| | The Proposal to develop open space at Manse Crescent – Houston.
Homes for elderly and socially disadvantaged |
| | Executive Summary |
| |
It has been suggested in some quarters that the above proposal is justified by providing affordable homes for the elderly and socially disadvantaged. We have carried out a study to discover if this suggestion has merits. As a result of this study we conclude:
- the provision of accommodation for the elderly or socially disadvantaged, economic viability is an outcome and not a policy;
- the site is unsuitable for homes for the elderly;
- homes for the elderly should be located very close to services, within urban settings and supported by a Housing Association or similar body:
- that we are not surprised that the applicant has completely ignored the Guidance;
- a proposal which complies with the Guidance could never have been economically viable;
- the primary economic driver, if the land at Manse Crescent is to be developed, has to be a high density private houses with a large proportion which may be categorised as higher Council Tax bands;
- a development compliant with the Guidance is unobtainable.
|
| | Background |
| 1 | Renfrewshire Council has informed the applicant that he should adhere in parts to the Council’s guidance as set out in the Development Requirements (“the Guidance”). This prescribes that “residential units should be restricted to 1 or 2 bedroom units designed primarily to meet the needs of the retired, the elderly or those with special needs”. The Guidance also asserts that the site is suitable for “private housing”. The Guidance sets out a requirement and purported justification for 20 – 30, 1 or 2 bedroom private homes designed primarily to meet the needs of the retired, the elderly or those with special needs. |
| 2 | The Guidance explains that Strategic Objective 6.2 of Renfrewshire’s Local Housing Strategy (“the Strategy”) promotes private housing provision for older people to assist in addressing the anticipated growth of 6,500 aged 60 and over by 2016. |
| 3 | The Guidance does not accurately quote Objective Strategy 6.2, which inter alia provides, (Action 6.2 (d)) that the Council will carry out an investigation into models of private housing for older people that Renfrewshire should seek to encourage. We are unable to source any outcome paper from this strategic action. |
| 4 | If the Council has carried out any investigation they will no doubt have considered policy directives from national government on the health and social vision to provide homes which are suited to accommodate elderly people rather than for them to be accommodated in residential care homes. Such policy decisions as are required to adopt this strategy would have to include substantial care packages – much of which would be a direct burden on the Council. It would be dangerously premature to develop a small “campus” of suitable accommodation unless it was in pursuance of a well thought out, funded, strategy. Even, if at the outset, the development was to be fully provided by the private sector, the Council could not ignore a potential liability in the future. |
| 5 | The Council advances what we believe to be questionable statistics to support the Guidance. They rely on the fact that there are more “larger houses in Houston than smaller”. They quote as substantiation the comparison of tax band A-D in Houston of 41% being compared with 78% in Renfrewshire as a whole. This is singularly unsurprising if one refers to the 2001 Census. In Houston 17.8% of residents are in Social Classes D and E whereas in Renfrewshire the proportion is 40.5%. The comparison for the economically active is 77% against 66%; for residents over 65, 8.3% compared with 15.4%; and for lone parent households, 10.8% compared with 19%. The actual cause of the disparity in large to small houses will be caused by many factors. The comparison of houses with poor amenity, 5.7% in Houston compared with 19.4% in Renfrewshire may be a relevant factor to take account of in determining need. We approached this study from the standpoint that the Census statistics alone did not point to any conclusive need either way. |
| 6 | A statistic referred to by the Council in the Strategy is that of the private owners who seek rented accommodation in old age, 80% are seeking the care sheltered homes gives them. The Council also asserts that a range of options is required both in the private and social rented sector. The perfectly reasonable conclusion reached in Strategy paragraph 5.5.23, is that the Council needed to study and review the needs of the elderly. We know of no reason to believe that the Guidance relies on the conclusions of such a study. |
| | Our study |
| 7 | By reference to publications by “Age Concern” and “Help the Aged” (and various references thereto) and face-to-face discussions with care providers we have reached our own conclusions. These were eloquently summarised by one expert, “you would be stark raving mad to put homes for elderly people on that site”. Maybe an overstatement, but we believe that it expresses the sentiment of our own conclusions which we explain below. |
| 8 | For further statistical background to Census 2001 we referred to “Older people in the United Kingdom – Key facts and statistics 2006” published by Age Concern Our first observation is that the Guidance identifies a need for 20 – 30 units. This implies to us that there is a “waiting list” for potential occupants. We know of no such list nor has one been referred to by the Council in support of the Guidance or in the Strategy. |
| 9 | Age Concern give growth figures for people of pensionable age up to 2031. These predict a relatively straight line growth of 1.4% per annum. We can see from the Census that there are some 807 residents in Houston aged 60 and over. Applying the Age Concern growth predictions we calculate that for residents over 60 there will be an increase of some 10 residents per year. In Houston the split between male and female residents over 60 is 46% male, 54% female. Age Concern tells us that some 19% of men live alone as do 34% of women. Based on these statistics we conclude that the maximum demand generated by the growth in residents over 60 in the next 10 years would be for 63 houses, assuming that they all wanted to downsize. |
| 10 | Plainly all elderly people won’t want to downsize, some will already be living in smaller houses. If one assumes that the tax banding proportions apply equally to all age groups only 59% may live in the higher tax bands. And, as the Strategy points out, 80% of those that wish to downside require “sheltered accommodation”. By extrapolating the statistical logic one can conclude that over a 10 year period, growth in the numbers of elderly people in Houston will generate less than a demand for 10 new smaller houses over a 10 year period. |
| 11 | We conclude therefore that a requirement now for 20 – 30 new units is totally arbitrary. Twenty is an overstatement in any event, and this means that there can be no strong justification for the upper figure. If it is decided that such a development is to be approved based on local demand, there can be no possible justification for 20 - 30 units. At best there should be no more than 5 built as a first phase. However, based on our research we do not believe that there is a justifiable need or that this site is a suitable site for such a development whatever the number of units. |
| 12 | We have sought opinion on whether elderly people would prefer to live closer to their family where they can be in easy contact with them. We are given to believe that this is the case, “particularly in the West of Scotland”. In our opinion, as Houston has substantially grown over the last 40 years, we conclude that nett migration of older people may even be negative in Houston. |
| 13 | Our research persuades us that elderly people prefer to live as part of a mixed community rather than live on a “campus” of purpose built houses. If they are “mobile and in good health” they prefer contact with more youthful society. The idea of a campus of some 30 private houses is, by all advice we have seen, misconceived. There are examples of private providers of “sheltered accommodation” and attempts to develop “retirement villages”. But, unless the accommodation is linked to some level of “care package” the preference appears to be for a true mixed community answer. |
| 14 | If there was a demand in Houston, this may be achieved by conversion of existing property. This would be consistent with Objective 6 of the Strategy. There are also alternative sites which are better suited to homes for the elderly and socially disadvantaged. |
| 15 | We note that the planning application is not for sheltered accommodation provided by the private sector. Nor does the applicant include an RSL, a care provider or a private enterprise that specialises in homes for the elderly. In fact the house types proposed are described as “family homes”. Plainly the applicant is not basing his justification on a need for homes for the elderly, or social disadvantaged for that matter. |
| 16 | Our research shows us that communal facilities, warden facilities etc are essential to the provision of accommodation for the elderly. Houses should be designed in way that permits infirmity to develop. We find the “Lifetime Homes Design” by the Rowntree Trust as being a good example of design which has a proven track record. No doubt there are others. The approach to the house design should be imaginative. For example shared parking arrangements can provide access for wheel chairs. Internal circulation spaces should be suitable for unaccompanied wheel chair users. Stairs should be avoided. Doors and corridors should permit wheel chair users to manouvre in and out of rooms, including toilet and bathrooms. The latter should be designed with disability in mind. Properties should be adaptable and easy, and cheap to maintain. Gardens should be small and easily maintained. We understand that there are examples of where accommodation is provided for the elderly some 75% of gardens have to be maintained by others. |
| 17 | Key to elderly peoples’ requirements is affordability and the ability to accurately budget living expenses. The very point of downsizing is the need to make the costs of maintaining a home as small as possible. One pertinent observation made to us was, “very often those who would regard themselves as Social Class AB very quickly become Social Class D on retirement”. Maintaining dignity is a very important consideration. If the Guidance is to have any justification the proposals would have to address these important social needs which apply equally to those who are socially disadvantaged. |
| 18 | We sought views on whether the location of the accommodation is important, for example should it avoid hilly sites which are exposed to prevailing inclement weather? Simply the answer is “yes” and that the site at Manse Crescent is totally unsuitable for the purposes prescribed in the Guidance. We haven’t researched the point, but non-compliance with the “Discrimination Act” was referred to. |
| 19 | Easy access to shops, public transport, entertainment etc is also said to be an essential. It is said that the road and pedestrian access onto Bridge of Weir Road are totally unsuitable. |
| 20 | We sought advice on what would be regarded as affordable house prices. We asked, “in relation to the average house price what price bracket would you recommend for elderly accommodation, well above average, above average, average, below average or well below average?” The response we got did not allow us to reach a conclusion. It appears that whatever model is adopted, it is prudent to base its cost to the resident on the level of available housing benefit. We understand this to imply that there has to be sensible and prudent approach taken to contingency planning. A move to such accommodation being the “last move”. This is very much in keeping with guidance on affordable rents and shared equity costs. |
| 21 | The Strategy refers to investigating examples of models and we also researched this, although we trust not to the extent that the Council will have. We were strongly advised against adopting false models. With the exception of the “McCarthy & Stone” type of private development, we could not find convincing examples of transportable models elsewhere. We also discovered that location is a big factor – we conclude that they have to be located very close to services, within urban settings and supported by a Housing Association or similar body. |
