Croydon care home LDCs fail after Inspector rejects C3(b) household claims

Two Croydon care home proposals have lost lawful development certificate appeals after an Inspector found that the claimed resident carers would actually be employees working shifts.

Inspector Peter Willows dismissed the Donald Road and Mitcham Road appeals on 1st October 2026. Both sought to establish that small children’s homes would remain within C3(b), the dwellinghouse category for residents living together as a single household with care provided.

He found both proposed uses fell within C2. Crucially, that did not settle whether planning permission was needed. The appeals also failed because the evidence did not demonstrate that the proposed operations would avoid a material change in the character of the existing dwellinghouse uses.

Two Croydon care home appeals, the same evidence problem

The Donald Road decision, APP/L5240/X/25/3369968, concerned a proposed home for up to three young people aged 11 to 17. The Mitcham Road decision, APP/L5240/X/25/3369966, concerned up to four young people in the same age range.

Both proposals were described as providing care for young people with learning disabilities or mental health problems. The Inspector also recorded emotional and behavioural difficulties. The applications said the young people would live at the properties as their principal residences.

Croydon refused applications 25/01772/LP and 25/01770/LP on 21st July 2025. These were applications under section 192 for proposed uses, followed by section 195 appeals. They were not ordinary planning applications asking whether the homes were acceptable on planning merits.

That distinction matters. A lawful development certificate appeal tests lawfulness. Here, the applicants needed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities.

Why calling staff resident carers did not establish a household

The Croydon care home applications relied on Use Class C3(b). In England, that category covers dwellinghouse occupation by no more than six residents living together as a single household, with care provided for residents.

The difficulty for each Croydon care home proposal was what the staffing evidence actually described. The application forms suggested one full-time carer would be resident around the clock, with staff accommodation provided. The appeal statements instead described an employee working during the day and another at night.

Mr Willows considered that at least two people working shifts was the more likely arrangement. Only one bedroom was available for staff. Nothing explained how leave or sickness would be covered if that bedroom were genuinely one carer’s home while continuous care remained necessary.

In the Donald Road decision, he said it did not appear that a carer would “genuinely reside at the property in the true sense of that word”. The premises would instead be their workplace. Sleeping there during a shift did not establish membership of a resident household.

Applying the children’s home reasoning in North Devon District Council v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 157 (Admin), he found that these children would not form a household on their own. No information about the residents or management justified a different conclusion.

With the carers not genuinely residing there, the proposed single household had not been established. Both uses therefore fell within Use Class C2, rather than C3(b).

We should be careful about extending that conclusion to every care arrangement. The Inspector also considered Crawley Borough Council v Helberg [2004] EWHC 160 (Admin), which concerned adults. Crawley does not impose a universal rule that carers must live at the property. Whether the residents themselves form a household remains a question of fact and degree.

C2 was a finding, not an automatic permission requirement

The next stage of the Croydon care home decisions is just as important. A finding that the proposed use is C2 does not automatically establish a material change of use.

If both existing and proposed uses genuinely fall within the same class, section 55(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 normally takes that change outside development. These proposals could not rely on that route because the existing uses were C3 and the proposed uses were C2.

However, section 55 requires a material change of use. Moving between classes still requires an assessment of the actual change in character. Mr Willows expressly considered that separate question in each appeal.

The proposed shared meals, household tasks, kitchens, living rooms and gardens gave the homes some characteristics in common with dwellinghouse occupation. Those domestic features did not, by themselves, prove that the overall character would remain materially the same.

Croydon care home visits, shift changes and the missing baseline

The Croydon care home evidence left significant operational questions unanswered. Mr Willows considered that specialist care would involve visits from professionals, potentially affecting vehicle movements and parking throughout the week. The likely extent of those visits had not been established.

Shift-working staff would also need regular changeovers. He did not assume that every employee would drive. His concern was that the applicants had not explained shift timings, travel arrangements or how movements and manoeuvring would be managed.

The existing-use evidence was equally thin. Donald Road was shown as a four-bedroom dwelling over two floors, but there was no further detail such as the number of occupiers. Generalised information did not enable a reliable comparison of existing and proposed activity.

At Mitcham Road, the plans showed accommodation over three floors and kitchens on the ground and first floors. The Inspector regarded two kitchens as unusual for a single-family house of that size, but not necessarily incompatible with that use. He assumed the stated dwellinghouse use was correct.

Its proposed internal reconfiguration would increase the bedrooms from four to five. There was also an inconsistency between references to three and four young people. Mr Willows assessed four, following the application description.

In the Mitcham Road decision, Mr Willows acknowledged that management might address the issues, adding: “but that is for the appellant to show”. He considered it likely, on the limited information, that the proposed uses would materially differ from the existing ones. The applicants had not demonstrated otherwise on the balance of probabilities. This was an evidence-based conclusion about these operations, not a blanket ruling against small children’s homes.

Why Redbridge reached the opposite result

The contrast with the Redbridge care home LDC allowed at Hall Road is particularly useful. Inspector Siobhán Watson also rejected the claimed C3 household arrangement and found the proposed children’s home fell within C2.

She nevertheless allowed that appeal on 25th September 2026 because the proposed operation would not materially change the dwelling’s character. The assessment addressed communal living, carers’ involvement in domestic activities, visits, comings and goings and parking.

The Croydon care home appeals show the other side of that assessment. The shared residential features were insufficient when the evidence did not adequately explain the operation or compare it with the existing use.

I would not read either outcome as a shortcut for another property. Redbridge does not make every small C2 home lawful without permission, and Croydon does not make every move from C3 to C2 material. The character of the particular uses and the evidence remain decisive.

What Croydon care home applicants needed to demonstrate

For anyone preparing a similar application, the practical lesson from the Croydon care home decisions is to establish the proposed operation before choosing the planning argument. A use-class label and a bedroom plan are not a complete case.

We would want the evidence to address these points:

• A precise, consistent description of the proposed residents, care provision and maximum occupancy
• Whether any carer genuinely makes the property their home, supported by the real employment and accommodation arrangements
• Staff numbers, shift timings, handover overlap and cover for leave or sickness
• Professional and other visits, travel arrangements, parking and expected daily activity
• The established lawful use and its actual character, allowing a reasoned comparison with the proposal

These are practical evidence priorities drawn from the decisions, rather than a statutory checklist. A strong application should explain both household formation, if C3(b) is claimed, and materiality if the use instead falls within C2.

Mr Willows noted that insufficient or imprecise information can justify refusing a certificate, while leaving open a later application supported by more information. Both appeals were dismissed, but the decisions do not determine the outcome of a properly evidenced revised proposal or an ordinary planning application.