Lifetime Homes - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

We proposed a criterion in a policy in our Core Strategy to require new homes to include Lifetime Homes principles. However the Inspector was not convinced there were any special reasons why we should make this a requirement in advance of Government legislation. It has been amended to just "encourage": - "The Council will....encourage new dwellings to be designed to include "Lifetime Homes" principles so that they can be readily adapted to meet the needs of those with disabilities and the elderly." So unless you have the evidence to "require" this you may have problems.

The London Plan has mandated Lifetime Homes since it adoption in 2004. However, the policy requirement will fall by the wayside as lifetime homes will become part of the CSH assessment, and therefore it will be in the developers interest to do it, to make it easier to obtain Level 3.

Although the London Plan has a policy on thisthis was published before certain government statements on this point, and in particular statements about the 'non-duplication' principle with the building regulations. The '16' (from memory) requirements need to be broken down into three parts. 1) Part M of the buildings regulations has been amended and now incorporate all but one of the lifetime home requirements relating to interior design - the one that was not included (space for an interior lift) was rightly rejected on grounds of excessive costs on new private dwellings. This is a matter of national government policy. As these clearly duplicate building regs requirements planning should have no place here. 2) Those exterior aspects of design not covered by Bregs - here planning does have a role - just list these out separately in a design guide. 'Encourage' policies inappropriate here, should be require, why not level exterior access from front boundary to door? 3) One exterior lifetime homes requirement is just plain wrong and should be actively discouraged, that is covered parking spaces right outside front doors. Impossible and irrelevant to flats and just bad design anyway. See a GLA research report on this, which whilst purporting to show how lifetime homes standards can be achieved in high density dwellings only does this by effectively rewriting them. Even worse are the SDS standards for social housing requiring 'chav shelters' outside wheelchair housing to prevent people getting wet. On many estates these are simply horrible and notorious focal points for anti-social behavior. Lifetime homes is not a totem, it was a snapshot in time of good practice, practice and regulations have moved on. Planners as ever should understand the nitty gritty impact of standards they set, for good or ill, and not stick to totems. Very similar issues apply by the way to Code for sustainable homes requirements and the bregs, it requires a point by point breakdown.