Policy DM1(S) Affordable housing

Support

Representation ID: 9380

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gareth Adam, Homes England

Agent: Stantec

Homes England is responding in its capacity as the Government’s housing accelerator and as landowner of the former Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) site, Shortstown, Bedford.

Homes England is generally supportive of Policy DM1(S); the proposed development at Shortstown will reflect the requirements of Policy DM1(S).

Object

Representation ID: 9419

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Councils own viability assessment recognises the lower viability of older persons housing. The policy should therefore reflect this in accordance with PPG advice

Comment

Representation ID: 9575

Received: 20/07/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Draft Policy DM1(S) sets out the Council’s approach to affordable housing. We have a series of comments.
Firstly, the draft policy states that sites of 10 or more residential units, or 0.5 hectares or more will provide 30% affordable housing with 75% of the dwellings as social or affordable rented properties, and the remainder (25%) as First Homes at a 50% discount.
L&Q understands that the National Planning Practice Guidance requires new development to provide 25% of new dwellings as First Homes. However, we do query the proposed level of discount identified. Amongst other criteria, the NPPG requires that First Homes must be
discounted by a minimum of 30% against the market value, and that after the discount has been applied, the first sale must be at a price no higher than £250,000 (in this location). The Guidance goes on to state that a 40% or 50% discount can be set by a local authority where
they can demonstrate a need for this. L&Q, as a Registered Provider of affordable housing, has concerns that the Council’s proposed approach will affect development viability and the subsequent impact on the delivery of more genuinely affordable tenures such as social/affordable rent. Our concerns extend further in this case given that the discount offered is at 50%. Where viability is impacted, this could reduce overall housing supply across all tenures.
Draft Policy DM1(S) goes on to state that ‘Affordable rents will be 80% of open market rents but a lower percentage should be set where this would preclude access to housing benefit.’
L&Q support this policy position as we understand the importance of genuinely affordable rents for residents accessing housing benefit.
It also states that ‘where shared ownership is offered it will be on the basis of a range of initial share purchases from 10 - 80%.’ Firstly, it is highlighted that under the Council’s general affordable homes approach (75% social/affordable rent, and 50% First Homes), there would be no scope for shared ownership products. Secondly, the scale of 10 – 80% represents a
significant range, and we would query whether a model with an 80% initial share would represent a genuinely affordable housing offer. We would also highlight the important and effective role that intermediate tenures such as Shared Ownership play in opening up routes
to home ownership for those with affordability restrictions. This exacerbates our concerns over the absence of products like Shared Ownership and the promotion of First Homes.
Draft Policy DM1(S) goes on to state that on sites providing a mix of affordable and market homes, the Council will expect the affordable housing to be integrated within the market housing and affordable housing clusters should not exceed 15 dwellings and should not be readily distinguishable from market housing. Whilst L&Q promote high quality, tenure neutral
design across all its developments, for flatted developments we require social/affordable
rented to be provided within a dedicated core which enables us to deliver affordable service charges and provide effective housing management for those residents.

Object

Representation ID: 9582

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: BPHA

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As drafted bpha do not consider that Policy DM1(S) Affordable Housing and it’s supporting text is sound.

bpha are concerned that the approach taken in Policy DM1 will significantly reduce the availability of shared ownership homes within Bedford Borough. It is acknowledged the Government are requiring that developers need to provide 25% of affordable homes delivered through section 106 planning obligations as First Homes. bpha along with a number of Registered Providers raised concerns when the government consulted on the proposals that were subsequently introduced.

The implementation of the proposed policy DM1(S) will end the availability of s106 shared ownership homes in Bedford Borough. bpha and other Registered Providers have a track record of acquiring such homes through the s106 process. Therefore we are looking for policy support to continue to deliver shared ownership units through other means and safeguard affordable rented properties during viability discussions.

Benefits of Shared Ownership

Shared ownership has been very successful in providing an affordable route into home ownership for many people. It offers an established model widely accepted by mortgage lenders and the funders of social housing providers. It provides flexible access to different shares of equity purchased to enable a flexible response to local housing market factors. It is also an effective mechanism for receipts to be recycled back into the delivery of new homes.

Looking at recent Hometrack data for sites within 3.6 miles of Bedford town centre there have 229 homes started within the last 6 months at an average price of £355K. Therefore the entry level equity at c£177,500 is high compared to shared ownership, we have concerns the long term affordability of First Homes as a affordable housing product will be exacerbated should interest rates continue to rise. Shared ownership as a product is more flexible to changes in the economy due to the flexibility on the level of equity purchased.

Viability concerns

There is a concern that the introducing the delivery of First Homes at a 50% discount rather than shared ownership homes will have a negative impact on the viability of residential schemes that will reduce the amount of affordable rented homes being delivered in Bedford Borough.

Currently when making an offer for s106 units Registered Providers cross subsidise their offer for the s106 affordable rented homes through the shared ownership units. The ability to do this will disappear. A First Homes at a 50% discount will make policy compliant residential schemes significantly less viable than if they included shared ownership homes.

The plan is looking to deliver improved design, residential space standards, biodiversity and address climate change through improved build quality, all of which are supported but do have an impact on scheme cost. There is significant concern that the policy change to First Homes at a 50% discount will significantly affect scheme viability and that subsequently the amount of affordable rented units will be reduced through negotiation.

Future delivery of Shared Ownership

The supporting text to the policy states “Shared ownership may however come forward in other contexts” it is not considered that this gives sufficient policy support to enable shared ownership homes to be delivered. Policy DM1(S) and the supporting text should be clear that when a site is being delivered exclusively for 100% affordable units that the First Homes requirement will not apply.

It is considered that such a change would be in accordance with para 65 of the NPPF this states that the “affordable home ownership” requirement will not apply on sites that are exclusively for affordable housing. The exemptions are set out below:

a) provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
b) provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs
(such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
c) is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their
own homes; or
d) is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural
exception site.

bpha along with other Registered Providers have a track record of delivery of acquiring sites with outline planning permission on the open market and delivering these as 100% affordable home schemes through a mix of shared ownership and affordable rented homes. Registered Providers (RPs) will need the ability to deliver such schemes without the inclusion of First Homes through the variation of s106 agreements. The reason for this is the inclusion of First Homes at a 50% discount will significantly damage the financial viability of 100% affordable home schemes. This is due to the fact that we have the ability to apply new grant funding and Recycled Capital Grant Funding towards shared ownership units to enable RPs to compete on the open market for sites. This is not the case with First Homes.

RPs competitiveness on the open market in Bedford Borough will be significantly harmed by the proposed policy DM1(S) as drafted this will will reduce both affordable rented and shared ownership housing delivery across the Borough this can be mitigated through the suggested policy changes.

Support

Representation ID: 9627

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Clapham Parish Council

Housing is becoming significant more unaffordable for peoples within the borough and is exasperated by those moving into the area from more affluent areas. This will increase if East-West Rail is delivered when greater accessibility is provided. Therefore CPC supports the principle of the First Homes discount and Local eligibility criteria, and the policy should be enhanced to specifically reference the Local eligibility criteria

Comment

Representation ID: 9646

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Thakeham

Thakeham supports the inclusion of 30% affordable housing requirement for sites of 10 or more residential dwellings. Thakeham delivers policy compliant affordable housing across all our sites, are pepper-potted around the development rather than clustered and ensure these are built to the same standard as our market housing. Our developments in Bedford would be no different.

Comment

Representation ID: 9661

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Verve Developments Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Draft Policy DM1(S) is supported with reservations regarding the soundness of the policy. It is not positively prepared as it makes no reference to developments of 100% affordable housing or allow for flexibility for developments to come forward with a specific type of affordable housing to meet an identified need.

The Bedford Borough Local Housing Needs Assessment Addendum – April 2022 Update (Supporting Document ID 19), in Figure 9 sets out a total affordable housing requirement for 1-bedroom affordable dwellings of 1,218 units for the period 2020 to 2040 including 936 units for those unable to afford market rents.

Through the proposed development, the Land at Bedford Heights will form an important part of the Council’s housing pipeline to address substantial shortfalls in the supply of affordable housing including 1no. bed rented affordable homes.

Without prejudice to the prospect of our client providing a more detailed assessment of affordable housing need as part of a review of the Council’s own evidence, it is evident from its own position that the identified annual need for around 345 units is substantially below current levels of delivery (192 units for 2020/21 within the Council’s most recent interim Housing Monitoring Report) or secured as part of new permissions (150 units) over the same period. This needs to be viewed in context of the substantial current identified unmet affordable housing need recognised in the Council’s own LHNA (1,419 units unable to afford rents – see LHNA Addendum Figure 4) and the implications of the Council’s proposed stepped trajectory in delaying future needs associated with meeting local housing need in full (see separate representations to Policy DS3(S)).

Schemes making provision for a higher proportion (including 100%) of affordable housing provision early within the plan period, and specifically where in highly sustainable urban locations consistent with the Council’s wider strategy, should be expressly supported in the policies of the Local Plan 2040.

The proposed development at the Land at Bedford Heights is for 36 units of affordable housing (one-bedroom apartment units) therefore providing a 100% affordable development. Draft Policy DM1(S) is not effective as it does not account for developments that may provide a higher proportion of affordable homes than the 30% provision set out and contribute towards meeting identified affordable housing needs earlier within the proposed plan period.

The reference and requirement within draft Policy DM1(S) for First Homes is not positively prepared and not effective as no provision is made for any exceptions to this policy requirement. The proposed development at the Land at Bedford Heights proposes 100% affordable, 1-bed dwellings to meet a specialist form of housing that is otherwise in short supply and which caters for a specific need that is not generally met as a proportion of the housing mix secured via conventional planning obligations for affordable housing. Draft Policy DM1(S) does not allow for this situation and does not therefore accord with para.63 b) of the NPPF to contribute to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities.

The draft Policy also does not reflect the NPPF para 72 that supports the development of entry-level exception sites. The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-26 echoes this support for schemes in excess of policy compliant affordable housing at para’s 6.3.6, page 41 and 6.4.12, page 45. This support is not reflected in the draft Policy. As such the Council’s Housing Strategy should be referred to within the supporting text to Policy DM1(S) where this would encourage a positively prepared approach that supports opportunities to meet affordable housing needs in full.

Comment

Representation ID: 9815

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Pertenhall & Swineshead Parish Council

Policy DM1(S) Affordable Housing – relates to sites of 10 or more residential units or sites of <0.5 hectares, so unlikely to apply to us.

Comment

Representation ID: 9948

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM1 (Affordable Housing) requires sites of 10 or more residential properties or 0.5 hectares or more to provide 30% affordable housing with 75% of the dwellings as social or affordable rented properties and the remainder (25%) as First Homes at a 50% discount. Affordable rents will be 80% of open market rents but a lower percentage should be set where this would preclude access to housing benefit. The draft Policy is supported by the Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) Addendum (April 2022) and Viability Assessment.
In relation to First Homes, PPG states that they are discounted market sale units which “a) must be discounted by a minimum of 30% against the market value” and should account for at least 25% of all affordable housing units delivered by developers through planning obligations (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 70-001-20210524). As such, draft policy DM11 currently goes beyond national requirements in terms of the discount of 50% against the market value. In this regard, PPG states that the First Homes Written Ministerial Statement does give local authorities the discretion to require a higher minimum discount of either 40% or 50%, if they can demonstrate a need for this (our emphasis added). In order to demonstrate need, local planning authorities should undertake a housing need assessment to take into account the need for a range of housing types and tenures, including affordable housing tenures. The assessment will enable an evidence-based planning judgement to be made about the need for a higher minimum discount level in the area, and how it can meet the needs of different demographic and social groups.
As part of the evidence base to the BBLP2040, a Local Housing Needs Assessment has been published. This includes an analysis of the impact of introducing a 40% and 50% discount on First Homes as a percentage of affordable housing; and goes on to examine a further potential strategy for meeting the Government requirement for First Homes. The LHNA and draft policy requirements are supported by the viability assessment.
In relation to viability, the Council should ensure that all of the anticipated development costs associated with all the draft Policies of the BBLP40 have been fully taken into account, in line with the NPPF, paragraph 34. This will ensure that the delivery of affordable housing is not undermined. Whilst the Viability Assessment appears to reflect these considerations, it is noted that not all schemes will be viable at any given level of affordable housing, particularly in complex urban areas such as Bedford where schemes may involve a degree of recycling of existing buildings. As such, the wording of the policy should be revised in order to allow for site and scheme specific flexibility (in accordance with NPPF, paragraph 58) where the requirements of the policy wouldn’t be viable.
In addition to the above, and in order to accord with national planning policy guidance relating to First Homes, we consider it essential that the policy is expanded, in order to allow developers to sell a First Home on the open market and remove the title restriction, as long as certain conditions are met (e.g. that the home is marketed for at least 6 months in total and that all reasonable steps have been taken to sell the property) (Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 70-011-20210524). This will ensure that plots are not left vacant in perpetuity.

Comment

Representation ID: 9960

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and L & Q Estates Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

we not the requirement for a 50% discount to be
applied to First Homes which is above the minimum 30% discount set out in national
policy. Whilst national policy does allow for the discount to be increased above 30%, we
do not believe that the Borough Wide Viability study demonstrates a clear position that
this approach to First Homes is viable. In fact, regarding affordable housing as a whole
there are potential concerns regarding several sites and the ability to deliver the 30% of
the whole mix.
In the absence of compelling evidence to justify 50% discount, and instead putting the
onus on developers through Policy DM2(S) regarding viability, is an unsound approach.
We instead suggest that the First Homes discount is reduced to 30% of open market value
which is consistent with National Policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 9977

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Policy DM1(S) Affordable Housing
Policy DM1(S) sets out that at least 30% affordable housing is to be delivered where residential development proposals consist of 10 dwellings or more. The policy goes on to state that 25% of the total affordable housing requirement will need to be provided as First Homes.
At least 10% of total homes on developments sites should be available for affordable home ownership in accordance with Paragraph 65 of the Framework. This 10% requirement was first introduced in the 2018 Framework and included property tenure types such as Intermediate Shared Ownership.
Gladman can confirm that our site interests can accommodate this emerging policy requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 9991

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

DM1 is unsound is it is unjustified
19. The HBF is concerned that the affordable housing requirements set out in DM1 could have a significant impact on viability of development whilst also undermining the Council’s ability to deliver a mix of affordable housing tenures. The Council’s Viability Assessment acknowledges that development viability across its urban areas is challenging with few typologies being able to show policy compliance. However, the HBF are also concerned that the Council’s Viability Assessment of some greenfield development could also be compromised by the additional costs being placed on it through national and local planning policy. It is also important to note that increasing build costs faced by the industry will make meeting the full suite of policies in the local plan in addition to requirements of national policy even more difficult.
20. The conclusions in the Viability Assessment are that there is no single level of affordable housing provision where it can be said most schemes are viable. The HBF would not disagree with this statement and welcome the recognition in DM1 that the requirements of this policy can be varied where they make development unviable. However, one area in which the Council could make a change to DM1 that would potentially improve viability is being more flexible upfront with regard to the tenure mix on development.
21. At present DM1 effectively removes the ability to deliver much needed shared ownership accommodation in order to deliver First Homes and social/ affordable rented properties. We recognise that Councils are required to deliver 25% of affordable housing as First Homes but in areas such as Bedford even with a 50% discount this may not be possible for many of those in housing needs. Currently, shared ownership can be sold at 25% equity share or less compared to the proposed 50% in the proposed First Homes policy meaning a mortgage for families will be more out of reach going forward as many use the 25% initial equity share to get on to the property ladder and eventually work up to more whilst aspiring to come out of affordable housing.
22. The current tenure split in Bedfordshire Borough in Policy 58S of the Local Plan 2030 allows for 78% rent (social and/or affordable rent) and 22% other affordable tenures (i.e. shared ownership). This means that Registered Providers can offer on the full affordable housing provision, but in the new proposals they would only be able to provide rented tenures reducing much needed and popular shared ownership housing from those in need. We consider the proposed tenure mix that will effectively remove the Council’s ability to provide shared ownership products is short sighted. The proposed tenure split will penalise many first-time buyers especially young families who rely on shared ownership to be able to buy their first family home. This could further exacerbate affordable rent waiting lists in the borough and increase the need for this tenure putting more pressure on the Local Authority.

Support

Representation ID: 10004

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Inspired Villages

Inspired Villages supports Policy DM1(S) as it recognises the unviability of C2 uses providing affordable housing. There is a significant amount of floorspace given to the provision of on-site facilities and amenities, which are referred to as non-saleable space, higher construction costs, slower sales rates, staffing, etc. Furthermore, there have been a number of appeals (please refer to para.2.16 of the attached document) that have confirmed the application of affordable housing policy to C2 uses acts as a barrier to development. Inspired Villages therefore supports Policy DM1(S) and find the provisions of this policy to be sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 10036

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: The Southill Estate

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Policy DM1(S) sets out the policy requirements for affordable housing. The Southill Estate owns land at the Abbey Field West of Elstow site that is a draft allocation for residential development (Policy HOU 5), and land at the Pear Tree Farm Elstow site for a science and innovation park (Policy EMP 5). The sites are adjacent to one another, and there is an inter-relationship between the two developments because of the common landownership. There may need to be some flexibility towards affordable housing in order to deliver the economic benefits associated with the science and innovation park. In addition, there is potential for a proportion of the housing to be retained specifically for employees at the science and innovation park, which could affect the overall supply of affordable housing. These issues would be addressed at masterplan and planning application stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 10073

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Countryside Partnerships Plc

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Our client wishes to raise an objection to proposed policy DM1(S) of the Local Plan 2040 – Plan for Submission.

Our client raises concern that sites brought forward with the affordable housing split purely as 75% affordable/social rent and 25% First Homes (to be sold by the developer at a 50% discount) will mean many sites will be unviable to deliver, because:

1. The split does not appear to facilitate the provision of shared ownership within the tenure mix; and
2. The requirement for First Homes to be sold at a 50% discount may not be viable, and significantly exceeds the Government's starting point of 30% discount.

The current tenure split in Bedford Borough in Policy 58S of the Local Plan 2030 allows for 78% rent (social and/or affordable rent) and 22% other affordable tenures (i.e. shared ownership).

The current tenure split means that Registered Providers can offer on the full affordable housing, but in the new proposals, they would only be able to offer and provide the rented tenures, wiping out much needed and popular shared ownership housing from those in need but also from the Registered Providers themselves. Registered Providers rely upon shared ownership to cross-fund the provision of social rented. We therefore must object to the statement in paragraph 6.13, that proposes the removal of shared ownership from the policy tenure mix, in favour of suggesting shared ownership be brought forward in “other contexts.” This position does not appear to have considered the role that this tenure plays both in meeting affordability, and in its support of social and affordable rental.

Currently, shared ownership can be sold at only 25% equity share compared to the proposed 50% in first homes meaning a mortgage for families will be more out of reach going forward as they may use the 25% initial equity share to get on to the property ladder and eventually work up to more whilst aspiring to come out of affordable housing.

We are concerned therefore the First Homes proposal will penalise many first-time buyers, especially young families who rely on shared ownership to be able to buy their first family home.

Moreover, as a high level worked example if a 3 bedroom house valued at £300,000 was to be sold as a first home the 50% mortgage required would be prohibitive to many people on the affordable housing waiting lists such as first-time buyer young families, whereas in the current mix this same house would be able to be accessed with a mortgage on only 25% of the equity enabling such young family to be in this tenure of affordable housing instead of then burdening the affordable rent housing waiting lists. This could further exacerbate affordable rent waiting lists in the borough and increase the need for this tenure putting more pressure on the Local Authority.

The findings of the BNP Paribas Borough Wide Viability Study do not provide convincing evidence that the First Homes discount of 50% does not harm the viability of residential schemes coming forward. The statement in paragraph 8.8 of the viability report appears to accept that viability is questionable, that the 30% affordable housing provision is not itself completely justified, and reference to that target being generally achievable does not identify that this is either when tested against the “lower benchmark land value” or makes the assumption that “grown values and costs” will address the viability in the longer term. It also confirms in paragraph 8.11 that the proposed housing policy does not support the viability of Build to Rent schemes. In our opinion, there is an over-reliance upon growth and flexibility in the policy to address such matters on a site-by-site basis.

This conclusion supports our position that the viability of these proposals remains questionable, and our client, therefore, reserves the right at this stage to undertake their own viability assessment, and make further representations at the Examination.

We, therefore, contend that the policy as drafted could result in an adverse impact on affordability in the Borough, and harm the viability of future residential development. The policy is therefore not effective or justified and renders the plan UNSOUND.

Comment

Representation ID: 10085

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Churchill Retirement Living

Agent: Ziyad Thomas

Policy DM1(S) Affordable Housing sets a flat affordable housing requirement of 30% across the district.

The Local Authority is aware of the increased emphasis on Local Plan viability testing in Paragraph 58 of the NPPF, particularly given the proposed requirement for a mid­ stage review Policy Df'v12: Review Mechanism. The evidence underpinning the Council's affordable housing requirement should therefore be robust and we would respectfully remind the Council that the PPG states that "The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan" (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20190509).

The affordable housing targets set out in Policy Df'v17(5) Affordable Housing are informed by the evidence base - namely the Bedford Local Plan 2040 - Borough­ Wide Viability Study (2022) undertaken by BNP Paribas.

In reviewing the methodology for assessing specialist older persons' housing, we note that many of the inputs align with the methodology detailed in the Briefing Note on Viability Prepared for the Retirement Housing Group (hereafter referred to as the RHG Briefing Note) by Three Dragons, although a number do not. Our concerns are that the Viability Assessment has overplayed the viability of older persons' housing.

Mindful of the guidance in the PPG that is the responsibility of site owners and developers to engage in the Plan making process. Churchill Retirement Living have provided commentary and supplemental evidence and their own viability appraisal in a separate document entitled 'Review of Local Plan Viability Assessment for Sheltered Housing'. All the scenarios tested result in substantial negative residual land value. The extent of the deficit is such that it clearly demonstrates the existing framework of planning obligations and policy requirement places an unacceptable burden on specialist older persons' housing in the area.

The result of the Churchill Retirement Living viability assessments reflect the findings of the Council's own evidence base. The results of the Council's viability modelling for sheltered housing are provided in Appendix 5 of the Bedford Local Plan 2040 - Borough-Wide Viability Study (2022) undertaken by BNP Paribas. There is not a single scenario in which retirement living accommodation can viably deliver all the requirements of the Local Plan - Planning contributions, Accessibility (M4(2) & M4(3)), Biodiversity & Future Homes. In most instances the residual land value is negative by several million pounds.

Indeed, there is only one scenario in which sheltered housing can deliver 30% affordable housing - the highest value area (CIL Value 5) with the lower value greenfield benchmark land value. This does not include any of the other policy requirements, such as s106 contributions and accessibility standards. This is also a highly unlikely scenario as the highest sales values for retirement living apartments will not be achieved in lower value areas.

The Local Plan Viability Study provides an 'understated' summary of the viability of older persons' housing typologies advises that

6.25 Given the Council's requirement for the delivery of specialist accommodation, which meets a required need in the borough providing for older persons and people with disabilities and special needs, we have tested the viability of delivering such schemes in the borough. The results of our appraisals testing older persons' accommodation demonstrate that the viability of retirement I
sheltered housing schemes in the borough can be challenging (see Appendix 5), except where schemes come forward at higher sales values and on sites with lower existing use values. The Council's policy allows for the consideration of viability when determining residential schemes. We consider that this flexibility will ensure that such development continues to come forward over the life of the plan and will deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable accommodation.

It is our view that the viability testing for sheltered housing typologies in the Local Plan Viability Study clearly show that the proposed planning policy regime in Bedford will render this form of accommodation unviable. These conclusions should have prompted the Council to revisit the policy requirement for this form of accommodation so as to not jeopardise its delivery of the Local Plan period.

Conversely however, the planning policy requirements for older persons' housing are higher than for other forms of housing. Policy DM3(S) Housing Mix stipulates a requirement for all units of specialist older persons housing to be built to M4(3). The Local Plan Viability Study advises the cost of flats to meet M4(3) is fll,000 per flat (which the respondent considers to be a conservative figure) resulting in an increase to the build cost of a typical SO-unit scheme of £550,000

We acknowledge the PPG does states that circumstances that justify the need for a viability assessment at application stage can include where particular types of development are proposed which may significantly vary from standard models of development for sale (for example build to rent or housing for older people) (Paragraph ID: 10-007-20190509).

The guidance in the NPPF and the PPG is that the role for viability assessment is primarily at the Plan making stage:

Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development. planning aoolications that comoly with them should be assumed to be viable. It is uo to the aoolicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances iustify the need for a viability assessment at the aoolication stage. The weight to be
given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force (paragraph 57.)

Council Members, Officers and the general public will assume that applications for sheltered or extra care housing will be able to support a policy compliant level (30%) of affordable housing. This would however be at odds with the viability evidence underpinning the Local Plan. Furthermore, no reference is made to the inability of older persons' housing typologies providing policy compliant levels of affordable housing in either the text of the Policy DfVIJ(S) or its justification. Burdening specialist forms of accommodation with an unrealistic affordable housing requirement on the presumption that viability will be considered on a site-specific basis, but not making this clear to either developers or Council Officers in the wording of the policy creates both uncertainty and a significant opportunity for conflict. This is particularly concerning as the NPPF and the PPG both make it clear that the weight attributed to a viability assessment is to at the discretion of the decision maker.

The proposed planning policy requirements placed on specialist older persons' housing would render it undeliverable and as such the Policy DMl(S) and Policy DM3(S) fail the tests of soundness in Paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

We are strongly of the view that it would be more appropriate to set a nil affordable housing target for sheltered development, at the very least in urban areas. This approach accords with the guidance of the PPG which states that 'Different (affordable housing) requirements may be set for different types or location of site or types of development' (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 10-001- 20190509).

To that end, we would like to draw the Council's attention to Paragraph 5.33 of Policy HPS. Provision of Affordable Housing in the emerging Fareham Borough Local Plan which advises that

5.33 ... The Viability Study concludes that affordable housing is not viable for older persons and specialist housing. Therefore, Policy HPS does not apply to specialist housing or older persons housing

A nil affordable housing rate could facilitate a step-change in the delivery of older person's housing in the Borough, helping to meet the diverse housing needs of the elderly. The benefits of specialist older persons' housing extend beyond the delivery of planning obligations as these forms of development contribute to the regeneration of town centres and assist Council's by making savings on health and social care.

RECOMMENDATION:

Churchill Retirement Living consider that the conclusions of the Bedford Local Plan 2040 - Borough-Wide Viability Study (2022) do not provide a credible basis for proving a flat 30% affordable housing rate across the Authority.

The Viability Assessments concludes that sheltered housing cannot support affordable housing contributions of 30% or the additional policy costs of building to an enhanced accessibility standard M4(3). These conclusions reflect our own, albeit we consider that the viability of older persons' housing typologies has been overstated, as several the viability assumptions do not reflect our experience in bringing these forms of development forward.

The proposed planning policy requirements placed on specialist older persons' housing would render it undeliverable and as such the Policy DMl(S) and Policy DM3(S) fail the tests of soundness in Paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 10270

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

Affordable Housing
13.1 In relation to Policy DM1(S), we note that the proposed policy indicates that the First Homes will deliver with a discount of 50% against the open market value. It is considered that the inclusion of a discount percentage that deviates away from the minimum 30% against the open market value, has the potential to impact the viability of the scheme. This approach also has the potential to impact on the quantum of affordable housing provision delivered and also has the potential to reduce the quantum of social rented / affordable rented delivered (which currently represents the most acute tenure of need).

Comment

Representation ID: 10314

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Castlecap Investments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Policy DM1(S) sets out the Council’s affordable housing requirements. This policy should also confirm
the type of affordable housing to be provided in BTR schemes, i.e. discounted market rent units. The
policy is not sound without specifying the affordable housing requirement for this tenure, especially
given BTR is referenced elsewhere in the draft Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 10371

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Party Bedford Borough Council

• We are pleased that the delivery of affordable housing has been prioritised within the Plan, going further than the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to support the provision of meaningfully affordable housing, including a significant proportion of social housing to improve affordability. At present many of the so-called affordable homes are “clearly unaffordable to those on mid to lower incomes.”

Object

Representation ID: 10442

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gallagher Developments Group Limited

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We note the requirement for a 50% discount to be applied to First Homes which is above the
minimum 30% discount set out in national planning guidance. Whilst national policy does allow for the discount to be increased above 30%, we do not believe that the Borough Wide Viability study demonstrates a clear position that this approach to First Homes is viable. In fact, regarding affordable housing as a whole there are potential concerns regarding several sites and the ability to deliver the 30% of the whole mix.
In the absence of compelling evidence to justify a 50% discount, and instead putting the onus on developers through Policy DM2(S) regarding viability, the approach taken is unsound. We instead suggest that the First Homes discount is reduced to 30% of open market value which is consistent with national planning guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 10530

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM1 (Affordable Housing) requires sites of 10 or more residential properties or 0.5 hectares or more to provide 30% affordable housing with 75% of the dwellings as social or affordable rented properties and the remainder (25%) as First Homes at a 50% discount. Affordable rents will be 80% of open market rents but a lower percentage should be set where this would preclude access to housing benefit. The draft Policy is supported by the Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) Addendum (April 2022) and Viability Assessment.
In relation to First Homes, PPG states that they are discounted market sale units which “a) must be discounted by a minimum of 30% against the market value” and should account for at least 25% of all affordable housing units delivered by developers through planning obligations (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 70-001-20210524). As such, draft policy DM11 currently goes beyond national requirements in terms of the discount of 50% against the market value. In this regard, PPG states that the First Homes Written Ministerial Statement does give local authorities the discretion to require a higher minimum discount of either 40% or 50%, if they can demonstrate a need for this (our emphasis added). In order to demonstrate need, local planning authorities should undertake a housing need assessment to take into account the need for a range of housing types and tenures, including affordable housing tenures. The assessment will enable an evidence-based planning judgement to be made about the need for a higher minimum discount level in the area, and how it can meet the needs of different demographic and social groups.
As part of the evidence base to the BBLP2040, a Local Housing Needs Assessment has been published. This includes an analysis of the impact of introducing a 40% and 50% discount on First Homes as a percentage of affordable housing; and goes on to examine a further potential strategy for meeting the Government requirement for First Homes. The LHNA and draft policy requirements are supported by the viability assessment.
In relation to viability, the Council should ensure that all of the anticipated development costs associated with all the draft Policies of the BBLP40 have been fully taken into account, in line with the NPPF, paragraph 34. This will ensure that the delivery of affordable housing is not undermined. Whilst the Viability Assessment appears to reflect these considerations, it is noted that not all schemes will be viable at any given level of affordable housing, particularly in complex urban areas such as Bedford where schemes may involve a degree of recycling of existing buildings. As such, the wording of the policy should be revised in order to allow for site and scheme specific flexibility (in accordance with NPPF, paragraph 58) where the requirements of the policy wouldn’t be viable.
In addition to the above, and in order to accord with national planning policy guidance relating to First Homes, we consider it essential that the policy is expanded, in order to allow developers to sell a First Home on the open market and remove the title restriction, as long as certain conditions are met (e.g. that the home is marketed for at least 6 months in total and that all reasonable steps have been taken to sell the property) (Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 70-011-20210524). This will ensure that plots are not left vacant in perpetuity.