58 retirement apartments at Land Off Back Lane, Cambourne

What was proposed

The application sought 58 retirement living apartments with access, parking, landscaping, ancillary facilities and associated works.

“25/02285/FUL – Land Off Back Lane Cambourne Cambridgeshire Application details Report to: Planning Committee Lead Officer: Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development Ward/parish: Cambourne Proposal: Erection of 58 No. Retirement Living apartments with associated access, car parking, landscaping, ancillary facilities, and associated works.”

“Recommendation: Refuse Report contents Document section Document heading 1 Executive summary 2 Site description and context 3 The proposal 4 Relevant site history 5 Policy 6 Consultations 7 Third party representations 8 Member representations 9 Planning background 10 Assessment 11 Principle of development 12 Health Impact Assessment 13 Housing provision 14 Design, layout, scale and landscaping 15 Trees 16 Carbon reduction and sustainable design 17 Biodiversity 18 Water…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant site lies south-west of Back Lane, beside a hotel, apartments, residential and commercial units, and a pond, within Cambourne’s development framework.

“The site is currently a vacant plot which lies to the south west of Back Lane. To the south east lies the Holiday Inn Express, to the west lies Bramling Apartments and a mixture of residential and commercial units on Broad Street. To the north lies a pond. The site is located within the Cambourne Development Framework and is within Flood Zone 1. There are no other relevant constraints on the site.”

“Table 2 Consultee summary 2. Site description and context 2.1 The site is currently a vacant plot which lies to the south west of Back Lane. To the south east lies the Holiday Inn Express, to the west lies Bramling Apartments and a mixture of residential and commercial units on Broad Street. To the north lies a pond.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and advice

The site has permission for a pub and restaurant, while the hotel was built; earlier applications and pre-application advice were also recorded.

“The site currently benefits from permission for a restaurant and pub which was approved under S/0383/18/FL which was for the construction of 144 bedroom hotel, standalone restaurant/pub and associated parking and hard and soft landscaping. Although both the pub and hotel were sought on one application, it was proposed by two different developers. The hotel has since been erected; however, no work has started on the pub/restaurant. As such, the pub has extant permission.”

“The site also benefits from a pre-application where advice was sought after on a similar development to the one proposed under this application (25/02285/FUL). 10. Assessment 10.1 From the consultation responses and representations received and from an inspection of the site and the surroundings, the key issues are:”

Officer report

What residents said

Most representations opposed the scheme, citing lost community facilities, demand, traffic safety, design, construction, biodiversity, healthcare pressure and engagement concerns.

“Those in objection have raised the following issues: • Loss of a promised pub/wider community amenities • There is an oversupply of retirement homes and a low demand • Traffic and crossing safety concerns due to lack of pedestrian crossing areas • Construction impacts on neighbouring properties and hotel…”

“Design is not suitable at the gateway site and would have adverse visual impacts • Loss of public access to neighbouring lake • Loss of nature and biodiversity • The proposal would put pressure on the local GP • Insufficient local engagement has taken place • There are unoccupied units at other McCarthy and Stone sites • Undelivered pedestrian crossing at neighbouring McCarthy and Stone site…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee considered written objections and heard objections from the town council representative and two ward councillors.

What members discussed

Members discussed the housing land supply, the building’s scale and design, tree removal, room sizes, parking and whether anything supported overturning refusal.

“During debate the Committee considered the following issues: i. A committee member advised that they hadn’t heard anything which in their view would support an overturn of the officer recommendation. The Council had a 5-year housing land supply. ii. The design in terms of size and scale wasn’t appropriate for the location as a key access point to Cambourne. Did not believe glass balconies were appropriate. iii. The proposed removal of trees to make room for the development.”

“The Delivery Manager summarised the recommendation of refusal set out on p160 of the agenda with the addition of delegated authority to officers to make minor amendments to the reasons for refusal, noting the amendment to reason for refusal 1 which was set out in the Amendment Sheet.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee unanimously voted for the officer recommendation to refuse the application, with delegated authority for minor changes to refusal reasons.

“By unanimous vote in favour of the officer recommendation of refusal, the Committee refused the application for the following reasons: i. The proposed development, by reason of its excessive scale, bulk and intensity of development, would represent an overdevelopment of the site.”

Minutes

What was decided

The application was refused because the scheme was overdeveloped, poorly integrated, lacked adequate access, amenity, parking and waste provision, and risked landscape harm.

“Planning Committee Wednesday, 12 August 2026 the loss of existing trees that contribute to the character and visual screening of the site, resulting in harm to local landscape character. The proposal also fails to provide satisfactory levels of car parking and does not demonstrate adequate provision for refuse storage, collection and servicing.”

Minutes

Ecology refusal reason

The committee also refused because recreational-pressure impacts on protected sites had not been assessed.

“In the absence of an assessment of recreational pressure impacts, the proposal is contrary to policy NH/5 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) and paragraphs 187,193 and195 of the NPPF (2024); and iii. Delegated authority to officers to make minor amendments to the reasons for refusal.”

Minutes