A CONTROVERSIAL decision by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) planners to remove a requirement to build 275 new homes on the Cadnam Farm site in Alton to Lifetime Homes standards has been met with incredulity.

But it appears EHDC has had its hand forced by a change in Government policy.

The row has erupted following the district council’s decision to remove a condition of planning requiring all units on the 31-acre site in Upper Anstey Lane to meet Lifetime Homes standards.

Puzzled over why “a wise planning condition like this can be turned on its head”, Alton Eastbrooke and Wooteys Residents’ Association (AEWRA) is challenging this decision, pointing out that the standard is designed to meet key criteria, providing doors and rooms that are large enough to accommodate a wheelchair, lower thresholds and gentler gradients, to enable elderly or disabled residents to continue living in their own homes for as long as possible.

Not an unreasonable request, they feel, in a town with an ageing population and the home of Treloar School and College for disabled young people.

Residents’ association chairman John Field said: “The whole point of the Lifetime Homes standards is to provide housing suitable for all ages and abilities.”

He points out that the ‘achieving sustainable development’ section of the National Planning Policy Framework advocates “a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations”.

Outline permission for the development of this greenfield site, by Martin Grant Homes and Persimmon, was granted in May 2015, with reserved matters (detailed permission) approved in July this year and this, AEWRA understands, included a sustainability document embracing an agreement by the developers to build to Lifetime Homes standards.

But in March last year the Government introduced some new technical housing standards in England and Wales that no longer included a Lifetime Homes policy which, as a result, can no longer form a material part of the permission.

As such, the Lifetime Homes condition on the Cadnam Farm site became unenforceable.

The developers appealed against the condition, stating: “The approved scheme as set out on the approved floor plans/elevations/layout has not been designed to Lifetime Homes standards and therefore this condition would prevent the scheme being built in accordance with the approved plans…the scheme would have to be redesigned and furthermore, due to the gradient of the site, it would be not possible to meet Lifetime Homes standards on all of the plots.”

And on November 4, EHDC planners agreed to remove the condition, saying: “While it is regrettable that the homes have not been designed to Lifetime Homes standards, as the applicant stated that they would be at the outline stage, it is considered that the applicant has in this instance adequately justified why this was not the case, and that in line with policy CP11 and CP29 the requirement for Lifetime Homes standards is not appropriate in this instance.”

According to Wooteys ward councillor David Orme he, like Alton Town Council, had objected to the removal of the Lifetime Homes condition, only to find that central Government had moved the goal posts.

While he and fellow Alton councillors Dean Phillips and Andrew Joy had been up for challenging EHDC’s decision, they had been thwarted by the change in Government policy which had clearly negated the Lifetime Homes condition, but failed to replace it with a robust alternative.

Mr Orme said: “I find this very disappointing and considered such requirements to be an important part of the development offering some reassurances around the outcome.

“Needless to say, this is not what I expected and I am deeply disappointed that despite much hard work from the EHDC planning team, to ensure the best outcome, with no policy to enforce, there was no option but to allow the condition to be removed.”

AEWRA is at a loss to understand the rationale behind the change of policy leaving John Field to ask: “Can anyone help us understand why a sensible planning condition was dropped?”