A recent appeal decision overturning the Council’s putative reasons for refusing an integrated retirement community references many of the benefits of this type of housing to create a cohesive argument outweighing substantial harm to the Green Belt. This decision will assist providers and developers of integrated retirement communities to overcome common policy hurdles when making future planning applications. This article explores the key points in this important decision for the sector. Not familiar with what IRC’s are? Click on the link to find ARCO’s definition of Integrated Retirement Communities.

Integrated Retirement Community Application Background

The application which is the subject of the appeal was for the development of a retirement care village. The use classes included C2 comprising housing with care, communal health, well-being and leisure facilities; and C3 affordable dwellings (comprising up to 30 per cent on-site provision). The scheme situated in Bottisham, Cambridgeshire, also included public open space, play provision, landscaping, car parking, and access. The application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved except for access.

The appeal (APP/V0510/W/23/3324141)) was made by Mr Andrew Adams (Axis Land Partnerships Ltd and Bottisham Farming Ltd) against East Cambridgeshire District Council based on non-determination. The appeal was accompanied by the reasons the Council would have refused permission if it had been able to do so.

Use Class

The never-ending debate as to where an Integrated Retirement Community falls within the planning use class order is perhaps one step closer to being decided through this appeal decision. The inspector states:

‘Whilst it falls within the C2 use class, extra care housing is distinctly different from other forms of older people’s accommodation, such as care homes and retirement housing.’

This is a significant acknowledgement that, whilst integrated retirement communities are different from care homes in that they provide self-contained accommodation, they still fall within the C2 use class bracket. Many policy definitions of integrated retirement communities classify them as C3. This has impacts on CIL and affordable housing requirements. The assessment by the inspector that this scheme is a C2 development is significant in making the case for integrated retirement communities falling in the C2 bracket.

Viability

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that the need to provide housing for older people is critical. In relation to housing needs, the inspector found there was an ‘acute’ need for this type of development. Part of the reason for this lack of supply was down to viability in comparison to general needs housing. ‘The evidence supports the appellant’s assertion that retirement housing schemes are generally less viable than general needs housing due to a range of factors, such as higher build costs.’

Owing to the communal facilities required in integrated retirement communities, such as lounges, dining facilities, hairdressing, activity rooms, etc. the build cost per unit in an integrated retirement community when compared to general needs housing is significantly higher. Many integrated retirement communities will also provide larger apartments when compared to general needs housing, which again pushes up costs. An important point of reference for similar applications in the future is the Inspector’s admission of this viability issue.

Local Plan Policies and Allocations

The inspector also makes a damning assessment of the state of the Local Plan in terms of its allocation for C2 uses and planning policies encouraging the supply of integrated retirement communities to address the ‘acute’ need previously identified.

‘Paragraph 63 of the Framework emphasises the importance of planning policies in ensuring that housing needs for different groups, including housing-with care for older people, are addressed. However, no sites are allocated specifically for C2 use in the Local Plan. That the predicted supply of extra care housing falls significantly below the identified need and is anticipated to do so in the future, which is partly a result of a distinct lack of robust local planning policies and site allocations to support this form of housing.’

The recent report Creating Homes We Want to Grow Old In: A 15-Point Plan from the Housing and Ageing Alliance identifies the need for Councils to assess the need for and then plan for the delivery of specialist housing as one of its points. This also follows on from the recent Knight Frank report, which found that the majority of Councils do not have one of the two or neither. It is significant that the inspector identifies the lack of proper planning policies as a reason for the need being so high.

Added Value

One of the advantages of building housing for older people is the knock-on effect on the local housing market, which provides a greater opportunity for addressing underoccupancy. The inspector highlights this in his report.

‘The provision of up to 170 extra care units would be anticipated to release 113 existing housing units into the market. This would be due to future occupants of the extra care accommodation vacating existing properties, which are often under-occupied and larger family houses. These knock-on benefits attract significant weight in favour.’

The fact that this point is carrying ‘significant weight’ is extremely beneficial when developing future applications, as it adds strong backing to a longstanding point raised in the sector.

Another added value of this form of development is the employment it brings to the local area. Again, the inspector has picked up on this and given it significant weight.

‘The proposal would generate approximately 70 full-time equivalent jobs across a variety of roles, such as medical care, social care, management and maintenance. These jobs would also provide opportunities for the residents of Bottisham. There would also be temporary jobs created through the construction phase. These considerations carry significant weight in favour of the scheme.’

This adds a further point of reference which can be applied to all integrated retirement community applications.

Planning Balance

What makes this case so significant is that the site is located within the Green Belt, with the inspector concluding that the appeal scheme ‘constitutes a form of inappropriate development in the Green Belt’. In order to overcome this conclusion, the benefits of the scheme would need to outweigh this.

In his decision, the inspector reviews the planning balance:

‘I find that the other considerations in this case clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Looking at the case as a whole, I consider that very special circumstances exist which justify the development in the Green Belt.’

The inspector has therefore found that the benefits of the integrated retirement community outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt. The scheme is also in close proximity to a Grade II Listed Building. The inspector also found that the benefits of the development outweighed the harm to the heritage asset when assessing the planning balance. We must remember that this application is for outline permission, and therefore the details of the design are still to come. This means that the inspector has made his assessment purely on the proposal for an integrated retirement community and not a particular building. This makes a compelling case for integrated retirement communities across the country.

Summary

Many recent reports, such as the Mayhew Report and Housing and Ageing Alliance’s 15 Point Plan reference the great need for this type of development. The ‘Older Persons Housing Task Force’ has also recently been set up. Its objectives are ‘to examine enablers to increased supply and improving the housing options for older people in later life and to explore ways to unblock any challenges’. This appeal case will assist in the provision of IRCs and is a great advert of the significant benefits of this type of development.

If you are interested in learning more about IRC’s, you can read the following article: Integrated Retirement Community – A New Architectural Imperative about the coining of this new term within the housing sector.  Get in touch directly with the article author, Mark Slater, at 0208 941 5161 for more insights and expertise.