Property used as temporary accommodation for young people — Whether local authority erring in deciding that residents living together as single household — Whether change of use to hostel — Article 3(6)(i) and Class C3 of Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987
The claimant lived close to three adjacent properties that were provided by the English Churches Housing Group (ECHG) as temporary accommodation for young homeless people. ECHG had total management control of the properties: it selected the residents, decided how long they would stay and when they should leave, and allocated rooms to them.
The lawful use of each of the properties was use falling within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, namely: “Use as a dwelling house (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by not more than six residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents).” Use as a hostel was excluded from such lawful use by virtue of Article 3(6)(i) of the 1987 Order. There were no more than five residents in each of the properties. The residents within each property shared cooking, food storage and dining facilities, and had individual locks to their bedroom doors.
The claimant had repeatedly complained to the defendant planning authority that the use of each of the properties did not fall within Class C3. She claimed that there had been a material change of use to use as a hostel. After investigating the situation, the defendants wrote to the claimant stating that there had, in fact, been no material change of use of the three properties, each of which remained within Class 3. The claimant applied for judicial review of that decision.
Held: The application was granted and the decision quashed.
1. When deciding whether the residents were living together as a “single household”, it was crucial to examine whether there was such a relationship between the residents as provided a particular reason for their living in the same house. That relationship was lacking in the present case. The residents did not come as a preformed group or for a predetermined period. They were a constantly shifting body of persons, each coming and going at the licensor’s will, and residing for indefinite, and necessarily dissimilar, periods. Their common need for accommodation, support and resettlement did not reflect or arise from any relationship between them. ECHG had the run of the properties (save for residents’ rooms). It used each and any part of the properties that it chose for its own purposes, among other things for administration and staff accommodation.
2. The use of each of the properties had all the characteristics of a hostel, that is, buildings providing relatively short-stay and inexpensive sleeping accommodation and shared communal facilities.
Hannah Markham (instructed by Wood Shawe & Co, of Northampton) appeared for the claimant; Richard Banwell (instructed by Toller Hales & Collcutt, of Northampton) appeared for the defendants; The interested party did not appear and was not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
