Policy HC4: Homes for older people and others with special housing requirements

Comment

Representation ID: 4083

Received: 13/12/2022

Respondent: Staffordshire Police

Increase in bungalow provision should be considered. Residential care homes, should be able to cater for independent residents as well as those who need support and nursing care. Parking facilities should be available for residents, visitors, employees and dedicated parking for emergency services.

Comment

Representation ID: 4233

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board

Research within primary care networks (PCNs) has shown the increased rate of access to care required in specialised accommodation settings is significant.

The NHS Long Term Plan commits to rolling out a model of Enhanced Health in Care Homes across England by 2024.

It should be noted that to deliver such services within concentrated locations there will be, in some cases, the need to consider expansion of primary care estate capacity (infrastructure) to accommodate the series of additional roles required to provide the multi-disciplinary team support needed for this service i.e. potential for off-site contributions.

Object

Representation ID: 4358

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: CPRE Staffordshire

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

CPRE analysis shows that Green Belt sites build at lower densities and the majority of homes provided on such sites are unaffordable by the NPPF's definition. Other CPRE reports indicate that greenfield is being increasingly used over brownfield, despite brownfield land increasing and being found in high supply in all regions of England. Despite this there is a substantial decrease in the proportion of housing units with planning permission, down to 44%, the lowest since registers began.

Object

Representation ID: 4401

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements.
The Government has consulted on raising accessibility standards for new homes but the requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards is yet to be mandated. If the Council intends to pursue a policy in respect of M4(2) standards this must be evidenced. Bloor Homes considers that whilst there may be justification for implementing optional M4(2) standards, the 100% requirement is not justified.
See supporting representations for further details.

Object

Representation ID: 4507

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposed policy requires a range of specialist housing to be delivered on site, both within market and affordable sectors. It is not clear whether this is a continuation of the Council’s current approach of requiring 10% of all homes to
be delivered as bungalows or other ground floor accommodation.
It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements.
The Policy should be amended to require a maximum of 30% of all new homes to be delivered to meet the optional M4(2) standards, especially where this could be in addition to other homes for older people and others with special housing requirements required by Policy HC4.

Object

Representation ID: 4522

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements.
The Government has consulted on raising accessibility standards for new homes but the requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards is yet to be mandated. If the Council intends to pursue a policy in respect of M4(2) standards this must be evidenced. Cameron Homes considers that whilst there may be justification for implementing optional M4(2) standards, the 100% requirement is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 4548

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements.
The Government has consulted on raising accessibility standards for new homes but the requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards is yet to be mandated. If the Council intends to pursue a policy in respect of M4(2) standards this must be evidenced. Cameron Homes considers that whilst there may be justification for implementing optional M4(2) standards, the 100% requirement is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 4574

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements.
The Government has consulted on raising accessibility standards for new homes but the requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards is yet to be mandated. If the Council intends to pursue a policy in respect of M4(2) standards this must be evidenced. Taylor Wimpey considers that whilst there may be justification for implementing optional M4(2) standards, the 100% requirement is not justified.
See supporting representations for further details.

Object

Representation ID: 4605

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Four Ashes Road LTD

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements.
The Government has consulted on raising accessibility standards for new homes but the requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards is yet to be mandated. If the Council intends to pursue a policy in respect of M4(2) standards this must be evidenced. Four Ashes Road Ltd considers that whilst there may be justification for implementing optional M4(2) standards, the 100% requirement is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 4635

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Clowes objects to the policy HC4, as written because it is not justified, effective, not is it accordance with national policy The PPG states that Councils have the option
to“set additional technical requirements exceeding the
minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need
for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519).

The PPG (Reference ID: 56-005-20150327 to 56-011-20150327) sets out the evidence necessary to justifying a policy requirement for optional standards.Therefore,
Policy HC4 should be supported by a detailed analysis of how the Council consider these criteria have been adequately addressed and evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 4661

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements.
The Government has consulted on raising accessibility standards for new homes but the requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards is yet to be mandated. If the Council intends to pursue a policy in respect of M4(2) standards this must be evidenced. Keon Homes considers that whilst there may be justification for implementing optional M4(2) standards, the 100% requirement is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 4701

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements.
The Government has consulted on raising accessibility standards for new homes but the requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards is yet to be mandated. If the Council intends to pursue a policy in respect of M4(2) standards this must be evidenced. Lovell Homes considers that whilst there may be justification for implementing optional M4(2) standards, the 100% requirement is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 4763

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Harding

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

If the Council wishes to adopt the higher optional standards for accessible, adaptable and wheelchair homes the Council should only do so by applying the criteria set out in the PPG.

It is incumbent on the Council to provide a local assessment evidencing the specific case for South Staffordshire which justifies the inclusion of optional higher standards for accessible and adaptable homes in its Local Plan policy. If an appropriate evidence base is provided and appropriate transition period is included. The Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances.

Object

Representation ID: 4803

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There is an absence of evidence to justify requiring all major residential developments to fully comply with Part M4(2) standards, despite the viability study concluding such measures would not have an impact on development viability.

Object

Representation ID: 4815

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy is vague, and it is unclear how it would be applied by a decision-maker. This fails to comply with part D, paragraph 16 of the NPPF to avoid situations where the ambiguity in policy leads to a delay in housing delivery.

The council's own assessment of accessible and adaptable dwellings does not take account of the existing dwelling stock. The figure of 3,978 dwellings equates to c.40% of the overall housing target. The requirement for 100% of dwellings to comply with M4(2) standards is no justified.

Object

Representation ID: 4820

Received: 24/02/2023

Respondent: Trine Developments Limited

Agent: Cerda Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

In terms of cross reference between these policies and Policy SA4 – Strategic development location: Land North of Penkridge. The policy requirements are clear that at least 40 units providing for specialist elderly housing are required on each of the housing allocations. It is not clear whether the housing mix, density and affordable housing provision for each of the strategic allocations is to be met within individual planning applications (which could be numerous) or within the allocation as a whole. For clarity and in order to avoid confusion this matter should be identified either within these policies or Policies MA1 or SA4.

Comment

Representation ID: 4843

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Regarding the proposals for requiring M4(2) building regulations, The Council should provide localised evidence making the specific case for South Staffordshire which justifies the inclusion of optional higher standards for accessible and adaptable homes in this policy. If the Council can provide the appropriate evidence and this policy is to be included, then a transition period being included within the policy could be supported, as appropriate.

There is a need for policy to be consistent with national standards unless a specific evidenced reason exists for a higher standard to be applied in South Staffordshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 4888

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd

Agent: Turley

Bellway support the provision of accessible homes that are suitable to meet the needs of older people and others with special housing requirements. However, if the Council is to adopt the higher optional standards within the Building Regulations (Part M4(2) Category 2) for accessible and adaptable homes, it should only do so by applying the criteria set out in PPG.
The PPG identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy, including the likely future need; the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed; the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock; how the needs vary across different housing tenures; and the overall viability. The Council should provide localised
evidence making the specific case for South Staffordshire which justifies the inclusion of optional higher standards for accessible and adaptable homes in this policy. If the
Council can provide the appropriate evidence and this policy is to be included, then Bellway would support a transition period included within the policy, as appropriate.
The Council should also note that the Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through
the Building Regulations. M4(3) would continue to apply as now where there is a local planning policy is in place and where a need has been identified and evidenced.
There is a need for policy to be consistent with national standards unless a specific evidenced reason exists for a higher standard to be applied in South Staffordshire.

Object

Representation ID: 4920

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Gladman

Agent: Gladman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In order for the policy to be considered sound, further evidence is required to justify the approach taken in relation to the requirement for 100% of both the market and affordable housing to meet M4(2). If appropriate evidence cannot demonstrate a need for this level of M4(2) dwellings this policy requirement should be removed.

Comment

Representation ID: 4927

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd

Agent: Turley

Bellway support the provision of accessible homes that are suitable to meet the needs of older people and others with special housing requirements. However, if the Council is to adopt the higher optional standards within the Building Regulations (Part M4(2) Category 2) for accessible and adaptable homes, it should only do so by applying the criteria set out in PPG.

The PPG identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy, including the likely future need; the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed; the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock; how the needs vary across different housing tenures; and the overall viability. The Council should provide localised
evidence making the specific case for South Staffordshire which justifies the inclusion of optional higher standards for accessible and adaptable homes in this policy. If the
Council can provide the appropriate evidence and this policy is to be included, then Bellway would support a transition period included within the policy, as appropriate.

The Council should also note that the Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through
the Building Regulations. M4(3) would continue to apply as now where there is a local planning policy is in place and where a need has been identified and evidenced.

There is a need for policy to be consistent with national standards unless a specific evidenced reason exists for a higher standard to be applied in South Staffordshire.

Object

Representation ID: 4965

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The PPG states that Councils have the option to “set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519). The NPPF also requires all policies to be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence which should be adequate, proportionate and focused on supporting and justifying planning policies (paragraph 31). The PPG (Reference ID: 56-005-20150327 to 56-011-20150327) sets out the evidence necessary to justifying a policy requirement for optional standards which includes:
• the likely future need;
• the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed;
• the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock;
• variations in needs across different housing tenures: and
• viability.
The PPG (Reference ID: 56-008-20160519) also states that when adopting accessibility standards, “Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied” [Savills emphasis]. Policy HC4 makes no provision for the PPG exceptions.

Object

Representation ID: 4987

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Policy requires for all dwellings delivered on major developments to meet M4(2) standards. The PPG states that Councils have the option to “set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519). The NPPF also requires all policies to be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence which should be adequate, proportionate and focused on supporting and justifying planning policies (paragraph 31). The PPG (Reference ID: 56-005-20150327 to 56-011-20150327) sets out the evidence necessary to justifying a policy requirement for optional standards which includes:
• the likely future need;
• the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed;
• the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock;
• variations in needs across different housing tenures: and
• viability.
The PPG (Reference ID: 56-008-20160519) also states that when adopting accessibility standards, “Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied” [Savills emphasis]. Policy HC4 makes no provision for the PPG exceptions.

Object

Representation ID: 5014

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, Taylor Wimpey recommends that the draft Policy HC4 is amended so that the need for each housing type is reflected within the policy and that the on-site provision is determined on a site-by-site basis. This would better address the demographic differences between local areas opposed to implementing a District-wide requirement. Additionally, the Policy should be amended so that the requirement for new homes to meet the M4(2) accessibility standards is reduced to reflect the actual need. Taylor Wimpey notes that the specific needs of each of the housing types listed within draft Policy HC4 is not reflected within draft Policy HC4. And thus, is not clear how individual developments are expected to contribute towards the needs of older people, as well as groups with specific requirements.
In order to comply with NPPF paragraph 62, Taylor Wimpey recommends that the draft Policy HC4 is amended so that the need for each housing type is reflected within the policy and that the on-site provision is determined on a site-by-site basis.
Additionally, the Policy should be amended so that the requirement for new homes to meet the M4(2) accessibility standards is reduced to reflect the actual need opposed to 100% of dwellings which is considered to be unjustified.

Object

Representation ID: 5086

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We object to the wording of Policy HC4 where it states the following:

‘All major developments will also be required to ensure 100% of both the market and affordable housing meets the higher access standards Part M4(2) Category 2’

To require all major developments to meet the higher access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 could have significant financial viability implications. This policy also does not seem to account for the redevelopment of (for instance) listed buildings, as in many cases it will not be possible to meet the access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 within the confines of a listed building without resulting in a detrimental impact or due to spatial restrictions. We therefore consider that this policy should be reconsidered to take into account more constrained sites where this would not be possible, or where viability would indicate that flexibility should be applied. If such flexibility is not written into this policy, we consider it would be inconsistent with NPPF para 82.

Object

Representation ID: 5127

Received: 13/12/2022

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to the wording of Policy HC4 where it states the following:

‘All major developments will also be required to ensure 100% of both the market and affordable housing meets the higher access standards Part M4(2) Category 2’

To require all major developments to meet the higher access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 would have significant financial viability implications. This policy also does not seem to account for the redevelopment of (for instance) listed buildings, as in many cases it will not be possible to meet the access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 within the confines of a listed building without resulting in a detrimental impact or due to spatial restrictions. We therefore consider that this policy should be reconsidered to consider more constrained sites where this would not be possible, or where viability would indicate that flexibility should be applied.

If such flexibility is not written into this policy, we consider it would be inconsistent with NPPF para 82.

Object

Representation ID: 5140

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We object to the wording of Policy HC4 where it states the following:

‘All major developments will also be required to ensure 100% of both the market and affordable housing meets the higher access standards Part M4(2) Category 2’

To require all major developments to meet the higher access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 could have significant financial viability implications. This policy also does not seem to account for the redevelopment of (for instance) listed buildings, as in many cases it will not be possible to meet the access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 within the confines of a listed building without resulting in a detrimental impact or due to spatial restrictions. We therefore consider that this policy should be reconsidered to take into account more constrained sites where this would not be possible, or where viability would indicate that flexibility should be applied.

If such flexibility is not written into this policy, we consider it would be inconsistent with NPPF para 82.

Object

Representation ID: 5152

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Reed Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to the wording of Policy HC4 where it states the following:

‘All major developments will also be required to ensure 100% of both the market and affordable
housing meets the higher access standards Part M4(2) Category 2’

To require all major developments to meet the higher access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 would have significant financial viability implications. This policy also does not seem to account for the redevelopment of (for instance) listed buildings, as in many cases it will not be possible to meet the access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 within the confines of a listed building without
resulting in a detrimental impact or due to spatial restrictions. We therefore consider that this policy should be reconsidered to take into account more constrained sites where this would not be possible, or where viability would indicate that flexibility should be applied.

If such flexibility is not written into this policy, we consider it would be inconsistent with NPPF para
82.

Object

Representation ID: 5175

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

No definition of older people therefore unclear who the policy is targeting and who would be eligible. The council do not define what ages will be restricted to single storey development.

Specialist housing often needs minimum critical mass (e.g. critical care and retirement living often require 60+ rooms to be viable). Evidence therefore required to support minimum site size capable of supporting such provision. Need clarity on when such housing types will be required as part of a major development and what types may be required on any given site.

Requirement for all housing to be M4(2) compliant may cause affordability issues. This is not yet a statutory requirement and therefore needs to be justified with reference to both need and cost.

Object

Representation ID: 5237

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to the wording of Policy HC4 where it states the following:
‘All major developments will also be required to ensure 100% of both the market and affordable housing meets the higher access standards Part M4(2) Category 2’

To require all major developments to meet the higher access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 could have significant financial viability implications. This policy also does not seem to account for the redevelopment of (for instance) listed buildings, as in many cases it will not be possible to meet the access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 within the confines of a listed building without
resulting in a detrimental impact or due to spatial restrictions. We therefore consider that this policy should be reconsidered to take into account more constrained sites where this would not be possible, or where viability would indicate that flexibility should be applied.

If such flexibility is not written into this policy, we consider it would be inconsistent with NPPF para 82.

Object

Representation ID: 5249

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: CCB Investments

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to the wording of Policy HC4 where it states the following:
‘All major developments will also be required to ensure 100% of both the market and affordable housing meets the higher access standards Part M4(2) Category 2’
To require all major developments to meet the higher access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 would have significant financial viability implications. This policy also does not seem to account for the redevelopment of (for instance) listed buildings, as in many cases it will not be possible to meet the access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 within the confines of a listed building without resulting in a detrimental impact or due to spatial restrictions. We therefore consider that this policy should be reconsidered to take into account more constrained sites where this would not be possible, or where viability would indicate that flexibility should be applied.
If such flexibility is not written into this policy, we consider it would be inconsistent with NPPF para 82.