The appellant suffered from a severe medical condition, which meant that she required a carer but could not live in a residential home. The inspector found that while the need for care arose from a medical condition, the kind of care required consisted of help with the basics of daily living.
The inspector found that removal of the word "medical" from the description of the type of care required would not alter the special circumstances that justified the grant of temporary permission for the mobile home in the first place. But he found no justification for a variation of the condition to allow occupation of the unit by the elderly carer once her caring responsibilities ended.
He noted that under the terms of the condition the mobile home would need to be removed if the appellant were to die, move away or even miraculously recover. In the absence of any compelling reason to review the permission after five years, and against a background of local opposition, he considered that this part of the condition was unnecessary and unduly onerous.
The inspector acknowledged that the carer, though quite elderly, did not suffer from a disability that would preclude her from receiving care elsewhere. Although he could readily understand the appellant's wish to anticipate any change in circumstances, he held that this did not amount to the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify retention of the mobile home.
DCS Number 100-051-238
Inspector Jon Roberts; Hearing.