Policy HC5: Specialist Housing

Object

Representation ID: 4243

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: Miss Natasha Styles

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We support policies HC1, 4 and 5 as they attempt to provide a positive framework for the delivery of older persons’ housing in line with the PPG on housing for older and disabled, given our response to other policies we feel that the phrase ‘Development proposals should be consistent with other Local Plan policies’ should be removed from policy HC5 as some exemptions may need to be applied to older person’s housing schemes.

Object

Representation ID: 4359

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: 4783

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Completelink Ltd

Agent: Zesta Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The plan does not address the significant under supply in specialist accommodation up to 2025 against the requirement in the current adopted Core Strategy. The proposed evidence base for the Publication Plan is silent on this under supply which suggests it is not getting carried forward into the emerging plan. The under supply highlights that the market has failed to bring forward enough land for specialist accommodation.

Allocations for specialist accommodation only account for 42% of the need up to 2040 which will increase the under supply further due to the market being unable to bring forward sufficient land. All these allocations are in the north of the District despite the need being district wide.

No allocations at all are proposed for registered care despite the significant need so further allocations are needed. HC5 currently does not cater for the expansion of existing care sites, which is a clear flaw. Prestwood House Care Home & Estate, as a long established facility in the south of the District, provides an appropriate opportunity to expand and assist towards both the existing undersupply and future need.

Comment

Representation ID: 4950

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Churchill Retirement Living

Agent: Planning Issues

Using 2018 population projections from the ONS, the population aged 65 and over is expected to increase to account for 30% of the total population of the Borough by 2043. Unless action is urgently taken the Council will struggle to address this need. The inclusion of a positively worded policy strongly supporting the delivery of specialist older persons' housing will assist in this regard.

Support

Representation ID: 5299

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Miller Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy is considered sound subject to our comments.

As noted in section 3, Miller have been asked to accommodate an element of specialist elderly accommodation into the proposed allocation at Holly Lane, Landywood (Site 536a) and will work alongside the Council and specialist providers to deliver this within the allocation, in accordance with local need, with reference to our comments on the associated evidence base.

We do not question the soundness of this policy, subject to our comments above and within section 3, but reserve the right to interrogate the evidence base further at EiP stage.