Appeal 6004245

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form indicates that the appeal property is currently in use as a six-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) within Use Class C4. However, the appellant states that, although the property has an HMO licence, it has a lawful use as a dwellinghouse within Use Class C3. The appellant’s statement describes the existing use consistently as C3. In the absence of evidence that C4 is the lawful use, I consider the proposal on the basis that the lawful use is C3, as the Council has done.

The appellant contends that planning permission would not be required for the appeal scheme. In particular, they state that there would be no material change of use and, therefore, no development for the purposes of section 55 of the Act. However, the Council considers that the proposal would constitute a material change of use, with demonstrable impacts on the character of the surrounding area, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and highway safety. In any event, within the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Act, it is not for me to determine whether the proposed development would be lawful. This would be best dealt with by making an application under section 192 of the Act. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis of the development proposal as applied for, and the Council’s reasons for refusal.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would meet an identified need, having regard to its provision of housing choice for people with social care and health support needs; • the effect of the proposed development on the housing stock in Barnet; • the effect of the proposed development on the character of the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety and the free flow of traffic, with particular regard to parking provision.

The appeal property is a two-storey, six-bedroom semi-detached dwelling situated on a predominantly residential street. The proposal is to use the appeal property as a small specialist children’s home for up to three children aged 10 to 16 with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Policy HOU04 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021–2036 (adopted 2025) (the LP) supports proposals for people with social care and health support needs where an identified need is demonstrated. Paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the need for housing for looked-after children should be assessed by reference to the local authority’s [name] and reflected in policies.

The appellant refers to the Council’s Placement Sufficiency Strategy 2023–2027 (the PSS) in support of the proposal. The PSS indicates a general demand for local residential care and therapeutic placements for vulnerable children. However, it also identifies priorities to expand in-house residential provision and to place more children with foster carers and connected carers. The appellant’s evidence is limited in its level of detail in explaining how this proposal would align with those priorities or why it would be the most appropriate means of meeting them. In these circumstances, I attach only limited weight to the general references to the PSS.

The appellant states that they have been in communication with the Council’s Children’s Services and other departments. However, there is no written evidence before me confirming support from those services, or addressing the suitability and deliverability of the proposal in operational terms, including the care model and potential cost implications for the Council. These matters are relevant to whether the Council could practically use the accommodation to meet demand, and I give them significant weight.

I have also had regard to the [name] made on 23 May 2023, ‘Planning for accommodation for looked after children’, which encourages prospective applicants to undertake a location assessment, in consultation with the local authority, to establish whether the service is needed in that locality. No such assessment has been provided.

In conclusion, I am not satisfied that it has been adequately demonstrated that the proposed children’s home would meet an identified need. The proposal would therefore not align with Policy HOU04 of the LP, which seeks, amongst other things, that proposals meet an identified need, with regard to its provision of housing choice for people with social care and health support needs.

The proposal would result in the loss of a six-bedroom dwelling from the Borough’s housing stock. Policy HOU05 of the LP indicates that the net loss of residential accommodation will only be supported in limited circumstances, including where the proposed use would provide social infrastructure.

The LP defines social infrastructure as services essential to the sustainability and wellbeing of a community, including community facilities. Although children’s homes are not expressly referred to, the proposal would fall within the broad concept of an essential community facility. However, Policy HOU05 also requires a clear demonstration of local need for the social infrastructure proposed. For the reasons set out above, that has not been demonstrated.

Accordingly, the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the housing stock in the Borough. It would conflict with Policy HOU05, which seeks to protect residential accommodation from unjustified loss.

The proposal would involve no external alterations. The children would live at [address]. Two carers would be present on a rota, including overnight stays, and a manager would attend on weekdays. There may also be pre-arranged monthly visits per child by social workers and other monthly or yearly professional visits.

I acknowledge that regular shift changes, overnight staff attendance and external professional visits would introduce a more institutional pattern of activity in a street that is characterised mainly by single-family dwellings. The proposed use would typically involve up to five people in residence at any one time, undertaking day-to-day domestic activities which would not be materially different from the pattern that would be reasonably expected from a family of five. Occasional visits by external professionals would also be comparable to the level of visitors associated with many households. In any event, the proposed use would generally remain residential in nature and would sit comfortably within its residential surroundings.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character of the area. The proposal would therefore accord with the relevant provisions of [name] CDH01 and HOU04, which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure developments respect local character.

In respect of noise and disturbance generated within the proposed development, the management plan outlines a regular pattern of day-to-day comings and goings, with occasional family and professional visits. The appellant’s statement indicates that the number of daily comings and goings would range from only 8 to 10, which would be comparable to the existing dwellinghouse use. Professional and staff meetings, and therapeutic and specialist support, would take place off-site or virtually. Overall, the activity associated with the use would not be materially different in intensity from an ordinary household with five occupants.

The appeal property is a semi-detached property sharing a party wall with the adjoining property. However, given the intensity and nature of the proposed use, it would have a limited effect on the level of noise and disturbance experienced by neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, if the appeal were allowed, a management plan could be secured by condition. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that such a limited increase, if any, would amount to a harmful level of noise and disturbance. As such, I am not persuaded that the proposal would result in unacceptable noise or disturbance to neighbouring occupiers, which could be detrimental to their well-being.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. It would therefore accord with The London Plan 2021 (the LonP) Policies D3 and D14 and [name] CDH01, HOU04 and HOU05. These policies, in summary, seek to protect amenity and avoid unacceptable noise and disturbance.

The Council also refers to LP Policy EEC02 in its officer’s report, but not in the reasons for refusal. From the evidence before me, this policy relates to environmental considerations and specifically states that developments are expected to avoid the generation of unacceptable noise levels close to noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, LP Policy EEC02 has been considered in my assessment of this main issue, and I conclude that the proposal would also accord with it, based on the reasons given above.

There is no off-street parking at the appeal site. The appellant proposes to lease a dedicated parking space for staff nearby. [address] falls within a controlled parking zone operating during weekday daytime hours. The appellant’s parking survey indicates a high level of parking stress in the area, which I observed during my site visit on a weekday afternoon.

The Council argues that a planning obligation would be necessary to prevent future occupiers from obtaining parking permits, in order to mitigate potential pressure on on-street parking arising from the rotation of staff and occasional visits by external parties. I also note that the leased parking space may not readily be enforced through a planning condition. However, the increase in parking demand from the three members of staff would be unlikely to be materially higher than that generated by a typical household in this six-bedroom dwellinghouse. Children would also not be expected to obtain any parking permit themselves. Visits by professionals would be relatively infrequent and generally pre-arranged.

The site is also reasonably well served by public transport, with bus stops within walking distance. Moreover, there is no objection from the Highway Authority and no substantive evidence before me to indicate that, in practice, the lack of restrictions on parking permits for future occupiers would necessarily lead to unsafe or inappropriate on-street parking.

For these reasons, while the proposed development would have the potential to generate some parking demand, it would be unlikely to lead to a material increase in kerbside parking compared to the existing six‐bedroom dwellinghouse. In this context, I am not persuaded that the absence of such a planning obligation would, in turn, result in an unacceptably increased risk of obstruction to the free flow of traffic, or to the safety of highway users and pedestrians.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety or the free flow of traffic, with particular regard to parking provision. Therefore, the proposal would not be in conflict with [name] T4 and T6 or LP Policy TRC03. These policies, in summary, promote safer roads and seek appropriate consideration of traffic impacts and parking provision. It would also be consistent with paragraph 116 of the Framework, which indicates that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

My attention has been drawn to several appeal decisions, including a previous decision relating to this site1. I give that decision limited weight because it concerned a materially different proposal for a bed and breakfast with different effects on character, neighbouring amenity and highways due to its relatively more transient nature. Other decisions cited relate to applications for certificates of lawful use or development under section 195 of the Act. While they provide some general context relating to the general intensity and nature of other proposals for change of use from C3 to C2, they are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal, given the site-specific circumstances and different considerations for an appeal made under section 78 of the Act. These cited decisions therefore carry very limited weight and do not alter my conclusions on the main issues. Overall, each appeal must be determined on its individual merits, and I have determined the appeal proposal on the basis of the submitted plans and evidence before me.

A letter of support has been received. The Council also raises no objection on fire safety grounds. Nevertheless, these weigh neither for, nor against, the proposal, and have not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires decision-makers, in exercising their functions, to have due regard to 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 considered these matters in the planning balance, but they do not alter my conclusions on the main issues in this particular appeal. 1 Appeal ref: APP/N5090/W/24/3336988

I am satisfied that the proposed development would not harm the character of the area, would be acceptable in terms of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and would have an acceptable impact on highway safety. I also accept that the appeal proposal seeks to provide a children’s home for vulnerable children. Nevertheless, it has not been demonstrated that there is an identified need for the proposed use, and the proposal would result in the unjustified loss of a dwelling from the Borough’s housing stock. I therefore conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and that there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that the proposed development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.