Appeal 6006596

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed change of use would be acceptable, with regard to the supply of family housing and local need.

The appeal property relates to a two-storey terraced dwelling on [address]. The property benefits from a kitchen/dining room and living room on the ground floor and three bedrooms on the first floor. It also has parking to the frontage and a spacious garden to the rear. Surrounding development is characterised by properties of a similar size and style.

The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2020-2037 (BDLP) defines family housing as a dwelling that by virtue of its size, layout and design is suitable for a family with children to live in and generally has two or more bedrooms. Given the above, I consider the property to be family housing.

Policy SP3 of the BDLP seeks to address the borough’s specific housing needs. Amongst other things, it seeks to prioritise self-contained family housing and ensure that new residential development does not limit the supply of self-contained housing, particularly family housing.

Whilst the property may retain its residential character, the proposed change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3 use) and to a children’s care home (C2 use) would result in the loss of a family home. In this regard, the scheme would result in a reduction in the borough’s supply of family housing.

Notwithstanding the above, Policy H12 and S2 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) seek to support the delivery of supported and specialist accommodation where it meets an identified need, amongst other things.

The evidence before me indicates that the care home would cater for children with emotional and behaviour disorder (EBD). There is however little information regarding the specific types of disorders or disabilities and the type of care that would be offered before me.

The appellant outlines how evidence1 sets out that within borough there is an increased number of children with learning disabilities and diagnosable mental health problems as well as higher numbers of youth offending and low life expectancies. However, such data does not indicate that children are actively in need of such support and care and does not demonstrate an identified need for the type of care being offered. Whilst the evidence does set out that there in a high demand for children’s social care, I cannot be sure whether this demand is specifically for children’s care homes. In any case, evidence of a general demand is not the same as an identified need, as required by policy.

The article, published on 1st April 2023, outlines how there is a shortage of local placements for children in care and many children are being placed far from their home, including children in London. However, it does not indicate that this is a specific issue in Barking and Dagenham and therefore does not demonstrate an identified need within the borough. Furthermore, the article is over three years old so I cannot be sure that such issues are still prevalent.

Similarly, the articles by National Youth Advocacy Services (NYAS) and Barking & [name] (BDP) do not indicate that there is an issue in specifically Barking and Dagenham. Furthermore, the article by NYAS focusses on data from March 2022 whilst the BDP article is from November 2022. As such, I cannot be sure that such issues still exist at present. The BBC article also does not provide any specific evidence relating to Barking and Dagenham, and it is also dated July

As such, I am not satisfied that the referenced articles demonstrate an identified need. In any case, whilst they may suggest there is or has been a general demand for such services over recent years, this is not the same as an identified need.

Additionally, the Council’s Lead Commissioner for the [name] and Support team outlines how the homes needed locally are those that are specialist and can demonstrate experience of managing complex young people and those with disabilities. However, as set out, the information relating to the type of care that would be provided is relatively limited. Given this, I cannot be sure that the proposed home would provide such care.

To conclude, the scheme would result in a harmful reduction to the borough’s supply of family housing. It has also not been demonstrated that the scheme and type of care offered would meet an identified need within the borough. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policies SP3 and SPDG1 of the BDLP and Policies D7, H12 and S2 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to prioritise family housing and ensure that supported and specialist accommodation meets an identified local need. 1 The Barking and [name] (September 2022 - September 2025)

I however do not find any conflict with Policy H1 of the LP. Although the scheme would result in the loss of a family dwelling, it would still provide housing, albeit for different purposes.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity. As the proposal would provide a home for children, it would relate to persons who share a relevant protected characteristic. Given it has not been demonstrated that there is an identified need for the scheme, I afford this point limited weight in favour of the appeal.

My attention has been drawn to several other planning applications for children’s homes which the Council’s approved. The appellant contends that similar evidence of need was accepted in these applications and the refusal is therefore inconsistent with recent decision-making. However, I am unaware of specifically what type of evidence of need was presented in support of these applications, and what type of care the homes were offering. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I cannot be sure that these applications are directly comparable to the appeal before me. With regards to the referenced appeal decision2, I am unaware of the specific circumstances in this appeal, including any evidence presented or what type of care was being offered. As such, I cannot make any direct comparisons between this scheme and the appeal before me.

The scheme would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the [name]. It would also not harm neighbouring living conditions, and the proposed level of occupancy would be similar to that at present. It would ensure highway safety, adequate parking provision and provide cycle storage to promote sustainable forms of transport. Waste storage would also be provided and various security measures, such as lockable windows, would be implemented. Overall, these are neutral factors that would not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

I acknowledge that governments commitment to supporting the development of accommodation for looked after children. Nonetheless, the ministerial statement also emphasises the need for accommodation that reflects local need. For the reasons set out above, it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would meet an identified local need.

The appellant appears to suggest that planning permission may not always be needed for children’s homes. However, within the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Act, it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the proposed development requires planning permission. If the appellant wishes to ascertain whether the development is lawful, they may make an application under section 192 of the Act. I have assessed the appeal accordingly.

There would be no net increase in housing provision, therefore paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is not engaged. Nonetheless, the scheme 2 APP/Z5060/W/19/3233360 would provide an inclusive children’s care home in an accessible location, close to various services and facilities. It may provide appropriate levels of care and supervision, whilst complying with various care standards and regulations and contributing towards the creation of a mixed and inclusive community. Overall, I acknowledge the important role such facilities play in society and the subsequent benefits associated with the delivery of a children’s care home. However, these benefits would be tempered by, and would not outweigh, the loss of the family dwelling and the lack of identified need for the scheme.

In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.