Do you support or object to the preferred option for securing affordable homes?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 154

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 199

Received: 12/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Field

Representation Summary:

Any proposed housing development must be supported with local employment opportunities if people are to avoid costly and environmentally unfriendly travel. Kenilworth has a scarcity of employment opportunities.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 217

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Baxter

Representation Summary:

Object.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 233

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

Representation Summary:

I think this impossible to achieve, as one cannot know the future housing market when making these decisions. If it is successful, it will only be through luck. It may be better to concentrate on making well built houses, rather than on cheap ones.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 273

Received: 10/07/2009

Respondent: Patricia Robinson

Representation Summary:

The local area is expensive so better to build affordable housing in cheaper areas e.g. Rugby, Coventry.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 338

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

Representation Summary:

Keep the % at 40

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 366

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Representation Summary:

Object.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 398

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Canon David Tilley

Representation Summary:

support increase of affordable housing to 50%

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 443

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

Representation Summary:

Support.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 495

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

Representation Summary:

We need to ensure that decent affordable housing is available for the entire workforce and its families.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 566

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 629

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Representation Summary:

Object.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 718

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 747

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

It is important that the Council do not rely on Local Plan policy (as indicated at paragraph 10.33) but re-evaluate policy previously adopted to ensure that the evidence base is up to date and policy therefore based on current circumstances. Given the present economic situation it is important that an evaluation of viability is carried out in line with PPS3 guidance to ensure that any target thresholds are not onerous and allow for negotiation and it is therefore strongly recommended that any thresholds are clearly supported by evidence.

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 751

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

Affordable housing should be given sufficient weight and status within the core strategy.

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 752

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

Credible district wide and sub-district wide affordable housing targets should be set over the plan period.

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 753

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

Ensuring that the site size thresholds for negotiating affordable housing from private developers are properly derived in the light of the local housing and land markets. We would anticipate that the Council will consider and articulate the „circumstances‟ across the District which justify any proposed site size thresholds as per relevant government guidance.

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 755

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

The opportunities for affordable housing should be maximised in the right locations.

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 757

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

The provision of affordable housing is recognised per se as both a positive material planning consideration and a planning benefit.

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 758

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

The provision of affordable housing should be viewed within the context of achieving balanced communities and within the wider social exclusion and housing plus agendas.

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 761

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Representation Summary:

Regular monitoring of the progress in meeting affordable housing needs should take place. PPS3 discusses the requirements of Annual Monitoring Reports and sets out what the LPA should carry out on an annual basis. By referring to such indicators, the success or otherwise of the policies can be measurable against clearly defined targets, allowing measurements to be taken on an annual basis.

Support

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 789

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

Representation Summary:

Support.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 857

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

Representation Summary:

Percentage figures are OK if the total numbers are accurate and I do not agree that they are

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 921

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

Representation Summary:

50% affordable housing in new developments is too high. Social engineering to this degree will drive residents out of current homes.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1003

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

Representation Summary:

Affordable housing is a 'moveable feast' and the 40% should be more flexibly applied depending on the needs of particular areas.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1026

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Representation Summary:

Believe this would devalue area and lead to social and crime problems.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1089

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

Representation Summary:

Do not agree with financial contribution to be paid on small sites for affordable housing. Elsewhere more council houses should be built to rent.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1189

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

Representation Summary:

object

Comment

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1247

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

Representation Summary:

Support
Only if LOCAL young people can buy/part buy houses. See schemes in other areas eg. Carbis Bay, Cornwall where proof of long term residency has to be established before eligibility for purchasing houses, which are reasonably priced.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1314

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Sarah Jane Horsley

Representation Summary:

Keep these houses for our LOCALS who have been brought up here and are contributing to our economy. See scheme in Cornwall.
(Carbis Bay) where affordable houses are sold to those on low wages who have lived in the area for years.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 1381

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

Representation Summary:

We object to the preferred option of 50% affordable housing which is this completely contrary to the current economic climate. The proposal to include the affordability requirement for schemes in excess of 10 dwelling units to 50% requirement will dissuade developers from developing sites. Consequently, this will lead to a housing completions shortfall and Warwick will not be able to meet its housing targets set out in the West Midlands RSS.