Appeal 6003548

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was changed subsequent to an email from the Council to the appellant dated 13 October 2025. I have therefore used the revised description in the header above, as shown on the Council’s decision notice, rather than the wording that was used on the original application form, as this describes the development more accurately.

The appellant confirmed that the development has already occurred in an email to the Council dated 10 October 2025, as such the application is seeking retrospective consent.

In determining this appeal, 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, 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. Disability is a relevant protected characteristic to which the PSED applies.

The main issues are: • whether or not the development would provide appropriate living conditions for occupiers; and, • the effect of the development on the character of the area and the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The information and detail submitted in support of the planning application is limited. Furthermore, the information submitted with the appeal has at times contradicted what was submitted with the planning application. For example, the Appellant’s statement of case outlines that there will be a total of 5 occupants, 3 residents, and 2 carers, who will sleep in the house, whereas the design and access statement tallies 8 occupants, 6 residents, and 2 carers, who will sleep in the house. These further conflict with an email from the appellant dated 22 September 2025 which outlines that there will be 5 residents, 2 staff and 1 registered manager.

The Council’s officer report and an email from the appellant dated 22 September 2025, also outline that there will be a designated staff rest room, but there is no reference to this, or the location of staff sleeping accommodation within the suite of submitted plans or submission documents. Nevertheless, these documents generally points towards a sense of communal living within the accommodation being for the benefit of a household with resident adults who require some support.

The Council’s officer report further outlines that during the application process the appellant was asked to provide additional information relating to how the property would be made suitable for the residents and staff in terms of layout, amenity space and outlook, the future needs of the residents, and storage. The Council highlight that these details have not been forthcoming.

Whilst the plans indicate areas for parking, cycle and bin storage, there is limited detailing of communal areas, external or internal, and how these spaces would function to meet the needs of the residents and staff. I have not been presented with any evidence to show how the living space for daily activities is appropriate for the size of the household and staff.

In the absence of such information, I cannot be confident that the development would appropriately meet the needs of either the residents or staff. In this regard the development would be contrary to Policy 6 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan (2021) (LP), which amongst other things, seek to ensure that the site is suitable for the intended occupiers and their future needs.

The appeal site is a semi-detached two-storey property with a modest conservatory and rear dormer loft conversion. The frontage is given over to parking for three vehicles, with a modestly sized rear garden. The site is located in a residential area which is characterised by dwellings of varying size, form, appearance and spacing.

The Management Plan and Noise Management Plan documents demonstrate limited overall efficacy for their intended purpose as a supported living development. While they set out basic factual information about the site, occupiers and management responsibilities, it is largely descriptive and provides general assurances regarding noise, supervision, anti-social behaviour, maintenance, health and safety, and neighbour liaison. These are expressed at a high level and are not supported by clear operational detail, enforceable mechanisms, or monitoring arrangements. As such, there is no detail before me as to how any of these potential issues would be addressed, and I cannot be sure they would be effective.

The dwelling appears to be capable of accommodating six individuals, all of whom would have their own separate daily routines and domestic regimes, attract their own social network and access to goods and services at different times during the day, evening and night. The evidence suggests that nature of residents is that tenancies may be shorter and more transient which, can result in imbalanced and unsustainable communities where tenants are not engaged with the community or do not support local facilities.

The internal layout, incorporating a bedroom at ground‐floor level, would facilitate a more intensive pattern of occupation than that reasonably associated with a single‐family dwellinghouse. Coupled with the separate lifestyles of occupants and increased volume of their activity and movements to and from the building, it would represent a further harmful change to the character of the property and the wider streetscene when compared to a scenario where the property is occupied by a single-family unit, where occupants would be likely to reside on a longer term basis and live in a manner more consistent with neighbouring residents.

The appellant’s email to the Council, dated 22 September 2025, also confirms that staff would operate on a 24‐hour rotational basis, with day shifts running from 8am to 8pm and night shifts from 8pm to 8am. However, no information is provided regarding the frequency, duration, or timing of visits by the registered manager, resulting in a lack of clarity about the full extent of on‐site staff presence. The submitted evidence also indicates that regular visits by medical and other professional practitioners would be likely.

When taken together, this arrangement would introduce a sustained pattern of staff and professional visits throughout the day and night, giving rise to a markedly higher level of activity and movement than would reasonably be expected from a single‐family dwelling. This intensified and continuous pattern of comings and goings would harm the character of the property and, by extension, would be harmful to the established residential character of the wider streetscene when assessed against a single‐household occupied by a single-family unit.

Therefore, I conclude that the development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. This conflicts with [name] 6, 7 and 34, which amongst other matters, seek to avoid unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.