Put up or shut up: Can the government continue to justify their incentives supporting older people to 'stay put' in their traditional homes given the growing economic, environmental, social and policy impediments to this in contemporary society if not, how can the British planning system respond to the need for additional housing options for older people?

This paper critiques the government's policy of encouraging older people to 'stay put' in their traditional homes on the basis that to do so incurs serious policy contradictions. This is because staying in the family home frequently entails under-occupancy and social isolation, which are contrary to sustainable development and inclusive community principles. 'Staying put' is also shown to jeopardise the economic security of older people since it can result in fuel poverty. Based on these environmental, social, economic and policy criticisms, this study focuses on the potential of retirement villages to provide appropriate and desirable housing for older people. It suggests that retirement villages often avoid the negative implications 'staying put' encounters, and therefore represent an important way of readdressing housing choice. Taking three varying housing developments, this paper then explores the challenges and opportunities incurred by alternative forms of housing at different developmental stages. These studies show that advancements have been enabled despite rather than due to current planning policies. It is argued that overlooking the fiscal contributions of older people in a contemporary society has resulted in limited housing choice for these populations, and so government and policy-makers are not responding adequately to social change. This suggestion is strengthened by the report's findings that to date, the delivery of retirement villages and therefore additional housing choice, have been led by the private and voluntary sectors