Medvale House, Mote Road, Maidstone

Decision

dismissed, 7 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Ian Dyer

Authority

Maidstone (South East)

Appeal reference

6005653

Application reference

25/500559/FULL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of 7-storey former office building to 87 apartments with communal areas and amenity spaces (part retrospective)

Homes

87

Site context

inside settlement, PDL

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), DP3, P5

Development plan policies

Maidstone Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (2024) LPRQD7, LPRSP15, Maidstone Building for Life 12 (2018)

Main issues

living conditions - private amenity space; fire safety

Summary

Change of use of Medvale House, a 7-storey former office block in Maidstone town centre, to 87 flats. Dismissed. The flats would have no private outdoor space and inadequate communal space, contrary to Local Plan policy LPRQD7. The fire statement relied on an escape stair in an adjoining third-party building, with no enforceable right of use; the HSE objected. Those two harms were held to outweigh the housing benefit despite a housing-land shortfall. The S4 conclusion is expressed in the old "significantly and demonstrably" wording.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The Framework has not materially altered its approach to the matters in dispute in this appeal and so I have not sought further comment from the parties" (DL ¶4).
• Private amenity space: FAIL. "public open space does not fulfil all the amenity functions of private space, lacking seclusion and privacy as it does" (DL ¶14). LPRQD7 is read as a requirement with room for justified flexibility, not an aim: "I do not see that a complete lack of personal private provision is an option being offered as a matter of choice for the developer" (DL ¶16).
• Fire safety: FAIL. "There is, therefore, more to this matter in the determining of a planning application than submitting a document" (DL ¶24). "Access to the escape route cannot be secured through a planning condition as it lies outside of the red line" (DL ¶30). The proposal is "contrary to the fundamental social objective of the Framework to provide well-designed, safe places" (DL ¶32).
• Prior approval history. "that route is subject to different tests than an application for planning permission" (DL ¶17).

Planning balance

S4 is quoted correctly at DL ¶36. For: 87 homes, significant weight; long-term economic benefit, moderate; construction, limited. Re-use of the building and council tax / New Homes Bonus were neutral. Accessibility was not counted separately, "To consider them again, separately, would be to double count" (DL ¶41). Against: design and living conditions ("significantly") and fire safety ("very significantly") (DL ¶¶34-35). Conclusion: "the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶43). This is the 2024 tilted-balance wording, not the 2026 "substantially outweighed" test.

What made the difference

There was no fallback, because the prior approval had lapsed. That meant the scheme was judged as an ordinary planning application against LPRQD7's private amenity standard. There was also no enforceable secondary escape. Either harm alone was said to be enough: the design and its effect on residents' lived experience "would itself be sufficient to overwhelm the benefits accruing" (DL ¶42). To succeed, the appellant would have needed balconies, or a shared outdoor space with a viability case behind it, and a planning-enforceable right to the Kent House stair or a second stair on site.

Transferable points

• Nearby public parks do not replace private amenity space for large flatted conversions (DL ¶14).
• A policy phrased as "should have" private space still requires justification for providing none (DL ¶¶15-16).
• An inspector can find that a fire statement fails "planning gateway one" when escape depends on third-party land outside the red line and access is not legally secure (DL ¶¶24, 30-32).
• Housing supply benefit for 87 dwellings was given only "significant" weight, not HO7's "substantial" (DL ¶37).
• Accessibility benefits that underpin the presumption are not counted again as separate benefits (DL ¶41).
• Drafting slip: the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula is used as the S4 conclusion (DL ¶43).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Earlier Class MA prior approval commenced but lapsed, so no fallback (DL 7)
• Zero private outdoor space for 87 flats; public open space at Mote Park does not substitute for private space (DL 8, 14)
• Second escape route depends on a stair in an adjoining building; the scanned legal agreement is unclear and not enforceable in planning terms (DL 26-30)
• Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework ("not materially altered its approach") (DL 4)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.