Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

48 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Tom Leimdorfer 27 Jan 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 936033/CSCD/8
  • Status: Accepted
There needs to be a more robust approach to achieving affordable housing targets. The standard should be 33%. Where there is strong local support and in some rural areas, higher percentage can apply. For example, in the Elliott's site proposal, it would be argued that the employment part of the development will support only 24 open market dwellings, hence the other 16 (or 40%) should be affordable housing. In general, in rural areas the threshold should be 6 (yielding 2 affordable).
DMC 24 Jan 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 3249665/CSCD/1
  • Status: Accepted
I strongly oppose 'exception site' and 'selected villages' policies
Deleted User 15 Jan 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 3164577/CSCD/5
  • Status: Accepted
By definition, in a rural location any "Exception Site" IS a "Sensitive Location". That is precisely why such sites are normally protected from development. Therefore to say in CS17 that Rural Exception Sites will avoid sensitive locations is an oxymoron.
Deleted User 15 Jan 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 3164577/CSCD/7
  • Status: Accepted
The policy is unclear and potentially misleading to the general public.
Deleted User 15 Jan 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 3240161/CSCD/1
  • Status: Accepted
Opposition to 'exception site' policy which targets green field sites for development.
Deleted User 15 Jan 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 3164577/CSCD/6
  • Status: Accepted
The statement about providing affordable housing within or adjacent to settlement boundaries is potentially misleading. How can developments sited within the development boundary remain affordable in perpetuity if they are covered by "Right To Buy" legislation?
Deleted User 15 Jan 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 3164577/CSCD/3
  • Status: Accepted
The wishes of the community concerned must be the deciding factor in whether or not proposals for affordable housing developments on exception sites are approved.
Deleted User 15 Jan 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 3164577/CSCD/4
  • Status: Accepted
The policy to use "Exception Sites" for affordable housing developments in the Service Villages and the requirement for developments to remain "affordable" in perpetuity appear to be inconsistent with the policy to give priority to sites that are within the development boundary.
First pagePrevious page