Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council search
New searchPart of the answer lies in reconsidering the whole concept of affordable housing. There are currently families with two decent salaries living in “affordable housing”. That cannot be right! Some revision of the whole concept is needed. The pretext of expecting the market homes, in more expensive areas, to directly fund the affordables, which may not be needed in their immediate area, is fundamentally unfair and unrealistic and clearly unsustainable. If we changed the system, by building “truly affordable market homes” there would be a much smaller demand for affordable/social homes, and people would be much happier. Perhaps those truly affordable market homes would need to be more modest in many ways, but they would find considerable favour and free up affordables for those who really need them. It is time to break some paradigms!
selected
selected
selected
Answer: Older People Needs will be best addressed by listening to the communities, and directing developers to respond appropriately, rather than constantly looking to their bottom line. Specifically: • Build more bungalows – always requested – seldom built – yes, we know they take more land… Perhaps have a fixed percentage for sites of say 10 or more homes? • Build more, if not all, wheelchair accessible homes. • Allocate sites specifically for “care facilities” – e.g. land around Barford House in Barford
selected
selected
selected
H2-2: Answer: H2-2c – A LOCALISED approach, at Parish level IS ESSENTIAL. It should certainly be applied in terms of the actual building of affordable homes. If it is still desirable to have a SW wide policy then the use of commuted sums would be an innovative way of raising funds which could then be spent nearer to where the affordables are actually required. If you want an example of how the current system does NOT WORK just look at Barford which had c.200 homes forced upon it by predatory developers, due to a lack of a Local Plan. Of those c.40% were built as affordables against a HNS assessment of about 10- 12 houses and that brought in vast numbers of occupants with no local connection and in consequence considerable community disruption which will take decades to stabilise. H3: Probably Option H3c but consider some flexibility H5: H5c A case by case approach should be the only way to deal with self/custom builds. H6: A case by case approach is essential. The allocation of sites early in the SWLP development is actually discriminatory against the G&T community. They must have exactly the same rights, as other members of the wider community, to find suitable accommodation.
Review the need via the CPRE HEDNA review paper.
PERHAPS the potential New Settlements would be the most appropriate solution to the need SWLP is finally expected to accommodate? Care would certainly be needed if significant numbers were injected into established settlements.
