Case Reference: 3280395

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 7-10 and 14 December 2021
Site visit made on 16 December 2021
by P W Clark MA(Oxon) MA(TRP) MRTPI MCMI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 29 December 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/W/21/3280395
Land between Haverhill Road and Hinton Way, Stapleford, Cambridge
CB22 5BX
• 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 South
Cambridgeshire District Council.
• The application Ref 20/02929/OUT, dated 2 July 2020, was refused by notice dated
19 April 2021.
• The development proposed is a retirement care village in Use Class C2 comprising
housing with care, communal health, wellbeing and leisure facilities, public open space,
landscaping, car parking, access and associated development and public access
countryside park.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a retirement care
village in Use Class C2 comprising housing with care, communal health,
wellbeing and leisure facilities, public open space, landscaping, car parking,
access and associated development and public access countryside park on Land
between Haverhill Road and Hinton Way, Stapleford, Cambridge CB22 5BX in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/02929/OUT, dated 2 July
2020, subject to the twenty conditions appended to this decision.
Procedural matters
2. The application is made in outline with all matters reserved apart from access.
Details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for later
consideration in the event of the appeal being allowed. Parameters plans
covering land use and building heights, access and movement and landscaping
were submitted with the application. I was invited to consider the imposition of
these by condition so that they would form an envelope within which the
detailed design of reserved matters could proceed.
3. During the consideration of the appeal the appellant requested the substitution
of one drawing for another. Material has been provided which demonstrates
that this revised plan has been given as much publicity as the original
application. I received a number of comments on the revised plan all indicating
that their earlier representations remained valid in the light of the revised plan.
I am therefore satisfied that nobody would be prejudiced if I were to base my
decision on the revised plan, which is what I have done.
4. Before the conclusion of the Inquiry a signed s106 agreement was submitted.
This makes provision for the transfer of the public access country park element
of the proposal to a body charged with its maintenance together with a sum of
£349,950 (index-linked) to be used for its management and maintenance. I
am satisfied that these obligations would be necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development
and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and so,
would comply with the relevant provision of the CIL regulations. I have
therefore taken these obligations into account in making my decision.
Main Issues
5. It is common ground that, by definition, the development would be
inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Accordingly, the first two
main issues in contention are;
• Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, together with any
other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as
to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the
proposal
• The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.
The second of these issues is closely related to the third issue, namely;
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
The first issue is closely related to the fourth issue;
• The benefits of the proposal.
Reasons
Inappropriate development
6. Some forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided
they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including
land within it. These include material changes in the use of land such as
changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation. For that reason, I take the view
that the part of the proposal which is intended to be laid out and used as a
public access country park would be not inappropriate development. The
construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green
Belt and so the retirement care village element of the proposal would be
inappropriate development. Because the countryside park would not happen
without funding released by the development of the retirement care village, the
two elements of the proposal must be regarded as a single development
proposal which is inappropriate development.
7. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and
should not be approved except in very special circumstances. When
considering any planning appeal, authorities should ensure that substantial
weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It makes no difference which,
or how many, of the purposes of the Green Belt would be harmed and so I do
not need to adjudicate between the parties on whether more than the purpose
of assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment would be
harmed in this case. I concur with both parties that at least that one purpose
would be harmed. It follows that this decision should ascribe substantial harm
to the Green Belt arising from this proposal. To that extent, the development
would be contrary to Local Plan policy S/4 which requires a Green Belt to be
maintained around Cambridge.
Openness
8. Openness is a fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, distinct from its five
purposes. It may be considered in both a spatial sense and in a visual sense.
In a spatial sense, the site sits in a stretch of green belt which extends
uninterrupted by any built development between Hinton Way and Stapleford
which form a backdrop to the west and southwest of the site, scattered
mansions on Fox Hill to the north of the site and an area of open countryside
extending east and south-east as far as Babraham and Sawston. Were it not
for the scattering of buildings on Fox Hill and the isolated ribbon of dwellings in
Gog Magog Way and Chalk Hill which abut the part of the site proposed for the
care village and separate it from the continuation of Green Belt onto the village
recreation ground and Greenhedge Farm to the south, the site as a whole and
the part of the site intended for built development in particular would have
open, undeveloped land on all four sides.
9. In visual terms, the openness is only slightly more constrained by the
hedgerows around the site, the woodlands on Fox Hill and the topography of
the site itself which prevents views across it from south-east to north-west and
the topography of land to the east which limits visual openness to land more
from the south than from the east. The zone of visual influence (ZVI) indicated
on figure 05 of the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
accurately reflects the area of visual openness which I experienced on my site
visit.
10. Interpolation from figure 05 of the LVIA suggests that the part of the site which
is proposed to be developed for the retirement care village would represent
approximately 2.5-3% of the area of the ZVI. Its effect would be
disproportionately noticeable because it would infill nearly half the extent of
open land between Gog Magog Way and the partly settled Fox Hill and so would
tend to turn the remaining undeveloped agricultural area of land between
Haverhill Road and Hinton Way into an island of undeveloped agricultural land
separated by the countryside park and built development from other areas of
agricultural land. The vulnerability of the resulting island of Green Belt
agricultural land is emphasised by the Council’s own suggestion, in its
emerging local plan consultations, that part of this area of Green Belt be
released for development.
11. The landscaping proposed would not be a remediation in the sense implied by
national guidance (provisions to return land to its original state or to an
equivalent (or improved) state of openness). It would not reduce the
quantitative or qualitative effect on openness but it would be a visual benefit to
be taken into account in the overall balance, which I consider later in this
decision.
12. I therefore conclude that the adverse effect of the proposal on openness would
be disproportionately greater than would be implied by the absolute extent of
the part of the site proposed for development as a retirement care village
(3.12ha site coverage within an enclosure of about 4.91 ha). The appellant’s
advocate describes this extent of land as substantial1. I concur. The proposal
would therefore contravene Local Plan policy NH/8(1) which, amongst other
matters, requires any development proposal within the Green Belt to be located
so as not to have an adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt.
Character and appearance
13. There are two ways in which this issue needs to be examined. One is in
relation to the character and appearance of the site in the landscape. The
other is in relation to the character and appearance of the village to which the
part of the site intended for a retirement care village would be attached. There
is also a subsidiary issue, related to character and appearance, which is that
there are heritage assets in the vicinity which give rise to statutory duties of
consideration.
Landscape
14. Conventionally, impact on landscape is also assessed in two parts; firstly the
physical effects on the landscape and secondly, the visual effects. In terms of
the physical effects on the landscape, the site sits on the transition between
two local character areas, one relating to the settled river valley, the other
relating to the less settled hills which rise above the valley. Boundaries
between landscape character areas are seldom abrupt, although, of necessity,
the authors of landscape studies have to place a boundary somewhere. In
reality, there is usually a gradual evolution from one landscape character area
into another. The context of this site is no exception.
Physical effects
15. Two recent landscape character assessments place the boundary between the
two local character areas in different places, either side of the site. The
Cambridge Inner Green Belt Study produced in 2015 as part of the evidence
base for the extant South Cambridgeshire Local Plan adopted in 2018 places
the boundary between what it calls Landscape Character Area 4B Granta Valley
and Landscape Character Area 3B Gog Magog Hills along the edge of the built
extent of Stapleford village, hugging the 20m contour line but rising to the 30m
contour line further to the east of the site. The Greater Cambridge Landscape
Assessment, produced in 2021 as part of the evidence base for the emerging
Greater Cambridge Local Plan places the boundary between what it calls
Landscape Character Area 3D Cam and Granta Tributaries Lowland Farmlands
and Landscape Character Area 7B, Gog Magog Chalk Hills along the track which
hugs the northern boundary of the site. In effect, one landscape character
assessment places the site within the valley; the other places it on the hills.
16. This difference between two expert studies shows that the transition between
these two character areas cannot be precisely located. It probably occurs
somewhere on the site itself. From my site visit I observe that below the 25m
contour the site is relatively flat, which one would expect in a character area
comprising a valley. The steepest gradients, which one would expect in a
character area comprising hills, occur above the 30m contour. I conclude that,
if a boundary line has to be drawn between the two character areas, it should
be drawn along a line approximating to the 25m contour.
1 Paragraph 8 of his closing submissions
17. Nobody claims the site to be within a valued landscape in the terms of NPPF
paragraph 174a. I concur. National policy therefore simply seeks recognition
of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, not necessarily its
preservation unaltered in all circumstances.
18. Both landscape character assessments agree that it is a characteristic of the
valley character area that it is well settled with a relatively dense rural
settlement pattern in which numerous villages have developed due to the
proximity of fresh water. Likewise, both agree that, in the chalk hills there is
relatively little settlement due to the shortage of water and that although the
majority of the land is used for arable crop production, recreation also
contributes to the character of the area which contains a country park, nature
reserve, picnic site and golf course. It would therefore be consistent with the
landscape character of the area that the retirement care village be located
within the settled river valley character area, rather than the chalk hills
character area and that the remainder of the site be used as a countryside
park.
19. The part of the site intended for the care home lies largely above the 20m
contour but below the 25m contour. I am therefore satisfied that the uses
proposed and their disposition on the site, which can be secured by imposing
the parameter plans as a condition of permission, could be made consistent
with the existing landscape character of the area.
20. Nevertheless, the two landscape experts who gave evidence on behalf of the
parties agree that there would be physical harm to the landscape. They
disagree (but not to any great degree) about the significance of the harm both
initially (in year one) and on maturity (in year fifteen), largely, it would appear,
because one views the site as located entirely within the chalk hills landscape
area, whereas the other considers the site as split between the two character
areas. I concur with the latter view.
21. That they identify harm at all seems to result from a loss of hedgerow
(although it would be replaced on a different alignment) and a view that a
change of use from an agricultural field to (in part) a built use would be
harmful by definition. However, the published landscape character
assessments are clear that settlements (and hence, built form) are an integral
feature of at least one of the character areas involved.
22. What is involved is a shift in the percentage of each character area which is
composed of buildings and of undeveloped land. Obviously, if, over time, the
composition of an area’s character were to shift entirely from one component
to another, the loss of heterogeneity in favour of homogeneity would be
harmful. But that is not the case here. The extent of change resulting from
built development would be transformative on the relevant part of the site itself
but would be relatively small in relation to the extent of the local character
area involved and negligible in relation to the national character area known as
NCA 87 East Anglian Chalk.
23. In relation to the countryside park element of the proposal, I am not convinced
that any physical harm to the landscape of the hills would necessarily arise
from the change from an agricultural field to a recreation use, since recreation
uses are identified as one of the characteristics of the character area. Although
the change would be transformative on the site itself, it would again be
relatively small in relation to the extent of the local character area involved and
negligible in relation to the national character area known as NCA 87 East
Anglian Chalk.
24. The expert witnesses’ identification of a moderation of harm over time seems
to result from an appreciation of the rawness of development in early years,
not softened by landscaping until the latter comes to maturity. That seems to
me to be less of a consideration of physical change to the landscape and more
of a consideration of a visual issue. I now turn to these.
Visual effects
25. The parties identified three viewpoints on site and thirteen viewpoints off-site
from which an evaluation of the visual impact of the development on the
character of the landscape could be made. They are generally agreed on the
effects of the proposal, which parallel the effects of the proposal on the
openness of the Green Belt. The impact on most views is assessed as
moderate or minor adverse both in the short and long term. My site visit
largely confirmed the judgements of the experts.
26. The most damaging effects would occur where the development would block a
view of a treed skyline (as in views north from the part of Haverhill Road within
the existing built-up area) or where the extent of intrusion of urban form into
undeveloped countryside was most apparent (as in views towards the site from
the cemetery approach road or from the track east of Stapleford leading to
Babraham). The landscape experts agree that these would be major/moderate
adverse effects initially, reducing to moderate or minor adverse impacts on
maturity. But none of these amount to landmark views.
27. There are two locations which do offer landmark views. One is from Little
Trees Hill adjacent to the ancient monument there. The other is from the
highest point of the site, a point not currently accessible to the general public
but which would undoubtedly become a landmark viewpoint were the country
park proposal to come to fruition.
28. The view from Little Trees Hill is extensive. The development site is visible
within the view. The development proposed would be visible within the view.
But I do not accept the verdict of both parties’ experts that the development
would have a major/moderate adverse effect in year 1, reducing to a moderate
adverse effect as planting matures, because the character of the landscape
seen in the view is not exclusively undeveloped countryside. It is a view of a
settled landscape within which Stapleford features prominently. Nor is the site,
as a piece of undeveloped countryside, the focus of the view. It lies in the
middle ground of an extensive view which encompasses a wide variety of
features. I accept that, in the short term, the rawness of a new development
would distract the eye from an appreciation of the wider view and so cause
some harm to its perceived character but, in the longer term I would expect
the development to merge into a part of one of the components of what is seen
in the view and would cause little or no harm to its character.
29. The viewpoint which would be made accessible were the countryside park to be
created is much closer to Stapleford and so currently presents a dramatic
contrast between the agricultural land in the foreground and the village
immediately behind. Were the development to be permitted and to proceed,
the greater proximity of the developed part of the site would significantly
reduce the sensation of the location being in the open countryside. Although
the countryside park would still be open to undeveloped land to the south-east,
it would tend to feel more enclosed between the existing arm of development
extending along Hinton Way and the new residential care home development
extending along Haverhill Road.
Stapleford village
30. Finally, I turn to the effects of the proposal on the character of Stapleford itself.
Critics of the proposal suggest that the residential care home would have a
bulk and scale greater than that of the two-storey housing in the immediate
vicinity of the site. But there is no reason to presume that an institution like a
care home need have the appearance of an institution. It would be within the
Council’s power to ensure that details submitted as reserved matters
articulated the building so as to make it compatible with its neighbours. In any
event, the homes in Gog Magog Way and Chalk Hill are formed into semi-
detached pairs and short terraces of four which have a bulk and scale greater
than that of an individual house.
31. Critics of the proposal also suggest that it would be inappropriate and
incongruous for an institution offering public facilities to be sited on the edge of
the village. But I observed that it is in the nature of Stapleford that this is the
case; the church is on the edge of the village and so too is Stapleford Barns,
the local arts centre which offers a performance space. The village appears to
be polycentric, with its facilities scattered and placed at its edges. The
proposal would therefore conform with that character.
Character conclusions
32. In summary, I conclude that the uses proposed and their disposition on the
site, which can be secured by imposing the parameter plans as a condition of
permission, could be made consistent with the existing landscape character of
the area; that the physical harm to the landscape would be relatively small;
visual harm to the character of the countryside would be somewhat greater but
there is no reason to presume that the built development would be inconsistent
with the character of the village. Other than the unavoidable fact that the
proposal is sited outside the Stapleford development framework, I find little or
no conflict with the other provisions of policy S/7 of the adopted South
Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 which, amongst other matters, require
development to be of a scale, density and character appropriate to the location.
33. I also find little or no inherent conflict in principle with policy HQ/1 of the
adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. Amongst other matters, this
requires proposals to preserve or enhance the character of the local urban and
rural area, to be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale,
density, mass, form, siting, design, proportion, materials, texture and colour in
relation to the surrounding area. Although there would be some conflict with
Local Plan policy NH/2 which requires development to respect and retain the
local character and distinctiveness of the local landscape, such conflict would
be relatively minor.
Heritage
34. Not far from the site are a number of heritage assets; the Stapleford
Conservation Area, approximately 350m south-west of the site; 57 Bar Lane, a
grade II listed building located within the village approximately 240m south of
the site; Middlefield and Garden Wall, a grade II* listed building located within
Fox Hill approximately 130m north of the site and the church of St Andrew, a
grade II* building located within the village approximately 550m to the south-
west of the site. There is no suggestion from either party that these heritage
assets or their settings would be adversely affected by the development
proposed. I concur with that.
35. In the countryside to the north-east of the site is a cluster of scheduled ancient
monuments; the iron age hill fort at Wandlebury, a bronze age barrow and a
neolithic causewayed enclosure at Little Trees Hill and a bronze age tumulus at
Wormwood Hill, with a neolithic longbarrow. They form part of a wider
prehistoric landscape of national significance.
36. Those consulted by the Council on this application made no suggestion that the
development would have any adverse impact on any of these heritage assets
but the Council has adopted the suggestion of the appellant’s own heritage
consultant that the development would cause a low to medium less than
substantial harm to the significance of the bronze age barrow on Little Tree Hill
through effects on its setting. As I saw on my site visit, its setting, in a
prominent position on the brow of the hill overlooking the valley below is an
important element of its significance. The appellant’s consultant argues that
the retirement village element of the proposal impinges on this wider view and
so would cause some harm to the appreciation of the setting.
37. I am not convinced of that because the wider view of the valley below Little
Tree Hill is not a view of a virgin landscape. It is a view of a settled landscape,
in which buildings, including those of the existing settlement of Stapleford,
feature prominently. There is no explanation of why the existence of buildings
within the landscape which forms the setting of the heritage asset should cause
it harm, nor was it evident from my site visit that they did. What was evident
was that the significance of the ancient monument’s setting lies in its elevation
above the valley and the absence of development on the hillside leading up to
it, not in any absence of development within the valley below.
38. Nevertheless, other than by the evidence of my own eyes, the statement of the
appellant’s heritage expert was not contradicted and must be respected.
Moreover, it is government policy that, when considering the impact of a
proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great
weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of the degree
of harm which would be caused.
39. So; although I conclude that the harm to the ancient monument would be
negligible, insufficient to amount to a conflict with policy NH/2(b) of the
adopted Local Plan which requires proposals to conserve or enhance important
natural and historic assets and their setting and so insubstantial as to be only
noticeable to observers with enhanced sensibility; in accordance with
government policy, I attach great weight to that negligible harm to the asset’s
conservation. This harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal, to which I now turn.
Benefits
40. Seven categories of benefit can be identified. They are;
• The provision of special care housing in a situation of critical shortage
• The consequent release of existing housing stock
• Enhanced beneficial use of Green Belt through provision of countryside
park, manifest in
o Biodiversity enhancements and
o Recreational benefits
• Enhanced landscaping
• Employment provision
• The economic multiplier effect
• Social cohesion
Each of these is examined in turn.
Special care housing
41. A key fact noted on page 133 of the adopted Local Plan is an ageing population
with growth forecast between 2001 to 2021 of 95% for the 60-74 age group
and 108% for those 75+. National Guidance advises that the need to provide
specialist housing for older people is “critical”. Jessamy Venables’s calculations
of future need and provision within the housing market area local to this site
were not seriously challenged. They show that by the year 2024, there would
be a gross need for 1,226 private sector extra care dwelling units but that only
882 would have been supplied or be in the pipeline, leaving a shortfall of 331
extra care dwellings. Without replenishing the pipeline of supply, the shortfall
would thereafter rise to 805 dwellings by 2041.
42. Jessamy Venables made a similarly unchallenged estimate of the need for care
home beds in the market area. This showed that by the year 2024, there
would be a gross need for 770 elderly care home beds within the market area
but a supply and pipeline of only 652, leaving a shortfall of 118, rising to 342
by the year 2034. The Council’s own analysis for its emerging local plan
suggests that Jessamy Venables’s figures may be underestimates.
43. The proposed development would therefore provide about 9% of the total
demand for extra care dwellings and about 14% of the total demand for care
home bedspaces in the market area in 20242, or about 33% of the estimated
shortfall in provision of dwellings, 93% of the shortfall in bedspaces. The
Council’s committee report accepts that there can be no doubt that the
development could make a very significant contribution towards meeting local
need and gives significant weight to the issue. Its statement of case
(paragraph 5.21) upgrades that assessment to very significant weight. I have
no reason to disagree.
Release of existing housing stock
44. Part of the demand for extra care housing arises from a desire by elderly
people to downsize from larger family houses. There is not an exact 1:1
relationship but one effect of providing extra care accommodation is that larger
family accommodation is released back into the market. The Council has
2 The Council made the point that delivery by 2024 is uncertain but there is no suggestion that any different
proposal would achieve delivery sooner.
applied the appellant’s estimate of the release of 1 dwelling into the market for
every 3 residential care units (dwellings or care beds) to arrive at a figure of 73
existing homes released into the market.
45. Despite this calculation, the Statement of Common Ground agrees that the
proposal could equate to the release of 134 existing housing units into the local
housing market. The Council’s committee report argues at paragraph 298 that
because the Council has a five-year housing land supply, limited weight should
be applied to this benefit.
46. The Local Plan target is for 19,500 new homes. For a 20-year plan period
(2011-31), this equates to an annual target of 975 new homes. The release of
existing stock into the housing market therefore represents about 14% of one-
year’s supply. Although any increase in housing availability within one of the
least affordable areas of the country is of benefit, I agree with the Council in its
committee report that the extent of this benefit in the context of an already
adequate housing supply would be of limited weight but, in paragraph 5.22 of
its Statement of Case, the Council upgrades its assessment to one of significant
weight.
Biodiversity benefits of proposed countryside park
47. The Council has had the adopted Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan
in place since February 2008. Policy CSF/5 (2) provides that;
A Countryside Enhancement Strategy will be prepared for the area bounded
by the Cambridge City boundary, Babraham Road, Haverhill Road, and the
edge of the built up area of Great Shelford and Stapleford. The Strategy will
comprise:
f. New copses on suitable knolls, hilltops and scarp tops.
g. Management and creation of chalk grassland.
h. Management of existing shelter belts.
i. New mixed woodland and shelter belts.
j. Creation of a landscape corridor along Hobson’s Brook.
k. Reinforcement and planting of new hedgerows.
l. Roadside planting.
m. New footpaths, cyclepaths and bridleways creating routes through
the area and linking to Wandlebury Country Park / The Magog Down.
48. Supporting paragraph C3.1 explains that the scale of development in the
Cambridge Southern Fringe both within Cambridge City and South
Cambridgeshire will require substantial mitigation measures over a wide area of
countryside to the south of the built-up area to mitigate the impact of
development. It thus makes it clear that the Countryside Enhancement
Strategy is intended to be linked to, and funded by, development, a point
confirmed in response to my direct question to the Council’s witness in the
current appeal. Despite there being a plethora of studies3, the Council’s
witness also confirmed, in response to my direct questions, that in the nearly
fourteen years since this plan was adopted not much of this policy has been
achieved and that there is no programme for its implementation.
49. The Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy4 notes that overall,
Cambridgeshire has a smaller proportion of natural habitats than most counties
in Britain. Paragraph D7.1 of the adopted Cambridge Southern Fringe Area
Action Plan confirms that the biodiversity of the area is generally poor, with no
designated sites in the Action Plan area. The lack of habitat networks
combined with intensive farming will have contributed to the low biodiversity
value. In the introduction to the Council’s Doubling Nature Strategy published
in 2021, the Chair of the Council’s Climate and Environment Advisory
Committee records that South Cambridgeshire is one of the poorest areas in
the country in terms of biodiversity and has one of the smallest areas of land
managed for nature, relative to its size. The Council’s declaration of an
ecological emergency in July 2019 may be seen as a dramatic gesture but is
based upon fact. All these points demonstrate the significance of this issue.
50. The appellant’s claim that the countryside park would transform a large
monocultural agricultural field into a rich chalk grassland (“a significant and
rare type of habitat”, “one of the UK’s most biodiverse habitat types”) with
various elements of scrub, hedgerow and tree planting was not contested. Nor
was the claim contested that the countryside park would achieve a biodiversity
net gain of 234%, which compares favourably with the 10% requirement of the
recently enacted Environment Act 2021 and the 20% of the Council’s emerging
Local Plan.
51. The countryside park proposed in this appeal would lie within the area of
improved landscaping proposed by policies CSF/5 (2(f-m)). It would not cover
the whole area of the intended Countryside Enhancement Strategy, which
approximates to 530ha but the approximately 19ha of the countryside park
would amount to about 3.6% of the area of the intended enhancement
strategy. It would increase the chalk grassland resource in this part of
Cambridgeshire by 18.7% and there would be synergies with the nearby Magog
Down, according with the recommendations of the Lawton report for the
creation of linked ecological resources to enhance the benefit of each individual
resource.
52. The section of the Council’s committee report which deals with the
environmental benefit of the country park (paras 284-285) concludes that the
countryside park would deliver clear and significant benefits. It asserts that
significant weight should be given to its provision as does the Council’s
Statement of Case (paragraph 5.24). During the Inquiry, the Council’s witness
was persuaded to upgrade that assessment to very substantial weight. I
concur.
3 Listed in paragraph 3.61 of Colin Brown’s evidence; Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (policy CSF/5) –
2008; Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy – June 2011; Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure
Opportunity Mapping Report – Sept 2021; South Cambridgeshire Doubling Nature Strategy – 2021; The
Cambridge Nature Network – A Nature Recovery Network for Cambridge and its Surrounds – March 2021
4 A document published in 2011 by a partnership including the local planning authority
Recreational benefits of countryside park
53. The countryside park proposed as part of this appeal would deliver more than
ecological benefits and improved landscaping. It would also deliver a change of
use from agricultural land to a countryside park. As Dr Painter remarks in
paragraph 1.34 of his evidence, it would be a secondary benefit that the
countryside park would provide new socially inclusive recreational space for the
local community that will have enhanced footpath connectivity to existing local
recreation areas but that observation (that the benefit would only be
secondary) should not cause the benefit to be overlooked or discounted.
54. The recreational effect goes beyond the requirements of policy CSF/5 but NPPF
paragraph 145 recommends that once Green Belts have been defined, local
planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such
as looking for opportunities to provide access, to provide opportunities for
outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity
and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land. The benefit is
therefore recognised in public policy, even if not a requirement of the local
plan.
55. The Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy points out that in respect of
Publicly Accessible Open Space the area is presently deficient in ANGSt5 at the
500ha plus standard6 around Cambridge and to the south, west and east of the
area, and at the 100ha plus standard7 to the south, east and then in an arc
around the Longstanton/Oakington area. There are areas of deficiency in
ANGSt at the 20ha plus standard8 on the northern and southern fringes of
Cambridge and significant deficiencies in the far west of the area. At the 2ha
plus standard9 there are significant deficiencies across the whole area. This
proposal would help meet the 2ha and (almost) the 20 ha standards in the
local area.
56. In relation to the built development proposed (about 110 homes and a care
home of 110 bedspaces on about 3.12ha site coverage within an enclosure of
about 4.91ha), the proposal compares favourably with accepted schemes at
Great Knighton (a 48 ha country park supported by 2,550 new homes on the
Green Belt) and at Trumpington Meadows (a 60 ha countryside park supported
by 1,200 new homes on Green Belt land). The Council’s committee report
(para 295) and its Statement of Case (paragraph 5.23) both contend that
significant weight should be given to the social benefits of the countryside park.
Notwithstanding the potential, which was identified during the Inquiry, for
increased public access (particularly by bicycles) to be in conflict with ecological
aims, I concur with that assessment.
Enhanced landscaping
57. The landscape parameter plan accompanying the application indicates an area
of proposed new structural planting around the part of the site proposed for
built development. It would vary in depth from about 3m to 8m with deeper
pockets at the northern and eastern corners of the site. This is presented as a
mitigation of the intrusion of development into the openness of the Green Belt
5 Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards
6 One accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home
7 One accessible 100ha site within five kilometres of home
8 At least one accessible 20ha site within two kilometres of home
9 An accessible natural greenspace of at least 2 ha in size,, no more than 300m (5minutes’ walk) from home
but, over time, it would become an attractive feature in its own right which
deserves recognition as such.
Employment provision
58. There would be employment created during the period of construction of the
development, estimated at around 190 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs and
about 70 FTE jobs involved in the operation of the development once
completed. There is no information about the need for jobs to be created
locally. The Council’s committee report argues that the economic benefits
would be of limited weight. Its Statement of Case (paragraph 5.25) ascribes
moderate weight to this benefit but I recognise that NPPF paragraph 81 advises
that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic
growth and productivity.
Economic multiplier effect
59. New residents of the retirement village will contribute additional local spending
and will utilise and support local services and facilities helping to ensure their
viability and their continued existence. Neither party quantifies this effect. I
recognise that older people tend to spend less per head than younger people
and so I conclude that this benefit would be of moderate significance.
Social cohesion
60. The council’s statement of case recognises that the communal facilities
proposed as part of the scheme will draw the wider community together. It
allocates significant weight to this benefit.
Other matters
61. The proposal provides a 15m wide corridor to allow for the route of what is
variously termed the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) or the Cambridge
South Eastern Transport Busway Scheme (CSETS). This provision is not
presented as a benefit of the proposal; there is no suggestion that the proposal
would dedicate or donate the corridor to the promoters of the scheme. Nor is it
suggested that the proposal would be dependent on the busway scheme or its
two stops proposed on Haverhill Road and Hinton Way. Rather, the corridor is
intended to show compatibility between the appeal scheme and the Busway
Scheme.
62. The promoters of the Busway scheme objected to the appeal scheme at
application stage because the corridor shown on the parameters plan did not
coincide with the preferred route which the promoters of the Busway approved
on 25 June 2020. They also sought to have the proposal contribute to the
construction of the Busway project through a s106 planning obligation. No
further representations were made at the appeal stage.
63. Both parties to the appeal agree that the Busway scheme is at a very early
stage of preparation. A Transport and Works Act Order is some years away.
The appellant’s view, not contradicted by the local planning authority, is that, if
planning permission for the appeal scheme is granted, a different alignment for
the Busway, avoiding the part of the site to be developed for a retirement care
village can be envisaged. A potential operator of the retirement care village
confirmed10 that the uncertainties surrounding the alignment of the busway
would not prevent the appeal scheme from proceeding. I have no reason to
disagree or to find that the busway scheme would represent an insuperable
obstacle to the granting of planning permission.
Planning balance
64. The Local Plan’s development strategy is set out in policy S/6 of the adopted
Local Plan; “The need for jobs and homes will be met as far as possible in the
following order of preference, having regard to the purposes of the Cambridge
Green Belt: a. On the edge of Cambridge; b. At new settlements; c. In the
rural area at Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres.” The edge of Cambridge
is closely surrounded by Green Belt and four of the five Rural Centres and five
of the Minor Rural centres are in the Green Belt so there is an inherent tension
between the adopted plan’s preferred locations for development and both its
and national policies for the protection of the Green Belt.
65. The appellant has carried out two alternative site assessments. They are open
to methodological criticism so I do not say that they prove beyond doubt that
no alternative, less harmful, site for this proposal could be found but what can
be said without fear of contradiction is that the local planning authority has not
identified any preferred alternative site for this proposal. Nevertheless, that
observation does not moderate the conclusion I have reached that the harm
that the proposal would cause to the Green Belt and to its openness would be
disproportionately greater than the substantial extent of built development
comprised in the proposal would imply.
66. Those harms to the principle of the Green Belt and to its openness are the main
harms identified in this case. Physical harm to the landscape would be
relatively small; visual harm to the character of the countryside would be
somewhat greater but there is no reason to presume that the built
development would be inconsistent with the character of the village. Harm to
the setting of the ancient monument would be negligible (but of great weight)
and is easily outweighed by the identified benefits.
67. The Council’s approach within its adopted Local Plan is that C2 housing
comprises a part of its overall housing requirement and that it has identified
sufficient land for housing development to satisfy its requirements for the next
six years. That assertion is not contested and I have no reason to conclude
otherwise but it is not sufficient. Uncontested evidence given in this appeal is
that unless sites are specifically allocated for C2 development, the developers
of such schemes are unable to compete for sites in the housing land supply
market with the providers of C3 general housing accommodation and so, the
delivery of C2 development will be restricted.
68. Despite a plethora of studies11, the Council’s approach has not delivered and is
not expected to deliver special care housing in anything like sufficient
quantities. No policy nor any allocation in the adopted plan requires a specific
10 Inquiry document 3
11 Cambridgeshire Older People’s Accommodation Strategy (2016), Cambridgeshire County Council; Older People’s
Housing, Care and Support Needs in Greater Cambridge 2017-36 by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social
Research November 2017; Cambridgeshire Older People’s Strategy (Cambridgeshire County Council website
2016); Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Adult Social Care Market Position Statement 2018/2019 are listed in the
appellant’s Planning Need Assessment. Jessamy Venables’s evidence adds Cambridgeshire County Council’s
publication Older People’s Accommodation with Care – planning for future demand (2021) and the recently
published Housing Needs of Specific Groups – Cambrdigeshire and West Suffolk (October 2021)
proportion of dwellings to be delivered as special care housing. Although
special care housing is mentioned in the justificatory text to the Ida Darwin
Hospital site, none has actually been delivered in the development of that site.
Policy SS/8(6) provides that development of Cambourne West “could also
include nursing and residential care homes” but none has been delivered.
69. Although there are some schemes in the pipeline which will reduce the
outstanding need within the housing market area from an expected 1044
dwellings and 436 bedspaces in 2022 to an expected 838 dwellings and 118
bedspaces in 2024, by 2041 the unsatisfied need for dwellings is expected to
remain at 805 extra care dwellings. Government advice is that housing need
alone does not amount to the very special circumstances required to justify
inappropriate development within the Green Belt but, in this case, that housing
need is combined with a lack of effective action to meet the need. Moreover, it
is not the only circumstance which should be brought to bear in the planning
balance.
70. There is a similar plethora of studies demonstrating the need for improvements
to biodiversity in the local area. In contrast to special care housing, there is a
specific policy in the adopted Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan to
address the issue. Consequently the failure to make progress in resolving the
issue is a much more egregious consideration arguing forcefully that very
special circumstances apply here.
71. Dr Painter’s description of the recreational benefit of the scheme as secondary
should not blind us to the fact that it would be disproportionately large in
relation to the extent of built development proposed. Although perhaps
incidental to the primary purpose of the countryside park in providing
ecological benefits to offset Green Belt harms, its scale of provision in relation
to the part of the site to be built over would represent a somewhat special
circumstance.
72. The other benefits of the scheme are less outstanding but nevertheless
contribute to the balance. They are the benefits of the release of existing
housing stock, of enhanced landscaping, of employment provision, of the
economic multiplier effects of increased local expenditure and of increased
social cohesion.
73. Overall, but particularly through the supply of extra care housing, needed but
not otherwise being met, biodiversity enhancements to Green Belt land sought
by local plan and national policy but not being delivered and recreational
provision, sought by national policy on Green Belt land, the benefits of this
proposal would clearly outweigh even the disproportionate harms to the Green
Belt and its openness which would result from the scheme. I so conclude and
find in consequence that the proposal would comply with national policy and
hence policy S/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.
Conditions
74. In the event of the appeal being allowed, the parties suggested that 32
conditions would be necessary to make the scheme acceptable. I have
considered these suggestions in the light of national guidance and the model
conditions set out in appendix A to the otherwise superseded Circular 11/95:
the use of conditions in planning permissions, preferring the wording of the
latter where appropriate.
75. The first two conditions are statutory requirements concerning the submission
of reserved matters and placing limitations on the duration of the permission.
The third condition is needed to establish a framework within which details of
reserved matters can be considered. The fourth condition is necessary because
the site lies within an area of national archaeological significance.
76. The fifth suggested condition was to require an ecological management plan for
the period of construction. However, the site as existing has little ecological
interest; it is one of the benefits of the scheme that it would provide such
interest, so there is no necessity for this condition separate from a general
condition (16) requiring a construction management plan.
77. The sixth suggested condition required the submission of a landscape and
ecological management plan. But, until the details of landscaping required to
be submitted as a reserved matter are approved, it cannot be known that they
would lack an included management plan or would require the submission of
one, so this condition would be premature to be applied at this stage.
78. The seventh suggested condition would have required a traffic management
plan and routeing agreement for the construction period to be agreed in
consultation with the Highway authority but the matters required to be included
largely duplicate provisions of the Highways Acts and there is no evidence that
such would be required independently of a general condition (16) requiring a
construction management plan. Likewise, suggested condition 15 sought to
require a scheme of dust suppression during construction but is not required
independently of a general condition (16) requiring a construction management
plan.
79. The eighth suggested condition would require the submission of details of a
surface water drainage scheme. Such would be necessary to ensure that the
development is adequately drained and would not necessarily be required as a
reserved matter so must be specified independently. The appellant’s submitted
Flood Risk Assessment advises that swales will need to be provided in the
countryside park to divert overland flows of water away from the retirement
care village and so this condition applies to all parts of the site. Suggested
condition 22 would require the submission of details of the long-term
maintenance arrangements for the surface water drainage scheme but it would
be premature to impose this condition until the details of the drainage scheme
are known not to include maintenance arrangements. Suggested condition
nine, requiring a foul water drainage scheme to be designed, approved and
implemented need only apply to the parts of the site with built development.
80. It is a development plan requirement that development be 10% more energy
efficient than required by the Building Regulations and so, suggested condition
10 is necessary (imposed as condition 7). Similarly, suggested condition 23
requires the development to be more water efficient than required by the
Building Regulations in pursuit of a development plan policy and so is
necessary (condition 14). Suggested condition 11 would require an
investigation of potential contamination, suggested condition 24 would require
its remediation and certification and suggested condition 28 would require the
remediation of any unexpected contamination found during construction. The
appellant’s own Geosphere Environmental report recommends a targeted
intrusive ground investigation to determine the risk of gassing from chalk
bedrock and the installation of monitoring wells for ground gas which
demonstrates the need for these conditions which are combined as condition
(8).
81. Suggested condition 12 sought to require a noise insulation scheme but there
is no evidence that noise from Haverhill Road would be so great as to require
one, so it fails the test of necessity. Suggested condition 13 sought details of a
phasing plan, claiming a need to protect the living conditions of neighbouring
properties but there is no evidence to show how a phasing plan would achieve
that, so also fails the test of necessity. Suggested condition 14 sought to
impose limitations on the use of piling during construction and is necessary to
protect local residents against that contingency.
82. Suggested condition 16 seeks a Low Emission Strategy in accordance with
section 3.6 of the Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction
SPD2020. Section 3.6 of the specified document deals with lighting schemes,
contaminated land, noise pollution, air quality and odour control. Inspection of
the SPD suggests that the condition is seeking to obtain electric vehicle
charging points, a travel plan and support for public transport. Insofar as
these are necessary to the development under consideration, they are covered
by other, specific, conditions which would be duplicated by a Low Emission
Strategy condition and so the latter is not necessary.
83. Suggested condition 17 would require the use of low Nitrogen Oxide
combustion boilers, in accordance with a specific local plan policy and so is
necessary (condition 10). Suggested condition 18 would require details of the
installation of fire hydrants, a detail which would not necessarily be secured in
the submission of reserved matters relating to layout and so, is a necessary
condition. Likewise, details of lighting would not necessarily be included in the
submission of reserved matters and so requires a specific condition (12) as
intimated by suggested condition 19.
84. Suggested conditions 20 and 21 would require the layout of the approved
access and the visibility splays indicated on the approved access drawing to be
in place before the use of the retirement care village commences. This would
be necessary for the safe operation of the development and so is included as
condition (13).
85. Suggested condition 25 would require a noise impact assessment and
insulation scheme for any plant installed at the retirement care village.
However, the necessity for this condition will not become apparent until
reserved matters are submitted and so, it would be premature to impose it
now.
86. Suggested condition 26 would require the submission, approval and
implementation of a travel plan. This is a local plan requirement and so
condition (15) is necessary. Suggested condition 27 would require the
accesses to be constructed with adequate surface water drainage in place in
accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the local
planning authority but, as this would duplicate condition (5) a separate
condition is not necessary.
87. Suggested conditions 30, 31 and 32 are necessary to limit the outline
permission to the terms of the development for which outline permission was
sought and are imposed as conditions (17, 18 and 19). Condition (20) was not
suggested by the parties but is implied in suggested condition 16 and
recommended in paragraph 6.3 of the appellant’s submitted Air Quality
Assessment.
88. With these conditions in place, the appeal is allowed for the reasons given
earlier.
P. W. Clark
Inspector
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Josef Cannon, of counsel Instructed by Richard Pitt, 3C Shared Services
He called
Dinah Foley-Norman Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service
BA(Hons) DipLA CMLI
Stephen Connell Director, GC Planning Partnership Ltd
BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Matthew Reed QC Instructed by Matt Hare, Carter Jonas
He called
Jonathan Billingsley Consultant, the Landscape Partnership
MA(Oxon), BPhil, CMLI
Jessamy Venables Director, Carterwood
BSc(Hons) MSc MRICS
Robert Belcher Consultant, Carterwood
FRICS(retired)
Dr Duncan Painter CEnv Managing Director, Applied Ecology Ltd
MCIEEM
Colin Brown BA(Hons) Partner, Carter Jonas LLP
MRTPI
Matt Hare BSC MSc MRTPI took part in the discussion on conditions
DOCUMENTS submitted during the Inquiry
1 Draft planning obligation agreement
2 J Billingsley position statement
3 E-mail from Daniel Perfect of Rangeford Villages
4 Regina (Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council) v Secretary of State
for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC
1082 (Admin)
CONDITIONS
1) Details of the additional accesses, appearance, landscaping, layout, and
scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any
development takes place and the development shall be carried out as
approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this
permission. The development hereby permitted shall take place not later
than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters
to be approved.
3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans.
• Location Plan – Ref. J0027450_011 dated 06.08.2020
• Parameter Plan: Access and Movement – Ref. J0027450_010 dated
06.08.2020
• Parameter Plan: Landscape ref. J0027450_009 dated 06.08.2020
• Parameter Plan: Land Use and Building Heights Ref. J0027450_008A
dated 26.10.2021
• Access Assessment Option 2 - 406.09693.00002.14.H011.2 dated Oct
2020
• Emergency Access Option – ref. 406.09693.00002.14.012.2 dated Oct
2020
4) No demolition/development shall take place on site until a Written
Scheme of Archaeological Investigation shall have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
include an assessment of significance and research questions - and:
i) the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;
ii) the programme for post investigation assessment;
iii) the provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and
recording;
iv) the provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the
analysis and records of the site investigation;
v) the provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and
records of the site investigation;
vi) the nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to
undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of
Investigation.
5) No development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a surface
water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently
be implemented in accordance with the approved details before any part
of the retirement care village is occupied.
6) No built development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a foul
water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be
implemented in accordance with the approved details before any built
development on site is occupied.
7) No development above ground level shall proceed until details of the
means by which a minimum reduction of 10% of carbon emissions (to be
calculated by reference to a baseline for the anticipated carbon emissions
for the built development as defined by Building Regulations) can be
achieved on site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be fully installed and
operational prior to the first occupation of any part of the built
development and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved
details.
8) No development shall take place until:
• a detailed scheme for the investigation, recording and remediation
of contamination and ground gassing from chalk bedrock on the
site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local
planning authority.
No building on site shall be occupied until
• The scheme of investigation, recording and remediation has been
implemented on site in accordance with the approved details and;
• A verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority.
If, during remediation or construction works, any additional or unexpected
contamination is identified, then remediation proposals for this material
should be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before any
works proceed and shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation of
any part of the development hereby approved.
9) In the event of the foundations for the proposed development requiring
piling, prior to the development taking place the applicant shall provide to
the local authority for approval details of the type of piling and mitigation
measures to be taken to protect local residents from noise and/or
vibration. Development shall not be carried out other than in accordance
with the approved details.
10) No gas fired combustion appliances shall be installed until details
demonstrating the use of low Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) combustion boilers,
(i.e., individual gas fired boilers that meet a dry NOx emission rating of
≤40mg/kWh), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. Should the proposals include any gas fired
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) System, the details shall demonstrate
that the system meets the following emissions standards for various
engines types:
a) Spark ignition engine: less than or equal to 150 mg NOx/Nm3
b) Compression ignition engine: less than 400 mg NOx/Nm3
c) Gas turbine: less than 50 mg NOx/Nm3
The details shall include a manufacturers Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emission
test certificate or other evidence to demonstrate that every appliance
installed meets the emissions standards above.
The approved appliances shall be fully installed and operational before
the development is occupied or the use is commenced and retained as
such.
11) Prior to the commencement of development of the retirement care village
a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants shall be submitted to and
agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The retirement care
village shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved
details.
12) Details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority before the development hereby
permitted takes place. Development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details.
13) No part of the retirement care village hereby permitted shall be occupied
until the vehicular access and the visibility splays shown on approved
drawing number 406.09693.00002.14.H011.2 have been constructed in
accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing.
14) No part of the retirement care village shall be occupied until details of a
water efficiency specification for the relevant part, demonstrating an
ability to achieve a design standard of water use of no more than 110
litres/person/day, based on the Water Efficiency Calculator Methodology
or the Fitting Approach set out in Part G of the Building Regulations 2010
(2015 edition) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
15) Prior to first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved,
details of a travel plan to encourage the use of sustainable modes of
travel other than the private car shall be submitted to and agreed in
writing by the local planning authority. The relevant part of the
development shall be carried out and carried on in accordance with the
relevant approved Travel Plan.
16) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until
a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. Amongst other matters, the
Statement shall provide for:
i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the
development;
iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including
decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where
appropriate;
v) wheel washing facilities;
vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during
construction;
vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction works;
viii) delivery, demolition and construction working hours.
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to
throughout the construction period for the development.
17) The retirement care village hereby approved shall only be occupied by
persons aged at least 55 years. In addition, a spouse or dependent
relative of that person, or a widow/widower or surviving dependent
relative of that person who has co-occupied a dwelling unit permitted to
be constructed as part of the development with that person shall also be
permitted to occupy the development.
18) The retirement care village hereby approved shall only be used for
provision of extra care housing and care home purposes falling within Use
Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as
amended).
19) No more than 17,825sq.m of floor area shall be provided on the appeal
site.
20) No part of the retirement care village hereby approved shall be occupied
until it has been fitted with electric vehicle charging points in accordance
with a scheme which shall have been previously submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority.