Issues and Options Document
Search representations
Results for Arebray Ltd search
New searchSupport
Issues and Options Document
A. Seek to provide as much of the district's housing need within our area, as far as possible, given environmental and other constraints.
Representation ID: 35491
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
Other districts in South Essex have similar constraints and if the housing needs are not satisfied locally this will force people out of the area which will have detrimental effect on community cohesion.
Other districts in South Essex have similar constraints and if the housing needs are not satisfied locally this will force people out of the area which will have detrimental effect on community cohesion.
Support
Issues and Options Document
B. Work with neighbouring Local Planning Authorities to ensure that housing need across the South Essex Housing Market Area is effectively met.
Representation ID: 35494
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
This is important but all areas should meet their own housing needs requirements.
This is important but all areas should meet their own housing needs requirements.
Object
Issues and Options Document
C. Consider a policy requirement to deliver a percentage of new market homes on schemes to be available to residents on a first-come, first-served basis for a limited period of time
Representation ID: 35499
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
I cannot see how this would work in practice as all new developments allow applicants to register their details prior to launch, consequently I cannot see any advantage to be gained for the purchaser.
If it is too draconian it could have in unintended consequence of making the scheme un-fundable.
I cannot see how this would work in practice as all new developments allow applicants to register their details prior to launch, consequently I cannot see any advantage to be gained for the purchaser.
If it is too draconian it could have in unintended consequence of making the scheme un-fundable.
Support
Issues and Options Document
D. Retain the current affordable homes requirement of 35% where a scheme meets the prescribed threshold, subject to viability
Representation ID: 35500
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
My practice are specialists in preparing Viability reports for planning. From my experience in council area where larger percentages of affordable housing are required there is a greater chance that the viability will be challenged. Without grant for affordable housing even on greenfield sites viability can be challenged at levels over 35% as it takes very little to make them unviabile.
My practice are specialists in preparing Viability reports for planning. From my experience in council area where larger percentages of affordable housing are required there is a greater chance that the viability will be challenged. Without grant for affordable housing even on greenfield sites viability can be challenged at levels over 35% as it takes very little to make them unviabile.
Comment
Issues and Options Document
E. Increase the proportion of homes that we require developers to provide as affordable housing, subject to viability
Representation ID: 35501
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
This will make viability almost a standard part of the application process. In London under the new guidance sites providing 35% Affordable housing on site do not need to provide any viability evidence. This has significantly reduced the number of challenges to viability as most developers prefer to take a quicker route and fast tract at 35% rather than argue for 28% or 30% provision.
This will make viability almost a standard part of the application process. In London under the new guidance sites providing 35% Affordable housing on site do not need to provide any viability evidence. This has significantly reduced the number of challenges to viability as most developers prefer to take a quicker route and fast tract at 35% rather than argue for 28% or 30% provision.
Comment
Issues and Options Document
B. Include a policy on housing mix which requires the provision of specialist homes, such as wheelchair accessibility (part M Category 3), independent living units, sheltered and extra-care housing,
Representation ID: 35505
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
A blunt policy could be difficult here. I work for some of these operators and their requirements in respect to distance to local shops, public transport (for staff) could make inclusion on fringe of town sites un-viable for them. Preference is always for town center or for sites along main corridors. I do agree that making more housing wheelchair friendly (adaptable) at the design stage is a good thing generally.
A blunt policy could be difficult here. I work for some of these operators and their requirements in respect to distance to local shops, public transport (for staff) could make inclusion on fringe of town sites un-viable for them. Preference is always for town center or for sites along main corridors. I do agree that making more housing wheelchair friendly (adaptable) at the design stage is a good thing generally.
Support
Issues and Options Document
A. Increase density within the existing residential area - which would require an amendment to our current density policy
Representation ID: 35506
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
Development should be focused towards current settlement areas within the district, particularly those in the higher tiers. 30 Units per Ha will maximize the efficiency of land but there should be some flexible where such a density would be out of character in areas where the pattern of development is for larger family homes. Perhaps a measurement based on Habitable rooms would add flexibility to the type of homes provided.
Development should be focused towards current settlement areas within the district, particularly those in the higher tiers. 30 Units per Ha will maximize the efficiency of land but there should be some flexible where such a density would be out of character in areas where the pattern of development is for larger family homes. Perhaps a measurement based on Habitable rooms would add flexibility to the type of homes provided.
Comment
Issues and Options Document
A. Increase density within the existing residential area - which would require an amendment to our current density policy
Representation ID: 35508
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
It is important to allocate sufficient land for smaller builders and developers who can greatly add to the delivery of new homes in the district. Sites that suit these developers would include infill developments on the fringes of existing settlements, these sites should be considered when redrawing the settlement boundaries to allow organic grown at the edges.
It is important to allocate sufficient land for smaller builders and developers who can greatly add to the delivery of new homes in the district. Sites that suit these developers would include infill developments on the fringes of existing settlements, these sites should be considered when redrawing the settlement boundaries to allow organic grown at the edges.
Comment
Issues and Options Document
B. Increase density on allocated residential sites
Representation ID: 35509
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
This policy could slow down delivery of already allocated sites. Any increase in density should be developer led.
This policy could slow down delivery of already allocated sites. Any increase in density should be developer led.
Support
Issues and Options Document
C. Several small extensions to the existing residential area
Representation ID: 35511
Received: 07/03/2018
Respondent: Arebray Ltd
I act for a number of small developers, all hungry for more land. The lack of sites is the biggest restriction on them growing their businesses. Being local the benefits to the local economy are direct as they generally have local suppliers, use local labor and their product, generally, is of a higher quality and with a more unique design. Profits are also spent locally rather than returned to the head office for dispersal to shareholders.
I act for a number of small developers, all hungry for more land. The lack of sites is the biggest restriction on them growing their businesses. Being local the benefits to the local economy are direct as they generally have local suppliers, use local labor and their product, generally, is of a higher quality and with a more unique design. Profits are also spent locally rather than returned to the head office for dispersal to shareholders.
