“Prison Block” retirement apartments plan on former Green Belt land allowed on appeal

CONTROVERSIAL plans for “prison block” retirement apartments on a former Green Belt site at Lymm have been allowed on appeal.

Members of Warrington Borough Council’s Development Control committee had voted to reject the application by McCarthy and Stone for the retirement apartments development on land at Watercress Farm, against officer advice.

The scheme was the third the company have put forward for land at Watercress Farm, off Thirlmere Drive, Lymm. It proposed 36 one and two-bedroom retirement apartments in a part-three, part-two storey building. Previous proposals were for 45 retirement apartments and were opposed by nearly 60 residents and by Lymm Parish Council.
Amended proposals were for 42 homes and the latest scheme was for 36.
Parking for 26 cars was proposed, along with a terrace to provide an outdoor sitting area and interior communal facilities.
Objectors had described the retirement apartments proposal as a “prison block.”

A disappointed Cllr Graham Gowland, Lymm South, who objected to the planned development commented; “It’s not overly surprising that the government inspector approved the application, as currently the focus is on getting houses built. The developer has successfully argued that they can’t make the profit on a luxury flat development and so can’t meet their obligations to provide social housing on site or make a full contribution to provide it elsewhere.
“Homes do need to be built, but given the last development of similar retirement apartments in Lymm are still not full, this is a very regrettable situation.
“We need to ensure the homes people need are built, and not give developers the green light to build for profit.”

In making the decision to allow the retirement apartments the appeal Inspector Sarah Manchester stated the planning application had been refused by the Council contrary to the officer recommendation. After the appeal was made, on 12 December 2024, the Council’s Development Management Committee resolved not to provide any evidence to defend the reason for refusal of the retirement apartments in the appeal.
She went on to say the Council’s officer report additionally identified the need for financial contributions towards compensatory Green Belt improvements, open space and sports facilities, in accordance with LP Policy INF5 and the SPD. However, in view of the agreed viability position, the importance of securing the new health facility and the historic undersupply of affordable housing, the Council’s Local Plan Board agree that health care and affordable housing should be prioritised. Moreover, the neighbouring Bellway Site, which comprises the larger part of the allocated site, does contribute to sports facilities and Green Belt compensation.
“The s106 would ensure that the proposal was not occupied by persons below the age of 60 years, or 55 years if they are or were living with a person 60 years or older. As the proposal would be older people’s housing, and it was considered on that basis, the age restriction would be necessary and it would be directly, fairly and reasonably related to the development.
“There would be a contribution of £36,036 towards the delivery or improvement of the primary health care facility in the Bellway Site. This is equal to the level of contribution established in the SPD. Taking into account that the proposal would be residential development, and specialist older people’s housing, I find the contribution to health care would meet the CIL tests.
“The affordable housing contribution would be £309,936, which is the remainder of the viable surplus following the priority contribution to health care. This would be used towards affordable housing provision within the Council area. This is necessary and directly related, taking into account the high demand for affordable housing, including older people’s housing, in the Borough. Moreover, taking into account the agreed viability position, the level of the contribution would be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
“The s106 secures an Updated Viability Appraisal to assess whether and to what extent there is a surplus over and above the agreed contributions. If there is a surplus, a viability payment up to but not exceeding the maximum affordable housing contribution of £1.7m shall be made to the Council. This is a requirement of LP policy INF5 in cases where development would not be viable if it met the full planning obligation requirements, in order that additional contributions can be secured if viability improves over time. Taking into account the viability position, the review mechanism meets the CIL tests.
“The s106 also makes provision for contributions towards the Council’s reasonable costs related to monitoring compliance with the planning obligations and Biodiversity Net Gain. These are justified with reference to LP policy, the SPD and the Framework. Taking into account the number of obligations, the number of site visits and the duration of the BNG period, I find that the level of contribution is directly related and reasonably and fairly related in scale and kind.
“Finally, the s106 includes an obligation relating to a local employment scheme. This ensures that employment opportunities and related training opportunities are available to local residents, in order that they benefit from economic growth and development in the Borough. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, this would also meet the CIL tests.
“Therefore, drawing all this together, I consider that the planning obligations are necessary and fairly, reasonably and directly related to the development. Although the proposal would not provide 30% affordable housing, having regard to the agreed level of viability and the inclusion of a review mechanism, I am satisfied that the planning obligations would meet the tests in the CIL Regulations.
A full copy of the appeal decision allowing the retirement apartments can be READ HERE