# 35 Cumberland Drive, Bexleyheath (house to children's home) - **Decision:** allowed, 2 October 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Bexley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6012368 - **Application reference:** 25/02100/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a dwellinghouse (C3) to a children's home (C2), limited by condition to three children - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 H12, D3, Bexley Local Plan 2023 SP2, SP5, DP6, DP11, DP23, DP24 - **Main issues:** need for children's residential care, suitability of accommodation, character, living conditions, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, specialist-housing, non-determination, limited-nppf-engagement, plan-led ## Summary A non-determination appeal for a small children's home in a suburban semi-detached house, allowed on the development plan. The Framework entered only through HO1, used as the yardstick for what the local plan should have evidenced about need: "it would be expected that the BLP, as required by the Framework and the LP, would provide evidence of the projected need for children’s residential care accommodation over the plan period, but it does not" (DL ¶10). The inspector found the need from the Council's own Children's Services response: "I am therefore satisfied that there is a significant ongoing need for children’s residential care accommodation in Bexley" (DL ¶10). ## What made the difference The Council's Children's Services team confirmed that almost all referred children are placed far from the borough, which filled the gap left by the plan's silence on need. Neighbours' concerns about activity, behaviour and parking were met by a management plan, an occupancy cap of three and a two-space parking condition. No S4 balance was run because the scheme accorded with the plan. ## Policy findings - **HO1: neutral.** plan-making policy cited as context; the local plan should, as the Framework requires, evidence the need for looked-after children's accommodation but does not; need found from the Children's Services response instead (DL 7, 10) - **P3: pass.** mapped: activity beyond a normal household (staff shifts, professional visits) but not harmful; management plan condition (DL 19-22) - **TR6: pass.** mapped: PTAL 2, four bus routes within walking distance; two on-site spaces by condition; overflow parking not shown to be dangerous (DL 23-26) - **DM6: neutral.** Framework tests for conditions applied; occupancy capped at three children and use limited to a children's home (DL 29-34) - **s38(6): accord.** accords with the development plan read as a whole (DL 35) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; the Council said officers would have recommended approval (DL 2) - Council's Children's Services, nearly all referred children are placed more than twenty miles away; no Sufficiency Strategy figures produced (DL 9-10) - One of four bedrooms is below 7.5 sqm, so occupancy limited to three children by condition (DL 14, 33) - Two staff on site at all times, shifts changing at 8am and 8pm, with a manager in office hours (DL 19) - No switch paragraph; HO1 cited by its 2026 code ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012368 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/15ce638a-d766-4ff6-bd70-61c098451eeb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012368.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.