Linking affordable housing to new Shrewsbury retirement complex is unviable, say developers
A dispute over affordable housing provision on a proposed complex of retirement flats in Shrewsbury has left developers and planners at loggerheads.
McCarthy & Stone wants to build 35 retirement apartments on Wenlock Road and has suggested paying more than £6,000 in an off-site 'affordable housing contribution'.
But Shropshire Council planners have said they should instead provide six of the flats as affordable housing as well as a financial contribution as per its policy.
Today, an agent working for McCarthy & Stone said providing the affordable housing on site would be "unviable" and that an off-site financial contribution would be suitable.
Alex Mitchell, senior planning associate, said: "There are very real and fundamental difficulties in accommodating affordable housing on-site with private sheltered housing of the type detailed within this application.
"Although government advocates the encouragement of mixed communities, it does not state that this should be accommodated on each and every site.
"McCarthy & Stone assert that the provision of on-site affordable housing units within specialised housing for the elderly is both problematic and unviable and that an off-site contribution would be more suitable in this instance. The specialised communal living environment provided by private Category II Sheltered Housing results in the payment of a service charge by the residents, which covers the upkeep and maintenance of all internal communal areas, the external building fabric and the external grounds, including the gardens and car parking.
"The service charge also covers the salary and accommodation costs of the resident house manager.
"It would be very difficult to set the service charge at a level that would cover the costs of the type of management that private purchasers expect, yet still be affordable to residents of affordable housing
"Another consequence of trying to mix private sheltered housing with low cost/ subsidised housing would be the significant potential for friction and animosity between those residents who pay a significant annual service charge for premium services after purchasing a property and those who would occupy low cost or heavily subsidised apartments, but have use of the same services.
"It is not unreasonable to assume that some residents would resent the fact that their neighbours are enjoying the same level of services for a fraction of the cost, or that they may perceive themselves to be subsidising others. This situation would only serve to exacerbate management problems and disputes between neighbours."
