A neighbour challenged the use of houses as temporary accommodation for homeless youths. The properties housed up to six youths, who, the council claimed lived together as a single unit, and therefore came within Class C3.
Held: Nothing in the case law suggested that such a group must constitute a household before coming together within the house or afterwards. The small number of occupants made it more likely that they were a unit. The matter would be remitted for the council to consider again properly whether the groups were a single residential unit.
Judges:
Lords Justice Simon Brown, Robert Walker and Clarke
Citations:
Gazette 04-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 886, [2003] RVR 63, [2002] JPL 1206, [2003] P and CR 444
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 C3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Simmons v Pizzey HL 1979
As to houses in multiple occupation, ‘both the expression ‘household’ and membership of it is a question of fact and degree, there being no certain indicia the presence or absence of any of which is by itself conclusive’. After reference to the the . .
Cited – Barnes v Sheffield City Council CA 1995
A group of five students was held to form a single household. The court identified the factors to assist in identifying whether a house was being occupied as a single household or not: the origin of the tenancy; whether the residents arrived in a . .
Cited – Guy Rogers v London Borough of Islington CA 30-Jul-1999
A house had ten bedrooms. One was retained by the owner for use some two months a year, the other nine were let to people in their twenties who had just completed their further education and were embarking on careers in the professions or banking . .
See also – Hossack, Regina (on the Application of) v Kettering Borough Council and Another Admn 31-Jul-2003
The claimant lived near houses used for the occupation by troubled youths. She complained that the occupation was in breach of planning control.
Held: The authority had properly considered the issues it was required to consider and the . .
Cited by:
See also – Hossack, Regina (on the Application of) v Kettering Borough Council and Another Admn 31-Jul-2003
The claimant lived near houses used for the occupation by troubled youths. She complained that the occupation was in breach of planning control.
Held: The authority had properly considered the issues it was required to consider and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.174191
