R v Bromley London Borough Council, ex parte Sinclair [1991] 3 PLR 60
Sinclair C3(b) case is an early High Court authority on whether people receiving round-the-clock care can live together as a single household where the care staff work on a rota and do not themselves reside at the property.
Popplewell J held that the wording of C3(b) focused on the residents living together as a single household. It did not impose a separate requirement that the staff providing care must also live with them.
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
- [1991] 3 PLR 60
- Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 2nd May 1991
- Judge
- Mr Justice Popplewell
What happened in Sinclair?
Bromley London Borough Council proposed to use 13 Rafford Way, Bromley as a family home for three adults with learning disabilities. The intention was to provide a long-term home with 24-hour supervision from social workers working on a rota.
The staff would not make the property their home, although a small room could be used by the care assistant on duty overnight.
A neighbour, Nancy Sinclair, challenged the council’s conclusion that the use fell within C3(b) and therefore did not involve a material change requiring planning permission. Her paper application for judicial review permission had been refused, and the case before Popplewell J was a renewed application for leave.
The residents, not the carers, were the household
Popplewell J focused on the statutory wording. C3(b) referred to residents living together as a single household and expressly included a household where care was provided for residents.
On the facts, the three people living at the house were the residents. The care staff attended to support them but did not live there. The judge did not regard the staff’s non-resident status as preventing the three residents themselves from forming the household.
The proposed use could therefore properly fall within C3(b), and the planning officer had been entitled to conclude that separate planning permission was not required.
The challenge was only at the permission stage
Sinclair needs to be read with some procedural care. This was not a full substantive judicial review judgment after a trial of the claim. Popplewell J was deciding a renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings.
He refused permission. He also said that even if he had taken the opposite view on the use-class point, he would have refused leave in the exercise of discretion because the council, which was itself the planning authority, would have granted permission and there was no substantive planning objection beyond neighbouring opposition.
North Devon later disagreed with Sinclair in a children’s home case
In North Devon District Council v The First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 157 (Admin), Collins J expressly disagreed with Sinclair’s reasoning in the context of two children who could not themselves operate as a functioning household without an adult carer.
North Devon therefore required a resident carer on its particular facts. It should not, however, be read as wiping Sinclair from the law altogether.
Crawley restored the fact-and-degree distinction
In Crawley Borough Council v Helberg (t/a The Evesleigh Group) [2004] EWHC 160 (Admin), Richards J explained why the two authorities were not irreconcilable in every case.
Adults receiving even full-time care may still be capable of constituting the household themselves. Where carers do not reside at the property, the question remains whether the residents receiving care form a single household as a matter of fact and degree.
Richards J considered that approach consistent with Sinclair, while distinguishing the particular circumstances of the children in North Devon.
Why Sinclair still matters
Sinclair remains useful because it demonstrates that non-resident shift care is not, by itself, enough to push a use into C2. The focus must remain on who actually resides at the property and whether those residents live together as a single household.
The case is therefore best read as part of the sequence Sinclair → North Devon → Crawley, rather than in isolation.
Planning Geek’s guides to Use Class C3 dwellinghouses and Use Class C2 residential institutions explain the wider framework.
Read the judgment
The complete judgment of Popplewell J is available below for Gold members. The PDF reproduces the judgment text reported by Estates Gazette, including the final order refusing the application with costs.
Sinclair C3(b) Case Law Page Updated: 26th September 2026