Appeal 6005041

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of the dwelling (Use Class C3) to a children's care home for up to 2 child residents aged 7-18 (Use Class C2) with 24-hour care provided and carers working on a rota basis at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01318/FULL, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 02, 03, 04 and 06.

The shed shown on drawing no 06 shall be kept available at all times for the storage of cycles by carers, residents and their visitors.

The decision paragraph uses the description contained on the Council’s decision, as this more accurately reflects the proposed development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the provision of family housing in the area with particular regard to the need for care accommodation for looked after children.

[address] is primarily residential in character, with houses on both sides of the street. Number [site address] (No 59) is a mid-terraced, two-storey, three-bedroom dwellinghouse. The proposed development would provide residential accommodation and care for up to two children/young people, supported by 24-hour staffing, falling within Use Class C21. While this is a form of residential use, it would nevertheless result in the loss of a Use Class C3 dwellinghouse, thereby reducing the stock of family housing.

Policy H12 of The London Plan (2021) (TLP) supports the delivery, retention and refurbishment of supported and specialised housing which meets an identified need including accommodation for young people with support needs. Policies SP3 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2020-2037 (2024) (LBBD) requires development which impacts on the delivery of the most needed forms of housing, in particular family housing, to demonstrate a need for that type of housing, and supports planning applications that meet the needs of specific communities.

Paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires the housing needs for different groups in the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies. This includes the needs of looked after children. Evidence of need of this group should be assessed with reference to the relevant local authority’s [name].

The Council’s Looked After Children [name] Plan2 acknowledges that many local authorities across the country are finding it difficult to meet their sufficiency duty. Similarly, the Council’s Best Chance Strategy3 identifies increasing demand for children’s social care, including within Barking and Dagenham. Although the Council’s Social Care team maintain that there is no requirement for additional care homes of the type proposed, this position is not supported by detailed and up-to-date evidence.

Therefore, I am not satisfied that the needs of looked after children in the Borough with or without complex needs and/or disabilities, are being fully met. Even if there is no immediate identified local demand for the care home proposed, future demand may arise and the Council has an ongoing duty to secure sufficient placements. Moreover, the Council confirms that many of its looked after children are placed outside the Borough for safeguarding reasons. In this context, the proposed development could contribute to meeting both local and wider needs, and there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the Borough should not play a role in meeting cross-boundary needs.

The Council contends that, since the grant of permission on appeal for a similar development in 20204, any unmet needs could now be met by the building of 17 placement opportunities in partnership with the Department of Education. Whilst such provision may contribute to meeting demand, there is no detailed information before me regarding the progress of these schemes, their delivery timescales or anticipated occupancy levels. Nor is there any clear explanation as to the specific needs these units are intended to address.

It is recognised that there is an identified need for family sized dwellings, as also set out in the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2020). The Council is also currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. However, the loss of a single family dwellinghouse would have only a limited effect 1 Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) 2 Barking & [name] [name] 2023 – April 2024 3 The Barking and [name] - Our Partnership plan for babies, children, young people and their families September 2022 – September 2025 4 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5060/W/19/3233360 on housing supply. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the housing needs of looked after children have been fully met, the proposal would positively contribute to meeting the need for residential care accommodation for looked after children.

I conclude that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable effect on the provision of family housing in the area, having regard to the need for care accommodation for looked after children. In this regard, it would comply with Policies D7, H1, H12 and S2 of the TLP and Policies SP3 and SPDG1 of the LBBD which require suitable housing and genuine choice for London’s diverse population, the delivery of supported and specialised housing, the provision of high-quality new and enhanced health and social care facilities to meet identified need, support for new models of care and the delivery of social and sustainable infrastructure.

The Council’s lack of five-year housing land supply would ordinarily engage paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. While the Council’s decision refers to Policy H1 of the TLP relating to housing supply, it does not specifically address changes of use of dwellinghouses to children’s homes. Accordingly, this policy is not determinative in respect of the main issue and the policies most relevant to this appeal continue to attract significant weight. In any event, as I have found no harm and no conflict with the development plan policies, it is not necessary for me to apply the requirements of that paragraph because the appeal scheme is acceptable.

There would be up to two carers on site at any one time, supported by a small team of staff operating on a rota basis, with some overlap at shift changes and additional weekday supervision by a manager. Deliveries would likely be similar to that associated with a typical family dwellinghouse. There would be regular visits from professionals, including social workers, Ofsted and NHS staff, with occasional visits from others including parents possible.

While this could result in a greater number of adults attending No 59 and some additional comings and goings, the level of activity would be unlikely to be materially greater than that of a typical family dwelling, especially if older children with their own cars lived at the property. Consequently, with occupancy limited to no more than two children/young people, the proposed development would be unlikely to give rise to unacceptable noise or disturbance, including through party walls, or a materially greater effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. For similar reasons, it would not result in a discernible change to the residential character of the area or place undue pressure on local infrastructure, traffic or parking. The use would also be regulated by Ofsted and the Council has raised no specific concerns in these respects. In these circumstances, requesting further technical supporting information from the appellant would not be reasonable or necessary.

I have had regard to the tests for planning conditions set out in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Standard conditions requiring a time limit for the commencement of development (1) and requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans (2) are necessary in the interests of planning certainty. Condition (3) is necessary to ensure that cycle storage is retained as proposed in the interests of sustainable travel. A condition requiring the proposed development to achieve Secured by design principles would not be reasonable or necessary since no external alterations to No 59 are proposed, and matters relating to the safety and safeguarding of occupants would be managed through separate regulatory requirements.

The proposed development would not conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.