A Brent health centre cannot be converted into flats on the evidence put forward by the appellant, a Planning Inspector has ruled. Inspector N Smith dismissed an appeal on 3 November 2026 concerning a medical facility on Preston Hill in Harrow, finding that the proposed change of use would unjustifiably remove social infrastructure from the area.
The applicant sought permission to replace the existing healthcare use with self-contained flats, arguing that another facility could take its place locally. Brent Council refused planning permission under application 25/3371. At appeal, the Inspector found insufficient evidence of whether the existing service was still needed, whether other community activities could use the building, or whether any replacement would actually be delivered.
The Brent health centre appeal matters because the Inspector gave substantial weight to providing new homes, yet still upheld a local plan policy protecting community facilities. It demonstrates that possible replacement premises, general figures about borough-wide provision and the existence of other doctors’ surgeries do not necessarily establish that losing an individual healthcare site is acceptable.
Why the Brent health centre appeal was dismissed
The main issue was the effect of losing the health centre on the availability of social infrastructure. Brent Local Plan Policy BSI1 resists the loss of facilities unless specified safeguards are met. In broad terms, an applicant needs to demonstrate that the existing use or a suitable alternative community use is not required and that losing it would not cause a shortfall, or provide an acceptable improved replacement or programme of reprovision.
Inspector Smith saw no evidence that there was not a need for the current health facility. The appellant referred to other medical premises in the surrounding area, some potentially able to register additional patients. But spare capacity at another practice is not the same as evidence that it can appropriately accommodate all the need displaced by this proposal.
That distinction is central to the Brent health centre appeal. Planning permission for new housing may offer substantial benefits, but a policy protecting community facilities calls for evidence about the people and services affected by the loss. A broad claim that other surgeries exist does not, without further analysis, demonstrate that local healthcare needs would continue to be met.
No evidence of marketing for another community use
Policy BSI1 also considers whether the premises could continue to serve another community function. The supporting text refers to at least twelve months of marketing evidence, intended to test whether there is genuine demand for the property in its existing or another qualifying social infrastructure use. The Inspector saw no evidence of marketing having been undertaken.
The absence mattered because the appellant had not demonstrated that the building would be unsuitable or unnecessary for other community uses even if this particular healthcare function were to move. The appeal was not simply about whether the present occupier wished to remain. It was about whether the planning consequences of removing a protected local facility had been properly evidenced.
The Brent health centre decision illustrates a broader principle for changes of use. A landlord’s commercial plans and the planning case for releasing premises are different questions. Our change of use guide explains when planning permission is required, while the particular development plan may impose additional safeguards when a property serves a valued community purpose.
A suggested replacement did not provide certainty
The appellant described plans to transfer the facility to another site in the local area. But those arrangements had not been finalised. The Inspector could not be satisfied that a suitable alternative would actually open, at a location and within a timescale that met the needs arising from closure of the present premises.
The decision expressly warned that the grant of planning permission for an alternative site does not guarantee that it will come forward
. A permission may be implemented, delayed or never acted upon. Without firm evidence about delivery, location and timing, the prospect of an alternative did not satisfy the protective local plan policy.
It was suggested that a planning condition could prevent the original health centre closing until a new facility opened. The Inspector considered that inappropriate in the circumstances and noted that no legal agreement had been presented to secure the arrangement. Even if one had been available, it would not have answered the separate question of whether the original building might be needed for another community purpose.
For developers considering the Brent health centre approach elsewhere, the difference is between an aspiration and a deliverable plan. Where a policy expects replacement provision, an identified alternative, credible programme and sufficient mechanism to secure delivery may be critical. This particular appeal did not establish that any of those steps had been completed.
Other decisions and borough-wide statistics were not enough
The appellant relied on a grant of permission elsewhere in Brent and an appeal decision in another borough. The Inspector distinguished those cases. The local permission concerned dental use rather than this medical facility, while the other appeal concerned a different authority. Without adequate details of their circumstances, neither provided a reliable comparison.
The appellant also pointed to an overall increase in social infrastructure floorspace, including healthcare premises, across Brent. Inspector Smith found that those figures had not been related to overall need or to demand in the immediate locality. More floorspace borough-wide does not necessarily mean the community surrounding Preston Hill has adequate access to the right kind of services.
These were evidence gaps rather than findings that healthcare uses must never change or that every individual surgery must remain open indefinitely. Policy BSI1 contains routes that can allow replacement or loss in suitable circumstances. The Brent health centre appeal failed because the material before the Inspector did not demonstrate that the required tests had been met.
New homes carried substantial weight but did not prevail
The Inspector accepted that the proposed flats would deliver benefits. In particular, the provision of housing attracted substantial weight under Policy HO7 of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. Proposed landscape planting in the rear garden would also deliver biodiversity improvements. There was no dispute that the scheme otherwise complied with relevant development plan policies.
Those benefits did not outweigh the unjustified loss of a protected community facility. The proposal conflicted with the development plan when read as a whole, and the Inspector found no sufficient material consideration to justify a contrary decision. The appeal was dismissed without separately deciding third-party concerns about living conditions.
The Brent health centre appeal is a useful reminder to identify exactly what must be proven before submitting a community-to-residential conversion. Investigating local need, testing demand for alternative community uses, checking marketing requirements and documenting any replacement facility can be as important as preparing floor plans. For a wider explanation of policy evidence in applications, see our planning statement guidance.
The Planning Inspectorate appeal record is reference 6014041 and the council application is 25/3371. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments