Government proposals at: www.gov.uk
Response from MDPAG, (Manchester Disabled People’s Access Group), Chair, Flick Harris
Quick links:
- Planning for the homes we need
- Delivering affordable housing
- Delivering improved public access to green space
- Delivering a diverse range of homes and high-quality places
- Requiring “well designed” development
- Delivering community needs
- Agriculture and food production
- Changes to local plan intervention criteria
Downloads:
Planning for the homes we need
Question 1
Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made to paragraph 61?
Yes
Question 2
Do you agree that we should remove reference to the use of alternative approaches to assessing housing need in paragraph 61 and the glossary of the NPPF?
Yes, but we are extremely concerned that although affordable housing is supported in the proposals there are no recommendations for accessible housing for older and disabled people. This is despite the announcements in 2022 from the previous government that after consultations, Building Regulations M4 (2) would become the minimum standard for all new houses but did not implement this.
In order to respond to major limitations in the availability of accessible housing, the Strategic Plans in London and Liverpool require that all new housing should be built to M4(2) standard, and that at least 10% of all new housing across all sectors should be to M4(3) standards.
We ask that these requirements be included in the National Planning Policy Framework and/or Planning Guidance to redress the shortage of suitable housing for disabled people, to support people leaving hospitals and receiving care in the community and to future-proof our new housing stock to provide for our ageing population.
Research has shown that accessible housing can reduce NHS and Social Care costs and the future costs of retrofitting existing older housing, as well as supporting disabled people to live fuller and more independent lives.
It is accepted that approximately 80% of the homes we will be living in in 2050 have already been built, so we need to use every possible opportunity to ensure that new housing increases the availability of more accessible homes. The 10% target set in London and Liverpool was done so in recognition of the dire need to ‘catch up’ given that the majority of UK homes were built well before accessibility considerations were a factor.
A policy that requires at least 10% of all new housing in each Local Planning Authority to be built to M4(3) standard would give developers a level playing field – which they prefer – and avoid confusion.
Many older and disabled people prefer to continue to live at home and in their neighbourhoods but may require support workers to provide services or are forced to move into supported living accommodation or residential care. This issue also applies to “delivering community needs to support society and the creation of healthy places” for older and disabled people.
The State of Ageing in Greater Manchester report confirms that the population of Greater Manchester is ageing. Increasing age may bring mobility impairments. We should plan our future housing stock to accommodate an increase in wheelchair users and people requiring social care and health support in their own homes.
Question 3
Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on the urban uplift by deleting paragraph 62?
Yes. The priority missing from this consultation is to increase the number of accessible houses.
Further evidence is available from NHS Trusts showing the difficulty of moving patients back into their own homes from hospitals as their own homes are not accessible and are not capable of supporting care and support services. This creates considerable extra costs for social care and health services
Young people regularly comment at meetings of GMCDP (Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, at meetings with the Mayor of Manchester and with MDPAG that they are unable to leave the family home to live independently because of the lack of wheelchair accessible accommodation, including private rented accommodation and social housing.
Press reports suggest that many people suffering Long Covid became wheelchair users. The potential long-term impact of Long Covid and regular occurrences of new versions of Covid is not quantifiable but should be planned for.
There are many older people living in homes larger than they currently require as there Is a lack of smaller accessible homes for them to move into, which contributes to a shortage of family homes.
Question 4
Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on character and density and delete paragraph 130?
Yes, but localised design codes, masterplans and guides should include elements that lead to an increase in accessible housing, as well as an accessible urban environment.
In order to deliver on a strategy of enabling the vast majority of people with care needs to continue to live in their own home, we need a major improvement in the scale of accessible housing
The majority of housing for people is available in older housing but there is no reference to encouraging the retrofitting of accommodation, including additional support for aids and adaptations, where some disabled people wait 2 years or more for accessible bathrooms with shower facilities, accessible bedrooms, lifts, kitchens and ramps.
The Big Disability Survey 2022 which was carried out by the GM Disabled People’s Panel (GMDPP) highlighted that there is a significant shortage of wheelchair accessible homes in Greater Manchester. The Survey described the impact this has on the health and wellbeing of wheelchair users and other disabled people.
Question 5
Do you agree that the focus of design codes should move towards supporting spatial visions in local plans and areas that provide the greatest opportunities for change such as greater density, in particular the development of large new communities?
Alongside spatial visions, it is important that Design Codes should ensure that inclusive design Is integrated into each element. A good example of this is the Design for Access 2 design code developed by Manchester City Council (MCC) and Manchester Disabled People’s Access Group and which is due to be updated in 2025. Another example of ongoing design development is the work of Manchester City Council’s Highways Access Group, which deals with new highways design issues including cycle lanes, cyclops crossings and other highway issues and is attended bimonthly by Highways staff of MCC and representatives of disabled people’s organisations.
Disabled people should always be involved in producing local Design Codes particularly disabled people’s access groups who understand the range of impairment specific barriers covering mobility and sensory impairments, people with learning difficulties, people who are neuro-divergent and people with mental health issues, people with dementia and people with multiple impairments, including many stroke survivors.
Question 6
Do you agree that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be amended as proposed?
Yes, but there should also be a presumption in favour of improving housing, other buildings and infrastructure to ensure that they are accessible for disabled people
The term ‘sustainable’ development should imply and include ‘accessible’ development, as sustainability includes planning for the future and therefore creating a suitable living environment for our ageing population and for disabled people of all ages..
GMCP, MDPAG and Breakthough-UK know of wheelchair users who have been offered employment in Greater Manchester but were unable to take up positions because there are no suitably accessible houses or flats. We also know of wheelchair-users who had to move to a different Local Authority area in GM to obtain suitable accommodation as their needs changed, leaving their family and community support networks
It is generally accepted that 80% of the homes we will be living in in 2050 have already been built, so we need to use every possible opportunity to ensure that new housing increases the availability of more accessible homes. The 10% target set in London and Liverpool was done in recognition of the dire need to ‘catch up’ given that the majority of UK homes were built well before accessibility considerations were a factor.
Improvements and increases in the provision of the Disabled Facilities Grant would help with retrofitting existing housing stock.
Question 7
Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific, deliverable sites for decision making purposes, regardless of plan status?
Yes. This will assist in delivering many more new homes by making sure that sites are available.
Question 8
Do you agree with our proposal to remove wording on national planning guidance in paragraph 77 of the current NPPF?
Yes
Question 9
Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to add a 5% buffer to their 5-year housing land supply calculations?
Yes
Question 10
If yes, do you agree that 5% is an appropriate buffer, or should it be a different figure?
Yes
Question 11
Do you agree with the removal of policy on Annual Position Statements?
Yes
Question 12
Do you agree that the NPPF should be amended to further support effective co-operation on cross boundary and strategic planning matters?
Yes. Many disabled people cross local authority boundaries for work, learning, travelling, shopping and use leisure and tourism facilities and attend events. Currently there are many inconsistencies between LPAs for disabled people, including highway and crossing designs, cycle lanes, lack of dropped kerbs, the design of open and public spaces, parking and other issues that affect the useability of spaces by disabled people.
Question 13
Should the tests of soundness be amended to better assess the soundness of strategic scale plans or proposals?
We are unclear how this will affect any provisions for increased amounts of accessible housing and infrastructure provision but we support cross boundary agreements. However, there are no specific proposals for assessing the need and viability of increasing accessible housing. All LPAs should be required to assess and manage the availability of accessible housing not only in the social sector but also in the private sector.
Question 14
Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?
It would save time and costs for local planning authorities if the government sets minimum standards for accessibility through the application of M4(2) housing nationally and a minimum of 10% M4(3) housing required, along with inclusive design codes.
Chapter 4 – A new Standard Method for assessing housing needs
Question 15
Do you agree that Planning Practice Guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is housing stock rather than the latest household projections?
Yes, in general, but there are currently no ways of collecting adequate and effective information on accessible (including wheelchair-accessible) housing in the private rented and home ownership sectors, so as a result there is no real understanding of the availability or lack of accessible accommodation to inform need. Planners are also not encouraged to identify additional needs from the health and social care sectors where patients remain in hospital because of a lack of accessible housing. In some Combined Authorities, such as GMCA, this sector is managed by the Mayor and staff in GMCA, so that this information could easily be collected. The requirement to identify need arising from NHS services should be required on a national, regional and local scale and made available to planning departments.
Question 19
Do you have any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing needs?
It is a serious concern that no way of measuring and improving the number of accessible houses has been developed and it is likely that if no further proposals are made in this area in the NPPF, that accessible housing will become less available and discrimination against disabled and older people will become worse, as well as increased costs for the health and social care budgets.
Mandating National minimum standards for accessible and wheelchair-accessible housing would provide greater certainty for key stakeholders compared with the current patchwork of requirements.
The current methods of assessing need also do not take account of the 2010 Equality Act Duty to ‘anticipate the needs of disabled people”
Question 20
Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?
Yes
Question 21
Do you agree with the proposed change to paragraph 154g of the current NPPF to better support the development of PDL in the Green Belt?
No comment
Question 22
Do you have any views on expanding the definition of PDL, while ensuring that the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production is maintained?
No comment
Question 23
Do you agree with our proposed definition of grey belt land? If not, what changes would you recommend?
No comment
Question 24
Are any additional measures needed to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria?
No comment
Question 25
Do you agree that additional guidance to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution of Green Belt purposes would be helpful? If so, is this best contained in the NPPF itself or in planning practice guidance?
No comment
Question 26
Do you have any views on whether our proposed guidance sets out appropriate considerations for determining whether land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes?
No comment
Question 27
Do you have any views on the role that Local Nature Recovery Strategies could play in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced?
No comment
Question 28
Do you agree that our proposals support the release of land in the right places, with previously developed and grey belt land identified first, while allowing local planning authorities to prioritise the most sustainable development locations?
No comment
Question 29
Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?
No comment
Question 30
Do you agree with our approach to allowing development on Green Belt land through decision making? If not, what changes would you recommend?
No comment
Question 31
Do you have any comments on our proposals to allow the release of grey belt land to meet commercial and other development needs through plan-making and decision-making, including the triggers for release?
No comment
Question 32
Do you have views on whether the approach to the release of Green Belt through plan and decision-making should apply to traveller sites, including the sequential test for land release and the definition of PDL?
No comment
Question 33
Do you have views on how the assessment of need for traveller sites should be approached, in order to determine whether a local planning authority should undertake a Green Belt review?
No comment
Golden rules to ensure public benefit
Question 34
Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix?
No, because there is no provision for increasing the numbers of accessible and wheelchair-accessible housing. All houses should be designed to a minimum of M4(2) as previously agreed by the Conservative Government in 2022 but not implemented, and a minimum of 10% M4(3) housing. We would welcome an increase in these numbers for new housing developments. Wherever affordable housing is considered, it should also include accessible housing.
Question 35
Should the 50 per cent target apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), or should the Government or local planning authorities be able to set lower targets in low land value areas?
In order to increase the numbers of accessible housing, targets should be set for more accessible housing in local and regional areas and also ensure that the neighbourhoods include accessible routes, facilities and services for residents and visitors.
Residents should also be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their homes, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite facilities. These green spaces should be accessible to all disabled people, including people with physical and sensory impairments, people who are neuro-divergent, people with mental health issues, learning disabled people, people with dementia and people with multiple impairments.
Delivering affordable housing
Question 34
Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix? No, where affordable housing requirements are referred to, it should also include accessible housing. There should be minimum requirements for accessible housing across all tenures and a minimum of all housing to be M4(2), with at least 10% of M4(3) to help satisfy existing shortages and plan for our ageing population.
In 2020, Habinteg calculated (from English Housing Survey accessible housing data) that 57% of wheelchair users nationally are living in accessible or ‘adapted’ homes. This means that 43% were not.
An ageing population (2011 Census): Those aged 60-64 in GM are projected to account for 6% of the population by 2036, as opposed to 5% in 2016. 65–74year-olds are projected to account for 11% of the population in 2036, an increase from 9% in 2016. Those aged 75-84 are projected to account for over 7% of the population in 2036, and those aged over 85 are set to account for 3.5%, as opposed to 2% in 2016.
The greatest rate of population change between 2016 and 2036 is projected to be in the older age groups, with those aged over 85 increasing by 79% over the period. There will also be strong growth in all age groups over 60.
Question 35
Should the 50 per cent target apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), or should the Government or local planning authorities be able to set lower targets in low land value areas?
The minimum targets for accessible housing should apply to all Green Belt areas to support the increase in available accommodation for disabled and older people along with accessible infrastructure, facilities, employment and services.
Delivering improved public access to green space
Question 36
Do you agree with the proposed approach to securing benefits for nature and public access to green space where Green Belt release occurs?
There is no reference to green space which is accessible to disabled and older people, although we welcome the provision for green space to be available within a short walking distance of people’s homes. This should also be accessible for wheelchair users, mobility scooter users and people with limited mobility without transport and for people who are blind and partially sighted or are neuro-divergent and all other disabled people including people with multiple impairments.
Question 47
Do you agree with setting the expectation that local planning authorities should consider the particular needs of those who require Social Rent when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements?
Yes, and ensuring that a proportion of these houses and flats are accessible to disabled people.
Question 48
Do you agree with removing the requirement to deliver 10% of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership?
No, and all housing should be accessible to M4(2) standards and at least 10% to M4(3) standards.
Question 49
Do you agree with removing the minimum 25% First Homes requirement?
Yes, but there should be minimum requirements for accessible homes, including all new homes to meet the M4(2) standards and a minimum of 10% to meet the M4(3) standards.
Question 50
Do you have any other comments on retaining the option to deliver First Homes, including through exception sites?
All new housing should meet M4(2) standards and at least 10% at M4(3) standards.
Question 51
Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?
Yes. Mixed tenure and housing types will enable disabled and older people to remain in and be supported by their local community if their condition changes. This should include accessible housing as well as neighbourhoods with accessible infrastructure and services as well as accessible highways, facilities and signage and all buildings, employment, lighting, highways and transport.
It is also an opportunity to improve safety for people buying or renting homes in high rise buildings by implementing the proposals from the Grenfell Enquiry. Any disabled person or a person with health, mobility, sensory and cognitive issues in a building above a ground floor should have a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) and there should be sufficient fire lifts and evacuation facilities and support provided.
We note that this is something disabled people have demanded for a number of years now, and direct you to the ‘asks’ of the Claddag Disabled Leaseholders Action Group. We believe it would be unacceptable, at this juncture, to ignore both the findings of the enquiry and the insights of disabled people in high-rise buildings by failing to integrate this measure into the new NPPF.
Question 52
What would be the most appropriate way to promote high percentage Social Rent/affordable housing developments?
Consultation with local communities and Disabled People’s Organisations, including Access Groups.
Question 53
What safeguards would be required to ensure that there are not unintended consequences? For example, is there a maximum site size where development of this nature is appropriate?
There should be at least one Planning Officer in each LPA with responsibility for accessibility for disabled and older people. Ideally, disabled and older people should be part of the consultation process across LPAs not just in local areas, preferably through the setting up, training and support of disabled people’s access groups where they do not already exist.
Question 54
What measures should we consider to better support and increase rural affordable housing?
More and better consultation with disabled and older people and local communities and an increase in accessible transport and local facilities
Meeting the needs of looked after children
Question 55
Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 63 of the existing NPPF?
Yes, also recognising the requirement for independent living for young disabled people.
Delivering a diverse range of homes and high-quality places
Strengthening support for community-led development
Question 56
Do you agree with these changes? Yes. It is more inclusive
Question 57
Do you have views on whether the definition of ‘affordable housing for rent’ in the Framework glossary should be amended? If so, what changes would you recommend?
No comment
Question 58
Do you have views on why insufficient small sites are being allocated, and on ways in which the small site policy in the NPPF should be strengthened?
No comment
Requiring “well designed” development
Question 59
Do you agree with the proposals to retain references to well-designed buildings and places, but remove references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ and to amend paragraph 138 of the existing Framework?
Yes, but to add the responsibility to ensure that inclusive design leading to accessibility for older and disabled people is integral to all design codes and standards. We agree that the references to beauty are too subjective and likely to be inconsistent.
Question 60
Do you agree with proposed changes to policy for upwards extensions?
No comment
Question 61
Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?
No comment
Question 62
Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 86 b) and 87 of the existing NPPF?
All new industries should be accessible for disabled people, including for work experience, covering all impairments. It is easier to adjust accessibility and make reasonable adjustments, under the Equality Act, where buildings and their environment are already designed to be accessible.
Question 63
Are there other sectors you think need particular support via these changes? What are they and why?
All new industries should be accessible for disabled people and links made to Post-16 education and training to encourage employment opportunities for diverse community members.
Question 64
Would you support the prescription of data centres, gigafactories, and/or laboratories as types of business and commercial development which could be capable (on request) of being directed into the NSIP consenting regime?
Yes, and the buildings and environment should be designed to be accessible for disabled people.
Question 65
If the direction power is extended to these developments, should it be limited by scale, and what would be an appropriate scale if so?
No comment
Question 66
Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?
To ensure that employment opportunities are extended for disabled people, all buildings, environments and facilities should be accessible for disabled people.
Delivering community needs
Question 67
Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 100 of the existing NPPF?
We would prefer that Paragraph 1 of Sectio 8 includes accessibility, to read – “Our society needs to be supported by a range of services and facilities to be sustainable, accessible for disabled people and to support healthy living”. Sometimes a definition of healthy living leads to inaccessible services for disabled people as for example, lifts are not provided in buildings, accessible parking spaces and local bus services and other transport services are not provided within 50 metres of entrances.
Question 68
Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 99 of the existing NPPF?
Yes, provided that accessibility Is included in the range of services and facilities.
Question 69
Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 114 and 115 of the existing NPPF?
Yes, provided accessibility for disabled people is an integral part of the process.
Question 70
How could national planning policy better support local authorities in (a) promoting healthy communities and (b) tackling childhood obesity?
We support the general principles but would like to ensure that any proposals do not limit access but improve access for disabled people.
Question 71
Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?
Active travel and leisure activities should ensure that opportunities for disabled people are included, such as ensuring leisure facilities and swimming pools have accessibility features such as level access, hoists, highways that allow for wide accessible cycles and wheelchairs and including facilities for blind and partially sighted people and for people who are neuro-divergent as well as for people with other impairments or multiple impairments.
Question 72
Do you agree that large onshore wind projects should be reintegrated into the NSIP regime?
Yes, in case the designs have negative impacts on some disabled people, particularly people who are neuro-divergent, learning disabled people and people with sensory impairments.
Question 73
Do you agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF to give greater support to renewable and low carbon energy?
Yes
Question 74
Some habitats, such as those containing peat soils, might be considered unsuitable for renewable energy development due to their role in carbon sequestration. Should there be additional protections for such habitats and/or compensatory mechanisms put in place?
Yes
Question 75
Do you agree that the threshold at which onshore wind projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50 megawatts (MW) to 100MW?
No comment
Question 76
Do you agree that the threshold at which solar projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50MW to 150MW?
No comment
Question 77
If you think that alternative thresholds should apply to onshore wind and/or solar, what would these be?
No comment
Question 78
In what specific, deliverable ways could national planning policy do more to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
National planning policy should recognise the significant impacts of climate change on older and disabled people in terms of increasingly hot or cold environments and flooding. Building design standards for disabled and older people’s housing should take these impacts into account.
Question 79
What is your view of the current state of technological readiness and availability of tools for accurate carbon accounting in plan-making and planning decisions, and what are the challenges to increasing its use?
No comment
Question 80
Are any changes needed to policy for managing flood risk to improve its effectiveness?
It would be helpful if there were clear and publicised strategies in each LPA to support disabled people in evacuation and flood control measures.
Question 81
Do you have any other comments on actions that can be taken through planning to address climate change?
It would be helpful to have strategies in place to support disabled people where there are negative effects of climate change on housing, infrastructure and services.
Agriculture and food production
Question 82
Do you agree with removal of this text from the footnote?
Yes
Question 83
Are there other ways in which we can ensure that development supports and does not compromise food production?
No comment
Question 84
Do you agree that we should improve the current water infrastructure provisions in the Planning Act 2008, and do you have specific suggestions for how best to do this?
Yes
Question 85
Are there other areas of the water infrastructure provisions that could be improved? If so, can you explain what those are, including your proposed changes?
No comment
Question 86
Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?
No
Changes to local plan intervention criteria
Question 87
Do you agree that we should we replace the existing intervention policy criteria with the revised criteria set out in this consultation?
Yes
Question 88
Alternatively, would you support us withdrawing the criteria and relying on the existing legal tests to underpin future use of intervention powers?
No
Question 89
Do you agree with the proposal to increase householder application fees to meet cost recovery?
Yes, as long as householders and landlords are exempt from planning fees for accessibility improvements for older and disabled people.
Question 90
If no, do you support increasing the fee by a smaller amount (at a level less than full cost recovery) and if so, what should the fee increase be? For example, a 50% increase to the householder fee would increase the application fee from £258 to £387
If Yes, please explain in the text box what you consider an appropriate fee increase would be.
No comment
Question 91
If we proceed to increase householder fees to meet cost recovery, we have estimated that to meet cost-recovery, the householder application fee should be increased to £528. Do you agree with this estimate?
Yes
No – it should be higher than £528
No – it should be lower than £528
No – there should be no fee increase
Don’t know
If No, please explain in the text box below and provide evidence to demonstrate what you consider the correct fee should be.
No comment
Question 92
Are there any applications for which the current fee is inadequate? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.
No comment
Question 93
Are there any application types for which fees are not currently charged but which should require a fee? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.
No comment
Question 94
Do you consider that each local planning authority should be able to set its own (non-profit making) planning application fee?
Please give your reasons in the text box below.
No, this would make the inconsistency discriminatory for some people who would have to pay extra compared with people living in other areas and are not receiving additional benefits.
Question 95
What would be your preferred model for localisation of planning fees?
Don’t Know
Please give your reasons in the text box below
No comment
Question 96
Do you consider that planning fees should be increased, beyond cost recovery, for planning applications services, to fund wider planning services? If yes, please explain what you consider an appropriate increase would be and whether this should apply to all applications or, for example, just applications for major development?
Any increases should be focused on major developments, as householders and SMEs should be supported in making improvements to their premises.
Question 97
What wider planning services, if any, other than planning applications (development management) services, do you consider could be paid for by planning fees?
Any increases could contribute to planning authorities consulting more widely with local people, especially with disabled people, making their information more accessible using different formats and supporting the employment of Access Officers in LPAs and the development of Disabled People’s Access Groups.
Question 98
Do you consider that cost recovery for relevant services provided by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008, payable by applicants, should be introduced?
No comment
Question 99
If yes, please explain any particular issues that the Government may want to consider, in particular which local planning authorities should be able to recover costs and the relevant services which they should be able to recover costs for, and whether host authorities should be able to waive fees where planning performance agreements are made.
No comment
Question 100
What limitations, if any, should be set in regulations or through guidance in relation to local authorities’ ability to recover costs?
No comment
Question 101
Please provide any further information on the impacts of full or partial cost recovery are likely to be for local planning authorities and applicants. We would particularly welcome evidence of the costs associated with work undertaken by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent.
The provision of Wheelchair accessible housing provides cost benefits in the longer term.
A report by Habinteg / LSE: ‘Living not Existing’ (2023)8 revealed that the typical additional cost of building a wheelchair user home – instead of an accessible & adaptable home – for a disabled adult of working age is around £22,000, with the potential ten-year financial and social benefit to the individual and the public purse being around £94,000.
For a household with a child who is a wheelchair user the additional cost is around £26,000 to build a new wheelchair user home. The ten-year economic and social benefit is around £66,000.
For a typical older wheelchair user house-hold the additional cost to build a new wheelchair user home is around £26,000. The ten-year financial and social benefit is around £101,000.
The positive impact on the public purse for each household type benefits both national and local bodies. Local Authority savings amount to around £1,700 per year for a household with a disabled child; £4,800 for a household of working age; and £9,200 for a later years’ household. The NHS also benefits by hundreds of pounds, per household, per year.
Meanwhile, benefits to government through tax, national insurance and a reduced welfare spend is £700 for a household with a disabled child, and £2,400 for a working age adult household.
More detailed information is available in the report
Question 102
Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?
No
The future of planning policy and plan making
Question 103
Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements? Are there any alternatives you think we should consider?
Yes, but it is vital that accessible housing provision is included in local plan requirements for all new houses and for a minimum of 10% M4(3) of all new housing. All local plans should also include retrofitting arrangements for older properties and the provision of aids and adaptations. These arrangements could be combined with retrofitting for climate change reasons.
Question 104
Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements?
Yes
Public Sector Equality Duty
Question 105
Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?
It is unclear if the term “accessible” in this document means accessible for disabled people as the term is used in a more general way elsewhere in the policy consultation document. We would support this if it means that policies and documents will be more accessible to disabled people which also recognises that many disabled people are digitally excluded for a variety of reasons. Many disabled people require information to be available to them in a range of formats including large print, Braille, BSL. Audio and other formats.
Digital access is not available to some disabled people because of physical and/or sensory impairments as well as other impairments, or financial or other barriers. It is required under the Equality Act that service providers, including public sector services, make reasonable adjustments for disabled people and anticipate the needs of disabled people.
The lack of provision for assessing and improving accessible housing as well as the environment, highways, green space, infrastructure and services could be considered discriminatory and does not comply with the requirements under the Public Sector Equality Duty to improve and promote accessibility for disabled and older people.
“Advancing equality of opportunity” means having due regard, in particular, to the need to:
- remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their relevant protected characteristics
- take steps to meet the different needs of people who share a relevant protected characteristic
- encourage participation in public life or any other activity by underrepresented groups
- take steps to meet the different needs of disabled persons”
Omitting accessibility issues in the provison of affordable housing and all new housing is likely to reduce the availability of accessible accommodation and discriminate against older and disabled people increasingly over time.
“Considering people’s different needs and taking steps to meet those needs can be relevant to avoiding indirect discrimination” is particularly relevant not just or buildings, the environment and transport but also for information, particularly in making planning documents (including Site Notices) accessible for everyone.
The Equality Duty ”asks decision-makers to stop and check the evidence. In equality terms, can you confidently describe the people affected by your decision? Do you know what they think cuabout the subject? Is there data on the demographics of people impacted by your policies or practices? If not, do you know how to get it?” It is not sufficient to say “we do not have the evidence”, you should identify gaps in the evidence and fill them in a proportionate and balanced manner.” This aspect of the Duty is particularly relevant to the current omission of guidance on assessing the need for accessible, including wheelchair accessible, housing and services.
Question 106
Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for you, or the group or business you represent and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?
This issue is relevant to Manchester Disabled People’s Access Group as we represent a wide range of disabled people and we are in regular contact with Manchester City Council and GMCA and have been discussing the lack of accessible accommodation for some years. We also have regular contact with other Disabled People’s Organisations such as Inclusion London and a number of older people’s organisations as well as impairment specific organisations and through Greater Manchester Disabled People’s Panel, we have links with the Disabled People’s Forum. We are also involved with professional groups such as the RIBA EDI group. We are aware of a serious lack of understanding of accessibility issues by housing providers, planners and Councillors.
Without national guidance, we believe that it will be impossible to provide for and increase the number of accessible housing, required in all sectors.
It is vitally important that accessible and wheelchair accessible housing is included in the proposals for the NPPF and for all Local Plans, particularly as proposed amendments to the basic Building Regulations were already announced in 2022. to ensure that the basic requirements for all new houses were M4(2). This was because M4(1) did not allow for basic access for wheelchair users and for many other disabled people.
To delay these amendments to the Proposals by waiting for a future NPPF edition, will lead to fewer accessible homes and also to more homeless people who are also disabled people, as well as a lack of housing for working disabled people and young couples and young people wanting to live independently. Older people who would like to move to more accessible homes from family homes are also stuck in houses inappropriate for them and unable to make these houses available to young families. We have also identified the additional cost to the NHS of many people unable to come home from hospital or receive treatment at home.
We have also identified other cost effective impacts of including these proposals across all Local Plans. When we represented disabled people in the Appeal process against GMCA’s Places for Everyone strategy, the representative from the Housebuilders Association publicly supported our submission on M4(2) and M4(3) and suggested that developers were supportive of a level playing field for all developers.
It also became clear that GMCA had misunderstood the importance of Building Regulations applying to all new housing developments. Since then, we have been working closely with GMCA and other disabled people’s organisations in Greater Manchester. The assumption that provision of supported housing will meet all the needs of disabled people has also been outlined in some of the current Local Plans in Greater Manchester which displays the lack of understanding of accessible housing across many local planning authorities.
This is a great opportunity to improve accessibility in new housing provision, at little or no cost to the public purse, and it is hoped that it will be followed up by other policies and strategies, such as more retrofitting, more Disabled Facilities Grant provision and improving access in communities through inclusive Design Codes and Guides. Alongside this, there is continued work with landlords in Greater Manchester led by GMCA which could replicated around England. National support for more disabled people’s access groups around the country and encouragement for more Access Officers and planning officers with responsibility for accessibility would also be very welcome.
The omission in the proposals for accessibility, when Local Plans in London and Liverpool have already been approved with M4(2) and M4(3) provisions. will lead to less accessible housing being available and it could be argued that this is discrimination under the Equality Act, particularly the Public Sector Equality Duty.
We look forward to a positive response to our submission and to similar submissions from other organisations.
Flick Harris
Chair, MDPAG, September 2024