Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

This is a representation on behalf of McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd. As the market leaders in the provision of retirement housing for sale to the elderly, McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd considers that with its extensive experience and expertise in providing development of this nature it is well placed to provide informed comments on the emerging Rother District Council Community Infrastructure Levy insofar as it affects or relates to housing for the elderly.

We previously provided pre-consultation commentary on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule in September 2014 in which we in turn expressed our concern that the emerging CIL could prohibit the development of specialist accommodation for the elderly at a time when there is an existing and urgent need for this form of development. Notably we raised concerns over the methodology used to determine the viability of Retirement Housing and Extra Care accommodation.

In response to our representation we note that the Council commissioned testing of older person's accommodation and revised its Charging Schedule accordingly. We commend the Council's considered response to our objection and its willingness to test and ensure that specialist accommodation for the elderly remains deliverable under the proposed CIL regime.

We also appreciate the additional details on the viability assumptions used for testing the viability of both Sheltered / Retirement housing and Extra Care accommodation provided in the Addendum to the Viability Assessment. Accordingly we have a more robust understanding of the methodologies used and consider we have had sufficient opportunity to scrutinise the Council's findings in detail.

Extra Care Accommodation

Whilst there are still some differences between our respective methodologies for testing the viability of Extra Care accommodation, we do not consider these to be sufficient to significantly affect the findings of the assessment. Moreover we note that the proposed greenfield and brownfield CIL rates for Extra Care accommodation incorporate a reasonable buffer. We therefore remove our objection to the rates for Extra Care Accommodation.




Sheltered / Retirement Housing

It is noted and appreciated that Peter Brett Associates have utilised the Retirement Housing Group's (RHG's) methodology for testing the viability of Sheltered / Retirement housing. McCarthy and Stone consider that this methodology is a largely robust and fair method for testing the viability of this form of accommodation.

We are therefore largely in agreement with the overwhelming majority of the viability inputs proposed.

Regrettably however we consider the extent of communal floorspace provision used to test the viability of this form of accommodation has been significantly underplayed. The RHG's guidance advises that communal non-saleable floor space for Sheltered / Retirement housing is between 20%-30%. The level of communal floorspace tested is the lowest of the margins set by the RHG.

Both Companies have provided number of developments within Rother and nearby Local Authorities in the recent past. Whilst efficiencies of under 25% are possible they are few and far between, with the majority of sheltered / retirement schemes delivered comfortably providing over 25% communal floorspace provision.

This was successfully proved at the Examination of the Tandridge District Council CIL Examination and the Bath and North East Somerset CIL Examination.

The table below is a list of 10 recent developments in the South East of England by both developers and summaries the extent of communal floorspace provision. This is as measured by qualified architects of the in-house design teams of the respective companies in accordance with the RICS Code of Measuring Practice.

(See attachment)

The aforementioned table alongside the floor plans and sales area sheets were submitted to the Tandridge CIL examination.

Subsequent to the submission of the aforementioned evidence both the Council and the Examiner accepted that the average provision of communal floorspace in sheltered / retirement schemes were 30%, with the Examiner's Report stating:

The viability assessments for retirement housing use increments of 5% when allowing for non-saleable floorspace. The Representors' evidence shows an average for sheltered/retirement schemes of 28.6 which, also bearing in mind the additional factors mentioned in their evidence, referred to in paragraph 27 above, leads me to conclude that it is prudent to take 30% as the appropriate level for assessment purposes. For extra care developments this figure should be rounded to 40%.

(Paragraph 29 Tandridge District Council - Examiner's Report)

In light of the Examiner's judgment at Tandridge we do not feel it is necessary to provide the floor plans and sales area sheets for above developments, although should the Council consider this necessary we are happy to do so. There is clear, established evidence demonstrating that Sheltered and Retirement housing provide communal facilities of over 25% - testing 20% communal floorspace provision is therefore considered unrepresentative for this form of development.

We therefore maintain our objection to the proposed CIL rates for Sheltered / Retirement housing and respectfully request the opportunity to be heard at Examination in public .

We respectfully request that the viability appraisals for sheltered / retirement accommodation are repeated with a more representative quantum of communal floor space provision.

Should a suitably revised viability appraisal still show Sheltered / Retirement housing could support the proposed CIL rates then we would be willing to withdraw our objection the Charging Schedule. We would be happy to discuss this with the Council and their consultants prior to submission so as to not unduly delay the preparation of CIL.

Thank you for the opportunity for comment.

Yours faithfully,



Ziyad Thomas
Policy Planner
The Planning Bureau Ltd.