M K Langford v Devon County Council

It was the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the appeal should be dismissed.

REASONS

The main issue

The main issue was whether for reasons connected with their situation the premises intended to be used for the purposes of the home were or were not fit to be so used. The Tribunal had described to it the nature of the site as proposed to be altered, its situation in relation to the village of Shaugh Prior and the facilities in the village. In addition the Tribunal in the presence of the parties and their advisers visited the village and the site.

Shaugh Prior is about half an hour's drive from Plymouth on the edge of Dartmoor. The village is a linear village along a country road which runs along the south side of quite a steep hillside. In the village there is a church, a recreation hall and a public house towards the East and a combined shop and Post Office at the Westerly end. This shop is some 140 yards off the road to the north. The road to it is a private road which was once tarred but Is now in a state of some disrepair.

Abbotsdown is on the south side of the road on a steeply sloping site. The plans provide for alterations to the building to accommodate 12 residents. Opening out from the proposed dining and sitting areas will be a terrace about 39' x 15', and at a lower level a lawn about 39' X 20'. The latter will be accessible by a ramp with handrails at a gradient of about 1:12. The property is accessible to the road by a concrete path of reasonable gradient and is situated about mid-way between the church and the road to the Post Office and shop. The road slopes upward to the Church and down-ward to the road that leads to the Post Office.

The respondent council's Sub-Committee, concluded that the combined features of the unlevel nature of the site and the poor access to the most important amenity, that is the shop and the Post Office, made the situation of Abbotsdown unsuitable for a residential care home.

The evidence and the tribunal's own observations showed that the access to the Post Office was very difficult and virtually impossible for an elderly person with even a moderate mobility problem. For the rest the facilities in the village were not such as to encourage residents to go out, save very occasionally. We therefore agreed with the Sub-Committee that the residents would for the most part be limited to the house and grounds. Although the views from the house and terrace were undoubtedly very attractive the tribunal considered that even with the provision of the lawn below the terrace the outdoor facilities of the property were rather constricted and not likely to encourage the residents to spend much time outside the house itself.

The Tribunal approached the issue on the basis of whether, having regard to the facilities in the village and their accessibility and the facilities on the property feat the residents to spend a reasonable amount of time outside the house itself, the type of person likely to be accommodated would benefit from living in this home. This is necessarily a value judgement to be reached primarily by those with knowledge of the needs of elderly people. It is here that the expert members of the Tribunal bring their knowledge to bear.

They both agreed with the conclusion of the Sub-Committee, and the Chairman too was of the same opinion. It was accepted that it was essential for elderly people to be as independent as possible and to be encouraged to venture out of both the house and the premises where they were living though the provision of transport to enable them to go out would be of assistance this would not make up fully for the lack of true independence and freedom of movement which were desirable. The Tribunal considered that having regard to the situation of the premises the residents would be unduly restricted in their independence and ability to move freely outside the house, and this would be to their disadvantage.

For all these reasons the Tribunal was of the view that for reasons connected with its situation the proposed home was not fit to be used as a residential care home.

The Tribunal has not overlooked the fact that planning permission was granted on appeal on the basis that the property was a suitable site for a residential care home, applying criteria in effect identical to those applied by the Sub-Committee. But the training and knowledge of the Inspector is necessarily different from that of members of the Social Services Sub-Committee and of the expert members of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also considered the letters of support for the appellant. Again these did not in the main touch upon the vital issue in the appeal.

As the Tribunal considers that the Sub Committee reached the right conclusion in refusing the application on the basis of the unsuitability of the situation of the premises it is unnecessary to consider whether it was right for the application to have been limited to this issue in advance of a full consideration of all aspects of the application. This raises interesting questions of procedure touched upon the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal of Care Concern and the Village at Llangwyfan against Clwyd County Council (Decision No 3). See particularly the Note on Registration Procedure, the Annex to Mr Hanson's reasons.

Signed J C R Fieldsend

12 November 1985