housing design standards policy: evidence paper …...assessed and reflected in planning policies....
TRANSCRIPT
Doncaster Local Plan
Housing Design Standards Policy: Evidence Paper June 2019 Updated November 2019
Table of Contents
List of Figures .................................................................................................................
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings ................................................................ 2
2.1 Introduction to the Standards ................................................................................... 2
2.5 National Policy and Context .................................................................................... 2
2.17 Current Local Planning Policy and Council Strategies ........................................... 5
2.29 Evidence Required ................................................................................................... 8
2.37 Evidence ................................................................................................................ 10
2.38 The Likely Future Need for Housing for Older and Disabled People .............. 10
Older People................................................................................................................. 10
Long-Term Health Problem or Disability .................................................................... 17
Wheelchair Dwellings .................................................................................................. 21
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 24
2.89 Size, Location, Type and Quality of Dwellings Needed to Meet Specifically
Evidenced Needs .............................................................................................................. 26
Size ............................................................................................................................... 28
Location ....................................................................................................................... 31
Type ............................................................................................................................. 39
Quality.......................................................................................................................... 42
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 43
2.141 The Accessibility and Adaptability of Existing Housing Stock ....................... 45
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 50
2.160 How Needs vary across Different Housing Tenures ......................................... 51
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 57
2.179 The Overall Impact on Viability ....................................................................... 58
Viability Testing .......................................................................................................... 58
Falls .............................................................................................................................. 62
Delayed Transfers of Care ........................................................................................... 64
Residential Care Costs ................................................................................................. 65
Adaptations .................................................................................................................. 66
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 67
2.209 The Case for Introducing the Accessibility Standards .......................................... 69
2.211 Category M4(2) Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings ..................................... 69
2.218 Category M4(3) Wheelchair Adaptable Dwellings .......................................... 71
3.0 Nationally Described Space Standards .......................................................... 73
3.1 Introduction to the Standards ................................................................................. 73
3.7 Current Local Planning Policy .............................................................................. 75
3.10 Evidence Required ................................................................................................ 76
3.11 Evidence ................................................................................................................ 77
3.12 Need ................................................................................................................... 77
Survey .......................................................................................................................... 77
Density ......................................................................................................................... 80
Ventilation and Climate Change .................................................................................. 82
Occupancy of Dwellings .............................................................................................. 84
Storage ......................................................................................................................... 85
Overcrowding .............................................................................................................. 86
Education ..................................................................................................................... 86
Health and Well-being ................................................................................................. 87
Houses in Multiple Occupation ................................................................................... 87
Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings........................................................................... 88
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 89
3.54 Viability ............................................................................................................. 91
Viability Testing .......................................................................................................... 91
Affordability ................................................................................................................ 93
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 96
3.72 Timing ............................................................................................................... 97
3.76 The Case for Introducing the Standards ................................................................ 98
4.0 Appendixes ...................................................................................................... 100
Appendix 1 – Statistical data used to produce map data .................................................... 100
Appendix 2 – Map of the high, medium and low value viability areas in Doncaster ........ 104
Appendix 3 – NDSS Survey Sample.................................................................................. 105
List of Figures
Figure 1: M4(2) pictorial example ............................................................................................ 9
Figure 2: Doncaster’s Older Population in 2011 .................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Doncaster’s Older Population in 2017 .................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Doncaster’s Population Projection .......................................................................... 11
Figure 5: Projected Population Age Breakdown by Total Percentage ................................... 11
Figure 6: Percentage Breakdown of the 65 and Over ............................................................. 12
Figure 7: OADR comparison by regions ................................................................................ 12
Figure 8: Internal Migration Figures ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 9: Doncaster Household Projections ........................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Tenure of 65 and above households ...................................................................... 14
Figure 11: Projection of Older People Living Alone or in Care in Doncaster ....................... 15
Figure 12: Healthy life expectancy in Doncaster at birth and at age 65, by sex, 2015 to 2017
.................................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 13: Projected Characteristics of Older People in Doncaster ....................................... 17
Figure 14: Current Population of People with a LTHPD by Age Category ........................... 18
Figure 15: Breakdown of the Population of Doncaster with a LTHPD.................................. 18
Figure 16: Projection of People with a LTHPD in Doncaster ................................................ 19
Figure 17: Age Breakdown of Figure 16 ................................................................................ 20
Figure 18: Households and LTHPD’s .................................................................................... 20
Figure 19: Projection of Households with a LTHPD in Doncaster ........................................ 21
Figure 20: Unmet Housing Need Estimation Table................................................................ 22
Figure 21: DLA Claimants in Receipt of Higher Mobility rate Award by Age ..................... 24
Figure 22: Older Persons’ Housing Option Preferences ......................................................... 26
Figure 23: Households that required an adaptation wanting different accommodation, by age
and tenure, 2014-15 ................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 24: Future Need for Specialist Older Person Accommodation ................................... 28
Figure 25: Household Composition of AHR Applicants ........................................................ 29
Figure 26: Property Size Requirements of AHR Applicants .................................................. 29
Figure 27: Older Persons’ Housing Choices........................................................................... 30
Figure 28: Future Housing Choices of Older Households ...................................................... 31
Figure 29: Distribution of 65 and over by numbers per ward ................................................ 32
Figure 30: Distribution of 65 and over by percentage of population per ward ...................... 33
Figure 31: Distribution of people with a LTHPD by numbers per ward ................................ 34
Figure 32: Distribution of people with a LTHPD by percentage of population per ward ...... 34
Figure 33: Health Deprivation and Disability Rank by LSOA ............................................... 36
Figure 34: Quality of Housing Rank by LSOA ...................................................................... 37
Figure 35: Location Preferences of AHR Applicants ............................................................. 37
Figure 36: Location of Council Housing Adapted Properties ................................................ 38
Figure 37: Older Persons’ Housing Type ............................................................................... 39
Figure 38: Type Preferences of AHR Applicants ................................................................... 40
Figure 39: Neighbourhood Team Areas ................................................................................. 41
Figure 40: Location, Size and Type of RSL stock .................................................................. 42
Figure 41: Property Requirements of AHR Applicants .......................................................... 43
Figure 42: Visitability of Sample Stock in England ............................................................... 45
Figure 43: Age of Housing Stock in Doncaster ...................................................................... 46
Figure 44: Number and Type of Adaptations delivered between 2016/18 ............................. 47
Figure 45: Housing Adaptations Required in Doncaster ........................................................ 48
Figure 46: Future Need for Adapted Properties...................................................................... 49
Figure 47: Property Tenure by Ward ...................................................................................... 51
Figure 48: Distribution of people aged 65 and over living in Private Accommodation, by
percentage of population per ward ........................................................................................... 52
Figure 49: Tenure of Individuals with a LTHPD ................................................................... 54
Figure 50: Distribution of people with a LTHPD living in Private Accommodation, by
percentage of population per ward ........................................................................................... 54
Figure 51: New Build Dwellings Completed by Tenure in Doncaster ................................... 55
Figure 52: Households that need to move on medical/welfare grounds ................................. 56
Figure 53: Cost Impact of Accessibility Standards ................................................................ 59
Figure 54: M4(1) and M4(2) Internal and External Differences ............................................ 61
Figure 55: Emergency Hospital Admissions due to Falls in People Aged 65 and Over in
Doncaster ................................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 56: Cost associated with falls in Doncaster by age, for the 12 months ending 31st
August 2018 ............................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 57: Reasons for DTOC in Doncaster ........................................................................... 65
Figure 58: Residential Care Costs 2017/18 ............................................................................ 66
Figure 59: Private and Social Housing Adaptations conducted for Individuals being
Discharged from Hospital 2016/18 .......................................................................................... 67
Figure 60: Minimum Gross Internal Floor Areas and Storage (m2) ....................................... 75
Figure 61: South Yorkshire Internal Space Standards ............................................................ 76
Figure 62: Annual Mean Change Projections in Air Temperature in Doncaster .................... 83
Figure 63: Bedroom Occupancy Rating ................................................................................. 85
Figure 65: Cost Impact of Nationally Described Space Standards ......................................... 91
Figure 66: Design Team Costs per Development Size ........................................................... 93
Figure 67: Lower Quartile House Prices 2017 by LSOA ....................................................... 95
Figure 68: Dwelling Size Scenario ......................................................................................... 96
Executive Summary
The National Planning Policy Framework indicates that planning authorities should deliver a
sufficient supply of homes and the need for different groups in the community should be
assessed and reflected in planning policies. This Housing Design Standards Policy Evidence
Paper was produced to demonstrate the requirement in Doncaster for the Government’s new
national housing standards. It sets out evidence, highlighting the need for the optional
standards around access requirements M4(2) and M4(3) and the Nationally Described Space
Standards.
Doncaster’s population demographic will shift to accommodate a significant increase in older
and disabled people during the plan period. As a result more households will include
somebody with one of these characteristics, creating an increase in health and mobility issues.
There will be an increased need for wheelchair dwellings in the borough over the plan period.
Older and disabled people will generally be spread across the borough with hotspots
experienced in certain wards. There is a strong link between deprivation and the location of
these demographics. Many older and disabled people want smaller, better-designed dwellings
with little to no steps and a preference for bungalows.
Whilst specialist forms of accommodation will play an important role in meeting demand,
most older and disabled people live and want to continue living in private market housing.
Even if they wanted to move to a social adapted property, these are location in wards with a
small percentage of older and disabled people. Current stock in Doncaster is ill equipped to
deal with the changing population and the emergence of demand it will bring.
The introduction of the policy will have no significant impact on the viability of schemes,
and will help promote significant social monetary cost savings.
The majority of current new builds in Doncaster are big enough to meet the Nationally
Described Space Standards, but lack the internal design requirements to allow compliancy
around storage space and bedroom sizes.
The introduction of the standard would help tackle key societal issues within Doncaster such
as density, ventilation, under-occupancy and overcrowding. There is also a strong link
between the standards and accessibility of houses. The introduction of the policy will have no
significant impact on the viability of schemes, and will also produce little to no impact on the
affordability of houses in Doncaster.
Overall the paper demonstrates a clear need for the inclusion of these housing standards in
Doncaster. They are a necessary and appropriate mechanism to provide all current and
potential residents of Doncaster access to good quality and appropriate housing in the private
market, without significant impact to developers.
1 | P a g e
1.0 Introduction
1.1 On 25th March 2015 the Government set out, in a written Ministerial Statement,
information on the new optional housing technical standards in England. This was introduced
to ensure new homes were high quality, accessible and sustainable. In doing so, the new
system comprised of a new additional optional Building Regulations on water and access,
and a new national space standard (NDSS).
1.2 These requirements are optional, and from 1st October 2015, local authorities had the
option of implementing these higher standards. In order to apply the optional standards, the
online National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states that a local authority must gather
evidence to determine the need for the additional standards in their area.
1.3 The revised National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF) sets out the
Government’s approach to achieving well-designed places. The NPPF acknowledges that
“the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and
development process should achieve”1. To assist in this aim planning policies and decisions
should ensure that developments: “create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and
which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future
users”2. To achieve this within the footnote attached for paragraph 127, the NPPF sets out
“planning policies for housing should make use of the Government’s optional technical
standards for accessible and adaptable housing, where this would address an identified need
for such properties. Policies may also make use of the national described space standards,
where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”3.
1.4 This background paper seeks to set out the context and evidence base used to inform
the Housing Design Standards Policy (Policy 46) in the emerging Doncaster Local Plan. The
policy adopts two of the new optional standards, access and the NDSS. It provides the
necessary evidence required to satisfy the inclusion of the policy, as set out by the NPPG to
ensure the policy is complaint and sound with national policy.
1 National Planning Policy Framework 2019, para 124. 2 ibid 127(f). 3 ibid footnote 46.
2 | P a g e
2.0 Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings
2.1 Introduction to the Standards
2.1 Part M Volume 1 of the Building Regulations sets out the regulations for the access to
and use of dwellings. This is split into three categories:
M4(1) Visitable dwellings (mandatory standard);
M4(2) Accessible and adaptable dwellings (optional standard);
M4(3) Wheelchair user dwellings (optional standard), which includes:
o Wheelchair adaptable;
o Wheelchair accessible.
2.2 Category M4(1) regulation is mandatory for all new dwellings, as such only M4(2)
and M4(3) are relevant for consideration within this paper. The two categories are
summarised below:4
2.3 Category M4(2) Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings requires that dwellings meet
the needs of occupants with differing needs, including some older and disabled people, and to
allow adaptation of the dwelling to meet the changing needs of occupants over time. This
category is broadly equivalent to the Lifetimes Homes standard, which this optional
regulation replaces.
2.4 Category M4(3) Wheelchair User Dwellings requires dwellings to meet the needs of
occupants who use wheelchairs or to allow simple adaptation to meet the needs of occupants
who use wheelchairs. This category can therefore be divided into wheelchair adaptable and
wheelchair accessible dwellings. The requirement for wheelchair accessible dwellings should
only be applied to those dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or
nominating a person to live in that dwelling.
2.5 National Policy and Context
2.5 As alluded to in the description of M4(2) requirements, accessible and adaptable
housing helps meet the needs of numerous individuals, but most notably the older and
disabled demographics. During the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition
Government, housing for older and vulnerable people became a prominent policy priority.
This led to the Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England Paper, which
emphasised the need for local plans to consider the needs of different groups, including older
4 The detailed requirements and frequently asked questions can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/access-to-and-use-of-buildings-approved-document-m
3 | P a g e
and disabled people.5 This strategy was subsequently fed into the statutory guidance building
regulations applicable to the optional standards examined here.
2.6 More recently, in 2017 the Conservative Government released their ‘Fixing our
broken housing market’ housing white paper. This again reiterated the current national
position on improving the housing options and meeting the housing needs of older and
disabled people.6 The paper states, “offering older people a better choice of accommodation
can help them to live independently for longer and help reduce the costs to the social care
and health systems. […] Expectation that all planning authorities should set policies using
the Optional Building Regulations to bring forward an adequate supply of accessible housing
to meet local need”7.
2.7 The recent update to the NPPF in 2019 confirms the requirement for local authorities
to make use of the optional technical standards within the construction of planning policies. It
also requires local authorities to assess and reflect the housing needed for different groups in
the community, including older people and people with disabilities.8 It can therefore be
argued that the current national government’s position is to ensure that at a local government
level, strong consideration is made to helping older and disabled people live in appropriate
housing to improve standards and ensure they can live independently if desired.9
2.8 Parliamentary committees have also considered the current issues regarding
accessible and adaptable dwellings and the needs of older and disabled people. The Housing
Communities and Local Government Committee conducted an inquiry into Housing for
Older People. The Committee is made up on Conservative and Labour backbenchers. The
Women and Equalities Committee conducted an inquiry into Disability and the Built
Environment. This inquiry has finished and subsequently a report was published. As part of
the inquiry, relevant charities and organisations contributed to different stages.
2.9 Within the final report on the Disability and Built Environment inquiry, the optional
technical standards were assessed. This confirmed that M4(2) replaced the previous Lifetime
Homes standard, and that M4(3) replaced the previous Wheelchair housing design guide.10
The Committee reported that, “wherever people live or choose to live in the future, there
should be a real choice in the housing available to them”11. The Committee also argued that
the default minimum baseline standard for all new homes under Part M should be set to
Category M4(2) from M4(1).12 This was supported by numerous organisations, such as: Age
UK; Habinteg; Later Life Ambitions; and the Thomas Pocklington Trust.
5 MHCLG, Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England, pg 16. 6 MHCLG, Fixing our Broken Housing Market, pg 63. 7 ibid. 8 NPPF (n 1) para 61. 9 ibid footnote 46. 10 Women and Equalities Committee, 9th Report – Building for Equality: Design and Built Environment HC
631, para 95. 11 ibid para 110. 12 ibid para 122.
4 | P a g e
2.10 The inquiry into Housing for Older People presented their 2nd report in February
2018. Accessible homes were examined as part of the different types of available housing.
Evidence presented by organisations, in particular Habinteg, argued that the current minimum
M4(1) standard was “not sufficiently accessible for most older and disabled people and it is
only ‘visitable’ in the loosest sense”13. The higher M4(2) category was evaluated by Julia
Park, Head of Housing Policy at Levitt Bernstein who stated: “The principal benefits would
be practical. All of those little moves added together mean that day-to-day life would be very
much easier”14. The Committee acknowledged they had experienced this ease in day-to-day
life themselves in a site visit to recently built Lifetime Homes standard dwellings. The
Committee also acknowledged the ‘futureproof’ nature of the optional standards, especially
in comparison to current mainstream homes.15 On building homes to M4(2) and M4(3),
Claudia Wood from the think-tank Demos stated “it is one of the puzzles: why is everyone
not doing it? It is basic common sense for long-term liveability of homes”16. In summary, the
Committee, in similar vain to the Women and Equalities Committee, stated that M4(2) should
be the minimum baseline standard for all new homes.17
2.11 The benefits of M4(2) and M4(3) building regulations in addressing accessibility
issues has also been commented on collectively by non-government organisations (NGOs). In
an open letter published in the Guardian, NGOs demanded “more action […] to ensure new
homes are inclusively designed with effective planning for the current and future housing
needs. Inclusive homes benefit everyone, from older people, to people with mobility problems
as well as families with young children”18.
2.12 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), a statutory non-departmental
public body, have also focused on the housing needs of specific groups with housing and
disabled people being one of their most recent projects. The work presents the current state of
housing for disabled people across the country and provides a damning reflection of the
current market being ill equipped for this demographic. This is also reflected in various news
reports, most notably articles published by The Guardian newspaper.19 The EHRC published
a report on the current situation of disabled people housing which found that: the current
housing system is demoralising and frustrating; there is a significant shortage of accessible
homes; and disabled people are not getting the support they need to live independently.20
They concluded that without an increased supply of accessible and adaptable housing,
disabled people would continue to face discrimination and disadvantage in the housing
market.21
13 Communities and Local Government Committee, 2nd Report – Housing for Older People HC 370, para 76. 14 ibid para 77. 15 ibid para 78. 16 ibid para 81. 17 ibid. 18 The Guardian, Britain needs more accessible housing,
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/10/britain-needs-more-accessible-housing accessed 04/12/2018. 19 For example, see The Guardian, ‘I never feel safe’: meet the people at the very sharpest end of the housing
crisis – disabled millennials, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/21/disabled-accessible-housing-
shortage-young-millennials accessed 11/12/2018. 20 EHRC, Housing and Disabled People: Britain’s Hidden Crisis. 21 ibid pg 20.
5 | P a g e
2.13 As well as through national policy, international human rights provisions also provide
a backdrop to housing standards. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, which the UK is a party to, established the right of everyone to an adequate
standard of living (ICESR Article 11). General Comment No. 6 addressed the interpretation
of this Article in relation to older persons. It stated, “housing for the elderly must be viewed
as more than mere shelter and that, in addition to the physical, it has psychological and
social significance. National policies should help elderly persons to continue to live in their
own homes for as long as possible”22. This support to help elderly persons to live
independently includes the contribution of accessible and adaptable homes.
2.14 People with disabilities also have the right to adequate standard of living enshrined
within Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 19 of
the same Convention also enshrines the right of persons with disabilities to “have the
opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an
equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement”. This
Convention has also been ratified by the UK. It is therefore essential the housing market
allows for genuine choice.
2.15 The Council is also bound by its duties under the Equality Act 2010 to ensure non-
discrimination, promote the advancement of equality and to remove or minimise the
disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics of which includes age
and disability.
2.16 In June 2019, the outgoing Prime Minster, The Rt Hon Theresa May MP announced a
new drive to tackle barriers faced by disabled people. Within this included the recognition
that too many disabled people lived in unsuitable homes. In response, the Government at the
time of writing, announced it will consult on mandating higher accessibility standards for
new housing, a policy position supported through the Committee recommendations
highlighted above.23
2.17 Current Local Planning Policy and Council Strategies
2.17 As the optional standards came into effect from 1st October 2015, the emerging Local
Plan is the first planning document that has had the opportunity to implement the standards.
However, previous documents referenced the Lifetime Homes standards, and current
Doncaster Council24 strategies highlight the intention to cater for differing needs and to
promote independent living.
22 CESCR, General Comment No. 6 E/1996/22, para 33. 23 ‘PM launches new drive to tackle barriers faced by disabled people’ (2019)
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-launches-new-drive-to-tackle-barriers-faced-by-disabled-people>
accessed 27 June 2019. 24 Hereby known as ‘Council’.
6 | P a g e
2.18 The Doncaster Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Core Strategy Development
Plan (DPD) set out the current Local Development Framework for the borough. The DPD
was adopted in 2012 and replaced large parts of the UDP. This document sets out the overall
vision for planning within the borough. The emerging Local Plan will replace both
documents.
2.19 Policy CS14: Design and Sustainable Construction, Part B, of the DPD recognises the
need to ensure a more adaptable and sustainable housing stock. This was in response to the
wide range of local needs, particular of those of an ageing population. For this reason it
encourages the development of Building for Life criteria developments and the building of
Lifetime Homes. The policy states “new housing developments will be expected to meet
relevant Building for Life criteria (14/20 criteria for developments of more than ten
dwellings). An agreed proportion of new homes should be designed to Lifetime Homes
standards, subject to design and viability considerations”. Within the explanatory text to the
policy it was proposed to seek to negotiate up to 20 percent of all homes on a site to be
Lifetime Homes.
2.20 Whilst this policy encourages the building of dwellings to higher standards, it has not
been monitored by the Council. Properties built to Lifetime Homes have largely been on sites
developed in conjunction with Homes England and through the Council’s social housing
build programme. The Council estimate around 500 properties have been approved, or built
to Lifetime Homes Standards since the adoption of the DPD. Following the housing
standards review and introduction of the optional building regulations, the Lifetime Homes
requirement of Policy CS14 have been considered to be out of date, so largely has not been
pursued by Doncaster Council except for their own social build programme and voluntarily
by Registered Providers.
2.21 The Council has wider strategies that influence the priorities of the borough.
Doncaster Growing Together (DGT) is the current strategic vision for the Council. Launched
in September 2017 and in place for four years, DGT has four key themes:
Working – in ways that create purpose and meaning, and allow more people to
pursue their ambitions;
Learning – that prepares all children and young people for a life that is fulfilling;
Living – in a place that is vibrant and full of opportunity where people enjoy
spending time;
Caring – together for the most vulnerable in our communities.
2.22 Within the Living theme of DGT is the area for action that aims to allow more people
to live in a good quality, affordable home. This forms the pledge for “Homes for All” and
ensuring fewer people are in unsuitable accommodation. This will make sure that “more high
quality new homes are built that are suitable for people of all ages and from all walks of
life”25. This makes particular reference to older people and the emerging Local Plan.
25 Doncaster Growing Together Prospectus 2017, pg 16.
7 | P a g e
2.23 The Caring strand of DGT aims to ensure that older people can live well and
independently in their own homes. This acknowledges that “residential care is not always
the best solution so we will improve home and community services to continue to reduce the
number of people admitted”26.
2.24 The Council also has a wider Housing Strategy 2015-2025 which focuses upon the
current and future housing needs to ensure growth and improvement. The Housing Strategy
sets out the following housing vision: “residents will be able to access suitable, quality
accommodation to meet their needs; viable, quality options will exist within the social rented,
private rented or home ownership sectors; and residents will be able to live in safe, healthy
and supported communities within vibrant and well-managed neighbourhoods”27.
2.25 In order to achieve the vision the Housing Strategy sets out three key objectives:28
Meet Housing Need
Raise Standards
Support Independent Living
2.26 To help achieve the objective ‘Meet Housing Need’, the Housing Strategy sets out
that more needs to be done to recognise the ageing population issues within Doncaster. To do
so housing adaptations would be provided to help people live independently for longer, as
well as including accessibility design features in new built homes to keep future adaptation
costs to a minimum.
2.27 To assist with the objective ‘Support Independent Living’, the Housing Strategy
reiterates the need for accessibility design features to reduce the need for costly future
adaptations. It also highlights the importance of Lifetime Homes standards to support needs
associated with disabilities or limiting long-term illnesses.29 As established earlier, Lifetime
Homes standards have now been replaced with the optional building regulations, but the
principle still applies.
2.28 Understanding the Council’s strategic priorities outlines the current context and aims
in which this report finds itself. As part of the holistic approach operated by DGT, planning
policy, as alluded to in the strategies, has a key part to play in achieving the overarching aims
of the Council.
26 ibid pg 18. 27 Doncaster Housing Strategy 2015-2025, pg 12. 28 ibid. 29 ibid pg 16.
8 | P a g e
2.29 Evidence Required
2.29 As highlighted in paragraph 1.2, the NPPG sets out that local authorities must provide
an evidence base need for the optional standards. This evidence should demonstrate a clear
need for housing with specific housing needs, and subsequently planning policy should
reflect this.30
2.30 The NPPG states that it is up to local planning authorities to set out how they intend
to approach demonstrating the need for Requirements M4(2) and/or M4(3). It does however
suggest that the following are considered when determining whether to introduce the
standards:31
the likely future need for housing for older and disabled people (including wheelchair
user dwellings).
size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed to meet specifically evidenced
needs (for example retirement homes, sheltered homes or care homes).
the accessibility and adaptability of existing housing stock.
how needs vary across different housing tenures.
the overall impact on viability.
2.31 The NPPF sets out the definition of older people and people with disabilities in Annex
2. The definitions are outlined below:
2.32 Older People: People over or approaching retirement age, including the active newly-
retired through to the very frail elderly; and whose housing needs can encompass accessible,
adaptable general needs housing through to the full range of retirement and specialised
housing for those with support or care needs.32
2.33 People with disabilities: People have a disability if they have a physical or mental
impairment, and that impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their
ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. These people include, but are not limited to,
people with ambulatory difficulties, blindness, learning difficulties, autism and mental health
needs.33
2.34 To assist in the data collection of evidence required to satisfy the NPPG, the
Government produced a summary data sheet.34 This sets out useful data and sources of
further information. Additionally, the Town and Country Planning Association and Habinteg
prepared and published a toolkit35 to help planners to plan and secure delivery of accessible
30 NPPG, para 005, Ref ID 56-005-20150327. 31 ibid para 007, Ref ID 56-007-20150327. 32 NPPF (n 1) pg 69. 33 ibid pg 70. 34 MHCLG, Guide to Available Disability Data 2015. 35 TCPA and Habinteg, Towards Accessible Housing: A toolkit for planning policy.
9 | P a g e
homes. The toolkit gathers together resources to help ensure an increased supply of
accessible homes.
2.35 In 2018 the EHRC, alongside Habinteg, produced their own toolkits to assist those
involved in housing and planning in local authorities. One of these is towards planning for
accessible homes.36 This sets out the current regulations and policy context, good practice
from other local authorities and a data source checklist. The toolkit also includes a pictorial
example of a M4(2) home, this can be found below.
Source: EHRC Housing and Disabled People Toolkit
Figure 1: M4(2) pictorial example
2.36 In preparing this evidence paper, the Council has been mindful of the need to present
a robust evidence base whilst considering the aims of current National policy and local
strategies.
36 EHRC and Habinteg, Housing and Disabled People: A toolkit for local authorities in England: Planning for
accessible homes.
10 | P a g e
2.37 Evidence
2.37 The following section will present the evidence required to satisfy the NPPG. This is
outlined under the same headings as stated in paragraph 7 of the NPPG.
2.38 The Likely Future Need for Housing for Older and Disabled People
Older People
2.38 According to the 2011 Census, 16.91 percent of Doncaster’s population were aged 65
and above. In contrast to the regional and national figures, this was a higher percentage of the
total population. More recently, mid-year estimates allow for a more up-to date account of
the population breakdown by age.
2.39 When the data from the 2017 mid-year estimate is compared to the 2011 Census,
there is an estimated increase of 6,558 individuals aged 65 or above. This increase is at a
slower rate than Y&H and England, however the percentage of the population that is at that
age category is still higher.
Source: 2011 Census
Figure 2: Doncaster’s Older Population in 2011
Under 65 65-74 75-84 85+ Total Total 65+ % of
pop
65+
%
change
from
census
Doncaster 250,950 32,230 18,590 7,190 308,960 58,010 18.78 +13.43
Yorkshire
& Humber
4,447,440 554,370 320,610 127,710 5,450,130 1,002,690 18.40 +14.65
England 45,588,920 5,495,190 3,183,280 1,352,050 55,619,440 10,030,520 18.03 +15.82 Source: ONS 2017 Mid-Year Population Estimates
Figure 3: Doncaster’s Older Population in 2017
2.40 Doncaster will also have a significant increase in the ageing population by the end of
the plan period. In 2035 there will be an estimated total population of 315,700 people, this is
an increase of 7,000 in comparison to 2018. In the same period the total amount of people
aged 65 or over will increase by 19,900, subsequently the number of people aged below 65
will decrease. As a result the percentage of individuals within Doncaster that are 65 or over
will increase to just under a quarter of the total population (24.83 percent).
Under 65 65-74 75+ Total Total
65+
% of pop
65+
Doncaster 251,261 27,109 24,032 302,402 51,141 16.91
Yorkshire &
Humber
4,409,162 463,849 410,722 5,283,733 874,571 16.56
England 44,351,927 4,552,283 4,108,246 53,012,456 8,660,529 16.34
11 | P a g e
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
65+
15-64
0-14
050000
100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000
Ax
is T
itle
Axis Title
Doncaster's Increasing Population
Overall Population
65+
Source: ONS 2016 Sub-National Population Projections
Figure 4: Doncaster’s Population Projection
2.41 The changing age demographic of Doncaster can be highlighted with the population
breakdown by percentage shown in Figure 5. As mentioned above, the percentage of the
population 65 and over will increase to just under 25 percent. As a result, the percentage of
the total population that are aged 0-64 will decrease.
Source: ONS 2016 Sub-National Population Projections
Figure 5: Projected Population Age Breakdown by Total Percentage
2.42 Whilst the overall 65 and over population is increasing, it is also important to
determine the breakdown of this demographic. Doing so will help establish to what extent the
population is ageing.
12 | P a g e
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
85+
75-84
65-74
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
Doncaster
SCR
Y&H
England
Source: ONS 2016 Sub-National Population Projections
Figure 6: Percentage Breakdown of the 65 and Over
2.43 Figure 6 shows that within the 65 and above age group, there will be an increasing
percentage of people aged 75 or higher; and in particular 85 or higher. With a greater local
and national strategic focus on allowing people to live independently at home for longer, it is
essential to ensure housing is appropriate to deal with this increased 85 and above group.
2.44 Old-age dependency ratios (OADR) measure the number of elderly people as a share
of those of working age. This helps provide an idea of the relationship between working and
pensioner populations. As increases in longevity continue, the ratio will rise. In mid-2016 the
OADR for England was 302.8, this was slightly lower than the OADR for Y&H which
scored 310.2. In Doncaster, the OADR was higher than the Yorkshire average at 319.3.
Source: ONS 2016 Sub-National Population Projections
Figure 7: OADR comparison by regions
2.45 Over the plan period, the OADR for Doncaster is expected to remain higher than all
other comparable regions with the exception of Sheffield City Region Combined Authority
13 | P a g e
(SCR). SCR contains local authorities that also form part of Y&H and some that do not.
When analysing the areas that make up SCR, the higher OADR figures came from local
authorities outside South Yorkshire; such as Derbyshire Dales and North East Derbyshire,
which had an OADR score in 2035 of 597.3 and 482.7 respectively.
2.46 Analysing migration flow statistics will help determine whether or not the increase in
the 65 and over population is a consequence of older people moving to Doncaster in later life,
or as a result of people growing old here.
Town 65-74 75-84 85+ Net Flow
Doncaster 80 20 -40 60
Sheffield -200 -60 -90 -350
Barnsley 110 0 20 130
Rotherham 0 50 10 60 Source: ONS 2017 Internal Migration
Figure 8: Internal Migration Figures
2.47 In comparison to other local authorities nearby and in the SCR, Doncaster has a small
but fairly insignificant positive net migration flow for the 65 and over. What this seems to
indicate is that there is reluctance for people 65 and over to move out of their current
geographical area. This is supported through focus groups conducted by Sheffield Hallam
University as part of their ‘The Housing Options of Older People in Doncaster’ report.37
2.48 Within the Sheffield Hallam Report respondents were asked their thoughts on
moving. Respondents showed reluctance to move sighting various reasons, including not
wanting to leave a neighbourhood they had established a close relationship with. As such, if a
respondent did end up moving there was a strong preference to move within their current
neighbourhood, village or town.38
2.49 Data is also available on the projection of households. Figure 9 shows the projection
of the total number of households and households where the Household Reference Person
(HRP) is aged 65 or over. This is projected to the end of the plan period.
DMBC 2015 2035 Change
Household
Projections
128,533 140,312 +9.16%
Household
Projections 65+
37,738 (29.36% of all
households)
51,845 (36.95% of all
households)
+14,107 65+
households; +37.8% Source: ONS 2016 Household Projections
Figure 9: Doncaster Household Projections
2.50 The total 65 and over households will increase from 37,738 households in 2015 to
51,845 households by 2035, this is an increase of 14,107. Over the 20 year period in question
this is an average increase of 705, 65 and over households per year. When applying this
37 Hereby knows as ‘Sheffield Hallam Report’. 38 Sheffield Hallam University, The Housing Options of Older People in Doncaster 2015 pg 49.
14 | P a g e
yearly average to the Local Plan, the NPPF states that strategic policies should look ahead
over a minimum 15 year period.39 If the yearly estimate was projected forwarded 15 years, it
would mean an increase of 10,580, 65 and over households in Doncaster by the end of the
plan.
2.51 The 2011 Census provides a snapshot of older households by tenure. Tenures will be
explored in more detail later, but it is important to apply them in relation to households here.
This showed there were 23,951 households where the HRP was 65 and over in Doncaster.
Over 70 percent of households are owner occupiers, with a further 6.66 percent either
privately renting or in rent free accommodation.
2.52 Rates of social renting make up the tenure of a quarter of the total amount of 65 and
over HRP households. The information does show that, whilst the majority of older people
are provided for by the private market a significant number of individuals rent social housing
and the policy should reflect this.
Tenure Total 65+ Households Average % of 65+
Households
Owned 23951 70.11
Rented from Council 6929 20.28
Other Social Rented 1007 2.95
Private Rent or Rent Free 2275 6.66
Total 34162 100 Source: 2011 Census
Figure 10: Tenure of 65 and above households
2.53 Using the information from Figure 10 we can predict the private market demand of
the 10,580 increase of 65 and over households. The total percentage of households within the
private market tenure accounts for 76.77 percent. Based on that figure, during the plan period
there will be 8,122 new 65 and over households within the private market. This works out at
approximately 542 households per year. This figure may be an underestimate as more people
live independently for longer. It is acknowledged that not all of this demand will be met
through new builds, and existing stock will play some part. However, as will be established
in paragraph 2.140 not all existing stock is suitable to meet the specific needs of the 65 and
over demographic require.
2.54 The ageing population will inevitably lead to an increase in the need for older people
housing, due to the link associated with age and mobility and disability issues. Government
statistics highlight the correlation between age and disabilities. According to the Family
Resources Survey 2016/17, 45 percent of individuals at state pension age have a disability;
this is in comparison to 19 percent of working-age individuals and 8 percent of children.40
39 NPPF (n 1) para 22. 40 Department for Work & Pensions, Family Resources Survey 2016/17, 2018 pg 1.
15 | P a g e
2.55 The Projecting Older People Population Information (POPPI) and Projecting Adult
Needs and Service Information (PANSI) are useful online sources of information for
determining the likely future changes with regards to age and disability. Figures 11 and 13
present POPPI information on the likely future change on certain characteristics of older
people.
2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 % change
65+ Living
Alone
19,075 19,311 21,383 23,537 25,540 +33.89
65+ Living
in a Care
Home
1,781 1,811 2,054 2,314 2,708 +52.05
Source: POPPI
Figure 11: Projection of Older People Living Alone or in Care in Doncaster
2.56 As can be seen there is predicted to be a significant increase in the number of older
people living alone. Whilst the percentage increase of individuals living in a care home is
predicted to be greater than those living alone, the numbers are considerably smaller in
comparison. Whilst there is no breakdown of the care or other support that will be provided,
the increase poses significant issues. Using the tenure breakdown presented in Figure 10, if
76.77 percent of those living alone lived within the private market, then at least 19,607 older
people will be living alone within the private market by 2035.
2.57 The medical advances and societal successes that have increased life expectancies is
allowing people to live longer. However, as demonstrated earlier, they are spending an
increasing number of later years in poor health. This has profound implications for the quality
of life experiences by those aged 65 and above, but more importantly their housing needs.
Data allows us to examine the healthy life expectancy (HLE) and the disability-free life
expectancy (DfLE) of the population at birth, but also more specifically for those currently at
65 and above.
16 | P a g e
0 5 10 15 20 25
Male DfLE
Male
Female DfLE
Female
Healthy life expectancy in Doncaster at age 65, by sex, 2015 to 2017
Healthy Life Expectancy Years in 'Not good' Health Disability-Free Life Expectancy
Source: ONS 2018 Health state life expectancy at birth and at age 65 by local areas
Figure 12: Healthy life expectancy in Doncaster at birth and at age 65, by sex, 2015 to
2017
2.58 In Doncaster females are expected to live slightly longer than their male counterparts,
however they will spend more of their life in ‘not good’ health. When DfLE is evaluated
males will on average have 60.7 years disability-free whilst females will on average have
59.9 years. As noted by the ONS, it is important to recognise that periods of ill health may
not be experienced during the same point in a person’s life. Despite this, it is acknowledged
that the majority of years lived with a disability for most occurs post-retirement age. This is
even more significant in Doncaster given the increasing OADR shown in Figure 7.
2.59 When the HLE is evaluated more specifically at the age 65, it is expected that both
males and females will live 10 years in healthy life. Due to females living longer, this means
they will live more than half of their remaining years in ‘not good’ health. When analysing
DfLE males in Doncaster will experience 9 years from the age 65, and for females this is 8.6
years. If we are to presume that these disability-free years are experienced from the age 65, it
means potential difficulties might be experienced from early 70’s onwards. As demonstrated
in Figure 6, there will be an increasingly proportion of the population aged 70 and above.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Male DfLE
Male
Female DfLE
Female
Healthy life expectancy in Doncaster at birth, by sex, 2015 to 2017
Healthy Life Expectancy Years in 'Not good' Health Disability-Free Life Expectancy
17 | P a g e
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2019 2020 2025 2030 2035
Limiting long-term illness(day-to-day activites arelimited a little)
Limiting long-term illness(day-to-day activites arelimited a lot)
Require help with at leastone domestic task
Unable to manage at leastone mobility activity (incgetting around thehouse/stairs)
Predicted to have a fall
Predicted to be admitted tohospital as a result of falls
2.60 Figure 13 shows the POPPI projections for certain characteristics older people in
Doncaster will have. These figures are projection forward to the end of the plan period. There
will be a significant increase in the number of people unable to manage at least one domestic
task on their own, and having a long-term illness that will limit their day-to-day activities by
a little or a lot. There is also a steady increase in the number of individuals who will be
unable to manage at least one mobility activity on their own. The implication of the number
of people predicted to be admitted to hospital due to falls will be explored in more detail at
para 2.188.
Source: POPPI
Figure 13: Projected Characteristics of Older People in Doncaster
2.61 All of the factors highlighted in Figure 13 directly relate to the ageing population
predicted in Doncaster during the plan period. When we consider this information alongside
the increase of 65 and over households, people living alone and the strategic emphasis on
allowing people to live independently for longer, the need for an increase in accessible and
adaptable homes is prominent. As the population gets older, and more people stay within the
private market the situation will only increase.
Long-Term Health Problem or Disability
2.62 Not everyone who suffers from a long-term health problem or disability (LTHPD) is
part of the 65 and over demographic. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local
18 | P a g e
0-143%
15-4922%
50-6428%
65+47%
Government (MHCLG) produces an English Housing Survey (EHS), which provides a
national perspective of households with a LTHPD. This data is not available at a local
authority level however the 2011 Census helps some information.
2.63 Figure 14 shows the current breakdown of people with a LTHPD by age category.
This has been presented alongside different regions for comparison purposes. According to
the data, 21 percent of the borough is thought to be suffering from a LTHPD; as highlighted
previously and illustrated by Figure 15 this is more prominent amongst the 65 and over.
Source: 2011 Census
Figure 14: Current Population of People with a LTHPD by Age Category
2.64 In comparison to the different regions the borough is consistent with the averages for
the SCR local authorities, but has a higher rate of LTHPD than Y&H and England as a
whole. Within the 50 and above categories Doncaster has a significantly higher percentage of
the population affected than Y&H and England, emphasising the correlation between age and
disability and its problem in Doncaster.
Source: 2011 Census
Figure 15: Breakdown of the Population of Doncaster with a LTHPD
Doncaster SCR Y&H
England
Age 0 to 14 2,035 4% 12,814 4% 34,086 4%
339,110
4%
Age 15 to 49 13,979 10% 82,746 10% 217,556 9%
2,103,015
8%
Age 50 to 64 17,195 30% 96,605 29% 247,877 25%
2,196,897
23%
Age 65 &
over
29,635 60% 178,581 59% 487,411 56%
4,297,932
52%
Total 62,844 21% 370,746 21% 993,649 19% 8,936,954 17%
19 | P a g e
2.65 Unlike for age the Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not provide population
projections for individuals with a LTHPD. However, we can create a reasonable estimation
based upon the current projected population within Figures 4 and 5. This does have certain
limitations, such as its reliance on presuming that the same percentages of the population
with a LTHPD in each age band are consistent. Doing so does not take into account of any
positive or negative health changes, better diagnoses of a LTHPD condition, or definition
changes of what constitutes a LTHPD. For these reasons this projection is to provide a
general estimation.
2.66 The population percent changes demonstrated through the ONS 2016 Sub-National
Population Projections, was used alongside the current percentage of people with a LTHPD
against the total for each age band to calculate the estimation.
2017 2020 2025 2030 2032 2035
Age 0 to
14
2232 2256 2176 2076 2052 2024
Age 15
to 64
31104 30960 30768 30320 30256 29840
Age 65+ 34620 36180 39660 43800 45300 47040
Total 67956 22% 69396 22% 72604 23% 76196 24% 77608 25% 78904 25% Source: Estimation formed from 2011 Census and ONS 2016 Sub-National Population Projections
Figure 16: Projection of People with a LTHPD in Doncaster
2.67 As demonstrated, by the end of the plan period a quarter of the total population of
Doncaster will have a LTHPD. Across the borough all of this increase is expected to be in the
age groups aged 65 and over. This is to be expected with the population reductions for people
aged between 0 and 64. Figure 17 shows this age breakdown of people with a LTHPD more
closely.
20 | P a g e
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2017 2020 2025 2030 2032 2035
65+
15-64
0-14
Source: Estimation formed from 2011 Census and ONS 2016 Sub-National Population Projections
Figure 17: Age Breakdown of Figure 16
2.68 The 2011 Census data provides a breakdown of the number of households that include
somebody with a LTHPD. This is broken down into different household compositions, with
each split between households where no person has a LTHPD, one person has a LTHPD, or
two or more people have a LTHPD.
Source: 2011 Census
Figure 18: Households and LTHPD’s
2.69 Out of a total of 126,487 households in the 2011 Census, 39.06 percent included at
least one individual who suffered from a LTHPD. This was very prevalent in households
where every occupant was aged 65 and over. Out of all households with only one person
Household Composition All
Households
No people
with
LTHPD
One person
with LTHPD
Two or more
people with
LTHPD
All Categories 126,487 77,080
(60.94%)
37,005
(29.26%)
12,402 (9.8%)
One Person household 36,104 19,630
(54.37%)
16,474
(45.63%)
0
One family only: Total 82,278 52,677
(64.02%)
18,491
(22.47%)
11,110 (13.5%)
One family only: All ages 65+ 10,980 3,168
(28.85%)
3,144
(28.63%)
4,668 (42.51%)
One family only: Marries,
same-sex civil partnership or
cohabiting couple
57,403 39,849
(69.42%)
12,052 (21%) 5,502 (9.58%)
One family only: Lone parent 13,895 9,660
(69.52%)
3,295
(23.71%)
940 (6.77%)
Other Household types 8,105 4,773
(58.89%)
2,040
(25.17%)
1,292 (15.94%)
21 | P a g e
living there, just fewer than 50 percent suffered from a LTHPD. In such households the lack
of human help may increase the need for assistance through design features.
2.70 Projection data released by the ONS does not go into enough detail to include
numbers on the projection of households with individuals with a LTHPD. As mentioned in
paragraph 2.65, a general estimation can be calculated based upon 2011 Census data and the
household projections in Figures 4 and 5.
DMBC 2011 2035 % Change
LTHPD Household
Projections
49,407 54,806 10.93
Source: Estimation formed from 2011 Census and ONS 2016 Sub-National Population Projections
Figure 19: Projection of Households with a LTHPD in Doncaster
2.71 By 2035 there will be 140,312 households in Doncaster. If the percentage of
households with a LTHPD stays the same as Figure 18, then 39.06 percent of the 140,312
households will have a LTHPD. This equates to 54,806 households. This would mean an
increase of 225 households with a LTHPD per year by 2035. In fact, due to the relationship
between old age and LTHPD, the ageing population in Doncaster and emphasis on living
independently, this could mean any calculated projection is an underestimate.
Wheelchair Dwellings
2.72 In paragraph 2.4, it was presented that the optional building regulations also include a
M4(3) category that provides requirements for wheelchair user dwellings. Information about
the need for housing for wheelchair users is difficult to obtain, with the 2011 census not
going into any specific detail.
2.73 According to the EHS 2014-15, in 2014 just 7 percent of homes in England had all
four accessibility features that provide visitability to most people, including wheelchair
users.41 More specifically, among all households with a wheelchair user, 84 percent lived in a
home that did not have full visitability.42
2.74 Some analysis was also undertaken based on national data in a report produced by
Habinteg and London South Bank University.43 Whilst this report was produced in 2010,
there is an inadequate supply of further information available.
2.75 Within the report was a formula established allowing local authorities to apply the
estimate of unmet wheelchair housing need into local planning. The formula uses data
regarding the number of households in the local authority, alongside their table presenting
their calculations of unmet housing need as shown below.
41 MCHLG, English Housing Survey: Adaptations and Accessibility Report 2014-15, pg 2. 42 ibid pg 24. 43 Habinteg and London South Bank University, Mind the Step: An estimation of housing need among
wheelchair users in England.
22 | P a g e
Source: Habinteg and London South Bank University Mind the Step Report
Figure 20: Unmet Housing Need Estimation Table
2.76 Using this method all local authorities in the region will show the same percentage of
wheelchair user households with unmet housing need. Whilst this does not take into account
the variation in levels of unmet needs between local authorities, the method is based upon
good regional data.
2.77 The formula requires local authorities to take the number of households within their
area and add it to the following equation.
Unmet Wheelchair Need (y)44 = (Local Authority Households × Column 4) × Column 5
When applying this to the household projection data in Figure 9 for the end of the plan
period, the unmet wheelchair housing need for Doncaster is:
y = (140,312 × 3%) × 11%
=
y = 4,209.36 × 11%
=
y = 463.03
2.78 The plan proposes a net new build completion rate of 920 dwellings per year.45 Over
the 15 year plan period, this would mean a total of 13,800 new dwellings. The unmet
wheelchair housing calculation of 463 would therefore only represent 3.36 percent of the
number of targeted new builds in the plan.
44 ibid pg 33. 45 Doncaster Draft Local Plan, Policy 3.
23 | P a g e
2.79 The updated Doncaster Housing Needs Study 2019 (HNS)46 produced a recent
demographic modelling presumption on the need for wheelchair dwellings. This was based
upon the data return from their survey on the current percentage of properties with
adaptations and household projections. According to the HNS, residents in 4 percent of
properties state they need their dwelling to be wheelchair adaptable. This led the HNS to
calculate that there would need to be an increase by around 665 dwellings over the plan
period. The unmet wheelchair housing calculation would therefore represent 4.8 percent of
the number of planned new builds in the plan. This number is only slightly higher than the
prediction calculated using the work undertaken by Habinteg.
2.80 Disability Living Allowance (DLA) statistics from the Department for Work and
Pensions also provides an insight into the number of people in Doncaster with mobility
issues. Whilst they do not specifically state whether or not those individuals have or require a
wheelchair, it is a reasonable presumption that due to their application for DLA the majority
of applicants will be wheelchair users.
2.81 Payments of DLA are made up of two components, one of which assesses mobility.
The mobility component is paid at two rates: a higher rate for people who are physically
unable, or virtually unable to walk; and a lower rate for people who can walk, but need
guidance or supervision from another person when walking out of doors or on unfamiliar
routes. Not all applicants of DLA will be eligible for the mobility component. To understand
the potential prevalence of wheelchair usage in Doncaster, the percentage of applicants who
have been awarded the higher rate of mobility pay has been compared to the same calculation
for the overall applicants in England. Individuals on the higher rate will most likely require a
wheelchair due to being classified as ‘physically unable, or virtually unable to walk’. This
has been broken down by age bands to highlight the issues amongst older people, which is
important due to Doncaster’s ageing population.
46 Doncaster Housing Needs Study 2019, pg 104.
24 | P a g e
Source: Department for Work and Pensions DLA Cases In Payment, Data from May 2018
Figure 21: DLA Claimants in Receipt of Higher Mobility rate Award by Age
2.82 In comparison to national figures, applicants of DLA in Doncaster are more likely to
be awarded the higher mobility rate award. The number of overall applicants requiring the
higher rate increases as they get older. The implications of this is that as the population age
increases and the distribution of the population amongst the age bands moves towards the 65
and over, more applicants of DLA are expected to require a higher mobility rate. Again, due to
the description of those successful for the higher rate, it would be reasonable to presume this
increase would require wheelchairs and therefore wheelchair adaptable dwellings.
2.83 The numbers calculated through the Habinteg formula and the HNS represent a very
small percentage of the overall new builds during the plan. However, the report in question
acknowledged that local authorities with a relatively higher proportion of older people are
likely to have more wheelchair users.47 As already established, the 65 and over demographic
in Doncaster is expected to rise faster than the regional and national average. Not only this
but the majority of individuals with a LTHPD will also be aged 65 and over, and a higher
proportion of DLA applicants require the higher mobility rate award compared to the national
figures. It is therefore more than likely that the calculated need will be an underestimate of
the actual need by the end of the plan.
Summary
2.84 This section has presented the current and likely future need for housing for older and
disabled people, including potential wheelchair need.
47 Habinteg (n 42) pg 35.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Doncaster Higher Mobility Rate England Higher Mobility Rate
25 | P a g e
2.85 Over the plan period there will be a significant increase in older people and
individuals who suffer from a LTHPD. By the end of the plan period, it is projected that 25
percent of the population will suffer from a LTHPD, and 24.83 percent of the population will
be aged 65 and over.
2.86 More households in the borough will accommodate at least one individual who is over
65 and or suffers from a LTHPD. During the plan period, there is predicted to be an average
increase of 705 65 and over households per year, and 225 households per year with someone
suffering from a LTHPD.
2.87 These increases will coincide with a relatively low HLE and DfLE, an increase of
people living alone and an increase in people unable to manage everyday tasks. This means
the impact of an increase in these two demographics will highlight the need for appropriate
housing, especially considering the push and desire for more people to live independently.
2.88 During the plan period, there is also a predicted increase in people requiring a
wheelchair dwelling. It is predicted that the unmet wheelchair dwelling need will be between
463-665 new dwellings. In Doncaster, more recipients of DLA are eligible for the high
mobility award than the national average. This may be lead to an underestimation of
wheelchair need due to the prevalence of wheelchair defining characteristics and increasing
older and disabled populations.
26 | P a g e
2.89 Size, Location, Type and Quality of Dwellings Needed to Meet Specifically
Evidenced Needs
2.89 Within this section, different sources of information will help inform and present the
evidence required to assess the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed. Some of
this will be informed through Council services, and the Council’s HNS 2019.
2.90 The HNS helps provide information on the housing options of older people. One of
the questions asked is; “If you think it is relevant to you, which of the following older
persons’ housing options would you seriously consider either now or in the next 5 years”;
respondents were allowed to tick more than one option. Figure 22 is extracted from the HNS
and shows that majority of older people want to continue living in their current home with
support when needed. Buying a property in the open market was also a popular option.
Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 22: Older Persons’ Housing Option Preferences
2.91 The above table clearly shows that the majority of older people want to continue
living in their own home. This again highlights the importance the private market sector will
play in ensuring that individuals can live independently for longer in appropriate
accommodation.
2.92 In 2018, the government commissioned an independent review of the Disabled
Facilities Grant (DFG). The subsequent report highlights the preferences of rehousing as an
alternative to adaptations, by tenure and then age.
Housing option % would consider
Continue to live in current home with support when needed 83.7
Buying a property in the open market 7.7
Rent a property from a private landlord 1.6
Rent from a housing association 7.2
Sheltered Accommodation - Renting 16.2
Sheltered Accommodation –-Buying 8.0
Sheltered Accommodation - Shared Ownership 4.6
Extra Care Housing – Renting 14.2
Extra Care Housing – Buying 6.6
Extra Care Housing - Shared Ownership 3.7
Residential Care Home 7.2
Co-housing 8.2
Go to live with children or other relatives 4.5
Other 3.4
Base (total households responding) 23,709
27 | P a g e
Source: University of the West of England DFG and Other Adaptations – External Review
Figure 23: Households that required an adaptation wanting different accommodation,
by age and tenure, 2014-15
2.93 People in private renting are most keen to move, while homeowners are the least
keen. Almost 20 percent of households under 55 were willing to move; however, desire
declines with age. This reluctance to move emphasises the evidence in Figure 22 from the
HNS, and supports the need for dwellings that are easier to adapt from the offset. Whilst the
optional building regulations will be more applicable to those already in old age, future
generations, especially considering the ageing population in Doncaster, need to be
considered. By building new dwellings to the optional building regulations, not only could
those whom need an accessible or more adaptable property now have more choice, but also
households can buy new properties with the peace of mind that if and when their needs
change in the future they do not need to move.
2.94 Whilst the majority of older people will continue to live in their own homes, it is
recognised that a proportion of people will prefer more specialised forms of housing. This is
evident through the housing tenure presented in Figure 10, and the HNS above. The NPPG
also references retirement homes, sheltered homes and care homes in its guidance.48
2.95 In Doncaster, specialist forms of housing are provided in various forms and by
different organisations. St Leger Homes manage the Council’s housing stock, which
according to their website stands at around 21,000 homes.49 Registered Social Landlord’s
(RSL) also help provide housing within the borough.
48 NPPG (n 30) para 007, Ref ID 56-007-20150327. 49 St Leger Homes <https://www.stlegerhomes.co.uk/about/what-we-do/> accessed 18 December 2018.
28 | P a g e
2.96 The HNS provides information on the current categories of specialist older person
accommodation, this data was retrieved from the Elderly Accommodation Counsel and the
Private Registered Provider Social Housing Stock Statistical Data Return 2017 return. From
this data the change in need of specialist older person housing and residential care outside of
the private market sector was calculated.
Current provision Number of
units 2018
Number aged 75
and over 2018
Number aged 75 and
over 2032 (projected)
Change
in need
25,900 36,500
Ratio of population to
current provision
Ratio applied to 2032
population
Older person housing 2,022 7.9% 2,850 828
Residential care 4,023 15.7% 5,669 1,646
Total 6,045 8,519 2,474
Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 24: Future Need for Specialist Older Person Accommodation
2.97 The table predicts that there will be the need for 1,646 additional units of residential
care provision and 828 additional units of specialist older persons’ accommodation. As
demonstrated in Figure 22 a higher percentage of older people would prefer to stay within the
private market sector; however a proportion of the population will require and want more
specialised care. It is important to make sure that older people are making an active, informed
choice to live independently and that those wanting specialist housing have that opportunity.
2.98 The Council maintains an accessible housing register (AHR), which is a register of
adapted properties that can be let to people with a proven priority need, as and when they
become available. The register uses council stock dwellings and is means tested; as such the
information provides only a partial picture of the requirements needed in Doncaster. It does
however help provide a useful insight into the size, location, type and quality of adapted
dwellings currently requested. Currently50 there are 75 households on the register. There is
also 220 households currently on the inactive section of the AHR, most of these have been
rehoused. To increase the sample size analysed from the AHR data, both the active and
inactive list and their preferences was used.
Size
2.99 Applicants on the register are required to submit their current household composition
and their property size requirements. The information is split into the region of the area in the
borough that they would prefer to be located.
2.100 The household composition below clearly shows a higher tendency for applicants to
have zero children, with one or two adults being the norm.
50 Data retrieved from the AHR is correct as of 29 October 2018.
29 | P a g e
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
North South East Central Total
Household Composition 4A 5C
4A 3C
3A 5C
3A 4C
3A 3C
3A 2C
3A 1C
2A 4C
2A 3C
2A 2C
2A 1C
1A 5C
1A 4C
1A 3C
1A 2C
1A 1 Child (C)
Unknown
4A only
3A only
2A only
1 Adult (A) only
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
North South East Central Total
Property Size Requirements 5 only
4 or 5
4 only
2 or 3 or 4
3 or 4
2 or 3
1 or 2
3 only
2 only
1 only
Source: Doncaster Council Accessible Housing Register
Figure 25: Household Composition of AHR Applicants
Source: Doncaster Council Accessible Housing Register
Figure 26: Property Size Requirements of AHR Applicants
30 | P a g e
2.101 Applicants on the AHR overwhelming wanted a two bed property. This is no surprise
considering the one and two person tendencies in the household composition. Officers within
the council interviewed as part of the HNS, also indicated that smaller bedroom properties
were popular due to the ‘bedroom tax’ for under occupation of properties.51 Despite a high
number of single person households, the number of households wanting a one bedroom
property was significantly low.
2.102 When looking at the housing options of older people more specifically, the HNS
provides an insight into the size of properties people aspired to but also expected.
Current Dwelling (%) Aspiration (%) Expectation (%)
½-Bedroom House 8.2 2.9 3.5
3-Bedroom House 38.2 10.6 7.5
4 or more-Bedroom House 9.5 3.8 4.3
½-Bedroom Flat 5.5 9.0 8.2
3+ Bedroom Flat 0.2 0.0 0
½-Bedroom Bungalow 26.5 43.2 41.7
3+-Bedroom Bungalow 10.9 22.5 25.1
Other 1.0 8.1 9.7
TOTAL 100 100 100
Base 34,287 1,359 955 Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 27: Older Persons’ Housing Choices
2.103 Currently there are a great number of three bedroom properties occupied by older
people. This does not match up to their size aspirations represented in Figure 27, where the
majority of individuals surveyed chose either one or two bedrooms. This seems to highlight a
preference for downsizing, which can be summarised with the reduction of three bedroom
houses from being 38.2 percent of current occupied dwellings to only 10.6 percent of older
people’s aspirations. What is worth noting is the expectation of one or two bedroom
properties largely meets aspiration. This suggests that older people in the borough want to
move to a smaller property, and most are expecting the opportunity to. It is vital this size
demand is met.
2.104 Allowing the opportunity to downsize is one of the strategic arguments advocating
for better appropriate older persons accommodation. A report by The University of Sheffield
and Designing for Wellbeing in Environments for Later Life (Dwell) investigates how
housing design can help older people downsize. They argue that the case for downsizing can
be framed in terms of a win-win-win scenario, this is due to “improving the quality of life of
those choosing to downsize, reducing future costs to health and social care services, and
producing a positive impact on the housing market and the wider economy”52. The report
51 HNS (n 46) pg 102 52 The University of Sheffield and Dwell, Designing with downsizers: The next generation of ‘downsizer
homes’ for an active third age 2016, pg 8.
31 | P a g e
acknowledges economic arguments on the basis that there are quantifiable benefits of freeing
up more ‘family-sized’ housing assets currently owned or rented by older households.53
2.105 Figure 27 already suggests that current older person households occupy bigger, more
family-sized dwellings, with the aspiration of reducing this to smaller properties. The HNS
produced more specific evidence on the current attitude towards downsizing in Doncaster.
Housing choice Aspiration (%) Expectation (%)
Downsizing (moving to a smaller
property)
70.4 74.4
Staying same 24.5 23.4
Upsizing (moving to larger property) 5.1 2.2
Total 100.0 100.0
Base (households responding) 1,636 1,215
Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 28: Future Housing Choices of Older Households
2.106 In terms of downsizing, 70.4 percent of older households aspired to move to a
smaller property with nearly three-quarters of those households expecting to achieve this.
Moving in the opposite way, a small percentage of households wanted to upsize to a larger
property. This does show that whilst the majority of those individuals who would benefit
from the optional building regulations would like to move to smaller one or two bed
properties, some will be aiming for four or five bed. It is therefore essential that any sized
new build is met to the optional standards, however the evidence suggests the market should
aim for smaller bedroom sized dwellings.
Location
2.107 The location of both older people and individuals with a LTHPD can be assessed
through both ONS and 2011 Census data. Recently, the Local Government Boundary
Commission for England carried out an electoral review of Doncaster. As a result, the ward
boundaries changed in 2015. Subsequently, map data from the 2011 Census will show
different wards in comparison to data post 2015.
2.108 The population of the 65 and over is generally quite spread across the borough.
According to ONS 2017 Ward Level Mid-Year Population figures, Doncaster had a total of
58,002 residents aged 65 and over;54 this equates to 18.77 percent of the population. When
looking at the figures at a micro-level, in general the wards on the outskirts of the borough
seem to hold higher densities of 65 and over people. Due to the geographical size differences
between wards, the areas in which there is a higher number of older people do not necessarily
53 ibid pg 7. 54 Figures from the Ward Level and the Mid-Year estimates (Figure 3) differ slightly.
32 | P a g e
have a higher percentage of older people for that ward. Map data55 constructed using the
ONS 2017 Ward Level Mid-Year figures help show this.
Source: ONS 2017 Ward Level Mid-Year Population Estimates (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 29: Distribution of 65 and over by numbers per ward
2.109 The highest number of 65 and over individuals currently reside within Finningley, on
the east side of the borough. This is followed closely by Bessacarr and then Hatfield wards.
When this data is transferred into percentages of the total population in each ward Finningley
and Bessacarr remain fairly high but are not the highest density areas. Sprotbrough is
currently the ward with the highest percentage of people aged 65 and over in relation to the
total population of that ward. The age group makes up nearly a quarter of the population of
Sprotbrough. The ward is closely followed by Tickhill & Wadsworth.
55 The statistical data used to create some of the maps can be found in Appendix 1.
33 | P a g e
Source: ONS 2017 Ward Level Mid-Year Population Estimates (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 30: Distribution of 65 and over by percentage of population per ward
2.110 The lowest number of people aged 65 and over generally live within the centre of the
borough. Hexthorpe & Balby North have the lowest number and the lowest percentage of 65
and over in comparison to any other ward. The low percentage of 65 and over in relation to
the ward population was closely followed by Town ward.
2.111 The distribution of individuals with a LTHPD is spatially uneven across the borough,
however there is less discrepancy than there is with individuals aged 65 and over. The
information is derived from 2011 Census. In total 21.7 percent of the borough had their
activities limited a little or a lot.
34 | P a g e
Source: 2011 Census (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 31: Distribution of people with a LTHPD by numbers per ward
Source: 2011 Census (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 32: Distribution of people with a LTHPD by percentage of population per ward
35 | P a g e
2.112 Adwick and Mexborough wards ranked highest for the number of people with a
LTHPD. When this transferred to the percentage of the total population in that ward both
scored highly, but not the highest. Conisbrough & Denaby ward had the highest percentage
of individuals with a LTHPD. Since the ward boundary changes in 2015, Conisbrough ward
has expanded to include parts of the 2011 Thorne, and Edlington wards that scored fairly
high for people with a LTHPD; this indicates there could be an even higher percentage now.
2.113 The lowest scoring wards were Finningley and Sprotbrough. As demonstrated by
Figure 31, there is no real pattern concerning individuals with a LTHPD and their location
within the borough. There does seem to be a small split between the north and south of the
borough with slightly higher percentages of individuals with a LTHPD recorded in the most
northern wards in comparison to the equivalent in the south.
2.114 The English Indices of Deprivation (IMD) provide a set of relative measures of
deprivation for small areas across England, based on seven different domains of deprivation.
The domains include a range of various factors, two of which help provide an indication of
the necessity for more adaptable and accessible dwellings in the borough. These are the
health deprivation and disability domain and the living environment deprivation domain. To
demonstrate the spread of each domain within Doncaster maps have been created, these maps
show the rank of each of the different lower later super output areas (LSOAs) in Doncaster,
where a rank of 1 equates to part of the most deprived 10 percent of LSOAs in England.
2.115 The health deprivation and disability domain measures the risk of premature death
and the impairment of quality of life through poor physical or mental health. The domain
measures disability and therefore can help show the prevalence of disability and poor health
across Doncaster. In general, Doncaster ranked as the 36th worst local authority (out of 317)
for health deprivation and disability.
2.116 As Figure 33 highlights, there is a disparity across the borough of health deprivation
and disability. None of the LSOAs in Doncaster scored higher than eight, meaning the least
deprived area in the borough is more deprived than the least deprived 20 percent of LSOAs in
England. In general, apart from a few exceptions, the central and northern areas of the
borough experienced higher health deprivation and disability than the south. This closely
resembles the distribution of people with a LTHPD demonstrated in Figures 31-32. What is
more significant is the level of deprivation experienced in comparison to the rest of England.
The majority of these areas experienced a rank of four or below, meaning a significant
proportion of the borough is in the 40 percent most health deprived and disability prone areas
in England. Not only does Doncaster experience high levels of poor health and disability, but
also it is significantly worse than the rest of the country. An increase in easier to adapt and
better accessible dwellings would therefore help individuals with a demonstrated need to live
in more suitable, safer housing and thus contribute to reducing deprivation.
36 | P a g e
Source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019 (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 33: Health Deprivation and Disability Rank by LSOA
2.117 The IMD also gives data on the living environment deprivation domain that measures
the quality of the local environment. This is split into the indoors sub-domain which
measures the quality of housing, and the outdoors sub-domain which measures the air quality
and road traffic accidents; as such only the former is assessed in Figure 34.
2.118 In general Doncaster ranked 253rd worst (out of 317 local authorities) for living
environment. On the face of it, this is a good score. However when looking at the quality of
housing specifically there is great disparity across Doncaster. The borough has LSOAs that
scored positively, however this is offset with areas, most notably within the north of the
borough that performed poorly and were amongst the most deprived areas in England. What
is noticeable is that many of the areas that ranked amongst the most deprived on this domain
have a high older population as demonstrated in Figures 29-30. Certain areas with a higher
aged 65 and above population scored amongst the least deprived areas for housing quality.
When compared to individuals with a LTHPD, there seems to be an even higher correlation
between poor housing quality and people experiencing a LTHPD. The vast disparity amongst
people indicates a post-code lottery impact for many of the borough’s older population and
individuals with a LTHPD. Ensuring appropriate and quality housing choices for these
demographics is therefore an important issue for Doncaster.
37 | P a g e
61
90
53
68
80
114
81
97
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
North South East Central
Current Address Preferred Address
Source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019 (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 34: Quality of Housing Rank by LSOA
2.119 The AHR allows individuals to request where in the borough they would prefer to be
located. Most applicants request to stay within their current area, with 92 percent of people
wanting to. In general the south of the borough was the most requested area, with the east of
the borough the least.
Source: Doncaster Council Accessible Housing Register
Figure 35: Location Preferences of AHR Applicants
38 | P a g e
2.120 As most people tend to want to stay within close proximity to their current address,
this suggests that there is a current shortfall of accessible homes within highly requested
areas such as the south of the borough. This may lead to applicants waiting on the list for
long periods of time before they can be relocated.
2.121 The Council’s housing stock provides some properties that are already adapted.
Whilst part of the social market, it gives an indication to where in the borough people who
need an adapted property could locate one.
Source: St Leger Homes (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 36: Location of Council Housing Adapted Properties
2.122 Whilst all wards have a council house adapted property, there is a vast difference
between wards in the level of such housing. This could mean applicants for council housing
having to move further away from their current property. In relation to the private market, the
above map highlights areas in the borough that residents will struggle to rely on social housing
if they require an adapted property. This is important as the current population of older people
or those with a LTHPD has higher densities in wards with a lack of adapted social housing. If
individuals in private market housing required an adapted or more accessible house, and their
current property was not suitable, then they would be restricted on the location of social
housing they could potentially apply for. This demonstrates a lack of appropriate choice across
Doncaster.
39 | P a g e
Type
2.123 The HNS surveyed the current property types occupied by older persons’ in the
borough, their aspired property type and their expectation of meeting that aspiration. This
was presented in Figure 27 when the size of those properties was analysed. The table also
allows us to understand the type of properties older people want to purchase. Unsurprisingly,
there is a strong shift in attitudes to move from houses to bungalows. Highlighting a market
demand for level-access dwellings.
2.124 In the HNS aspiration and expecting scenario testing was conducted which helps
determine the change as a result of demographic increases and decreases. Figure 37 shows
extracted data reflecting the results for older persons’. It is noted that within the age
breakdown the 65 and over benchmark was reduced to 60 and over. In any case, those aged
60 at the time of the survey would be well into the 65 and over category by the end of the
plan period. Figure 37 shows that the older demographic expect more flats to be built than
they actually aspire for.
Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 37: Older Persons’ Housing Type
2.125 In the Sheffield Hallam Report, bungalows also became a well discussed housing
type. During focus group discussions many older people stated they would like to move to a
property without stairs, but bungalows were in relatively short supply.56 The focus groups
also commented on how new mainstream developments should focus more directly on the
housing needs of older people, rather than focusing on first time buyers and young families.57
56 Sheffield Hallam Report (n 38) pg 47. 57 ibid.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
House Flat Bungalow Other Total
Aspiration
Expectation
40 | P a g e
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
North South East Central Total
House Type
H/PH/NPH
PH/NPH
B/H/NPH
B/H/PH
GFF/B/H/PH/NPH
GFF/H/PH/NPH
GFF/B/PH/NPH
GFF/B/H/PH
GFF/B/PH
GFF or (/) B
Non-parlour House (NPH)OnlyParlour House (PH) Only
House (H) Only
Bungalow (B) Only
Ground Floor Flat (GFF)Only
2.126 On the AHR, applicants also get to select their desired type of property required.
Applicants are allowed to select as many options as applicable, from the following types of
properties: ground floor flats; bungalows; houses; parlour houses; and non-parlour houses.
Source: Doncaster Council Accessible Housing Register
Figure 38: Type Preferences of AHR Applicants
2.127 The most requested choices were overwhelmingly bungalows or ground floor flats,
with a small selection requesting parlour and non-parlour houses. Interestingly, no applicant
made a request for a house only. The preference for house types which minimises the usage
of stairs indicates the preference and need for step-free design requirements in Doncaster.
2.128 Current RSL’s provide housing of numerous sizes and types of properties across the
borough. Whilst RSL stock generally caters for those in the social rented sector, in a similar
vain to the AHR it provides an insight into the distribution of housing. Figure 40 breaks this
down to show these figures. The regions were determined through the Council’s
neighbourhood teams which are grouped into three areas: East, West and Central. The wards
are placed into the different areas as follows:
41 | P a g e
Source:http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/services/get-involved/communities
Figure 39: Neighbourhood Team Areas
2.129 One restriction with the data is that not every RSL broke down the type of dwelling
into property size, for example, some simply recorded the dwelling as “house”. Some RSL’s
provided specific needs housing, such as “disabled purpose built” or “bedsit age exclusive”,
however these numbers were limited.
2.130 Collectively RSL’s own more houses and flats than bungalows. This is inconsistent
with the preference and aspirational rates demonstrated through the HNS and AHR. When
the number of bedrooms was stated the evidence shows there is a high number of one or two
bed properties. The majority of these one bed properties are flats with the majority of these
two bed properties being bungalows.
Wards
West Central East
Adwick and Carcroft
Bentley
Conisbrough
Edlington and Warmsworth
Mexborough
Norton and Askern
Roman Ridge
Sprotbrough
Balby South
Bessacarr
Hexthorpe and Balby North
Town
Wheatley and Intake
Armthorpe
Edenthorpe and Kirk Sandall
Finningley
Hatfield
Rossington and Bawtry
Stainforth and Barnby Dun
Thorne and Moorends
Tickhill and Wadworth
42 | P a g e
Source: Doncaster Council
Figure 40: Location, Size and Type of RSL stock
2.131 The majority of RSL stock is located within the Central neighbourhood team area,
this is despite the fact this area contains the least number of wards. Figures 29-32 mapped out
the location of people 65 and above and those with a LTHPD. A small number of people
aged 65 and above lived within the central area, whilst only a modest number with a LTHPD
lived in the central area, especially in relation to the west and east. This suggests that any
future housing provided for by RSL’s to address the need of the above demographics, should
be better dispersed geographically across the borough.
Quality
2.132 The quality of housing needed can be assessed through the requests made on the
AHR and the type of adaptations required. The AHR allows applicants to select the
requirements needed for their potential property. Applicants were allowed to select more than
one specification.
43 | P a g e
Source: Doncaster Council Accessible Housing Register
Figure 41: Property Requirements of AHR Applicants
2.133 The most requested facility was a level-access shower, followed closely by a
downstairs toilet and wheelchair level access/ramps to the property. The low numbers of
requests for one or two steps demonstrates the emphasis on the need to eradicate stairs within
the property; zero applicants felt they could manage with three steps. This, alongside the high
level of requests for wheelchair level access/ramps shows a strong preference for step-free
access to and within the home.
2.134 The think-tank Policy Exchange produced a report in 2018 on ‘Building for the Baby
Boomers’ which assessed the housing market for an ageing population. Within this older
people’s priorities for the design of homes were analysed. Respondents determined that
amongst other priorities: ensuring homes are built to last; flexible to meet changing needs;
and safe against accidents were important in designing homes.58 Whilst this highlights the
national picture, the quality of housing needed, as presented in the data, shows a tendency to
ensure homes can last and be appropriate for changing circumstances. Ensuring this
flexibility is more important in areas with an ageing and prominent LTHPD population, such
as Doncaster.
Summary
2.135 This section evaluated the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed to
meet housing for older and disabled people.
58 Policy Exchange, Building for Baby Boomers: Making a Housing Market for an Ageing Population, pg 33.
288
6
249
13957
0 23 13
267
9452 44 42 15
Property Requirements
Property Requirements
44 | P a g e
2.136 Most people want to stay within their home and this preference only increases with
age. Ensuring housing is suited for changing circumstances is therefore important to the
Doncaster housing market.
2.137 Older people and individuals suffering from a LTHPD would prefer to live in
smaller, one or two bed properties. Allowing appropriate housing size choice for people,
especially the older generation, would allow for the option of downsizing something that
would be widely considered. This would free up larger family size properties in the borough
and provide a more efficient and sustainable housing market in Doncaster.
2.138 Whilst the location of older and disabled people is relatively disperse across the
borough, there are hotspot wards that accommodate a higher percentage. Using map data
there is a current trend between the location of people aged 65 and above and individuals
suffering from a LTHPD and health and disability, and quality of housing deprivation figures
for the borough. When location was considered by people, most wanted to stay within close
proximity to their current address. A location map of current adapted council housing across
the borough shows that there is a lack of social housing in wards where more older and
disabled people live.
2.139 When type was considered there is a strong preference for bungalows and dwellings
with step-free or limited steps in the property. However, many older people in particular feel
as if more flats and houses will be built than they aspire to live in. Most current RSL Stock
revolved around flats and houses showing an inconsistency with what older and disabled
people want and need, and what is currently available.
2.140 Applicants on the AHR frequently requested properties with step-free access design
features with a home built to last being important. As mentioned earlier, people would prefer
not to move later on in life, so ensuring that new dwellings are appropriate for changing
needs with adequate design quality allows people to stay living in those properties even if
their circumstances change.
45 | P a g e
2.141 The Accessibility and Adaptability of Existing Housing Stock
2.141 As mentioned previously, the current supply of homes within the borough will play a
part in addressing the need of older people and those with a LTHPD. The extent to which the
current supply will help with this need depends on the accessibility and adaptability of the
existing stock.
2.142 The EHS produced a specific report looking into adaptations and accessibility in
2014-15. Surveyors assessed the visitability of sample dwellings across England on four
features that make the home accessible to wheelchair users: including level assess through the
main door; flush thresholds within the home; a ground floor toilet; and passage space
throughout the home of at least 81cm wide.
2.143 Figure 42 is taken from the 2014-15 EHS report into accessibility and adaptability,
and shows how visitability varies across tenure, dwelling type and dwelling age.
Number of ‘visitability’ features present (%)
None One Two Three All Four All Dwellings (%)
Tenure
Owner Occupied 25.7 42.0 20.1 7.1 5.2 100.0
Private Rented 28.9 34.6 18.6 9.9 8.0 100.0
Local Authority 23.1 31.9 20.5 18.1 6.5 100.0
Housing Association 18.1 27.6 18.6 17.5 18.3 100.0
Dwelling Type
Terraced House 40.6 36.1 13.6 5.3 4.5 100.0
Semi-detached House 33.7 42.3 16.0 5.5 2.5 100.0
Detached House 8.8 49.5 27.7 8.7 5.3 100.0
Flat 9.5 23.7 25.2 22.1 19.5 100.0
Dwelling Age
Pre 1919 34.1 42.6 17.4 5.1 0.7 100.0
1919-44 33.7 43.8 17.6 4.1 0.9 100.0
1945-64 30.3 41.9 19.2 7.3 1.2 100.0
1965-80 20.7 41.8 23.5 10.7 3.4 100.0
1981-90 21.1 38.0 23.2 11.1 6.5 100.0
Post 1990 7.5 18.5 18.8 20.9 34.3 100.0
All Dwellings 25.4 38.4 19.7 9.5 7.1 100.0 Source: English Housing Survey 2014-15: Accessibility and Adaptability Report Annex Table 2.2
Figure 42: Visitability of Sample Stock in England
2.144 A number of conclusions can be taken from the table above, which can be considered
in the context of Doncaster:
Owner occupied and private rented housing is generally least accessible, indicating a
massive current shortfall in the private housing market. In the context of Doncaster,
and the ambition to allow people to live independently for longer, this means the
current stock may not be able to help with the vast need demonstrated.
Housing associations are most likely to have the highest visitability, however this
number remains fairly small.
46 | P a g e
Flats tend to be the most visitable type of dwelling with current houses falling short.
As shown in Figure 37, in general older people in Doncaster do not aspire to live in a
flat.
Older dwellings are generally less accessible than newer dwellings, this will be
explored in more detail in relation to Doncaster below.
2.145 The dwelling age not only affects the accessibility of a property but also its
adaptability. The older a property is, the harder it is to make it fully visitable through
adaptations. According to the EHS Accessibility and Adaptability Report, even with
properties built post-1990, only a quarter of dwellings can be made fully visitable with only
minor works. Another quarter would not be feasible to make fully visitable, and the
remaining half would require moderate or major works to the property.59
2.146 Information provided for in the EHS is only available at a national level, however its
findings can be used to provide a snapshot of the situation in Doncaster. The Valuation
Office Agency produces a Council Tax Stock of Properties for local authorities, which
enables the current stock to be broken down by age. This has been compared with SCR,
Y&H and England.
Source: Valuation Office Agency Council Tax Stock of Properties 2017
*Figures may not sum due to rounding to one decimal point
**There is a gap in the data for the period of WW2
Figure 43: Age of Housing Stock in Doncaster
2.147 When you breakdown the age of housing stock in Doncaster, the borough has a lower
than regional and national averages for pre-1919 builds. Using the EHS this means that less
homes should fall into the bracket of not being feasible at all to make visitable. However,
unlike the data for other regional groups, there are a smaller percentage of properties built
post-2000. This means that whilst there are fewer properties that will most likely not be
feasible to make visitable, there are fewer properties that will most likely be easy to make
visitable with minor works. This was commented upon in the Sheffield Hallam Report, which
stated that stakeholders felt the time taken for adaptations to take place could pose problems,
and there were suggestions that some homes were not suitable for adaptation at all. One
59 EHS (n 41) pg 19.
Build Period Total (% of overall total)*
Area Pre 1919 1919-
1939**
**1945-
1964
1965-1982 1983-1999 2000-2017
Doncaster 18,740
(14.2)
29,610
(22.4)
28,560
(21.6)
28,050
(21.3)
14,600
(11.1)
12,410
(9.4)
SCR 151,870
(18.8)
155,600
(19.3)
163,230
(20.2)
163,670
(20.3)
85,410
(10.6)
88,120
(10.9)
Y&H 523,690
(22.2)
417,090
(17.7)
428,700
(18.2)
455,390
(19.3)
268,430
(11.4)
266,420
(11.3)
England 5,096,160
(21.5)
3,819,930
(16.1)
4,188,370
(17.7)
4,692,230
(19.8)
3,033,460
(12.8)
2,857,580
(12.1)
47 | P a g e
467
98
24
2
148
7
6
9
4
5
0
22
0
1690
299
116
10
3
86
6
2
4
1
11
3
0
1
3096
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Level-Access Shower
Stairlift
Shower Over Bath
Specialist Bath
Ramp
Extension
Door Entry
Specialist Toilet/Bio Bidet
Hardstanding
Vertical Lift
Steplift
Widen Doors/Internal Alterations
Garage Conversion
Minor Works (Grabrails etc)
Private Housing St Leger Adaptations
concern of this was that it might drive some people towards a premature move into residential
care.60
2.148 Another indication of the accessibility of existing housing stock is the need for home
adaptations. Doncaster currently has an adaptations team within the Council with support and
finances available through the DFG and the Home Improvement Agency. The HNS also
surveyed respondents on the current situation regarding adaptations and their homes.
2.149 The Council’s housing adaptations service provides help for people in both the
private and the social housing sector to advise and facilitate adaptations so they can stay
mobile in and around their home. Information provided by the service allows an insight into
the type of home adaptations required across the borough.
Source: Doncaster Council Housing Adaptations
Figure 44: Number and Type of Adaptations delivered between 2016/18
2.150 As Figure 44 shows, most of the adaptations provided were level-access showers,
starlifts, ramps and then minor works such as grabrails. The high demand for level-access
60 Sheffield Hallam Report (n 37) pg 39.
48 | P a g e
showers mirrors the need illustrated through the AHR in Figure 41. The split between private
and social housing stock highlights the need for properties with certain characteristics within
the private market sector and demonstrates the preferences of individuals to stay within the
private market with modifications if possible.
2.151 The HNS shows the adaptations or home improvements that households indicated
that they required at the time, or within five years from the data they were surveyed. Data on
home improvements required that are not relevant to the optional standards, such as ‘security
alarm’ or ‘better heating’ have been removed for the purposes of this report.
Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 45: Housing Adaptations Required in Doncaster
2.152 The above table shows that a significant number of households in Doncaster require
home adaptations. The most commonly required adaptation are bathroom adaptations and
internal handrails. Wheelchair adaptations scored low, however as this data is based on the
current needs and expectations of respondents as when surveyed this is unsurprising. It is
highly unreasonable for people to expect to be wheelchair bound within in the next five years
and as such require wheelchair adaptations. Indeed, the extent to which respondents predict
their future requirements would depend on the level of optimism with regards to health,
mobility and help with independence the respondent felt at the time.
Adaptation/improvement required Age group (% of households) Total
Under
60 years
60-74 years 75+
Adaptations to bathroom 8.0 14.4 15.3 10.8
Adaptations to kitchen 7.4 5.7 5.2 6.6
Downstairs WC 6.1 7.4 7.7 6.7
External handrails 4.6 9.2 13.5 7.0
Improvements to access 3.1 5.5 6.2 4.2
Internal handrails 5.5 11.8 14.7 8.5
Stair lift / vertical lift 3.1 8.4 11.4 5.7
Wheelchair adaptations 2.9 4.9 6.7 3.9
Base (all households) 69,587 37,069 14,171 120,827
49 | P a g e
2.153 The HNS also took the percentage of properties with adaptations by HRP age and
used this to try predict the number of adapted properties required by 2032.
Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 46: Future Need for Adapted Properties
2.154 As can be shown, the HNS prediction indicates that there will be an increased need of
1,100 adapted properties. This model is only based upon the current percentages of properties
with adaptations for those with an illness/disability, as such it does not take into other
influencing factors required by the NPPG or the current unmet need. It does highlight that
without any policy change there will be an increase in the need for home adaptations. As a
result, the HNS concludes that the council implements the optional building regulations
M4(2) and M4(3) with a requirement of 95 percent and 5 percent respectively.61
2.155 The above information highlights the current and potential future demands for
adaptations in Doncaster. The Council in administering the DFG must ensure that all
adaptations are the simplest and most cost effective options possible. Information provided
for by the adaptations team shows the significant expenditure associated with adaptations.
Over the period of 2016-18, £3,814,810.36 was spent on adaptations to Council housing
stock and, £3,640,033.09 was spent on adaptations costing over £1,000 to private housing.
Adaptations that cost under £1,000 in private market dwellings was not totalled, however
over the time period 3,096 such adaptations were provided for. If we took £500 as a cost
guide it would mean an additional £1,548,000 on adaptations to private market housing. In
total this would mean the Council spent £9,002,843.45 on adaptations between 2016-18.
2.156 These cost implications are part funded by the DFG, however they have serious
resource consequences. Many of the adaptations administered under the scheme could be
undertaken more easily or cheaply, or in some cases not required at all in dwellings built to
M4(2) or M4(3) optional building regulations. Many issues faced could be negated during the
design phase of development, reducing the future need for adaptations completely. Whilst
other adaptations, such as level-access showers, which are one of the most common required,
would be able to be undertaken more cheaply; as for example, plumbing would already be in
61 HNS (n 46) pg 106.
Age Group Year % properties
with
adaptations
Number of adapted properties
required by age group
Year: 2018 2032 change 2018 2035 change
Under 65 91,578 87,872 -3,706 7.4 6,777 6,503 -274
65+ 39,174 50,166 10,992 12.6 4,936 6,321 1,385
Total 130,752 138,038 7,286 9.0 11,713 12,823 1,100
Source ONS
2016-based
ONS
2016-based
2018
Household
Survey
2018 survey
applied to
ONS 2016
2018
survey
applied
to ONS
2016
50 | P a g e
place, or level-access already built. Therefore the introduction of the optional standards
would reduce the cost implications of each adaptation, thus allowing the Council to provide
more.
Summary
2.157 The purpose of this section has been to evaluate the adaptability and accessibility of
Doncaster’s existing stock.
2.158 According to the EHS only 7.1 percent of housing in England had all four of the
visitability features present. When using EHS data on the ease of adapting dwellings to
become visitable, most of Doncaster’s stock does not fall into the oldest stock and therefore
not feasible at all to make visitable, but similarly most of the stock is not new enough to be
adaptable easily.
2.159 According to the Council’s adaptations team, more adaptations are conducted on
private market dwellings than council stock. Over the period of 2016-18, an estimated
£9,002,843.45 was spent on adaptions across both private and social housing, with a higher
proportion of this cost being associated with the private market. In the future, it is predicted
more households will require adaptations in Doncaster. It is therefore essential stock is made
as easy, quick, and as cheap as possible to adapt in the future to address the changing and
emerging need.
51 | P a g e
2.160 How Needs vary across Different Housing Tenures
2.160 Data on the tenure profile by demographics assessed within this report is available
from both the 2011 census data, and the recent HNS. The HNS provides a more generic
tenure profile of the borough per ward based on the results of the survey conducted. This
information does not allow for a breakdown into different demographics, such as aged 65 and
above, or suffering from a LTHPD; but it does give a more recent update than the 2011
census.
Ward Owner occupied Private rented Affordable Base
Adwick le Street & Carcroft 57.5% 14.6% 27.9% 6,871
Armthorpe 71.3% 15.7% 12.9% 6,289
Balby South 60.8% 17.0% 22.2% 4,497
Bentley 60.5% 21.1% 18.4% 7,944
Bessacarr 70.3% 15.3% 14.4% 6,208
Conisbrough 59.4% 13.3% 27.3% 7,133
Edenthorpe & Kirk Sandall 79.2% 11.6% 9.2% 3,690
Edlington & Warmsworth 66.2% 15.9% 18.0% 5,074
Finningley 81.4% 10.8% 7.8% 6,353
Hatfield 75.1% 12.6% 12.3% 6,498
Hexthorpe & Balby North 47.3% 30.7% 22.0% 5,961
Mexborough 55.0% 17.1% 27.9% 6,778
Norton & Askern 72.6% 14.2% 13.2% 6,604
Roman Ridge 73.7% 10.5% 15.8% 4,889
Rossington & Bawtry 69.3% 13.5% 17.2% 7,567
Sprotbrough 84.2% 12.6% 3.3% 4,658
Stainforth & Barnby Dun 65.3% 12.7% 21.9% 4,859
Thorne & Moorends 63.6% 16.7% 19.7% 7,468
Tickhill & Wadworth 78.2% 13.8% 8.0% 4,465
Town 48.5% 34.0% 17.5% 8,175
Wheatley Hills & Intake 57.8% 13.8% 28.4% 7,837
Doncaster Total 65.4% 16.5% 18.0% 129,818
Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 47: Property Tenure by Ward
2.161 The wards of Sprotbrough, Finningley and Edenthorpe recorded the highest
proportion of owner-occupied properties. Private accommodation was high in Hexthorpe and
Balby North, and Town wards, with it contributing over a third of the stock in the latter ward.
Affordable housing was more prevalent in Wheatley Hills and Intake, Adwick le Street and
Carcroft, and Mexborough wards.
52 | P a g e
2.162 The 2011 census allows for a tenure breakdown based upon age and individuals with
a LTHPD. Figure 10 shows the housing tenure for the aged 65 and above in Doncaster with a
majority of older people owning their own properties. The 2011 census broke the tenure data
down by ward. This allows for a geographical analysis of the current spread of tenure
preferences in Doncaster, to determine whether certain areas occupy more homeowners or
not.
Source: 2011 Census (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 48: Distribution of people aged 65 and over living in Private Accommodation, by
percentage of population per ward
2.163 Sprotbrough and Finningley have a considerably higher ownership rating than other
wards in the borough. This is at the expense of people renting from the Council in those
areas. When compared to the distribution of people aged 65 and above across the borough
both wards scored highest amongst the number of people aged 65 and above living there. It is
also consistent with the data set in Figure 47. This indicates that both wards are currently
hotspot locations for the private market older population, with potentially a disproportionate
amount of older people living there.
2.164 The preference to stay within the private market is consistent with the housing
options preferences of older people as demonstrated in Figure 22. In general, it is difficult to
predict the future tenure breakdown of the aged 65 and above. Despite this Figure 22 helps
demonstrate an indication. The Sheffield Hallam Report also give an insight into the
preferences of older people. Within the report the focus groups expressed a clear preference
53 | P a g e
for independent living, and there was a tendency to equate independent living within general
needs housing. Focus group participants reported wanting, as a minimum, a dwelling that is:
Spacious;
Accessible;
Manageable;
Attractive; and
Well-located62
2.165 For the requirement of ‘accessible’, respondents mentioned that accessibility was
related to the ease with which people can enter and leave a dwelling, as well as the use of the
space within the property (especially concerning an accessible bath or shower and downstairs
toilets).63
2.166 Other than choice, respondents in the Sheffield Hallam Report also indicated that a
key reason for wanting to remain a homeowner was a desire to hold on to housing equity and
the greater quality the sector provides.
2.167 In the 2011 census the tenure of individuals with a LTHPD were assessed by whether
or not their LTHPD effects their day-to-day life; this was either by a lot, a little, or not. In
general, those people with a LTHPD lived within the private market. This was more
prominent with people whose day-to-day activities were not limited. Social housing
contributed to a small percentage of individuals, this was highest when people’s LTHPD
limited their day-to-day life a lot. The higher percentage of people living in the social rented
market when their day-to-day life is greater effected indicates that there is more housing
appropriate to their needs in the social market. This transfer between tenures could be a
consequence of the lack of appropriate housing in the private market for LTHPD needs.
2.168 The breakdown by ward shows that there is quite a difference of people within the
social and private market across the borough. The wards with the highest percentage of
people with social rented accommodation, as shown in Figure 50 through scoring lower for
private accommodation, are also the wards where the majority of individuals with a LTHPD
reside, as shown in Figure 31. This again supports the notion that the tenure has better quality
dwellings that are more appropriately suited currently.
62 Sheffield Hallam Report (n 38) 46. 63 ibid.
54 | P a g e
Source: 2011 Census
Figure 49: Tenure of Individuals with a LTHPD
Source: 2011 Census (Map created by Doncaster Council)
Figure 50: Distribution of people with a LTHPD living in Private Accommodation, by
percentage of population per ward
2.169 As demonstrated by Figures 48-50, the private rented sector (PRS) plays a significant
part in the housing market in Doncaster. The Government’s Housing Strategy acknowledged
12707 13741
50388 76836
5418
7088
111315 123821
99926940 31577 48509
3571 338741076 48034
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Day-to-Day Limited aLot
Day-to-Day Limited aLittle
Day-to-Day notlimited
Total
Owned Outright Owned with Mortgage Social Rented Private Rented or Other
55 | P a g e
the PRS in establishing a pro-active approach to new builds.64 Overall, since 2000/01 the
sector has grown by 131 per cent,65 highlighting its impact upon the private market and its
potential to be increasingly an option for those aged 65 and over and/or have a LTHPD now
or in the future. Despite this, a recent report published by the think-tank IPPR found that
private renters are more likely to live in housing which is of poor quality than owner-
occupiers and social renters.66 This supports information from stakeholders in the Doncaster
HNS whom state conditions in the PRS are typically worse than in other tenures with
negative impacts on health and well-being.67 Whilst it is impossible to determine the extent to
which dwellings built to the optional building regulations will be used in the PRS, as
demonstrated with the tenures in the figures above, the option should be available. Therefore
it could be presumed that without the introduction of accessible and adaptation dwellings,
many older people or those with a LTHPD who need or want to privately rent would not be
able to in an appropriate house.
2.170 MCHLG provides information on the current tenure split between private enterprises
and housing associations within the borough of new build dwellings. Whilst this does not
indicate the split between buying and renting of private enterprises, it does help show that the
private market is increasingly the provider of new housing in Doncaster. It is therefore
imperative, especially considering the tenure profiles and preferences of people, that the
quality of these enterprises match the need demonstrated in this report.
Source: MCHLG Tables on House Building: New Build Dwellings September 2018 Update
Figure 51: New Build Dwellings Completed by Tenure in Doncaster
64 MHCLG, Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England 2011. 65 Darren Baxter and Luke Murphy, Sign on the Dotted Line? A New Rental Contract Final Report IPPR 2019,
pg 3. 66 ibid pg 29. 67 HNS (n 46), pg 58.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Private Enterprise
Housing Associations
56 | P a g e
2.171 Throughout the report, reference is made to downsizing and the moving preferences
of older people. The HNS provides information on the general reasons as to why people aged
65 and over want to move. This will help inform new builds and shows the importance for
the requirements of higher quality dwellings for this demographic, especially in the context
of their tenure profile and the support for people living independently for longer.
2.172 The HNS found that the main reason for people aged 65 and over moving was for
health problems or they needed housing more suitable for an older/disabled person. This
supports the demand for accessible housing options presented in the Sheffield Hallam Report
referenced earlier. The reason was followed by the need for a smaller sized property and
wanting a smaller garden.68
2.173 The requirement to move for health problems is also a significant issue within the
social market. The Local Authority Housing Statistics provides information on the number of
households that needed to move to council stock on medical or welfare grounds, including
relating to a disability. Within the data set this criteria is classified as a household waiting in
a reasonable preference group. Whilst this does not necessarily indicate that an accessible or
adaptable dwelling was required or sufficient, it does support the increasing health prevalence
in housing decisions and relationship with a disability.
Source: Local Authority Housing Statistics 2011-2017 Series’
Figure 52: Households that need to move on medical/welfare grounds
2.174 The data above is relatively new, however it shows a steady increase – with the
exception for one year – of households on the waiting list for local authority stock that need
to move due to medical or welfare grounds. It indicates that more individuals are suffering
68 ibid pg 93.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Households that need to move on medical/welfare grounds
Households who need tomove on medical or welfaregrounds, including relating toa disability
57 | P a g e
medical conditions or a disability that impacts their normal living status and that their current
dwelling, either in the private or social sector, is inadequate.
Summary
2.175 This section presented how needs vary across different housing tenures.
2.176 According to the 2011 Census, those wards which accommodated a higher
percentage of older people had higher numbers of older people living in private
accommodation. This was also the trend with individuals suffering from a LTHPD but not to
as high extent. As people’s disability affected their day-to-day tasks more, people were more
likely to be living in the social rented sector. In Doncaster, the vast majority of new dwellings
built are private enterprises meaning any future choice will most likely be in the private
market. This supports the housing tenure preferences of residents in Doncaster.
2.177 A growing number of older and disabled people are relying on the PRS for their
living arrangements. Current rented stock is typically poorer quality than private market
dwellings, meaning without standards policies in place, more people may be living in health
hazard homes.
2.178 Health is a key factor in the need to move dwellings. In Doncaster households that
have needed to move on medical or welfare ground, including relating to a disability has
increased over the past five years.
58 | P a g e
2.179 The Overall Impact on Viability
2.179 The NPPF requires the planning system to take account of development viability
when deciding planning applications and preparing the Local Plan. As such sites identified in
the plan must be deliverable by avoiding a scale of policy requirements that together risks
their ability to be developed.
Viability Testing
2.180 The council commissioned the Valuation Office Agency’s District Valuer Services
(DVS) to undertaken an independent ‘Whole Plan Viability Testing’69 for the Local Plan in
2016. Due to the time elapsed since the original testing an updated assessment was
commissioned and produced by CP Viability Ltd in 2019.70
2.181 The Viability Study 16 assessed housing design standards and for the purposes of the
test assumed that all new housing be built to Part M4(2) of the optional building
regulations.71 The updated Viability Study 19 assumed that 95 percent of new housing be
built to Part M4(2) and 5 percent to Part M4(3) Adaptable of the building regulations.72 The
NPPG refers to the Government’s Final Implementation Impact Assessment of the Housing
Standards Review, which addressed the optional technical standards, and the EC Harris Cost
Impact Study that it was supported by.73 The tables below have been taken from the EC
Harris study and show the cost implications of introducing the new technical standards. The
study compared the cost against the existing standards at the time, Lifetime Homes.
69 Hereby known as the Viability Study 16. 70 Hereby known as the Viability Study 19. 71 DVS, Doncaster Local Plan Viability Testing 2016, pg 53. 72 CP Viability Ltd, Whole Plan Viability Testing 2019 – Update, pgs 106-107. 73 NPPG (n 30) Para 003, Ref ID: 56-003-20150327.
59 | P a g e
Source: DCLG and EC Harris Housing Standards Review: Cost Impacts 2014
Figure 53: Cost Impact of Accessibility Standards
2.182 As an example, the above tables shows that for a three bedroomed semi-detached
dwelling, the additional cost of applying the M4(2) regulations would incur an extra £521 per
dwelling; this is in comparison with the £1,097 cost for the Lifetime Homes standard. As
outlined in paragraph 2.18 of this report, the current Doncaster housing policy regarding
accessibility and adaptability design standards was the requirement of up to 20 percent of
new dwellings to be to Lifetime Homes standards. The optional standards would represent a
reduction in building costs of approximately a half per dwelling compared to the Council’s
current policy.
2.183 The costs for the Category 2 standards were included in the original Viability Study
16 and the updated Viability Study 19. The study conducted various viability tests based on
different sensitivity analysis. Using the Viability Study 16 the policy, even if at 100 percent
of all new dwellings, would be deliverable. Meeting M4(3) standards would incur higher
build costs however this would still be at a cheaper rate than the previous wheelchair housing
standards. The additional costs of a three bedroomed semi-detached dwelling to Category 3
Adaptable standards would be £10,307, and for Category 3 Accessible standards it would be
£22,791. The standard was not incorporated into the original Viability Study, however the
Viability Study 19 assessed a policy requirement of 95 percent of all new builds built to
60 | P a g e
M4(2), and 5 percent of all new builds built to M4(3) Adaptable standards. Under the NPPG,
local plans policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those
dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to
live in that dwelling.74 As such, the new viability report assessed both M4(3) standards but
only the wheelchair adaptable standard results apply to the policy in question.
2.184 The Viability Study 19 analysed the implication of adopting a policy requirement of
95 percent of new builds to be built to M4(2) and 5 percent to M4(3) wheelchair adaptable
standards. This was done separately, and then collectively as a holistic policy requirement.
The Viability Study 19 reported that under different sensitivity testing, the policy
requirements would be deemed viable in high and median value areas. The low value
schemes show an unviable outcome, however under the base sensitivity testing without any
policy requirements the low value areas still showed an unviable outcome. This suggests that
including the standards does not impact on the viability outcomes.75
2.185 The Local Authority Building Control has summarised the main differences between
the mandatory M4(1) standard and the optional M4(2) standards, to give an indication of
where additional costs may occur.
External Differences
All external doors must have a level threshold – the mandatory standard is just one door;
Approach routes must have a minimum clear width of 900mm or 750mm where there are
obstructions, the gradient should be between 1:20 and 1:12;
Every gateway must have an 50mm clear opening, with a 300mm nib on the leading edge to allow
users to reach the handle;
Parking spaces within the private curtilage of the dwelling (but not a car port or garage) must
include at least one standard parking bay that can be widened at a later date to 3.3m;
Every principal entrance must have a canopy covering a minimum width of 900m and a depth of
1200mm. This can’t be a porch;
External doors must have an openable width of 850mm and have a 300mm nib on the leading
edge.
Internal Differences
Stairs must be a minimum width of 850mm to allow the future installation of a stair lift;
At least one bedroom must have a 750mm clear access zone from the foot of the bed and on both
sides. Every other double bedroom will need a clear access zone on one side and the foot of the
bed. Plans of furniture layouts in this case will need to be provided to show compliance;
Walls, ducts and boxing on all WC, bathroom and wet rooms must be strong enough to support
grab rails, shower seats and other adaptations, which can take a loan of 1.5kn/m3;
A bathroom must be located on every floor that has a bedroom;
Ground floor WC must have a hidden drainage connection and be large enough to accommodate a
shower;
Consumer units must be mounted at a height between 1350mm and 1450mm above floor level;
74 NPPG (n 30) para 009, Ref ID 56-009-20150327. 75 CP Viability Ltd (n 72) 112-116.
61 | P a g e
Handles for windows, unless on a remote opening system, must be located between 450mm and
1400mm above floor level.
Source: LABC Building Regulations Approved Document Part M in a Nutshell 2016
Figure 54: M4(1) and M4(2) Internal and External Differences
2.186 As the above differences show the majority relate to positioning, layout and specific
measurements. These can be accommodated through the initial design of the property rather
than later on and thus incurring costs at the build stage. Advice for the previous Lifetime
Homes standard stated that it is more cost effective to incorporate standards at the design
stage rather than modify standard designs. This was also found in 1997 when the cost of
lifetime homes was analysed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.76 As other Local
Authorities incorporate the optional building regulations and the standards become consistent
across the market in England, costs will be reduced as the market adjusts and best practice is
shared.
2.187 The Government’s own Impact Assessment also outlines monetised and non-
monetised social benefits. These wider viability considerations are important and must be
factored in when considering the viability implications on whether or not to introduce the
standards. The most common savings include but are not limited to:77
Avoiding temporary residential costs by enabling early return from hospital;
Reduced bed blocking in primary health care due to inappropriate housing preventing
return home;
Reduced residential care costs by delaying long term need to move in to residential
accommodation;
Reduced cost or and need for case assistance in the home;
Reduced costs to the health services arising from unsuitable housing and including
trips, falls and injury to carers;
Reduced cost or need for adaptations;
Reduced cost of removing adaptations;
Reduced administration costs in re-housing older or disabled people.
2.188 As demonstrated above, the optional building regulations could provide a number of
positive health and cost benefits and the Health Foundation states that one of the key
indicators of a healthy home is “able to provide for all the household’s needs”78. Inadequate
housing is a potential source of a wide range of hazards, from burns, scalds and fire, to cuts
and falls; this increases the longer an individual spends time in their home. People aged 65
and over spend more than 80 percent of their time at home, demonstrating the importance of
the home environment to older adults’ health and well-being.79
76 K Sangster, Costing Lifetime Homes 1997. 77 Department for Communities and Local Government, Housing Standards Review: Final Implementation
Impact Assessment 2015, pg 49-51. 78 Joia de Sa, How does housing influence our health? 2017. 79 Whitehead et al, Bathing adaptations in the homes of older adults: results of a feasibility randomised
controlled trail BMC Public Health 2018, pg 2.
62 | P a g e
Falls
2.189 Falls are the most common cause of injury related deaths in people over the age of 75
in the UK, with up to 35 percent of people aged 65 and over falling one or more times every
year.80 According to oral evidence presented to the Housing for Older People inquiry
mentioned in paragraph 2.8, approximately 75 percent of deaths related to falls happened in
the home.81 Where death is not a consequence, it can cause a person to lose confidence,
become withdrawn, and feel as if they have lost their independence. As such falls may
directly force people out of their own homes and into residential accommodation, or result in
residents requiring care at home. One study found that 80 percent of older women surveyed
said they would rather be dead than experience the loss of independence and quality of life
that results from a bad hip fracture and subsequent admission to a nursing home.82 An Ipsos
report stated that people were more worried about losing independence when they were older
than dying.83
2.190 The online Public Health Profiles help provide information on emergency hospital
admissions due to falls in people aged 65 and over. Since 2010/11 the number of people
affected in Doncaster has increased in contrast to a slight decrease in the national figures;
consequently, Doncaster has gone from ‘better’ to ‘worse’ in comparison.
80 Department of Health, Falls and fractures: effective interventions in health and social care 2009. 81 Communities and Local Government Committee (n 13) Q194. 82 Salkeld et al, Quality of life related to fear of falling and hip fracture in older women: a time trade off study
BMJ 2000 83 Ipsos Thinks, The Perennials: The Future of Ageing What is Later Life Like? <https://thinks.ipsos-
mori.com/what-is-later-life-like/#2.1> accessed 7 March 2019.
63 | P a g e
Source: Public Health Profiles Hospital Episode Statistics
Figure 55: Emergency Hospital Admissions due to Falls in People Aged 65 and Over in
Doncaster
2.191 When the data is broken down into individuals aged between 65-79 and 80 and
above, it is clear that in recent years there has been a significant increase in the admission
rates for individuals aged 80 and above. This is in contrast to the national data, which has
increased only slightly. When looking specifically at the information for admissions for
people aged 65-79, Doncaster has seen a slight increase however the national average has
declined since 2010/11. Overall the data highlights that emergency admissions due to falls is
demonstrably a problem in Doncaster. This is predicted to increase by 2035, as shown
previously in Figure 13.
2.192 Information provided by Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group (Doncaster CCG)
provides the financial cost incurred in Doncaster to the health service due to hospital
admissions from falls.
Age Hospital Admissions
Due to Falls
Cost (£) Cost per Individual
(£)
0-64 933 2,027,474 2,173.07
65-84 1117 3,458,995 3,096.68
85+ 908 2,957,962 3,257.67
Total/Average 2,958 8,444,431 2,854.78
Source: Doncaster CCG
Figure 56: Cost associated with falls in Doncaster by age, for the 12 months ending 31st
August 2018
2.193 The data presented by Doncaster CCG highlights the significant cost that falls place
upon the health service. What is interesting is that despite the 0-64 age category being the
majority of the population, just over three-quarters of the cost is associated with those aged
65 and over. The 85 and over category recorded less falls than the 0-64 age, however their
costs were higher. These costs will increase as more older people are admitted due to falls as
predicted. What this indicates is that cost per fall per individual is higher as you get older. As
64 | P a g e
the population gets older, and the more expensive categories become more prominent, so will
the health costs unless necessary action is taken.
2.194 In 2017, the Building Research Establishment Group (BRE) produced a cost benefit
analysis of home adaptations commissioned by the Centre for Ageing Better. Within the
report possible direct benefits to the NHS and adult social care budgets relating to changes in
care needs as a result of an adaptation were explored. Certain adaptations that were assessed,
such as an external ramp, extension of the home (space requirements) and shower replacing a
bath, were considered to have highly likely or likely direct benefits on the reduced risk to
falls. The introduction of the optional building regulations would therefore have a presumed
return on investment benefit by helping reduce falls through its design requirements. It would
also help cheaper and quicker adaptations, such as stair lifts, to be completed which further
help reduce the risk of falls.84
Delayed Transfers of Care
2.195 As stated in the Government’s impact assessment on the optional building
regulations, the standards will also help reduce the costs sometimes associated with
discharges, through the reduction of bed blocking and the need for temporary residential
care.85 Prior to discharge it is a typical practice for occupational therapists to assess
conditions in the home to establish if older, disabled or temporarily injured people will be
able to cope, to arrange for care and support where this will be necessary or recommend
delayed return (until suitable adaptations can be made) or arrange a temporary move into
residential care. Therefore, the appropriateness of an individual’s home will have profound
impacts upon bed blocking, homecare packages and temporary residential care costs.
2.196 The impact assessment recognises that accessible housing improves the speed of
adaption and makes it easier to avoid the need for temporary re-housing in residential
accommodation. It also is likely that housing which is more accessible or adaptable will
reduce the frequency of bed blocking by older people. To help equate this to Doncaster,
information provides a breakdown of delayed transfers of care (DTOC), the reasons for the
DTOC, day’s affected and additional information. The numbers are broken down by days
affected, with patients occasionally covering more than one day and for different reasons.
The data is restricted to the most appropriate reason for delay being recorded.
84 Centre for Ageing Better, Appendices to the role of home adaptations in improving later life 2017
<https://www.ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-
12/Appendices%2C%20the%20role%20of%20home%20adaptations%20in%20improving%20later%20life.pdf>
accessed 11 March 2019, pg 93. 85 DCLG (n 77) pg 49-50.
65 | P a g e
Source: Doncaster Council
Figure 57: Reasons for DTOC in Doncaster
2.197 As can be seen assessments and care packages are the biggest reasons for a DTOC;
with other reasons such as awaiting a residential home, adaptations and housing issues
contributing to a significant number of days. Whilst the chart and the reasons provided do not
break down into case studies where inaccessible housing was the specific reason, additional
comments provided to each delay provides an insight. Some of these are presented below:
“Ambulance liaison to assess property access”
“Waiting for door to be re-hung to allow access”
“No medical needs on the ward. Needs adapted property”
2.198 According to the NHS, an excess bed day within acute services cost £346 per bed,
per day in 2017/18.86 Relating this to the numbers in Figure 57 there were 1991 DTOC in the
period between April 2018 and 21st January 2019. This would amount to £688,886 being
spent on people physically ready to be discharged but unable to for the reasons explored in
Figure 57.
Residential Care Costs
2.199 Residents who can no longer live independently and do not have a property suitable
for adaptations could be forced into early residential care. Whilst available data does not
86 NHS Improvement, Reference Costs 2017/18: Highlights, Analysis and Introduction to the Data 2018, pg 5.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
April 2018 - 21/01/19
66 | P a g e
highlight the reasons why an individual ends up in residential care, there is financial
information that helps shows its implications.
Age Budgeted
Number of
Clients
Total
Number of
Clients
Expenditure
(£)
Income (£) Total Cost
(£)
18-64 178 198 9,680,260 949,340 8,730,920
65+ 733 776 20,383,970 6,512,050 13,871,920
Total 911 974 30,064,230 7,461,390 22,602,840 Source: Doncaster Council
Figure 58: Residential Care Costs 2017/18
2.200 The current costs associated with residential care is considerably more expensive than
the cost associated with adaptations outlined in paragraph 2.155. As a result, if the option were
a straight choice between adapting an individual’s property and placing them into residential
care, the former would be the most viable. It was also be the preferred choice of residents as
demonstrated in paragraph 2.189.
2.201 Within the BRE adaptations cost benefits analysis report adaptations that would have
a direct benefit on delaying long-term care requirements, such as residential care, were
assessed. The report concluded that adaptations, such as an extension of the home (space
requirements), external ramp, parking and shower replacing a bath would be likely to have
benefits on delaying long-term care requirements.87 Subsequently the introduction of the
optional building regulations would help prolong the independence of residents even if their
needs change and ensure that residential care would be a genuine last resort. This would have
substantial societal monetary benefits but also personal benefits to the individuals affected.
Adaptations
2.202 The Council’s adaptations team also provides information on the number of
adaptations provided to individuals being discharged from hospital. This information is for
the financial years from 2016-18 and is split between adaptations made to the council’s St
Leger stock, and adaptations made to private market properties.
87 Centre for Ageing Life (n 81).
67 | P a g e
Source: Doncaster Council Housing Adaptations
Figure 59: Private and Social Housing Adaptations conducted for Individuals being
Discharged from Hospital 2016/18
2.203 Over the period of 2016/18, 260 adaptations were conducted to properties required as
part of an individual being discharged from hospital. Out of the 260 the majority of these
were made to dwellings in the private housing market. Hospital discharges tend to stem from
unexpected accidents requiring hospital attention, occasionally resulting in changing personal
circumstances for those affected. As can be determined from Doncaster’s housing tenure, the
majority of people live within the private housing market, and therefore when being
discharged from hospital their properties may not be suited to meet their changed need and
circumstances, resulting in the need for adaptations as shown above. It is therefore essential
that private market stock is suitable to change as people’s circumstances change. As was
presented in paragraph 2.141, the current housing stock in Doncaster is relatively older, and
harder to adapt to make visitable and appropriate. Adoption of the optional building
regulations will therefore provide more dwellings that meet the changing needs of occupants
over time, reducing the time or potential need for hospital discharge adaptations.
Summary
2.204 The above section considers the impact on viability by the introduction of the
optional building regulations.
2.205 The Council’s commissioned Viability Study 16 considered the policy position of
100 percent of all new dwellings been built to M4(2) standards. Under different sensitivity
analysis this was found to pose no viability issues. The updated Viability Study 19 tested a
policy position of 95 percent M4(2) and 5 percent M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwellings. It
82%
18%
HOSPITAL DISCHARGE ADAPTATIONS
Private Housing Market Social Housing Market
68 | P a g e
found that the standards posed no impact to the viability results under the base scenario
testing.
2.206 The Government’s Impact Assessment acknowledged wider monetised social
benefits that should be considered. In Doncaster, there is an increased number of falls in
comparison to the national average. As a result, from September 2017-August 2018,
Doncaster’s health service incurred £8,444,431 due to hospital admissions from falls. This
becomes more expensive the older the patient is.
2.207 DTOC could be avoided if dwellings could accommodate quicker adaptations to
allow people who are ready to be discharged from hospital to go home. In Doncaster, home
assessments, care packages and housing issues are common reasons for a DTOC. In total,
between April 2018 and 21st January 2019 an estimated £688,886 could be attributed to
DTOC in Doncaster.
2.208 During 2016-18, 260 adaptations were conducted to properties required as part of an
individual being discharged from hospital. 82 percent of these adaptations were made to
private housing with the other 18 percent made to social housing.
69 | P a g e
2.209 The Case for Introducing the Accessibility Standards
2.209 The Council considers that based on the evidence presented above that there is a
strong need to increase the supply of accessible and adaptable dwellings, especially in the
private market. It is considered that there is a small need presented in the paper for M4(3)
category dwellings. Currently the provision of wheelchair homes is met through the
Council’s strategic housing programme. However, as demonstrated throughout this paper,
appropriate and adequate choice needs to be met across all housing tenures. The considerably
higher costs of the M4(3) from M4(2) standards has been acknowledged due to the potential
impact the standard would have on the viability of schemes. This could potentially have
negative impacts on other policies in the Local Plan, such as affordable housing requirements
and Section 106 contributions. As a result, the Council feels the proposed percentages of new
builds for both standards in the policy, as will be outlined below, is an appropriate and
justified balance.
2.210 The proposed policy recognises the situations whereby it may not be feasible or
practical to meet these requirements. This is recognised in the NPPG as site specific factors
such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a
site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free
access cannot be achieved or is not viable. It is acknowledged that under the NPPG, where
step-free access is not viable, neither of the optional requirements should be applied.88
2.211 Category M4(2) Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings
2.211 The evidence presented in this paper clearly demonstrates the need for more
accessible and adaptable homes in Doncaster. The Council recognises that the strong
evidenced need for more adaptable and accessible dwellings has to be considered alongside
other policies in the Local Plan, as well as the Council’s chosen higher housing figure than
required under the standard methodology. As such, the Council is not proposing that all new
dwellings, but that 65 percent of all new dwellings are built to M4(2) standards. The reason
for this figure is based on the evidence provided in this report and summarised below.
2.212 The number of older persons living in Doncaster is expected to increase substantially
over the plan period, with a significant proportion of this growth been seen with those aged
85 and above. Consequently the number of households expected to house individuals aged 65
and over is also expected to increase. With the issue of an ageing population, it is essential
dwellings are built to match the future demographic of the borough and the challenges
presented that come with this. There is an expected increase of older people living alone, and
unable to manage normal domestic tasks on their own. This will occur alongside an increase
of individuals with a LTHPD. This is important considering the borough’s high OADR and
the considerable number of years spent in ‘bad’ health as demonstrated through the HLE. The
88 NPPG (n 30) para 008, Ref ID 56-008-20160519.
70 | P a g e
borough also experiences a considerable amount of falls in comparison to the rest of England
and DTOC affected by inadequate housing where trip hazards represent a very serious threat
to health. The step-free access requirements of M4(2) will help eradicate this and allow easier
and cheaper modifications to properties as resident’s requirements change.
2.213 Publically funded housing should be built to the appropriate standards from the
outset, and to provide support where necessary the Council has an AHR programme
matching applicants with appropriate accessible and adapted council housing stock. The
stock is built to the optional building regulations since the replacement of the Lifetime
Homes standard. Despite this, as demonstrated the majority of older people and those with a
LTHPD live and want to stay within the private market sector. As the age of the population
increases, it is imperative we allow people to move to a more accessible and readily
adaptable private market property at a time that suits their needs. This is essential in
delivering national and local policies to help support people to live independently for longer
and to promote healthier, better quality housing. Current stock can be adapted to meet
people’s changing needs, however according to the EHS it is more difficult and more
expensive to complete with older properties. Doncaster has a lower percentage of properties
built post-2000 in comparison to SCR, Y&H and England as a whole. This means that whilst
some properties will be appropriate for relevant adaptations, many homes will simply not be
able to meet the demand of a changing population. This risks exacerbating health problems,
forced residential care, an expansion of applicants on the AHR or some residents having to
move to another part of the country with more accessible and adaptable homes.
2.214 It is clear, therefore, that the pressures and demands for accessible and adaptable
housing will increase and become a considerable housing issue if not dealt with in Doncaster.
Using the HNS and information provided by the AHR and adaptations team, the need for
properties suitable for older people and those with a LTHPD is generally quite even across
the borough. Whilst both demographics have wards with an increased percentage of people
living there, in general people would prefer to stay within close proximity to their current
location as opposed to move to an area heavily populated with people of the same
demographic. What is more important to individuals, is the size, type and quality of
dwellings. There is a strong preference for properties with less bedrooms, and in particular
for bungalows. This highlights the desirability of dwellings with little or no steps, and
therefore can be seen as in support of the step-free design requirement of the optional
building regulations. Such provision may therefore offer developers significant design
features desirable to a large section of the market.
2.215 The policy has been robustly evaluated through the Council’s Viability Study 16 and
19 versions which found that the requirement of the M4(2) regulation would not make sites
unviable even if applied to all new builds. Under this presumption any policy requirement,
which is less than 100 percent of all new dwellings, would increase the viability of housing
developments. The Council also recognises the importance of wider social monetary costs
presented by the Government in their impact assessment. Health impacts due to inaccessible
housing, residential care costs and adaptations to less adaptable properties create monetary
71 | P a g e
social pressures on the public sector, and neglect of these costs in the face of a well-
evidenced demand would not constitute a sustainable or appropriate approach. As other local
authorities include the standards in their local plans, the market will adapt to the ever-
normalising standard and appropriate designs in new builds will be transferable from
developments across the country.
2.216 The principle that all homes should be built to meet a wider range of needs is
considered important to the Council in terms of its duties under the Equality Act 2010, and
the wider obligation to ensure adequate housing for all. As a public sector organisation the
Council has a duty to ensure non-discrimination, the advancement of equality and to remove
or minimise the disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics,
including age and disability. It is therefore imperative that housing allows every citizen of
Doncaster the opportunity to access dwellings that meet their needs and tenure preferences.
In this case that is more accessible and adaptable dwellings in the market. If the Council took
a do nothing approach, then the upcoming Local Plan would fail in meeting the needs of the
local residents as presented in this paper.
2.217 As summarised in this conclusion, the report has demonstrated a very clear demand
for more appropriate dwellings for the ageing population and those with a LTHPD. The
requirements set out in M4(2) optional building regulations will allow a greater opportunity
of choice for residents due to its design requirements, but also allow for cheaper and easier
adaptations for when life dictates. As Doncaster’s population gets older and people want to
enjoy living independently for as long as they can, these characteristics of dwellings will
become more important. It will also allow for people to move into more appropriate housing
earlier, ensuring households do not need to move home, or go into residential care in order to
address mobility issues which may be experienced at some point during their lifetime. Not all
new homes will necessarily be occupied by someone who needs specific access-related
requirements from the outset, but the standards will reduce the impact of changing
circumstances over time. As such, the Council finds it appropriate and justified to require that
65 percent of all new dwellings are built to M4(2) requirements. Using the Council’s target
of at least 920 (net) new homes per year,89 this would represent 598 M4(2) dwellings per
year. 598 dwellings per year would help accommodate the projected increase of 705, 65 and
over households per year and projected increase of 225 LTHPD households per year whilst
recognising the part the current housing market has to play.
2.218 Category M4(3) Wheelchair Adaptable Dwellings
2.218 As demonstrated in this report, there is a small but significant evidenced needs for
the higher M4(3) wheelchair dwelling standard. M4(3) is split into two distinct categories;
wheelchair accessible and wheelchair adaptable properties. Under the NPPG, local plans
policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the
89 Doncaster Local Plan (n 45).
72 | P a g e
local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling.90
As such, only the M4(3) adapted wheelchair category shall apply in the local plan policy to
new developments.
2.219 The Council’s evidence, presented in the HNS and summarised in this report
indicated a potential need for 463-665 additional wheelchair adaptable dwellings over the
plan period. As acknowledged earlier in this paper, this represents a small proportion of the
current plan target of 3.36-4.8 percent, however this could be a serious underestimation of the
need. Due to Doncaster’s particular ageing population and older current housing stock, it is
deemed appropriate and evidenced that a slightly higher figure of 5 percent of new builds
should be built to M4(3) wheelchair adaptable regulations. This figure will become more
important in relation to the future demand from increased wheelchair users.
2.200 As evidenced, the population in Doncaster is getting older, and as a result the
predictions for disabilities and mobility issues is expected to increase. This is supported
through POPPI and PANSI predictions estimating that more people in Doncaster will have
their day-to-day activities and mobility restricted. The borough also has a higher than
national percentage of people deemed appropriate for the DLA’s higher mobility award
allowance, designed for people who are physically unable to walk. By allocating a slightly
higher than the predicted figure from the Habinteg formula and the HNS, the policy will take
into account more evidence supporting the notion that mobility and disability will become
more of an issue in Doncaster.
2.201 The updated Viability Study 19 tested the inclusion of 5 percent of new builds to be
built to M4(3) wheelchair adaptable standards. It found that the policy inclusion had no
impact to the viability of schemes when analysed against the base scenario testing. This was
still the case when sites were analysed with the M4(2) requirement alongside the M4(3)
requirement.
2.202 With the policy push from central and local government to allow people the choice to
live more independently for longer, this gap is important to overcome particularly in the
private sector. The Council is committed to ensuring a wide range of needs is cater for by
ensuring genuine housing choices in Doncaster as explained in paragraph 2.215, the
introduction of M4(3) adaptable dwellings will help support this. It is imperative that we
recognise that without this adequate and appropriate choice we will be failing to create a
physical world that serves all. Using the Council’s target of at least 920 (net) new homes per
year,91 5 percent would represent 46 M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwellings per year and
accompany the Council’s social housing build programme.
90 NPPG (n 30) para 009, Ref ID 56-009-20150327. 91 Doncaster Local Plan (n 45).
73 | P a g e
3.0 Nationally Described Space Standards
3.1 Introduction to the Standards
3.1 New build dwellings are often judged too small for the needs of people who buy
them, and often they are perceived as impractical for modern living. The Royal Institute for
British Architects (RIBA) commissioned YouGov to conduct a poll to test perceptions and
preferences around new dwellings. It was found that the size of rooms was more important to
buyers of new builds than the number of rooms.92 This findings support the current imbalance
between the distribution of the population, which is mostly one-and-two person households,
and the distribution of homes, which are mostly three-or-more bedroom houses.93
3.2 The lack of space in homes can compromise basic lifestyle needs such as spaces to
store possessions, learn, play, exercise and entertain friends; but as the RIBA report and a
report by Shelter points out, it can also have profound impacts on the public’s health, family
relationships, education, and contribute to anti-social behaviour.94 The size and quality of
new dwellings in Doncaster is therefore an important factor into the happiness, health and
well-being and quality of life experienced by our citizens.
3.3 The pressures of an increasing population, housing demand and land supply could
lead to increased housing density and a housing crisis that is pushing more individuals into
shoebox homes.95 However, these issues are not unique to new dwellings in England. In
comparison to other European countries, the UK builds houses with the smallest average
floor space (76m2) and the smallest room size (15.8m2). This is nearly half the overall floor
space of Denmark, which recorded the highest floor space (137m2) and over half the room
size of Greece, which recorded 39.5(m2).96 The issue of space is most notorious within Y&H
where research has found homes to be the smallest in England when comparing the average
for three-bedroom properties. The average in Y&H recorded to be 84m2, 1.4m2 smaller than
the second smallest region the North East, and 24.5m2 smaller than the largest region,
London.97
3.4 After consideration of space standards in the national housing standards review, the
government introduced the new NDSS, these were made optional for local authorities to
include in their Local Plans. In the instance where a local authority wanted to include
planning policy that incorporated the NDSS, its need locally would have to be justified.
92 RIBA, The Case for Space 2011, pg 8. 93 Malcom Morgan and Heather Cruickshank, Quantifying the extent of space shortages: English dwellings
Building Research & Information 2014, pg 710. 94 RIBA (n 92) pg 13; Shelter, Chance of a Lifetime: The impact of bad housing on children’s lives 2006. 95 The Guardian, Shoebox Britain: How shrinking homes are affecting our health and happiness,
https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/10/shrinking-homes-affect-health-shoebox-britain accessed 11
October 2018. 96 Morgan (n 93) pg 711; RIBA (n 92) pg 10. 97 Planning & Building Control Today, The UK has the smallest homes in Europe, says new research,
https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/building-control-news/uk-smallest-homes-europe/32902/ accessed 30
January 2019.
74 | P a g e
3.5 In June 2019, the outgoing Prime Minster, The Rt Hon Theresa May MP delivered a
speech on the state of housing, and in particular new builds. The speech described how the
optional and regulation element of the standards has created a postcode lottery affect for
buyers across the country. The Prime Minster stated, “I cannot defend a system in which
some owners and tenants are forced to accept tiny homes with inadequate storage”98. Whilst
she acknowledged that it would be up to her successor in Downing Street to deal with the
issue, she stated, “I believe the next government should be bold enough to ensure the
Nationally Described Space Standard applies to all new homes”99. In response to potential
criticism of the approach from developers, the Prime Minster rejected “the argument that
such a change will make building less likely” and “in fact it will have the opposite effect […]
remove(ing) the commercial disincentive to develop sites in areas with stricter standards”100.
Whilst this speech is welcomed and supportive of the proposed policy, this evidence base will
be presented under the current framework of the NDSS being optional for local authorities.
3.6 The NDSS deals with internal space within new dwellings and is suitable for
application across all tenures and number of bedrooms. It sets out the requirements for the
Gross Internal (floor) Area of new dwellings at a defined level of occupancy as well as floor
areas and dimensions for key parts of the home, notably bedrooms, storage and floor to
ceiling height. The technical requirement standards require that:101
a) The dwelling provides at least the gross internal floor area and built-in storage area
(see Figure 60)
b) A dwelling with two or more bedspaces has at least one double (or twin) bedroom
c) In order to provide one bedspace, a single bedroom has a floor area of at least 7.5m2
and is at least 2.15m wide
d) In order to provide two bedspaces, a double (or twin bedroom) has a floor area of at
least 11.5m2
e) One double (or twin bedroom) is at least 2.75m wide and every other double (or twin)
bedroom is at least 2.55m wide
f) Any area with a headroom of less than 1.5m is not counted within the Gross Internal
Area unless used solely for storage (if the area under the stairs is to be used for
storage, assume a general floor area of 1m2 within the Gross Internal Area)
g) Any other area that is used solely for storage and has a headroom of 900-1500mm
(such as under eaves) is counted at 50% of its floor area, and any area lower than
900mm is not counted at all
h) A built-in wardrobe counts towards the Gross Internal Area and bedroom floor area
requirements, but should not reduce the effective width of the room below the
minimum widths set out above. The built-in area in excess of 0.72m2 in a double
98 The Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Prime Minster of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ‘PM’s Speech on
Housing’ (Speech at the Housing 2019 Conference, Manchester, 26 June 2019)
<https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-on-housing-26-june-2019> accessed 27 June 2019. 99 ibid. 100 ibid. 101 DCLG, Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard 2015, para 10.
75 | P a g e
bedroom and 0.36m2 in a single bedroom counts towards the built-in storage
requirement
i) The minimum floor to ceiling height is 2.3m for at least 75% of the Gross Internal
Area
Source: DCLG Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard
Figure 60: Minimum Gross Internal Floor Areas and Storage (m2) * Where a 1b1p has a shower room instead of a bathroom, the floor area may be reduced from 39m2 to 37m2, as shown
bracketed.
3.7 Current Local Planning Policy
3.7 Doncaster Council does not currently impose internal space standards through a
policy in the current Local Development Framework through either the UDP or the DPD.
However, despite this, guidance on space standards is provided through the South Yorkshire
Residential Design Guide SPD, this was adopted by the Council in 2015.
3.8 The SPD was designed to provide guidance to residential developers and their design
professionals, consultants and agents in formulating designs and making applications for
planning permission in South Yorkshire. Under the SPD, internal space standards were
produced after extensive research into standards in other local authorities. The standards set
out the minimum internal spaces for different aspects of a dwelling, across various dwellings
sizes.
76 | P a g e
Source: South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide SPD
Figure 61: South Yorkshire Internal Space Standards
3.9 When compared to the NDSS, the above standards meet or better the minimum
requirement for certain criteria, such as double bedroom area space, but fall short on other
criteria, such as single bedroom area space. The overall floor area per bedroom and
occupancy in general falls short of the NDSS which provides a more comprehensive
breakdown of bedroom and occupancy. Whilst the SPD provides guidance, its application
does not provide as much weighting towards planning decisions as policies included in a
Local Plan, or equivalent Planning Development Framework. Prior to the Housing Standards
review the Design Guide space standards were used to guide and assess the amount of space
provided in new developments. The operation and use of the standards was implemented
relatively informally but was successful in providing an indication of the minimum amount of
space required to be considered broadly acceptable.
3.10 Evidence Required
3.10 The NDSS can only be incorporated into planning policy where local authorities have
demonstrated a need in their area. To help with the process of establishing a need for internal
space standards the NPPG provides guidance on the areas local planning authorities should
take into account. These are:102
102 NPPG (n 30) para 020, Ref ID 56-020-20150327.
77 | P a g e
Need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently
being built in the area to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be
properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand
for starter homes.
Viability – the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of
a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger
dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider
impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.
Timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of
a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space
standards into future land acquisitions.
3.11 Evidence
3.11 The following section will present the evidence required to satisfy the NPPG. This is
presented under the same headings as stated in paragraph 20 of the NPPG.
3.12 Need
Survey
3.12 In order to evaluate the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, a
survey was undertaken by the planning team. To ensure that the survey represented the
current breakdown of new builds in Doncaster a sample amount of recent developments,
across different viability zones, was studied to determine the breakdown of property sizes
generally being delivered. The breakdown was then used as the base percentage for each size
of property (based on bedrooms) in the sample survey. The original target sample size for the
space standards survey was 250 dwellings. The breakdown of bedroom sized in the sample
recent developments was as follows:
Bedroom
Sizes
1 2 3 4 5+ Total
Total 41 421 826 415 30 1733
% 2.4 24.3 47.7 23.9 1.7 100
Using the above percentages, the breakdown of the sample survey was as follows:
Bedroom
Sizes
1 2 3 4 5+ Total
% 2.4 24.3 47.7 23.9 1.7 100
Total 6 61 119 60 4 250
78 | P a g e
3.13 It was decided that the current numbers to be surveyed for one bedroom and five and
above bedroom properties was too low. To ensure that the space standards survey better
reflected a more diverse building number the sample survey for those two property sizes was
increased. To ensure that the space standards took into account developments with different
viability pressures, the sample size also reflected a rough even distribution across the three
different viability zones (as extracted from the Viability Study 19 document and shown in
Appendix 2) which are also geographically spread around Doncaster.
3.14 A range of sites were then chosen to extract the information needed to complete the
survey. In total 47 sites were selected across the borough. These were mainly submitted and
delivered over the past five years but some older sites were selected to reach the number of
housing types required. The Council acknowledges that different housing developers will
approach housing space standards differently, and it could not be expected that smaller and
larger developers be consistent under current policy requirements. As such, the survey
sample reflected a range of different developers and development sizes ranging from sites
with a few units, to sites with over a hundred units, smaller independent developers to large
volume national housebuilders.
3.15 For each development, different house types were measured in accordance with the
bedroom size requirements stated above. With the increases to one and five bedroom
dwellings and trying to take into account the different site characteristics explained in
paragraph’s 3.12 and 3.13, this meant that the following was surveyed:
Bedroom
Sizes
1 2 3 4 5+ Total
% 6.9 20.7 35.0 33.3 4.1 100
Total 17 51 86 82 10 246103
3.16 Data from each site was taken from planning application documents. From this, each
individual house type could be identified and the number of bedrooms and intended number
of occupants could be identified from the relevant plans and the number of storeys recorded.
Each selected house type was measured using the submitted plans to determine the floor
space and width of each bedroom, gross internal floor area of the property and the floor space
of any designated storage space. This data was inputted into a spreadsheet, which was set up
to compare the sizes measured against the requirements in the NDSS. This allowed the
Council to analyse whether or not the proposed number of bedrooms was adequate based on
the actual measurements of the bedrooms, and whether or not the proposed floor plan and
storage space was adequate based on the number of intended habitants.
3.17 For the purposes of the survey, the lowest number of occupants attributed to the house
storey, size and number of bedrooms from the NDSS was used. This was because that despite
103 The total number of dwellings surveyed was lower than the intended 250, due to restrictions on some of the
plans that did not allow for adequate measurements.
79 | P a g e
some plans outlining a single or double bed in a bedroom (and therefore one or two person
for that bedroom) it is impossible to determine how many people will actually make up that
household.
3.18 Out of the 246 homes surveyed:104
Only 23 met the full requirements of the NDSS when using the standards required
for the proposed number of bedrooms on the plan. 7 (30.4 percent) were two beds,
10 (43.5 percent) were three beds, 4 (17.4 percent) were four beds, and 2 (8.7
percent) were five beds. When this was broken down into the different reasons
why plans failed:
142 (57.7 percent) met the size requirements for their proposed number of
bedrooms;
133 (60.7 percent) of the 219 two or more bedroom properties had at least one
room of double bedroom standard. Out of the 86 that did not, 10 should only be
classified as a one bedroom property.
54 (22 percent) met the space requirements for storage based on their proposed
number of bedrooms. This number only increases to 58 (23.6 percent) if the space
requirements for storage was based on the number of actual bedrooms according to
the measurements.
201 (81.7 percent) met the gross internal floor area based on their proposed
number of bedrooms. This number increases to 225 (91.5 percent) if the gross
internal floor measured was based on the number of actual bedrooms according to
the measurements.
3.19 Further analysis was undertaken to establish how close homes that missed the NDSS
figures around storage space and floor area were to the standard. This was based around the
properties required space for each criteria according to the number of proposed bedrooms in
that property. It found that:
To hit the minimum storage space requirement: 7 houses were up to 10 percent
away from hitting the standard; 45 houses were up to 25 percent away; and 117
were up to 50 percent away. 54 houses were more than 50 percent away from
hitting the standard.
To hit the minimum internal floor space requirement: 14 houses were up to 5
percent away from hitting the standard; 25 were up to 10 percent away; 43 were
up to 25 percent away; and 45 were up to 32 percent away.
3.20 The above analysis highlights that currently just under half of the surveyed properties
failed to make all stated bedrooms the adequate size, enough to be classified as a bedroom.
As such the survey found that an overwhelming amount of properties advertised as a
particular size actually only had the bedroom space capacity for one bedroom less, so a three
bedroom would most likely be a two bedroom house due to the size of the final bedroom.
104 A simplified version of the spreadsheet is available in Appendix 3.
80 | P a g e
3.21 When looking at the internal storage space the vast majority of plans analysed fell
short, with 30 not providing any at all. Even when the storage space provided was assessed
against the actual number of bedrooms according to their sizes, which as outlined above
normally meant there was less bedrooms and therefore a lower standard to hit, the majority
still do not meet the NDSS requirements. Storage space was the most common reason as to
why houses did not meet the NDSS.
3.22 The majority of plans assessed did meet the gross internal floor area based on the
number of bedrooms proposed. This increased if the plans were assessed based on the
number of actual bedrooms in the dwelling that met the NDSS.
3.23 When the results for each of the space requirements in the NDSS are considered
holistically it is clear that the majority of dwellings fail on their current storage space and
bedroom standards. The issue was not normally down to the actual floor area of the dwelling,
indicating that increases in plot size would not be a significant issue if the standards were
implemented in Doncaster. What this highlights is that dwellings recently built in Doncaster
could have been compliant with the NDSS if the internal designs of the properties were
adjusted to ensure appropriate internal storage space and that all bedrooms were of a decent
standard.
Density
3.24 As discussed earlier at Paragraph 2.77, the emerging Local Plan aims to deliver at
least 920 (net) new homes each year over the plan period. This housing target for the borough
is higher than the standard methodology minimum and accompanies the economic aspirations
of the Council. The Council’s Inclusive Growth Strategy 2018-2021 indicates that under the
current ‘business as usual’ model there will be an additional 13,000 net new jobs over the
next 15 years. However, given the full package of the Strategy the ambition is to achieve a
higher than the usual jobs growth rate which would add a further 13,000 jobs.105 Therefore
meeting this pressing need for housing that will result from economic growth in Doncaster
must be done in a way that makes it a pleasant, high quality place to live and work. This is
reiterated within the Inclusive Growth Strategy, as part of the quality of life inclusive growth
driver is the need for quality homes.106 This will accompany the increase in jobs to make
Doncaster an attractive place to work and live. Ensuring adequate space is a key part of
ensuring the long term sustainability of Doncaster, particularly if families are to be
accommodated as part of the economic growth aspirations of the borough.
3.25 One of the challenges that faces such high housing targets is around increased
densities within the area. As the population and land scarcity increases, densification will
slowly become the norm for expanding places such as Doncaster. Densification can yield
certain benefits, which considering the Green Belt and Flood Zone issues within Doncaster
105 Doncaster Inclusive Growth Strategy 2018-2021, pg 26. 106 ibid, pg 36.
81 | P a g e
could become increasingly important. The New Climate Economy 2018 report of the Global
Commission on the Economy and Climate puts forward some of the benefits of densification,
especially in emerging towns and cities. These are notoriously around avoiding the high costs
of sprawl, including congestion, CO2 emissions, air pollution, traffic accidents, and the
increased investments needed to extend critical infrastructure to more dispersed
populations.107 The NPPF also reiterates that planning decisions should avoid homes being
built at low densities.108 As consideration is increasingly made for sustainability in the face of
ever-critical climate change predictions, high housing targets will be pushed towards this
approach. However, without adequate quality control densification could produce profound
negative consequences.
3.26 A report into the history of space standards by Julia Park argues that if success is only
measured in numbers, smaller and cheaper housing will always win.109 It is reasonable to
presume that the high housing targets put forward in the emerging Local Plan could lead to
some developers taking this approach. However, floor space minimums ensure that quality is
not sacrificed in order to achieve other policy priorities such as housing targets.110 The New
Climate Economy Report reiterates the point that densification can only be considered a
success if the compactness does not impact upon the quality of life for all groups but most
importantly lower-income residents.111 Adopting the NDSS can help provide this safeguard
by helping promote sustainable and high quality developments.
3.27 As argued by Julia Park, floor space minimums can help ensure quality is not
scarified as a result of building as much housing as developmentally possible on sites. Doing
so not only ensures that there is attractive and liveable housing but also reduces risks to
developers. Using the space standards survey discussed earlier, current new builds in
Doncaster are more often than not big enough to meet the NDSS for gross internal floor area
based on the number of proposed bedrooms. It would therefore be illogical in the context of
Doncaster to argue that the Plans higher than minimum housing target and borough’s
ambitious jobs growth can only be achieved by increasing housing density on sites and
therefore incompatible with the objectives of the NDSS. In contrast applying the NDSS to
Doncaster will provide high quality new builds and in turn the local housing market will
stabilise to reflect this and become more sustainable. Reducing quality for higher density will
also risk the notion of ‘cramming’ new homes onto sites, negatively affecting such properties
to have limited utility and therefore only suited for a narrower market.112 In turn this may
deter buyers, who may find it difficult to sell on in the future, especially as other local
authorities apply the NDSS to their area. Consequently, this could restrict the number of
people moving to Doncaster despite the jobs growth in the area; meaning lost economic
opportunity for our local communities and increased unnecessary travel from other areas not
107 The New Climate Economy, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st Century: Accelerating Climate
Action in Urgent Times 2018, pg 74. 108 NPPF 2019 (n 1) para 123. 109 Julia Park, One Hundred Years of Housing Space Standards: What Now? 2017, pg 74. 110 UCL and CABE, Space Standards: The Benefits 2010, pg 11. 111 The New Climate Economy (n 107). 112 CABE (n 110) pg 12.
82 | P a g e
in the borough as people decide not to relocate to Doncaster. This creates the potential for
lower sales and empty new builds and is therefore an increased risk for developers.
Ventilation and Climate Change
3.28 It is also important to ensure that new developments have access to adequate natural
light and ventilation. According to a report produced by University College London for the
Chartered Association of Building Engineers (CABE)113 having more space in homes helps
improve day light and ventilation.114 The NDSS requires all new dwellings to have a
minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.3m for at least 75 percent of the Gross Internal Area.
Having such minimum quality control standards is significantly important for high density
dwellings.
3.29 Adequate ventilation is particularly important given the current trend of climatic
projections for Doncaster. In 2018 the Met Office released the most up-to-date assessment of
how the climate of the UK may change over the 21st century. The UK Climate projections
2018 (UKCP18) was an update from their 2009 predictions. The raw data available on the
Met Office UKCP User Interface allows for various projections of different climatic
indicators to be analysed at different geographical levels. For the purposes of presenting the
specific potential impact of climate change, in relation to needing adequate ventilation in new
builds, the mean air temperature predictions for Doncaster was analysed.
3.30 Figure 62 below shows the change in annual mean air temperature for probabilistic
projections. The data did not allow for the whole of the Doncaster Council geographical area
to be selected so Doncaster town centre was pin pointed instead. The graph is broken down
into four different future scenarios, with each scenario showing the temperature based on
different percentage presumptions. For example, T10 indicates that there is a 10 percent
probability of the temperature its associated with being less than that, T50 equates to 50
percent probability, T90 to 90 percent probability. Therefore, T50 can be considered as the
average mean air temperature for that scenario at the stage, as it shows the temperature where
it is just as likely for it to be less than that, as it is actually to be higher than that temperature.
The different scenarios are explained below:
RCP 2.6 = A future scenario where greenhouse gas emissions are strongly
reduced. Best estimate global temperature rise of 1.6 deg C by 2100;
RCP 4.5 = A future scenario with medium level of greenhouse gas reduction. Best
estimate global temperature rise of 2.4 deg C by 2100;
RCP 6.0 = A future scenario with medium level of greenhouse reduction. Best
estimate global temperature rise of 2.8 deg C by 2100;
RCP 8.5 = A future scenario where greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow
unmitigated. Best estimate global temperature rise of 4.3 deg C by 2100.
113 Hereby known as the CABE Report. 114 CABE (n 110) pg 7.
83 | P a g e
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2020s 2030s 2040s 2050s 2060s 2070s 2080s
Change in T
em
pera
ture
(D
egre
es C
)
RCP 2.6 T50 RCP 2.6 T10 RCP 2.6 T90 RCP 4.5 T50 RCP 4.5 T10 RCP 4.5 T90
RCP 6.0 T50 RCP 6.0 T10 RCP 6.0 T90 RCP 8.5 T50 RCP 8.5 T10 RCP 8.5 T90
For contextual purposes of the likely future scenario, the Paris Agreement signed in 2016
commits all Parties, including the UK, to try attempt to keeping a global temperature rise this
century below 2 deg C. However, even if we take action on emissions soon, instituting
immediately all of the commitments made in the Paris accords, we are still likely to get an
average of 3.2 deg C of global warming by 2100.115
Source: Met Office UKCP18 PDF/CDF for Probabilistic Projections (25km) over UK, 1961-2100
Figure 62: Annual Mean Change Projections in Air Temperature in Doncaster
3.31 As can be seen, under current projections Doncaster, much like the rest of the UK and
the globe, is expected to see a considerable annual mean increase in air temperature. If we
used the T50 result for RCP 6.0, which under current greenhouse gas emissions reduction is a
very likely scenario, the temperature could increase by 1.0 deg C by the 2030s, 1.5 deg C by
the 2050’s and 2.4 deg C by the 2080s. Using the RCP 6.0 T50 scenario, the UKCP18
predicts that this temperature increase could be as high as 3.1 deg C by the 2080s in the
summer months.
3.32 The effects of climate change are already being felt in Doncaster. In 2018 it was
reported that there was a considerable surge in A&E visitors as the summer heatwave griped
115 David Wallace-Wells, The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story of the Future 2019, pg 11; Laurie Laybourn-
Langton, Lesley Rankin and Darren Baxter, This is a Crisis: Facing up to the Age of Environment Breakdown
Initial Report IPPR 2019, pg 7.
84 | P a g e
the borough; respiratory issues in particular soared.116 These temperature increases are a
direct consequence of climate change with the Met Office stating that human-induced climate
change made the 2018 record-breaking UK summer temperatures about 30 times more likely
than it would be naturally.117 Therefore the predictions in Figure 62 would only exacerbate
this phenomenon. Higher density areas will also contribute to the problem through the urban
heat island effect.118 Without adequate ventilation within new dwellings, households will rely
on electrical adaptations such as air-conditioning. This is particularly prevalent in higher
density areas where there is increased noise pollution or concerns around safety, as
households become reluctant to simply open a window to reduce internal heat.119 In turn this
contributes to the urban heat island effect and overall greenhouse gas emissions, which then
makes people increase their usage of air-conditioning and so on.
3.33 The minimum ceiling heights prescribed within the NDSS are therefore important and
needed to ensure high quality new builds, especially in higher density developments, as well
as protecting the health and well-being of residents in Doncaster. This is especially important
in the context of Doncaster’s population demographics. The extent to which individuals are
impacted by climate change and heat waves can be broken down into: exposure to the impact;
sensitivity to the impact; and capability of adapting to the impact. It is therefore
acknowledged that older people and those with mobility issues will be disadvantaged and at
risk the most.120 As demonstrated earlier, it is projected that Doncaster’s population over 65
will increase by 19,900 people by 2035. High ceilings are therefore important to address
overheating and ensure adequate ventilation,121 and climate change adaptation to help combat
the effects felt of the predicted increased temperature in Doncaster.
Occupancy of Dwellings
3.34 According to Julia Park one of the most compelling arguments for space standards is
that it could lead us to live more efficiently.122 This is important under the context of climate
change in Doncaster as provided above. Under-occupancy of current dwellings is a
significant indicator of the lack of space within a property. When pressed on the number of
bedrooms in new housing, developers acknowledged that a large proportion of second, third
and fourth bedrooms are unlikely to be in regular use123 and therefore their size is
116 Doncaster Free Press, Surge in A&E visitors as heatwave grips Doncaster
<https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/surge-in-a-e-visitors-as-heatwave-grips-doncaster-1-9299525>
accessed 20 February 2019. 117 Met Office, Change of summer heatwaves now thirty times more likely
<https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2018/2018-uk-summer-
heatwave> accessed 20 February 2019. 118 The urban heat island effect is created by the thermal mass within a high density area through roads and
buildings. Heat is absorbed into these structures and then slowly released; this keeps the temperature higher than
what it would be otherwise. 119 Kevin Lomas and Stephen Porritt, Overheating in Buildings: Lessons from Research 2017, pg 3. 120 Living with Environmental Change, Heath Climate Change Impacts: Report card 2015
<https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/health/> accessed 20 February 2019, pg 2. 121 Lomas (n 119). 122 Park (n 109) pg 72. 123 ibid.
85 | P a g e
inconsequential. As will be presented below this can be said to be true of the housing market
in Doncaster, which helps produce a market driven cycle of under-occupancy. When this is
accompanied alongside inadequate storage space, as highlighted in the Doncaster space size
survey, households require spare bedrooms just to be comfortable. This, as Julia Park puts it,
is a hugely inefficient way to live.
Bedrooms
Occupancy
Rating
Doncaster Barnsley Rotherham Sheffield SCR Y&H
+2 or more 47,959
(38%)
35,458
(35%)
39,889
(37%)
78,341
(34%)
281,079
(37%)
784,372
(35%)
+1 47,127
(37%)
40,924
(41%)
41,052 (38
%)
78,912
(34%)
284,508
(37%)
819,567
(37%)
0 27,337
(22%)
21,972
(22%)
24,040
(22%)
61,797
(27%)
176,082
(23%)
540,936
24%)
-1 3,520 (3%) 2,171
(2%)
2,801 (3%) 9,209
(4%)
21,494
(3%)
68,264
(3%)
-2 or less 544 (0%) 209 (0%) 511 (0%) 1,669
(1%)
3,357
(0%)
10,920
(0%)
Total 126,487 100,734 108,293 229,928 766,520 2,224,059
Source: 2011 Census (Data Extracted from the 2015 Doncaster Housing Needs Survey)
Figure 63: Bedroom Occupancy Rating
3.35 In comparison to other areas, there is a higher case of extreme under-occupancy in
Doncaster with 38 percent of households having two or more unused bedrooms. By applying
the NDSS to Doncaster, it seems highly plausible that any increased storage space and
bedroom standards in general would help reduce the inclination to accumulate bedrooms in
such a manner. This in turn would encourage people to downsize properties as they get older
or children move away from home, without necessarily the need to sacrifice internal storage
or space. This would free up existing stock within Doncaster, creating a more efficient
housing market.
Storage
3.36 As demonstrated during the sample survey, current new builds in Doncaster have
inadequate storage space in comparison to the minimum requirements set out in the NDSS.
Inadequate internal storage space has consequential effects on the layout of developments
and the quality of the external residential environment. Insufficient internal space and storage
space increases the pressure for residents to utilise alternative spaces for the storage of large
amounts of household items associated with modern life. In addition to utilising the 'spare
bedroom' and therefore under-occupying dwellings as discussed above for storage, this can
often lead to garages not being used for the designed intended purposes of vehicle and cycle
storage. This can force vehicles to park outside on street or pavements close to the property
resulting in car dominated street scenes and restricting the usability of footpaths and utility of
86 | P a g e
the public highway. A lack of space for cycles can discourage their ownership and use, with
negative consequences for public health and sustainable travel.
Overcrowding
3.37 Inadequate space standards and storage can have a negative impact upon individuals’
health and well-being, as well as educational attainment and anti-social behaviour. Various
reports have tried to outline these and some can be applied to contextual information for
Doncaster. The lack of space in dwellings can lead to those who cannot afford to under-
occupy to live in overcrowded conditions. As shown with the bedroom occupancy rating,
overcrowding is not a specific problem in Doncaster per say, however the HNS calculated
that 3,734 out of 129,818 households (2.9 percent) were in over-crowded housing in
Doncaster using the ‘bedroom standard’ model.124 As well as dealing with current housing
quality issues, the NDSS will help prevent a future reduction of market standards and
therefore quality as described in paragraph 3.26. As such analysing issues associated with
overcrowding is important for evaluating the need for the standards in Doncaster.
Education
3.38 According to both the CABE report and the RIBA report, overcrowding and poor
housing conditions result in educational underachievement, with less space for private
study.125 This was supported in a report produced by Shelter which states that overcrowding
causes reading and homework to be more difficult and consequently cause harm to a child’s
education.126 Applying this to specific cases in Doncaster is not possible, however the
average attainment 8 score for Doncaster can be compared to the regional and national
average to determine whether education is an issue for the borough. The average attainment 8
score measures the average achievement of pupils in up to eight qualifications at GCSE level
with points allocated according to grades.
124 HNS (n 46) pg 70. 125 CABE (n 110) pg 7; RIBA (n 92) pg 13. 126 Shelter, Full House? Overcrowded Housing Affects Families 2005, pg 21.
87 | P a g e
Source: Department for Education (Data Extracted from Local Government Association LG Inform)
Figure 64: Average Attainment 8 Scores over the last four Academic Years
3.39 Over the past few years, the average attainment 8 scores have been falling, with the
exception of a slight increase in 2018/19, with Doncaster consistently performing worse than
regional and national averages. This indicates that educational attainment up to KS4 is below
average in Doncaster. Because the score is an average for the borough, it cannot be compared
to dwellings with low space standards. However, due to the area’s evidenced low educational
achievement rates supporting influencing factors to education, such as adequate space for
children amongst the home should be pursued.
Health and Well-being
3.40 Adequate space standards also helps promote general health and well-being. BRE
published a briefing paper into the Cost of Poor Housing to the NHS in 2015. Using data
from the EHS and a cost analysis model, BRE estimated that overcrowding cost the NHS
£21,815,546 per year. The Shelter report into overcrowding also found negative impacts on
health, in particular overcrowding contributing to mental health related issues, disturbed
sleep, accidents around the home, and the risk of illness spreading quicker. Whilst there is no
data to apply this specifically to Doncaster, promoting the health and well-being of the
citizens within the borough is a high policy priority for the Council. Figures 33 and 34
showed the health and living environment deprivation domain’s across Doncaster. Reducing
overcrowding and the subsequent impacts on the health service outlined in the BRE and
Shelter reports will help ensure those deprivation domains levels are reduced.
Houses in Multiple Occupation
3.41 The emergence of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Doncaster highlights an
indirect need for space standards in the borough. HMOs are dwellings that have been
changed to allow numerous occupants to normally rent rooms and share communal facilities.
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Doncaster SCR Y&H England
88 | P a g e
These are typically houses where the individual bedrooms are rented. There must be a
consideration that houses built during the plan period could therefore be used as a HMO at
some point in the future. It is therefore important to ensure that bedrooms in particular are of
adequate size to prevent overcrowding and to allow those individuals to have a good standard
of living.
3.42 From 1st October 2018, HMOs licensed in England under part 2 of the Housing Act
2004 are bound by space conditions. These were introduced by the Licensing of Houses in
Multiple Occupation (Mandatory Conditions of Licenses) Regulations 2018, which states the
minimum that the floor area of any rooms in a HMO used as sleeping accommodation can be.
In comparison to the NDSS, the conditions required through the HMO regulation are smaller.
This means that through applying the NDSS to all new dwellings, those built after adoption
would be adequate enough to meet the bedroom size requirements if they were converted to a
HMO at a later date and required a license.
3.43 By introducing the NDSS, it would also mean that any new dwellings that was
converted to a HMO that did not require a licence, and therefore was not legally bound by the
conditions set out in the HMO regulation, would have adequate floor area sizes, which would
reduce the prevalence of overcrowding and unsafe occupation. The Council’s Enforcement
Team has found that a large proportion of the small non-licensable HMOs that they visit are
usually too small for safe occupation and/or are overcrowded. This has resulted in a
substantial increase in concerns raised by residents in respect of over occupation,
overcrowding and anti-social behaviour resulting from cramped housing conditions.127 By
application of the NDSS to new builds in the borough, any future use of the dwellings for the
purposes of becoming a HMO would ensure that there is adequate space for the occupants
regardless of if they required a license or not. Doing so is important for the future concerns of
HMOs and their impacts on those living in them and their surrounding communities.
Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings
3.44 The NDSS are also closely linked to the accessibility and adaptability of dwellings
and therefore highly relevant to the work undertaken in section 2 of this report. The
Government’s Housing Standards Review Consultation Implementation Impact Assessment
considered the findings from the EC Harris report. EC Harris estimated the process costs
associated with the accessibility standards commented upon earlier. They found that
significant savings in process cost would occur due to the link between accessibility and
space standards.128 The gross internal area specifications required in the NDSS would be
adequate for the M4(2) optional building regulations and as such the introduction of both
policies alongside each other will reduce development costs. It is acknowledged that the
127 Doncaster Council, Additional Licensing and Article 4 Direction Consultation Document 2017, pg 4. 128 DCLG, Housing Standards Review Consultation: Impact Assessment, para 126.
89 | P a g e
specifications would not be adequate enough for the M4(3) wheelchair adaptable optional
building regulation.129
3.45 The CABE report outlines adaptability as one of the key benefits of space
standards.130 This as the report acknowledges, is because larger floor spaces are inherently
more adaptable and offer greater potential for rearrangement.131 Additional space for storage
also makes for a less cluttered living space, which makes homes better suited to people with
mobility impairment. All of which ensures that new housing is sustainable and can meet the
changing demands of its residents: homes will become future proof. In the context of
Doncaster, this is extremely important due to the evidence provided in section 2 of this
report.
3.46 Space is also a key consideration for older people, one of the biggest emerging
demographics in Doncaster. The HAPPI principles for the design of new retirement homes
states that ventilation, generous internal space standards and homes designed to new
technologies can be readily installed are key to meet older people’s housing need.132 Whilst
this is targeted towards retirement homes, the emergence of older people wanting to live at
home independently means that the principles become important for the development of all
new market dwellings.
Summary
3.47 The purpose of this section has been to highlight the need for the NDSS policy in the
emerging Local Plan. Currently, on average new dwellings built in the UK and in particular
Y&H are significantly smaller than developments in Europe despite similar issues and
restrictions.
3.48 By undertaking a sample survey of current new dwellings and their floor plans only
23 out of 246 dwellings would meet the NDSS as proposed. 201 out of the 246 plans assessed
met the gross internal floor area based on their proposed number of bedrooms. Plans were
more likely to fail against the NDSS based on storage space or bedroom size, highlighting an
internal design issue as opposed to dwelling plot size.
3.49 The Plan’s approach is to adopt a higher housing target per annum than needed as per
the standard methodology. As a result, one argument against applying the NDSS is that in
doing so housing densities, and therefore the housing target would be affected. However,
research indicates that for densification to prove successful it needs to be matched by high
quality homes. In any case, the Council’s sample survey shows that individual housing plots
need not be increased to hit the NDSS, but the internal design of housing types be adapted to
meet the NDSS.
129 DCLG (n 101) para 9. 130 CABE (n 110) pg 9. 131 ibid. 132 Policy Exchange (n 58) pg 32.
90 | P a g e
3.50 The NDSS produces a minimum standard for ceiling height in each dwelling. Ceiling
height is an important factor for adequate ventilation, which is important considering the
future impact of climate change and the urban heat island effect that increased housing
brings. In Doncaster, it is predicted that under current emission reduction targets the borough
would be on average 2.4 deg C warmer, and 3.1 deg C warmer in summer months by 2080.
3.51 In Doncaster there is a high rate of under-occupancy with 38 percent of households
having two or more unused bedrooms. Applying the NDSS would allow adequate storage
space and all bedrooms to be of habitable size. This means households could buy properties
intended for their household composition, without the risk of a lack of storage space and
therefore having to use spare bedrooms, garages or general living space.
3.52 Overcrowding of dwellings that can occur from lack of appropriate space for intended
households in a property has certain negative impacts. Overcrowding can have implications
for education, health and the usage of HMOs. In Doncaster the average attainment 8 score
has declined in recent years and is below the regional and national averages. The borough
also experiences high levels of health and living environment deprivation. HMOs can
produce overcrowded and dangerous accommodations that have been commented upon by
Council officers.
3.53 It is recognised by the Government that the NDSS are inherently linked with
adaptable and accessible dwellings, with larger floor spaces easier to adapt. The size
requirements in the NDSS are also adequate enough to meet the requirements in the M4(2)
optional building regulation.
91 | P a g e
3.54 Viability
3.54 The NPPF requires the planning system to take account of development viability
when deciding planning applications and preparing the Local Plan. As such sites identified in
the plan must be deliverable by avoiding a scale of policy requirements that together risks
their ability to be developed.
Viability Testing
3.55 As well as considering the optional building regulations analysed earlier on in this
report, the Government’s Final Implementation Impact Assessment of the Housing Standards
Review and the EC Harris Cost Impact Study that it was supported by analysed the NDSS.
The Tables below have been taken by the EC Harris study and show the cost implications per
additional m2 of introducing the NDSS.
Source: DCLG and EC Harris Housing Standards Review: Cost Impacts 2014
Figure 65: Cost Impact of Nationally Described Space Standards
92 | P a g e
3.56 The council’s Viability Study 16, tested the policy requirement of all new buildings
be built to the NDSS. Due to the time elapsed since the original testing and the subsequent
changes in building costs since then, an updated assessment was conducted in 2019 to
evaluate whether anything has changed since.
3.57 Using the space requirements for the different dwelling size scenarios in the NDSS,
the original Viability Study 16 adopted a higher average house size than normally considered
as part of a Local Plan viability study.133 This was applied to all dwellings across the different
type of sites assessed. The Viability Study concluded that under the different scenario tests,
the application of the NDSS to all dwellings had an insignificant impact on the viability of
schemes.134 The Viability Study 19 incorporated the same house size presumptions as the
Viability Study 16 and found again, that the standard had an insignificant impact on the
viability of schemes.135
3.58 As mentioned in paragraph 3.23, the majority of the dwellings assessed as part of the
space standards survey met the required gross internal floor area for the number of proposed
bedrooms and storeys on the plan. When this is assessed concerning viability, this means that
the majority of the dwellings did not need to be bigger, and therefore the costs associated
with additional space in Figure 65 have no impact. Instead, the internal design of the dwelling
means that either inadequate storage space or bedroom size for all dwellings resulted in many
developments failing across all criteria of the NDSS. To combat this design team costs
associated with internal re-design may be incurred by developers, but these are likely to be
relatively insignificant and for the case of standard house designs a one off process which can
therefore be used throughout the country.
3.59 Using the EC Harris Impact Assessment Report, the potential costs revolving around
developing designs and checking compliance with the standard has been considered. It is
these costs that the majority of dwelling plans surveyed would have to undertake to become
complaint with the NDSS. The EC Harris Report breaks down the predicted cost by
development size, estimating costs per dwelling type normally associated with a development
of that size and then costs per dwelling.
133 DVS (n 71) pg 29. 134 ibid pg 71. 135 CP Viability Ltd (n 72) 138.
93 | P a g e
Source: DCLG and EC Harris Housing Standards Review: Cost Impacts 2014
Figure 66: Design Team Costs per Development Size
3.60 As can be seen, the estimated design costs per dwelling is small, especially when
evaluated against the additional space costs in Figure 65. In fact, the design costs may be
even lower when applied by national or regional developers. As more local authorities adopt
the NDSS, developers have to adopt dwelling type designs that incorporate the specific
standards required. The general layout of these dwellings can therefore be applied to
developments in other local authorities as and when they also adopt the standards.
Affordability
3.61 There has to be some consideration taken for the impact of applying the NDSS to new
dwellings on affordability. The affordability of housing in the borough was considered in the
most recent HNS. In terms of relative affordability, Doncaster is the seventh most affordable
local authority out of the thirteen areas listed in the HNS. Similarly, in terms of relative
affordability based on median prices, Doncaster is the fifth most affordable local authority
area.136 The Viability Report 19 concluded that the affordability of housing in Doncaster
136 HNS (n 46), pg 30.
94 | P a g e
relative to other locations in South Yorkshire meant buyers are likely to be able to afford
larger dwellings for their money.137
3.62 When considering how the NDSS would influence the affordability of housing
mentioned above, it is important to consider how close the current new builds are to meeting
the standard. This can be split into three different categories:
Those meeting the requirements of the NDSS;
Those meeting the gross internal floor area of the NDSS but failing on at least one
of the other requirements; and
Those failing to meet the gross internal floor area of the NDSS.
For those developments already hitting the NDSS across all of its requirements, there would
be no additional cost incurred and subsequently no increase in affordability for buyers. For
those developments that are meeting the minimum NDSS requirements for the gross internal
floor area despite not meeting the requirements for storage space and/or bedroom sizes, they
would incur a small increase in cost. As explained in paragraphs 3.56-3.58, additional plot
size will not be required for these developments to meet the NDSS, and any cost would be
associated with design. On medium and large developments this would only account to an
estimated £8/dwelling, and on small developments £36/development. This should result in no
impact to affordability for buyers.
3.63 A minority of developments fall into the third category explored (45 out of 246
dwellings surveyed). These are plots where there would need to be an increase in space and
subsequently additional space costs would be incurred. When analysing Figure 64, a three
bed that required an additional 3m2 would cost a developer £381 after space cost recovery.
The space cost recovery is based on the presumption of 80 percent of the sales cost would be
recovered through sales value. This would mean a value increase of £1,515 passed on to the
buyer. Given that new build three bedroom semi-detached properties in Doncaster are
generally likely to be sold between £102,995 and £174,999138, a figure of £1,515 represents a
very small increase; 1.47 percent - 0.87 percent. Also by purchasing a property that is more
inherently flexible and appealing to the market due to meeting the NDSS, an owner may be
prepared to offset the marginal cost increase in some case cases for increased saleability.
3.64 For those developments that require a bigger increase in space area there would
inevitably be a greater impact upon affordability. According to the EC Harris report, the
space cost recovery decreases to 60 percent as the area change increases to 10m2 required. If
an assumption of an 80 percent space cost recovery was considered, this would mean a value
increase of £5,056 passed on to the buyer. Using the same house values presented above, this
would represent an increase of 4.9 percent – 2.89 percent. This would still produce a small,
although slightly more significant increase to affordability. The dwelling that fell shortest
against the NDSS, would require an additional 23.65m2. Doing so would affect affordability
137 CP Viability Ltd (n 72) 58. 138 Based on Rightmove listings in Doncaster on 25/02/2019.
95 | P a g e
significantly, especially compared to the sites 10m2 or smaller away. There was only two
dwelling types that measured over 20m2 away from the NDSS area required, with the
majority of the 45 dwelling types surveyed that failed to meet the NDSS gross internal floor
areas being below 10m2 away.
3.65 When considering the link between space standards and affordability, Shelter argued
that weakening space standards would not necessarily make homes cheaper anyway, just
smaller. Shelter argued that house prices are set by sky-high demand for homes in the right
location and therefore building smaller would simply mean buyers get less for their money139
as they will still be bound by high costs due to location. According to the HNS, the Lower
Quartile price paid in Doncaster fluctuates drastically by ward and even LSOA and therefore
follows the location argument presented by Shelter. Figure 67, extracted from the HNS,
shows that the Lowest Quartile price paid varies from below £50,000 to above £166,000.
Source: Housing Needs Survey
Figure 67: Lower Quartile House Prices 2017 by LSOA
3.66 Building new dwellings to the NDSS may also change the reasons behind why
households buy certain properties, and thus allow the opportunity to buy houses with less
bedrooms which would notoriously be more affordable. According to Julia Park, there is a
tendency to measure social standing by how many bedrooms we have which is reinforced by
the way that homes are currently valued for mortgage purposes.140 As explained in
paragraphs 3.34-3.36, developers acknowledge that in many circumstances the final bedroom
in a house is not used for living purposes, and in Doncaster under-occupancy of dwellings is
139 Shelter, Weakening Space Standards won’t make Homes Cheaper – Just Smaller
<https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2017/01/weakening-space-standards-wont-make-homes-cheaper-just-smaller/>
accessed 7 February 2019. 140 Park (n 109) 72.
96 | P a g e
common. The NDSS will help provide adequate storage to new builds, meaning less cluttered
rooms and potential reducing the need for an extra bedroom. According to the HNS, many
households in Doncaster aspire to have less number of bedrooms.
Number of Bedrooms Demographic
Baseline (%)
Aspiration (%) Expectation (%)
1 8.3 22.4 5.6
2 19.4 37.6 44.8
3 52.6 46.1 42.2
4 19.7 -6.1 7.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Housing Needs Study
Figure 68: Dwelling Size Scenario
3.67 In turn this would allow households the option to buy a new dwelling with the number
of bedrooms they need to occupy their household size, knowing there is adequate storage space
provided. Buying dwellings with less bedrooms than households may have previously had to
buy would reduce the amount households are spending on buying their own property, allowing
people to get more for their money.
Summary
3.68 The above section considers the impact on viability by the introduction of the NDSS.
3.69 The Council’s commissioned Viability Study considered the policy position of 100
percent of all new dwellings been built to the NDSS. Under different sensitivity analysis this
was found to pose no viability issues. A new Viability Study is currently being commissioned
and will consider the same percentage of new dwellings for the policy requirement.
3.70 The impact on affordability would differ depending on how far the current design is
off the standard. In Doncaster, the sample survey indicated the vast majority of dwellings
would only need internal design changes to meet the NDSS, and thus there would be non-to
little extra cost incurred by the developer or buyer. Dwellings that were found to require an
additional 3m2 to meet the NDSS floor area plan would potentially increase house prices by
0.87 percent – 1.47 percent, whilst dwellings found to require an additional 10m2 would
potentially increase house prices by 2.89 percent – 4.9 percent. Whilst affordability impacts
in Doncaster depends on how much floor space would be required, the vast majority did not
need additional space and those that did, did not require much.
3.71 The benefit of increased storage space and bigger sized bedrooms could allow some
households to buy a house with a bedroom less than they would original look for. This would
match the size aspirations of Doncaster residents with houses with less bedrooms which
typically cost less on the open market.
97 | P a g e
3.72 Timing
3.72 As explained in the NPPG, there may need to be a reasonable transitional period
following adoption of the NDSS to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards
into future land acquisitions.141 The NPPF states that local authorities may give weight to
relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of the emerging plan, the extent to
which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency of
the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the NPPF.142
3.73 The emerging Local Plan is still to be formally submitted and examined during
inspection. As such, the policy in question does not hold any formal weighting at the time of
this evidence base. However, the Council’s decision to produce the evidence required to
adopt the optional NDSS has been made clear to the development industry with the inclusion
of the policy during an informal Local Plan consultation. This consultation took place in
autumn 2018, and included the requirement for all new dwellings to be built to the NDSS.
Consultation responses were recorded from the Home Builders Federation and developers
highlighting their acknowledgment of the policy.
3.74 The space standards survey evaluated above shows that the majority of new builds in
Doncaster already meet the gross internal space standard required for the number of
bedrooms proposed on its plan. The reason a development was more likely to fall short of the
NDSS was storage space or bedroom size, showing that the internal design of the internal
floor area would need to be improved. As such, it is felt that the introduction of the standards
would not reduce housing densities upon sites and have little to no impact on land
acquisitions due to the minimal design costs required to ensure the NDSS is met. This is felt
to be appropriate considering that other local authorities are adopting the standard as part of
their Local Plans. Designs used by developers in other authorities to meet their NDSS
requirement can be transferable across local authorities. This is recognised in the NPPG,
where it states that planning authorities should accept evidence from either a building control
body or another planning authority that has already assessed plan layouts that they meet the
requirements.143
3.75 However, it is accepted, especially in relation to local or smaller developers that for
some developments space standards may have an impact that would need to be considered
and the policy wording will allow for this. This is equally considered under any potential
economic pressure as a result of the UK’s impending planned departure from the European
Union. Despite this, in light of the arguments presented above and the Council's inclusion of
the policy in the informal consultation on the Plan, the Council feels that the exclusion of a
transitional period is justified. To help assist developers Council Officers will be available to
answer any questions with relation to the application of the NDSS.
141 NPPG (n 30) para 020, Ref ID 56-020-20150327. 142 NPPF 2019 (n 1) para 48. 143 NPPG (n 30) para 023, Ref ID 56-023-20160519.
98 | P a g e
3.76 The Case for Introducing the Standards
3.76 The Council considers that based on the evidence presented above that there is a
strong need to introduce the NDSS. It is put forward that 100 percent of all new dwellings
should meet the NDSS as a minimum. Exemptions to the policy will only be considered
where the applicant can robustly demonstrate, with appropriate evidence, that adhering to the
standards is not feasible due to physical constraints, or it is demonstrated that it is not viable
to do so. Any deviation must be robustly justified and offset through exceptional or
innovative design.
3.77 The evidence presented in this paper demonstrates the need for better designed and
higher quality dwellings in Doncaster. The results of the sample survey indicate that,
generally, dwellings within the borough have big enough plot sizes to meet the floor area set
out in the NDSS for the number of bedrooms they are proposing. The research indicates that
there is a low overall compliance with the NDSS measurements in terms of the internal
configuration of dwellings, such as storage space and bedroom sizes. It is clear that minor
adjustments, notably at the design stage, could be made to the internal layouts of plans to
achieve NDSS compliance.
3.78 Minimum size requirements help ensure that quality is not sacrificed to for plot
density. Doncaster’s aspirational Inclusive Growth Strategy and high housing rate target
means arguments could be made from a developer point of view that space standards restricts
this growth, however the Council’s survey highlights plot sizes need not be increased and
compliance with the NDSS can be easily achieved at design stage. There is sufficient land
allocated for housing in the Local Plan to meet Doncaster's needs.
3.79 External research and the Government’s assessment of the NDSS highlights other
societal benefits to adopting minimum space standards for dwellings. Some of these can be
directly considered in the context of Doncaster. Set minimum ceiling heights would help
increase air ventilation and day light through new dwellings, reducing the risks of the urban
heat island effect on households and helping increase adaptability in the face of predicted
temperature increases. It is widely acknowledged in the development industry that the final
bedroom in a house is unlikely to be used for habitation. Under-occupancy of dwellings is a
prevalent issue in Doncaster and as shown in the survey current new builds has insufficient
designated storage space, and bedrooms frequently too small to live in. This helps create a
culture of buying more bedrooms than needed so the ‘spare’ room can be used for storage
purposes. Allowing standards in Doncaster would therefore provide fit for purpose houses,
giving the market the option of buying for their household size, which in turn would mean
prospective buyers being able to get more for their money.
3.80 On the other end of the spectrum, the absence of minimum standards could lead to
overcrowded housing which has profound impacts on education, health, and the impact of
HMOs. Educational attainment is poor within Doncaster, with attainment 8 scores in the
99 | P a g e
borough lower than regional and national averages. Overcrowding costs the NHS an
estimated £21,815,546 per year. Health and quality of housing deprivation is higher in
Doncaster than the majority of local authorities in the country, indicating the impact of
housing and health in the borough and adopting space standards will help solve this issue.
The emergence of HMOs in Doncaster as a flexible way to live produces certain negative
consequences with a link between overcrowding and anti-social behaviour, health and quality
of life of those renting in a HMO. Considering the fact there is every chance new dwellings
may be converted to a HMO in the future, ensuring that rooms and space is of a high quality
is essential to ensure issues of overcrowding decrease in the future.
3.81 The Council as demonstrated during section 2 of this report, are aiming to adopt the
optional building regulations for accessible and adaptable dwellings. Adopting the NDSS
alongside M4(2) standards produces significant process cost reductions as the size
requirements within the NDSS would be acceptable for the size requirements in the M4(2)
standard.
3.82 The policy has been robustly evaluated through the Council’s Viability Study 16 and
19 that found the application of requiring all new dwellings meet the standards within the
NDSS would not make sites unviable. Affordability is a key consideration made by the
Council with the introduction of this policy. Currently, house prices in Doncaster are amongst
some of the most affordable in the region and through using the sample survey, the
introduction of the NDSS should incur insignificant increase to house prices if at all. As
mentioned, most plans surveyed already had big enough floor area sizes to meet the
standards. Any change in the plans was to the interior of the property and could be remedied
at design stage. These costs are minimal and property prices will not need to be increased to
take account of it. Any potential costs would occur when plot sizes needed to be increase,
which in Doncaster is the exception not the norm. An additional 3m2 would only produce an
estimated 0.87 – 1.47 percent increase, whilst an additional 10m2 would only produce an
estimated 2.89 – 4.9 percent increase. As evidenced this is the exception not the norm, with
only a minority of developers building new dwellings vastly smaller than the standards.
3.83 As summarised in this conclusion, it is imperative to ensure that minimum standards
are applied in Doncaster so high quality, fit for purpose dwellings are built. Without the
policy, dwellings will continue to be built without adequate storage and box rooms, meaning
residents forced to buy more bedrooms than they actually need, or risk living in
uncomfortable and unfit surroundings. The Council acknowledges that not everyone will
require housing of this type, and micro-housing developments will only be considered in
exceptional and clearly evidenced situations where there is an identified and proven need and
demand. However, to ensure that Doncaster is an attractive and healthy place to live, a
minimum quality must be ensured for the borough’s current and potential residents. As such,
the Council finds it appropriate and justified to require that all new dwellings be built to the
NDSS.
100 | P a g e
4.0 Appendixes
Appendix 1 – Statistical data used to produce map data
Data for Figures 29 and 30
WARD 65+ in that area % 65+ in that
area
% Ranking
Adwick le Street &
Carcroft
2,547 15.36 19
Armthorpe 2,837 19.50 10
Balby South 1,925 19.32 11
Bentley 2,880 15.89 18
Bessacarr 3,548 23.73 3
Conisbrough 3,123 18.90 14
Doncaster Total 58,002 18.77
Edenthorpe & Kirk
Sandall
2,037 20.09 8
Edlington &
Warmsworth
2,267 19.17 12
Finningley 3,626 22.30 5
Hatfield 3,399 18.97 13
Hexthorpe & Balby
North
1,546 11.42 21
Mexborough 2,704 17.40 16
Norton & Askem 3,314 22.23 6
Roman Ridge 2,213 20.25 7
Rossington & Bawtry 3,474 19.97 9
Sprotbrough 2,700 24.53 1
Stainforth & Barnby
Dun
2,317 23.62 4
Thorne & Moorends 3,298 18.86 15
Tickhill & Wadsworth 2,651 24.12 2
Town 2,588 11.57 20
Wheatley Hills &
Intake
3,008 16.58 17
101 | P a g e
Data for Figures 31 and 32
WARD Activities
Limited a Little
or a Lot
% Activities
Limited a Little
or a Lot
% Ranking
Adwick 3,842 24.1 4
Armthorpe 3,146 21.8 11
Askem Spa 3,140 24.2 3
Balby 2,924 19.1 18
Bentley 3,207 22.6 8
Bessacarr and Cantley 3,027 21.0 13
Central 3,692 20.3 16
Conisbrough & Denaby 3,763 26.3 1
Doncaster Total 65,535 21.7
Edenthorpe, Kirk
Sandall and Barnby
Dun
2,538 19.0 19
Edlington &
Warmsworth
3,017 22.1 10
Finningley 2,669 17.5 21
Great North Road 3,133 20.7 14
Hatfield 2,967 22.2 9
Mexborough 3,832 25.1 2
Rossington 3,087 22.8 7
Stainforth and
Moorends
3,116 23.0 6
Sprotbrough 2,109 17.8 20
Tome Valley 2,517 20.6 15
Town Moor 2,881 20.0 17
Thorne 3,806 23.5 5
Wheatley 3,122 21.2 12
102 | P a g e
Data for Figure 48
WARD Private
Accommodation
(%)
Social
Accommodation
(%)
Total
Adwick 943 (59.8) 634 (40.2) 1,577
Armthorpe 1,233 (77.1) 367 (22.9) 1,600
Askem Spa 1,277 (80.9) 302 (19.1) 1,579
Balby 1,000 (70.5) 419 (29.5) 1,419
Bentley 1,025 (66.4) 519 (33.6) 1,544
Bessacarr and Cantley 1,725 (81.1) 402 (18.9) 2,127
Central 944 (63.9) 533 (36.1) 1,477
Conisbrough & Denaby 974 (59.4) 665 (40.6) 1,639
Edenthorpe, Kirk
Sandall and Barnby
Dun
1,544 (88.9) 193 (11.1) 1,737
Edlington &
Warmsworth
1,233 (76.3) 384 (23.7) 1,617
Finningley 1,674 (92) 146 (8) 1,820
Great North Road 1,389 (79) 369 (21) 1,758
Hatfield 1,290 (85.3) 223 (14.7) 1,513
Mexborough 1,078 (65.1) 579 (34.9) 1,657
Rossington 960 (70.2) 407 (29.8) 1,367
Sprotbrough 1,517 (96) 64 (4) 1,581
Stainforth and
Moorends
1,009 (72.1) 391 (27.9) 1,400
Thorne 1,422 (79.3) 372 (20.7) 1,794
Tome Valley 1,744 (87.2) 255 (12.8) 1,999
Town Moor 1,234 (78.4) 340 (21.3) 1,574
Wheatley 1,011 (74.1) 353 (25.9) 1,364
103 | P a g e
Data for Figure 50
WARD Private
Accommodation
(%)
Social
Accommodation
(%)
Total
Adwick 2,347 (63.1) 1,373 (36.9) 3,720
Armthorpe 2,298 (76.7) 697 (23.3) 2,995
Askem Spa 2,390 (79.6) 611 (20.4) 3,001
Balby 1,901 (66.5) 957 (33.5) 2,858
Bentley 2,117 (67.8) 1,006 (32.2) 3,123
Bessacarr and Cantley 2,227 (76.7) 676 (23.3) 2,903
Central 2,244 (64.3) 1,244 (35.7) 3,488
Conisbrough & Denaby 2,077 (57.2) 1,557 (42.9) 3,634
Edenthorpe, Kirk
Sandall and Barnby
Dun
2,212 (87.7) 310 (12.3) 2,522
Edlington &
Warmsworth
2,252 (75.8) 720 (24.2) 2,972
Finningley 2,270 (88.2) 303 (11.8) 2,573
Great North Road 2,415 (86.4) 380 (13.6) 2,795
Hatfield 2,197 (87.3) 320 (12.7) 2,517
Mexborough 2,340 (63.6) 1,342 (36.4) 3,682
Rossington 2,098 (71.8) 823 (28.2) 2,921
Sprotbrough 1,921 (94.5) 111 (5.5) 2,032
Stainforth and
Moorends
2,063 (67.6) 990 (32.4) 3,053
Thorne 2,527 (76) 800 (24) 3,327
Tome Valley 1,986 (83.3) 399 (16.7) 2,385
Town Moor 1,922 (69.5) 845 (30.5) 2,767
Wheatley 1,645 (65.5) 868 (34.5) 2,513
104 | P a g e
Appendix 2 – Map of the high, medium and low value viability areas in Doncaster
105 | P a g e
Appendix 3 – NDSS Survey Sample
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2)
One Bedroom Briars Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
Apartment (One) 0.8 1 41.15 39
Kirby Ave, Bentley (Gr33n
Homes Ltd)
Type 4 (One) 1.7 1 34.37 39
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Apartment 1a (One) 1.5 1 44.9 39
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Apartment 1b (One) 1.5 1 47.2 39
Mill Street, Armthorpe
(Swan Homes)
C (One) 1.07 1 55.76 39
278 Bawtry Road (Murvic
Properties)
Top Ground Floor (One) 0 1 87.05 39
278 Bawtry Road (Murvic
Properties)
Bottom Right (One) 0 1 83.9 39
278 Bawtry Road (Murvic
Properties)
Left Middle (One) 0 1 64.91 39
Bloomhill Court, Moorends
(D Noble Ltd)
A (Two) 1 1 82.48 39
278 Bawtry Road (Davis
Highes)
Apartment 4 (One) 1.14 1 45 39
278 Bawtry Road (Davis
Highes)
Apartment 7 (One) 0 1 45 39
Granby Inn High Street,
Bawtry (Ground
Properties)
A2 (One) 0.75 1 51.5 39
Granby Inn High Street,
Bawtry (Ground
Properties)
A1 (One) 3.4 1 56.6 39
Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 1 (One) 0 1 49.85 39
106 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 17 (One) 0 1 50.07 39
Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 5 (One) 0 1 60.82 39
Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 23 (One) 0 1 46.34 39
Two Bedrooms Athelstance Crescent
(Harron Homes)
Hadleigh (Two) 1.6 2 74 70
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Gleeson)
201 (Two) 0.83 2 60.48 70
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Gleeson)
202 (Two) 1.52 2 62.37 70
Brairs Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
A (Two) 1.75 2 63.2 70
Brairs Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
A1 (Two) 1.75 2 72.3 70
Brairs Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
F (One) 1.2 2 53.65 61
Brairs Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
J (One) 0.85 2 64.1 61
Brairs Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
Apartment (One) 1.7 2 62.75 61
Station Road, Askern (Mr
Richard Sharp)
Apartment (One) 1.45 2 57.55 61
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Apartment 2 (One) 1.6 2 63 61
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Alysham (One) 0 2 64.7 61
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Askham (Two) 1.8 2 54.85 70
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Morden (Two) 0 2 47.85 70
107 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Flat B (One) 0.65 2 59.85 61
Station Road, Blaxton
(Mandale Homes)
A (Two) 1.5 2 57.06 70
Old Bawtry Rd, Finningley
(Bellway Homes Ltd)
Greenwich (Two) 1.7 2 67.28 70
Carr House Rd, Belle Vue
(Hoober Ltd)
HL70 (Two) 2.3 2 72.79 70
Carr House Rd, Belle Vue
(Hoober Ltd)
HL70A (Two) 2.3 2 72.79 70
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Strata Homes Ltd)
T1 (Two) 1.64 2 76.33 70
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Strata Homes Ltd)
T1e (Two) 1.64 2 76.33 70
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
659 Ilke Holden (Two) 1.25 2 61.56 70
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
680 Apt Blk B (One) 1.68 2 62.03 61
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
690 Apt Blk BC (One) 2.11 2 64.06 61
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
690 Apt Blk BC1 (One) 2.11 2 64.06 61
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
703 Apt Blk G (One) 2.17 2 65.18 61
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
740 (Two) 2.16 2 69.11 70
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
748 (Two) 1.36 2 69.74 70
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
863 (Two) 1.69 2 73.39 70
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
872 Ilke Holt (Two) 2.6 2 81.19 70
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
Apt Blk BD (One) 2.1 2 73.22 61
108 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
Apt Blk BF (One) 1.67 2 62.08 61
Malton Way, Adwick-le-
Street (Strata Homes Ltd)
Milan (Two) 0.73 2 60.35 70
Rossington Colliery
(Taylor Wimpey)
14/PA25 (AS-OP) (Two) 1.35 2 76.86 70
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Swallow (Two) 0 2 77.5 70
Doncaster Road, Hatfield
(Linden Homes)
Harcourt Pair (Two) 1.5 2 74.14 70
Doncaster Road, Hatfield
(Linden Homes)
A22 (Two) 0.69 2 85.9 70
Lakeside 2, Airbourne Rd
(Lovell Partnerships)
A2 (Two) 1.69 2 90.7 70
Lakeside 2, Airbourne Rd
(Lovell Partnerships)
H2 3 (Two) 0.9 2 83.46 70
Lakeside 2, Airbourne Rd
(Lovell Partnerships)
H2 4 (Two) 1.22 2 90 70
Badgers Holt, Branton
(Linden Homes)
Welton (Two) 1.4 2 77.48 70
Branton House Farm (Mr
Thomas)
CV-O2 (Two) 0 2 128.13 70
Granby Inn High Street,
Bawtry (Ground
Properties)
A4 (One) 0.8 2 66.4 61
Granby Inn High Street,
Bawtry (Ground
Properties)
A5 (One) 0 2 72.79 61
Granby Inn High Street.
Bawtry (Ground
Properties)
A3 (One) 0 2 69.5 61
Regent Court, Bawtry
(Zuka Ltd)
Apartment 3 (One) 0.65 2 91.15 61
Regent Court, Bawtry
(Zuka Ltd)
Apartment 1 (One) 0.65 2 91.42 61
109 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 24 (One) 0 2 68.3 61
Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 34 (One) 0 2 67.1 61
Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 32 (One) 0 2 69.65 61
Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 22 (One) 0 2 76.3 61
Tickhill Road, Bawtry
(McCarthy & Stone)
Apartment 11 (One) 0 2 77.8 61
Three Bedrooms Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Allerton (Two) 2 2.5 77.48 84
Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Hamilton (Two) 2 2.5 86.49 84
Athelstance Crescent
(Harron Homes)
Barnburgh (Two) 1.6 2.5 81 84
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Glesson)
301 (Two) 0 2.5 70.56 84
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Glesson)
303 (Two) 1.55 2.5 71.71 84
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Glesson)
304 (Two) 1.55 2.5 71.71 84
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Glesson)
309 (Two) 0.8 2.5 75 84
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Glesson)
310 (Two) 0.8 2.5 73.24 84
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Glesson)
311 (Two) 0 2.5 70.56 84
West End Lane,
Rossington (Taylor
Wimpey)
Milldale (Two) 2.5 2.5 80.73 84
110 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) West End Lane,
Rossington (Taylor
Wimpey)
Alton (Three) 0.75 2.5 100.8 90
Briars Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
B (Two) 1.9 2.5 80.3 84
Briars Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
D (Two) 1.85 2.5 92.9 84
Briars Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
G (Two) 0.7 2.5 111 84
Kirkby Ave, Bentley
(Gr33n Homes Ltd)
1 (Three) 2.5 2.5 108 90
Kirkby Ave, Bentley
(Gr33n Homes Ltd)
2 (Three) 2 2.5 94 90
Kirkby Ave, Bentley
(Gr33n Homes Ltd)
3 (Three) 2.5 2.5 108 90
Station Road, Askern (Mr
Richard Sharp)
House (Two) 1.55 2.5 73.8 84
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Dewsbury (Two) 2.05 2.5 74.1 84
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Finchley (Two) 1.6 2.5 77.5 84
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Dartmouth (Two) 1.65 2.5 84.1 84
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Falmouth (Two) 1.5 2.5 85.4 84
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Alston (Two) 2 2.5 93.3 84
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Brentwood (Three) 2.6 2.5 108.5 90
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Clandon (Two) 1.6 2.5 89.25 84
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Hatfield (Two) 1.35 2.5 86.1 84
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Bickleigh (Three) 2.8 2.5 81.95 90
111 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Rufford (Two) 0.65 2.5 91.05 84
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Hanbury (Two) 2.25 2.5 67.6 84
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Moseley (Three) 1.5 2.5 66.35 90
Doncaster Road, Hatfield
(Mr K Severn)
KS101 (Two) 1.25 2.5 104.8 84
Earlston Drive, Bentley
(Mr W Price)
Detached (Two) 0 2.5 117.05 84
Sunderland Street, Tickhill
(Mr Graham Fennel)
Detached (Two) 5.65 2.5 310.4 84
Station Road, Blaxton
(Mandale Homes)
B (Two) 1.28 2.5 83.4 84
Station Road, Blaxton
(Mandale Homes)
C (Two) 1.83 2.5 95.48 84
Station Road, Blaxton
(Mandale Homes)
C2 (Two) 1.83 2.5 95.48 84
Station Road, Blaxton (The
Virgo Group)
VG95 (Two) 2.6 2.5 95.97 84
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Bempton (Two) 2.04 2.5 78.27 84
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Hawthorne (Two) 2.58 2.5 87.7 84
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Purley (Two) 1.87 2.5 84.95 84
Carr House Road, Belle
Vue (Hoober Ltd)
HL89 (Two) 0.76 2.5 92.33 84
Carr House Road, Belle
Vue (Hoober Ltd)
HL94 (Two) 0.76 2.5 97.24 84
Carr House Road, Belle
Vue (Hoober Ltd)
HL95 (Two) 0.76 2.5 99.61 84
112 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Carr House Road, Belle
Vue (Hoober Ltd)
HL120 (Two) 1.05 2.5 101.73 84
Thorne Road, Bawtry (Mr
David Eaton)
Plots 1,2,3 (Two) 0 2.5 89.79 84
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
832 (Two) 1.61 2.5 77.26 84
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
857 (Two) 2.01 2.5 79.3 84
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
867 (Two) 2.01 2.5 80.35 84
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
872 Ilke Dalby (Two) 1.59 2.5 81.04 84
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
995 (Two) 2.68 2.5 92.3 84
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
1054 (Three) 1.08 2.5 84.86 90
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Keepmoat Homes)
1114 Ilke Thetford
(Three)
3.02 2.5 100.77 90
Malton Way, Adwick-le-
Street (Strata Homes Ltd)
Pareti (Two) 1.69 2.5 79.48 84
Rossington Colliery
(Taylor Wimpey)
17/PT310 (Two) 0.86 2.5 94.69 84
Rossington Colliery
(Taylor Wimpey)
18/PA34 (Two) 0.97 2.5 93.93 84
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Clevedon (Two) 1.6 2.5 110.56 84
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Mayfair (Two) 2.54 2.5 151.26 84
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Hanbury (Two) 1.32 2.5 86.8 84
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Leicester (Three) 0.6 2.5 147 90
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Souter (Three) 1.13 2.5 119.91 90
113 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Hatfield (Two) 1.33 2.5 119.66 84
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Rufford (Two) 0.63 2.5 96.1 84
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Swale (Three) 1.65 2.5 117.78 90
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Moseley (Three) 0.75 2.5 86.07 90
Manor Farm, Bessacarr
(Persimmon Homes)
Marlborough (Two) 1.68 2.5 161.4 84
Doncaster Road, Hatfield
(Linden Homes)
Mountford (Two) 1 2.5 106.6 84
Doncaster Road, Hatfield
(Linden Homes)
Eveleigh (Two) 1 2.5 96.6 84
Doncaster Road, Hatfield
(Linden Homes)
A30 (Two) 1.24 2.5 100.52 84
Mill Street, Armthorpe
(Swan Homes)
B (Two) 0.85 2.5 92.9 84
Mill Street, Armthorpe
(Swan Homes)
A (Two) 0.8 2.5 87.46 84
Repton Road, Skellow
(Rajesh Gupta)
Plots 1-4 (Three) 6.15 2.5 126.65 84
Repton Road, Skellow
(Rajesh Gupta)
Plots 5-6 (Three) 6.42 2.5 126.65 90
Repton Road, Skellow
(Rajesh Gupta)
Plots 7-9 (Three) 6.45 2.5 126.65 90
Lakeside 2, Airbourne
Road (Lovell Partnerships)
A3 (Two) 1.59 2.5 107.42 84
Lakeside 2, Airbourne
Road (Lovell Partnerships)
H3 5 8 (Two) 1.76 2.5 103.4 84
Lakeside 2, Airbourne
Road (Lovell Partnerships)
H3 5 1015 (Two) 0.56 2.5 116 84
114 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Lakeside 2, Airbourne
Road (Lovell Partnerships)
H3 6 (Three) 2.74 2.5 140.5 90
Lakeside 2, Airbourne
Road (Lovell Partnerships)
H3 5 859 (Two) 1.6 2.5 100 84
Lakeside 2, Airbourne
Road (Lovell Partnerships)
H3 5 861 (Two) 1.53 2.5 100 84
Badgers Holt, Branton
(Linden Homes)
Marston (Two) 1.82 2.5 96.74 84
Doncaster Road, Branton
(Danum Developments)
DD89A (Two) 1.63 2.5 107.18 84
Doncaster Road, Branton
(Danum Developments)
DD89 (Two) 1.63 2.5 107.18 84
Branton House Farm (Mr
Thomas)
HT-01 (Two) 0.92 2.5 114.3 84
Branton House Farm (Mr
Thomas)
HT-02 (Two) 0 2.5 112.3 84
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Mr Gray)
Plot 1 (One) 1.32 2.5 112.22 74
Bancroft Farm, Bawtry
Road (Mr & Mrs Taylor)
Taylor (Two) 1.38 2.5 104.24 84
Four Bedrooms Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Seanbury (Three) 2 3 116.13 103
Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Ashbury (Two) 2.7 3 111.29 97
Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Hanbury (Two) 1.7 3 112.59 97
Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Hartlebury (Two) 2.5 3 115.01 97
Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Kingsbury (Two) 3.6 3 121.23 97
Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Pendlebury (Two) 2 3 130.71 97
115 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Rosebury (Two) 2.2 3 132.85 97
Athelstane Crescent
(Harron Homes)
Embsay (Two) 2 3 97 97
Athelstane Crescent
(Harron Homes)
Nidderdale (Two) 1.8 3 108 97
Athelstane Crescent
(Harron Homes)
Windsor (Two) 3 3 114 97
Athelstane Crescent
(Harron Homes)
Tonbridge (Two) 1.5 3 128 97
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Glesson)
400 (Two) 0 3 89.65 97
King Edward Rd, Thorne
(Glesson)
401 (Two) 0.65 3 99 97
West End Lane,
Rossington (Taylor
Wimpey)
Charlbury (Three) 2.8 3 120.68 103
West End Lane,
Rossington (Taylor
Wimpey)
Bradenham (Two) 1.5 3 107.12 97
West End Lane,
Rossington (Taylor
Wimpey)
Downham (Two) 2.5 3 115.57 97
West End Lane,
Rossington (Taylor
Wimpey)
Whitford (Two) 1.8 3 115.94 97
West End Lane,
Rossington (Taylor
Wimpey)
Eynsham (Two) 1.2 3 123.93 97
West End Lane,
Rossington (Taylor
Wimpey)
Shelford (Two) 1.75 3 127.18 97
Briars Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
C (Three) 1.5 3 124.4 103
116 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Briars Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
E (Two) 1.75 3 110.5 97
Briars Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
E1 (Two) 1.75 3 110.5 97
Briars Lane, Stainforth
(Prospect Estates Ltd)
H (Two) 0.4 3 128.9 97
Russet Grove, Bawtry
(Conroy Brook Ltd)
B2 (Two) 1.65 3 162.95 97
Russet Grove, Bawtry
(Conroy Brook Ltd)
B3 (Two) 1.35 3 220.09 97
Russet Grove, Bawtry
(Conroy Brook Ltd)
B4 (Two) 2.1 3 200.39 97
Russet Grove, Bawtry
(Conroy Brook Ltd)
B5 (Two) 0 3 206.24 97
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Fawley (Three) 2.75 3 111.1 103
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Heathfield (Two) 1.7 3 111.9 97
Belle Vue, Bawtry Road
(Barratt Homes)
Kennington (Two) 2.4 3 118.2 97
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Winster (Two) 1.65 3 126.1 97
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Staunton (Three) 0.75 3 108.55 103
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Chedworth (Two) 0.55 3 108.5 97
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Lumley (Three) 2.2 3 109.2 103
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Runswick (Three) 2.3 3 118 103
Kirk Street, Hexthorpe
(Persimmon Homes)
Roseberry (Two) 1.35 3 111.7 97
Thorne Road, Edenthorpe
(Braggott Homes Ltd)
BH169 (Two) 1.2 3 169.1 97
117 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Thorne Road, Edenthorpe
(Braggott Homes Ltd)
BH205 (Two) 2.6 3 213.85 97
Thorne Road, Edenthorpe
(Braggott Homes Ltd)
BH206 (Two) 1.6 3 229 97
Thorne Road, Edenthorpe
(Braggott Homes Ltd)
BH207 (Three) 1.75 3 206.2 103
Cedar Avenue,
Mexborough (Synergy UK
Developments)
Townhouse (Three) 1.95 3 116.15 103
Doncaster Road, Hatfield
(Mr K Severn)
KS102 (Two) 2.7 3 176.55 97
Briar Road, Armthorpe (Mr
Mumford)
End Terrace (Two) 3.2 3 100.7 97
Station Road, Blaxton
(Mandale Homes)
D (Two) 2.57 3 111.5 97
Station Road, Blaxton
(Mandale Homes)
E (Two) 1.58 3 139.45 97
Station Road, Blaxton (The
Virgo Group)
VG125 (Two) 2.36 3 128.95 97
Station Road, Blaxton (The
Virgo Group)
VG126 (Two) 2.01 3 130.18 97
Station Road, Blaxton (The
Virgo Group)
VG150 (Two) 2.95 3 150.84 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Addingham (Two) 2.48 3 100.23 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Barn (Two) 0 3 176.01 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Grassington (Two) 3.61 3 147.02 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Hambleton (Two) 3.02 3 134.58 97
118 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Ilkley (Two) 1.73 3 112.82 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (Bellway
Homes Ltd)
Plane (Two) 3.83 3 160.63 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (G.A. Mell Ltd)
Plots 1,4,6 (Two) 0 3 172.9 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (G.A. Mell Ltd)
Plots 2,3,8 (Two) 0 3 172.59 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (G.A. Mell Ltd)
Plot 5 (Two) 0 3 142.36 97
Old Bawtry Road,
Finningley (G.A. Mell Ltd)
Plot 9 (Two) 0.56 3 171.04 97
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Allerton (Two) 3.37 3 147.58 97
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Branswood (Three) 0.76 3 156.29 103
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Hardale (Three) 0.63 3 160.62 103
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Harwood (Two) 1.74 3 120.86 97
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Roxham (Two) 1.85 3 109.58 97
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Roxwood (Three) 2.7 3 147.17 103
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Strata Homes Ltd)
T12 (Three) 0.73 3 114.94 103
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Strata Homes Ltd)
T13 (Two) 1.91 3 81.96 97
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Strata Homes Ltd)
T6 (Two) 1.3 3 120.92 97
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Strata Homes Ltd)
T8 (Three) 2.77 3 143.85 103
119 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Carr Lodge Phase 2
(Keepmoat Homes)
1028 Det (Two) 3.44 3 94.92 97
Carr Lodge Phase 2
(Keepmoat Homes)
1028 semi (Two) 3.44 3 94.92 97
Carr Lodge Phase 2
(Keepmoat Homes)
1224 (Three) 1.88 3 101.66 103
Malton Way, Adwick-le-
Street (Strata Homes Ltd)
Lavello (Two) 2.01 3 109.41 97
Malton Way, Adwick-le-
Street (Strata Homes Ltd)
Oporto (Three) 2.69 3 123.36 103
Malton Way, Adwick-le-
Street (Strata Homes Ltd)
Palermo (Two) 1.48 3 119.78 97
Malton Way, Adwick-le-
Street (Strata Homes Ltd)
Rosas (Three) 1.95 3 103.03 103
Malton Way, Adwick-le-
Street (Strata Homes Ltd)
Sorrento (Two) 2.02 3 109.31 97
Rossington Colliery
(Taylor Wimpey)
34/PA48 (Two) 1.39 3 148.01 97
Rossington Colliery
(Taylor Wimpey)
33/PA48 (Two) 1.4 3 147.19 97
Rossington Colliery
(Taylor Wimpey)
32/PA48 (Two) 1.35 3 147.22 97
Rossington Colliery
(Taylow Wimpey)
31/PA48 (Two) 1.43 3 147.98 97
Rossington Colliery
(Taylor Wimpey)
30/PD410 OP (Two) 1.33 3 142.78 97
Rossington Colliery
(Taylor Wimpey)
29/PD410 AS (Two) 1.61 3 142.92 97
Five or More Bedrooms Pastures Road, Phase 3
(Ben Bailey)
Kirkham (Two) 2.7 3.5 181.06 110
Russet Grove, Bawtry
(Conroy Brook Ltd)
B1 (Three) 3.75 3.5 188.96 116
120 | P a g e
Location
(Applicant/Developer)
House Type (number
of storeys)
Storage Space
Measured (m2)
National Storage
Space Standard
Required (m2)
Internal Gross Floor
Area Measured (m2)
National Floor Area
Standard Required
(m2) Plantation Avenue,
Bessacarr (Mr H Gergis)
Detached (Two) 0.6 3.5 399.05 110
Fenwick Common Lane,
Fenwick (Mr K Simpson)
Detached (Three) 3.45 3.5 386.4 116
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Brompton (Two) 3.22 3.5 219.07 110
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Hamleton (Three) 2.8 3.5 211.18 116
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Sherburn (Three) 1.96 3.5 170.25 116
Woodfield Way, Balby
(Fairgrove Homes)
Wellburn (Three) 1.43 3.5 167.38 116
Bawtry Road, Bessacarr
(Mr Marlon Withers)
Withers (Two) 3.56 3.5 218 110
Station Road, Bawtry (Mr
and Mrs Lukey)
Detached (Three) 1.75 4 388.8 129