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

Support

Representation ID: 3328

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3404

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3464

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr P Dimanbro

All homes should be low cost

Object

Representation ID: 3479

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3571

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

object

Support

Representation ID: 3710

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

Supported.

Object

Representation ID: 3877

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Patricia Diane Freeman

Finham has many larger houses, so why spoil it with other typed houses.

Object

Representation ID: 3906

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

Considering the SHLAA panel is comprised mainly of affordable housing developers it seems inappropriate that they can comment on what is in fact their own proposal - see those in support!

Additionally the criteria for these figures of the costs of building affordable housing has to be questioned with recent ways of creating affordable housing being demonstrated recently. Perhaps you should look at ALL types of affordable housing and include some of the public and design experts when considering these options. This is a poor attempt at explaining how to provide affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 3988

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr M Abba

The council should be investing in more council housing

Support

Representation ID: 4063

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

Support this preferred option

Support

Representation ID: 4077

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Yes

Object

Representation ID: 4121

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Colin Sharp

40% affordable/social housing ludicrous - not economically viable especially when developers expected to fund infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 4176

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire Rural Community Council

WRCC is fully commited the provision of affordable housing but is concerned that an insistence on a minimum of 50% affordable in all developments may make them uneconomic for the developer.

Support

Representation ID: 4185

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

Only as long as they are spread evenly throughout the district. I do object to large housing estates.

Support

Representation ID: 4257

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Andrea Telford

support

Support

Representation ID: 4374

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: A Picken

Support

Support

Representation ID: 4440

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Andrea Telford

Affordable housing is a must with extra services, eg post offices and bus services

Support

Representation ID: 4545

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

support

Object

Representation ID: 4605

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

The proportion of mixed housing is too high and will reduce the viability of the developers.

Object

Representation ID: 4695

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Prof Maurice Shutler

WDCs housing need shows 90% of new housing needs to be for rent. Govt. unlikely to make money available to housing associations or council to build. New houses will go to persons currently in Birmingham who can afford market housing. They will then commute to and from Birmingham, Coventry or London adding to traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 4710

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

Any land available (not green belt) should be affordable.

Comment

Representation ID: 4833

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Clarke

As previously stated the plans show no desire to use all land currently available without making further in roads into green belt land

Support

Representation ID: 4876

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 4911

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joyce A Green

Object to Kings Hill site:
Housing that starts as affordable gains value in time. Will government decide new affordable homes will be needed. Too many people dealing with debt, repossession of property and loss of jobs. The answer is not to build new properties and certainly not on green belt land.

Support

Representation ID: 4966

Received: 08/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

It is impossible to reach an informed judgement until the viability tests have been undertaken. However, the principle is sound.

Support

Representation ID: 5055

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

Most essential

Object

Representation ID: 5148

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

100% of affordable homes should be on rejuvenation/brown field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5217

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Sonia Owczarek

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 5244

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

Unless redevelop existing brownfields sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5247

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

object