Mr and Mrs I D Mills v Trafford Borough Council

The Tribunal unanimously dismisses each of the appeals and confirms the decision of the Respondent.

REASONS

History

Prior to December 1984 Exeter House had operated as a residential care home with some 15 to 16 residents accommodated in 2 single rooms, 2 double rooms and 4 multi-bedded rooms. The property, a Victorian detached house in a suburban area, was acquired by the Appellants in December 1984 just as the present Act became operative, and registration was granted for 12 residents in 8 rooms, of which 2 were single rooms, there being 14 places for 12 residents.

The Appellants set about improving the standards of the home in a wide range of areas and in October 1985 were granted registration for 16 residents in 10 rooms of which 3 were single rooms, there being a total of 17 places for 16 residents.

In 1988 the adjoining property came up for sale and the Appellants decided to buy it and to incorporate the ground floor into the residential home and to adapt the first floor for their personal accommodation.

In 1989 an application was made to increase the registered numbers to 22. This was granted but the Respondent refused to accept one of the proposed rooms as suitable for occupation because of lack of natural lighting. The result of the application was that registration was granted for 22 residents in 16 rooms of which 9 were single, there being 23 places for 22 residents.

In 1990 the Appellants changed their plans deciding to use the upper floor as well of the newly acquired house as accommodation for residents and applied for registration for 28. In May 1990 the Respondent granted registration for only 26 residents in 21 rooms of which 14 were single.

It is against the Respondent's decision in November 1989 to refuse registration of what throughout has been called "Room 9", and its decision in August 1990 not to increase the registration from 26 to 28 that the Appellant now appeals.

Issues

Room 9 is planned as a single room. It is on the ground floor of the new building and so situated that its main window opens onto the length of an area between the new building and the old. This area is about 6 ft wide and 18 ft long. A secondary window above the washbasin also opens on to this area but faces directly onto the next door building same 6 ft away.

The room itself is L-shaped. The main part which houses the bed, wardrobe and washbasin is about 9 ft square and the only window into it is that above the basin. The other portion of room is about 8 ft × 6 ft with the main window in the longer wall. This housed a chair and a coffee table.

The area of glazing satisfies the technical requirements of the guidance notes put before us, and the only issue is whether in all the circumstances the natural lighting in the room is sufficient to make the room suitable for occupation by an elderly resident.

The Respondent's registration officer and Assistant Principal Environmental Health Officer both thought that the paucity of natural lighting made the room unsuitable for such occupation. Mr Watts, an expert witness called for the Appellants considered that having regard to its size the room was suitable for single occupancy and that the natural light to the smaller part of the room was sufficient to allow reading, handwork and other activities without the need for artificial light. In this he contradicted the Respondent's witnesses.

We had the advantage of an inspection of this room - albeit on a rather dull day - and we think that Mr Watts is right about the smaller part of the room. But the overall effect of the natural lighting was gloomy and depressing particularly in the larger part of the room. This could certainly not be used for any activity without artificial light.

We are of the unanimous view that the Respondent was right to refuse to allow this room to be used as a bedroom for a resident. Mr Mills' evidence that a number of people had seen this room and were prepared to accept it for themselves or their dependants really takes the matter no further. Shown as a room with artificial lighting on in the larger portion, it is not unattractive, it is only on a closer look that the remaining disadvantages become apparent, particularly as it is to be the long-term home of an elderly person, who might have to spend any substantial time of the day in bed in the poorly lit portion.

The main issue in regard to overall numbers turned upon whether the home provided a sufficiently high proportion of single accommodation.

Mr Watts, the Appellant's main witness did not disagree with current thinking that single accommodation is normally considered preferable to shared rooms. This is the view put forward in 'Home Life' which has provided guidelines for home owners and registration authorities since 1984 when it was published. The Respondent's information booklet for prospective home owners sets the aim of providing 80% of residents with single rooms, and since January 1985 this has been the requirement for all new homes.

Exactly what Mr Mills was told, and when, in regard to what he was expected to do to bring Exeter House in line with the Respondent's aim is in dispute. He said that he believed that any policy related to new homes and not to Exeter House even with its extensions, and he said that he thought any proportion related not to residents but to rooms, and that at least until very recently he thought that he need only provide 60% of single rooms. It is not vital to the decision of this appeal but we feel that Mr Mills in the light of documents such as Home Life and the Respondent's information booklet must have appreciated, before he embarked on his extensions, the need to increase substantially the provision of single accommodation in Exeter House. Indeed over the years from 1984 to 1989 progress had been made to judge from the figures given in the schedule spoken to in Mr Watt's proof of evidence to which he adhered. In December 1984 12 residents were accommodated in 8 rooms: this meant that 4 out of 12 (or 33%) could have occupied rooms alone. In October 1985 16 residents were accommodated in 10 rooms: this meant that 4 out of 16 (or 25%, a retrograde step) could have occupied rooms alone. In April 1989 22 residents were accommodated in 16 rooms: this meant that 10 out of 22 (or 45%) could have occupied rooms alone.

In August 1990 the Respondent agreed to increase the registration to 26 in 21 rooms: this meant that 16 out of 26 residents (or 67.5%) could occupy rooms alone.

In allowing this registration the Respondent contends that it has sensibly and with flexibility applied the guidelines that it has set itself of working towards the ideal figure for new homes of 80% single occupancy.

Mr Mills contends that for a variety of reasons the Respondent has not exercised its decision with sufficient flexibility having regard to all the circumstances. He contends that it is difficult to adapt an old building to the guidelines; that large Victorian rooms do not lend themselves to subdivision and that the bigger rooms are not suitable for single occupancy. We can understand the former contention, which was illustrated by the subdivision of one large room in such a way as to leave a somewhat unattractive narrow single room though its acceptability was not an issue before us. There was, however, no evidence to show that a room big enough for two would be unsuitable for occupation by one resident.

Mr Mills did stress time and again that he wished to give residents a choice as to whether to share or be on their own and that this would be limited if he had to provide only single rooms. He has found, he said, that some people do wish to share, even though they only first meet in the home. We accept that there are people who may wish to share with a congenial companion, or to whom sharing may be advantageous in certain circumstances (as one relative indicated in regard to her dependent). But any choice must be an entirely free one and not constrained by pressures directly or indirectly brought to bear by relatives or by the desire to enter the home when only shared accommodation is offered.

Mr Mills also contended that the Respondent had overlooked "the unique position of Exeter House in the Community". On the evidence we found no evidence of any uniqueness. Mr Watts was more enthusiastic about the way the home was run than Mrs Ledwith, the registration officer, and we have no doubt that this was a well-run home, perhaps of better than average standard. But we do not think that there is anything about it to warrant saying that it should be treated in any different way from other similar establishments.

To have allowed registration for 28 residents on the basis of the rooms listed in the last column in Mr Watts' schedule (but excluding room 9) would have been a retrograde step. The result would have been to allow registration for 28 residents in 20 rooms. This would have meant bringing the rear right room on the first floor of the old house back into use as a double room resulting in 16 residents in double rooms and 12 in single rooms, a percentage of 44% in single rooms. This would have gone no way to achieving the aim of a higher proportion of single occupancy. Even if room 9 were to have been registered, single occupancy would have reached only 50% and this hardly indicates much progress towards the 80% which we are entirely satisfied is a reasonable long term aim for this home. The present registration for 26 allows for greater freedom of choices for the residents and reflects the greatest flexibility that could have been expected of the Respondent.

In our view the decisions of the Respondent cannot be faulted and both appeals must be dismissed and the Respondent s decisions upheld.

J C R FIELDSEND (CHAIRMAN)
B J GRAY
D WAKEFIELD