Draft Regulation 18 Sandwell Local Plan

Biodiversity Net Gain - We welcome that the council is seeking a minimum 10%biodiversity net gain in line with the Environment Act 2021. We also welcome that SNE2 identifies a number of open spaces where biodiversity units may be purchased off site within the borough when developers are not able to deliver BNG onsite.

Policy SNE3 requires a 20% tree canopy cover and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across a site and for every tree removed from a development site, a minimum of three replacement trees.

NPPF para 16. identifies that ‘plans should b) be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable’. Para 131 provides guidance specifically associated with trees and states ‘Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-led, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are retained wherever possible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work with highways officers and tree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places, and solutions are found that are compatible with highways standards and the needs of different users’.

Requiring a 20% tree canopy cover and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across the site and requiring 3 new trees for every tree lost on site, especially for small brownfield sites is not deliverable or realistic and could compromise sustainability development and is therefore contrary to NPPF. Any requirement would also need to be fully evidenced and the requirement incorporated into the viability study.

Recommendation: The council should therefore reconsider this element and ensure any such policy approach introduces more flexibility or is deleted.

Policy SHW1 – Health Impact Assessments
Policy SHW1 requires developers to provide an ‘assessment of the proposed developments potential impacts on the health and wellbeing of adjacent communities, residents and businesses, and to mitigate any potential negative impacts, maximise potential positive impacts and help reduce health inequalities, this is to be shown through the submission of a Heather Impact Assessment’. The Council should note that there is a common misconception that older person’s housing places an additional burden on healthcare infrastructure and therefore rather than requiring applicants of older person’s schemes to show that there is capacity in healthcare systems and to show that the scheme will not have a health impact, the policy should instead recognise the health benefits that delivering older people’s housing can bring to individuals.

Older Persons’ Housing produces a large number of significant benefits which can help to reduce the demands exerted on Health and Social Services and other care facilities – not only in terms of the fact that many of the residents remain in better health, both physically and mentally, but also doctors, physiotherapists, community nurses, hairdressers and other essential practitioners can all attend to visit several occupiers at once. This leads to a far more efficient and effective use of public resources.

A report “‘Healthier and Happier’ An analysis of the fiscal and wellbeing benefits of building more homes for later living” by WPI Strategy for Homes for Later Living explored the significant savings that Government and individuals could expect to make if more older people in the UK could access this type of housing. The analysis showed that:
• ‘Each person living in a home for later living enjoys a reduced risk of health challenges, contributing to fiscal savings to the NHS and social care services of approximately £3,500 per year.
• Building 30,000 more retirement housing dwellings every year for the next 10 years would generate fiscal savings across the NHS and social services of £2.1bn per year.
• On a selection of national well-being criteria such as happiness and life satisfaction, an average person aged 80 feels as good as someone 10 years younger after moving from mainstream housing to housing specially designed for later living.’

In addition, specifically designed housing for older people offers significant opportunities to enable residents to be as independent as possible in a safe and warm environment. Older homes are typically in a poorer state of repair, are often colder, damper, have more risk of fire and fall hazards. They lack in adaptions such as handrails, wider internal doors, stair lifts and walk in showers. Without these simple features everyday tasks can become harder and harder.

Recommendation:
For the plan to be in line with national policy and effective the following wording should be added to para 2 of the policy to recognise the health benefits of older persons housing.

'Specialist Housing for older people has a number of health benefits and proposals for such schemes will not be required to submit a Health Impact Assessment '.

Policy SHW2 – Healthcare Infrastructure
Policy SHW2 requires ‘Proposals for major residential developments of ten units or more to be assessed against the capacity of existing healthcare facilities and / or services as set out in local development documents. Where the demand generated by the residents of the new development would have unacceptable impacts upon the capacity of these facilities, developers will be required to contribute to the provision or improvement of such services, in line with the requirements and calculation methods set out in local development documents’.

The council should note that there is a common misconception that older person’s housing places an additional burden on healthcare infrastructure and the SPD should recognise this. Specialist Retirement Accommodation produces a large number of significant benefits which can help to reduce the demands exerted on Health and Social Services and other care facilities – not only in terms of the fact that many of the residents remain in better health, both physically and mentally, but also doctors, physiotherapists, community nurses, hairdressers and other essential practitioners can all attend to visit several occupiers at once. This leads to a far more efficient and effective use of public resources.

The report ‘Healthier and Happier’ An analysis of the fiscal and wellbeing benefits of building more homes for later living” by WPI Strategy for Homes for Later Living explored the significant savings that Government and individuals could expect to make if more older people in the UK could access this type of housing. The analysis showed that:
• ‘Each person living in a home for later living enjoys a reduced risk of health challenges, contributing to fiscal savings to the NHS and social care services of approximately £3,500 per year.
• Building 30,000 more retirement housing dwellings every year for the next 10 years would generate fiscal savings across the NHS and social services of £2.1bn per year.
• On a selection of national well-being criteria such as happiness and life satisfaction, an average person aged 80 feels as good as someone 10 years younger after moving from mainstream housing to housing specially designed for later living.’

This is supported by PPG that in in June 2019 the PPG was updated to include a section on Housing for Older and Disabled People, recognising the need to provide housing for older people. Paragraph 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626 states:

“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)

Recommendation: For the plan to be in line with national policy and effective the following wording should be added to para 3 of the policy to recognise the health benefits of older persons housing.

Specialist Housing for older people has a number of health benefits and proposals for such schemes will not be required to provide additional healthcare infrastructure.

Policy SHW4 Open Space and Recreation
SHW4 requires all new housing sites providing over 10 units to contribute towards the provision of unrestricted open space as detailed within the appendices.

The Council should note that the open space needs of older people are much less than for mainstream housing. For older people the quality of open space either on site or easily accessible for passive recreation is much more important than formal open space. The Local Plan, should therefore provide an exemption for older people’s housing schemes but consider the quality of the space instead. The following text should be incorporated into the plan:

Older person’s housing schemes are exempt from open space requirements so long as high quality amenity space suitable for older people is provided on site or available locally .

Policy SH04 – Affordable Housing
Policy SHO4 requires all developments of ten homes or more to provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The policy then seeks a minimum of 25% affordable housing.

We note that the consultation has been published with a supporting Viability Report entitled ‘Local Plan Viability Assessment Report, November 2023, Aspinall Verdi (Viability Assessment) however this does not test specialist housing for older people as its own typology.

The Council will be aware 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 policy requirements should therefore be robust and be used to form deliverable and realistic policies.

The viability of specialist older persons’ housing is more finely balanced than ‘general needs’ housing and we are strongly of the view that the older person’s housing typologies should be robustly assessed separately. The Viability Assessment should therefore be updated to include the older persons housing typology. 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. If this is not done, the delivery of much needed specialist 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 the older persons 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.

Recommendation: 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 viability.

Policy SHO5 - Delivering Wheelchair Accessible and Self / Custom Build Housing
Policy SH05 requires all new homes to meet M4(2) standards with 15% meeting the M4 (3) wheelchair standards. The policy advises that the requirements may be reduced based on financial viability amongst several other variables.

We are of the view that M4 (2) and M4 (3) should be left to Building Regulations, however if a policy were to be needed, the wording needs to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards as a minimum.

In addition, the Council should note that ensuring that residents have the ability to stay in their homes for longer through the provision of more accessible and adaptable housing, is not, in itself, an appropriate manner of meeting the housing needs of older people. Adaptable houses do not provide the on-site support, care and companionship of specialist older persons’ housing developments nor do they provide the wider community benefits such as releasing under occupied family housing as well as savings to the public purse by reducing the stress of health and social care budgets. The recently published Healthier and Happier Report by WPI Strategy (September 2019) calculated that the average person living in specialist housing for older people saves the NHS and social services £3,490 per year. A supportive local planning policy framework will be crucial in increasing the delivery of specialist older persons’ housing and it should be acknowledged that although adaptable housing can assist it does not remove the need for specific older person’s housing. Housing particularly built to M4(3) standard may serve to institutionalise an older persons’ scheme reducing independence contrary to the ethos of older persons and particularly extra care housing.

We would like to 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). M4 (3) of the Building Regulations and other Space Standards have a cost implication and therefore including the requirement for new housing to be built to higher standards could make schemes unviable.

Furthermore, as M4 (2) is to be incorporated into the Building Regulations and therefore there is no need for the plan to repeat this element.

Recommendation:
M4 (2) and M4 (3) should be left to Building Regulations. However, if a policy is felt necessary the wording should differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) of the building regulations a minimum.

Policy SH06 – Financial Viability Assessments for Housing
Policy SH06 allows financial viability assessments for housing proposals to be submitted to justify moving away from delivering policy compliant levels of affordable and M4 (3) housing. Although this flexibility is welcomed we also note that point 2 states ‘Flexible arrangements will be sought through planning agreements, wherever possible, to allow for changing market conditions in future years.’ This in effect brings into policy the requirement for a review mechanism to be incorporated into planning permissions that may be delivering affordable housing below policy requirements. 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. of the government guidance that 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.

A significant number of recent Planning Appeals and case law have reinforced this point. The requirement for a review mechanism is not supported by any justification, evidence, or process where specific inputs to be included within any review mechanism, could be considered in public examination. For example, certain exemptions should be introduced such as to smaller sites, that are built in one phase. The Planning Inspectorate have repeatedly noted that review mechanism for smaller sites, and single-phase developments are unnecessary so this must also be a consideration.

Conclusion
To introduce a review mechanism, there must be a clear and specific policy basis and justification for any such mechanism to be brought in. A significant number of recent Planning Appeals and case law have reinforced this point. A review mechanism and any detail that will form part of it 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. The plan should also include an exemption from the review mechanism for smaller single phased developments. The Planning Inspectorate have repeatedly noted the review mechanisms are unnecessary for smaller sites, whilst for a large multi-phased development that maybe delivered over a long period it would make sense to determine if viability has changed with market movements over time.

Recommendation
The following text should therefore be deleted from point 2 of policy SHO6.

‘Flexible arrangements will be sought through planning agreements, wherever possible, to allow for changing market conditions in future years’.

Policy SHO11 – Housing for people with specific needs
Whilst we welcome that the plan has a policy addressing housing for people with specific needs we are concerned as to the negative tone of the policy which implies that specialist housing maybe a nuisance neighbour and feel a more positive stance, especially towards specialist housing to meet the needs of older people should be taken.

The consultation is limited in scope on the provision of specialist housing for older people. However, given the clear evidence, including evidence of older person’s population increase, increased need and the clear guidance of the PPG all detailed below, we consider that providing specialist housing for older people must be positively incorporated into the emerging Local Plan in detail. The best approach towards meeting the diverse housing needs of older people is for the plan to:
1. Identify the older person’s housing need.
2. Allocate specific sites to meet the needs of older people that are in the most sustainable locations close to key services as well as
3. Include a standalone policy actively supporting the delivery of specialist older people’s housing in Sandwell with good access to services and facilities for older people. This should be separate to other specific housing.

National Policy Context
Government’s policy, as set out in the revised NPPF, is to boost significantly, the supply of housing. Paragraph 60 reads:

“To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.”

The revised NPPF looks at delivering a sufficient supply of homes, Paragraph 62 identifies within this context, the size, and type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies including older people.

In June 2019 the PPG was updated to include a section on Housing for Older and Disabled People, recognising the need to provide housing for older people. Paragraph 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626 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)

Paragraph 003 Reference ID: 63-003-20190626 recognises that:

“the health and lifestyles of older people will differ greatly, as will their housing needs, which can range from accessible and adaptable general needs housing to specialist housing with high levels of care and support.”

Thus, a range of provision needs to be planned for. Paragraph 006 Reference ID: 63-006-20190626 sets out:

“plan-making authorities should set clear policies to address the housing needs of groups with particular needs such as older and disabled people. These policies can set out how the plan-making authority will consider proposals for the different types of housing that these groups are likely to require.”

Therefore, the local plan should recognise that housing for older people has its own requirements and cannot be successfully considered against criteria for general family housing.

Need for Housing for Older People
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 Sandwell can be drawn from the 2018 population projections from the Office for National Statistics. This advises that there were 49,258 persons aged 65 and over in 2018, accounting for 15% of the total population of the Borough. This age range is projected to increase by 18,645 individuals, or 37.9%, to 67,903 between 2018 and 2043. The population aged 65 and over is expected to increase to account for 18.4% of the total population of the Borough by 2043.

In 2018 there were 13,769 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 6,236 individuals, or 45.3%, to 20,005 between 2018 and 2043. The population aged 80 and over is anticipated to represent a higher proportion of Sandwell’s residents, accounting for 4.2% of the total population in 2018 and increasing to 5.4% by 2043. This increase in older people is confirmed within the Black Country Housing Market Assessment, Final Report, March 2021, HDH Planning Development (HMA) page 180, para 1 that states ‘The disaggregated local housing need projections (set out in Chapter 5) indicate that the population aged 65 or over is going to increase dramatically in Sandwell over the plan period; from 50,001 in 2020, to 67,236 in 2039, a rise of 34.5%. The projections also suggest that there will be an increase in the number of households headed by someone over 65 in Sandwell from 32,857 in 2020, to 46,853 in 2039, an increase of 42.6%. The projections indicate that the proportion of older persons living alone in Sandwell will increase from 46.6% in 2020, to 53.9% in 2039 (HMA)’.

The HMA continues to identify the need for specialist housing for older people, this identifies that ‘To meet local demand rates in 2039, the model identifies a requirement for 1,666 additional units of Sheltered housing for older people and 54 additional Enhanced Sheltered/ Extracare units in Sandwell over the plan period. These are Class C3 dwellings’. Page 181 para 1 identifies that ‘The requirement for 1,720 additional specialist units for older person households represents 6.3% of the total household growth in Sandwell for the period 2020 to 2039.’

The model uses the existing prevalence rate of specialist housing for older people across the Black Country to predict the future needs in the individual Boroughs that make up the Black Country region. It should be noted that this does not then account for any under provision that may exist and this should be considered in any update of the evidence moving forward as need is likely to be greater.

It is therefore clear there will be a significant increase in older people and the provision of suitable housing and care to meet the needs of this demographic should be a priority of the emerging Local Plan.

Benefits of Housing for Older People
Older Persons’ Housing produces a large number of significant benefits which can help to reduce the demands exerted on Health and Social Services and other care facilities – not only in terms of the fact that many of the residents remain in better health, both physically and mentally, but also doctors, physiotherapists, community nurses, hairdressers and other essential practitioners can all attend to visit several occupiers at once. This leads to a far more efficient and effective use of public resources.

Economic
A report “‘Healthier and Happier’ An analysis of the fiscal and wellbeing benefits of building more homes for later living” by WPI Strategy for Homes for Later Living explored the significant savings that Government and individuals could expect to make if more older people in the UK could access this type of housing. The analysis showed that:
• ‘Each person living in a home for later living enjoys a reduced risk of health challenges, contributing to fiscal savings to the NHS and social care services of approximately £3,500 per year.
• Building 30,000 more retirement housing dwellings every year for the next 10 years would generate fiscal savings across the NHS and social services of £2.1bn per year.
• On a selection of national well-being criteria such as happiness and life satisfaction, an average person aged 80 feels as good as someone 10 years younger after moving from mainstream housing to housing specially designed for later living.’

A further report entitled Silver Saviours for the High Street: How new retirement properties create more local economic value and more local jobs than any other type of residential housing (February 2021) found that retirement properties create more local economic value and more local jobs than any other type of residential development. For an average 45 unit retirement scheme, the residents generate £550,000 of spending a year, £347,000 of which is spent on the high street, directly contributing to keeping local shops open.

As recognised by the PPG, Retirement housing releases under-occupied family housing and plays a very important role in recycling of housing stock in general. There is a ‘knock-on’ effect in terms of the whole housing chain enabling more effective use of existing housing. In the absence of choice, older people will stay put in properties that are often unsuitable for them until such a time as they need expensive residential care. A further Report “Chain Reaction” The positive impact of specialist retirement housing on the generational divide and first-time buyers (Aug 2020)” reveals that about two in every three retirement properties built, releases a home suitable for a first-time buyer. A typical Homes for Later Living development which consists of 40 apartments therefore results in at least 27 first time buyer properties being released onto the market.

Social
Retirement housing gives rise to many social benefits:
• Specifically designed housing for older people offers significant opportunities to enable residents to be as independent as possible in a safe and warm environment. Older homes are typically in a poorer state of repair, are often colder, damper, have more risk of fire and fall hazards. They lack in adaptions such as handrails, wider internal doors, stair lifts and walk in showers. Without these simple features everyday tasks can become harder and harder
• Retirement housing helps to reduce anxieties and worries experienced by many older people living in housing which does not best suit their needs by providing safety, security and reducing management and maintenance concerns.
• The Housing for Later Living Report (2019) shows that on a selection of wellbeing criteria such as happiness and life satisfaction, an average person aged 80 feels as good as someone 10 years younger after moving from mainstream housing into housing specifically designed for later living.

Environmental
The proposal provides a number of key environmental benefits by:
• Making more efficient use of land thereby reducing the need to use limited land resources for housing.
• Providing housing in close proximity to services and shops which can be easily accessed on foot thereby reducing the need for travel by means which consume energy and create emissions.
• Providing shared facilities for a large number of residents in a single building which makes more efficient use of material and energy resources.

Recommendations

In presenting this submission, it is relevant to note that McCarthy Stone which has traditionally developed retirement housing schemes for the middle market where it has proved more viable to do so, is, through its new “Evolve” housing concept better able to develop in lower value areas, where the market and planning conditions are right, thereby addressing a housing need for older people who have until now, not had this beneficial housing option available to them. The first of these schemes is now underway at Failsworth, Oldham.

Given the increase in the number of older people projected, the significant housing need and benefits that older persons’ housing brings, together with the guidance of the NPPF / PPG, we consider that the need for older people’s housing need must be incorporated into the emerging Local Plan in a more positive manner

The best approach towards meeting the diverse housing needs of older people is for the plan to:
• Identify the older persons’ housing need.
• Allocate specific sites to meet the needs of older people that are in the most sustainable locations close to key services.
• Include a standalone policy actively supporting the delivery of specialist older people’s housing with good access to services and facilities for older people.

Developers of older persons’ housing schemes should not be required to demonstrate need given the significant need identified and the many benefits that such developments bring and if a quantum is specified this should be regarded as a target and not a ceiling. Given also that such developments “help reduce costs to the social care and health systems” (PPG refers), requirements to assess impact on healthcare services and/or make contributions should be avoided.

While we appreciate that no one planning approach will be appropriate for all areas, an example older persons housing policy is provided that, we hope, will provide a useful reference for the Council to amend the currently proposed policy:

“The Council will encourage the provision of specialist housing for older people across all tenures in sustainable locations.

The Council aims to ensure that older people are able to secure and sustain independence in a home appropriate to their circumstances by providing appropriate housing choice, particularly retirement housing and Extra Care Housing/Housing with Care. The Council will, through the identification of sites, allowing for windfall developments, and / or granting of planning consents in sustainable locations, provide for the development of retirement accommodation, residential care homes, close care, Extra Care and assisted care housing and Continuing Care Retirement Communities.”