The Brentwood housing appeal for 97 homes at Priests Lane has been allowed, with full appeal costs awarded against Brentwood Borough Council. Inspector B Pattison’s decisions, both dated 22nd October 2026, resolve a dispute about affordable housing on a former school playing field.
Planning permission was granted to Cala Management Limited for demolition of a pavilion and construction of 97 dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and public open space. The proposal includes 34 affordable homes and is subject to conditions and an executed Section 106 agreement.
The Brentwood housing appeal matters because the scheme was not refused over housing numbers, but over the balance between smaller and larger affordable homes. The Inspector favoured more up-to-date housing evidence, while the separate costs decision criticised the council’s inconsistent handling of similar applications. I would treat that costs finding as a warning about consistency, not a shortcut for future schemes.
Why this Brentwood housing appeal followed an earlier refusal
Almost the same development was dismissed on appeal in September 2025 because the home proposed on Plot 7 would overlook neighbouring occupiers at 24 St Andrews Place. The revised scheme redesigned that property as a single-storey bungalow, moved windows and improved boundary planting. The parties accepted that this resolved the privacy problem.
The former playing field lies behind properties on Priests Lane and adjoins housing on Bishop Walk and St Andrews Place, with a railway cutting towards its rear. Its physical setting and the previous appeal explain why the design amendments mattered.
The new refusal reason was the affordable housing mix. The earlier, almost identical scheme had included the same affordable provision without this becoming a formal reason for refusal, and adopted local policies had not materially changed in the intervening period.
The developer’s Section 106 agreement of 1st April 2026 secures affordable housing alongside infrastructure contributions, junction works, public open space, transport measures, biodiversity commitments and management arrangements. These requirements accompany permission but do not demonstrate that development has commenced.
Thirty-four affordable homes but none with four bedrooms
The Brentwood housing appeal proposes 34 affordable homes, about 35% of the overall scheme. Twelve would be one-bedroom homes, fifteen would have two bedrooms and seven would have three bedrooms, across Affordable Rent and Shared Ownership tenures.
The council questioned why none of the affordable homes would have four bedrooms. Its 2016 housing assessment suggested a much higher proportion of larger affordable homes than the scheme would supply.
However, the 2022 South Essex Housing Needs Assessment showed a different pattern, with the greatest demand for one and two-bedroom affordable dwellings. Its Brentwood figures suggested only about 1% of affordable need related to four-bedroom homes.
Policies HP01 and HP05 of Brentwood’s adopted 2022 Local Plan require an appropriate mix guided by up-to-date housing evidence, rather than a mandatory numerical breakdown in every development. The Inspector found the proposed mix broadly aligned with the newer assessment, despite not copying every percentage.
The weight given to competing housing reports
A further ARK report was published in February 2025 and favoured returning to elements of the earlier housing mix. The council argued this was relevant to family-sized housing and the prospects of households moving into larger properties.
The Inspector gave the ARK guidance limited weight because it was neither an adopted policy nor an updated quantitative assessment of housing need. It had not been tested through public consultation and development plan examination. Its publication date did not automatically confer greater evidential authority.
For the Brentwood housing appeal, the 2022 needs assessment provided a more appropriate starting point than the older study. The council’s own plan had been amended before adoption to move away from prescribing a named historic assessment as the controlling source.
Other local housing permissions had also adopted different mixes. That did not make the appeal scheme acceptable by itself, but it weakened the argument that one exact four-bedroom percentage was essential regardless of the particular evidence and site.
Why a full costs award followed
For the Brentwood housing appeal, the separate costs decision should be read alongside, but not merged into, the merits decision. Cala sought full appeal costs, and the Inspector ordered Brentwood Borough Council to pay those costs. The amount must be agreed or assessed; no specific sum was fixed in the decision.
The Inspector found unreasonable behaviour in the inconsistent handling of two substantially similar schemes. The affordable mix had not previously been a refusal reason, yet it became central to the new refusal without a sufficient change in the underlying policy context.
The costs decision also identified contradictions in the council’s use of the older housing study and its reliance on the ARK report. Those failures caused unnecessary or wasted expense during the appeal process.
This does not mean elected planning committee members must follow officers’ recommendations. The Inspector expressly recognised that committee members may disagree where they have a defensible planning case. The full award arose from specified inconsistencies and evidential failings, not simply from the council losing.
What the permission means for Brentwood
The Brentwood housing appeal creates a route to deliver 97 homes on the former school land, including smaller affordable properties and a number of three-bedroom homes. The Section 106 package addresses transport, open space and other local services as part of that approval.
The revised Plot 7 design and other specified plans remain important. Permission for this configuration does not allow a return to an earlier overlooking arrangement, nor does it confirm that homes have been built or occupied.
For planning practitioners, the decision is a reminder to distinguish adopted policy requirements from housing studies and later advisory material. Decisions should explain both the latest reliable evidence and the reason any proposed mix is acceptable or unacceptable on its merits.
The Planning Inspectorate case record identifies the appeal and separate costs decision. See also our Southwark flats and costs report. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments