Object

Representation ID: 24545

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

See attachment for full representation

Policy 5 – Homes
Affordable Housing
4.4.1 Policy 5 sets out that major residential development proposals of ten dwellings or more will provide at least 33% affordable housing on-site across the plan area except in Norwich City Centre where the requirement is at least 28%. Gladman supports the principle of improving
affordability across Greater Norwich and the need to identify an appropriate affordable housing target for differing built environments that reflects the local circumstances.
4.4.2 Notwithstanding the above support, the Councils will need to be able to demonstrate through clear, robust, up-to-date viability assessment that the provision of affordable housing in line with the proposed policy is viable on the majority of schemes.
4.4.3 Gladman supports the element of flexibility within the draft policy allowing viability assessments to be submitted in respect of brownfield sites in particular circumstances. To confirm, the sites which are being promoted by Gladman for inclusion within the plan can all
provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing, if not greater for example Poringland offers 36% affordable housing.
Accessible and Specialist Housing
4.4.4 The policy states that development proposals providing specialist housing options for older people’s accommodation and others with support needs, including sheltered housing, supported housing, extra care housing and residential/nursing care homes will be supported
on sites with good access to local services including on sites allocated for residential use.
4.4.5 Gladman is supportive of this policy approach as the provision of specialist housing to meet
the needs of older people is of increasing importance.
4.4.6 Specialist housing with care for older people is a type of housing which provides choice to adults with varying care needs and enables them to live as independently as possible in their own self-contained homes, where people are able to access high quality, flexible support and care services on site to suit their individual needs (including dementia care). Such schemes differ from traditional sheltered/retirement accommodation schemes and should provide
internally accessible communal facilities including a residents’ lounge, library, dining room,
guest suite, quiet lounge, IT suite, assisted bathroom, internal buggy store and changing facilities, reception and care manager’s office and staff facilities.
Self/Custom Build
4.4.7 The policy states that with the exception of flats, at least 5% of plots on residential proposals of 40 dwellings or more should provide serviced self/custom-build plots unless a lack of need can be demonstrated or plots have been marketed for 12 months and have not been sold.
4.4.8 Gladman objects to the inclusion of a fixed percentage requirement in relation to the provision
of serviced self-build plots.
4.4.9 Whilst recognising the role attributed towards self-build in national planning policy as a source of housing land supply, we do not consider the inclusion of a requirement for all housing schemes over 40 dwellings to commit to onsite provision forms the most effective
approach of responding to this source of housing need.
4.4.10 Gladman believes that those wishing to bring forward a self-build or custom build house are unlikely to wish to do this alongside a large-scale housing development. Consequently, rather than including a strict requirement for this provision Gladman would recommend the policy encourages the consideration of the provision of self-build plots in locations where the
demand exists.
4.4.11 Gladman would prefer to see policy which seeks self-build plots being considered on an ad hoc basis as windfall rather than as a percentage requirement of larger development schemes. We consider this approach to be more in line with the wants and needs for the individuals
seeking the plot and the developer’s requirements for larger sites.
4.4.12 Should a percentage approach be taken forward, the requirement should be supported by clear and robust evidence of this source of housing need. Gladman recommends that any policy requirement in relation to self-build housing has an element of flexibility built in to
allow for negotiation over self-build plots on the basis of viability to ensure that site delivery is not delayed or prevented from coming forward. Any specific requirement to include selfbuild plots should be tested through the Council’s viability assessment of the Local Plan
policies to ensure that the cumulative impacts of all proposed local standards and policy
requirements do not put the implementation of the Plan as a whole at risk.
4.4.13 Gladman notes that the proposed policy does include a mechanism which allows developers the opportunity after 12 months to either continue to market the plots for self-build or to revert back to them being delivered as part of the wider market housing scheme. Gladman supports the inclusion of this policy mechanism as it is necessary to ensure that housing land
is not unnecessarily prevented from being brought forward. This helps to provide flexibility and helps to ensure that the required housing is delivered. If there is genuine demand for selfbuild housing it is likely that these plots would be brought forward relatively quickly