Plans to demolish a three-storey, fire-damaged block of flats in Beckenham and replace it with a six-storey retirement living facility have been refused.
Bromley Council turned down retirement developer McCarthy Stone’s planning application at a meeting of its Development Control Committee on October 2.
McCarthy Stone wanted to demolish Conifer House at 44 Southend Road and build 49 one and two-bedroom flats for retirees within a six-storey building.
The retirement community would have contained communal spaces such as a lounge, reception area, mobility scooter store and guest suite, alongside landscaped gardens.
Planning documents stated: “This model has been developed to offer an aspirational and needs-based choice for homeowners over the age of 60, significantly increasing the housing choice available for local people wishing to downsize.
“Not only can this particular model of one and two-bedroom accommodation achieve high levels of comfort, care, security and independent living for its owners, but it can also help release existing under-occupied local family-sized housing stock.”
The application was turned down for several reasons, including that the scheme failed to provide any affordable housing and that Bromley planning officers thought the proposed development would represent “an incongruous form of development at odds with the existing rhythm of development on Southend Road”.
Officers were critical of the proposal’s scale, massing and site coverage, as well as the remote location of the main entrance.
They also felt that the six-storey building’s layout and orientation, alongside its 24 one-bedroom units, would result in “a compromised internal layout which would fail to provide adequate outlook, privacy and daylight to the future occupiers”.
They continued: “The layout, scale and massing of the proposal is unacceptable with a front communal door facing the neighbouring properties and over 40 metres away from the road.
“The footprint of the proposed building is considered to be excessive when compared with the existing and neighbouring properties.
“The proposed layout also indicates that the proposal would provide a high proportion of single aspect units with ground floor bedroom windows positioned close to the proposed car parking spaces, giving rise to privacy and outlook issues for the prospective occupiers.”
Officers also said that insufficient information had been provided as to whether 10 per cent of the units would be suitable for wheelchair users, and that the proposed development would not be ‘air quality neutral’ for its development transport emissions.
Officers were in favour of redeveloping the site which has been vacant since the building was damaged by a fire in 2022.
However, they said: “It is considered that the benefits which can be generated from the development would not outweigh the harm identified.”
