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

Support

Representation ID: 5288

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J. N. Price

I believe that further study is required in order to establish both the definition of 'affordable' and the proportion of such homes needed in the different parts of the district.

Support

Representation ID: 5348

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: SEAN DEELY

The proportion of affordable housing should not be increased. The ratio is already too high. Within the current ratios, housing for key workers should be specifically allocated.

Support

Representation ID: 5400

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: John Baxter

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5440

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Cheeseman

I agree that housing will be become more dense. I believe that on larger developments this is best achieved by a lowish compulsory base allowed to rise if extant commercial reality at the time supports it. I don't think it should ever exceed a nominal 40% unless it becomes 100%.

Support

Representation ID: 5478

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5532

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

I am concerned that 50% is too large a percentage for this area unless there are some rules like we see in some seaside locations where you cannot purchase property unless you have lived in the area for some years, which means the housing is really used by those growing up in the area and want to get onto the property ladder, not a whole host of immigrants.

Object

Representation ID: 5556

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joyce Reynolds

Object to Kings Hill site:
If this is intended as overspill for Coventry why is affordable housing not 20%?

Object

Representation ID: 5578

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: George Martin

The requirement for affordable homes should not be lowered to 30% due to the current economic situation.

Support

Representation ID: 5663

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Jane Boynton

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5708

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Roger Warren

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5772

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

Affordable homes - yes - but first define the term affordable home within the context of what is a realistic average weekly income for a household of two people with one or more children.

Support

Representation ID: 5855

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: Pamela Payne

Affordable housing should mean housing for those on benefits, those on low income, those who don't earn that much but don't qualify for any type of help either, as well as those on good salaries.

Object

Representation ID: 5919

Received: 05/10/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C G Price

Affordable housing would be more preferrable but again lead to more traffic congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 5929

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

It should not just be on site to site allocation but varied overall for the best spread of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 6004

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

30% social housing is a little large.

Support

Representation ID: 6031

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Paul Skidmore

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 6081

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skidmore

Coventry is all ready over crowded why add to the burden if other places can be found.

Object

Representation ID: 6117

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Stephen Trinder

Object to Kings Hill site:
This part of Coventry has few social homes and 40% social housing mix would give concern as rich pickings for new residents who don't wish to make contribution but seek to live by criminality. Poorer parts of any city contain criminals and anti-social people and many moving into social housing are fine, simply looking for affordable place to live, but sadly statistics tell their own story.

Support

Representation ID: 6128

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Richard and Judy Swallow

Number of people: 2

Ok so long as there is a mix.

Object

Representation ID: 6201

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Object

Representation ID: 6352

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6379

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Jessamine

Who will live in these houses? They will be expensive houses if builders are foced to build 60% private and 40% social housing.

Object

Representation ID: 6395

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ed & Zoe Rycroft

Number of people: 2

Providing a mix of 40% council/housing association 60% market houses is too great. I don't know of anywhere else where the density of council houses is so high. I also challenge the location of them, as people needing affordable housing need to be near the local services without needing a car. by placing so many council owned or housing association houses south of Warwick Gates will restrict the quality of life of those trying to get back on their feet.

Support

Representation ID: 6449

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

support

Object

Representation ID: 6529

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Julian Humphreys

Proposal to concentrate building in small number of large housing sites alongside existing built up areas, completely contradicts strategic objective as well as ignoring green paper 'Houses for the future:more affordable, more sustainable', to dampen down house price inflation by providing more affordable housing in areas where demand outstrips supply.
Villages and rural communities are in decline and unlikely to survive unless there is a significant move to provide affordable housing and employment opportunities needed in these affected areas. Locations proposed will only contribute to this decline. Need to promote growth around villages and market towns sympathetically and proportionate to needs and not just build for the sake of it.

Object

Representation ID: 6617

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: James Mackay

Above all, local need is for affordable housing, sustainably sited. Extensive greenfield development necessitating high car use would not permit either affordable or sustainable life styles.

Support

Representation ID: 6731

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

support

Object

Representation ID: 6825

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Stuart Boyle

Low Cost Housing

The council has stated that it requires 50 percent of the new developments to be low cost housing. I object to the creation of up to 2,000 low cost houses in one area. Such a development would create an area of relative depravation and poverty. It would have a high concentration of health and crime problems and would increase demand on local services for little additional council tax income.

New low cost housing should be dispersed for better integration with the community. It should also be developed closer to town centres to facilitate habitation by non car owners. The ex Ford foundry, Station Approach and Warwickshire College sites are more appropriate for low cost housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 6950

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Affordable Housing
The proportion of affordable housing should not be increased. The ratio is already high. Within the current ratios, housing for key workers should be specifically allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 7006

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

The proposals are draconian in concept and does not lead to workable solutions which satisfy acceptable criteria. The larger sites could possibly accommodate such guidelines but smaller sites would require much more research taking account of local need.