®Planning appeal decision
32 Woodstock Gardens, Seven Kings, London , IG3 9SZ
Planning appeal 3344962 at 32 Woodstock Gardens, Seven Kings, London , IG3 9SZ (London Borough of Redbridge) was dismissed on 4 December 2024 by Inspector Clowes M, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the proposal on the supply of housing within the borough, including whether there is a defined local need for specialist care accommodation, whether the proposal would cater for the needs of the Borough, and whether it would result in the unacceptable loss of a family sized dwelling.
the ‘change of use from current authorised use class C3 to use class C2 (residential care home for young people) for up to 8 residents including associated external storage area, parking as well as refuse and bicycle storage areas (part retrospective).’
- Authority
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- community-institutional · Change of use
- Inspector
- Clowes M
- Postcode
- IG3 9SZ
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the proposal on the supply of housing within the borough, including whether there is a defined local need for specialist care accommodation, whether the proposal would cater for the needs of the Borough, and whether it would result in the unacceptable loss of a family sized dwelling
- The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance
What decided it
The proposal would result in the loss of a family-sized dwelling without a secure mechanism to ensure the care home would serve borough residents, and would cause material harm to neighbouring living conditions through noise and disturbance, which substantially and demonstrably outweighed the limited benefits of providing supported accommodation.
The substantial adverse impacts of the loss of a family-sized dwelling and harm to neighbouring living conditions significantly and demonstrably outweighed the limited benefits of providing supported accommodation without a secure mechanism to target borough residents, such that the proposal conflicted with the development plan and no material considerations including paragraph 11 of the NPPF could outweigh this conflict.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy LP4Policy LP5Policy LP2Policy LP26(2)(l)Policy LP4(c)
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11
- Judgments
- North Devon DC v FSS & Southern Childcare Ltd [2003] JPL 1191
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in London Borough of Redbridge
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Notice varied and upheld23 September 202633532093 Highbury Gardens, Ilford, IG3 8AB
- Dismissed6 May 2026600091412 Cavendish Gardens, Ilford, IG1 3EA
- Dismissed21 April 2026600274932 Cowley Road, Cranbrook, Ilford, IG1 3JL
- Split Decision10 April 20266003172159 Ilford Lane, Ilford, IG1 2RR
- Dismissed25 March 2026600165510 Belgrave Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 3AW
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.