Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

The Councils approach in requiring 100% M4(3) from specialised housing for older people is wholly misguided . Such housing also places a burden on specialised housing for older people in two ways (1) the actual cost of additional works, which in the absence of a Viability Appraisal has not been assessed (2) in its additional space requirements will result n a reduction in number of apartments than can be acheived affecting financial viability and operational viability (ie too few residential units will not be able to support the communal facilities required) and something which has not been considered in the Whole Plan Viability Assessment

Additional floorspace and fittings will also push up sales and rentals values making a 100% M4(3) wholly unaffordable to more people, who would otherwise benefit from the other facilities that it provides

Moreover, such an approach is totally misguided. Key points in this respect are firstly that the purpose of specialised housing for older people such as retirement and Extra Care Acomodation is to promote independence in old age thereby improving health and well being. 100% M4(3) compliance also serves to institutionalise apartments and communal spaces having a negative impact on a sense of independence. Secondly, if anything the opposite approach to “loading” specialised housing and not burdening conventional housing should be taken. This will help promote housing choice with specialised schemes being able to offer more affordable accommodation possibly with a small and justified element of M4(3) housing whilst providing housing choice in mainstream housing developments such as urban extensions for those older persons who would prefer to live in such locations and not in specialised developments.

An Appeal decision in respect of a Specialsed Older persons housing scheme in Lymington Hants APP/B1740/W/20/3265937 dated 8th June 2021, where New Forest District Council have adopted a 100% M4(3) requirement is also instructive. In allowing the Appeal, the Inspector determined

I am mindful also that the design of the appeal scheme seeks to achieve the M4(2) Optional Building Regulations standard for accessible and adaptable dwellings49 – albeit that without a condition specifying this, I accept that the Council could not enforce this standard. In any event, the proposed development would cater for a range of occupants, and not only those with impaired mobility. Consequently, I am not persuaded that a requirement for the higher optional standards to be deployed in all of the proposed dwellings would be either reasonable or necessary in this case.

The PPG also states
Local Plan policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling.
Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 56-009-20150327
This is not reflected in the Councils approach

The BNP Whole Plan Viability study states:

"older persons’ accommodation demonstrate that the viability of retirement / sheltered housing schemes in the borough can be challenging (, 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".

Given the need to be centrally located, sites (usually brownfield) are often of a high value, indeed the prospect of a low EUV site with high sales values is very highly unlikely , bringing into question the ability of those sites to meet requirments that do come forward. This is concerning given the level of need that the Local Plan establishes for older persons housing particularly for market housing. Moreover the approach seemingly taken here that as it is proven to be non viable at the local plan stage so can be tested at the application stage runs wholly contrary to PPG advice 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"

and a misapplication of the Para 7 advice

"Such circumstances could include, for example where development is proposed on unallocated sites of a wholly different type to those used in viability assessment that informed the plan; where further information on infrastructure or site costs is required; 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)"

Policy should be amended to reflect the lower level of viability associated with development of housing for older people so as to ensure that such development is able to come forward and not compromised by unrealistic policy and innappropriate review mechanisms

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