Crawley Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Helberg (t/a The Evesleigh Group) [2004] EWHC 160 (Admin)
Crawley C3(b) case is an important High Court authority on whether adults receiving full-time care can still live together as a single household where the carers work shifts and do not reside at the property.
Mr Justice Richards held that there is no universal rule requiring carers to live at the property for a use to fall within C3(b). The central question is whether the residents themselves form a single household. That is a fact-and-degree assessment based on the particular occupants and the way the home operates.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2004] EWHC 160 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
- Judgment date
- 23rd January 2004
- Judge
- Mr Justice Richards
- Case number
- CO/4777/2003
What happened in Crawley?
The case concerned Oak House, 193 Weald Drive, Crawley. The property had previously been used as a single dwellinghouse and was proposed for occupation by four adults aged between 18 and 65 with learning difficulties.
The residents received care at all times. The carers did not live at the house, but a shift system meant that two carers were always present, including overnight.
The Evesleigh Group applied for a certificate of lawfulness for the proposed use. A Planning Inspector concluded that the four residents would occupy the property as a single household within C3(b), and Crawley Borough Council challenged that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
North Devon did not create a universal resident-carer rule
The council relied heavily on North Devon District Council v The First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 157 (Admin).
North Devon had concerned two children receiving continuous care from non-resident staff. Collins J held that the children could not by themselves form the functioning household required by C3(b), so a resident carer was needed in that particular setting.
Richards J rejected the proposition that North Devon established a wider rule for every person receiving care. The proper question remained whether, on the facts, the people actually living at the property could sensibly be regarded as a single household.
Adults receiving full-time care can still form the household
The fact that the four residents needed full-time care did not prevent them from forming a household.
Richards J distinguished between the residents and the non-resident carers. If carers live at the property, the question is whether they and the residents together form a single household. If the carers do not live there, the question is instead whether the residents receiving care themselves form that household.
That approach was consistent with the earlier High Court decision in R v Bromley London Borough Council, ex parte Sinclair [1991] 3 PLR 60, where Popplewell J had held that non-resident care staff did not prevent the residents from living together as a C3(b) household.
The answer is fact and degree
Crawley is therefore particularly important because it prevents the C2/C3 boundary being reduced to a simple staffing test.
The residents’ disabilities, the degree of care required, the way they share living accommodation, meals and domestic life, and the practical operation of the property can all be relevant. In some cases the people receiving care may not be capable of functioning as a household without a resident carer. In others they may plainly constitute the household themselves even though substantial or continuous support is provided.
The Inspector had been entitled to find that these four adults generally lived together and used the property communally. The existence of a former granny annexe and the ability of one resident to spend time separately did not make his conclusion irrational.
The High Court dismissed Crawley’s challenge
Richards J found no material legal error in the Inspector’s approach. The Inspector had applied the statutory wording and had been entitled to conclude, on the facts before him, that the four residents occupied Oak House as a single household within C3(b).
The council’s section 288 challenge was dismissed.
Why Crawley still matters
Crawley, North Devon and Sinclair need to be read together. They do not create a fixed rule based simply on whether care staff sleep at the property.
North Devon remains highly relevant where the people receiving care cannot themselves function as a household without a resident adult carer. Crawley confirms that the position can be different for adults who, despite significant support needs, are capable of living together as the household themselves.
Planning Geek’s guides to Use Class C3 dwellinghouses, Use Class C2 residential institutions and lawful development certificate appeals explain the wider planning framework.
Read the full Crawley judgment
The official High Court judgment is held locally in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Crawley C3(b) Case Law Page Updated: 22nd September 2026