B: Proposed Policy - Provision of Affordable Housing

Object

Representation ID: 1788

Received: 19/07/2011

For the foreseeable future economic viability remains the biggest restraint to the delivery of new housing and affordable housing. Flexibility needs to be spelt out in the policy to allow negotiations to progress with all residential schemes. Off site contributions for 15+ schemes could well deliver more tangible AH through contributions or be undeliverable in the form of mixed tenure say within a retirement apartment scheme where it is unworkable due to the internal conflict with service charges and use of communal facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 1798

Received: 27/07/2011

Affordable housing should be guaged by the planning committee to assess it's relevance & scale for specific housing schemes. There should be guidance but not a rule.

Object

Representation ID: 1823

Received: 05/08/2011

There should be an overriding policy of spreading social housing and not allowing concentrations of new social housing in some areas because minimum percentage requirements have not been adhered to in other areas.

Object

Representation ID: 1873

Received: 05/08/2011

The approach to Affordable Housing does not reflect the evidence base and is therefore inconsistent with PPS12. The rigid percentage approach does not provide a suitable amount of flexibility to account for changing circumstance in affordable provision over the plan period. It is recommended that the minimum requirement in tables a) and b) of the policy is deleted and replaced with a target requirement.

The Council should address recommendations in the evidence base for Greenfield development, specifically that no higher than 40% affordable provision should be sought. Savills, on behalf of Stuart Lyons, object to the current policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 1888

Received: 07/08/2011

The proposed policy of looking to smaller areas of land so as to develop them for affordable housing leads you to make truly awful choices such as attempting to sell Robsack Meadow for development and manipulating the system so as to pass development of Ore Valley with poor notification and all the tricks you employed to ensure it went though.

Comment

Representation ID: 1890

Received: 07/08/2011

We wonder if it should be the case that every developer of a block of housing has to allocate part fo the development to social housing. Sometimes a developer migh be creating accommodation in an area that maybe shouldn't be mixed. We would like to discuss this with HBC. Is it possible to have a dialog?

Object

Representation ID: 2046

Received: 08/08/2011

Disagree with the distinction between the % of affordable houses on brownfield and greenfield sites - they should be the same. When deciding the number, the amount of social housing and lack of infrastructure around the site should be a deciding factor.

Comment

Representation ID: 2078

Received: 09/08/2011

Provision of affordable housing should always be encouraged but not blocks of 1/2 bedroomed flats iwth no facilities for children. This only adds to the problems we have in the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 2089

Received: 08/08/2011

The lowering of the threshold for the provision of affordable housing to reflect the priority to increasing supply is noted.

In view of the clear need for economic regeneration, as recognised by the shared vision for greater prosperity for Hastings and Bexhill, some concern is expressed regarding the precedence given to affordable housing over other types of planning contributions, as this may be at the expense of securing funding towards employment generation.

Comment

Representation ID: 2101

Received: 08/08/2011

Affordable housing will never be enough because too many familities rely on others to provide for them, mixing affordable housing with others does not work.
This could put the price of affordable houses higher.

Comment

Representation ID: 2148

Received: 05/08/2011

Regarding affordable housing this doesn't go far enough i don't get this about must build to keep growth, there is no need to allow developers to say 30% affordable, for the next 20 years stop open market housing altogether, tell the developers to **** if they don't like it. Create a land community trust as in the enclosed letter.

Comment

Representation ID: 2149

Received: 05/08/2011

Why should people in particular young people who may be glad to have part time jobs have to pay for a house all their working life, when houses can be built for £80,000 and land does not cost anything to make, the Council could compulsory purchase all development land that is being suggested for housing. Employ the developers to build the homes, if they refuse get someone else to do it, employ direct labour.

What do you do with the contributions, is it ring fenced?

Comment

Representation ID: 2174

Received: 08/08/2011

The priority of the town should be mixed and balanced development with a mix of market properties and affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 2192

Received: 08/08/2011

Whilst recognising the need for more, think present policy is reasonable - plus more emphasis on innovative ways to provide social housing eg. more rent/buy, more H. Associations buying up private sector properties to use for social/affordable housing.