A. Affordable Housing on Housing Development Sites
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46208
Received: 07/06/2012
Respondent: Mr Steve Taylor
Agent: Mr Steve Taylor
The 40% threshold is too high and will render many potential rural developments unviable, resulting in fewer housing starts and the curtailing of the supply of affordable rural housing.
The 40% threshold is too high and will render many potential rural developments unviable, resulting in fewer housing starts and the curtailing of the supply of affordable rural housing.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46273
Received: 20/06/2012
Respondent: Mr Mark Smith
How affordable are these really going to be?
How affordable are these really going to be?
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46324
Received: 03/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Anne Horsley
I dispute the need for affordable housing on the basis that the SHMA is a theoretical model. No one has polled the people of Whitnash to ask whether or not they need over 500 affordable houses in order to meet the neds of that community. My concern is that people for whom sociable and cooperative coexistence is a challenge, will be brought into the area as has happened throughout the past decade. Thus local needs are not being met for local people.
I dispute the need for affordable housing on the basis that the SHMA is a theoretical model. No one has polled the people of Whitnash to ask whether or not they need over 500 affordable houses in order to meet the neds of that community. My concern is that people for whom sociable and cooperative coexistence is a challenge, will be brought into the area as has happened throughout the past decade. Thus local needs are not being met for local people.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46527
Received: 17/07/2012
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
In village locations Aff Home building should solely meet local need in terms of mubers and interms of housing type/mix.
The JPC objects to the blanket imposition/provision of 40% Aff Homes where there may not be a specific and proven need, In particular it believes that IN VILLAGES an Aff Home provision must be solely for local (ie that parish) need and not merely contribute to district wide needs. Where a scheme comes forward in which 40% would exceed that local need then commuted sums should be taken to contribute towards Aff Homes at other locations in the WDC area where they are actually needed. To provide extra Aff Homes in rural and less sustainable locations is neither appropriate nor sustainable.
Furthermore any such provision in villages must match the local need in terms of number and in terms ofmix/type rather than be merely dictated by the economic whims of the developers (solely to comply with the requirement).
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46629
Received: 19/07/2012
Respondent: G Ralph
Affordable homes are needed. But 40%. Where does this figure come from? What evidence is there to justify te number?
Affordable homes are needed. But 40%. Where does this figure come from? What evidence is there to justify te number?
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46652
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Rod Scott
The requirement that 40% of homes in rural areas must be affordable may be counter productive. Affordable homes in rural areas should be provided to meet local needs only.
Developers must contribute towards the cost of producing Affordable housing where it is needed if no affordable housing is needed locally.
The requirement that 40% of homes in rural areas must be affordable may be counter productive. Affordable homes in rural areas should be provided to meet local needs only. If an excess of affordable homes are available then these will be offered to people who presently have no contacts with the area. They will then need to make extra journeys to travel to work or to access their existing recreational and social facilities.
If there is no identified need for local affordable housing the developer should then be required to contribute towards the cost of building affordable housing where it is needed.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46706
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Joanna Illingworth
The 40% rule should be applied to all developments for more than 3 houses, whether rural or urban. The 10 houses threshold in urban areas encourages piecemeal infill development which is not desirable.
The 40% rule should be applied to all developments for more than 3 houses, whether rural or urban. The 10 houses threshold in urban areas encourages piecemeal infill development which is not desirable.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46779
Received: 23/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Cathy Jorgensen
The Norton Lindsey Housing Needs Survey of November 2011, identified the need for 3 new affordable homes in Norton Lindsey. Taking the survey results and applying your requirement for 40% of new homes on developments of 5 or more dwellings in rural areas to be affordable housing, Norton Lindsey would require additional 7-8 new dwellings, significantly less than the 30-80 new houses proposed under the Local Plan. This is an indication that the village does not have the need, nor the capacity to cope with such proportionately large development.
The Norton Lindsey Housing Needs Survey of November 2011, identified the need for 3 new affordable homes in Norton Lindsey. Taking the survey results and applying your requirement for 40% of new homes on developments of 5 or more dwellings in rural areas to be affordable housing, Norton Lindsey would require additional 7-8 new dwellings, significantly less than the 30-80 new houses proposed under the Local Plan. This is an indication that the village does not have the need, nor the capacity to cope with such proportionately large development.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46883
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Crampton
Support in principle provision of affordable housing by developers.
As someone who used to take these allocations for an RSL I would suggest the targets were more flexible i.e. bedspaces not homes. Developers meet targets offering small flats, when RSL's need larger homes for families or even elderly accomdation to release under-occupied homes.
Provision needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
Support in principle provision of affordable housing by developers.
As someone who used to take these allocations for an RSL I would suggest the targets were more flexible i.e. bedspaces not homes. Developers meet targets offering small flats, when RSL's need larger homes for families or even elderly accomdation to release under-occupied homes.
Provision needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46895
Received: 25/07/2012
Respondent: Warwickshire Rural Community Council
Affordable homes are increasingly required for the level of need to be met over the plan period.
Affordable homes are increasingly required for the level of need to be met over the plan period.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47174
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Chris Langton
Fully support
Fully support
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47249
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Mr. Christopher Farr
I support the general thrust of this option with the proviso that the needs of the locality not the district be met. There is no point in providing affordable housing where it is difficult to get to doctors, hospitals, schools etc.
I support the general thrust of this option with the proviso that the needs of the locality not the district be met. There is no point in providing affordable housing where it is difficult to get to doctors, hospitals, schools etc.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47430
Received: 02/08/2012
Respondent: Mrs Larraine Curzon
In favour of 40% of housing on new developments being affordable
In favour of 40% of housing on new developments being affordable
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48505
Received: 07/07/2012
Respondent: Mr David Jackson
Support provisoion of affordable housing, but 40% affordable housing on the proposed sites will lead to
a) lower sale prices thereby reducing the float for infratsructure
b) burden on the local taxpayer.
A better approach given the lack of brown field sites is to reverse recent trends of council house sales and buy existing housing stock particularly where renovation may be needed.
See attachment
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 48770
Received: 06/07/2012
Respondent: Peter and Philippa Wilson
Number of people: 2
Will the rents be subsidised? Commercial rents are not within the reach of many families and individuals.
Document scanned
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 49798
Received: 24/07/2012
Respondent: Mr John Mould
Support proposals for affordable housing, but this should be at 50% for rental accommodation, flats for young people, retirement accommodation and reasonably priced homes for young families.
Scanned representation
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 49832
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Clare Spruce
Supports the policy that requires 40% of homes on new housing sites to be delivered as affordable units.
scanned letter
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 49993
Received: 03/08/2012
Respondent: Gallagher Estates
Agent: Pegasus Group
The requirement for 40% affordable housing should remain flexible as this level will not be deliverable on all sites.
The Affordable Housing Viability assessment failed to take into account site remediation and the provision of infrastructure. These can impact on viability. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the policy is flexible.
See attached documents