Comment

Later Living: Still a misunderstood sector?

Despite a growth in the ageing population, the later living housing and care sector is still misunderstood, no more so than by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs). The recent decision to refuse a later living scheme in Walton-on-Thames is a case in point. Our later living team explore the reasons behind the refusal.

As the UK’s older population continues to grow, the later living housing and care sector has continued to innovate and deliver new types of accommodation beyond the traditional care home. Its aim is to meet not just the basic needs or care requirements of our ageing population, but also deliver on expectations of the best possible quality of life.

However, recent decisions show that the benefits of later living schemes are still not understood by LPAs. The highly publicised decision by Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC) to refuse Guild Living’s later living scheme in Walton-on-Thames is a prime example of this.

The proposals, determined under application reference 2020/0832 in October 2020, would have seen a new later living care complex delivered on the site of a former Homebase at the edge of the town centre. In this case EBC did acknowledge the proposals would constitute a C2 use, something which many later living schemes struggle to have recognised by their LPA, as C2 uses still conjure images of the more widely understood nursing home model. Furthermore, EBC also accepted that the proposals would make a “noticeable contribution” ^[1] to its housing land supply which currently falls below the 5 year requirement at only 3.13 years (unsurprising given the Borough’s policy constraints and location in the Metropolitan Green Belt).

However, in its assessment EBC considered there was no need for additional extra care or nursing care accommodation based on existing provision and future requirements established by the Adult Social Care Directorate at Surrey County Council. Indeed, EBC’s preference was to see the site provide market and affordable housing in C3 use, for which it considered there was far greater local need.

Missing the bigger housing picture

What EBC has failed to fully appreciate, however, is that as older people look to access greater levels of care and generally downsize, they free-up their current home for sale back onto the market. This has the potential to release a significant number of larger family homes into an otherwise broken housing market. In 2011 almost 2.4 million homes throughout England were filled by older households that had at least two more bedrooms than they technically needed; it would be a major surprise if the next census, this coming March, reveals a significant improvement on this front. Surveys repeatedly show that older households are attracted to the idea of downsizing but are too often deterred by a lack of suitable options, which in turn means that some 85% of the larger family homes owned by older people only become available when someone dies ^[2]. This misses a clear opportunity to release these homes sooner, to better meet the needs of older people as well as the many other households in need of additional space.

The economic power of the older population

In its refusal EBC has also cited that the proposals would undermine the vitality and viability of Walton-on-Thames town centre as there would be no direct benefits to the town centre. This is despite the proposed scheme, once completed, employing more than twice the number of full time equivalent employees than the former Homebase did. Concerns focus on the proposals not being of mixed-use that might bring more footfall into the town centre and “attract a younger generation” ^[3]. Indeed, EBC considered that consumer spending by any future residents of the proposals would be focused on residential and care expenditure leaving little money left to spend in the town centre itself.

This unfortunately fails to properly understand the changing behaviour of older households, whose average annual expenditure has grown over the past twenty years – even through the last recession, unlike all younger groups – and is set to exceed the average spend of families (aged 30-49) within the next decade ^[4]. Far from spending only on care and accommodation, the latest official data suggests that 27 pence in every pound spent by a retired person’s household goes towards recreation, culture, restaurants and clothing ^[5]. This expenditure, by households living close to the town centre who are less inclined to shop online, could act as a lifeline to the high street and help to sustain its vitality.

Given the challenges EBC has had in comprehending the scheme in front of them, it is almost inevitable that Guild Living has appealed the refusal of planning permission. A decision on the appeal by the Planning Inspectorate under reference APP/K3605/W/20/3263347 is due to be made in May 2021.

Decisions such as that taken by EBC demonstrate the lack of understanding around the benefits of later living developments and emphasise the need to ensure objective and robust evidence is provided to support these developments through the planning process. Moving forward, we would hope that any decision on the appeal takes a more considered approach to the range of later living accommodation that the sector now offers and recognises the full range of benefits it can bring. Indeed, as we start a new year and the mantra of ‘Building Back Better’ starts to take hold, we all need to give greater consideration to how best to address the full range of housing needs within our ageing population and recognise the role of later living within this. To help our clients with this we have developed Full Life Toolkit, a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to promoting the socio-economic case for later living schemes. Full Life is designed to fully convey the wide range of interlinking benefits generated by specialist housing for older people, for these individuals, the public purse, the NHS, the wider economy and the housing market. More information is available here.

From more information on our work in the later living sector please contact David Murray-Cox.

3 February 2021

[1] Paragraph 9.2.3.5, Officers Report to Elmbridge Borough Council Planning Committee held on 20th October 2020
[2] Demos (2013) The Top of the Ladder
[3] Paragraph 9.2.5.11, Officers Report to Elmbridge Borough Council Planning Committee held on 20th October 2020
[4] International Longevity Centre UK (December 2019) Maximising the longevity dividend, Figure 5
[5] ONS (March 2020) Family spending workbook 4: expenditure by household characteristic