Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services
Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services
Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
357 Ms V O'M<strong>all</strong>ey<br />
Affordable housing IS a major issue, at least 50% <strong>of</strong> new homes built should be cheaper accommodation for the many<br />
single people and the growing older population, who will be moving into sm<strong>all</strong>er more manageable properties.<br />
358 Mr & Mrs England 40% is fine. If you build new town at Rawreth rather than more estates you can build a selection <strong>of</strong> different housing.<br />
Affordable housing is essential. 40% looks reasonable for a large site or new town. ? On sm<strong>all</strong> sites is likely to be a bad<br />
359 Mr New<br />
use <strong>of</strong> space.<br />
The RSS14 requires that district affordable housing policies will not be less than 30% and should aspire to 40%. In order for<br />
the affordable housing policies not to stifle the delivery <strong>of</strong> affordable housing, in <strong>all</strong> new developments a requirement <strong>of</strong><br />
30% should be set (ie not just <strong>all</strong>ocated sites). The Council will need to ensure that <strong>all</strong> requirements for affordable housing<br />
are considered in the light <strong>of</strong> site specific criteria and if a case for less affordable housing is pursued that the lower level <strong>of</strong><br />
affordable housing is linked to a financial appraisal. On rural exception sites, it is not considered sound to require <strong>all</strong> units<br />
to be affordable, this may not be a viable option and therefore the provision <strong>of</strong> affordable housing should be linked to an<br />
362 Ms M Power<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> the site location, character and viability considerations.<br />
365 Mrs H J Springham 40% seems too high.<br />
366 Mr S J Springham<br />
40% <strong>of</strong> housing to be 'affordable' is too great by a massive factor. There cannot be 40% requirement for essential services<br />
personnel who cannot afford better housing - lobby the government to increase essential services personnel salaries.<br />
In view <strong>of</strong> our <strong>comments</strong> above it is difficult to answer these other sections. The south east in general is over developed<br />
369 Mr & Mrs Gauden and overcrowded. There should be a complete block on further building.<br />
Surely it should be the young pr<strong>of</strong>essionals, tradesmen and families that we should be trying to encourage into the area. It<br />
seems that the new developments in our existing towns demand such a high premium, which makes them unaffordable to<br />
the people that we need in the area. Therefore over-development in our existing towns is not the answer to affordable<br />
housing. The most obvious way to achieve affordable housing in this area would be to create a new town and to cap the<br />
prices that developers could charge. This may also discourage the large, national, pr<strong>of</strong>iteering developers and give more <strong>of</strong><br />
370 Mr G Biner<br />
a change to local sm<strong>all</strong>er companies and trades people.<br />
371 Swanton Yes - more housing to rent