Strategic planning consultations

You can view all available strategic planning consultations. To make a comment on a current consultation you must sign in to your account.

Representations on New Local Plan Options - Proposed approach

Representation ID: 4972

COMMENT Mr John Martin

Summary:

The existing policy of: 40% affordable housing in the rural sub markets of Rural South West, Rural North and Central; and 30% affordable housing in the sub market areas of Market Harborough, Lutterworth and the Blaby Border Settlements (Broughton Astley and Fleckney) should be retained without change other than it should be vigoursly enforced by HDC in any planning applications.

Representation ID: 4869

COMMENT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Local housing needs should be identified via a survey that then creates a sustainable delivery of affordable to buy and social housing relative to identified needs and not some arbitrary figure handed down.

Representation ID: 4668

COMMENT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

Very regretfully there is no set of questions. This is very disappointing. Housing needs should be identified via a survey to create sustainable delivery of affordable to buy and social housing relative to identified needs.
The LPA should ensure there is a target set in relation to delivery and to ensure a continued, sustainable supply of affordable property to buy and to rent to meet the needs of the young and old.
The needs of Extra Care provision must feature in a future NLP.

Representation ID: 4574

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

TCG objects to the options presented in Chapter 7. TCG strongly objects to the suggestion of "an increase in the percentage affordable housing requirement housing developers are asked to provide" in paragraph 96 of the Paper. The evidence in not up-to-date or robust enough to support an increase in the level of affordable housing beyond 40%. Suggest a policy criteria in the Proposed Settlement Development policy to reflect positions where there is a genuine justification to be exempt or be able to provide affordable housing in the form of off-site contributions/ commuted sums. Requirements in excess of 40% would stiffle delivarbility and be at odds with Gov't policy.

Representation ID: 4266

SUPPORT Cliffe Investments Ltd represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Miss Sophie Trouth)

Summary:

In reference to affordable housing, the approach set out at paragraph 96 which refers to further viability assessment work to establish a realistic level of affordable housing provision is supported.

Representation ID: 4214

COMMENT Mr R Flint

Summary:

The Council's performance with regard to market housing has been characterized by overprovision, its performance with regard to affordable housing has been less than creditable. This is unlikely to improve until the District Council adopts a strategy less reliant on procuring affordable houses as a spin-off from market housing. There is a patent requirement for a programme for the construction of 'council' houses that are available to rent and not for subsequent sale. In view of the need to accommodate single persons or couples, there is a requirement for a substantially increased complement of apartments in the housing mix.

Representation ID: 3563

OBJECT Mrs Gloria Uhegwu

Summary:

The size of land for the proposed 1000 new dwellings is simply too small and cannot be sustained. The local amenities (which frankly is none existent at the moment) will be stretched to a boiling point.

Representation ID: 3289

COMMENT Davidsons Developments Limited represented by Bidwells (David Bainbridge)

Summary:

The level of affordable housing provision should be supported by clear evidence of requirements.

Representation ID: 3270

OBJECT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin

Summary:

We support the statement that a 'realistic approach' must be taken when considering affordable housing. However we believe that the Local Plan must be explicit in what this means, and in the approach to considering what makes a development viable.

The affordable housing policy should include recognition that affordable housing will be sought on the most sustainably located sites, to ensure that future residents have access to the facilities, services and jobs they need without being reliant on a car. Sites which do not meet this test should be subject to an offsite contribution for provision of the affordable housing.

Representation ID: 3263

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Define clearly what "affordable " really means and maintain the current approach but additionally impose strict requirements for local occupancy (living or working in the area)

Representation ID: 3238

OBJECT George Burton ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY Ltd (George Burton)

Summary:

An increase in the level of affordable housing required, especially on smaller developments, will tend to make them unviable and may lead to fewer developments in rural areas due to developers seeking to build elsewhere where the policies may be less stringent. We would suggest a minimum threshold of 10 units be considered this would promote and maintain smaller developers who may have suffered from lower affordable housing thresholds in recent years.

Representation ID: 2889

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Please see representations submitted by the Co-operative Group (20151029 TCG Reps New Plan for Harborough Options Consultation Doc') by email on 29/10/15 to planningpolicy@harborough.gov.uk

Representation ID: 2641

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

The current allocation seems reasonable if adhered to and not waived as happened on the SDA. Affordable homes need to be built where there is access on foot to employment, shops, schools, healthcare etc . Whilst Neighbourhood Plans may allocate higher levels in some parishes this does not make up for a need in Market Harborough and other larger settlements across the district. Affordable housing in villages should have a local lettings based policy

Representation ID: 2639

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

The targets previously set seemed reasonable but only if they are adhered to strictly. Affordable housing in particular needs to be within walking distance of facilities such as employment, shops, healthcare and schools. Whilst some Neighbourhood Plans may identify need for more affordable homes there is a need to ensure that the above are available.

Representation ID: 2393

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Good

Representation ID: 2392

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Good

Representation ID: 2087

COMMENT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

Whilst the provision of Affordable Housing is a commendable aim, it should be primarily aimed at meeting demand from people who have local connections. More care is needed to avoid social problems that have been caused by innappropriate relocation of people from outside the District.

Representation ID: 1987

OBJECT mrs wendy barrow

Summary:

affordable housing - this will spoil my privacy my house will be over looked by property on higher ground housing, is not in keep with the current housing

Representation ID: 1766

COMMENT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

a needs based criteria would be better

Representation ID: 1633

OBJECT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

policy on affordables needs to change in favour of low cost open market housing

Representation ID: 1160

SUPPORT Mr Lewis Freeman

Summary:

Affordable housing is a must in order to retain people within the area and give a chance for young people to have some quality of life and expectation of improvement.
These figures appear to allow for this.

Representation ID: 1148

COMMENT Barratt Homes/David Wilson Homes (Mr Robert Galij)

Summary:

Any forthcoming policy approach needs to allow flexibility, in terms of tenure, mix and delivery, reflecting latest government pronouncements on affordable housing (including starter homes) and issues surrounding viability.

Representation ID: 1109

SUPPORT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

13% or respondents to the village survey (48% return rate) are in support of Aff Housing. This is significantly less that the 40% as suggested in HDC AH policy.

Representation ID: 1071

COMMENT Kay Wilson

Summary:

Affordable housing could be required as a condition of granting permission for market developments. The provision of rural affordable housing is key to keeping communities vibrant and sustainable

Representation ID: 1025

COMMENT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

The current percentages are not realistic. Experience of the 40% level in both Great Glen and Kibworths largescale developments has been poor, especially social rented properties, and some of the antisocial problems have been mainly due to an inadequate balance in the choice based lettings policy whereby local people are not given high enough priority, so people from urban backgrounds have had preference but are ill equipped for rural life. Where are the smaller properties for elderly people to downsize into e.g. bungalows?

Representation ID: 922

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

40% affordable housing is acceptable

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult