- Decision
- allowed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Stewart Glassar
- Authority
- Bromley (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6007183
- Application reference
- 24/02895/FULL1
- Procedure
- hearing
- Development
- Redevelopment of former care home as part 3 / part 4 storey building of 34 one and two bedroom retirement living units with communal facilities, parking and landscaping
- Homes
- 34
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 1.93 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, HO7, P3
- Development plan policies
- London Plan 2021 D3, D4, D5, D6, D12, H4, H5, Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 2, 4, 37
- Main issues
- future occupier living conditions; neighbour living conditions; fire safety; affordable housing and viability
Summary
Thirty-four McCarthy Stone retirement flats replacing a former care home in West Wickham, allowed after a hearing. Three lower-ground units would have poor light and outlook, a development-plan conflict given considerable weight. But in a settlement with 1.93 years' supply, S4 and HO7 meant that harm did not substantially outweigh the benefits, so the Framework indicated a decision other than in accordance with the plan. The inspector preferred the council's viability case (GBP 1.175m payment in lieu) and refused vacant building credit.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I sought the main parties' observations on the revised Framework and have taken their comments into consideration in my decision" (DL ¶2).
- Future occupiers (units 1–3): HARM. "it is not appropriate for me to rely on the 'buyer beware' principle" (DL ¶9). Conflict with P3, but "I am mindful that this is not a policy which directs permission to be refused if conflict is identified" (DL ¶66).
- Neighbours: no conflict after screens and obscure glazing (DL ¶24, ¶65).
- Fire safety: PASS. "there is no substantive evidence to indicate that the proposed development would expose future occupiers to an unacceptable fire safety risk" (DL ¶32).
- Affordable housing. Council viability preferred; vacant building credit "discretionary rather than mandatory" (DL ¶52) and not applied (DL ¶55); off-site payment in lieu accepted given no registered-provider interest (DL ¶60).
Planning balance
S4(1). Plan conflict (units 1–3) "carries considerable weight" (DL ¶71). "whilst dwellings 1-3 would be a negative aspect of the proposal, I do not find the level of harm to substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, the Framework indicates that permission should be granted" (DL ¶72). "material considerations, in this case the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it" (DL ¶81).
What made the difference
The S4 presumption with substantial HO7 weight and an acute 1.93-year supply. The inspector expressly distinguished P3, a policy that does not direct refusal, from the refusal-directing policies that would have engaged S4(2)(c). The future-occupier harm was treated as a P3 matter, not tested as a DP3(3) design conflict.
Transferable points
- Under S4, a development-plan conflict given considerable weight can still be outweighed where it is not a Framework policy directing refusal (DL ¶66, ¶71–72, ¶81).
- "buyer beware" is not an answer to substandard accommodation (DL ¶9).
- Vacant building credit is discretionary; it need not be applied where introduced late only to cap an affordable contribution (DL ¶52–55).
- Off-site affordable contribution is acceptable where registered providers decline retirement-living units (DL ¶58–60).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3 | harm | considerable | lower-ground units 1-3 below BRE light guidance, poor outlook and car-park disturbance; conflict with LP D3-D6 and BLP 4, 37; "not a policy which directs permission to be refused" (DL 8-9, 17, 66, 71) |
| P1 | pass | mechanical ventilation a reasonable response to road noise and site constraints (DL 10-13, 65) | |
| DP3 | pass | no conflict regarding neighbours' living conditions (19 m to boundary, 28 m to No 32; screens and obscure glazing by condition) (DL 20-24, 65) | |
| DM7 | pass | fire safety matters for Building Regulations; fire evacuation strategy condition; LFB no objection (DL 25-32, 65) | |
| DM5 | pass | council viability preferred; GBP 1.175m payment in lieu; vacant building credit discretionary and not applied (DL 33-61, 65) | |
| HO8 | pass | off-site payment in lieu acceptable as 29 registered providers showed no interest (DL 58-60, 65) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 34 older-persons homes; supply 1.93 years; undisputed need for older persons' accommodation (DL 62, 64) |
| L2 | benefit | redevelopment of former care home is effective use of land (DL 64) | |
| S4 | pass | harm to units 1-3 does not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 72) | |
| DM6 | pass | UU (affordable housing, reviews, carbon offset GBP 36,765, highways GBP 85,000 for Addington Road crossing) meets tests (DL 67-70) |
Key facts
- Hearing 4-6 Aug 2026; Framework revised after the hearing and parties' observations sought (DL 2, 63)
- Letter header dates the decision "25th September 2025" (clearly 2026)
- Agreed supply 1.93 years at October 2025 (DL 62)
- Viable affordable contribution GBP 1.175m v appellant's lower figure; VBC cap GBP 1,217,975 would not have bitten; VBC excluded from review mechanism (DL 50, 55-56)
- [object Object]
Sources
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.