Object

Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

Representation ID: 24340

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The policy is unsound as it is not justified in line with planning guidance which requires local authorities to demonstrate the need for these requirements to be applied to new homes. This evidence should include the likely future need for housing for older and disabled people, the accessibility and adaptability of existing stock, different needs across tenure and the overall impact on viability. It is therefore incumbent on the Council to provide a local assessment evidencing the specific case for Rother which justifies the inclusion of optional higher standards for accessible / adaptable homes. Whilst the impact of the accessibility standard on viability has been tested, we could find no evidence, as required by PPG, with regard to, for example, the existing housing stock and needs within different tenures. It is not the case that all homes will need to be developed to the higher accessibility standard and that many older people will find the higher accessibility standard set out in part M4(1) will be sufficient to meet their needs both now and in future.

Without the required evidence to support this policy the Council should not require all new homes to be built to the higher accessibility standard.

Full text:

DHG4: Accessibility and Adaptability Standard

The policy is unsound as it is not justified in line with planning guidance
Paragraph 56-007 requires local authorities to demonstrate the need for these requirements to be applied to new homes. This evidence should include the likely future need for housing for older and disabled people, the accessibility and adaptability of existing stock, the different needs across tenure and the overall impact on viability. It is therefore incumbent on the Council to provide a local assessment evidencing the specific case for Rother which justifies the inclusion of optional higher standards for accessible / adaptable homes in policy DHG4. Whilst the impact of the accessibility standard on viability has been tested, we could find no evidence, as required by PPG, with regard to, for example, the existing housing stock and needs within different tenures. It is not the case that all homes will need to be developed to the higher accessibility standard and that many older people will find the higher accessibility standard set out in part M4(1) will be sufficient to meet their needs both now and in future.

Recommendation

Without the required evidence to support this policy the Council should not require all new homes to be built to the higher accessibility standard.