Clause [d]
This is not justified in only requiring a proportion of new dwellings to reach Lifetime Homes standard. This is because of
a] the large proportion of substandard properties in the borough
b] the high numbers of residents with health concerns
c] the need to attract a settled rather than a transient [population
d] the projected rise in elderly population
This might be left to the DMP, but in mentioning it as Planning Strategy, the Council flags its commitment to improving the home environment - but then perversely cuts that commitment away by reducing the requirement to a negotiable quota.
Other councils have successfully made this requirement mandatory, and there are exemplars demonstrating that extra expense need not be incurred to meet the standard if factored in at the beginning of the design process.
The NPPF [50, 205] requirement for flexibility to take account of changing market circumstances does not preclude setting the bar high at the outset; every other area of sustainable development covered by the Code for Sustainable Homes has been robustly addressed within the Planning Strategy, even though most of the Code remains voluntary. It makes compelling sense that not just the carbon emissions, the waste management, the low energy washing machines, the green roofs etc should be so dealt with, but also the day to day living environment.
Strengthening of this policy is in accordance with paras 2.61, 2.63 and 2.64 of the Vision of Hastings; para 9.6; Policy SC1[c]; HBC Emerging policy Design para 3.9 [e], Amenity para 3.17 [b] and Access para3.25 [c] and [d]; and SE Plan CC4 [iv]. 'designing for flexible use and adaptation to reflect changing lifestyles and needs and the principle of 'whole life costing'