Policy DM2 Review Mechanisms

Object

Representation ID: 9420

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Considering representations in respect of Policy DM1, to burden development which has already been found to be of lesser viability is wholly innappropriate. This effectively means that all older persons housing, will have to go through the delay and uncertainty of a review mechanism even though it is proven that such schemes will be unable to deliver policy complaint levels of affordable housing. This will impact on sites coming forward for much needed older persons accommodation

Comment

Representation ID: 9576

Received: 20/07/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Draft Policy DM2 (Review Mechanisms) sets out the proposed approach to affordable housing
review mechanisms. Whilst we do not object in principle to the provision of review mechanisms
to secure an uplift in affordable housing provision, we feel it is important that viability review
timeframes are determined on a scheme by scheme basis, given that project timescales can
vary significantly between developments. For instance, five years after the date of the original
viability assessment, does not feel like an appropriate measure given the time it can take for
planning permission to be granted and then to mobilise the for start on site - a project could
still be at a very early stage at this point in time.at this point.

Object

Representation ID: 10005

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Inspired Villages

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Supporting paragraph of Policy DM2 seeks mid stage reviews for large scale developments. Large scale developments are considered to be multi-phased developments that are delivered ‘across different stages in an economic cycle’ where mid stage reviews may be appropriate where they are built over a number of years (eg. 10+ yeas) and subject to subsequent permissions. However, the definition provided for large scale developments is not reflective of smaller schemes, for perhaps 100-200 units which are typically single phase schemes. The introduction of mid stage reviews onto these smaller (non strategic) schemes can affect their deliverability and we would caution against their introduction and this should be considered as a Modification to the plan.