Appeal 6005421

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to a children's residential care home (Use Class C2) for up to two children (aged 8-17 years) with care provided by a minimum of two staff members at all times, including one waking night and one sleep-in staff overnight, operating on a rota basis at [site address] , Benfleet, Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0864/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues in this appeal are (i) the effect of the proposed children’s care home on housing stock within Castle Point Borough (CPB), with particular regard to whether there is a need for it, and (ii) highway safety and the living conditions of occupants of nearby properties with particular regard to car parking provision.

The proposal is to change the use of a mid-terraced 4 bed dwellinghouse to a children’s residential care home within Use Class C2. The Use Classes Order describes a Class C2 use as for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care including as a hospital or nursing home.

Policy H2 of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan, Adopted 1998, (“the LP”) seeks to retain land allocated for residential development and guard against it being released for an alternative use, which would otherwise diminish housing supply and increase pressure for housing development on Greenfield sites. As there is nothing of substance to show that the appeal property is or was land specifically allocated in the LP for residential development, I find no direct conflict with Policy H2.

The evidence indicates that the LP does not plan to meet the current identified need for housing within its area. Extracts from a recent housing topic paper1 indicate that there has been a significant historical undersupply of homes in CPB. The topic paper is not before me, and the extent of the undersupply has not been quantified. However, the local planning authority says that 686 homes are needed per annum, and that they cannot be achieved without leading to overdevelopment, loss of character, and infrastructure strain.

The local planning authority says that the loss of the appeal dwellinghouse from the Borough’s housing stock would worsen the undersupply of homes and place more pressure on the remaining housing. However, there is no policy before me that seeks to safeguard existing housing from alternative uses as distinct from land allocated for residential development, which is the focus of LP Policy H2.

Paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”), sets the aim of significantly boosting housing supply and meeting an area’s identified housing need. Those aims are seemingly not being achieved in CPB. However, there is no substantive evidence that they could not be met at some point in the future, or that the appeal proposal would prevent them being met. Given the age of the LP, it would be expected that housing needs in the area would be addressed through a new local plan.

In terms of proportionality, the loss of a single dwellinghouse to the proposed children’s care home would have a very small negative effect on the existing stock of housing and the overall undersupply of homes. It would have a negligible effect on what the local planning authority describes as the negative consequences of delivering additional housing to meet housing needs, namely overdevelopment, loss of character, and infrastructure strain. Therefore, the loss of a single dwellinghouse from the existing housing stock carries limited weight against the appeal.

Framework Paragraph 63 requires the housing needs of different groups to be established and addressed through planning policies, including those of looked after children. Footnote 26 says evidence of need for looked after children can be found in the relevant local authority’s [name].

Essex County Council Children’s Social Care (ECC) in its consultation response to the local planning authority dated 21 January 2026, identifies a need for additional specialist residential provision (including emergency placement, short term and long-term placements), particularly for children and young people with highly complex needs. ECC identified there are currently 4 young people registered as being from the area needing residential care, and 4 young people are placed in the area.

[name] gave no specific figure of need in its consultation response, it says there are only 2 children’s homes in the area offering a capacity of 8 beds and that there is a rising Children in [name] in Essex requiring Specialist and [name]. There is nothing to suggest that the proposal could not contribute to meeting those needs.

The local planning authority refers to tabulated data in extracts from an Essex County Council document titled ‘The Supported and [name] and 1 Castle Point Borough Council General Evidence document titled [name] 2025 Accommodation Need Assessment (August 2025) (SSHANA)’ as evidence that the need for children’s care places in CPB has been met and exceeded until 2029. ECC made no explicit reference to the SSHANA in its email to the local planning authority dated 21 January 2026.

The local planning authority says that Tables 5 and 49 of the SSHANA show that 6 children’s home placements were required in CPB in 2024, and 15 placements are required by 2029 with no identified need after that date. This appears to equate to 21 placements in total. Table 47 of the SSHANA is said to indicate there were 16 children’s home placements in CPB between 2020-2024.

On the face of it, those 16 placements are some 5 short of the 21 placements required by 2029. However, the local planning authority expects 33 children’s home placements granted planning permission in the period 2020-2024 to come online shortly, which would appear to exceed the need for placements beyond

Given that most planning permissions expire unless development commences within 3 years of being granted, I approach that figure with some caution. Some of those permissions granted between 2020 and the early part of 2023, may well have expired. This casts some doubt over whether all 33 places will come online shortly as the local planning authority expects.

The appellant has not disputed the figures provided by the local planning authority or ECC and they have not offered any of their own. The evidence before me on the need for and supply of children’s care home places in CPB is somewhat contradictory. That said, I see no requirement for absolute precision on those figures and on the balance of the evidence before me, it seems that there is not a strong need for children’s care home placements in CPB.

However, even if I were to agree with the local planning authority that the need for children’s home placements by 2029 has been met, with no identified need after that date, there is no policy embargo on new permissions for children’s homes, either in the Framework or the LP, and no ceiling on such permissions. As a decision-making test for the grant of planning permission, I am not aware of any policy that requires an applicant to demonstrate a need for a children’s home or to undertake a formal needs assessment.

An absence of need does not, in my judgement, nullify the benefits of a children’s home in providing living accommodation and care for what are likely to be some of the most vulnerable children in society. Neither did it appear to prevent the grant of planning permission for the change of use of a C3 dwellinghouse to a children’s care home for a maximum of 2 children at [address], Canvey Island2, some 3 months earlier than the refusal of the appeal scheme, and seemingly later than the publication date of the SSHANA. A copy of that planning permission has been put before me as an example of a comparable scale of children’s care home (for 2 children) permitted by the local planning authority and it raised no dispute regarding its relevance. Consistency in decision making is an important principle and a material consideration.

According to the SSHANA, only 20% of registered children’s homes capacity in Essex is being used by [name] in Care. However, this does not necessarily mean that the proposed care home would not provide accommodation for Essex children now or in the future and it does not diminish the benefits of the 2 25/0657/FUL, granted 30 October 2025. proposed use. The evidence before me does not indicate that it is normal practice for the planning system to limit the occupancy of children’s homes or market homes to persons resident within a particular county or district/borough. There would be nothing to stop the existing dwelling being occupied by persons from out of the area. The evidence indicates that no such geographical restrictions on occupancy were imposed on the approved children’s care home at [address], [name].

If there was no need for the proposed children’s care home, it would not be brought into use and the C3 dwellinghouse use of the property would remain. If the children’s care home use ceased to operate after it commenced, it would most likely revert to a C3 dwellinghouse use as that would require little physical alteration or adaptation.

Even if I were to agree with the local planning authority’s figures on the need and supply of children’s care home placements, the benefits of the appeal proposal in providing accommodation and care for 2 vulnerable children attracts moderate weight in favour of the appeal. In my judgement, those benefits outweigh the loss of a family sized dwellinghouse from the CPB housing stock.

Castle Point Borough Council has adopted the Essex Parking Guidance as a Supplementary Planning Document 2024, (“the EPG”). The EPG requires care homes to be provided with 1 car parking space per full time equivalent staff member, plus 1 visitor space per six beds. It also requires 1 parking space for a powered two-wheel vehicle, and 1 cycle parking space per four employees.

During each shift 2 staff members would be present. A third staff member (the manager) would be present between 0900-1700 hours. It is reasonable to suppose there would be a clear link between the number of staff and the number of children in care at the property.

The appeal property is a mid-terraced house fronting [address]. It is one of several roads in the area that are laid out in a grid-like pattern serving the homes that front onto them. Nearly all properties that front onto [address] have off-street parking spaces on their frontages. During my visits, traffic volumes using the road were low and so were vehicle speeds. Several cars were parked on the road, in places where they were not obstructing vehicular accesses or visibility around junctions.

Most of the neighbouring properties in the terrace, including the appeal property, have off-street parking on a hard-surfaced forecourt between the front wall and the road. At the time of my visit, these forecourts were generally in use, often accommodating two vehicles parked side by side. The existing ground floor plan indicates that the appeal property’s frontage can similarly accommodate two vehicles parked side by side. This would be consistent with the EPG, which would require 2 car parking spaces for a dwelling within this area.

The proposed ground floor plan indicates that a secure bike locker would be erected on the frontage preventing use of the second parking space. This appears to be a small building. However, it does not form part of the description of development on the planning application form. Elevations showing its scale and appearance are not before me and at least one interested party considers it would be incongruous. Consequently, it does not form part of my consideration of this appeal.

The EPG states that parking below minimum standards will be considered if, amongst others, the demand for parking will be less than the minimum standards. It seems to me that the peak demand for car parking associated with the proposed use would amount to around 3 parking spaces for staff, together with additional spaces for the occasional visits by family visitors, social workers, [name] and the like. Staff changeovers could lead to a peak in the demand for car parking spaces.

Given the scale of the use, the number of daily visits would be low and there is a high probability of them, and their demand for parking spaces, being spread across the day. Nonetheless, it is not expected that the existing off-street parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate all parked vehicles associated with the proposed use, nor meet the standards in the EPG. The proposed use could therefore be expected to displace a few parked vehicles onto the public highway. The Council considers this would risk overburdening the car parking provision on the street and unreasonably restricting the movement of vehicles along the carriageway.

I visited the area of the appeal site during a weekday evening and again the following morning. On both occasions, several on-street parking spaces were available close by. There were spaces on [address], along the sections between dropped kerbs, and on [address], particularly the section near to the junction which is not fronted by houses. I acknowledge that each visit can only be a snapshot in time. However, my observations do not support the contention that the area suffers high levels of parking stress. None of the parties to this appeal have undertaken a parking survey and there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the parking conditions that I observed at those times were abnormal.

The existing dwellinghouse could have been occupied by a family who owned cars and it would likely have received visitors and deliveries from time-to-time. However, even if I were to assume that the dwellinghouse did not displace any cars onto the public highway for parking, I am satisfied that the nearby roads have capacity to accommodate the relatively small additional demand for car parking that could arise from the appeal use, including visitor parking and short-term parking during staff changeovers. The ability of existing residents to find parking spaces reasonably close to their homes is unlikely to be adversely affected and most already have off-street parking in any event.

The parking of cars in the spaces that were available on the road should pose no additional risk to highway safety over and above what exists now. The flow of traffic along [address] and [name] could be stopped if cars were parked opposite one another on both sides of the carriageway. However, given the availability of parking spaces, I see no reason why such parking would be necessary and it cannot be assumed that staff and visitors would deliberately park dangerously around junctions, or block driveways.

Taking all the above into account, I am satisfied that the proposal would not be harmful to highway safety or the living conditions of the occupants of nearby properties with particular regard to car parking provision. Consequently, insofar as there would be a conflict with the technical quantitative parking standards in the EPG, it would carry very little weight against the appeal development in this instance.

LP Policy T8 states that the local planning authority will apply the standards for car published by Essex County Council. However, as the EPG appears to have been published by the Essex Planning Officers Association and not Essex County Council, I find no resultant conflict with LP Policy T8.

The baseline position is that the existing dwellinghouse could be occupied by a family, including a number of children. The normal domestic activities undertaken by that family would likely have included use of the garden for recreation and relaxation, and the comings and goings of occupants, visitors and deliveries. This would have included the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Those occupants would have created waste and recycling, which would have been stored in bins on the property and collected by or on behalf of the CPB Council.

I am satisfied that levels of noise and disturbance generated by the proposed use, which would be limited to 2 resident children in care, would not be significantly different to the existing dwellinghouse use, let alone greater. There is no substantive evidence before me to show that the scale and nature of the proposed use would cause harmful disruption to neighbouring occupiers. On the evidence before me installing noise insulation into the property would not be justified.

Relative to the existing dwellinghouse use, there is nothing before me to indicate that more refuse would be generated, or more bins would be needed. As such, there is no substantive evidence that odour from refuse would be made worse by the proposed use. Although bins for waste and recycling are shown on the drawings, the operator will decide where to store them on the property, which would have been the case for the existing dwellinghouse.

There is no substantive evidence to suggest that crime and anti-social behaviour is intrinsic to the proposed use. The occupant children would be under the continual care and supervision of staff, with nothing before me to indicate that they would not be effective in their roles. It is reasonable to suppose that the facility would be well-run by the operator and that sanctions would be imposed by the regulator if that was not the case. There is nothing before me to show that the appeal scheme would not be compliant with any applicable fire regulations.

I have no substantive evidence that social services, healthcare and schools would not be able to cope with the additional pressure placed on them by the appeal use. On the evidence before me I see no obvious barrier that would prevent resident children from integrating into the local community in much the same way as might occur with occupants of the existing dwellinghouse.

I have had regard to the appeal3 at [address], Wolverhampton, for a change of use from a residential dwelling to a small children's care home for 1 no. child. Some general similarities can be drawn with that appeal case. However, I am not party to the evidence put before that Inspector and it appears that the Wolverhampton scheme would have resulted in harm to highway safety, and the 3 APP/D4635/W/24/3352490 balance of considerations was therefore materially different to the case before me, where no such harm would occur. That case has limited relevance to my considerations in this appeal, which I have assessed on its own merits taking account of the evidence before me.

The provision of cycle storage would be no different to that of the existing dwellinghouse. None of the other dwellings have a bike store on their frontages and it appears that cycle storage might be accommodated within outbuildings at the rear of the plots and backing onto the access road.

In the interests of certainty, the development needs to be carried out in accordance with the statutory time limit and approved plans. Furthermore, to control the intensity of the use to that proposed and assessed, I have imposed a condition restricting the use of the premises as a children's residential care home for up to two children.

Use Class C2 includes hospitals, nursing homes and training centres. Those uses may have materially different effects to the appeal proposal and which have not been considered through the appeal planning application. A condition is therefore reasonable and necessary to restrict the approved use to a children’s home and no other purpose within the same use class.

It would not be necessary or reasonable to impose a condition requiring a named individual to live on the premises and be responsible for its general management. The appellant and the Environmental Health Officer for CPB Council have confirmed that the use would be Ofsted registered. Planning permission runs with the land and therefore requiring such details to be provided on a continuous basis would be onerous.

For the reasons given above, I find no conflict with [name] H2 and T8, or the development plan as a whole. I have found that the benefits of the proposed development in providing accommodation and care for looked after children outweighs the loss of a family sized dwellinghouse from the CPB housing stock and the technical conflict with the EPG. There are no material considerations to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

With the exception of the bike locker which did not form part of the description of development and is not approved by this planning permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Location Plan LIVARCH/127MA/108 Issue B; Proposed Site Plan LIVARCH/127MA/107 Issue B; [name]/127MA/101 Issue A; and Existing and [name]/127MA/102 Issue A.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any orders revoking and re-enacting either of these orders with or without modification), the premises shall only be used as a children's residential care home for up to two children, and for no other purpose including any other purpose within Use Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). End of schedule