- Decision
- allowed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Stephen Wilkinson
- Authority
- Bracknell Forest (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009377
- Application reference
- 25/00456/FUL
- Procedure
- hearing
- Development
- Demolition of a house and redevelopment with 46 one- and two-bed retirement living flats (C3) with parking, landscaping and communal facilities
- Homes
- 46
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 3.53 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, HO5, HO9
- Development plan policies
- Bracknell Forest Local Plan 2024 LP16, LP24, LP25, LP26, LP30, LP32, LP38, LP45, LP46, LP50, LP61, LP62, South East Plan 2009 NRM6
- Main issues
- affordable housing review mechanism; living conditions of neighbours; living conditions of future occupiers; SPA mitigation; infrastructure
Summary
McCarthy and Stone's scheme for 46 retirement flats on a large house plot near Bracknell town centre was allowed after a hearing. The only conflict was with the new Local Plan's requirement that all older persons' units meet the full wheelchair standard (M4(3)(2)(a)); the scheme offered four. The inspector also rejected the Council's demand for a late viability review with no affordable housing. With a 3.53-year supply, benefits to older people's housing and a brownfield location near the stations, the S4 presumption applied.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Parties were asked to provide a closing statement demonstrating how this affected their respective cases" (DL ¶8).
- Viability review mechanism. "the adopted policies of the Local Plan do not provide a sound and consistent basis to support a late review mechanism to secure contributions to affordable housing" (DL ¶18).
- Neighbours: limited impact. Despite breaching the SPD separation distances, "its impacts on surrounding properties would be limited. The scheme does not conflict with policy LP50" (DL ¶33).
- Wheelchair standard: CONFLICT. "the appeal scheme conflicts with policy LP38 which requires 100% provision of all units to Part M4(3)(2)(a) standard for the appeal scheme" (DL ¶42).
- Benefits. Older persons' housing benefits "are accorded significant weight" (DL ¶74); economic moderate (DL ¶76); environmental (brownfield, efficient use of land, near stations) moderate (DL ¶77).
- SPA: no adverse effect on integrity with SANG and SAMM (DL ¶54).
Planning balance
S4 within a settlement. "In this case the only adverse effect is the scheme's failure to include all dwellings built to the Part M4(3)(2)(a) standard" (DL ¶81). "I conclude that in this instance the adverse impacts would not substantially outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole" (DL ¶84). Material considerations outweigh the conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶85).
What made the difference
Viability left no room for affordable housing or the full wheelchair standard, and the Council's plan gave no firm basis for a review mechanism. Against one policy conflict, the undersupply (3.53 years) and the benefits of specialist older persons' housing on a brownfield site near public transport carried the S4 balance.
Transferable points
- A late-stage viability review needs clear support in adopted policy; supporting text and an SPD are not enough (DL ¶13–18).
- Breach of SPD separation distances is not decisive where vegetation, orientation and obscure glazing prevent actual harm (DL ¶26–33).
- Failure to meet a local 100% M4(3) requirement for older persons' housing can be outweighed in the S4 balance where all units meet M4(2) (DL ¶81–82).
- A unilateral undertaking with a deemed-approval mechanism is consistent with the Framework's emphasis on delivery (DL ¶56).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| LP LP38 (local) | conflict | only 4 of 46 units (8.7%) to M4(3)(2)(a) against LP38's 100% requirement for older persons' housing; the remaining 42 meet M4(2); the only adverse effect, outweighed (DL 35-42, 81-82) | |
| HO5 | accord | letter says HO5 requires 40% of homes on major developments to M4(2); scheme exceeds that (DL 80-82) | |
| HO9 | benefit | significant | 46 market older persons' homes, chain moves, health benefits; letter cites "H05, H07 and H09" (DL 71-74) |
| HO8 | neutral | no affordable housing on agreed viability; LP16/LP24 give no sound basis for a late review (claw-back) mechanism (DL 11-18, 83) | |
| DP3 | accord | breaches SPD separation distances to southern neighbours but limited impact; urbanising view from Laurel Cottage not overbearing; LP50 consistent with DP3 (DL 20, 23-33, 80) | |
| DP4 | accord | design review panel engagement changed the scheme from three blocks to two villas (DL 19) | |
| P3 | pass | mapped - obscured secondary bedroom windows to flats 14 and 28 not oppressive (DL 44-46) | |
| L3 | benefit | moderate | brownfield site, efficient use of land (net 45 homes), 10 minutes' walk to rail and bus stations (DL 77, 80) |
| E2 | benefit | moderate | mapped - construction jobs and apprenticeships; letter links them to "L2 and S4" (DL 75-76) |
| TR6 | pass | 72 daily movements; access radii revised; 3-space parking shortfall against new standards, but no on-street parking harm (DL 64-69) | |
| N6 | pass | Thames Basin Heaths SPA - SANG (237,750 GBP) and SAMM (30,658 GBP) by UU; no adverse effect on integrity (DL 47-54) | |
| DM6 | pass | UU obligations meet Reg 122; Council's objection to the 'deemed' approval mechanism unwarranted given the Framework's delivery emphasis (DL 56, 63) | |
| S4 | pass | adverse impacts would not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 81-84) |
Key facts
- Council supply 3.53 years at 1 April 2026 (DL 7)
- Header says "Inquiry held on 18-19 August 2026", but DL 2 says it became a blended hearing; DL 1 grants full permission while DL 86 says "outline"
- Viability agreed - no surplus for affordable housing; dispute only over a late-stage review, rejected (DL 12, 18)
- Villas A (about 12.5 m) and B (just over 14.5 m) set 8.3-8.9 m from the southern boundary (DL 24)
- Appellant's residents' survey - 2.7% use a wheelchair at home (DL 39)
- Lymington (APP/B1740/W/20/3265937) and Warrington (APP/M0655/W/23/3327682) decisions considered (DL 41)
- Occupancy restricted to 60 and over (condition 27)
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.