• It is noted that the proposed CS addresses the imbalance of resident population which has a higher than average proportion of residents over the age of 45. However, whilst we support the aim to use development proposals as a means to fund the provision of affordable housing, we do not believe it appropriate to apply this across all sectors.

• Developments aimed at different housing sectors such as sheltered Housing, retirement housing, holiday chalets, time-share, etc. will produce quite different financial viabilities. Specialist services and care facilities necessary to support homes designed for the elderly impose an increased financial burden on the development and may restrict its ability to contribute an affordable housing component.

• It is government policy that housing provision should provide for all sectors including for the elderly. However, housing designed specifically to meet the needs of specialist housing groups (for example as with student accommodation) doesn't necessarily lend itself to a haphazard mix of occupants forced upon it by affordable housing policy. The suggested blanket approach to affordable housing comprised in the SPD and these policy documents represents a crude and inappropriate tool when applied in these circumstances.

• As a result, we believe that the affordable housing policy presents a serious risk to both the financial and the functional viability of many types of housing scheme resulting in the abandonment of many potentially valuable schemes. As a result, attainment of the higher order aims and objectives of the Government and of Rother Council will not be realised. Accordingly we do not agree that the Council's adopted SPD on Affordable Housing is likely to achieve its aims of providing more affordable housing within the District.

• The recent Court of Appeal case - Blyth Valley Borough Council v Persimmon Homes (North East) Ltd and others - demonstrated that local planning authorities must recognise the 'crucial requirement of the PPS that an economic viability assessment of any percentage figure was a central feature of the policy on affordable housing'. The evidence base listed on the Council's web-site as background papers upon which the policy directions are based includes a Housing Needs study dated 2005, a housing strategy document dated from 2004 and a Hastings and Rother Housing Market Assessment 2007.

• The work leading up to the publication of these documents was of course undertaken some time before these dates all of which not only pre-date the current economic recession, but also were formulated during the height of a long period of inflationary pressure on land transactions and within the housing market in general. The Court of appeal held that Blyth Valley 'failed to reflect the requirement of the PPS as to the need for an informed economic viability study as part of the process leading to a policy requiring a particular percentage of affordable housing.' We do not believe that the Council's data is adequately up to date to fulfil this requirement.

• The background papers show no evidence of any financial viability work having been undertaken to inform the process of selecting a particular percentage affordable housing requirement. Even had it done so, such evidence would not have taken account of the dramatic changes in housing market viabilities resulting from the world-wide economic down-turn and housing recession in the UK resulting in falling land and property prices. We believe that this would leave an Inspector with no alternative than to find a core strategy legally flawed and unsound.

• Moreover, the fragility of the housing market in terms of viability is unlikely to meet the overall objective of providing additional housing to meet the needs set out in the draft RSS for the SE. To universally and without up to date financial viability tests, apply punitive costs to housing schemes further increases the likelihood of allocations and housing permissions being unimplemented. Delivery of (appropriate) development is the principle aim of the Development plan process and this will fail without proper regard to viability.

• We suggest that it would be appropriate to aim for an overall increase in affordable housing provision within Rother District, in line with the emerging regional policy. However, we suggest that it should generally only apply to open market schemes and not at all to those specifically designed for specialist sectors such as for retirement and for student accommodation. In any event, all applications of such a policy should be subject to up to date financial viability tests for any given site.

• In this regard we suggest that it will be necessary for the Council to indicate in the framework documents a system of ranking 'planning gain' requirements in order for infrastructure; service & utility; social; community; carbon reduction and all other development costs to be prioritised in order to inform the development process in a transparent way.