Bromley green belt appeal: 350 homes in St Mary Cray 2026

Key Points

• Housing developer Lands Improvement Holdings has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate after Bromley Council announced its intention to refuse planning permission for 350 homes on green belt land in St Mary Cray.
• The council says it will contest the appeal as part of its “continued fight to protect green belt land across the borough from unsuitable development”.
• The proposal, submitted in November 2025, covers three agricultural fields east of St Mary Cray Recreation Ground between Crockenhill Road and Cockmannings Road.
• More than 1,000 residents lodged objections; Bromley Council issued a resolution to refuse permission on 5 June 2026.
• The public inquiry is scheduled for 19 January 2027, with a deadline for public comments on the appeal set for 18 August 2026 (reference 6011063).
• Half of the 350 homes would be affordable, with a mix of one- to four-bedroom units.
• Campaigners and CPRE London argue the site is unsustainable, citing flood risk, low public transport accessibility (PTAL 1a), and loss of high-quality agricultural land.

Bromley (South London News) July 29, 2026 – Plans to build 350 homes on green belt land on the very edge of London may still be given the green light on appeal despite thousands of objections. Housing developer Lands Improvement Holdings has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate after Bromley Council announced its intention to refuse the large residential development in St Mary Cray last month, before it had even reached the planning committee.

The council said it would be contesting this appeal and seeking the rejection of the planning application as part of its

“continued fight to protect green belt land across the borough from unsuitable development”.

Lands Improvement submitted a planning application last November to build 350 homes on three agricultural fields to the east of St Mary Cray Recreation Ground between Crockenhill Road and Cockmannings Road.

The 350 residential units would be made up of 40 one-bedroom apartments, 27 two-bedroom flats, 56 two-bedroom homes, 157 three-bedroom homes and 70 four-or-more-bedroom homes, with half of the homes designated as affordable.

Why did Bromley Council move to refuse the St Mary Cray scheme?

The plans were received negatively by St Mary Cray and surrounding area residents, over 1,000 of whom lodged objections on Bromley Council’s planning portal. Most objectors did not want the green belt built on, and on 5 June, Bromley Council issued a resolution to refuse planning permission.

Last week, St Mary Cray residents and objectors received letters from the council announcing that Lands Improvement had submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate as Bromley had not determined the planning application.

Cllr Yvonne Bear, Bromley’s Executive Councillor for Renewal, Recreation and Housing, said:

“We have already indicated our opposition to this completely inappropriate development on the borough’s cherished green belt, standing beside many local residents who have also clearly voiced their opposition, including through comments made as part of the planning process.”

“We will be contesting the appeal by seeking the rejection of this application by the Planning Inspectorate, which is part of our continued fight to protect green belt land across the borough from unsuitable development.”

What does the developer say about the appeal?

The developer has confirmed the appeal, and said it is “committed” to working with all stakeholders and felt the proposal represented an “important opportunity to help meet local housing needs”. A Lands Improvement spokesperson said:

“We have exercised our right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in accordance with the established planning process.”

“We remain committed to working constructively with all stakeholders. We believe the proposals represent an important opportunity to help meet local housing needs, including the delivery of affordable family homes, alongside wider regeneration benefits for the Cray Valley Renewal Area.”

“As the application is now subject to the appeal process, we look forward to the opportunity to present the merits of the scheme through the Planning Inspectorate.”

What are the main objections raised by residents and campaigners?

Campaigners including Save St Mary Cray Green Belt and CPRE London have raised multiple concerns, arguing the development is inappropriate in the green belt and unsustainable.

Objections cited in campaign materials include high flood risk, poor public transport accessibility (PTAL 1a), narrow lanes and unsafe roads, and loss of high-quality agricultural land.

CPRE London notes that Bromley officers have previously stated the development is “unacceptable in principle” due to green belt harm and site constraints, and that construction would result in a “major and permanent loss of openness”.

In written guidance for objectors, campaigners argue the applicant’s reliance on classifying the site as

“grey belt” is disputed by the local authority, which confirms the land makes a strong contribution to Green Belt Purpose A (preventing unrestricted sprawl).

They also highlight concerns over pressure on local infrastructure, including GP surgeries and schools, with no firm, deliverable mitigation presented. On transport, they note the site’s PTAL 1a rating and Transport for London’s concerns that future residents would be heavily reliant on private cars, with no guaranteed bus service upgrades.

How can the public comment on the appeal and when is the inquiry?

Those wishing to add their comments to the appeal can do so until 18 August by searching reference 6011063 on the Government website. The public inquiry will take place on 19 January 2027.

Background of the St Mary Cray development

The St Mary Cray proposal forms part of a wider pattern of green belt housing pressure in Bromley and south-east London, where developers have targeted agricultural land near existing settlements.

Lands Improvement Holdings owns 42 acres of agricultural green belt land to the east of St Mary Cray, adjacent to the recreation ground and a local primary school, with the site promoted as having potential for approximately 350 dwellings alongside community facilities and landscaped open space.

The site falls within the Cray Valley Renewal Area, one of five areas identified in the Bromley Local Plan for enhancement and improvement.

The company also has an interest in a further 74 acres to the east with potential for an additional 400 dwellings, being promoted as part of the Local Plan.

The outline planning application (reference 25/05427/OUT) was submitted in November 2025 for up to 350 homes on 17 hectares of farmland south of Crockenhill Road. Local media and campaign groups have reported that the site has a documented history of surface water flooding, with mapping indicating potential water depths up to 900mm and hazardous flow velocities, raising questions about drainage and mitigation.

Campaigners further argue the development would increase car dependency due to low public transport accessibility and that proposed walking and cycling routes through the recreation ground may not feel safe at all times.

Explore More Bromley Council News

Bromley Council backs Poverest Centre demolition for homes in Orpington 2026

Bromley Council Keeps Spitfire Youth Centre, Closes Biggin Hill Centre, 2026

Prediction: How could this appeal affect local residents and the wider Bromley community?

If the Planning Inspectorate allows the appeal, the St Mary Cray scheme would set a precedent for large-scale green belt development in Bromley, potentially encouraging similar applications on other agricultural sites near settlement boundaries.

For local residents, approval could mean increased traffic on narrow surrounding roads, greater reliance on private vehicles, and added pressure on GP surgeries and schools unless infrastructure is delivered in tandem.

Conversely, if the appeal is dismissed, it would reinforce Bromley Council’s stance against green belt development and could strengthen the council’s position in future planning disputes, though it would not resolve underlying housing supply pressures in the borough.

For the wider audience of south London households and community groups, the outcome will signal how national planning policy changes on the “grey belt” are interpreted in practice, particularly where flood risk, transport sustainability, and agricultural land quality are contested.

A decision in favour of the developer could accelerate debate on green belt release in outer London, while a refusal would likely embolden campaigns opposing similar schemes elsewhere in Bromley and neighbouring boroughs.