A proposal to turn a house in Ilford into a children’s care home has been criticised by planning officers.

Five people would have been living at the Sunnyside Road home, including a carer, which would have provided care for children of an unspecified age.

But Redbridge Council’s planning department identified a string of ambiguities that prevented it from rubber-stamping the plan.

Mohammad Irfan had applied for a certificate of lawfulness – which proves a project was compliant with planning law at the time – on June 4.

In their report, published on June 17, a council planning officer picked apart uncertainties in living arrangements and care provision.

With no information on if holiday patterns, illness cover, household bill payments and school runs would work, the officer said the scheme seemed “unfeasible”.

They added: “It would appear, from the limited information submitted, that it is expected of the carer to provide full-time care without respite.”

Ilford architect Scientific Designs had not provided an age range for the children in its design statement, submitted to the authority on behalf of the applicant, so the council worked on the assumption they would be between infancy and 17-years-old.

Much of the design statement related to how the scheme would impact the building’s character and surrounding area. The agent said the layout would remain the same, adding: “The proposed development is designed in such a way as to be sympathetic to the character of the street scene and to have a minimal impact on neighbouring properties.

“We, therefore, believe that this is a scheme that the council can support.”

But the council was also critical of how it would result in a net loss of housing in the area.

The officer said the need for housing was “so high” that even flat conversions were required to include three-bedroom accommodation, to support families in the borough.

Though the scheme has been turned down, the applicant may still have success if they pursue formal planning permission.

The officer ruled that the “additional comings and goings,” the loss of a “much-needed” home, and the impact on local services all meant the change of use was ‘material’.