Appeal 6003727

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of the ground floor flat and first floor flat from residential (use C3) to residential institution (use C2) to provide 2x children’s care homes at [site address] , Plaistow, Newham, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/02668/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The Council refers to the preparation of the Draft Newham Local Plan, which is understood to be at Regulation 22 stage. I have not been supplied with a copy of the emerging Local Plan. However, the Council’s reasons for refusal do not identify any conflict with the emerging Local Plan and I note it remains at an early stage of preparation. I have therefore based my decision on the current adopted

The Council appear to have amended the description of development, as stated in the application form, to include reference to a ground floor extension. The ground floor extension is however shown on both the existing and proposed plans and there is no evidence before me to indicate that the change to the description of development was agreed by the appellant. As such, the ground floor extension does not fall under the scope of this application and appeal.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family housing; • whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, with regard to identified need; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future users.

The appeal property relates to a two-storey terraced dwelling on [address]. It consists of two flats. The ground floor flat comprises two bedrooms whilst the first floor flat, which also occupies the loft, comprises four bedrooms.

The Newham Local Plan (NLP) defines family housing as houses or flats within use class C3 that contain three or more bedrooms. Given its size, the first-floor flat is therefore considered to be family housing. However, the two-bedroom ground floor flat is not.

Policy S1 of the NLP states that mixed and balanced communities should be achieved where homes are not created at the expense of the provision and protection of family housing. Policy H4 of the NLP seeks to specifically protect 3 and 4+ bed family housing and sets out various criteria which applications for the conversion of 3 and 4 bed + dwellings should meet.

The Council have no objection to the loss of the ground floor flat, given it is not considered to be family housing. However, the first floor flat would not meet the criteria set out in Policy H4 and would therefore fail to accord with this policy.

The scheme would therefore result in the loss of a family home, for which there a need. It would be contrary to Policies S1, H1 and H4 of NLP in this regard. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to protect family housing. I however do not find any conflict with Policy H8 of the London Plan (LP). Although the scheme would result in the loss of a family dwelling, it would still provide housing, albeit for different purposes.

Policy H3 of the NLP states that new specialist use class C2 properties will be directed towards local need and should be appropriately located in terms of the achievement of mixed and balanced communities. This is reflective of Policy H12 of the LP which supports the delivery of supported and specialist housing which meets an identified need, including accommodation for young people with support needs.

The submitted statement of purpose sets out that the care homes would consider placements for children with a mild learning disability or condition including cognitive development delay and neurodivergent conditions such as ASC, as well as mild mental health conditions such as anxiety/PTSD, when their main reasons for admission are emotional, social and behavioural difficulties, with the ability to support some mental health conditions.

The Newham Children in [name] 2022- 2025, as provided by the Council, sets out that there are insufficient local places for children and young people with multiple and complex needs, including those at risk of [name], those at risk of [name], young people with disabilities and young people with social, emotional and mental health needs. It goes on to discuss how as a result, some young people have been placed at a distance. It has also resulted in other issues such as placement instability.

Additionally, the provided extracts from the 2022-2023 [name] (AMR) for the borough, published in December 2024, similarly indicate that whilst some improvement has been made, further monitoring is needed in terms of the delivery of use class C2 accommodation. The Council contends that this evidence is out of date, however they have not provided any evidence to the contrary or indicated that this trend has now changed. Based on the evidence before me, I am therefore satisfied that the care homes would meet an identified need.

Policy H3 also requires proposals for housing, other than conventional single-family housing, to include an appropriately detailed and resourced management plan that demonstrates management practices that minimise safeguarding risks, amongst other things.

In this regard, the Council raise concerns regarding the lack of clarity on a coherent or evidence-based care model, with vague references to therapeutic approaches and trauma informed care. However, the appellants evidence provides a management plan on how the facilities would be operated and managed, including details of daily routine and activities. They also provide details of how children would be clinically supported.

My attention has not been drawn to any planning policy which requires details of staffing experience and qualifications. The appellant’s evidence clearly sets out how the home would be staffed 24/7 by various members of staff. Additionally, based on the information before me, it can reasonably be assumed that staffing numbers would correspond to the specific type of care to be received by each child and up to date safeguarding guidance would be followed and ensured through registration with relevant bodies. Whilst two staff members in each home may be insufficient to meet the needs of children with complex needs, the evidence sets out that the homes would consider placements for children with mild learning disabilities or conditions.

Concerns are also raised regarding the schemes failure to identify local risks such as high levels of youth violence and gang activities in specific areas, lack of consultation from the appellant with the local police, and other agencies, and the appellants reliance on publicly available crime statements without statistics and reference to recent incidents or emerging trends. However, I have not been directed to any planning policy which requires the appellants to consult directly with local police and other bodies as part of the planning process. In any case, the Council consulted the police as part of the planning application process. The appellant also sets outs how the safety and supervision of children would be ensured, through measures such as restricted access and monitoring systems. Overall, I am satisfied that the information before me is sufficient in terms of demonstrating how management practices would minimise safeguarding risks.

The submitted location risk assessment also considers various risks in the local area and what steps will be taken to mitigate these. Such considerations include access to public transport, road safety, crime in area and emergency services in the area. I am satisfied that the submitted location risk assessment is appropriate.

To conclude, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the development would be in a suitable location and meet an identified need. The scheme would therefore comply with Policies S1, H1 and H3 of the NLP and Policy H12 of the LP in this regard. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that appropriate forms of accommodation are provided in the right locations and meet identified needs.

As outlined in the case officer report, the proposed bedrooms would meet the national minimum space standards. Concerns are raised regarding the lack of separate rooms for carers in each unit in terms of rest space, bathrooms and office space. However, the homes would operate with waking-night staff, therefore no separate rest space would be necessary. I have also not been directed to any planning policy which requires separate bathrooms for staff in such a facility. The first-floor home would include a study, from which the registered manager would conduct administrative and operational duties associated with both units. The appellant has confirmed that each child would have their own rooms, which would ensure privacy. Whilst professional visits may increase the amount of footfall in the homes, these would likely be on occasion and for relatively short periods of time.

The first-floor home would not benefit from any garden space, similarly to the existing situation. The Council contend that various regulations associated with childcare require the provision of appropriate, safe outdoor space. This is however challenged by the appellant, who outlines that whilst various regulations require that premises are suitable and safe, they do not mandate that each home must provide a dedicated private garden, and Ofsted’s guidance confirms that is it not compulsory for a children’s home to have its own garden. They also set out that the homes would be in proximity to various local parks, including Plaistow Park and Memorial Park, which could be used on occasion to allow the children to spend time outdoors. Additionally, the home would benefit from a playroom, in addition to the bedrooms and living area, which would provide extra space for activities and games. I have also not been directed to any planning policy which specifically requires outdoor space for children’s homes, or new residential development. Given the above considerations, on balance, I am satisfied that the lack of private amenity space for one of the children’s homes would not result in a harmful impact.

Overall, based on the evidence before me, on balance I am satisfied that the scheme would ensure acceptable living conditions for future users. I do not find any conflict with Policies S1, SP3 and H3 of the NLP in this regard. Collectively, these policies seek to ensure that developments are of high-quality design.

Whilst the Council has referred to conflict with the LP in this regard, it has not pointed me to any specific policies against which it considers there to be conflict with. Accordingly, any perceived conflict has not been determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

Concerns are raised by interested parties regarding the neighbour notification process. However, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that this has been carried out correctly. Whilst interested parties may not have been consulted on the Council’s revised description of development, which included reference to an extension, there is no evidence before me to confirm that this amended description was agreed to. It therefore does not fall under the scope of the application and appeal.

Interested parties have raised concerns associated with noise and disturbance due to the nature of the facility and cumulative impacts in this regard, given the proximity of a similar 12 bed facility for adults along [address]. However, the level of occupancy would be similar to that at present, therefore any additional noise and disturbance is unlikely. There is a lack of substantive evidence before me to confirm that the scheme would result in antisocial behaviour. Additionally, the submitted statement of purpose sets out various measures to manage children’s behaviour, such as CCTV monitoring and staff supervision. Overall, the Council conclude that the scheme would not cause harm to neighbouring amenity by way of noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour. For the reasons set out, I agree with this conclusion.

[name] acknowledge that there is a similar facility on [address], I am not satisfied that allowing the scheme would lead to an unacceptable concentration of such uses in the area. From the evidence before me, the surrounding area is predominately characterised by family dwellings, and this would still be the case if the appeal were to be allowed. In this regard, the scheme would not unacceptably harm the character of the area.

No concerns are raised by the Council regarding loss of privacy to neighbouring residents or in relation to the highway impacts of the scheme. No external changes to the property are proposed, and the proposed level of occupancy would be similar to that at present. The development would be car-free, which is supported by policy, and the site benefits from a good level of accessibility to public transport, meaning that visits from staff members, families and friends would benefit from the sustainable modes of transport. Given the above, I agree with the Council’s findings on these matters.

There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that existing local services are under pressure, or inadequate. I am therefore not satisfied that the proposal would place unacceptable pressure on these services.

Concerns are raised regarding the effect of the development on local property values. However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, whereas effect on property values is a purely private interest. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that nearby roads would pose an unacceptable safety risk to young children. Interested parties have raised concerns that allowing the scheme could set a precedent. However, each case it determined on its own merits.

I acknowledge that there are some minor inconsistencies in the appellants evidence regarding the age range and number of children that would be accommodated. They have however confirmed that the details provided in the planning statement are correct and that each home would accommodate two children, aged between 5 and 17.

The site is within the 6.2km Zone of Influence for the Epping Forest Special Area for Conservation (SAC). The proposal however would replace a four bedroom and a two-bedroom flat with children’s care homes, each to accommodate two children and a number of staff. Accordingly, the level of occupation of the property would not exceed that which might reasonably be expected at the existing properties. Consequently, the proposed development would not lead to increased recreational pressure upon the SAC. It would not, therefore, be fair, reasonable or necessary to require contributions to [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) measures. [name] acknowledge that the Council outline how an unauthorised ground floor rear and side extension was erected around 2024, this does not fall under the scope of the application or appeal. In any case, there is no evidence before me to suggest that there is an active enforcement case on this extension and the Council set out that the extension is acceptable in design terms.

The Council has drawn my attention to a dismissed appeal for a children’s care home (Ref: APP/G5750/W/25/3374212). The referenced appeal decision discusses how that proposal would provide a generalised form of children’s care with low level needs, thereby not meeting an identified need. To contrast, the proposed care homes would consider placements for children with a mild learning disability or condition including cognitive development delay and neurodivergent conditions such as ASC, as well as mild mental health conditions. Therefore, based on the information before me, I am not satisfied that this appeal is directly comparable to the scheme before me.

The scheme would result in the loss of a family dwelling, for which there is a need. However, as outlined by the Council, the AMR for 2022-2023 indicates that the borough is performing well in terms of the protection of existing larger family homes. While this does not indicate that pressures on existing stock, or the need to provide additional family homes no longer exist, it does indicate that progress is being made in this regard.

To the contrary, the submitted evidence indicates a need for children’s care homes, particularly those with multiple needs. The AMR also outlines how whilst some improvements have been made in terms of the delivery of use class C2 accommodation, further monitoring is required.

The provision of both supported accommodation and family homes forms part of the mix of balanced communities. The policy context and evidence before me indicates that there is a need for both. Consequently, although the proposal would lead to the loss of a larger family home, it would provide two children’s homes which would meet the needs of other residents of the borough. It would meet Policies S1, H1 and H3 of the NLP and Policy H12 in this regard. On balance, it would provide an acceptable standard of living for future users, in accordance with policy.

On this basis, I consider that it would accord with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have used a condition to specify the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of certainty. As no external changes are proposed, a condition to control the materials is not necessary.

Finally, I have used a condition requiring the submission of details of the proposed cycle store, to promote sustainable transport.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

Unless otherwise amended under the conditions below, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: • Location Plan, [name]. • Block Plan, [name]. S.BP • Ground & First Floor Plan, [name]. P501 • Loft & Roof Plan, [name]. P502 • Elevations, [name]. S503 • [address], Statement of purpose, [name].

Prior to the first occupation of the children’s homes hereby approved, details of cycle parking for 2no. bicycles, including their positioning and dimensions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking as approved under this condition shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained as such thereafter. ** END OF SCHEDULE**