Where necessary I have made revisions to some of the conditions put to me to ensure that they meet the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance, without altering their fundamental aims.

Planning permission is granted subject to the standard three-year time limit condition for implementation. In addition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans and documents in the interest of certainty. I have included conditions which require the retention of existing cycle parking and refuse storage to ensure the provision of these necessary residential facilities.

In the interests of ensuring that the development incorporates the necessary fire safety measures in accordance with LP Policy D12 I have included a condition which requires the approval of a fire safety strategy. It is necessary to condition the use of the development as a care home for people with learning difficulties and special needs to ensure an appropriate standard of accommodation for occupiers.

I have omitted conditions relating to water consumption targets, energy reduction and the submission of a BREEAM Pre-Assessment as I have not been directed to any particular development plan requirement for these.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan. However, material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.