sense say that the NSE can provide new accommodation for its care residents for £7-9Million.  This includes raze and rebuilding costs, fixtures and fittings, furnishings and an allowance towards specialist equipment.  This can be readily financed, would have little, if any impact on the Green Belt or local infrastructure. It is much more likely to get planning consent than the NSE's present £32Million scheme. It could be implemented relatively quickly and with only moderate disruption. 

Everyone appears to agree this should happen (but the NSE disagree on cost).

The disagreement, then, is on the difference between sense's proposed scheme and the NSE's full-blown £32Million scheme. This page considers the affected parties and how the differential between the two schemes affects them - who 'wins' if the larger scheme were executed?

1. The NSE's Care Residents
They would not immediately get brand new facilities such as sensory unit, hydrotherapy pool, disabilities gym, speech and language suite, occupational therapy rooms, social centre. But the existing facilities would still be in place and could be upgraded over time. On the negative side, they would have to endure a development perhaps ten times the size of the one sense proposes. The bookbinding facility would close and with it employment for many. They would lose the amenity of the Green Belt land developed. Their new domain would be smaller, more compact and they would have 850 new neighbours in close proximity, with all that entails.
Conclusion: The Care Residents lose at least as much as they gain by the incremental development.

2. The NSE as a Corporate Entity
The big gain is cash. Lots of it. A lot of the difficult management decisions go away for a few years. Some of the recurring expenditure on the care facilities would not need to be made, perhaps permitting use in research or elsewhere. They may also find it easier to attract staff if subsidised housing is provided. On the downside they get distracted from core activities for several years, they create an urban environment for themselves and staff and have created immense local bad feeling. They have also sold off an asset so that it will not be available to them in the future.
Conclusion: Winners on cash; losers on 'caring charity' status and asset base.

3. The Local Community
Completely stuffed! Amenity, traffic, pollution, disruption, safety, tranquility, schools, sewerage etc. etc.  Offhand, it is difficult to see any benefit at all.
Conclusion: Losers on a grand scale.

4. The Building Contractor
sense's £5.6Million scheme generates a profit of around £1.3Million for the developer on the 'external' housing estate and perhaps £0.8Million on the NSE's 'internal' care residences. The NSE's current £32Million scheme would instead provide around £7.5Million of profits on the housing estate and nursing/sheltered accommodation and perhaps £4Million on the NSE's internal raze/rebuild programme. The differential is not far short of £10Million.
Conclusion: Clear winners if the NSE's £32Million scheme proceeds.

Summary
The only clear winner if the NSE's £32Million scheme proceeds is the building contractor. Not the NSE. Not the NSE's care Residents. Certainly not the local community. The NSE's planning application appears to have proceeded thus far in a very mechanical orchestrated manner, not entirely in keeping with the ethics of a charity caring directly for its charges and indirectly for others around it. A casual observer might wonder who is really in the driving seat on the NSE's redevelopment scheme.