Hossack, R (on the application of) v Kettering Borough Council & Anor

The question whether residents form a single household is one of fact and degree. There is no conclusive indicium or required relationship which applies in every case. Relevant considerations include the way residents came together, shared facilities and responsibilities, the stability and size of the group, and the degree of communal living. The number of residents is important: a group of no more than six is more likely to live as a single household. A common need for accommodation, support and resettlement may provide the context for communal living, but does not necessarily prevent residents from forming a single household. Planning authorities must assess the overall factual picture without treating any single factor as decisive.

English Churches Housing Group operated three neighbouring properties as supported accommodation for small groups of vulnerable residents. Kettering Borough Council decided that each property fell within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. A neighbouring resident challenged that decision, contending that the properties were hostels requiring planning permission.

Lightman J quashed the Council’s decision and directed reconsideration. The Council accepted that its original decision had failed to take account of material considerations, but appealed the judge’s legal approach, particularly his conclusion that residents could not form a single household without a relationship beyond a common need for accommodation, support and resettlement.

1. Appeal allowed. The Council was required to reconsider the lawfulness of the use of the properties. The Court of Appeal rejected the judge’s prescriptive approach, while leaving the original decision quashed.
2. The concept of a single household under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 is to be construed consistently with the authorities under the Housing Act 1985. It is a question of fact and degree. There are no certain indicia whose presence or absence is conclusive: Simmons v Pizzey [1979] AC 37.
3. The factors identified in Barnes v Sheffield City Council (1995) 27 HLR 719 are relevant considerations, not a statutory checklist or litmus test. Their order has no inherent significance, and their weight varies with the overall picture. Relevant matters include the origin of the tenancy, shared facilities, responsibility for the whole house, locking of rooms, responsibility for vacancies, room allocation, size, stability and mode of living.
4. The Court declined to treat the relationship between residents as an essential precondition. The relationship is material, but residents brought together by a common need for accommodation, support and resettlement may nevertheless form a single household. The judge had gone further than was justified by Rogers v Islington LBC (1999) 32 HLR 138, which did not establish that a preformed or homogeneous group was always necessary.
5. The restriction in Class C3 to no more than six residents is an important consideration. The smaller the group, the more likely its occupation is to be intimate, integrated and cohesive. The Council therefore had to reconsider all issues, including whether each property was occupied separately by residents living together as a single household, applying the law and facts without predetermining the result.

Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Clarke agreed. The order was: appeal allowed, with no further order on the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed from the decision of Lightman J, which had quashed the Council’s decision and directed reconsideration.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Council’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for redetermination.