RE: Requiring Higher Level Building Regs - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

The 'new' building regulations relating to accessible and adaptable and wheelchair user dwellings came in about a year ago now. Local Planning authorities can only require the higher adaptable/accessible standards (Part M(2)) or Wheelchair User (Part M(3)) where they have a policy in an adopted Plan.

To have a policy in a plan the authority must evidence the need for the higher levels and also demonstrate that it is viable to deliver the policy requirement.

I was wondering if anyone has, or knows anyone who has successfully adopted such a policy and if so how they evidenced it?

We included such a policy in our submitted plan but in discusison at the EiP, the Inspector felt that the policy was not properly evidenced. Basically, the evidence we used was parts of our SHMA which looked at projections for things like age/diability and predicted higher inceidences of things like strokes, falls etc. etc as a result. I think the we accept that this is fairly generic. 

I know the PPG has some info on this and links to some other information but it would be good if there were any actual examples of plans which had passed axamination successfully with higher BR requirements.

How much more does it cost to build a Part M(2) house over a standard one? It seems a no-brainer that with the aging population and a desire to allow people to remain in their homes longer we must provide homes which are accessible and which can be adapted to changing needs.