Scenario 2

Comment

Representation ID: 1867

Received: 18/07/2011

3.7-3.10. Prefer scenario 2. Fewest extra dwellings - to keep negative impact lowest. Ideally go for zero growth until full employment is achieved. Then only build in tandem with natural population growth.

Support

Representation ID: 1953

Received: 30/08/2011

Scenario 2 will take pressure off building at high density, infrastructure provision, windfall will still occur and support delivery of family homes using existing victorian stock.

Comment

Representation ID: 1967

Received: 30/08/2011

It is noticeable that your lower estimated total of 2659 is nearly 200 more than the proposed figure for Scenario 2 of 2478; this suggests that there has been no real attempt to make Scenario 2 viable as a genuine option.

Comment

Representation ID: 1991

Received: 30/08/2011

It is obvious that Scenario 2, for fewest houses, is the best option across topics 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17, just by having the least effect. I think it is plain that Scenario 2 is likely to do at least as well in the economic and social regeneration stakes, while doing least harm.
Justfication provided in full in written text for strengthening Scenario 2 in the SA assessment table for parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21.

Comment

Representation ID: 2216

Received: 09/08/2011

Scenario 2 has all the key benefits albeit fewer new homes with far less negative impact on the current infrastructure/services.