Case Reference: 3282241

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 25 to 28 January and 1, 2 and 4 February 2022
Site visit made on 7 February 2022
by O S Woodwards BA(Hons.) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 7th April 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/V0510/W/21/3282241
163-187 High Street, Bottisham
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of East Cambridgeshire District Council.
• The application Ref 20/00296/OUM, dated 17 February 2020, was refused by decision
notice dated 5 March 2021.
• The development proposed is the development of a retirement care village in use class
C2 comprising housing with care, communal health, wellbeing and leisure facilities; and
use class C3 affordable dwellings (compromising up to 30% on-site provision), public
open space, play provision, landscaping, car parking, access and associated
development.
DECISION
1. The appeal is dismissed.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
2. The proposal includes a retirement care village, in use class C2. A retirement
care village is a form of extra care housing. The proposed flats would be self-
contained, privately purchased units. In addition, an extensive range of
communal facilities would be provided, such as a café, and well-being, fitness,
and leisure facilities. On-site care, up to and including 24/7 care, would be
provided, but on a sliding scale and on a separate contract to the
accommodation and communal facilities. As defined by Planning Practice
Guidance1 (the PPG), this element of the proposal would be ‘extra care housing’
where residents are able to live independently, as distinct from ‘care homes’,
which are aimed solely at elderly people that require high levels of care for
daily living. The PPG also confirms that extra care housing is a form of older
peoples housing.
3. A s106 Planning Obligation, dated 24 February 2022 (the s106), has been
provided. This secures the extra care units to be use class C2, but provides no
further controls beyond requiring that at least one person in each unit requires
extra care (defined as personal care required due to old age, disablement or
past or present mental disorder) and is 65+ years old. However, limiting the
use of the proposed use class C2 floorspace to extra care, as opposed to care
home, purposes could be achieved by condition. In addition, the description of
1 Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 63-010-20190626
development includes the words ‘retirement care village’ and the additional
facilities. The appeal site is also in a countryside setting and of a size which
would provide large amounts of landscaping. There is therefore sufficient
control over the type of proposed development to allow me to determine the
appeal on the basis that the proposal is not only for extra care housing but
would also be for a particular sub-set of this product called a ‘retirement care
village’.
4. Following the closing of the inquiry, a relevant appeal decision was issued2
relating to a site on land to the north east of Broad Piece in Soham. I accepted
this decision and provided all parties with the opportunity to comment.
5. The effect of the proposal on local healthcare provision was not a reason for
refusal of the application and is not contested by the Council. However, it is a
concern raised by a local GP Surgery, the Bottisham Medical Practice (the
BMP), who had Rule 6 status at the inquiry.
MAIN ISSUES
6. It is common ground that the scheme proposed would be inappropriate
development in the Green Belt through the construction of new buildings,
amongst other works, and because none of the Green Belt exceptions set out in
Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
apply. I agree. Taking this into account, the main issues are:
• the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of
the area, in particular the character and setting of Bottisham village and the
character and landscape of the surrounding countryside;
• the effect of the proposal on healthcare; and,
• whether any harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and
any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as
to amount to the ‘very special circumstances’ required to justify the
proposal.
REASONS
7. The Development Plan includes the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan, April 2015
(the LP). There is debate around the weight to be applied to any conflict with
Policy GROWTH 2, which I deal with as appropriate below.
Character and Appearance
The Site and Proposal
8. The appeal site is split into two distinct fields by a hedgerow, creating a
northern field and a southern field. The appeal site as a whole is surrounded on
three sides by existing built form, with residential properties to the south and
west, and an existing care home development to the west. To the north and
further afield to the east and west is open countryside.
9. The application is made in outline, with all matters reserved apart from access.
Parameters plans have been submitted and could be conditioned to control
development heights and the broad locations for development. This would be
2 Ref APP/V0510/W/21/3282449, dated 11 February 2022
the retirement care village on the ‘L’ shaped part of the northern field in
buildings up to a maximum height of 12 metres (m), and the affordable
housing on the square piece of land by Rowan Close, at buildings up to a
maximum height of 8.5m. Indicatively, the area of land for the retirement care
village element of the proposals comprises approximately 3.4 hectares (ha)
and a further 0.7ha for private amenity space and landscaping. Indicatively,
0.7ha has been set aside for the affordable housing, the amount, scale, design,
and layout of which is not yet known.
10. Access would be from High Street (vehicular and pedestrian) and from Rowan
Close (pedestrian and cycle). The alignment of the access road is applied for in
full and would be along the western boundary of the site, near to the existing
footpath.
11. Landscaping in general would be a reserved matter or condition(s), but details
have been provided confirming that public open space and enhanced
landscaping, including the retention of existing trees (some of which are the
subject of a Tree Preservation Order3), is proposed to the southern field. In
addition, hedgerows to the northern and eastern boundaries of the appeal site,
and to the hedgerow separating the northern and southern fields, would be
retained and enhanced, including groups of woodland trees just set back from
the northern boundary. The s106 also secures the provision and contributions
towards maintenance of the landscaped areas of the site.
Landscape Effects
12. The appeal site falls within two landscape character areas, as set out in the
Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines, 1991. These are the Planned Peat
Fen/Fenlands area, which covers most of the northern field, and also the
Chalklands area, mainly to the southern field. The key characteristics include
rolling countryside, fairly large fields, and a number of woodlands and tree
belts which break up long distance views. Policy ENV 1 of the LP also explicitly
seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the settlement edge, to protect
individual trees, hedgerows and field patterns, the unspoilt nature and
tranquillity of the area including light pollution, and key views into and out of
settlements. It is common ground between the parties, and I agree, that the
site does not constitute a valued landscape, as defined at Paragraph 174 of the
Framework.
13. The northern field is a fairly flat, nondescript agricultural field. It is of limited
intrinsic value beyond simply being a field and has a low landscape value. The
southern field is of semi-parkland character, with managed grassland and
sporadic, mature trees. It has a direct relationship with the historic core of
Bottisham along the northern side of High Street, including the rear garden and
clairevoyee of the grade II Listed Bottisham House. This has a moderate
landscape value.
14. The views northwards are foreshortened by a fairly extensive tree belt. The
views to the east are more extensive to low lying hills in the middle distance.
The views are pleasant but are not scenic. There is limited visual connectivity
between the two fields, which are different in character and split by the
hedgerow which, although fairly low, is a clear delineation between the two
parcels of land. On my site visit I observed that the southern field gains its
3 Ref TPO/E/15/19, dated 3 January 2020
character from its intrinsic semi-parkland character and relationship to the
properties along High Street. I did not find a meaningful relationship with the
northern field nor wider views of the countryside. Likewise, the northern field
feels more visually connected to the further agricultural fields to the north and
east, than to the southern field.
15. It is common ground between the parties that the most appropriate measure
for the effect of the proposal is at 15 years, once the landscaping scheme
matures. An intermittent tree belt and strengthened hedgerow is proposed
along the long northern boundary. This would be along the line of an existing
hedgerow and in the context of substantial existing tree belts in the area,
including one close by to the north. This would be in-keeping with the character
of the area. The proposed built form would also all be within one existing field
and would not alter existing hedgerow or field patterns. However, even at the
15 year point, there would remain an obvious and clear built form on the
former agricultural northern field, with buildings up to 12m tall, and fairly
extensive in floorplan, still likely to be clearly visible on the site.
16. Overall, although there would be a fairly high degree of change, this would be
inevitable with any development of reasonable scale on an agricultural field.
The northern field is also of low existing landscape value. The harm to the
landscape from this element of the proposal would therefore be low.
17. The southern field would be enhanced through improved landscaping, new
trees and improved hedgerow planting. There would be some negative effect to
its setting from the proposed development to the northern field, but this would
only be at a low level as set out above, and would be seen in the context of
existing built form to three sides of the field. The important relationship to the
historic core of Bottisham along High Street would not be materially affected.
However, the existing views out to the countryside to the east, which are fairly
extensive, and the, albeit foreshortened, views to the north, would be
significantly reduced by the proposed built development, even allowing for the
proposed landscaping, thereby harming the connection with the surrounding
countryside.
18. Overall, the improvements to the field itself would be set against the low to
moderate harm from the changes to the setting. I assess the overall harm to
landscape to the southern field to be low.
Visual Effects
19. There would be two key groups of receptors affected by the proposal –
residents in surrounding properties, and users of nearby footpaths and
bridleways.
20. The rear windows and gardens of several properties along High Street overlook
the appeal site. The proposal would affect this, but at distance in the northern
field. The southern field would be enhanced by the proposed landscaping.
There would, nevertheless, be a minor negative effect on the wider setting
from the proposed built form where there is currently an agricultural field and
the partial blocking of views out to the wider countryside. The overall effect on
these residents would be minor negative.
21. The properties along Maple Close and Cedar Walk are closer to the proposed
built form and look out in a more easterly direction, where the widest
countryside views currently exist. The proposed access road would also be in
proximity to these properties. However, the access road would be the other
side of the existing footpath and a proposed new landscaping belt, and the built
form would be partially mitigated by the proposed landscaping. The overall
effect on these residents would be moderate negative, primarily due to the
access road.
22. The residents at Rowan Close overlook the western side of the site and would
be fairly close to the proposed affordable housing. However, there are existing
properties backing onto the southern boundary of that part of the appeal site
and the proposal would be seen in that context. There would be a moderate
negative harm to those residents. The residents at Ancient Meadows are fairly
distant from the appeal site to the west, and any views of the proposal would
be oblique and would be in the context of the existing homes along Beechwood
Avenue. There would be a minor negative effect to those residents.
23. Footpath 25/10 runs along the western boundary of the site, alongside the
proposed access road. It would be fairly significantly affected due to the
proximity of the proposed road and the built development, and curtailment of
views out to the wider countryside. However, beyond the proposed access road
the southern field would be enhanced through the proposed landscaping. In
this context, the level of harm would be moderate negative. It’s also important
to note that the footpath itself has limited value, only providing access to the
residential properties and not to the wider countryside.
24. Footpath 25/2 runs alongside the Ancient Meadows properties and then further
northwards to an elevated bridleway. A hedgerow runs across the path. South
of this, the path offers relatively unobstructed views of the proposed
development, albeit at distance. North of the hedgerow, even allowing for the
slight elevation of the bridleway, intervening trees and hedgerows significantly
reduce any visual effect. From all parts of the route, the proposal would be
seen in the context of the existing backdrop of Bottisham village and its built
form. The overall effect on views from this footpath would be minor negative.
Overall
25. The visual harm from the proposal would be low in the main, although with
some moderate effects to the closest local residents and footpath 25/10. The
landscape effects would also at worst be ‘low negative’, particularly at 15 years
after the proposed landscaping matures. Consequently, there would be low to
moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area, and low harm to
landscape character. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies ENV 1
and ENV 2 of the LP, both of which require the character and appearance of the
area to be protected.
26. Policy GROWTH 2 of the LP strictly controls development outside defined
settlement boundaries. However, exceptions are set out, where proposals may
be acceptable subject to complying with other policies. The exceptions include
‘residential care homes’ (Policy HOU 6). The policy, as it relates to the appeal
proposal, is therefore intrinsically linked to Policy HOU 6, and if the proposal
accords with that policy, then it also accords with Policy GROWTH 2.
27. Policy HOU 6 of the LP comes in two parts. The first part applies to the type of
extra care housing proposed with the appeal, because at supporting paragraph
4.7.3 it explicitly references both retirement villages and extra care housing.
This also links Policy GROWTH 2 to the proposal, because although that policy
only refers to ‘care homes’ it also directly references Policy HOU 6, which is
where the detail on what this means is set out. However, the second part of
the policy, despite being discussed at the inquiry, explicitly references care
homes and is not relevant to the proposal. With regard to the relevant, first
part, of the policy, it states, amongst other things, that proposals should have
no adverse impact on the character of the locality. I have found harm to the
character and appearance of the area and therefore the retirement care village
element of the proposal conflicts with this policy, and therefore also Policy
GROWTH 2.
28. A further exception set out in Policy GROWTH 2 where proposals may be
acceptable outside settlement boundaries is for affordable housing, with direct
reference to Policy HOU 4. This policy sets out a number of criteria for
affordable housing to be acceptable in such locations. The criteria relevant to
character and appearance is that no significant harm be caused (emphasis
mine). I have only identified low to moderate harm to character and
appearance, or the wider landscape. The affordable housing element of the
proposal therefore complies with Policy HOU 4, as it relates to character and
appearance, and therefore, by extension, also to Policy GROWTH 2.
Healthcare
Effect on the BMP
29. The tenure of the proposed accommodation and whether or not it is self-
contained would not directly affect the level of care needs of the future
occupants. However, the proposed retirement care village would provide
significant communal facilities. Although on-site care would be provided this
would be in a separate financial package to the service charge for the
communal facilities and general upkeep. Whilst there would be no explicit
restriction on the type of person moving in, or on the proportion that would
require very high care needs, eg ‘continuing care’ patients in particular, the
nature of the product would likely limit this proportion. There would be little
incentive for a person with very high care needs to move to a development
whose main selling point was communal facilities that they would not benefit
from but would need to pay towards.
30. I acknowledge, however, that this may not always be the case, possibly due to
personal preference, one of a couple requiring the very high care needs but not
both, or other factors. In addition, evidence was provided that, the longer that
people stay in the facility, the greater their care requirements, although the
increase is relatively low, moving from nine hours per week on entry to 15
hours by the seventh year4.
31. Taking all of the above into account, the appellant’s evidence that the likely
split of future occupants would be a third of residents having low level needs, a
third having medium level needs and a third having high level needs, seems
reasonable. This is distinctly different to a care home. This is important
because such a profile of future occupants would have a lower requirement for
GP care provision than has been assumed by the BMP in their evidence, which
assumed a worst case scenario of a care home profile for all future residents.
4 Putting the ‘care’ in Housing-with-Care Integrated Retirement Communities: improving care quality and tackling
the workforce crisis, by Associated Retirement Community Operators, undated
32. The BMP have assumed that all of the future occupants would be new additions
to their practice. However, a proportion of future occupants are likely to move
from the local area, including some from within the catchment of the BMP and
would therefore likely include some existing patients. It is also possible that
some of the future occupants would want to keep their existing GP, although I
acknowledge that in practical terms, both for the patient and GP, this is likely
to be a small number.
33. Nevertheless, even allowing for the factors described above, the proposal
would undoubtedly give rise to an increase in patients, all of them elderly, to
be accommodated by GP services in the area, likely mostly at the BMP. This
would clearly give rise to an increase in workload for local GP services, and
specifically for the BMP.
Effect on Wider Healthcare
34. Uncontested evidence was provided by the appellant that the proposed
development would decrease pressure on the National Health Service (NHS).
This is because studies have shown that older people that live in extra care
developments of the type proposed have better health outcomes than those
that continue to live at home, including improvements in depression, perceived
health, and memory, which leads to a decreased need for nurse and GP
appointments, and an estimated saving to the NHS of £1,991 per person over
five years5.
35. Specifically with regard to Covid-19, evidence has been provided that, on
average, residents of retirement care villages had better outcomes than
similarly aged people still living at home. Fewer residents died compared to the
general population of the same age, at 0.97% compared to 1.09%, and the
retirement care village section of the extra care offer had an even better
outcome at 0.51%6. The BMP provided evidence of worse outcomes from an
academic paper, but those were in relation to care home residents and not
therefore directly comparable to the appeal proposal.
Overall
36. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (the
CCG), in their letter dated 2 February 2022, have requested mitigation of
£132,585 for the capital costs for the BMP associated with the increased
healthcare demand for the surgery. The CCG also request an unspecified sum
be allocated in mitigation of the clinical needs to be created by the proposal.
The BMP have undertaken their own calculations, and concluded that the
minimum requirement to respond to the increased demand to their services
would be 1.25 GPs full time, equating to c.£100,000 per annum excluding
administrative and non-GP costs. However, this is based on the partially
erroneous assumptions the BMP have made as set out above, and the likely
demand on GP time would be lower.
37. Moreover, this is moot because, for the reasons set out above, although the
proposal would increase pressure on local GP services and this pressure would
fall largely, or almost entirely, on the BMP, it would decrease pressure on
5 Integrated Care Homes and Support: Measurable Outcomes for Healthy Ageing The ExtraCare Charitable Trust
Research Report March 2019 – paragraphs 2.3 to 2.8
6 Retirement Village and Extra Care Housing in England: Operators’ Experience during the COVID-19 Pandemic RE-
COV Study Full Report April 2021 – Section 3.2, page 8
health services as a whole. In this context, a contribution towards healthcare
services would not be necessary to make the development acceptable, or fairly
and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
38. The responsibility for allocating the increased pressure on the BMP falls on the
CCG, which is the group with the responsibility of allocating, planning and
buying local NHS services. If, as seems likely, the BMP would require additional
resources as a result of the proposal, this is for the CCG to respond to, and to
allocate funding as appropriate. This falls outside of the planning system in a
situation such as this, where the overall effect on healthcare would be to
reduce demand for resources.
39. The s106 includes a clause with the provision of a healthcare contribution.
However, it is drafted such that I can modify or remove this clause. Therefore,
for the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that the healthcare contribution as set out
in the s106 is not necessary.
Green Belt
In this section, I have adopted the following ascending scale in terms of
weighting – limited, moderate, significant, substantial.
40. The critical test is as set out at Paragraph 148 of the Framework – is the harm
to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting
from the proposal, clearly outweighed by other considerations (emphasis
mine)?
Harm
Green Belt Essential Characteristics
41. Harm to the Green Belt can be caused by harming the essential characteristics,
as set out in Paragraph 137 of the Framework, of openness and permanence.
42. The PPG finds that the duration and remediability of a proposal influences its
effect on the permanence of the Green Belt7. It is common ground, and I
agree, that the proposal, once constructed, would remain indefinitely. Any
effect on the Green Belt would be permanent and would therefore harm this
essential characteristic.
43. The PPG finds that openness should be considered both spatially and visually.
It can also include non-permanent factors, such as cars. The detailed design
and layout of the proposed buildings and any ancillary structure is not yet
known. However, the parameters plans confirm that a series of buildings of up
to 12m tall are likely. Due to the scale of the proposal, these would be of
significant volume. There would also be a fair amount of activity associated
with the proposal, from residents, workers and visitors, and also fairly
extensive car parking. The proposal would therefore have a significant negative
effect on the spatial openness of the appeal site.
44. There would also be an effect on visual openness. This would be mitigated to a
degree by landscaping but there would still be a noticeable effect on the visual
openness of the site and its immediate surroundings. There would also be an
effect on views across the site from footpaths, roads, and nearby properties.
The proposal would be viewed in the context of a wider parcel of Green Belt
7 Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 64-001-20190722
land, including the countryside to the north and east up to woodland areas and
tree boundaries. The Council agree with this allocation. Within this parcel, the
perception of the proposal would be more limited, particularly when set against
the backdrop of the existing Bottisham village. However, there would still be a
moderate negative effect on the visual openness of the Green Belt due to the
scale of the proposed development, which would be clearly visible even against
the backdrop of the village, and extensive in scale.
Green Belt Purposes
45. Paragraph 138 of the Framework sets out the five purposes of Green Belt land.
I assess the proposal against each purpose below:
(a) ‘to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas’
46. Bottisham is not a large built-up area and this purpose is not relevant.
(b) ‘to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another’
47. The two relevant built-up areas are Bottisham and Swaffham Bulbeck, both of
which are villages. The purpose relates to towns. Paragraphs 142 and 144 of
the Framework make it clear that, where the document wishes to refer to
villages as opposed towns, it does so. This purpose is not therefore relevant to
the proposal.
(c) ‘to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’
48. The proposal would encroach into the countryside because it is for extensive
built form, up to 12m in height, and would be built on a currently agricultural
field. This purpose would therefore be harmed, albeit the level of harm is
tempered, to a degree, because the proposal sits in a wider ‘parcel’ of Green
Belt land, as described above.
(d) ‘to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns’
49. Bottisham is not a town and this purpose is not relevant to Bottisham. The
Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment, by LUC, dated August 2021, states
that the setting of Cambridge includes the rural setting of Green Belt villages.
However, Bottisham is difficult to appreciate in the context of Cambridge due to
its distance to the east of the city. There might be some very slight diminution
of this setting from the proposal from far reaching views of Cambridge from the
east with the proposal in the foreground, but the effect, and the harm to this
purpose, would be negligible. This purpose would not, therefore, be materially
harmed.
(e) ‘to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land’
50. No specific evidence has been provided that the proposal would be in place of a
more urban site, as opposed to other non-Green Belt greenfield land. A key
aspect of the proposal is that it would be for a retirement care village in a
countryside setting with a significant landscape setting, which would not be
achievable on an urban site. I see no reason why it would prevent the
development of urban sites for different styles of extra care product,
particularly given that the level of extra care need significantly exceeds the
proposed provision (see below), and there would be residual need even after
construction of the proposal. This purpose would not, therefore, be harmed.
51. Overall, the proposal would harm Green Belt permanence and openness, and
would encroach into the countryside. It therefore fails to comply with
Policy ENV 10 of the LP, which requires that development not harm the
openness of the Green Belt. As directed by Paragraph 148 of the Framework, I
give substantial weight to the proposal for inappropriate development, and to
the harm to the Green Belt’s essential characteristics and purposes that I have
identified.
Other Harm
52. The Bottisham Conservation Area largely lies to the south of the appeal site but
the proposed access road would also partially lie within the conservation area.
The significance of the conservation area is derived from the intrinsic character
of the various historic buildings located throughout Bottisham, and this
particular part of the conservation area by the relationship of the historic
buildings with the southern field behind, and the parkland setting it provides.
There would be harm to the conservation area and it’s setting, primarily
through the proposed access road, and also, albeit only slightly, from the
proposed development in the northern field. However, this would be mitigated
by the proposed landscaping, particularly as it matures, and by the proposed
enhancements to the immediate setting of the southern field through the new
tree planting and landscaping.
53. The Grade II Listed Bottisham House lies directly to the south of the southern
field. The house has clear views of, and a direct relationship to, the southern
field and its parkland character, both from upper storey windows and a
clairvoyee in the garden. There are also long distance views of the northern
field and the wider countryside, particularly to the east, from the building and
the clairvoyee. These factors contribute to the significance of the setting of the
building. The proposal would harm the setting of the northern field and wider
countryside through the proposed change of character from agricultural to built
development. However, as with the conservation area, this harm would be
mitigated by the proposed landscaping and enhancements to the southern
field.
54. The level of harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Bottisham House and
Bottisham Conservation Area would therefore be low, and I attribute to this
limited weight.
55. There would be low to moderate harm to the character and appearance of the
appeal site, and the wider area and landscape, as set out above. The proposal
therefore conflicts with Policies ENV 1 and ENV 2 of the LP. The retirement care
village element of the proposal also conflicts with Policies HOU 6 and GROWTH
2 of the LP. However, it is almost impossible to imagine a scheme of
reasonable scale proposed on a greenfield site that would not cause some harm
to the character of the locality. This is recognised by the Framework, which has
a more balanced approach than the LP policies. Paragraph 174(b) only seeks to
recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and does not
prevent all development of the countryside. Paragraph 79 states that villages
should be allowed to grow and thrive. I therefore place limited weight on this
conflict, and to the associated conflicts with Policies ENV 1, ENV 2 and HOU 6 of
the LP.
56. In addition, it is common ground, and I agree, that Policy GROWTH 1 of the LP
is out-of-date because it is based on housing requirement figures that are more
than five years old. Policy GROWTH 2 is the key policy for directing the location
of development in the District. It focusses the majority of development on Ely,
Littleport and Soham, and within defined settlement boundaries. The policy
strictly controls development outside these boundaries. This locational strategy
for development is based on the out-of-date figures from Policy GROWTH 1. A
Single Issue Review of the Local Plan is underway but is at a relatively early
stage. It is common ground, and I agree, that until this review is further
progressed, it can carry limited weight. We are therefore in a position where
we cannot know with any certainty what the future location strategy for
development will be and, specifically, whether or not its strict controls over
development outside of settlement boundaries will persist. Therefore, I place
limited weight on the conflict with Policy GROWTH 2 identified above.
Other Considerations
Affordable Housing
57. The s106 commits the appellant to achieving the maximum possible number of
affordable housing units on-site, within the land allocated for affordable
housing on the parameters plan, and subject to detailed design considerations
at the reserved matters stage. If this is a shortfall on the policy compliant level
of affordable housing, at 30% of the extra care units, then a payment in lieu is
secured through the s106.
58. It is agreed between the parties that there is a significant need for affordable
housing. The latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment8 sets this at 3,517
net dwellings in the period 2011 to 2031, or 176 dwellings per annum (dpa).
The latest Annual Monitoring Report (AMR)9 shows the total gross affordable
housing completions from 2011 to 2021 has been 479 dwellings, or 48dpa,
equating to a delivery shortfall of 1,281 homes even before accounting for any
affordable dwellings that may have been lost in that period.
59. The level of proposed affordable housing would be policy compliant. The
Council can demonstrate a five year supply of overall housing land. However,
this does not reduce the importance I place on the Council’s persistent and
meaningful under-delivery of affordable homes over the past 10 years. I
therefore place substantial positive weight on the proposed affordable housing.
60. During cross-examination, the Council indicated that the weight to be applied
to the proposed delivery of affordable housing should be tempered by the harm
they claim the affordable housing buildings would cause to character and
appearance. However, I do not agree with this approach. The weight to be
applied to the proposed provision of affordable housing stands on its own, as
does any harm or otherwise to character and appearance that must be counted
separately.
Older Persons Housing
61. The total area of proposed floorspace is currently unknown. However, the
development would likely provide in the order of 170 bedrooms within the
proposed use class C2 flats, based on the indicative proposed floorspace
figures, and this is a reasonable assumption of the likely scale of the proposed
8 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 for the Cambridge Housing Sub-Region
9 East Cambridgeshire Authority’s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2020-2021, Table 6
development. The precise number of persons this would accommodate is
difficult to quantify, but would almost certainly be in excess of 200.
62. Policy GROWTH 1 of the LP is out-of-date and in any event says nothing about
the specific need for older persons accommodation, extra care or otherwise.
However, Paragraphs 60 and 62 of the Framework confirm that addressing the
needs of groups with specific housing requirements, including for the elderly, is
a key part of national planning policy. The PPG states that the national need for
older people’s housing is critical10. The number of people aged 65+ in the
District is predicted to rise by 58% from 2020 to 2040, an increase of 10,404
persons from a base of 18,04111, strongly indicating a likely increase in need
for older persons accommodation in the future.
63. When looking at the age demographic the development is likely to cater for,
those aged 75+, evidence has been provided by the appellant that the
Council’s need for accommodation in 2025, the likely year of opening of the
development, would be 418 private extra care dwellings. This is based on a
ratio of 45 people aged 75+ per 1,000 population. This was contested at the
appeal, and lower ratios have been used by, for example, GL Hearn in their
report, at 27 per 1,000. However, this report, which also assumes a lower
proportion of owner occupiers within this group at 56% compared to the
appellant’s 69%, still concludes that there is a shortfall of extra care dwellings
in the District at 118 in 2020 and predicted to rise to 271 by 2040.
64. Evidence was provided by the BMP, and supported by the Council, of vacancies
in existing care homes in Bottisham, thereby indicating that sufficient provision
of older persons accommodation is already being provided in the village.
However, the examples given are of care homes, and one a social care home
not even solely aimed at the elderly, and do not represent the same type of
extra care accommodation as is being proposed.
65. Providing choice and a range of options of accommodation to older persons is
important due to their differing needs, desires, and requirements for care
support. Extra care accommodation in general, and retirement care villages
specifically, are key components of the range of older persons accommodation.
The supporting text to Policy HOU 1 of the LP, at paragraph 4.2.3, explicitly
acknowledges the need for extra care housing. At present, there are no
retirement care villages in the District, only a small extra care facility in Ely
called Rosalyn Court.
66. Overall, I am therefore satisfied that there is a need for not only older persons
accommodation, but specifically extra care accommodation, in the District. I
am also satisfied that the need is acute and growing.
67. There is limited data available of how this need is being met. The AMR does not
provide a breakdown, although it does acknowledge that there were no use
class C2 completions in 2020-2021. Appendix C12 of the Council’s Five Year
Land Supply Report looks at the projected delivery of older persons
accommodation over the next five years, and finds the likely provision of
97 beds in care homes, and no provision of extra care accommodation.
10 Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626
11 Housing Needs of Specific Groups Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk October 2021, page 273
12 East Cambridgeshire District Council Five Year Land Supply Report 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026 Published 13
October 2021
68. There are no applications, no site allocations, and no predicted completions in
the next five years for extra care accommodation. There are site allocations for
general housing in use class C3. However, the uncontested evidence given in
this appeal is that unless sites are specifically allocated for use class C2
development, the developers of such schemes are unable to compete with the
providers of general housing. These allocations cannot therefore be relied upon
to provide extra care accommodation.
69. When an older person requires accommodation with an element of care support
it is likely that the need is imminent and should be met quickly. I therefore
place greater reliance on the predicted provision of extra care accommodation
in three years, the likely date of opening of the proposed development, rather
than the five year period used in the Council’s report. To a certain extent, this
does not matter, though, because the predicted supply of extra care
accommodation falls significantly below the identified need, even using the
most conservative assumptions.
70. The market catchment of the proposed accommodation includes areas outside
of the Council’s land. This was explored at the appeal, however, given the
acute and unmet need identified in the District as set out above, there is no
need to dwell on this other than to acknowledge that even in the catchment
area there is only one further extra care scheme, and even that is more urban
and has fewer communal facilities than proposed in the appeal scheme.
71. The health and wellbeing benefits of the type of extra care accommodation
proposed, both to the residents themselves and to the wider healthcare
economy, also contribute to the weight to be given to the proposed older
persons accommodation.
72. The Council have advanced the argument that the overall weight for older
persons accommodation needs to take account of the likelihood of the need
being able to be met on preferable sites. However, as with the similar situation
for affordable housing, I do not agree with this approach. The weight to be
applied to the proposed provision of older persons accommodation stands on
its own, and the consideration of alternative sites must be considered
separately.
73. Overall, due to the acute, growing, and unmet need for older persons
accommodation generally, and extra care accommodation specifically, as well
as the additional benefits of retirement care village on improved health for
occupiers, I place substantial positive weight on the proposed use class C2
accommodation.
Housing Stock
74. Over 80% of older people in the District live in under-occupied homes, which is
a high proportion, although it does approximately tally with the average for
England as a whole13. It is not possible at this stage to precisely predict the
number of future occupiers of the proposed use class C2 accommodation that
would come from current occupiers of these homes, but there would
undoubtedly be some, and potentially a high proportion of the future occupiers
would be drawn from this pool. The release of some of these family-sized
13 Housing Needs of Specific Groups Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk October 2021, by GL Hearn - Figure 28
homes would benefit other demographics in the housing market, and the
overall fluidity of the market. I place significant weight on this benefit.
Housing Supply
75. Both the proposed affordable housing and the extra care accommodation would
contribute to the District’s housing land supply. This is an important factor,
irrespective of the fact that the five year housing land supply is currently being
met, because the continued adequate provision of housing is one of, if not the
most, important factor in national and local planning policy. I place significant
positive weight on this.
Employment
76. There would be short term employment generation during construction. There
would also be long term employment generation during operation. This would
be fairly significant due to the on-site communal facilities and on-site care
provision. As directed by Paragraph 81 of the Framework, I attribute significant
positive weight to the proposed employment generation that would support
economic growth and productivity.
Public Open Space
77. The Council are concerned that there would be a loss to the perceived
recreation and leisure value of the southern field through the harm to the
setting of the field they say is caused by the proposed built works. However,
there would be no building on the field, the works would have minimal effect on
its recreation and leisure value, and in fact the proposal would open up access
to the currently private southern field. Extensive landscaping, planting, and
new footpaths are also proposed in this field, and could be secured by
condition. The Framework, at Paragraph 120(a), encourages improved public
access to the countryside, which the proposal would provide. The proposed
extensive area of new public open space weighs positively in the planning
balance. I attribute this moderate positive weight.
Access to Services
78. It is common ground, and I agree, that the proposal is in an accessible
location. Bottisham provides a range of services and facilities, and there would
be good access to the town because of its proximity and because there are
footpaths directly from the site to the town centre. I place moderate positive
weight on this factor.
Biodiversity
79. The planning application the subject of this appeal was accompanied by a
Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment. This concluded that the proposed
landscaping works would result in a biodiversity net gain of 10% for habitats
and 47% for hedgerows. These significant gains are possible because of the
low biodiversity of the existing site, which is just two open fields and limited
hedgerow and other planting. These gains could be secured by condition(s) and
I place moderate positive weight on this benefit.
Alternative Sites
80. The appellant submitted an Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) to demonstrate
that the appeal site is the only suitable, available and deliverable site for the
proposal. The Council raised concerns that the ASA took place after the
decision on the application and was not produced in consultation with it.
However, there was no concern raised in relation to the professionalism of the
production of the ASA. I am primarily concerned with the quality of the ASA
and not its provenance, and have assessed the document on its own terms.
81. Various filters were used in the ASA to sift through potential sites. The size
filter adopts a range of 3.5ha to 7.5ha. The upper limit of the size filter is
based on the size of the part of the appeal site to be developed plus an
allowance to go larger. The lower limit is based on known operator
requirements for a retirement care village, which are at least3.5 ha14. I have no
reason to dispute that the site area range of 3.5ha to 7.5ha is a reasonable one
with regard to the size of site required for a retirement care village in a
countryside setting. However, in the search for an alternative site, the upper
limit of the filter is unfairly restrictive. For example, the size filter would
actually filter out the appeal site itself, which is 8.4ha, if the open space land to
the southern field is included. I am aware that this land is not a necessity for a
retirement care village, but the size filter removes the possibility for this more
granular assessment, which if applied to other sites might have found them to
be suitable.
82. The smaller parts of bigger sites are also filtered out because it is considered
that the development of larger, mixed-use sites would take longer than the
three year timescale achievable for the appeal site. This timescale filter is also
applied to all sites, irrespective of size. I agree that there is an acute and
growing need for older persons accommodation. I also agree that in an ideal
world, any suitable, available and deliverable alternative site should be able to
be developed within three years. However, this is an unreasonably restrictive
filter because it does not allow for the complex reality of the planning and
development process. A timescale filter that is only just long enough to
accommodate the timescales for the proposed development, if all goes well, is
insufficiently flexible. For example, if taken from the inception of interest in the
scheme, the appeal proposal itself could not now be delivered within three
years.
83. I agree with the conclusions of the ASA that the four sites that have met the
filtering criteria and are assessed in detail are not suitable alternative sites.
However, as a result of the filters used, it is only these four sites that have
undergone detailed assessment, from an initial pool of 285 potential sites. It is
imperative that non-Green Belt sites are given a proper hearing for it to be
robustly demonstrated that it would not be feasible to develop sites elsewhere.
This has not been achieved by the ASA due to these two filters being too tightly
drawn, to the extent that if applied to the appeal site itself, it would not even
pass the filtering process. Without more detailed assessment of a greater range
of potential sites, it is not possible for me to robustly conclude that there are
no suitable, available and deliverable alternative sites.
14 Rangeford Villages letter, dated 8 November 2021
84. Independently of the appellant’s ASA, the Council have also set out five
preferred sites to the appeal site. I set out below my conclusions on each of
these sites, none of which I find to be suitable, available and deliverable
alternatives:
• Clare House – the site has an existing use class C3 consent, and a
reserved matters application was lodged during the course of the inquiry
which keeps this consent alive. Further arguments were advanced in
relation to the shape of the site and the possibility for it to be split, but I
do not need to consider these issues because the site is fundamentally
not available;
• Station Gateway (Ref ELY7 in the LP) – this is an over 12ha site allocated
for mixed use development, none of which is explicitly for use class C2
accommodation. It is the appellant’s uncontested evidence that use class
C2 cannot compete in an open market against use class C3 due to the
extra communal facilities and other costs. I agree. In addition, the site is
in multiple ownerships, significant transport infrastructure is required as
part of development, and the site is unlikely to come forward for at least
five years;
• Land off Brook Street, Soham (Ref SOH1 in the LP) – this is a 20ha site
with a mixed-use allocation in the LP, including for c.400 dwellings.
However, as with the Station Gateway site, there is no express support
for use class C2;
• Eastern Gateway (Ref SOH3 in the LP) – a 33ha site, with a mixed-use
allocation in the LP including for c.600 dwellings. However, as with the
above two sites, there is no express support for use class C2; and,
• Land north of Blackberry Lane (Ref SOH6 in the LP) – a 4.4ha site, with
a mixed-use allocation in the LP including for up to 100 dwellings.
However, as with the above three sites, there is no express support for
use class C2.
85. I acknowledge that no suitable alternative sites have been identified by either
party. However, only 3% of land in the District is Green Belt, and only three
villages, including Bottisham, are sited in this Green Belt land. This makes it
even more important that a robust ASA is provided to justify the use of Green
Belt land. I place the onus for this on the appellant. It is their proposal to
justify. Due to the two filters being too tightly drawn and the resultant deficient
detailed assessment of individual sites, the submitted ASA is not robust. It has
therefore not been adequately demonstrated that the proposal needs to be
located in the Green Belt or that it would not be feasible to find a suitable site
elsewhere.
86. My attention has been drawn to a recent appeal decision15, made on
29 December 2021, in relation to a site within the adjacent South
Cambridgeshire District Council. The decision related to a similar proposal for a
retirement care village on Green Belt land and the appeal was allowed. I am
not aware of the full facts of the case, but a key difference between the two
appeals is that a much greater proportion of South Cambridgeshire’s land is
within Green Belt compared to East Cambridgeshire. There is therefore an even
15 Appeal Ref APP/W0530/W/21/3280395
greater requirement for a robust ASA to be completed for appeal proposals on
Green Belt land in East Cambridgeshire.
Overall
87. There would be substantial benefits from the proposed extra care
accommodation and affordable housing. There would also be significant
benefits from general housing provision, the release of family-sized housing
stock, and employment generation. There would be moderate benefits from
biodiversity net gain, the proposed public open space, and that the site is
accessible to the services and facilities of Bottisham. These are important
considerations and, in combination, amount to a substantial positive weighting.
88. However, there would be harm to the permanence, openness and some of the
purposes of Green Belt land. These all attract substantial negative weight.
Because of the limited weight to attach to Policy GROWTH 2 of the LP, which is
the source of the heavy restriction on greenfield development outside of
settlement boundaries, as well as the substantial weighting attributed to Green
Belt harm in the Framework, I place significant negative weight on the other
consideration that a robust ASA has not been provided. I cannot, therefore, be
sure that there are not suitable, available and deliverable non-Green Belt
alternatives, including greenfield development outside of settlement
boundaries, which would be sequentially preferable to the appeal site. There is
also harm, albeit with only a low to moderate weighting, to the character and
appearance of the area, the wider landscape, and the heritage assets of
Bottisham Conservation Area and the Bottisham House Grade II Listed building.
89. Overall, the other considerations, although including substantial benefits, also
include a deficient ASA, and they do not clearly outweigh the harm to the
Green Belt that I have identified, and the other harms. Consequently, the ‘very
special circumstances’ necessary to justify the proposed development do not
exist.
OTHER MATTERS
Heritage
90. As set out above, subject to the mitigation and proposed landscaping, the
overall level of harm to both heritage assets would below. It falls within the
description of ‘less than substantial’, as defined by the Framework, and at the
lower end of this scale. The public benefits of the proposal are extensive, as set
out in detail above, and easily outweigh the harm. The proposal therefore
complies with Paragraph 202 of the Framework.
Interested Persons
91. Several interested persons, including Councillors Ogborn, Cane and Wilson,
spoke in opposition to the appeal proposal at the inquiry. A number of written
objections have also been received, including from Councillors Daunton, and
Bottisham Parish Council.
92. The objections raised various concerns in addition to those addressed above
and below: some affordable housing is about to be built and no more is needed
in the village; the affordable housing would not be integrated into the wider
development; the increase in vehicle movements would harm highway safety
and traffic congestion, and would also increase pollution and car parking
problems – these are all particular issues because of proximity of the primary
school; the south field has archaeological value; Bottisham is not a suitable
location in terms of accessibility because it has no train station and only
infrequent busses, and the appeal site itself has poor access to Bottisham
because it has narrow broken footpaths not suitable for the elderly; and,
opposition to the principle of the loss of the agricultural land.
93. I have taken all of these factors into consideration. Most are not in dispute
between the main parties. Most were addressed in the officer’s report, with the
Council concluding that there would be no material harm in these regards. The
Highways Authority have confirmed that they have no objection to the
proposal. No substantiated evidence has been submitted that leads me to any
different view. The detail of any mitigation could be controlled by condition(s)
where necessary.
CONCLUSION
94. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.
O S Woodwards
INSPECTOR
ANNEX A: APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Jack Smyth of Counsel. He called:
Anne James MRTPI Planning Consultant, ECDC
Robert Browne CMLI Associate, Wynee-Williams Associates
Russell Wisnall Legal Assistant, ECDC
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Zack Simons of Counsel. He called:
Nick Sedgwick CIHCM Director, Sedgwick Consultancy
Limited/Associate, Ben Cave Associates
Jessamy Venables MRICS Director, Carterwood
Robert Belcher FRICS Consultant, Carterwood
(retired)
Charles Crawford CMLI Director, LDA Design
Jon Sneddon MRTPI Managing Director, Tetlow King Planning
Jay Mehta Partner, Howes Percival LLP
FOR THE BOTTISHAM MEDICAL PRACTICE:
Dr Tamara Keith MBBS DFSRH GP Partner, Bottisham Medical Practice
DRCOG MRCPCH MRCGP
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Councillor Jon Ogborn Chair of Bottisham Parish Council
Councillor Charlotte Cane Bottisham Ward Councillor
Councillor John Wilson Vice-chair Bottisham Parish Council
Robert Stocking Resident
Anthony Jolley Resident
John Harris Resident
Stuart Clarke MRTPI Principal Planner, Cambridgeshire County
Council
ANNEX B: INQUIRY AND POST INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
1 Appellant’s Opening & Appearances, dated 25 January 2022
2 Opening Statement of the Council, dated 25 January 2022
3 Opening Statement, by Dr Keith
4 Mr Jolley Representations, dated 26 January 2022
5 Round Table Session on Character and Appearance and Green Belt
Openness, updated Agenda, dated 28 January 2022
6 Draft s106 Planning Obligation Ref JZM/230260.0003
7 White Crown Stables - Application Form, dated 10 October 2018
8 White Crown Stables - Decision Notice Ref 18/01435/OUM, dated
5 February 2020
9 Cambridgeshire County Council Email re Archaeology Condition,
dated 13 April 2020, including attached site plan
10 Burston Nurseries Ltd - Appeal Decision Ref
APP/B1930/W/21/3279463, dated 31 January 2022
11 Suggested Route for Inspector’s Site Visit, dated 1 February 2022
12 Climate Change SPD, dated 8 February 2021
13 Natural Environment SPD, dated 24 September 2020
14 Statement to the Inspector, dated 2 Feb 2022, by Councillor John
Wilson
15 Email from Kasia Gdaniec, Cambridgeshire County Council Senior
Archaeologist, dated 13 April 2020
16 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group
Letter, dated 2 February 2022
17 Letter from Phil Thacker, Water and Planning Manager at
Cambridgeshire Fire Authority, dated 3 February 2022
18 Email from Anne James, Planning Consultant at ECDC, dated
4 February 2022
19 Land North of the Railway Viaduct, Ledbury - Appeal Decision Ref
APP/W1850/W/20/3244410, dated 15 March 2021
20 Land North of the Railway Viaduct, Ledbury - S106 Planning
Obligation, dated 2 October 2020
21 Land at Wykin Lane, Nuneaton – Appeal Decision Ref
APP/K2420/W/20/3262295, dated 21 May 2021
22 Land at Wykin Lane, Nuneaton – s106 Planning Obligation, dated
27 April 2021
23 Email from Ricky Ching, Senior Associate Town Planner at the
NHS, dated 4 February 2022
24 Closing Submissions of the Council, by Jack Smyth, dated
4 February 2022
25 Closing Statement, by Dr Keith, dated 4 February 2022
26 Appellant’s Closing Submissions, by Zack Simons, dated
4 February 2022
27 East Cambridgeshire District Council Note, submitted 4 March
2022
28 Letter from Iain Warner, Tetlow King Planning, dated 3 march
2022
29 Land to the North East of Broad Piece, Soham – Appeal Decision
Ref APP/V0510/W/21/3282449, dated 11 February 2022