Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Whilst the Council’s commitment to meeting both its and the UK Government’s target of net zero carbon emissions is commendable, it appears that the Council is going to achieve this through having mandatory carbon and climate standards from adoption of the plan that may go beyond government targets. However, it is our view that any requirement should be ‘stepped’ in line with Government targets and the proposed changes to the building regulations.

This approach is confirmed within the Ministerial Statement (statement no : Statement UIN HCWS123 available from Written statements - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament) released on 13th December 2023. The ministerial statement confirms that with respect to the net zero goal….

‘The improvement in standards already in force, alongside the ones which are due in 2025, demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring new properties have a much lower impact on the environment in the future. In this context, the Government does not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale. Any planning policies that propose local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulation should be rejected at examination if they do not have a well-reasoned and robustly costed rationale’ and ‘To be sound, local plans must be consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework and other statements of national planning policy, including this one’.

Deleting the policy and aligning the Council’s requirement for carbon neutral development with those of Government would therefore be pragmatic, more achievable and consistent with national policy. The industry also needs to have a consistent nationally prescribed approach to these changes in order to ensure that a suitable transaction is achieved and not a viability shock which would simply stall development in individual areas. Furthermore, none of these additional standards have been viability tested and shown to be deliverable as yet.

Q22. What are your views on the Council’s proposed policy for Biodiversity Net Gain?
Q23. What are your views on the Council going above the national minimum requirement of 10%?
Q24. Are there any alternatives or additional points the Council should be considering?

The Policy seeks a minimum 20% Biodiversity Net Gain as well as setting a number of requirements for BNG delivery.

The Council should not set a higher biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirement for development than the 10% that is that set out in the Environment Act 2021. Requiring BNG above 10% does not meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF. The Council should also note that the recently finalised Planning Policy Guidance on Biodiversity Net Gain at paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 74-006-20240214 confirms that ‘Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented’.

It is noted that the Council justify its approach through para 3,48 that states ‘This higher level is justified because opportunities to deliver this off-site, if necessary, are available locally. The viability of development is unlikely to be unduly impacted in most cases.’. The council are clearly making the assumption that the cost of BNG is unlikely to be large and therefore will not impact viability. However, the consultation is not accompanied by a viability assessment and therefore this has not been tested in line with the PPG and it is not possible to determine whether such a requirement is viable without such an assessment being undertaken. Recent updates to the PPG make it clear that the cost of BNG is a viability consideration and therefore, should be viability tested (PPG Viability Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 10-012-20240214)

Until evidence can be produced in line with the PPG. a 10% requirement should also be maintained in order to ensure that the requirement is ‘fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development’ (para 57, NPPF) and consistent with national policy guidance.

The Council should also reconsider the additional wording it proposes with regard to BNG to ensure the policy is in line with the guidance and statutory instruments that the government have recently updated / published regarding statutory Biodiversity Net Gain.

Recommendation
For the policy to be consistent with national policy and legislation the Council should:
• Only seek a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain
• Reconsider the additional policy wording to ensure it is consistent with recently published legislation and planning guidance.

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.

Q131. What are your views on the Council’s proposed policy on specialist housing for older people?
Q132. Are there any alternatives or additional points the Council should be considering?

Although we are supportive of the sentiment of policy HOU9: Specialist Housing for Older People we have concerns with regard to several elements of the policy:

1. Prioritising extra care housing over retirement living or sheltered housing unless it is demonstrated that the site is unsuitable for an extra-care or housing with care scheme, or that there is an identified need for the proposed accommodation type in that location

We have concerns with regard to the policy wording that seeks to prioritise extra care housing over retirement living or shelter housing. We believe the evidence supporting this assertion is not robust especially given the large increase in the older population projected and the critical need to provide housing for older people as detailed in Paragraph 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626 of the PPG was updated to include a section on Housing for Older and Disabled People that 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. In mid-2016 there were 1.6 million people aged 85 and over; by mid-2041 this is projected to double to 3.2 million. 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” (emphasis added).

It is well documented that the UK has an ageing population. Life expectancy is greater than it used to be and as set out above by 2032 the number of people in the UK aged over 80 is set to increase from 3.2 million to 5 million (ONS mid 2018 population estimates).

It is generally recognised (for example, within the Homes for Later Living Report September 2019). That there is a need to deliver 30,000 retirement and extra care houses a year in the UK to keep pace with demand.

The age profile of Rother can be drawn from the 2018 population projections from the Office for National Statistics. This advises that there were 30,500 persons aged 65 and over in 2018, accounting for 31.9%% of the total population of the Council area. This age range is projected to increase by 15,014 individuals, or 49.2%, to 45,514 between 2018 and 2043. The population aged 65 and over is expected to increase to account for 41.1% of the total population of Rother by 2043.

In 2018 there were 8,922 persons aged 80 and over, individuals who are more likely to be frail and in need of long-term assistance. The number of people in this age range is forecasted to increase by 8,255 individuals, or 92.5%, to 17,177 between 2018 and 2043. The population aged 80 and over is anticipated to represent a higher proportion of Rother ’s residents, accounting for 9.3% of the total population in 2018 and increasing to 15.5% by 2043.

It is therefore clear there will be a significant increase in older people and the provision of all types of specialist housing for older people to meet the needs of the elderly demographic should be supported not just extra care housing.

For clarification, the policy is supported by the Rother and Hastings Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment Update, DLP, 2023 (‘HEDNA’). The full methodology is detailed in Appendix E of the study. This uses a number of sources of evidence including 2021 census data, the Mayhew report, research as to whether the British want to live in integrated retirement communities and a study entitled ‘unlock the retirement opportunity in a post-pandemic world’. This also considers a variety of prevalence rates. Overall, we are concerned as to how some of these sources have been interpreted and how this has impacted the need figures resulting in the identification of a large need for extra care housing and an existing over-supply of sheltered housing. As an example, para 3.1 of the HEDNA states that ‘The Mayhew Review (2022) suggests that the need for extra care housing would be the following a) 10K homes a year baseline, b) 30K homes a year minimum, c) 50k homes a year target’. However, our understanding is that these figures are for all elements of retirement housing, not just housing with care and therefore this has been misinterpreted. Another example is the research associated with ‘whether the British want to live in integrated retirement communities’. The Council should note that this is a specific element of research into Integrated Retirement communities (IRC) and that IRC’s tend to be a very high-end produce with a number of additional support services such as swimming pools and spas that are more exclusive and potentially skews the result but assume the question is related to all retirement housing.

This misinterpretation of research has resulted in the study concluding that there is a trend in choice away from retirement living housing / sheltered housing towards extra care housing and has resulted in the overly large need for extra care housing being identified with conversely the identification of an existing over-supply of sheltered / retirement living housing. This appears to be on the basis that people will choose to remain in their existing family home until their care needs are so acute they need care. This has resulted in the prevalence rates for sheltered housing (ownership) to drop from 140 per 1000 by the SPRU in 2022 to 25 per 1000 in 2023 (see table 3, appendix E of the HEDNA). This is well over a 400% change from the original SPRU model and causes concern regarding the robustness of the model. We would therefore recommend that the council delete the following wording from policy HOU9 in order to ensure all forms of specialist housing for older people are supported and a preference is not expressed within the policy.

Schemes providing extra-care housing or housing with care will usually be prioritised over retirement living, sheltered accommodation or age-restricted general market housing74 , unless it is demonstrated that the site is unsuitable for an extra-care or housing with care scheme, or that there is an identified need for the proposed accommodation type in that location.

2. The requirement for specialist housing for older people to also deliver affordable housing in accordance with policy HOU2 (affordable housing)

Please see our response to questions ‘Q116. What are your views on the Council’s proposed policy on affordable housing?’ And Q117. Are there any alternatives or additional points the Council should be considering?’ In response to policy HOU2.

3. The requirement to for specialist housing for older people to comply with the 10 key design criteria set out in the HAPPI principles and other recognised design standards and guidance relevant to older people’s housing.

As well as requesting a minimum number of homes to be built to M4(3) and M4 (2) standards the plan is asking for specialist housing for older people to meet the 10 design criteria set out in the HAPPI principles. However the council should note that paragraph 1 of the PPG “Housing: Optional Technical Standards” (March 2015) states:

The government has created a new approach for the setting of technical standards for new housing. This rationalises the many differing existing standards into a simpler, streamlined system which will reduce burdens and help bring forward much needed new homes. The government set out its policy on the application of these standards in decision taking and plan making in a written ministerial statement’.

This effectively means that the application of Lifetime and Wheelchair Home Standards has been superseded by the Optional M4 standards and the M4(2) standard is broadly equivalent to lifetime Homes (see Governments Consultation on Raising Accessibility standards July 2022). In addition, many of the HAPPI principles such as daylight, balconies and space are now controlled by the requirements of the building reregulation and other planning requirements and therefore the guidance if referred to at all within the policy should be seen as an aspiration and not a requirement with a recognition that many elements have been superseded by or creates a tension with the building regulations.