Appeal 6005371

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a change of use from residential (C3) to children's home (C2) for two children and young people at [site address] , Rainham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference P1470.25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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 the following approved plans: RM13-01 V2, RM13-02 V2 and RM13-03 V2

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) the premises shall only be used as a residential care home for up to two children or young persons and for no other purpose including any other use falling within Class C2 of the Order.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the London Borough of Havering Council and is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are whether the proposal would meet the housing needs of the area; and be suitably located to accommodate children in care with particular regard to highway safety, parking, noise, disturbance and the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. Appeal Decision: 6005371

The proposal would result in the use of this dwelling as a small children’s home. It is intended that it would operate in a manner similar to a family home, albeit with staff rather than family to provide care. In other respects, there would be no change to the property or its surrounds. The council’s main concern is that there is no identified need for the use. The council consider Policy 6 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (LP) to be the most relevant policy. The first requirement is that it be robustly demonstrated that there is an identified need for the proposed use.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) seeks to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community. Within this context of establishing need, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. These groups include looked after children. It advises that the evidence of need for looked after children can be found in the relevant local authority’s [name].

The appellant states that there is an identified need and that it is identified in the 2023 Children's Services Sufficiency Needs Assessment & Strategy (September 2024 to August 2027)(the Strategy). A Key Action of the Strategy is to ensure that more children in care live within the borough by, amongst other things, creating new children’s homes. The Strategy records as an Action, specifically in relation to children’s homes, that the council needs to consider developing its own children’s home provision. Whilst this relates to its own provision, rather than private provision, the Strategy is directed at setting out what the council can do to address care provision needs. The Strategy clearly indicates a need for children’s homes and there is nothing before me to suggest that this should preclude private provision; or that such provision would undermine the Strategy.

The information provided by the council is limited to the council’s delegated report which advises that the council's [name] indicated that there is an oversupply of children's homes in the borough. The council’s appeal statement, rather than addressing the matters raised by the appellant with regard to need, simply refers to the previously reported verbal comment that there is an oversupply of children’s homes in the borough. No reference is made to the Strategy.

Much of the information in the Strategy is now of some age as it was written in

It is past its stated due for review date of August 2025. The Strategic Commissioner’s indication that there is an oversupply of children’s homes appears to be at odds with the Strategy content. This may be partly explained as the content of the Strategy advises that children’s homes are being used for the care of children from outside the borough; or it may be as a result of significant changes since the publication of the Strategy. However, as no evidence has been provided to explain why the Strategy should not be relied upon, I have considered the [name] of the Strategy, to create new children’s homes, as evidence that children’s homes are needed.

In addition to the above, the supporting text to Policy 6, at paragraph 7.4.10, sets out that there is a need for both specialist and long-term housing solutions to be found for various groups including older looked after children within Havering. Appeal Decision: 6005371

The appellant has made reference to a similar application, for a change of use from a dwellinghouse to a children’s home for three children, reference P0368.25. This was granted permission in May 2025. The appellant also refers to other unreferenced permissions across Havering. It is not clear what advice these decisions relied upon with regard to need and it is not clear how far these permissions have gone to satisfy the needs of the Strategy. In the absence of any analysis by the council, I find that these decisions offer support for the proposal.

The appellant has made reference to a figure of 280+ children in care; an Ofsted rating of [name] as 'Inadequate'; and an investment figure of £28 million by the council in response. I have no indication of what the investment has been targeted at or what it has achieved with particular regard to up to date need for children’s homes. There is no information about Ofsted’s monitoring visits which would have taken place since the 2023 rating. Whilst the 280+ figure would represent the higher end of the Strategy predictions, it is not clear where this figure is from or how it relates to the numbers of children in children’s homes or needing care within a children’s home.

On balance, given all of the above and in the absence of any analysis by the council, I conclude that the evidence of the Strategy is that there is a need for children’s homes. Whilst the situation may have changed significantly since the Strategy was published which could help to explain the council’s stated concern about an oversupply, no such evidence has been provided. I have therefore assessed the proposal on the basis of the Strategy.

The policy requires that it be robustly demonstrated that there is an identified need. Whilst this places the onus on the appellant, the Framework seeks reference to the evidence of the Strategy. The robustness of the evidence is in some doubt due to its age but in the absence of updated published evidence, I accept that part (i) of Policy 6, with regard to need, is generally satisfied. Furthermore, whilst the council consider that they have an oversupply of children’s homes, there is no evidence to suggest that these children’s homes are not providing important benefits to the wider area. Nor has it been suggested that they are undermining the council’s Strategy.

Policy 6 has a number of other criteria that should be met. Of relevance to the council’s concerns and those of local residents are parts (ii) and (iii) relating to accessibility; part (viii) relating to impacts on the surrounding area including levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential properties; and part (ix) and (x) relating to parking requirements and impacts on parking conditions and traffic congestion, and the provision for carer parking.

Part (ii) and (iii) of Policy 6 require that the site has access to essential services and shops by walking and cycling; and is well served by public transport. The council and the appellant accepted that the site has a Transport for London's Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1b, where some dependence on car use is anticipated. The appellant's transport consultant, during the appeal, suggests that the property is in an area which has a PTAL rating of 3-4 (moderate to good accessibility). I am not persuaded that this is correct but, in any event, Policy 6 does not require a PTAL assessment.

With regard to the local situation, there is a bus stop on [address] along with some local shops and services that are only a short walk away. Rainham Appeal Decision: 6005371 Station and other bus services are also within a reasonable walking distance. Some schools, a supermarket and the leisure centre are reasonably accessible to the property. Generally, the location satisfies the accessibility requirements of Policy 6.

Part (viii) relates to any unacceptable adverse impacts on the surrounding area and any significantly unacceptable greater levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential properties. This is an existing three-bedroom house and aside from the staff comings and goings and the greater level of activity at change over times, the use would be expected to operate in a similar fashion to a family with two children. I note the suggested condition from the environmental health officer relating to a noise management plan but do not consider that noise would be a materially different concern or that the condition would be reasonable or necessary.

[name] have had regard to the concerns raised by local residents, I am not satisfied that it would result in significantly greater impacts on the neighbouring residents or the wider area. I am also not persuaded, given the necessary levels of care and the limited size of the accommodation, that there would be significantly greater concerns with regard to crime or anti-social behaviour compared to that which could result from a household of similar size. I am not therefore satisfied that there would be conflict with part (viii).

Parts (ix) and (x) require that the proposal meets the parking requirements set out in LP Policy 24 and that it would not have an unacceptable impact on parking conditions and traffic congestion in the area. The appellant suggests that vehicle movements would be less than a dwelling and makes reference to three on-site parking spaces.

Daily movements are likely to be similar to those of a family dwelling but in addition, there would be staff arriving and departing particularly at change over times when staffing would overlap. The staff may have vehicles although other transport options are clearly available. The property has space for only one car which would be retained and the remaining frontage could accommodate cycle parking as could the rear garden.

Given the existing situation, the proposal would not conflict with the expectations of LP Policy 24. There is very limited on-street parking because most of the properties have full width dropped kerbs that restrict the potential for parking without blocking driveways. However, the difference from the existing lawful use would not be so significant that this would be likely to unacceptably increase parking stress, result in inconvenience to other road users or generate harmful noise from staff arriving or departing. Given the availability and accessibility of public transport, it would not conflict with Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021.

Overall, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm with regard to its location, highway safety or parking. There is no reason why it would operate significantly differently from a dwelling with regard to its relationship with neighbours. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it would not result in significant benefits from the provision of specialist housing. As the Strategy does suggest that there is a need for children’s homes, it gains support from LP Policy 6.

It also satisfies Policy H12(2) of the London Plan relating to accommodation for young people with support needs; and Policy S2(B&C) which supports the provision of health and social care facilities to meet identified need, providing such facilities Appeal Decision: 6005371 are easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking. It gains support from the Framework which seeks to address the needs of looked after children.

The proposal would result in the loss of a dwelling to the existing housing supply, which is a concern raised by a local resident. It is the purpose of the development plan to manage conflicting demands. Whilst the loss of a dwelling to the overall supply weighs against the proposal, there is nothing before me to suggest that the proposed use would not bring sufficient benefits to outweigh this harm. This is particularly the case as no material changes are proposed to the property and subject to formal approval, it could be returned to the general housing supply should the need for the proposed use reduce.

In conclusion, the evidence available indicates that there is a wider need for the use proposed and the property is in an area that is appropriate for such a use. I have had regard to the concerns raised by residents, but I am not satisfied that the intensification of the use would be unacceptably harmful, would pose a significantly greater threat with regard to safety, crime and anti-social behaviour or would change the character of the property unacceptably. The property offers appropriate accommodation for such a use. As there are no matters that weigh significantly against the proposal, I allow the appeal.

I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development and the details of the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have imposed a condition to establish that the use permitted relates to Use Class C2 but that it be restricted to the care of two children or young persons in need of care and not the other uses permitted by Class C2. This is to ensure that the quality of the accommodation is satisfactory, it would not be harmful to local residents and would remain compatible with the character of the area. I have not restricted the number of carers as suggested by the council as I am not persuaded that this would be necessary.