Appeal to Planning Inspectorate over rejection of retirement village plans for Anstey Hall in Trumpington
An appeal has been launched to overturn the refusal of planning permission for 87 retirement flats in the grounds of the 17th-century Anstey Hall.
Cambridge City Council has twice rejected the plans over concerns about the impact on the historic hall.
But owner John de Bruyne says the ‘retirement village’ would help secure the long-term future of the grade II*-listed building.
Rejecting the latest application, the council said the development would “significantly encroach into existing protected open space”.
It concluded: “By virtue of the accommodation blocks’ incongruous design and appearance, the proposal would fail to appropriately relate to Anstey Hall in terms of their design, siting and scale, resulting in adverse impacts upon the character and appearance of Trumpington Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building.”
Developer Trumpington Investments Ltd has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, explaining the flats would provide the funding needed to maintain Anstey Hall and its outbuildings, where an estimated £1.1million of restoration work is needed.
“With the owner John de Bruyne now 80 years old, we need to decide on a long-term use that will ensure that Anstey Hall can continue,” the statement said.
“Our plan is to incorporate a retirement community into the ‘development land’ to the south.
“This will allow Anstey Hall to serve as the central facilities for the 87 two-bedroom apartments. It will generate funds to complete the renovation of the house and outbuildings.
“The revenue will fund the ongoing maintenance of the buildings and grounds in perpetuity.
“Anstey Hall has a growing schedule of community meetings, and our proposal includes exploiting the existing art collection as the basis for an institution similar to the much-valued Kettle’s Yard.”
The statement argued it was “well documented” that there has been a “significant growth in the population of elderly people” and the importance of more private housing with care for elderly had been emphasised in “recent government literature and studies”.
It added: “After having reconsidered our case and the evidence of our experts in their specialist reports, we believe that the council has attributed a higher order of protection to the open space, to this part of the conservation area and to the setting of the listed building than is justified.
“In doing that, the council considered that there is a greater level of harm than our specialist experts have identified in their reports on landscape and heritage.
“And the council has not given appropriate weight to the substantial public benefits, which in our opinion outweigh any less than substantial harm.”
A planning inspector will make the decision on whether the development can proceed, after reviewing the plans and the arguments on both sides. A decision date has not been set, but it is not expected before May.
