32 Bromley Road, Catford, Lewisham

Decision

dismissed, 11 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: H Whitfield

Authority

Lewisham (London)

Appeal reference

6009541

Application reference

DC/25/141224

Procedure

written representations

Development

Conversion of former children's nursery (E(f)) to a 9-bedroom, 16-person HMO

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

P3(2), DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4

Development plan policies

Lewisham Local Plan 2025 QD8, HO8, London Plan 2021 D6, H9

Main issues

living conditions; HMO concentration

Summary

A proposed 16-person HMO in a former nursery on Bromley Road, Catford, was dismissed. Two ground-floor studios would be gloomy and poorly sunlit, and occupants would have no communal living space. The council's HMO-overconcentration objection failed for lack of current, local evidence. Under S4 the P3 conflict carried substantial weight. The DP3(3) "should be refused" limb engaged S4(2)(c), so the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Living conditions (P3/DP3): FAIL. The studios "would be gloomy, oppressive and insufficiently sunlit" (DL ¶15). The sunlight target is not merely aspirational where "occupants would be entirely reliant on their bedrooms as their only private habitable space" (DL ¶14-15).
• HMO concentration: no harm. The 2022 HMO Review "is some 4 years out of date and ward level data is inherently broad" (DL ¶22).
• S4(2)(c). "Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 … states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 … In accordance with paragraph 2.c. of Policy S4, this represents a circumstance where the benefits … are likely to be outweighed by adverse effects. However, even if I were to set this aside, the scheme remains contrary to national decision-making Policy P3 … this conflict attracts substantial weight" (DL ¶38).

Planning balance

The benefits, bringing an underused building back into use and adding to housing mix and choice, carried moderate weight (DL ¶36). The P3 conflict carried substantial weight (DL ¶37). Result: "the benefits of the development would be substantially outweighed … the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply" (DL ¶39).

What made the difference

Two studios with poor sunlight and outlook, in a layout with no communal living room. P3 amenity failures were given substantial weight, and DP3(3) acted as a gateway into S4(2)(c). The council's HMO-cluster evidence was too broad and too old to add harm.

Transferable points

• A P3 living-conditions failure can carry substantial weight in the S4 balance (DL ¶37).
• DP3(3) ("should be refused if … without clear justification") is a "refuse in specific circumstances" policy for S4(2)(c) (DL ¶38).
• BRE sunlight shortfalls matter more where bedrooms are the only private habitable space (DL ¶14-15).
• Ward-level, four-year-old HMO data does not prove overconcentration against recent street-level mapping (DL ¶22-25).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Studios 2 and 3 receive adequate daylight (BRE illuminance) but fail sunlight (under 1.5 h on 21 March) and have enclosed outlook
• Shared kitchens without dining space, no communal lounge
• Conservation area issues resolved by amended plans (chimneys retained)

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.