Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

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: 10086

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Churchill Retirement Living

Agent: Ziyad Thomas

Churchill Retirement Living are independent housebuilders specialising in sheltered housing for older people

Paragraph 1 of the PPG Housing for Older and Disabled people states

"The need to provide housing for older people is critical. People are living longer lives and the proportion of older people in the population is increasing ....... Offering older people, a better choice of accommodation to suit their changing needs can help them live independently for longer, feel more connected to their communities and help reduce costs to the social care and health systems. Therefore, an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs is something to be considered from the early stages of plan-making through to decision-taking".
Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626

In the first instance, we commend the Council for taking active steps to increase the delivery of specialist older persons' housing We note the supporting text to this policy and the requirement for all developments of 500 units and above to provide self-contained housing to meet the needs of older people.

We note however that the accessibility standards for specialist older persons' housing are higher than those for 'general needs' housing, with the policy advising all units must be M4(3).

Footnote 49 of the Framework clearly sets out that planning policies for housing should make use of the Government's optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable housing, where this would address an identified need for such properties

Paragraph 002 (Reference ID 56-002-20160519) of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reiterates that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements for accessibility and adaptability, however, they will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans.

The supporting text for this policy advises that

6.32 Around 35% of the growth in households during the Plan period comprises households aged 75 or over. It is likely that many of these households would also be identified as needing specialist housing for older persons The analysis of the needs of older people identified a need for almost 5,000 specialist older person housing units for households aged 75 or over, whilst the analysis 76 ID: 63-009-20790626 updated on 26 June 2079 707 of disability and mobility housing needs identifies an increase in need of around 720 wheelchair adapted dwellings for households in the same age group

6.33 Whilst not all households aged 75 or over needing wheelchair adapted housing will live in specialist older person housing, at any point in time it is likely that up to a third of those living in specialist housing may need wheelchair adapted homes. However, it is important to recognise that as individual household circumstances change, it is likely that some households will start using a wheelchair whilst living in specialist housing if their health deteriorates. On this basis, a higher proportion of specialist older person housing units will need to be wheelchair adapted The evidence in the LHNA supports the need for a target for all specialist housing for older people to meet Category 3 requirements

The Bedford Borough Local Housing Needs Assessment (2022) does not provide evidence of the need for older person's housing or the need for wheelchair accessibility housing.

7.52 Earlier analysis of housing for older people identified a need for 5,000 specialist older person housing units for households aged 75 or over in Bedford Borough. Whilst not all over 75 households needing wheelchair adapted housing will live in specialist older person housing, it is likely that at a proportion of those living in specialist older housing will need wheelchair adapted homes. The dwelling-led household projection based on 7,305 dwellings per annum (the LHN) that underpins the calculations in this chapter indicates that there will be approximately 72,200 households aged over 75 in 2040. Therefore, the 7,600 75+ households requiring wheelchair adaptations (Figure 76) form 73% of the total 75+ households in 2040. However, given that it is also likely that some older households will progress to using a wheelchair whilst living in specialist housing due to a deterioration in their health, there is a strong case for the percentage of specialist older persons housing that is wheelchair adapted to be at a higher level.

It is the respondent's view that a requirement for wheelchair adaptions in 13% of households aged 75 and over is insufficient justification for 100% of specialist older persons' housing to be built to M4(3) While the policy was written with good intentions, we are strongly of the view that the presumption that just because an individual is over 75 they will require a wheelchair is an inappropriate generalisation.

Churchill Retirement Living have been building retirement living apartments since 1994 and have accrued significant expertise in building specialist housing that enables older people to live independently Recent research into existing Churchill Retirement Living developments has resoundingly demonstrated that there is no need for our apartments to meet M4(3) requirements with less than 1% of our occupiers using a wheelchair full time.

People with long term mobility disabilities would be in a different setting and as such would not occupy an independent living retirement development. Given the lack of demand for the requirement for M4(3) in this form of accommodation it would simply be a cost to development and ultimately an increased purchase cost whilst serving no identified need.

Building to M4(2) provides sufficient accessibility and adaptability for all our current users and future users and is very much in keeping with the product of providing an independent retirement living lifestyle for those aged 60 and over.

Additionally, Paragraph 009 (Reference ID. 56-009-20750327) of the PPG sets out that 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.

There is no policy requirement or control that the LPA can impose over open market private apartments that could mandate that they must be sold to a wheelchair user.

To that end, I refer the Council to Paragraph 67-69 of the attached appeal decision at Stanford Hill, Lymington (APP/B1740/W /20/3265937) This sets out a view on Optional Technical Standards and in particular a Local Plan policy requirement for 100% of specialist older persons' accommodation to be built to M4(3) dwellings, with the Appeal Inspector concluding

I am mindful also that the design of the appeal scheme seeks to achieve the f'v14(2) Optional Building Regulations standard for accessible and adaptable dwellings - 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.

It is clear from this decision that, despite having an adopted policy, the Inspector considered the provision of M4(2) sufficient to cater for a range of occupants and that this technical breach of the policy was not so significant to outweigh the very significant benefits of the scheme.

We are aware that a small number of emerging and adopted Local Plans have introduced policies requiring 100% of specialist older persons' accommodation to be built to M4(3). There may, accordingly, be the mistaken assumption that such policies constitute best practice however for the reasons set out in this representation, we strongly advise the Council that this is not the case. The specialist older persons' housing sector is increasingly challenging such policies at Examination in Public and, in the rare instances they have been adopted, at Appeal

Finally, 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)

We have reviewed the Bedford Local Plan 2040 - Borough-Wide Viability Study (2022) undertaken by BNP Paribas in which they test the viability of specialist older persons' housing in the Borough

In our response to Policy Df'v17(S) Affordable Housing we detail fully how 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 Df'v13(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

As such I would respectfully highlight that imposing a 100% M4(3) requirement for all specialist older persons' housing would be unlawful and would not meet the tests of soundness in the NPPF accordingly

In the event the Council does not make the necessary amendments to the above policy then the respondent would like to present their case at Examination in Public.