B. Retain the current threshold for the provision of affordable homes as part of a development scheme

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Support

Issues and Options Document

Representation ID: 35464

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Southern & Regional Developments Ltd

Agent: CLAREMONT PLANNING CONSUTLANCY LTD

Representation Summary:

We support Option B(2)

Full text:

On behalf of Southern & Regional Developments, Claremont Planning recognises the purpose and importance of delivering mixed communities; in turn providing affordable housing at appropriate levels within development schemes. However, the apparent under-provision of affordable units within the District does not demonstrate policy success, rather that an inconsistent application of policy has thwarted its effectiveness. This is not to say that the original policy levels and method of provision is ineffectual.

Threshold - Option B and the continuation of the current affordable threshold of 35% is the most appropriate option given the issue of viability on smaller sites and failure to achieve this level to date. If the threshold was increased the issue of viability could jeopardise the ability of smaller sites to deliver valuable housing numbers toward the authority's assessed need, as well as presenting an immediate obstruction to the development of previously developed sites. In contrast, Option B will retain the policy with focus upon overcoming viability concerns and maximising delivery of residential sites.

Support

Issues and Options Document

Representation ID: 35545

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Arebray Ltd

Representation Summary:

Small infill sites often have a higher cost to develop due to high existing use values or demolition/decontamination costs. Limiting affordable housing on these sites will make more brownfield land viable for development.

Full text:

Small infill sites often have a higher cost to develop due to high existing use values or demolition/decontamination costs. Limiting affordable housing on these sites will make more brownfield land viable for development.

Comment

Issues and Options Document

Representation ID: 36064

Received: 06/03/2018

Respondent: Rochford Parish Council

Representation Summary:

6.31 B

Full text:

Rochford Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on this Document and whilst fully supporting the Strategic Priorities and Objectives of the Vision wonder whether the vision is, in its own right, rather long.

The council would support the following options which the document identifies.

6.30 C
6.31 B
6.32 D
6.33 B
6.36 B
6.48 E
6.58 C
6.59 F
6.60 H
6.78 B
6.86 B
6.96 B & C
6.111 A & F
6.117 A & D
6.128 A & B
7.20 C
7.27 A & B
8.20 B (Councillors have concerns that option C would be unable to accommodate significant increases in traffic flow without a major infrastructure investment.
8.21 A
8.37 B & C
8.44 B
8.58 C
8.66 B
8.75 A
9.11 D
9.15 B
9.29 A, B, D & E
9.36 B
9.42 A, B, C & D
9.50 A
9.61 A
10.16 B
10.27 A
10.28 G
10.29 H
10.34 B
10.44 C & D
10.52 A
10.62 C
10.63 J
10.72 B
11.5 G
11.12 B
11.19 B
11.27 A
11.36 A
11.40 B
11.44 A
11.49 A
11.53 B
11.57 A & B
11.61 C
11.65 B
11.72 A (Councillors would like to see this strengthened especially in relation to advertising on residential property.
11.76 B
11.81 A