- Decision
- allowed, 2 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Bhupinder Thandi
- Authority
- Warwick (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6007651
- Application reference
- W24/1099
- Procedure
- inquiry
- Development
- Retirement living apartments (McCarthy and Stone) with access, parking, landscaping and ancillary facilities, with no affordable housing or infrastructure contributions on viability grounds
- Site context
- inside settlement, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- s38(6), DM5
- Development plan policies
- Warwick District Local Plan 2017 DM1, DM2, BE3, NZC3
- Main issues
- viability and infrastructure contributions; noise for future occupiers
Summary
McCarthy and Stone retirement apartments in the Heathcote urban extension, Warwick, with no affordable housing or infrastructure contributions. Allowed after an inquiry. Both the appellant's viability assessment and the council's independent review showed a deficit, so nil contributions were justified under local policy DM2. Updated facade noise monitoring and mitigation (acoustic barrier, glazing, MVHR) gave acceptable living conditions. The council withdrew both reasons for refusal before the inquiry.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Following conclusion of the Inquiry a new National Planning Policy Framework ... was published. My decision is made in the context of this revised Framework" (DL ¶4).
- Viability. "both the assessment and the independent review conclude that the scheme is not viable. On the available evidence, I can only reach the same conclusion" (DL ¶12).
- Noise. Upper-floor residents facing Harbury Lane "may experience higher noise levels at certain times of the day if windows are open. However, that would not be particularly unusual for developments located close to busy roads ... Occupiers would also be able to choose whether to use the MVHR system or open windows" (DL ¶20).
- Need. "there is an evidenced need for housing for older people which is likely to become more acute" (DL ¶23).
Planning balance
Plan-led. Accordance with DM1, DM2 and BE3. Benefits were listed (older persons' need, jobs, net zero, BNG) but no weights were assigned. No Framework policy is cited by code.
What made the difference
Viability agreed between the experts, and noise evidence refreshed at the facade. An 18-month "shelf life" for noise surveys was mentioned at the inquiry (DL ¶17). Once the council withdrew its objections the outcome followed. This is a nearby authority (Warwick) accepting nil contributions for specialist older persons' housing on viability evidence.
Transferable points
- Where the council's own independent review agrees a deficit, nil affordable housing and infrastructure contributions can be justified at appeal (DL ¶11-13).
- Noise surveys have a practical shelf life (about 18 months was quoted), and facade monitoring is the "gold standard" (DL ¶17).
- MVHR gives occupiers a choice between ventilation and noise that weighs in favour of accepting upper-floor road noise (DL ¶20).
- A lapsed need for a specific-end-user office permission removes any employment-land objection (DL ¶26).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DM2 (Warwick DLP) | accord | appellant FVA shows RLV ~£0.168m against BLV ~£0.435m (deficit ~£0.267m); council's independent review agrees no surplus; nil contributions justified (DL 7-14); DM5 (Framework viability) mapped by harvester — letter does not cite it | |
| BE3 (Warwick DLP) | accord | updated facade noise monitoring; acoustic barrier, acoustic glazing and MVHR bring ground floor and amenity areas within limits; upper floors "adverse" not "significant adverse" (DL 16-22); P3(2)(a) equivalent, not cited | |
| HO5 | benefit | evidenced local need and shortfall for older persons' housing (Coventry and Warwickshire SHMA 2013, HEDNA 2022) (DL 23-24); no weight stated; code mapped by harvester | |
| E2 | neutral | extant office permission was for a specific end-user who has moved; no certainty of employment use (DL 26); code mapped by harvester |
Key facts
- Council withdrew both reasons for refusal after the updated FVA and noise memo (DL 3)
- Inquiry closed before 17 August; decision made under the 2026 Framework without further consultation (DL 4)
- Net-zero-in-operation design; net biodiversity gain (DL 27)
- Part of the Heathcote urban extension beside a local centre (DL 15)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.