Case Reference: 3237026

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held between 14 - 17 January 2020
Site visit made on 15 January 2020
by Katie McDonald MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 14th February 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/W/19/3237026
Oak Farm, Hampton Lane, Catherine De Barnes, Solihull B92 0JB
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council.
• The application Ref PL/2019/01215/PPFL, dated 29 April 2019 was refused by notice
dated 10 September 2019.
• The development proposed is the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) under Use Class C2, consisting of 50
frail elderly and dementia care beds, 49 care suites, 71 care apartments, 7 care
cottages and 4 care bungalows, incorporating Village Care Building and Wellness Centre
together with associated landscaping and car parking including closure of existing
access off Hampton Lane and improved access off Friday Lane.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The description of development above is taken from the planning application
form, but with agreement from both main parties I have removed
“(resubmission of application app 2018/00781/FUL, Block B2 – now wholly
single storey, Block C3 - Bungalow now two storey, Block D – Plots 69/70
replaced with different type)” as this is not an act of development. The number
of care apartments also reduced from 72 to 71 during the assessment of the
proposal by the Council.
3. A planning obligation was presented in final draft at the Inquiry, discussed, and
a signed copy produced shortly afterwards dated 23 January 2020. The content
of the planning obligation is firstly to ensure the scheme provides assisted
living units for the provision as extra care, and to define the minimum care
package to be provided. Secondly, to ensure that the units are initially
marketed for sale to local people for a period of 6 months prior to being placed
on the open market.
4. The Local Plan Review (LPR) was discussed during the Inquiry and is referred to
in evidence. I was presented with a report1 that outlines a revised timetable for
the Local Plan Review, which details that the next step in the plan making
process is the publication of the ‘draft submission’ plan (DSP) in summer 2020,
1 Inquiry Document 5
with adoption anticipated in spring/summer 2021. It is agreed by the main
parties that the DSP would be of limited weight given its very early stage in the
examination process.
5. Since the Inquiry, the 2019 Housing Delivery Test results have been published.
For this Borough, the results indicate a delivery of 105%, with it being 109% in
2018 Housing Delivery Test result. The difference between results is marginal
and does not change the ‘consequence’ of the test, which is ‘none’.
Accordingly, I have not sought comments from the main parties.
Main Issues
6. The site is in the Green Belt. Whilst part of the site is previously developed
land, it is agreed between the main parties that the proposal as a whole would
be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is because the proposal
would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the
existing development. I agree.
7. Accordingly, the main issues are:
(a) The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green
Belt; and,
(b) Whether the harm 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
The site and proposals
8. The site is located to the east of Catherine De Barnes, a small village located
on the outskirts of Solihull, in the Meriden Gap that forms a break of
development between Solihull (and the Birmingham conurbation) and
Coventry.
9. The previously developed part of the site is used for a mixture of housing,
offices and light industrial uses, and caravan storage. This is located on its
south western side, adjacent to the Grand Union canal. Aside from an access
from Friday Lane, the eastern side of the site is undeveloped land, bound by
hedgerows. The north west corner is also undeveloped, being an open paddock
with some orchard type trees, bounded by the canal and Hampton Lane.
10. The proposal would comprise large scale development of the whole site to
create a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) village. This includes
a village care centre that would contain a wellness centre, restaurant and other
facilities along with care beds and extra care units; surrounded by 4 blocks of
extra care apartments, cottages and bungalows. The residential uses would all
comprise Use Class C2 and would be available to over 55s only who needed, at
the very least, some form of domiciliary care.
11. Access would be from Friday Lane and the proposal includes the closure of the
existing vehicular access off Hampton Lane. Off-site highway works would
include 2 pedestrian crossings and pedestrian access into the village would be
provided on the north west corner of the site. A landscaping masterplan
proposes some tree retention, along with new planting and hedgerows.
Green Belt Policy
12. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The National
Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that inappropriate
development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be
approved except in very special circumstances. Policy 17 of the Solihull Local
Plan (December 2013) (LP) supports national policy and sets out additional
provisions.
13. In addition to the LP, there is a neighbourhood plan2 (NP) that forms part of
the development plan. Objective 5 seeks to safeguard the Green Belt within the
Parish as an integral and important part of the local Arden landscape and
heritage. No conflict with the NP is asserted by the Council.
Openness and purposes of the Green Belt
Openness
14. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their
permanence. Whilst there is no definition of openness, it is generally regarded
as being free from inappropriate development and the counterpart of urban
sprawl. It can comprise spatial and visual aspects.
15. The existing buildings on site amount to some converted barns, workshops,
single storey office and modest sized dwellings. Whilst converted to other uses,
the structures appear to relate to the site being a former working farm and are
akin to structures that one might expect to find in the Green Belt.
16. The proposal would amount to just below 19,000 square metres of floorspace
and accommodation ranging between 1-3 floors. The buildings would occupy a
large part of the site, spread around in blocks of development, along with car
parking and the access road.
17. Given the significant extent of development across the site, together with the
massing, height and built form of the buildings, there would be a significant,
harmful and extensive reduction in openness both spatially and visually.
Introducing such a volume of development on a part of the Green Belt
currently covered by either low level structures or undeveloped land would
unavoidably harm openness.
18. Whilst parts of the site would be screened by landscaping, and there is
surrounding development that influences the site, there would also be views
into the site from Catherine de Barnes village, the canal towpath and the public
footpath to the south of the site. Added to this would be transient views from
road users passing the site on either Friday Lane or Hampton Lane and at the
roundabout, because the hedgerow boundary is sparse in places. Whilst the
extent of the visual effect would be localised, it would nevertheless be clearly
perceived as a reduction in openness as the existing open views across and
into the site would be lost.
19. Within the site itself, there would only be limited areas left undeveloped owing
to the scale of built development and accompanying parking and servicing
areas, and therefore there would be a reduction in openness for any users of
the site.
2 Hampton in Arden Neighbourhood Development Plan (made July 2017)
20. It is agreed between the main parties that the harm to openness would be
substantial. I agree. There would be a very significant reduction in openness,
and this would conflict with Policy P17 of the LP and the Framework.
Purposes
21. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by
keeping land permanently open. One of the purposes of the Green Belt is to
assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Moreover, one of
the objectives of the LP is to maintain the Green Belt in Solihull, to safeguard
the key gaps between settlements such as the Meriden Gap and countryside.
The site sits within the Meriden Gap and this is seen as a strategically
important gap between the Birmingham conurbation and Coventry.
22. Both main parties agree that the proposal would conflict with the purpose of
assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Council
assert that there would be significant encroachment and the appellants limited.
23. The undeveloped part of the site is adjacent to Friday Lane and separated from
the previously developed part of the site by a strip of trees and shrubs that run
north-south. The undeveloped part runs up to the roundabout with Hampton
Lane, Catherine De Barnes Lane and Solihull Road. To the south is Friday Lane
Nurseries, a plant nursery containing outbuildings and polytunnels associated
with the use.
24. There is no development surrounding the roundabout junction, only woodland
and fields; and the roundabout itself contains well established trees. It is
distinctly rural when approaching from the north, south or east; and when
exiting Catherine De Barnes from the west, there is an obvious transition from
the village to the countryside when approaching the roundabout after passing
254 Hampton Lane.
25. The proposal would introduce development onto this eastern parcel of land, up
to the roundabout and near to Friday Lane. Although the site does not contain
many intrinsic features of the Arden Parklands landscape character area, this is
of little relevance given that it is open and free from development, contributing
towards the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy and one of the purposes by
safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Indeed, given its location on
the edge of Catherine De Barnes, it also contributes towards maintaining the
strategically important Meriden Gap.
26. Despite concerns over access or defensible boundaries; the previously
developed part of the site has been included as a draft housing allocation for 80
homes in the DSP3. The undeveloped part of the site is excluded, because
“currently all 4 parcels of land fronting onto the island are open and
development free – the ‘entrance’ to the Catherine De Barnes is some 60m
away from the island”. I heard arguments at the Inquiry and in writing that
Friday Lane serves as a more suitable and substantial defensible boundary.
However, the LPR and examination of the DSP is the proper forum for
considering changes to the Green Belt boundaries in a strategic and
comprehensive manner.
3 Core Document 3: paragraph 182.
27. Furthermore, whilst of very little weight given there have been no decisions,
the applications for the motorway service station4 and the development
consent order for Junction 6 improvements and a new junction 5A on the M42
serve to demonstrate the pressure that the Meriden Gap is under.
28. Accordingly, the extent of development proposed would result in encroachment
into the countryside. I consider that this would be significant given the
strategic nature of the Meriden Gap and the extent of development that would
be introduced along Friday Lane and at the roundabout. This significant
encroachment would amount to substantial harm, conflicting with Policy P17 of
the LP and the Framework.
Other harms
Character and appearance
29. The design and layout of the proposal is of a high quality that would be
sympathetic to the area. The Council agree that the design quality weighs in
favour. However, owing to the quantum of development proposed and
urbanisation of the site, there would be an adverse effect on the open and rural
character and appearance of the area. The Council do not assert any conflict
with the development plan, although this matter is mentioned in the Council’s
evidence and Officer report. This adds very limited weight against the
development in the overall balance.
Other considerations
30. Turning now to the other considerations advanced by the appellants, that they
believe collectively amount to very special circumstances.
Need
31. Despite the differences in methodology, it is recognised by both main parties
that there is a clear need for older peoples’ housing and the LP contains no
policies that relate to housing or care for older people. On this matter, the
Council give this matter significant weight and the appellant substantial. They
are not far apart.
32. Indeed, the note produced prior to the Inquiry sets out the respective
positions. In 2019, the shortfall of extra care and bed spaces combined is
between 997 (appellants’ figure) and 663 (Council’s figure). In 2024, this
changes to a shortfall of 549 (appellants’ figure) and 453 (Council’s figure),
and in 2029, there would be a predicted shortfall of 913 (appellants’ figure)
and 704 (Council’s figure).
33. It is not necessary to delve into all the areas of disagreements between the
parties given the extent of the shortfall and the weight both parties give it.
Differences between the age cohort used is largely immaterial to the results,
along with the population data. The provision of in-home domiciliary care was
promoted by the Council, such that older people would be able to stay in their
own homes, yet there remains an identified need for extra care units and care
bed spaces.
4 Application Ref: PL/2105/51409/PPOL
34. The provision rates used are different, with the Council using the approach
outlined in the Planning Practice Guidance5 (PPG) and the appellants their own
residual calculation approach. Both approaches have their own merits and for
the purposes of this appeal, given that there is an identified shortfall in both
parties’ evidence, it is not necessary to pick a preferred approach. That said,
the PPG only gives an example of one tool for working out the future need, and
this is the Council’s approach.
35. On matters of specific dispute, the Council contend that despite the identified
shortfall, the proposal would not deliver affordable care options and thus it
would not cater for the whole shortfall, concentrating predominantly on
leasehold extra care. The Council detail that, of the 254 (Council’s figure) extra
care unit shortfall in 2029, only 52 of those would need to be leasehold with
the remaining rented. The way this tenure split has been calculated by the
Council appears reasonable to me and the appellants did not dispute it.
36. At the Inquiry, I heard that the business model normally offered an 80/20 split
between leasehold and rented, but that none of these would be ‘affordable’,
neither was there a policy requiring this. The 80/20 split is market dependant
and may change based upon demand.
37. Thus, there is an option to provide rented extra care units as the market
demands it. Therefore, even if I were to take the Council’s assumption that at
2029 there would be only 52 leasehold units in need, this proposal could
account for those and any remaining units could be rented. Additionally, owing
to the planning obligation there would be a requirement (at least in the first 6
months of marketing) to provide extra care units to local residents despite the
tenure offered. Therefore, the proposal would respond to the identified
shortfall, even if only limited provision is made towards the rented demand.
38. The appellants argue that the shortfall in care bed spaces would be much
higher if existing care bed spaces that are either shared rooms or without en-
suite facilities are removed from the total. This is because they are not seen to
be ‘market standard’ and any new facilities would not be built in this way. I
disagree. Whether the bed spaces are ‘market standard’ is a very different
question as to whether they provide a bed space, which they clearly do. As
such, given these care homes and/or nursing homes are registered by the Care
Quality Commission as providing such facilities and bed spaces, to discount
them for not providing a ‘market standard’ bed space would be unjustified.
They provide a bed space and should be accounted for as such.
39. The Council contend that any shortfall would be made up for by allocations
coming forward in the DSP and/or windfall development, citing a past trend of
windfall permissions, which I accept accounts for a high level of pipeline supply
in the short term. However, aside from this proposal, I heard that there were
no other developments proposed not already accounted for in the pipeline
supply. Therefore, despite past windfall supply and the healthy pipeline supply,
there is little evidence that there would be additional windfall supply going
forward.
40. Furthermore, the DSP is very early in the process with no sites allocated
specifically for older peoples’ accommodation. It is of limited weight and to rely
5 Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 63-004-20190626 Revision date: 26 June 2019
on the DSP to deliver the quantum of shortfall by 2029, even on the Council’s
figures, is unrealistic.
41. The Council refer to the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of December
2015, which indicates that unmet housing need is unlikely to clearly outweigh
harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special
circumstances. The WMS pre-dates the 2019 Framework, which does not
include this provision and similar guidance in the PPG has been removed. Even
so, unmet need on its own, is highly unlikely to amount to very special
circumstances.
42. Therefore, having regard to the arguments presented from both main parties, I
find that there is a clear shortfall for older persons accommodation now and up
to 2029. The proposal would deliver 50 care beds – to which there is a clear
identified and relatively undisputed need, and 131 extra care units. This would
contribute significantly towards the identified shortfall, even if the proposal
caters for a higher end predominantly private leasehold market. The PPG sets
out that the need to provide housing for older people is critical6, and therefore I
attach substantial weight to this matter.
Availability of other sites
43. The Council did not contest the appellant’s evidence that there were no
alternative sites. Furthermore, the appellant disaggregated the facility and
looked for smaller sites, but also found no alternatives. The Council’s planning
witness could point to no other suitable alternatives during cross examination.
44. I note that as part of the DSP, large scale Green Belt release is anticipated.
These releases would be strategically planned and assessed, and only sites that
meet the requirements set out in the Framework would be released. It could be
the case that there may be preferable Green Belt options of land brought
forward to accommodate older persons accommodation. However, the DSP is
at a very early stage with no sites currently allocated.
45. The alternative site search focussed on sites between 0.6 and 0.8 hectares for
a care home and sites between 1 and 2.4 hectares for extra care. The
appellant’s witness for this matter identified that modern care homes or extra
care units could be constructed on smaller sites, but these would not provide
the same level of amenities as this proposal. Given the type of proposal is for a
CCRC, I agree with the appellant that the site search was appropriate.
46. Therefore, I am satisfied that there are no available alternative sites at the
time. This matter attracts significant weight.
Provision of housing
47. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. The
appellants argue the supply is 4.12 years and the Council 4.64 years. The
difference between parties is not substantial and, in any event, having regard
to footnote 7 of paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework, the tilted balance would
only apply were I to find that very special circumstances existed.
48. Nonetheless, in the context of there being an identified shortfall in general
housing supply, the provision of 131 extra care units would be of significant
6 Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626 Revision date: 26 June 2019
weight. Additionally, there would also be a consequential effect of freeing up
existing, potentially under occupied, housing to the general market from older
people moving into the development. This also weighs in favour.
Employment benefits
49. The proposal would employ in the region of 150 full time equivalent staff.
Added to this, the construction costs of the proposal would benefit the local
economy and I heard that over 1000 tradespeople would be anticipated on site
during construction.
50. However, there would be a loss of employment on the site, in the region of
around 30 jobs. I heard at the Inquiry7 that re-locating these existing uses in
Solihull may be difficult as they are small-scale units.
51. I have seen proposals from the appellant to help these existing businesses re-
locate and provided monetary compensation. As I have no method to secure
this delivery, it is of no weight overall; but if it did come forward, it would
contribute towards re-location costs.
52. The loss of employment on site is of limited weight against the development.
However, when considering the proposed employment levels and the
employment during construction, overall, this matter would be of significant
benefit to the economy.
Social and wellbeing benefits of a CCRC
53. There is no dispute from the Council that specialist accommodation for older
people brings about social and wellbeing benefits. The ExtraCare Charitable
Trust Research Report (March 2019)8 details that significant improvements can
be found in ExtraCare residents’ health and well-being along with low levels of
depression and lower levels of loneliness than national averages. It is also
asserted there would be savings to the NHS. However, the Council point out
that the report did not focus solely upon CCRC developments, encompassing all
types of C2 facilities.
54. I agree with the Council that although the studies indicate clear improvements
to the health of those people in care as opposed to living independently, much
of these benefits could be gained from any extra care setting and are not
exclusive to a CCRC. Nevertheless, the benefits of a CCRC delivered on this site
would be clearly similar, and potentially greater than other more basic C2
facilities, given the amount of supplementary facilities proposed.
55. Furthermore, the concept of the CCRC provides a variety of accommodation
choices, particularly for couples, along with on-site progression through the
levels of care as needs change. PPG recognises such benefits, stating that
“offering older people a better choice of accommodation to suit their changing
needs can help them live independently for longer, feel more connected to their
communities and help reduce costs to the social care and health systems.9”
56. Therefore, when comparing living independently with domiciliary care, as
opposed to living in a CCRC such as the appeal proposal, the social and health
7 Mr Osbourne’s evidence
8 Core Document 58
9 Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626 Revision date: 26 June 2019
benefits gained and the reduced sense of isolation would be positive for the
occupants. I give this significant weight.
Other benefits
57. Members of the public would be able to use the facilities on site for a cost, such
as the wellness centre. A condition was suggested by both parties to secure
this, yet a planning obligation would secure the provision more successfully.
Furthermore, transport on the CCRC’s minibus by local residents is proposed
along with improved linkages to the canal tow path and agreed parking for
Solihull Canoe Club. These benefits to the wider general public are of moderate
weight.
58. The proposal may result in increased local spend, but it is likely that given the
planning obligation requirements and evidence from the appellant, many
occupants would be from within 5 miles. Therefore, much of this increase local
spend would come from people occupying the vacated dwellings in the area
and not directly as a result of the development. This is of limited weight.
59. The off-site highway works would be necessary to make the development
acceptable, and although there would be improvements to pedestrian safety;
these are of limited weight in the overall balance. The scheme’s design quality
is of very limited weight in the balance.
Other Matters
Planning obligation
60. The provisions contained in the planning obligation would meet the tests set
out in the Framework and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
(as amended); given that the accommodation proposed would meet a specific
need for local older people. However, given my findings below, it has not been
necessary to examine the planning obligation any further.
Planning history
61. The Council’s officers recommended approval for a similar scheme in 2018,
however, it was ultimately refused. The appellants refer to this in written and
oral evidence, citing an inconsistent approach. Although the appellants may be
frustrated by the outcome, this previous planning decision is of very limited
weight given the final decision; and the fact that every case falls to be
determined upon its own merits.
Other Sites
62. Evidence of planning permissions granted by the Council for similar facilities in
the Green Belt was presented to me. Added to this were other appeal
decisions, of reference was the West Malling Decision10 because it was for an
extra care development in the Green Belt. Clearly, the proposed development
and site circumstances are different to this appeal, being in a different part of
the country with different housing needs and where an entirely different
development plan applies. Furthermore, whilst the Inspector attached
substantial weight to the overall harm to the Green Belt, the harm to openness
and encroachment was mitigated by the site’s visual containment and limited
public visibility. This is very different to the appeal before me.
10 APP/H2265/W/18/3202040
63. The other decisions by the Council were made under a different set of
situations and I do not know the individual reasons that amounted to very
special circumstances, save that there would have been a greater identified
need as these now form part of the pipeline supply. In any event, I have
determined this appeal on its own merits.
The Green Belt Balancing Exercise and Conclusion
64. Substantial weight is attached to the Green Belt harm arising from
inappropriateness, the very significant reduction in openness and the
significant encroachment into the countryside in this strategically important
Meriden Gap. These are 3 separate and important strands of substantial and
permanent harm. Additionally, there would be very limited harm to the
character and appearance of the area.
65. Substantial weight is attached to the identified need for the proposal.
Significant weight is attached to the lack of available sites, the contribution to
the shortfall in general housing land supply, the creation of jobs and the social
benefits of a CCRC. Attracting moderate weight are the benefits to the wider
general public and I attach limited weight to increased local spending and the
highways improvements, and very limited weight to the high quality design.
66. When drawing this together, it is my judgement that the other considerations
advanced by the appellants would result in a very finely balanced decision.
However, for very special circumstances to exist, the other considerations
would need to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt by
reason of inappropriateness, openness and purposes of the Green Belt, along
with the other very limited harm to character and appearance. In other words,
for the appeal to succeed, the overall balance would have to favour the
appellants’ case, not just marginally, but decisively.
67. Consequently, when applying the Green Belt balance, despite the significant
merits of the proposal, these would not clearly outweigh the conflict with the
development plan and national policy with regard to the totality and
permanence of harm.
68. For this reason, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the
proposed development have not been demonstrated and thus, it falls that the
appeal should be dismissed.
Katie McDonald
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
For the Local Planning Authority:
Mr S Bird QC Instructed by Mr S Gill, Team Leader of Litigation
and Planning for the Council’s Legal Services
He called
Mr L Osborne Major Projects Team Leader, Solihull Metropolitan
Dip TP, MRTPI Borough Council
Mr J Pitcher Planning Policy Team Leader, Solihull Metropolitan
BA (Hons), MSc, MCIH Borough Council
Mr P McColgan Director, GL Hearn
BA (Hons), MSc
For the appellant:
Mr R Walton QC Instructed by Donna Savage, DS Planning
He called
Ms D Savage Director, DS Planning
BSc (Hons) Dip TP,
MRTPI
Mr M Flatman Charted Landscape Architect and Director, Liz
BA (Hons) DipLA (Hons) Lake Associates
CMLI
Mr J Chapman Director, Pinders
MRICS
Mr A Simpkin Appellant
Interested parties:
Mr M Faizey Land owner
Mr D Cuthbert Catherine De Barnes Residents’ Association
Mr S Fisher Local resident objecting to the proposal
Mrs K Fisher Local resident objection to the proposal
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
ID1 Mr Osborne’s updated Proof of Evidence on building height ranges
ID2 SHOP@ Market Split 2035 Options for deprivation/affluence
ID3 Additional conditions
ID4 Corrections to Mr Osborne’s Proof of Evidence
ID5 Revised timetable for the Local Plan Review Report to the Solihull
Borough Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Planning and Housing
ID6 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/17/3171641 and Planning Obligation
ID7 Collection of planning application forms for other developments referred
to in Appellant’s Proof of Evidence
ID8 Additional information to Mr Pitcher’s Proof of Evidence
ID9 Signed update to suggested condition 7
ID10 Full copy of the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation
ID11 Executed planning obligation (dated 23 January 2020)