McCarthy and Stone's 58 retirement flats off Back Lane, Cambourne were refused on 13 August, on land with permission for a pub. Two reasons, 61 objections.
McCarthy and Stone’s plan for 58 retirement flats on the empty plot off Back Lane in Cambourne has been refused. South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Planning Committee turned the scheme down at its meeting on Wednesday 12 August, and the formal decision notice was issued the next day, 13 August 2026. (South Cambridgeshire District Council, August 2026 Planning Committee; decision notice, 25/02285/FUL)
The site is the last undeveloped corner of the hotel plot at the entrance to the town, between the Holiday Inn Express and Bramling Apartments, with the lake to the north. It has had permission for a standalone pub and restaurant since 2018, as part of the same consent that built the 144-bedroom hotel. The pub was never built. (committee report, 25/02285/FUL)
What was proposed
McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd applied on 10 June 2025 for a four-storey, L-shaped building 46.5 metres long, containing 58 one and two-bedroom retirement apartments, with a communal lounge, a hotel-style guest suite, mobility scooter storage and 37 car parking spaces in a single row along the east side. The developer’s own consultation material offered the flats for rent, private sale and part-rent-part-buy. (McCarthy Stone consultation page; committee report, paragraphs 3.1, 6.69 and 6.80)
The company already runs one retirement block in Cambourne, Uplands Place on the corner of Monkfield Lane and High Street, approved in 2019 with 54 flats and 37 parking spaces. (committee report, paragraphs 9.2 and 20.7)
Why it was refused
Officers recommended refusal and the committee agreed. The decision notice gives two reasons. (decision notice, 13 August 2026)
1. Overdevelopment. The building was judged “disproportionately large in relation to its plot” and “visually incongruous” in the street scene at the gateway to the town, dominated by parking, short on landscaping, and lacking safe, legible walking routes to buses and the town centre. Officers also found too little private and communal outdoor space for residents, the loss of trees that screen the site from the lake, too few parking spaces, and no adequate plan for bin storage and refuse lorries. The notice cites Local Plan policies HQ/1, NH/4, TI/2 and TI/3, the 2010 District Design Guide and the 2026 RECAP waste design guide.
2. Wildlife. The site sits inside Natural England’s zone of risk for Sites of Special Scientific Interest that are sensitive to visitor pressure, and the application came with no assessment of that pressure, contrary to policy NH/5. Natural England objected on exactly this point.
The parking numbers show how the arithmetic went against the applicant. Policy TI/3 asks for two spaces per home. At Uplands Place the council accepted 37 spaces for 54 flats, a rate of 68 per cent, as reasonable for retirement housing. Back Lane offered 37 spaces for 58 flats, 64 per cent, and McCarthy and Stone’s own survey of car ownership at its other sites suggested 31 would do. Officers said the local Uplands Place figure was the right benchmark, which meant 39 spaces. (committee report, paragraphs 20.7 to 20.9)
Amenity space came up 15 square metres short of the 1,125 square metres the design guide requires for 45 upper-floor flats, 21 of those flats had only a Juliet balcony where the guide asks for a 3 square metre private balcony, and the ground-floor terraces were 5 square metres against a 10 square metre standard. (committee report, paragraphs 6.75 and 6.76)
Who objected
Sixty-two members of the public wrote in, 61 of them objecting. The recurring themes were the loss of the promised pub and community space, an oversupply of retirement flats with unsold units at the developer’s other Cambourne sites, the lack of a pedestrian crossing to reach Morrisons and the town centre, traffic, pressure on the GP surgery, loss of trees and access to the lake, and thin consultation. (committee report, paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2)
Eleven of the 24 consultees objected, among them Cambourne’s town council (listed in the report as the parish council), the county council’s transport assessment team, the district’s urban design, tree, active travel, health and waste officers, Cam Cycle, Natural England and Anglian Water. Anglian Water said the Uttons Drove Water Recycling Centre “currently lacks the capacity” for the extra foul flows and had no funding allocated to fix that in the 2025 to 2030 investment period. The council’s health officer called the submitted Health Impact Assessment “unreadable” and short of any evidence base. (committee report, table 2 and paragraphs 6.12 to 6.13, 6.30 to 6.33)
The town council’s response said the land was “allocated for a public house / community facility”, that “Cambourne needs more social areas”, and that the design was “standard and is not a landmark building as it should be”. It also raised great crested newt habitat, the safety of crossing De La Warr Way for older residents, and the absence of a promised meeting with the developer. (committee report, paragraphs 6.1 to 6.6)
The application reached committee because district councillor Leeming called it in, with the support of Cllr Drew. Cllr Leeming’s representation said Cambourne “would welcome more accommodation tailored to older residents, just not on this site to the detriment of communal facilities”, and that “Cambourne deserves a better view on entry than these plans”. (committee report, paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2)
We could not read the committee minutes or the vote count today: the council’s committee papers site would not serve pages to us. The council’s own summary of the meeting records the decision as refused.
What it means for you
- The plot stays empty for now. The 2018 permission for a pub and restaurant on the land remains extant, but the committee report notes that nothing in that consent obliged anyone to build the pub alongside the hotel, and officers said using the land for something other than a pub was acceptable in principle. Refusal does not bring a pub any closer; it only stops this scheme. (committee report, paragraph 9.1)
- An appeal or a revised scheme is possible. McCarthy and Stone can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate within six months of the 13 August decision, or resubmit a redesigned application. Officers said the site itself, inside Cambourne’s development framework, is acceptable for housing in principle; the objection was to this building. (gov.uk, appeal a planning decision; committee report, paragraph 25.3)
- The council can currently show a five-year housing land supply, so it does not need to lean on schemes like this to meet housing numbers. That weakens the “we need the homes” argument on appeal. (committee report, paragraph 25.3)
- Watch the wider picture. The Proposed Submission Greater Cambridge Local Plan, out for comment until 25 September, sets the policies a fresh application would be judged against. Our story on how to respond to the Local Plan consultation has the dates and venues.
The other decisions on 12 August
The same meeting approved Innova Renewables Developments Ltd’s application for a temporary solar farm and battery storage on land off Low Fen Drove Way at Horningsea (25/01014/FUL), and refused Mr Ruaridh Barnes’ outline application for up to three houses on land west of the primary school on Hurdleditch Road, Orwell (25/03723/OUT). Both decisions are subject to the formal notices being issued; on 16 August the planning portal still showed both as awaiting decision. (South Cambridgeshire District Council, August 2026 Planning Committee; Greater Cambridge planning portal)
For the district’s other live applications and how to comment on them, see our South Cambridgeshire planning news page.
Have your say