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

Whether accommodation falls within Class C3 is principally a matter of planning judgment. The court intervenes only where the authority’s decision is irrational in the Wednesbury sense.

There is no conclusive test for deciding whether occupants form a single household. The authority must assess the facts as a whole, including the occupants’ relationship, communal living arrangements, the number of residents, and the physical and functional separateness of the premises. Residents need not arrive as a pre-formed group, stay for a predetermined period, or be homogeneous.

A decision-maker must take reasonable steps to obtain information sufficient to answer the correct question. It need not pursue every potentially available inquiry where the existing investigation is careful, relevant and adequate.

The claimant challenged Kettering Borough Council’s conclusion that three neighbouring houses used by English Churches Housing Group to provide temporary accommodation for young people remained separate dwelling houses within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

The council’s first decision had been quashed by Lightman J. The Court of Appeal subsequently allowed the council’s appeal and laid down principles for reconsideration in [2002] EWCA Civ 886. On reconsideration, the council again found that the houses were separate Class C3 dwellings and refused to revisit that conclusion after receiving further witness statements.

The central issue was whether the council acted unlawfully by deciding the matter without interviewing neighbours, residents or a further ECHG officer, and by refusing to reconsider its decision.

1. The claim was dismissed. The council’s decision that the three houses fell within Class C3 was rationally open to it. The refusal to reconsider that decision was also rational.
2. Whether a use falls within Class C3 is principally a matter of planning judgment. The court’s role is limited to reviewing the decision for irrationality in the Wednesbury sense. The council had correctly directed itself by reference to the Court of Appeal’s guidance.
3. There is no litmus test for determining whether residents form a single household. The relevant considerations must be assessed cumulatively. A relationship providing a particular reason for living together is required, but residents need not have arrived as a pre-formed group, stayed for a predetermined period, or been homogeneous.
4. The number of residents is material. Class C3’s limit of six residents, apart from people living together as a family, makes it more likely that a smaller group will form a single household. That consideration does not operate as a conclusive rule.
5. Applying the approach in Secretary of State for Education and Science v Thameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014 at 1065B, the question was whether the council asked itself the right question and took reasonable steps to acquaint itself with the relevant information. Mr Shields had inspected the houses, reviewed extensive records and questioned a senior ECHG officer with personal knowledge of the accommodation. That was sufficient.
6. It was reasonable not to interview neighbours, whose knowledge was principally of the effect on neighbouring properties, or Mr Richardson, because the suggestion that he might add material information was speculative. Interviewing residents might have been helpful, but it was not irrational to proceed without doing so.
7. The further witness statements did not materially undermine the existing assessment. They were capable of being viewed as consistent with communal use within separate households, and did not require reconsideration.

The judgment records earlier stages in the same litigation:

• High Court: Lightman J quashed the council’s original decision on 25 March 2002.
• Court of Appeal: The council’s appeal was allowed, and guidance was given for reconsideration in [2002] EWCA Civ 886.
• High Court (Administrative Court): On reconsideration, the challenge to the council’s decision and refusal to reconsider was dismissed. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.