Appellant Statem ent of Case
Full Planning (Major) - Proposed
construction of part three storey, part two
storey 74 bedspace dementia care home
(Use Class C2), together with ancillary
facilities (laundry, cinema, salon lounge and dining) and associated access, parking, landscaping and external works
(resubmission of application ref:
2015/26873)
Appellant:
Trustees of Horizon Cleaning Services Pension Fund
Appeal Site:
Land bound by A57 Manchester Road & Chapel Lane,
Rixton, Warrington
The Planning Studio Ltd 111, Piccadilly Ducie Street Manchester M1 2HY
T: 0161 238 4979 E: [email protected]
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This Appellant Statement of Case provides the grounds for appeal and sets out the appellant’s submissions to support the grant of planning permission for the proposed development, being a 74 bed dementia care development within a part 3 storey, part 2 storey building in the Green Belt.
1.2 In the interests of brevity and to assist the appeal, the intention in this Statement of Case is to address the stated reasons for refusal of Warrington BC planning application ref: 2018/32179, and to elaborate on matters that were raised with the Council post submission of the planning application and comments provided in the Warrington BC’s ‘Delegated Officer Report’.
1.3 There is no intention to rehearse the full planning case, as this can be found in the original ‘TPS Planning Statement’ submitted with the planning application, and the additional information provided in ‘Addendum Statement (Sequential Assessment), ‘Additional Information Letter (25 September 2018), ‘Additional Information Note’ – 15 February 2019, and various supporting information issued to the case officer in email exchanges (see Appendix TPS01).
1.4 By way of contextual information, the appeal arises from the refusal of planning application ref: 2018/32179, which was submitted for full planning permission for redevelopment of the appeal site by way of demolition of the existing building on the site followed by redevelopment through the construction of a part 2 storey, part 3 storey building to create 74 bedspaces within a dementia care home.
1.5 The proposed development would have associated car parking and amenity space as noted in the plans and D&A Statement.
1.6 Important to highlight that the proposed development is a specialist dementia care unit, catering for residents/patients with acute dementia, requiring specialist support services with intensive supervision, including nursing care and related therapy services.
1.7 The development is not an ‘Extra Care development’ and is not a ‘Residential Care Home’, as the residents in the proposed development are all requiring specialist dementia care support with appropriate provision for accommodation and support services. This will be highlighted through reference to the proposed operator of the development, Harbour Healthcare, who provided a letter of support and confirmed their involvement in the project.
The Planning Studio Page 2 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
1.8 The planning application (ref: 2018/32179) was refused permission by notice dated 15th January 2020, stating 3 reasons for refusal, which are set out below:
1) The site is within the Green Belt, where there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development unless it can be demonstrated that very special circumstances exist. It is considered that the proposed development is inappropriate by definition and the exemptions listed within paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework are not applicable. Whilst acknowledging the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, in relation to the provision for dementia residential care in Warrington, these are not considered to amount to special circumstances sufficient to justify overriding the strong presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt policy. As such, the proposal is considered to conflict with the provisions of the NPPF and Policy CS5 of Warrington Borough Councils Local Plan Core Strategy.
2) Given the limitations of travel by public transport and on foot, future occupants, visitors and staff are likely to require access to a private car to access the services and facilities available at Hollins Green and larger settlements. Consequently, the location of the site would not provide non-vehicular accessibility to key day to day services and facilities required by future occupants. The resulting additional car journeys would give rise to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the NPPF which seeks to achieve a sustainable pattern of development having regard to the location of development and the accessibility of services and facilities and to support a transition to a low carbon economy.
3) The proposal by reason of the poor outlook from a number of bedrooms and inadequate and poor quality external amenity space the development would not provide a satisfactory standard of residential accommodation for future occupiers of the site and therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies CS1 and QE6 of the Local Plan and the provisions of the NPPF.
4) The proposed development would not reinforce local distinctiveness or enhance the character/appearance of the local area by virtue of the height/bulk/plot coverage proposed. The proposed development would not harmonise with the scale or proportions of existing buildings adjoining or the wider semi-rural location within which it would be located and would visually damage the existing character of the area to the detriment of local residents and surrounding countryside. The development therefore conflicts with Policy QE7 of Warrington Borough Councils' Local Plan Core Strategy and the relevant sections of the NPPF.
The Planning Studio Page 3 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
1.9 Before dealing with the grounds for appeal and appellant’s case for the proposed development, to assist the Inspector to consider the site’s contextual information, these as stated below.
Site & Surroundings
1.10 The Inspector is directed to Sections 2.1 to 2.13 of the TPS Planning Statement.
1.11 Please note the comment set out in section 2.4 in relation to the relationship between the built-up part of the site and the ‘paddock’, which whilst it is acknowledged as being a paddock area, it was formerly used for storage in association with past commercial uses at the site and as the site is one contiguous unit, it is the appellant’s submission that one could make the case that this site as a whole is previously developed land – this will be considered in greater detail in Section 4 of this Statement of Case.
1.12 We also draw attention to the factual information regarding the site’s proximity to local village services in Rixton, which is accessible directly from the appeal site via a pedestrian footway with lighting, and the bus stop located some 50m from the site entrance.
1.13 The site details and locational aspects of the site in relation to accessibility to local shops and services and public transport provision will be set out in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG.)
Planning History
Appeal Site History:
1.14 It is relevant to note that the appeal application follows on from a refusal of planning for a similar development (planning application ref: 2015/26873).
1.15 The appeal development was amended in terms of scale, design and layout to address matters raised in the refusal of planning application ref: 2015/26873, including in relation to highway matters, sustainability and parking.
1.16 The appeal scheme was carefully prepared and designed to provide the relevant supporting justification for the proposed development, which includes addressing the question of appropriateness, with reference to national and local policies.
1.17 The planning history details for the site will be confirmed in the SoCG.
The Planning Studio Page 4 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
Materially Relevant Planning History – Warrington BC
1.18 We will be making reference by way of materially similar issues and the manner in which a similar nursing care home development was granted elsewhere in Warrington just 2 months after the appeal scheme was originally refused planning permission in 2015.
1.19 In the ‘precedent’ scheme (Rose Villa, Penkford Lane, Collins Green – see Warrington BC application ref: 2015/25250) the Council accepted the development as limited infill, and on that basis they concluded that it complied with policy CC1 of the WCS and the NPPF relating to limited infilling.
1.20 In the relevant Sections of the ‘TPS Planning Statement’ (Section 4.28 in particular) and further discussed in Section 4 in this Statement of Case, we do ask the Inspector to come to a view as to whether there is a reasonable argument to support the proposition that the propose development could be considered as limited infilling, using the same logic and approach taken in the Rose Villa case (noting of course that each application is considered on its merits).
Details of the Proposed Development
1.21 Full details of the proposed development are set out in the Shack Architects plans and Design & Access Statement and summarised in Sections 2.18 to 2.27 of the ‘TPS Planning Statement’. These will be listed and confirmed in the SoCG.
1.22 The land use classification of the proposed development will be Class C2 Institutional Care.
1.23 The scheme is designed specifically to support dementia care provision.
1.24 To complement the proposed 74 dementia care bedspaces, the plans show the building will provide supporting facilities for the residents including communal lounges, dining, laundry, salon and on-site cinema.
1.25 These are important support services that help to give dementia care residents the quality of accommodation they require not just in terms of bedspaces but also to help them enjoy living life to the full, albeit with specialist care support team to help them to settle into the bespoke accommodation provided.
1.26 The scheme also provides for car parking (provision as noted in the amended proposed site plan) and for a goof level of outside amenity space that will be secure for residents with appropriate management /care worker supervision.
The Planning Studio Page 5 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
2.0 Planning Policy Context
2.1 Section 3.0 of the ‘TPS Planning Statement’ provides a summary of the relevant national and development plan policies for the site and proposed development.
2.2 It is agreed that the site is in the Green Belt.
2.3 Sections 3.1 to 3.17 of the ‘TPS Planning Statement’ notes the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF/Framework), which are the policy references taken from the July 2018 version of the NPPF.
2.4 The NPPF was updated with further changes made to national policy in the February 2019 version of the NPPF, although it there were few changes from the listed policy sections noted in the ‘TPS Planning Statement’.
2.5 The Inspector will be aware of the current version of the NPPF (February 2019), and appellants are encouraged not to repeat all policy sections of the NPPF.
2.6 In this Statement of Case, we ask the Inspector to note the policies of the NPPF as provided in Section 3 of the ‘TPS Planning Statement’, also of those NPPF policies referred to in email correspondence with the Council (See Appendix TPS/01), and references to relevant NPPF policies noted in the respective sections of the ‘Grounds for Appeal’ as set out in Section 4 below.
2.7 In relation to the statutory development plan, this is the Warrington Core Strategy adopted in 2014, save for housing allocations and distribution policies which were quashed by the High Court.
2.8 Relevant policies of the Warrington Core Strategy are listed in Section 3.20 of the ‘TPS Planning Statement’ and on Page 4 of the officer’s ‘delegated report’.
2.9 Relevant policies as agreed between the parties will be set out in the SoCG, and additionally, policies considered relevant and not agreed will be noted in the respective sections of the appellant’s Statement of Case in Section 4 below.
2.10 Relevant Supplementary Planning Documents and Supplementary Planning Guidance will be listed in the SoCG and are those noted in page 4 of the officer delegated report.
The Planning Studio Page 6 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
National Planning Guidance (NPG)
2.11 The Council does not engage with any aspects of the NPG in the officer delegated report.
2.12 In email correspondence dated 13th September and 23rd August 2019, the appellant made the Council aware of an appeal decision granted for a proposed 110 bed Extra Care development, which made direct reference to the NPG, specifically to the advice of paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 63-002-20190626.
2.13 The relevance and application of the principles and decision approach in the Cheshire West & Chester Appeal Decision (Pins Ref: APP/A0665/W/18/3203413) will be considered fully in the respective part of Section 4 below.
2.14 "The provision of appropriate housing for people with disabilities, including specialist and supported housing, is crucial in helping them to live safe and independent lives. Unsuitable or unadapted housing can have a negative impact on disabled people and their carers. It can lead to mobility problems inside and outside the home, poorer mental health and a lack of employment opportunities. Providing suitable housing can enable disabled people to live more independently and safely, with greater choice and control over their lives. Without accessible and adaptable housing, disabled people risk facing discrimination and disadvantage in housing. An ageing population will see the numbers of disabled people continuing to increase and it is important we plan early to meet their needs throughout their lifetime." NPG, Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 63-002-20190626: Revision date: 26 June 2019
Other Material Policy Considerations – Government Policy for Dementia
2.15 Prime Minister’s Dementia Challenge 2020 and Implementation Plan was issued in 2015 to set out national priorities for delivering greater care outcomes, support and decent services for those suffering from and living with dementia and their carers.
2.16 The PM’s Dementia Challenge policy document is the Government’s agenda to improving dementia care facilities and services in the UK and the 18 priority challenges set down as ‘Commitments’ in the associated Implementation Plan. There are 3 commitments which are considered to be most relevant:
2.17 Commitment 6: All hospitals and care homes meeting agreed criteria to becoming a dementia-friendly health and care setting.
The Planning Studio Page 7 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
2.18 Commitment 9: Over half of people living in areas that have been recognised as Dementia Friendly Communities, according to the guidance developed by Alzheimer’s Society working with the British Standards Institute. Each area should be working towards the highest level of achievement under these standards, with a clear national recognition process to reward their progress when they achieve this. The recognition process will be supported by a solid national evidence base promoting the benefits of becoming dementia friendly.
2.19 Commitment 11: National and local government taking a leadership role with all government departments and public sector organisations becoming dementia friendly and all tiers of local government being part of a local Dementia Action Alliance.
3.0 Appellant’s Statement of Case and Response to the Reasons for Refusal
3.1 The Appellant’s Statement of Case comprises of supporting information set down in this Statement and in particular the assessment of the proposed development taking account of all information from the following:
• TPS Planning Statement – submitted with the planning application.
• Addendum Statement (Sequential Assessment) – submitted with the planning application.
• Additional Information Note – dated 5th February, 2019.
• Information Letter – 25th September 2018.
• Information provided in the email correspondence to the Council (copied into Appendix TPS/01 – in particular, emails dated 13th September 2019, 23rd August 2019 and 15th February 2019.
• Knight Frank ‘Planning Needs Assessment’ Report (July 2020).
• Knight Frank ‘Planning Needs Assessment’ Report (Executive Summary)
• Shack Architects Design & Access Statement
• Shack Architects Scheme Plans & Landscape Master Plan
• Shack Architects Views Analysis (July 2020)
• Email correspondence issued to Warrington BC – see copies contained in Appendix TPS/01.
The Planning Studio Page 8 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
3.2 In addition to the above documents and plans, the appellant’s case is supported by the suite of technical reports and surveys that accompanied the planning application – these being as listed over-page.
• Drainage Layout Plan – Tier Consulting
• Noise Assessment – Red Acoustics (Updated)
• Transport Statement, Technical Note & Travel Plan – Vectos
• Care Home Provision – Demand & Supply Assessment - Jones Lang Lesalle
• Letter of Interest for delivering a care home to meet specific dementia care requirements (Eric Wright Healthcare Group)
• Biodiversity/GCN survey/report – Pennine Ecology
• Letter from Harbour Healthcare – Nursing Care Home Operator (Prospective operator for the appeal scheme if allowed).
3.3 In the planning submission and post-submission correspondence with the Council, the appellant has referred to a number of materially relevant appeal decisions and we respectfully ask that these be considered in support of the appellant’s case.
3.4 Below is the list of appeal decisions referred to and a summary note as to why they are relevant and the context in which they have been submitted to the Council.
APP/A0665/W/18/3203413 - Beechmoor Garden Centre, Whitchurch Road, Great Boughton, Chester CH3 5QD –
This appeal decision was provided as part of an email dated 23rd August 2019 (see page 11 of the email correspondence copied in Statement of Case Appendix TPS/01) regarding the relevance and importance of the NPG advice (relating to housing for people with disabilities and specialist housing being crucial).
APP/H2265/W/18/3202040 - Land to the rear of 237-259, London Road, West Malling, Kent ME19 5AD
This appeal decision was issued to the Council as part of correspondence in ‘Additional Information Note’ dated 15th February, 2019. The relevance of this appeal decision is noted in the Additional Information Note.
The key points being the site was edge of village centre, the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year land supply (same issue in Warrington). The Inspector noted harm to the Green Belt and considered other material considerations including contribution the scheme would make to releasing housing to the open market,
The Planning Studio Page 9 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
information demonstrating the needs being met by the development, benefit to health and wellbeing of residents – all of which were taken to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt.
APP/P3420/A/14/2222484 – Land adjacent to 48 High Street, Rookery, Newcastle under Lyme, Staffordshire
This appeal and the appeal decision at Moor Lane, Hapsford were both referenced within the TPS Planning Statement – see Sections 4.12 to 4.23 dealing with issue of limited infilling within villages.
APP/A0665/W/15/3016547 - Land Opposite Holly Mount Cottage, Moor Lane, Hapsford, Chester
Ditto
APP/R0660/A/12/2174710 – Twemlow Lane, Twemlow, Holmes Chapel, Cheshire
This appeal was referred to a further information letter dated 25th September, 2018 (please see page 8 therein) in which the issue of sustainability and accessibility to local services is considered. The point being made is that appeals have granted development for housing in less accessible locations.
3.5 A full set of the aforementioned relevant appeals are submitted as part of the appeal documentation for reference.
Is the Appeal Scheme Appropriate Development in the Green Belt?
3.6 The appellant’s case begins with the proposition that there is sound logic to test the question as to whether the proposed development fits one of the categories of the ‘appropriate development’ in the Green Belt.
3.7 Paragraph 145 of the NPPF lists categories of development that is considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt, and which would by definition would not cause harm to the Green Belt or affect the 5 purposes for including land in the Green Belt.
3.8 Under paragraph 145, of particular relevance to this appeal, the possible options for appropriate development are: – para. 145(e) limited infilling in villages and para. 145(g) limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land in which there is no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
3.9 These are all addressed in detail in the ‘TPS Planning Statement’ and as they form the crux of the Council’s opposition to the proposed development, the question of
The Planning Studio Page 10 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
appropriate development will be further addressed in Section 4 of this Statement of Case in relation to the rebuttal of the Council’s first reasons for refusal.
3.10 In the planning submission for the proposed dementia care development on the appeal site it was submitted that there are credible grounds to support an argument that the proposed development is appropriate development in the Green Belt.
Limited infilling within Villages (NPPF, paragraph 145(e))
3.11 The appellant’s case argues that the proposed dementia care development could be considered appropriate development by reason that it could be argued by reference to the information provided in the ‘TPS Planning Statement’ and the relevant appeal decisions (Moor Lane, Hapsford and High Street, Rookery, Newcastle Under Lyme) that the proposal represents limited infilling within a village.
3.12 Sections 4.12 to 4.23 of the TPS Planning Statement sets out the basis for the contention that the proposal would be located in an area which functions as part of the nearby village of Rixton.
3.13 A village is a term that is not defined in the NPPF and can include settlements that are not a designated centre in an adopted local plan and to settlements that are served by the local services of a nearby village.
3.14 The fact that the site is directly linked to Rixton through a continuous lit footpath and beyond it is linked to Cadishead and Hollins Green where there is a range of village services and facilities including school, local shop/post office, pubs, recreation ground, church and within 500m from the site via Dam Lane is the railway station at Glazebrook.
3.15 Furthermore, there is public transport links from the site to these locations and beyond, where bus services run an hourly service along the A57 Manchester Road.
3.16 The site itself is visually part of the surrounding development at Chapel Lane and the housing area to the north at Claydon Gardens. It is not an isolated site within the Green Belt and whilst there are noticeable gaps between various developments between the site and Rixton village, it is reasonable to read the site as being part of Rixton village
3.17 On the basis of the above, and the more detailed analysis set down in paragraphs 4.12 to 4.23 of the ‘TPS Planning Statement’, the appellant we would suggest that it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the proposed development is limited
The Planning Studio Page 11 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
infilling within a village, adopting the principles set down in the submitted appeal decisions for Rookery, Newcastle Under Lyme and Hapsford, Chester.
Limited Infilling (NPPF, paragraph 145(g))
3.18 The concept of limited infilling is also not defined in the NPPF although policy CC1 of the Warrington Core Strategy sets out the context for considering limited infilling.
3.19 Sections 4.23 to 4.30 of the TPS Planning Statement sets out the case for the appeal scheme to be considered as ‘limited infilling’. The Inspector’s attention is directed to policy CC1’s criteria for limited infilling, which states that “new build development may be appropriate development where it is of appropriate scale, design, and character in that it constitutes a small break between existing development which has more affinity with the built form of the settlement as opposed to the openness of the Green Belt”.
3.20 In Section 4.27 of the TPS Planning Statement the issue of ‘rounding-off’ is discussed in the context of limited infilling as defined by policy CC1 of the Warrington Borough Core Strategy. This is discussed in relation to a very substantial ‘L’ shaped building allowed to form an extension to an existing nursing care home at Rosevilla, Burtonwood in Warrington (planning application ref: 2015/2250).
3.21 We highlight the Rosevilla case, as whilst the application plans show it be a very substantial extension to an existing residential care home, the Case Officer Delegated Report confirms that the Council’s assessment of the Rosevilla development was not as an extension, rather it was considered to be ‘rounding-off’, surrounded by development which was assessed with reference to policy CC1 of the Warrington Core Strategy.
3.22 The Inspector’s attention is drawn to page 8 of the submitted Case Officer Delegated Report for the Rosevilla development. The analysis set out in page 8 of the Case Officer report shows that the appraisal was not undertaken as an extension in the Green Belt, rather it was through direct reference to the key parts of policy CC1 of the Core Strategy – scale, small break between existing development and affinity with built form.
3.23 The appellants submission set down in paragraphs 4.27 to 4.30 of the ‘TPS Planning Statement’ sought to draw a comparison with the Rosevilla development as it shows that a large site (Rosevilla site is 0.42ha) with open fields to one side and built development to another, bordered by a railway was considered to be rounding off and consistent with the key parameters of policy CC1 of the Core Strategy.
The Planning Studio Page 12 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
3.24 The Inspector is asked to look at the scheme details for the Rosevilla development to help draw comparison – copy of which is reproduced in pages 11 to 14 of the Case Officer Delegated Report (copy of which is submitted with this Statement of Case).
3.25 The submission we make is that there is material similarities between the Rosevilla development and the proposed dementia care development at Rixton (appeal scheme). This is seen in the size and scale of the development, the relationship of the development with adjacent existing development (small break), and affinity with surrounding built form rather than the openness of the Green Belt.
3.26 In the appeal scheme, the site has similarities to Rosevilla in the size of the site and the relationship that the site holds with adjacent development and a busy transport route (in the appeal scheme the boundary of the site abuts the A57 road).
3.27 To assist in making a direct comparison between the Rosevilla scheme and the appeal scheme, please refer to the aerial image and site plan of the site shown in Appendix TPS/02 and relate this with the site plan and plans for the proposed development on the appeal site before drawing the comparison with the Rosevilla scheme details shown in pages 11 to 13 of the submitted Case Officer report.
3.28 The Rosevilla case is referred to in the ‘TPS Planning Statement’ as a materially similar application which demonstrates that the Council has supported and approved a large development (akin to the scale of the proposed appeal scheme development) as a form of rounding-off and used the criteria of policy CC1 to assess the application to justify its approval of the Rosevilla scheme.
3.29 On the basis that it should be generally agreed between the parties that policy CC1 of the Core Strategy is relevant and is to be considered as a matter of principle of the proposed development, we submit that applying the approach of the Rosevilla case, it would not be unreasonable to come to the view that the proposed development on the appeal site is equally consistent with the parameters of policy CC1 of the Core Strategy and therefore, would meet the policy test of limited infilling (NPPF, paragraph, 145(g)).
The Planning Studio Page 13 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
4.0 Grounds for Appeal – Responding to Reasons for Refusal
4.1 In this section of the appellant Statement of Case, attention will turn to responding to the stated reasons for refusal, following the 4 reasons as set out in the application Refusal Notice ref: 2018/32179 received on 15th January 2020.
Reason for Refusal No. 1 – Inappropriate development, do not accept very special circumstances are demonstrated, development contrary to NPPF and policy CS5 of the Warrington Core Strategy.
4.2 As discussed above, the appellant’s case for the proposed development is that there is credible grounds to argue that the proposal is on a fact and degree assessment of the development having regard to the exemption to inappropriate development set out in Paragraph 145(e) and 145(g).
4.3 We say the development can be considered as being appropriate development taking account of the scheme’s consistency with approach taken to considering limited infilling in villages (which need not be a designated village to comply with the NPPF) and/or the development fits the approach taken in regard to ‘limited infilling’ (para. 145(g), following the Council’s own assessment of the Rosevilla residential care home case – details provided to the Inspector (see Rosevilla Delegated Case Officer Report which also contains plans and details of the scheme in pages 11 to 13 of the Case Officer Report0.
4.4 However, it is acknowledged that a decision maker will come to their own view on the facts of the case and in this regard, the Council has not accepted the substantive argument that the proposal is appropriate development.
4.5 As national policy in the NPPF and policy CS5 of the Warrington Core Strategy confirm that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is by definition harmful and should be refused permission unless there are very special circumstances to justify outweighing the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm caused.
4.6 In the TPS Planning Statement, see pages 31 to 33, Sections 4.131 to 4.133, the appellant’s very special circumstances are set out in detail, and in particular the Inspector’s attention is directed to the 14 numbered points set down within Section 4.133 of the report.
4.7 The Inspector is respectfully asked to consider all of the 14 listed points set down in Section 4.133 of the TSP Planning Statement as providing arguable and credible grounds for very special circumstances in this case.
The Planning Studio Page 14 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
Addressing Need – Issues of Need & Supply
4.8 Perhaps the most significant and important component of the appellant’s very special circumstances is the evidential case that identified there is a clear and demonstrable need for the proposed development.
4.9 The TPS Planning Statement, appraises the evidential need for accommodation for care home spaces and specifically for dementia care needs, through supporting information provided by Jones Lang Lasalle (April 2015 report), information provided by Knight Frank (email of 13th July 2018 - information issued to Warrington BC) and from additional information contained in the TPS Planning Statement which addressed the evidential need through reference to the 2016 update of the Mid Mersey Strategic Housing Market Assessment Report and Warrington Borough Council’s Strategy for an Ageing Population (2005-2015).
4.10 The assessment from the above evidential assessment is set out in Sections 4.40 to 4.73 of the TPS Planning Statement.
4.11 Whilst it is recognised that the information provided in the assessment as set out in the TPS Planning Statement is somewhat dated, it nonetheless has not been contradicted by the Council, save for the fact the Council disputed the Knight Frank assessment information, which was the focus of the Council’s position on the issue of need – as reflected in the Council’s Health Team’s consultation response and the planning officer’s assessment of the need discussed in the Case Officer’s Delegated Report.
The Knight Frank’s Assessment of Need
4.12 Rather than rehearse all of the need assessment that is in any event provided in the TPS Planning Statement (Sections 4.40 to 4.73) and associated supporting documents, it is considered most important for the purpose of the this appeal and discussion at the appeal hearing to focus on the most up to date assessment of need, which for the appellant was initially provided by Knight Frank in their email of 13th July, 2018 and the Council’s response to the Knight Frank information as set out in the Case Officer’s Delegated Report.
4.13 The Inspector will have copies of the Knight Frank Emails (provided as separate documents in the appeal document bundle) and will be provided with a copy of the Case Officer’s Delegated Report.
The Planning Studio Page 15 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
4.14 On behalf of the appellant and following receipt of the Council’s refusal notice and copy of the Case Officer Delegated Report, it was clear that the Council’s Health Team concentrated their assessment of need on the data provided by Knight Frank in the email of 13th July 2018.
4.15 The information provided by Knight Frank was considered to be striking in its relevance and demonstrated a clear need arises for the proposed development, both generally within Warrington and specifically within a 15 minute drive time of the appeal site location. To assist the Inspector, we do consider it important to repeat the finding of the Knight Frank assessment (as contained in their email of 13th July 2018), which is noted in the TPS ‘Additional Information’ Letter dated 25th September 2018, and which is shown below:
• Within a 15 minute drive time of the subject site there is currently a demand for 1,962 care beds (based on a commissioned CACI report for the postcode WA3 6HD).
• Within the same search area there is currently a supply of 1,917 beds showing an undersupply of 45 care beds.
• The undersupply is set to increase to 381 by 2021 and 846 by 2026 assuming that current demand remains the same.
• Of the existing stock there is a large proportion of secondary assets that are not purpose built and do not provide en-suite accommodation in single rooms. There are also a number of homes that are below 30 beds.
• It is our estimation that these homes that provide less than 30 beds are likely to come under increased financial pressure as policies such as the National Living Wage take affect and are will potentially put these homes at risk of closure. As homes close the under supply of care beds is therefore likely to increase.
4.16 On behalf of the appellant Knight Frank commissioned a Glenigan’s report for the postcode which details the potential future developments – see copy submitted to the Council with the TPS ‘Additional Information’ Letter dated 25th September 2019. Of the 13 developments listed only 4 are for new build care homes with the others listed for Extra Care, retirement housing or are extensions to existing care home stock. These will not provide for all the demand that is evident for the requirement for dementia care needs.
The Planning Studio Page 16 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
Updated Needs Assessment - Knight Frank ‘Planning Needs Assessment’ (July 2020)
4.17 As the Council’s Health Team has disputed the Knight Frank’s assessment of need, and given this was critical to the Council’s position that the need requirement was only a “moderate benefit” in terms of very special circumstances, and indeed to provide the Inspector with the most up to date assessment of need, the appellant has commissioned Knight Frank to update their initial assessment of need and to set this out within a documented ‘Planning Needs Assessment’ Report.
4.18 Submitted as a formal part of the appellant’s Statement of Case, we are pleased to issue the Knight Frank Planning Needs Assessment Report carried out in July 2020, and to further assist, there is a separate ‘Executive Summary’ report. We ask that both these documents be taken into account as the appellant’s supporting case to demonstrate that there is a clear evidential need for the proposed development.
4.19 The information contained in the Knight Frank Planning Needs Assessment report will be the focus of discussion at the appeal hearing, with the appellant seeking to highlight the key findings of fact within the Needs Assessment report.
4.20 Rather than pick through the full data contained within the Knight Frank report, we highlight to the Inspector the following key points taken from pages 13 and 14 of the Executive Summary provided in the main report:
• Within the catchment area (15 minute Drive Time) there is an under-supply of overall bedspaces from the supply to meet demand envisaged in the period to 2024 which increases in the 5 year period to 2029. The gap is 599 bedspaces in 2024 increasing to 839 in 2029.
• The under-supply worsens to 706 bedspaces in 2024 and 946 bedspaces by 2029 when one discounts the smaller care homes (30 beds or less), which would not have the capacity and resources to support acute and advanced dementia care needs.
• Within the selected catchment area, elderly population (65+) is above the national average and due to increase by 12% from 2024 to 2029.
• 85% of personal care homes are either converted properties or older purpose built and 78% of nursing homes are either converted properties or older purpose built.
• There are no care home schemes located within the vicinity of the subject site.
The Planning Studio Page 17 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
• Excluding the subject site, within the selected catchment area, there is only one modern purpose built care home development proposed, which is situated in Lymm. The two other schemes are very small extensions to existing facilities.
• When removing existing care home stock with 30 or fewer registered beds and including future supply (excluding the subject scheme) there is a substantial under supply of 946 market standard beds by 2029.
• In the assessment of need within the wider Warrington Borough area (page 14 of the Knight Frank main report), there is an under-supply of 202 bedspaces in 2024, rising to 435 bedspaces in 2029, and this worsens to 254 and 497 respectively when discounting of the smaller care homes.
4.21 The updated planning needs assessment undertaken by Knight Frank provides a cogent and compelling ‘needs’ case for the development. This cannot be disregarded by the Council simply because they wish to focus on its own wider commissioning care strategy which aims to deal with keeping people in their homes.
4.22 There is a growing need for the proposed development, the number of available bedspaces to meet the need is falling, and as the Knight Frank Assessment attest, the situation is only going in one direction – it’s getting worse!
4.23 Added to the above updated assessment, submitted as Appendix TPS/03 is an extract from a news item issued on ‘Wire FM’ in November 2019, at the time the Council was mulling over their view on the application.
4.24 The Wire FM news item reported on an Alzheimer’s Society Research report which recorded that dementia within Warrington “is set to soar” and by 2030, 3,900 people in Warrington will have dementia, an increase of 46%!
The Council’s Position on Need
4.25 The Inspector will note that the Council’s position on need is summarised on page 23 of the Case Officer Delegated report. The officer’s summary accepts that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing and that there is a “a need across the borough for this type of facility”.
4.26 The Council’s Case Officer Delegated Report also accepted that the appeal development would make a contribution towards meeting the “general need” (by virtue of freeing up other housing stock) and provide a purpose built dementia care unit to contribute towards meeting the dementia specific need.
The Planning Studio Page 18 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
4.27 To be fair to the Council, if one reads their position correctly, as set out by in the Case Officer Delegated Report (page 23), they do not suggest there is ‘no need for the proposed development’, as plainly they have confirmed there is.
4.28 The Council’s view on the very special circumstances on the point of need is tempered by the comment in the Case Officer Delegated Report that in the Council’s view the need can be met through the Council's ‘wider commissioning strategy’ that aims at developing additional community and Extra care models that can support individuals with dementia, with the intention of diverting additional demand into alternative services rather than large expansions in care home provision.
4.29 The appellant does not take any issue with the Council’s preference for supporting community based support for people with dementia or indeed for supporting Extra Care models for provision of specialist housing for the elderly with care needs.
4.30 However, such a policy itself cannot in way shape or form hope to deal with all aspects of dementia care needs, and in particular it cannot provide for those people in Warrington who have a need for acute specialist care provision, where the need is for nursing care (not just elderly persons residential care).
4.31 On behalf of the appellant, we welcome a discussion on this aspect of supporting those with acute dementia care needs in more detail at the appeal hearing and debating the issues of need across the range of support from ‘at home’ to acute specialist care accommodation support in purpose built facilities such as the appeal scheme.
Identifying the Need – The View from the Care Sector
4.32 To assist the Inspector, we wish to highlight that the need for specialist dementia care accommodation is most emphatically demonstrated through the personal submissions on the need for a facility of the type proposed in the appeal development as put forward by the prospective developer (Eric Wright Group) and the prospective care facility operator (Harbour Healthcare Ltd) are the people who are at the forefront within the dementia care accommodation provision sector.
4.33 The need for the proposed development was identified by the personal submissions provided to the Council from the prospective developer of the proposed facility Eric Wright Group who develop healthcare buildings in association with the healthcare operator who would manage the facility, in this case being Harbour Healthcare Ltd who own and manage care homes in Warrington and in nearby Parr in St Helens borough.
The Planning Studio Page 19 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
4.34 Both Eric Wright Group and Harbour Healthcare Ltd have engaged with the Council through written submissions, copies of which are provided as part of the appeal bundle and were issued as part of ‘additional information’ contained in TPS Letter dated 25th September 2018.
4.35 Lest there be any doubt as to the need for the proposed development, whilst we have provided ample empirical data and evidenced a need exists, and indeed the Council itself accepts a need exists for the development, it is through the developer and operator’s own local research and knowledge of the local context that the proposed development is seen as a suitable option to meet the need identified by the developer (Eric Wright Group) and Harbour Healthcare.
4.36 Before going on to consider the detail of the evidential needs assessment, I would ask the Inspector in particular to consider the written submissions of Harbour Healthcare who own and manage care homes in the area.
4.37 Within Warrington, Harbour Healthcare own the ‘Old Vicarage’ Residential and Nursing Care Home situated in Burtonwood area of the borough, and they also own and operate a care home at Maddison Court, in Parr over the border from Warrington in the borough of St Helens.
4.38 In support of the application, the Commercial Director of Harbour Healthcare and the Operations Director (who manages the daily operations within the Burtonwood and Parr care home facilities) both provided written support for the application, with letters issued to the Council as part of ‘additional information’ letter dated 25th September 2018. Full copies of the letters from Harbour Healthcare are provided to the Inspector together with the letter of 25th September 2018.
4.39 It is most important to demonstrate that there is not just an evidential need for the proposed development (which is addressed in more detail below), but crucially to understand that the need for the development exists because the evidence from ‘on the ground’, from the operator of an existing care home in Warrington confirms why it is urgent to fulfil the need, which is making life very difficult for residents seeking specialist accommodation for dementia care in Warrington.
4.40 The letter from the Operations Director at Harbour Healthcare, comes from their Burtonwood care home facility who outlines the problems with trying to cater for resident with acute dementia care support and the unsuitability of outdated property. The other letter, from the Commercial Director of Harbour Healthcare, demonstrates a need through a requirement identified in the geographical area in which the site is ideally located to meet the need identified by Harbour Healthcare.
The Planning Studio Page 20 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
4.41 The case made within the two letters from Harbour Healthcare was summarised within the ‘additional information’ letter issued to the Council on 25th September 2018. This information, we believe, is most pertinent, and to assist the Inspector to understand the submissions made direct from Harbour Healthcare, we have outlined them below.
4.42 In the letter from Alison Foreman (15th June 2018), the Commercial Director of Harbour Healthcare not only confirms that they are in advanced stages of contractual negotiations with the developer to operate the facility in Rixton, but also that Harbour Healthcare state that their “high level of interest for the site” arises
“from our knowledge of the geographical area and of the local authorities with whom we would be working. This prior knowledge has given confidence that a need for quality elderly care services exists in the locality. Such a service would negate the need for residents in Rixton and for other small communities close to the site, to relocate to Warrington or south west Manchester to find a care home”.
4.43 In the second letter from Harbour Healthcare (dated 15th August 2018), the Operations Director of their existing premises in Burtonwood (and the Parr care home development in St Helens), sets out some highly material facts regarding the need for dementia care accommodation, which is current in the area, notably:
• The Old Vicarage care home has consistently been at 95% occupancy for most of the 5 years, and our specialist dementia care suites, which we built in the Willows extension 2 years ago are in high demand.
• We purchased the lease at Madison Court in Parr in St Helens in June 2018. Madison Court has also been operating at 95% occupancy for a number of years prior to our purchase of the property.
• We have recently seen a higher demand in dementia nursing care within the local area, and we have realigned both existing services to accommodate demand.
• We regularly are asked for dementia care accommodation which we unfortunately have to turn-away due to shortage of facilities in the care homes we operate in Warrington.
• We as a business are aware of the growing demand for dementia nursing care beds both locally and nationally. There is a clear shortage of specialist dementia care accommodation in Warrington and the surrounding area,
The Planning Studio Page 21 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
particularly where care can be provided to meet the ever-growing stringent regulations for provision of dementia care outside of hospital institutions.
4.44 Of particular interest, the Operations Director of the Old Vicarage, Burtonwood care home confirms that the type of facility proposed in the appeal (Rixton) development “offering enhanced quality of dementia care accommodation to meet current practice standards in a purpose-built building”, would deliver the quality of dementia care accommodation “that’s very much needed in the area, and we very much welcome the opportunity to operate the facility if developed in due course”.
4.45 In addition to the Harbour Healthcare letters of support, the Council was given a letter that from Eric Wright Group’s Health & Care Division (dated 12th February 2018), in which their Commercial Director Christine Winstanley informed the Council as follows:
“Having a requirement to seek demand for specialist dementia beds in and around the Rixton area, we feel this is the strongest available site which suits the needs of the operator and their residents. We have viewed many sites within the locality, which we deemed not fit for purpose due to size/and or location, and we feel confident that we have now identified the right location”.
4.46 Therefore, that all the evidence, both statistical evidential data provide in the Knight Frank ‘Planning Needs Assessment’ Report (July 2020) and from the dementia care sector submissions (from Harbour Healthcare and Eric Wright Group) points to a clear and urgent need for more dementia care accommodation in Warrington.
4.47 It is a need that is expressed by the local healthcare operator as being one that is not being met and the appeal (Rixton) site is the best available opportunity to the need being met. This view is also supported in the Knight Frank report.
4.48 Drawing the needs assessment information to a close, applying the weight to be given to the submitted supporting information, from Knight Frank, from the dementia care sector organisations and noting the startling news item in the Wire FM news item (November, 2019), it is clear that Warrington is facing a soaring demand for care support for people with dementia.
The Planning Studio Page 22 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
4.49 This growing demand and pressure for finding suitable dementia care accommodation will require some urgent actions by all organisations to ensure that people living with dementia can be properly looked after, with those with acute dementia care need being given the opportunity to access specialist accommodation within purpose built facilities as proposed in the appeal development.
4.50 In the appellant’s formal submissions, it is their case that there is an urgent and pressing need to provide more dementia care accommodation facilities, especially modern purpose built nursing home type facilities.
4.51 The evidence provided to the Council in the planning application submission (sequential sites search information) confirms there are no other opportunities within the 15 minute catchment area. And even if there were, there would remain a considerable under-supply of bedspaces, as noted in the Knight Frank Planning Needs Assessment (July 2020).
4.52 The evidential information provided in the planning application submission, and further elaborated within this Statement of Case, with the updated Knight Frank Planning Needs Assessment, we say amounts to a very clear and cogent case that should rightly be afforded very substantial weight in the consideration of the very special circumstances, alongside all the other very special circumstances noted in Section 4.133 of the TPS Planning Statement.
Government Policy – Providing for Housing for Specialist Care Provision
4.53 In the time taken since the submission of the planning application in mid-2018, there have been updated changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Guidance (NPG).
4.54 In the exchange of correspondence, we made the Council aware of the updated guidance in relation to providing housing for people with specialist care needs, both from the requirement of policy advice set down in paragraph 61 of the NPPF and specifically in relation to the updated national planning guidance (see email correspondence dated 23rd August and 13th September 2019, pages 4 & 5 of Appendix TPS/01).
4.55 The NPG sets down the Government's policy for boosting the supply of homes for the elderly and specialist care accommodation to meet disabilities.
The Planning Studio Page 23 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
4.56 The NPG states:
4.57 "The provision of appropriate housing for people with disabilities, including specialist and supported housing, is crucial in helping them to live safe and independent lives. Unsuitable or unadapted housing can have a negative impact on disabled people and their carers. It can lead to mobility problems inside and outside the home, poorer mental health and a lack of employment opportunities. Providing suitable housing can enable disabled people to live more independently and safely, with greater choice and control over their lives. Without accessible and adaptable housing, disabled people risk facing discrimination and disadvantage in housing. An ageing population will see the numbers of disabled people continuing to increase and it is important we plan early to meet their needs throughout their lifetime." NPG, Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 63-002-20190626: Revision date: 26 June 2019.
4.58 The various supporting information we have provided directly from Harbour Healthcare confirming the urgent need for more specialist dementia care provision in Warrington should not be given due consideration and should be afforded substantial weight in the planning balance.
4.59 It is appropriate to take this opportunity to highlight another materially relevant appeal case in the Green Belt, where a proposed 110 bed Extra Care development was allowed in the borough of Cheshire West & Chester in July 2018.
4.60 In the appeal decision letter (Pins ref: Ref: APP/A0665/W/18/3203413), in paragraph 38, the Inspector observed:
4.61 “The Development Plan does not include a specific requirement for housing for older people, and the Council expects all needs to be catered for within the general housing requirement. While the appellant’s figures cannot constitute a formal requirement, they nevertheless give some indication of a level of demand for a specialist form of housing. The PPG states that the need to provide housing for older people is critical”.
4.62 The proposed development at Rixton will meet an urgent need in which the Government states it is “crucial to help them live safe and independent lives”. Of course dementia patients will need close supervision and nursing care but the point is same, they should be given crucial status and their needs should rightly be given substantial weight in the planning balance, either as part of the overall package of planning benefits (in the case of the scheme being agreed as appropriate development), or in the balance of the very special circumstances.
The Planning Studio Page 24 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
Very Special Circumstances – Failure to Demonstrate a 5 year land supply
4.63 In the consideration of very special circumstances, one of the possible factors that comes into the balance, and gives weight to the very special circumstances, is the local authority’s failure to demonstrate a 5 year land supply.
4.64 Warrington Borough Council accepts it cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply, and indeed it could not do so when they determined the appeal application.
4.65 The Case Officer Delegated Report, page 23, confirms the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply.
4.66 However, whilst the Council went on to consider the general need for dementia care facilities and meeting needs expressed in the SHMA would amount to a very special circumstance, the Council come to the position that this only “moderate weight” should be afforded.
4.67 The decision maker has to come to a view as to what the weight should be given to a relevant material consideration. The Council gave only limited weight to the issue of need in the balance that the need would also provide for the release of general market housing, which there was a need, given the 5 year land shortfall.
4.68 However, the Council did not engage fully in the significance of the 5 year land shortfall, and consider whether the failure to demonstrate a shortfall, that may well be of more than marginal shortfall, should have been given more weight in the very special circumstances considerations.
4.69 Having checked with the Council’s latest published Annual Monitoring Report (Published January 2019), there is no analysis of what the Council’s rolling 5 year land supply position is. The report takes one through the supply of sites, thus in the 5 year period from 2018, the deliverable supply is stated to be 3555 dwellings. Over a 5 year period, taken at face value, without making allowances for past poor performance and backlog, the supply equates to 711 dwellings per year.
4.70 However, in trying to translate what a 5 year land supply against strategic targets in Warrington might be is difficult to assess as there is no published land supply position statement that considers supply against the annual objectively assessed need.
4.71 In the event that the Council cannot confirm to the Inspector what the current position is in respect of the 5 year land supply, such that one can take a view as to
The Planning Studio Page 25 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
the magnitude of the shortfall, then we do urge the Inspector to give very considerable weight to the lack of a 5 year land supply in this case, and this could well, be grounds of itself to ‘tip the tilted balance’ in favour of the appeal scheme.
4.72 By way of assistance, we did make the Council aware that in the West Malling, Kent appeal decision (Pins ref: APP/H2265/W/18/3202040, copied to the Council as part of the ‘Additional Information’ Letter dated 15th February 2019), it was highlighted in that appeal (paragraph 64) that the Inspector accorded significant weight to the contribution that the development would make to general housing supply given the lack of a 5 year housing supply in the Borough, including through the likely consequential release on to the market of family housing as older residents move to the proposed development.
Reason for Refusal No. 2 – Lack of accessibility to key services and shops, limitations on public transport, increase in greenhouse gases, conflict with NPPF objectives for sustainable patterns of development
4.73 The planning submission addressed the question of sustainability in detail, as it had been raised in the refusal of the 2015 scheme for the site. The Council’s objections seem to be disjointed and make vague assertions with little evidential basis to support them. For example, this reason for refusal criticises the development for leading to an increase in “greenhouses gases” – what evidence is there for such a vague assertion?
4.74 The planning application is supported by an Air Quality Assessment (copy submitted to the Inspector), yet there was in fact no requirement to undertake an assessment as the Council’s own EHO responsible for air quality confirmed in email correspondence that “air quality impact from the development would be negligible and not needed”.
4.75 The REC Air Quality report provides an Executive Summary, which on page 3 of the report confirms the position regarding air quality, which states:
4.76 “Dispersion modelling was also undertaken in order to predict pollutant concentrations across the proposed site as a result of emissions from the local highway network. The results indicated that pollutant levels across the site were below the relevant air quality standards and, as such, the location is considered suitable for the proposed end-use without the inclusion of mitigation methods.
4.77 Additionally, the assessment concluded that overall impacts on pollutant levels as a result of operational phase pollutant emissions were predicted to be not significant.
The Planning Studio Page 26 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
The use of robust assumptions, where necessary, was considered to provide sufficient results confidence for an assessment of this nature.
4.78 Based on the assessment results, air quality issues are not considered a constraint to planning consent for the proposed development.”
4.79 Therefore, given that the Council’s own EHO (Air) and the appellant’s assessment on air quality confirms the position regarding emissions from the development, there is no possible evidence the Council can bring to the appeal hearing to defend its objections to the proposal in respect of the vague assertion that it would led to “an increase in greenhouse gases”.
4.80 One suspects the Council is clutching at straws to bolster its objection to the proposals being in the Green Belt with references to increasing greenhouse gases or conflict with sustainable development objectives for accessing shops and services by means other than by private car.
4.81 The absurd position we faced with the Council is that the prospective operator originally sought to have a car parking provision of 34 spaces, based on their own understanding of visitor and workers travel patterns to these type of developments. However, through the consultation with Warrington Council Highways, the appellant was required to undertake additional survey work and to increase the parking provision, such that it increased from the original 38 spaces to the 47 spaces as proposed in the amended site plan.
4.82 The Council has not objected to the proposals on parking provision and did not raise any concern during the application processing stage regarding air quality, impact on emissions etc. To include such an objection in the reasons for refusal, without any evidence to support such claims, amounts to a misguided judgement and one that means valuable time and resources are having to be put to rebut the objections.
4.83 The Inspector will no doubt invite the Council to evidence what they consider to be the increase in ‘greenhouse gases’, and to evidence what the impact is on air quality when there is no evidence to the contrary.
The Planning Studio Page 27 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
Sustainability/Accessibility
4.84 The Council believes that the development would lead to unnecessary travel by car to the development cite lack of accessibility to the nearby local village shop and services, and they claim the development is not well served by public transport.
4.85 In discussion with the Council on the point of sustainability, it was surprising to hear from the Council’s former highways officer that he did not know that there is a pedestrian link directly from the site to Rixton Village. The footpath is well maintained and is lit along its length to Rixton village. The Inspector is invited to walk the footpath to observe its ease of travel between the site and Rixton.
4.86 Moreover, the Council has completely ignored the assessment of the accessibility of the site by foot to local shops and services, which we draw attention to Section 4.2 of the Vector Transport Statement. A copy of the Transport Statement is provided as part of the appeal documents bundle.
4.87 The Vectos transport assessment uses the established guidelines from the Chartered Institute of Transport for walking access to shops and services – within 2km catchment area.
4.88 Section 4.2 of the Vectos study identifies (Plan 5 appended to the Vectos TS) that within the 2km catchment this includes the whole of the residential areas of Rixton and Hollins Green, as well as extending to Warburton to the south.
4.89 Plan 5 of the Vectos TS also shows the amenities available within the 2km catchment, demonstrating that there is a shop, a post office, two public houses, a community hall and primary school all within a 2km walk catchment.
4.90 In addition, within an 800m catchment there are a number of bus stops and the Vectos TS (Section 4.4) sets down the breakdown of the frequency of bus services, which are within an hour throughout the day and reduce service in the evenings.
4.91 In addition to the bus services, the site has reasonable access to the train station at Glazebrook, which being within 5km, is accessible by cycling and provides an alternative to having to travel by car.
4.92 In relation to cycling provision, the Council criticise the lack of opportunity for cycling as they believe the A57 Manchester road is mainly a large volume traffic through route. However, they fail to have recognised that the A47 is a wide, flat, well maintained highway, long most of its length it is lit and there is no evidence that
The Planning Studio Page 28 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
the A57 is not an appropriate highway for which cycling journeys can be encouraged.
4.93 The Inspector is directed to Sections 4.4, 4.3 and 4.4 of the Vectos Transport Statement for a full understanding of the accessibility credentials of the site, including confirmation of the site being linked by a pedestrian lit footway to Rixton, the site being close to bus stops and bus services, and there is a plan showing access to local services and shops (Plan 5) and catchment area plan showing accessibility by public transport (Plan 7).
4.94 The Council argue that the site is not well served by public transport yet they were given ample evidence that this is not the case as the site is well served by public transport with frequent bus services and has bus stops in the vicinity of the site.
4.95 The Vectos TS provides an ‘A Public Transport Accessibility Analysis’ (Section 4.5). The Council did not dispute the findings of this analysis of the accessibility of the site by public transport, and yet this confirmed that the site is accessible to many surrounding urban areas within the reasonable journey times set out in the public transport accessibility assessment.
4.96 Finally, the Council has never once sought to discuss the submitted Travel Plan, which had they any concerns regarding the accessibility of the site from non-car users, one would have thought it important to seek to engage with the appellant to agree a set of targets and measures within the draft Travel Plan to ensure every possible opportunity is being taken to encourage travel to and from the site through non-car borne transport modes.
Reason for Refusal No. 3 – Issues of poor outlook, substandard external amenity space, substandard accommodation
4.97 The Council officers made a number of suggested design changes to the proposals and whilst they did raise the management and usefulness of the external amenity space, there was no suggestion that it was in overall terms substandard.
4.98 The Council’s concerns seemed to be more to do with supervision of residents who had acute dementia and whether they would be allowed to wander around the external space unsupervised.
4.99 The stated reason for refusal essentially deals with two different aspects of the development – whether any of the proposed bedrooms would have a poor outlook, in which regard the Council mentions bedrooms 29 and 30. And secondly, whether
The Planning Studio Page 29 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
the proposed external amenity space would be of sufficient standard in terms of useable space, quality of space and management of the space.
Issues of Outlook and Amenity
4.100 The Council raises an issue with poor outlook from bedroom no’s 29 and 30, which look out from the rear of the building to the boundary fence that will be installed to the adjacent farmland.
4.101 Bed 30 is 2.1m from the boundary and bed 29 is 2.8m from the boundary. The boundary fence on this side is proposed to be visually permeable to allow views of the adjoining landscape and will be planted to create interest in the view directly from the window.
4.102 The constraints of the site and designing a development that could balance the need to provide larger bedrooms, provide good level of external space, and create an attractive building with car parking and servicing space does sometimes create areas within the development where some bedrooms will not have as much open view as others.
4.103 These are few in number and whilst they are not a preferred way of creating a well- designed accommodation, that does not necessarily mean that they are not desirable to some residents, nor mean that they should be held as a major criticism of the proposed development.
4.104 Bedrooms 20,23,24, 27, 28 and 31 look onto the car park via a private garden/terrace space as mentioned in point 4 above. The fence to these gardens will be designed to inhibit any disturbance from headlights and will have a planted strip between the fence and the car parking spaces. This fence could be designed to have a solid lower part to inhibit headlights and a visually permeable upper part to allow daylight and wider high level views out from the rooms.
4.105 Overall, in amenity terms, it is considered that the proposed development offers a broad range of accommodation within a well-designed building, and should the developer find that any rooms are proving difficult to use, changes post planning would be made, with minor variations being possible through the S73 application route.
4.106 The fact that a couple of bedrooms might have less than desirable outlook, should not create an argument to hold back what it overall an eminently well-designed building set within an equally well-designed landscaped space.
The Planning Studio Page 30 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
External Amenity Space Provision
4.107 The proposal is for a specialist dementia care development which has been designed by the architects to take account of the needs and wellbeing of residents to have access to a private area of amenity space, attractive landscaping and to access an area where they can seek fresh air and comfort of being outdoors when required.
4.108 The submitted landscape masterplan (amended plan ref: 0180/B106/Rev A, illustrates the full extent of the external communal amenity space. This is shown to have two ‘zones’:
zone 1 is the external amenity area forming a courtyard which is separated from the car park and the entrance by parking and landscaping and measures 415m2;
zone 2 is the perimeter areas looking partly at the main road and partly at the green spaces to the north east. This are measures 341m2. In total there is 756m2 of communal space – 10.2m2 per resident.
4.109 Additionally, 10 bedrooms have private external space as well, this measures 7.6m2 and is 2.1m deep from the bedroom wall to the fence.
4.110 The external spaces and landscaped features are considered to be of high quality and designed in a way that gives residents plenty of space to be left along in private (rear spaces to the perimeter) or in managed spaces, such as around the courtyard areas. Both areas will be attractively designed and planted with tactile surfacing to ensure that the residents can feel safe and comfortable within these spaces.
4.111 In truth, we are unsure what specifically is the objection from the Council to the proposed external amenity spaces. The scheme as a whole has been designed using care sector standards for building and outside space provision. The prospective operator, Harbour Healthcare, were particularly welcoming of the proposed landscaped spaces and amenity spaces.
4.112 Overall, with conditions to control the specific landscaping and details of the provision of hard surfaces, and with a management plan for the maintenance and management of the proposed external spaces, it is submitted that these will provide attractive and welcoming outside amenity spaces that are an important part of the overall provision of the purposed built dementia care development.
The Planning Studio Page 31 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
Reason for Refusal No. 4 – Issues of scale, design, out of character and whether the development would amount to harmful impact in design and visual amenity terms, having to the surroundings
4.113 The Council’s objections to the size and scale of the development were fully considered from the refusal of planning of the scheme submitted in 2015.
4.114 The architects, Shack Architects, undertook a design review of the proposed development and made further changes to reduce the scale and massing of the development, create additional design interest and to provide a balance between built form and the landscape setting.
4.115 The appeal scheme has been revised (December 208 amended plans) to reduce the highest parts of the building and create visual gaps across the roofscape to introduce a sense of local identity and a scale of development that is considered to be respectful of the general scale of surrounding developments.
4.116 There is a closer affinity between the proposed building and the scale and form of the adjacent housing in Chapel Lane to the north of the site.
4.117 The basis of the design is to produce a high quality development where new build blocks are designed to integrate well with existing built forms and the wider landscape beyond the boundaries of the site.
4.118 The revised plans and drawings show that the proposed (amended) development will establish a high standard of design for the site, sitting comfortably within the context of the housing to the north and within a comprehensive formal landscaped environment, centred by the courtyard and outside amenity space within the site.
4.119 The scale of the proposed development has been designed to relate to the scale of the existing buildings and takes account (in part) to the floorspace and massing of existing buildings that occupy the site and surround the site.
4.120 Since receiving the refusal of the application, the architects have undertaken a ‘Views Appraisal’ to see how the scale of the development would appear when viewed against the backdrop of the surrounding development and when viewed from points looking across to the site from the surrounding area.
4.121 Submitted for the benefit of discussion during the appeal hearing, we ask the Inspector to review the scheme and using the submitted ‘Views Appraisal’, consider the position from an observer walking past the site or from points where the site can
The Planning Studio Page 32 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
be seen, including gaps in the upper part of Chapel Lane and along the A57 Manchester Road frontage.
4.122 It is demonstrated within the ‘Views Appraisal’ (and from walking in the vicinity of the site) that in the main the proposed development sits comfortably within the confines of the site; it appears respectfully alongside the established housing to the west and north; and, although there would be a visual change when viewed directly from near the site, this does mean that the development would appear so out of character to be an unwelcome addition to the local stretscene, or would cause injury to the wider visual amenity of the area.
4.123 It is evident that the proposed development compares favourably when considered against the existing built form and it would not have any adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
4.124 In relation to design, materials and landscape treatment, the proposed development has evolved through a detailed appraisal of the design and materials of the existing buildings close to the site, including reference to brick and render finishes.
4.125 The landscape treatment, including the permeable surface for the new car park and tree planting will further ensure the visual amenities of the Green Belt are protected as well as providing an attractive environment for the residents of the proposed facility.
4.126 The Design & Access Statement submitted by Shack Architects and the proposed landscape plan shows that the proposal by reason if its high quality design, scale, use of materials and landscaping would be appropriate and would not in any shape or form be harmful in design or landscape terms or would harmful to the visual amenities of the Green Belt.
4.127 The appellant takes issue with the Council in relation to design and scale considerations and overall in design, landscape and visual amenity terms the proposal is considered to be compliant with policies SD1, QE6 and QE7 of the Warrington Core Strategy and design policies in the NPPF (paragraphs 124 and 127).
The Planning Studio Page 33 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
5.0 Conclusions & Applying the Planning Balance
5.1 The principle of the development is considered to be acceptable having regard to Government policy set down in the NPPF, paragraph 145 (e) and (f) – it supports the principle of limited infilling either within villages (not necessarily designated villages within a development plan) or as limited infilling on other sites outside of villages.
5.2 It is the appellant’s case that the proposal by reason of its relating to a site within a location that is served by nearby village shops and services, accessible by a lit pedestrian footway, functions as part of the village of Rixton.
5.3 The site’s local area is Rixton and the development on the site would be part of the Rixton community. This places the site as being part of a village setting for the purposes of paragraph 145(e) of the NPPF (limited infilling within villages).
5.4 Using the approach taken in the appeals provided (Rookery, Newcastle Under Lyme and Hapsford, Chester), it is submitted that the principle of developing the site for the purposes of limited infilling would be consistent with the approach taken elsewhere.
5.5 The other aspect of considering the development within the gambit of ‘limited infilling’ is that the proposal would constitute acceptable ‘rounding-off’ of existing village in the same way that the Council noted for a materially similar scheme at Rosevilla, Penkford Lane, Burtonwood (Warrington BC app ref: 2015/25250).
5.6 Just like the scheme at the Rosevilla site, the appeal site is quite large in comparison to some gap sites, and the scale of development is arguably larger than one would normally see within schemes of limited infilling. However, there is no set standard for assessing the scale of a development promoted through the infilling approach under paragraph 145(g) of the NPPF.
5.7 There is, however, policy CC1 of the Warrington Core Strategy, and the proposed development has been considered against that policy, adopting the same approach taken in the Rosevilla case, which for comparison, one is drawn to the Case Officer’s Delegated Report for the Rosevilla site.
5.8 As set out in Sections 3.22 to 3.29 of this Statement of Case, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the Council’s assessment of ‘rounding-off and its relevance to the application of policy CC1 of the Core Strategy.
The Planning Studio Page 34 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
5.9 Thus, we do conclude that the appeal scheme complies with policy CC1 of the Core Strategy in relation to limited infilling and would meet the policy test of paragraph 145(g) of the NPPF.
5.10 It is considered that on the basis of the case provided in this Planning Statement the case is made that the proposal is development plan compliant and Green Belt policy compliant in the context of the Framework. Unless there are demonstrable significant adverse impacts, the proposal will be considered as sustainable development and the titled balance will apply with the presumption in favour of the proposed development.
5.11 The proposed development is also contended as sustainable development as it fulfils the economic, social and environmental roles required by sustainable development (paragraph 8 of the NPP) and as demonstrated in Sections 4.86 to 4.102 of the TPS Planning Statement.
5.12 There is a clear need for the proposed development, this was originally demonstrated in the Jones Lang Lasalle study of demand and demographics, and in the revised scheme submitted to the Council in 2018, the Knight Frank assessment provided in the email of 13th July 2018 (separate document submitted in the appeal documents bundle), the related Glenigan’s report issued with the Knight Frank email and the personal letters of support provided by Eric Wright Group and Harbour Healthcare, both of whom are very knowledgeable of the dementia care sector.
5.13 As part of this Statement of Case, the appellant has undertaken updated needs assessment, through Knight Frank’s ‘Planning Needs Assessment’ (July 2020). This is the latest assessment to be undertaken and provides a startling statistic – there is a very substantial under-supply of bedspaces for care provision, and within this, take out the smaller care homes (30 beds or less), the under-supply is much worse.
5.14 There is an under-supply of dementia care home bedspaces in the local area right now – and the situation is only going to get worse with the predicted growth in ageing population and in the exponential growth in the incidence of dementia within Warrington (Alzheimer’s Society Report, November 2019, shows 3,900 people in Warrington by 2030 will be living with dementia).
5.15 The proposed development will help meet the identified need and will provide much needed high quality dementia home facilities in this part of Warrington.
The Planning Studio Page 35 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
5.16 The Council accepted a need exists (albeit a general need) and they accepted that the proposed development would help contribute to meeting the needs for specialist dementia care provision (Case Officer Delegated Report, page 23).
5.17 The letter of intent from Eric Wright Healthcare Group confirms the need is for a dementia care facility in the Rixton area, and they have been unable to find any alternative or suitable sites that would meet the need in question.
5.18 The letters from Harbour Healthcare are very important (summary of their comments were set out in Sections 4.41 to 4.45 above). They demonstrate a clear need for modern purpose built dementia care facility in the area around Rixton, that there is a shortage of specialist dementia care bedspaces and the provision within older buildings is not always suitable to meet the needs.
5.19 In the context of meeting the identified needs, the Government in the NPG has made it plain that there is a “crucial and urgent” requirement to provide specialist housing for those with needs, and in this category falls those with dementia care needs. Of course, this should be the case, and as was seen in the Great Broughton, Chester appeal decision, the provision of specialist housing on Green Belt sites can be persuasive in coming to a view on very special circumstances.
5.20 The evidential case for a need for the proposed development is in our view a very substantial very special circumstance, and one that is fully endorsed by Government in recognising the policy objectives of providing purpose built specialist housing for those living with disabilities.
5.21 The appellant undertook an assessment of alternative sites suggested by the Council and other sites we have been made aware of that could potentially accommodate a nursing care home facility. These were provided in the ‘Addendum Planning Statement (Sequential Search) document issued with the planning application documents.
5.22 A review of the 2017 SHLAA and search of identified housing sites in the SHLAA in a 15 minute drive-time of the site confirms there are no alternative sites available to deliver the much needed dementia care facility.
5.23 The Council directed the appellant to consider a large development known as the Omega mixed uses development, a large new development area close to the M62 motorway. In the Omega development an Extra Care scheme was approved in 2015.
The Planning Studio Page 36 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
5.24 The appellant has reviewed the Omega development and can confirm that it is not available for a dementia care development. The need is for purpose built dementia care facility, not an Extra Care development where dementia care needs are minimal and there is often no specialist support for those living with acute forms of dementia.
5.25 The proposed development will deliver a high quality, purpose-built dementia care home that is specifically designed and has bespoke support facilities within the care home to accommodate registered dementia suffers.
5.26 The dementia care home will deliver on two of the key priorities of Government – as set out in the Prime Minister’s Dementia Care Challenges Implementation Plan 2020. Meeting the objectives of the Dementia Care Challenge Implementation Plan is a significant benefit of the proposal, and if contributes to the very special circumstances if required.
5.27 The Council confirmed they cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply, although has not sought to reveal the size of the shortfall, which makes it difficult to come to an informed view as to the significance of the shortfall.
5.28 The Council’s published Annual Monitoring Report (January 2019) identifies the supply of housing within the 5 years but does not show how this is meaningful in the context of meeting objectively assessed needs. In the absence of demonstrating a 5 year land supply, and of any understanding of the magnitude of the shortfall, the appellant concludes that this must create a substantial case for the very special circumstances, should they be required.
5.29 The appeal development offers a well-designed building that will be complemented with attractive landscaping and is considered to represent good design and one that contribute to the design quality in the area, meeting the criteria for well designed buildings and places set down in paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF.
5.30 The Council does not raise any objections in highway term, parking or servicing.
5.31 Various technical reports have been provided (see separate technical reports issued with the planning application and summarised in Sections 4.123 to 4.130 of the TPS Planning Statement, which demonstrate there are no demonstrable impacts from highways, flood risk, contaminated land, noise and drainage.
5.32 It is demonstrated that the proposal is compliant with Green Belt policy of the NPPF and policies CC1 and CS5 of the Warrington Core Strategy. This in our considered
The Planning Studio Page 37 of 38
Appellant Statement of Case Proposed Dementia Care Home Land at Manchester Road, Rixton, Warrington
view places the scheme as being appropriate development in the Green Belt, certainly when following the Rosevilla development approach, and its assessment as ‘rounding-off’.
5.33 The Rosevilla development is of comparable site area and scale of development and was accepted by the Council as being compliant with policy CC1 of the Core Strategy, thus was limited infilling. This, we submit, would be no different when adopting the same approach and analysis to the appeal scheme.
5.34 It is contended that overall there are cogent and compelling planning benefits in favour of the grant of planning permission for the proposed development which outweigh any harm caused by the development. The presumption in favour of the proposed development should be applied in this case and planning permission granted.
5.35 In the event that the Inspector takes the view that the development is not appropriate development having regard to paragraphs 145 (e) and 145(g) of the NPPF and policy CC1 of the adopted development plan, we respectfully submit that the appellant has demonstrated the very special circumstances in order to support the development on the basis that the very special circumstances outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm identified by the Council.
The Planning Studio Page 38 of 38