News

McCarthy wins housing appeals

News

Estates Gazette

26 July 1997

by David Sands

McCarthy & Stone, Bri-tain’s largest retirement housebuilder, has won landmark appeals against the imposition of affordable housing in two of its retirement developments in Surrey.

The appeals overturned planning refusals for proposed schemes in Caterham and Epsom. Consent for both projects was originally refused on the grounds that neither scheme provided an integral element of affordable housing nor offered any contribution to affordable housing in their localities, in accordance with the respective local authorities’ interpretation of government guidelines on the provision of affordable housing.

McCarthy & Stone’s contention in both appeals was that the guidelines – most recently set out in DOE Circular 13/96 – were never meant to be applied to rela-tively high-density, needs-based sheltered housingdevelopments.

Gary Day, director of The Planning Bureau, the housebuilder’s consultant, said: “McCarthy & Stone’s plans to build a development of 42 retirement flats at Epsom was originally turned down solely on affordable housing grounds.

“The inspectors’ decision vindicates our strong belief that planning guidelines on affordable housing are being widely misinterpreted. They were never intended, in our view, to apply to a form of specialised housing such as sheltered housing, which already meets a specific and identified local need.”

The developer’s first appeal, over Tandridge council’s refusal to grant consent for a development of 49 private sheltered flats aimed at independent over-60s in Cater-ham, was heard earlier this hear. The scheme’s lack of an affordable housing element was one of the grounds for Tandridge council’s refusal.

At the appeal, the DOE inspectors said that sheltered housing should not be “burdened” or “encumbered by the need to assist legitimate affordable housing needs of the whole local community”.

The developer’s chairman, John McCarthy, commented: “These appeal results are landmark decisions… They clarify the government’s policy in that affordable housing is only meant to apply to large-scale schemes.”

by David Sands McCarthy & Stone, Bri-tain’s largest retirement housebuilder, has won landmark appeals against the imposition of affordable housing in two of its retirement developments in Surrey. The appeals overturned planning refusals for proposed schemes in Caterham and Epsom. Consent for both projects was originally refused on the grounds that neither scheme provided an integral element of affordable housing nor offered any contribution to affordable housing in their localities, in accordance with the respective local authorities’ interpretation of government guidelines on the provision of affordable housing. McCarthy & Stone’s contention in both appeals was that the guidelines – most recently set out in DOE Circular 13/96 – were never meant to be applied to rela-tively high-density, needs-based sheltered housingdevelopments. Gary Day, director of The Planning Bureau, the housebuilder’s consultant, said: “McCarthy & Stone’s plans to build a development of 42 retirement flats at Epsom was originally turned down solely on affordable housing grounds. “The inspectors’ decision vindicates our strong belief that planning guidelines on affordable housing are being widely misinterpreted. They were never intended, in our view, to apply to a form of specialised housing such as sheltered housing, which already meets a specific and identified local need.” The developer’s first appeal, over Tandridge council’s refusal to grant consent for a development of 49 private sheltered flats aimed at independent over-60s in Cater-ham, was heard earlier this hear. The scheme’s lack of an affordable housing element was one of the grounds for Tandridge council’s refusal. At the appeal, the DOE inspectors said that sheltered housing should not be “burdened” or “encumbered by the need to assist legitimate affordable housing needs of the whole local community”. The developer’s chairman, John McCarthy, commented: “These appeal results are landmark decisions… They clarify the government’s policy in that affordable housing is only meant to apply to large-scale schemes.”