- Decision
- dismissed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S Simms
- Authority
- Kingston upon Thames (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6009076
- Application reference
- 24/02949/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Redevelopment of a builders' merchants for 20 flats in five buildings and 61.7 sqm commercial space, with no affordable housing
- Homes
- 20
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 1.48 years
- Housing Delivery Test
- 66%
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), S4(2)(a)(i), HO8, DM5
- Development plan policies
- Kingston Core Strategy CS8, CS10, DM5, DM9, DM10, DM15, DM17, London Plan 2021 E4, E7, H4, H5, T4
- Main issues
- employment floorspace and industrial land; affordable housing; parking and access
Summary
Twenty flats replacing a builders' merchants in New Malden District Centre, with no affordable housing. Kingston has only a 1.48-year supply, and the design would improve the area. But the loss of safeguarded employment land was unsupported by marketing, and the viability case for no affordable housing rested on inconsistent valuations. Under S4, with the safeguarding loss treated as an S4(2)(a)(i) type harm, the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I invited the main parties to comment on any implications of these for their cases and took their responses into account" (DL ¶4).
- Employment land: FAIL. "Without marketing, I am also unconvinced that there is no prospect of letting the site for employment use" (DL ¶9).
- Affordable housing, HO8: FAIL. "due to the disparities with the comparators and inconsistency with the market demand report, I am not persuaded that the lack of affordable housing is justified" (DL ¶14). "I attach significant weight to the failure to meet affordable housing requirements, which is contrary to Policy HO8 of the Framework" (DL ¶21).
- DM5. The viability assessment "does not itself explain differences from the inputs and assumptions used in the viability assessment that informed the development plan, as required by Policy DM5 of the Framework" (DL ¶20).
- Housing: moderate. "given the scale of unmet need and of the proposal, I nonetheless attach moderate weight to the provision of 20 dwellings" (DL ¶21).
- Plan weight. DM15, CS10, H4 and H5 "are not materially inconsistent with the Framework and so should continue to be afforded significant weight" (DL ¶26).
Planning balance
S4(1), with S4(2)(a)(i) safeguarding named in the test (DL ¶19). "the provision of housing, improved character and appearance, re-use of land and local economic benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of the failure to meet affordable housing requirements and impacts to the safeguarding of land or buildings in the development plan" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶27).
What made the difference
Evidence. No marketing of the site, and valuations that contradicted the appellant's own demand report. A marketed site and a consistent viability benchmark could have changed both issues.
Transferable points
- S4(2)(a)(i) safeguarding loss can outweigh 20 homes with a 1.48-year supply where no marketing shows safeguarding is no longer appropriate (DL ¶23, ¶25).
- Employment-safeguarding policies that allow alternatives on evidence remain consistent with S4 (DL ¶26).
- DM5 requires a viability case to explain departures from plan-stage inputs; a review mechanism does not cure a flawed baseline (DL ¶15, ¶20).
- E2 substantial weight is not earned by a commercial unit with no evidenced demand (DL ¶22).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S4(2)(a)(i) | fail | substantial | loss of commercial floorspace and land safeguarded by DM17/LP E4, E7 without marketing evidence; "substantial weight to the impact on land and buildings safeguarded" (DL 6-9, 19, 23) |
| HO8 | fail | significant | no affordable housing; viability valuation benchmark inconsistent with the appellant's own demand report; review mechanism in UU cannot cure it (DL 10-15, 21) |
| DM5 | fail | viability assessment does not explain differences from the plan-stage viability inputs (DL 20) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | 20 general-needs homes with 1.48-year supply; not the homes for different groups assessed under HO1 (DL 18, 21) |
| E2 | benefit | "only modest weight" - demand evidence does not support the commercial unit, so E2 substantial weight not attracted (DL 22) | |
| L2 | neutral | without marketing, cannot be sure the site would become vacant, so L2 better-use benefits not relied on (DL 23, 26) | |
| DP3 | benefit | substantial | mapped: improvement to character and setting of locally listed church; "substantial weight to compliance with CS Policies CS8 and DM10" (DL 18, 24) |
| TR6 | pass | disabled bays' clear zone overlapping footway low risk; TR4 and TR6 complied with (DL 16-17, 24) | |
| S4(1) | fail | benefits substantially outweighed by affordable housing failure and loss of safeguarded employment land (DL 25) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | significant | affordable housing and employment safeguarding policies "not materially inconsistent with the Framework" and keep significant weight (DL 26) |
Key facts
- Supply 1.48 years; HDT 66% (DL 18)
- Existing 436 sqm GIA warehouse, lease to December 2027; 2.9 or 7 FTE jobs on the appellant's differing figures (DL 6-7)
- Unilateral undertaking resolved two other refusal reasons; viability review mechanism included (DL 3, 15)
- Costs application by the appellant subject of a separate decision (DL 2), not in the corpus
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework and HDT results (DL 4)
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.