Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

56 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 22 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 931361/CSCD/12
  • Status: Accepted
The requirement for 82%:18% split as proposed in the wording should be more flexible to permit a wider range of permutations.The presumption that provision should be "without the need for public subsidy" is not reasonable and these words should be deleted."there will be no upper limit to the potential affordable housing provision or contribution" will not provide any reasonable guidance to developers. On-site provision maximum should be 30%. No contributions on sites of less than 15 dwellings.
Deleted User 22 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3556961/CSCD/13
  • Status: Accepted
The requirement for 82%:18% split as proposed in the wording should be more flexible to permit a wider range of permutations.The presumption that provision should be "without the need for public subsidy" is not reasonable and these words should be deleted."there will be no upper limit to the potential affordable housing provision or contribution ..." will not provide any reasonable guidance to developers. On-site provision maximum should be 30%. No contributions on sites of less than 15 dwelling
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3399393/CSCD/7
  • Status: Accepted
PROPOSED CHANGES: We propose that Policy CS16 should be amended by: - Providing a viability assessment considering whether it is viable to deliver 30% affordable homes on large sites across the district. - Identifying that the 30% benchmark is not the minimum requirement and that variances below this will be accepted subject to project viability and consideration of the overall S106 package relating to a proposed development.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3573825/CSCD/11
  • Status: Accepted
The requirement for 82% : 18% split as proposed in the wording should be more flexible. The proposed imposition of a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing on sites of less than 15 dwellings (or sites of less than 0.5 ha) is unreasonable. The requirement for the 1.5 B jobs per dwelling (or any amendment thereof) should be specifically stated as not applying to the affordable housing element.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3590177/CSCD/13
  • Status: Accepted
1The requirement for 82% : 18% split should be more flexible 2.The presumption that provision should be "without the need for public subsidy" is not reasonable 3.The statement that "there will be no upper limit to the potential affordable housing provision or contribution ..." is not acceptable 4 Financial contribution towards affordable housing on sites of less than 15 dwellings (or sites of less than 0.5 ha) is unreasonable 5 1.5 jobs per dwelling should not apply to affordable housing
Wrington Parish Council 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 1019201/CSCD/17
  • Status: Accepted
This policy is supported. No further comment.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3328993/CSCD/3
  • Status: Accepted
Support the application of this policy to developments of 15 dwellings or more. Reducing this threshold to 10 or 5 would hamper smaller developments coming forward, particularly in the smaller settlements. The 30% provision should not be subject to an additional viability test as this would be contrary to government guidance in Circular 05/05.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3563841/CSCD/9
  • Status: Accepted
The requirement for 82% : 18% split as proposed in the wording should be more flexible so as to permit a wider range of permutations. The statement that "there will be no upper limit to the potential affordable housing provision or contribution ..." is not acceptable. The proposed imposition of a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing on sites of less than 15 dwellings (or sites of less than 0.5 ha) is unreasonable.
Baker Family (West Nailsea) 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3564385/CSCD/10
  • Status: Accepted
The requirement for 82% : 18% split as proposed in the wording should be more flexible so as to permit a wider range of permutations. The statement that "there will be no upper limit to the potential affordable housing provision or contribution ..." is not acceptable. The proposed imposition of a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing on sites of less than 15 dwellings (or sites of less than 0.5 ha) is unreasonable.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3570753/CSCD/10
  • Status: Accepted
82%/18% split is too prescriptive. Provision without the need for public subsidy is unreasonable. Need to identify a maximum% of on-site provision - 305 is suggested. Requiring a financial contribution from sites of less than 15 dwellings is unreasonable and unjustified. Requirement for 1.5 B jobs per dwelling should not apply to affordable housing.
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page