Please see:

- Mr John Lovering - Rother Draft Local Plan 2020 (comments of draft Local Plan)
- Land off Uckham Lane - Location Plan
- Landscape Feasability Study
- Transport Report
- Access Plan

How has this document reached this stage with the wording 'a minimum of x percent'? is this supposed to relate to the figures quoted below, if so, it needs to be tied in, if not what does it actually mean? Leaving Rother to negociate on our behalf is no a good idea and gives no confidence in this plan.
What happened to the requirement for homes in villages and the countryside to have a greater percentage of affordable homes? Not having this, and given that Rother has a high proportion of elderly residents, will mean that villages will not be able to sustain their lives as younger people who want to work locally i.e. on the land will not be able to live in them. Rural areas and villages should have almost 100% affordable housing to enable them to survive.

Q116. What are your views on the Council’s proposed policy on affordable housing?
Q117. Are there any alternatives or additional points the Council should be considering?
We note that for the policy area the Council anticipate including an affordable housing policy setting a proportion of market housing schemes to deliver affordable housing. However, the proportion to be required is not yet available with the draft plan requesting a ‘minimum of X percent’.

We would remind the Council of the increased emphasis on Local Plan viability testing in Paragraph 58 of the NPPF and 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 evidence underpinning the Council’s planning obligations and building requirements should therefore be robust.

We would also like to remind the Council that the viability of specialist housing for older people is more finely balanced than ‘general needs’ housing and we are strongly of the view that these housing typologies should be robustly assessed in any forthcoming Local Plan Viability Assessment. This would accord with the typology approach detailed in Paragraph: 004 (Reference ID: 10-004-20190509) of the PPG which states that. A typology approach is a process plan makers can follow to ensure that they are creating realistic, deliverable policies based on the type of sites that are likely to come forward for development over the plan period’. The outcome of the viability testing then needs to be incorporated into the plan and older persons housing should be addressed separately with regard to affordable housing if the evidence shows that different thresholds to mainstream housing are viable. If this is not done, the delivery of much needed specialised housing for older people may be significantly delayed with protracted discussion about other policy areas such as affordable housing policy requirements which are wholly inappropriate when considering such housing need.

We would direct the Council towards the Retirement Housing Consortium paper entitled ‘A briefing note on viability’ prepared for Retirement Housing Group by Three Dragons, May 2013 (updated February 2013 (‘RHG Briefing Note’) available from https://retirementhousinggroup.com/rhg/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CIL-viabiilty-appraisal-issues-RHG-February-2016.pdf. The RHG Briefing Note establishes how sheltered housing and extra care development differs from mainstream housing and looks at the key variables and assumptions that can affect the viability of specialist housing for older people. These key variables include unit size, unit numbers and GIA, non-saleable communal space, empty property costs, external build cost, sales values, build costs, marketing costs and sales periods.

The Council must therefore ensure that an up-to-date viability assessment is undertaken to inform the future plan. The new viability assessment must include a number of typologies that includes older person’s housing and if older person’s housing is found to be not viable an exemption must be provided within the plan in order to prevent protracted conversations at the application stage over affordable housing provision and delaying the provision of much needed older persons housing. Any plan wide viability assessment undertaken in view of these comments should be made available for a period of consultation to ensure the assumptions made within it reflect those agreed on a site specific level in the recent past.

In addition, although we note that the council is attempting to show flexibility within the draft policy and suggests that a viability assessment can be provided, we also note that if viability is a concern or challenging this then requires the implementation of a review mechanism that requires viability to be reassessed through the lifetime of a development. However, in order to introduce such a mechanism, there must be a clear and specific policy basis for any review mechanism being imposed in line with PPG Viability para 009 Reference ID: 10-009-20190509. A significant number of recent Planning Appeals and case law have reinforced this point. A review mechanism that sits within a planning obligation also needs to be fully considered and assessed through the Local Plan process.

Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 10-009-20190509 of the government guidance on Viability states the following:
‘Plans should set out circumstances where review mechanisms may be appropriate, as well as clear process and terms of engagement regarding how and when viability will be reassessed over the lifetime of the development to ensure policy compliance and optimal public benefits through economic cycles. Policy compliant means development which fully complies with up to date plan policies. A decision maker can give appropriate weight to emerging policies.

There must therefore be a reasonable justification for imposing such a review mechanism. A review mechanism and any detail that will form part of it and sits within a planning obligation therefore needs to be considered fully and assessed through the Local Plan process. This should include the consideration of variables such as trigger points, costs, land values, how surplus is split and other definitions.

In addition, for a large or multi-phase development which will be delivered over a long period it makes sense to check whether the scheme's viability has changed with market movements. However, for a small single phased site, such as an older persons housing scheme that is built in one phase, the Inspectorate have repeatedly noted that review mechanisms are unnecessary. For example, under Appeal decision reference APP/C4235/W/120/3256972 dated 1st April 2021, the Inspector noted in paragraph 17 that ‘as the development would almost certainly be completed in a single phase with an estimated build time of 12-18 months, it is not the sort of large multi-phased scheme where stronger arguments for a review/clawback mechanism may otherwise exist’.

Therefore, if a review mechanism is to be introduced the detail within any review mechanism needs be published so it can be fully assessed through the Local Plan process, this must also include an exemption for single phased schemes as repeatedly noted by the planning inspectorate.

All too often we see Social Housing being "dropped" from a planning application due to revisions. This must stop, and the developer must be aware that is a non-negotiable condition of the planning application.
I agree with the figure of 6 or 10 dwellings being the cut-off number for Affordable Housing, but is there a way in which a developed can drip-feed houses onto a site in order to avoid this obligation?