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

Comment

Representation ID: 7035

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Cllr Bill Gifford

Future residential development should be family houses with gardens and not flats. Support proposal to raise the % of affordable dwellings to 50% on a scheme. Believes should be substantial number of houses available for rent from RSLs. Is need for affordable houses within villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 7067

Received: 30/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Society

There is an acute shortage of affordable housing for young people which is vital for the maintenance and development of good community

Object

Representation ID: 7082

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: The Leamington Society

The priority should be local need, which is, above all, for affordable housing that is sustainably sited. Greenfield urban extentions can offer the best opportunities to provide for the quantum & mix of housing necessary to meet local needs, including affordable housing. In
some of the larger villages, affordable family homes would help to keep young people near to their families.
Object to weaknesses notes weaknesses in the policies for the provision of affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 7099

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire

One option for the requirement of affordable housing '...would be to lower the requirement to 30% given the current economic circumstances but to review this once the housing market were stronger..' This would be very difficult to administer in practice and would simply create a shortfall in affordable provision in the short term. There is no case for short-term change to the current accepted policy.

Object

Representation ID: 7109

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: The Warwick Society

Local needs are above all a need for affordable housing, sustainably sited. Extensive greenfield development, necessitating high car use would not permit either affordable or sustainable life styles. weaknesses in the policies for the conservation of listed buildings and protected townscapes, and for the provision of affordable housing, the essential local need. We object to these weaknesses, and are concerned that the existing local plan policies covering them may become unenforceable after 2011.

Comment

Representation ID: 7144

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Suggests that one option for requirement of affordable housing '...would be to lower the
requirement to 30% given the current economic circumstances but to review this once the housing market were stronger..' This would be very difficult to administer in practice and would simply create a shortfall in affordable provision in short term.

Object

Representation ID: 7165

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Katie-Louise Hopkins

Social housing in this volume (40%) will undoubtedly mean increased crime levels, which in turn will affect existing house prices and probably insurance premiums and other costs.

Object

Representation ID: 7168

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Chris Hopkins

Nature reserve by Campion will be at risk of becoming a no go area to families and current users if social housing brings with it the increased crime levels ie drugs and vandalism.
In turn lack of jobs to support 10,000 more families will be detrimental not only to those families but to existing families.
Will increased crime affect local house prices, costs via the council to police and doctors and other services. Insurance premiums etc.etc.

Object

Representation ID: 7171

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Penny Hopkins

40% social housing and the risk of increased crime - what will be the effect on exising house prices.

Object

Representation ID: 7212

Received: 09/08/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs H Williams

We are stretched in this area and it is young people we should be helping to get lower cost housing and create work.

Object

Representation ID: 7344

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Andrew Ruddins

Concerned about affordable housing proposed within developments for the new estate near Bishops Tachbrook.

Object

Representation ID: 7391

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Europa Way Consortium

Agent: Entec UK Ltd

The Consortium is aware that affordable housing is in short supply in Warwick. Affordable housing targets need to be based on a robust evidence base.

The 50% proposed target is too high and we believe that a 'one target fits all' approach may affect the viability of many development schemes.

The Consortium believes that in line with PPS3, the affordable housing targets once established should be seen as overall targets throughout the Plan period; the requirement for affordable housing within individual schemes should however be assessed against viability tests, market conditions and tenure mix at the time of development.

Support

Representation ID: 7412

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Agent: Holmes Antill

Support

Comment

Representation ID: 7456

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Trilogy

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Support the principle of seeking to deliver affordable housing in a viable manner. Object to a blanket level of affordable housing provision. Previously developed sites carry additional development costs, i.e. contamination and remediation of brownfield sites. Regard to these need to be taken into account when determining the level of affordable housing sought.

Levels of affordable housing must reflect the different site circumstances, redevelopment costs, regeneration needs and wider policy objectives on individual sites.

Object

Representation ID: 7471

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Hatton Estate

Agent: RPS Planning

We support the Council's preferred option on housing mix (para 10.31), however we are concerned about the robustness of the Council's preferred option on affordability of new housing in the absence of viability testing.

Object

Representation ID: 7491

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

You are blightling the lives of those who have saved for their own homes by providing social housing which will attract people who don't have pride in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 7513

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Government Office for the West Midlands

Evidence to demonstrate the viability of affordable housing policies is essential prior to publication.

Object

Representation ID: 7576

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

How affordable is 'affordable'? Most of the 'affordable' homes are beyond the reach of many people anyway.

Object

Representation ID: 7723

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

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: 33535

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Rail Property Ltd & Network Rail Infrastructure

Agent: G R Planning Consultancy Ltd

Targets for the provision of affordable housing have no reference or regard to current and likely future market conditions or the commercial viability of achieving such targets as required by paragraph 29 of PPS3 and paragraph B10 of Circular 05/2005.

Support

Representation ID: 33564

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Thomas Bates & Son LTD

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

There should be flexibility over affordable housing targets in the current economic climate.

Object

Representation ID: 33587

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Revelan Group

Agent: Harris Lamb

It is unlikely that any housing will be viable with a requirement for 50% affordable housing. The Core Strategy should allow for a revised level of affordable housing to be provided if this can be justified through a viability assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 33619

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

There should be no increase in the affordable housing requirements until it can be fully proven that the level of provision can be achieved and that there is an identified, proven, need. In the current climate, the viability of a proposed development would be fundamentally, and adversely, affected by any further increase in requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 33652

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: A C Lloyd

Agent: Barton Willmore

We do not support a requirement of 50% affordable housing as there is no basis for this figure.

Object

Representation ID: 33669

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Do not support an affordable housing requirement of 50% as there is no basis for the figure.

Object

Representation ID: 33721

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr John Burman

Agent: Bigwood Associates Ltd

Increasing the proportion of affordable housing to 50% will fail to meet the considerable unmet need. The exceptions site policy for rural areas needs to be extended and locations need to be identified. It is possible to develop affordable housing on sites without market housing based upon the mix of tenure allowable. Specific provision should be made for low cost housing.

Object

Representation ID: 33733

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

Affordable housing is but one factor in viability and sustainability, need to reflect potential balance between housing mix, community facilities and affordable employment space.

Support

Representation ID: 33763

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Shirley Estates

Agent: Davis Planning Partnership

Difficult to get appropriate housing mix if affordability thresholds rigidly applied.

Object

Representation ID: 33828

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Gallagher Estates

Increasing the proportion of affordable housing may not deliver greater numbers and may be counter productive. Threshold needs to be based on viability as well as need.

Support

Representation ID: 33867

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning

Support