The recent refusal of a proposed 90-home retirement community in Elstree highlights a continued misalignment between planning policy and the UK’s growing need for specialist later living accommodation.
The scheme sought to deliver 90 extra care units within a purpose-built retirement community, designed to support independent living alongside optional care provision. Developments of this kind are widely recognised as a key component of the UK’s response to demographic change, offering an integrated model that enables older residents to “age in place” in a safe, community-led environment.
Despite a recommendation for approval from planning officers, who concluded that the scheme’s benefits outweighed any identified harm, the application was refused by Hertsmere Borough Council’s planning committee. It appears that the decision was driven primarily by concerns over Green Belt impact and whether the proposal sufficiently demonstrated “very special circumstances” to justify development.
From an operator perspective, the outcome is symptomatic of a wider structural challenge. While local authorities might acknowledge the need for specialist housing for older people, the planning system often struggles to translate that need into deliverable sites – particularly in areas where land supply is constrained by Green Belt or other protective designations, when the need and benefits arguments become ever more important.
Developments such as the Elstree scheme are often not speculative; they are intended to respond directly to demonstrable and growing need. Data referenced in the decision-making process in this particular example identified a projected shortfall of extra care housing in the area, expected to reach 126 units by 2027 and increase significantly over the longer term. Still, however, it is reported that the need was questioned by the planning committee.
As the UK’s population continues to age, Integrated Retirement Communities (IRCs) are increasingly viewed by operators and policymakers alike as a critical part of social infrastructure with benefits extending beyond housing delivery:
- Health and care – supporting prevention and reducing pressure on NHS and local authority services by enabling people to “age in place”.
- Housing supply – unlocking under-occupied family homes as residents downsize.
- Economic contribution – generating jobs, long-term operational activity and local spending.
- Wellbeing – addressing loneliness and improving quality of life through community living.
Against this backdrop, the role of ICRs becomes increasingly important.
For operators, these schemes represent long-term, income-generating assets that align with institutional investment strategies focused on resilient, needs-based demand.
However, the Elstree decision illustrates that these macro-level benefits are not always fully weighted in planning decisions. The refusal suggests a continued prioritisation of land designation over housing system outcomes, particularly in politically sensitive locations such as the Green Belt.
For operators and investors, the implications are clear. Securing consent for later living schemes will continue to require robust, evidence-led narratives that go beyond standard housing arguments – articulating not just need, but measurable social and economic value at a local level.
The Elstree refusal reinforces the need for a more supportive and consistent planning framework for later living. For the later living sector, this includes:
- Clear national and local policy recognition of IRCs as a distinct asset class.
- Greater weight given to the health, care and housing system benefits they deliver.
- A more flexible approach to land use where strong need and public benefit can be demonstrated.
Without these changes, there is a risk that delivery will continue to fall short of demand, limiting the sector’s ability to respond to one of the UK’s most significant demographic challenges.
For operators, the message is clear: the need for IRCs is not in doubt. The priority now is ensuring that policy and planning frameworks evolve to enable their delivery at scale.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.