To receive an update from Lisa Hughes, Vice Chairman.

The Chairman informed the Forum the Lisa Hughes had put in so much work into campaigning, since 2017 to change policy. And finally, good news was in sight. The Chairman thanked Lisa Hughes for her continual hard work.

Lisa Hughes started by informing the Forum Why the BLP was important, the Borough Local Plan (BLP) set out a comprehensive vision and framework for the future development of RBWM in relation to;

·         housing,

·         infrastructure,

·         the economy,

·         community facilities,

·         good design of the built environment,

·         planning for the impact of climate change

·         protecting the natural and historic environment.

The last plan was adopted in 1999 with an update in 2003. The emerging BLP covered the years 2013 to 2033. RBWM submitted the BLP to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in January 2018 and there had been two subsequent examinations of the plan by the Planning Inspector.

The 2015 Technical Standards (Accessibility for People with Disabilities (PwD)) applied to building new homes. There were mandatory and optional technical standards relating to accessibility for PwD applied to building new homes. The mandatory level, M4(1) would allow most people with a disability to enter a new home and use the facilities on the main floor. It was aimed at allowing most PwD to visit a new home. Two higher optional standards were; M4(2) Accessible & Adaptable Homes and M4(3) Wheelchair User Dwellings. These would allow PwD to live in these homes. M4(2) home cost only slightly more to build than a M4(1) but M4(3) homes needed more square metres as well as additional features such as strengthened ceilings and bathroom specification.

Since 2017, Lisa Hughes, with the Forum’s input and support had sought to have Housing Mix policy (HO2) amended before the BLP is adopted. Policy HO2 in the submitted BLP contained a tiny percentage of M4(2) homes and no M4(3) homes. We contended that it wasn’t based on solid estimates of need. This mattered because it failed to address the current and future needs of residents with disabilities and our aging population and its lack of evidence needed could allow developers to challenge whether any homes were needed to be built to higher than mandatory standards.

Lisa Hughes appeared at two sessions of the Inspector’s hearings last Autumn and subsequently had positive meetings with Ian Gillespie, a consultant appointed by RBWM to progress the BLP. The following points were discussed:

·         The data that was submitted by Lisa Hughes in the consultations to support the need for some M4(3) dwellings and a much higher % of M4(2) homes than in the submitted BLP.

·         Why there was such a huge reduction between the 2016 and 2017 BLP versions for M4(2) and M4(3) homes. Was the 2017 viability update the root cause?

·         Whether the extra costs included in the 2017 Viability Update for building M4(2) and (3) homes were correct and could be substantiated.

RBWM then carried out more work on evidencing the need for M4(2) and M4(3) homes as well as another viability update. These formed the basis of a document RBWM submitted to the Inspector in March 2021, explaining RBWM’s new proposal.

The Inspector wrote to RBWM on March 24^th 2021. On Housing Policy HO2 M4(2) and M4(3 she said the following:

10.The M4(2) and M4(3) accessibility and wheelchair housing standards are part of the suite of “optional technical standards” available for local planning authorities to set if they can show evidence of a need for them in their area. Policy HO2 of the PC Plan requires 5% of dwellings on developments of 20 or more to meet the M4(2) standard, but it sets no requirement for M4(3) provision. Neither the specific M4(2) requirement, nor the lack of an M4(3) requirement are clearly supported by the evidence base for the Plan, while the totality of the demographic and viability evidence available indicates that the Plan should be more ambitious.

11.The Council has reviewed the evidence in consultation with relevant participants (see document WK2-02) and now proposes that 30% of dwellings on developments of 20 or more should meet the M4(2) standard, and 5% of dwellings on sites of this size should meet the M4(3) standard. These higher requirements would better reflect the need for accessible accommodation in the Borough, and viability testing indicates that they would be unlikely to have a significant impact upon development viability. Policy HO2 should be modified accordingly to achieve justification and effectiveness.

*the M4(3) homes are subject to site-specific specific viability, topography and site configuration considerations.

This was great news and a big step forward but, as the BLP had not yet been adopted by RBWM, this was not yet the end of the Forum’s scrutiny and campaign.

The current status of the BLP and next steps from Cllr Coppinger on 14th June 2021were that:

·         RBWM had received all the feedback from the Inspector regarding changes that she wanted made to the Plan.

·         Officers were currently preparing these major modifications.

·         The next step would be a consultation, over an extended period because of the holiday season.

·         It was expected that the final plan would be taken to Council in November 2021.

Councillor Rayner thanked Lisa Hughes and the Forum for their input into the BLP.

ACTION: Keep on Agenda for next meeting