Question 27: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to approach to affordable homes?
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 19864
Received: 07/02/2020
Respondent: Dr Matthew Tomlinson
Please include environmental standards in the proposed housing. Affordable housing should exceed insulation standards and have a low carbon impact in the future, especially for the tenants of affordable housing as well as the environment as a whole.
Please include environmental standards in the proposed housing. Affordable housing should exceed insulation standards and have a low carbon impact in the future, especially for the tenants of affordable housing as well as the environment as a whole.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 20102
Received: 25/02/2020
Respondent: RJ Baker & Sons
Agent: Cheffins
We support the approach to the provision of affordable housing.
We support the approach to the provision of affordable housing.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 20241
Received: 03/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Barrie Osborne
It is important to keep the volume of affordable housing. To often the percentages are watered down.
It is important to keep the volume of affordable housing. To often the percentages are watered down.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 20623
Received: 11/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs Janet Skidmore
Agent: Carter Jonas LLP
No summary provided.
The affordable housing requirements in Policy 5: Homes are noted, including that the affordable housing requirement is lower for development in Norwich compared with Broadland and South Norfolk. However, it is normal for strategic extensions and new settlements/garden villages to not provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing during the initial phases of development because of the costs of providing primary infrastructure e.g. roads, drainage, strategic landscaping, and community uses in advance of housing development. It is very unlikely, and potentially undesirable, for affordable housing requirements to be increased for later phases of development at strategic extensions and new settlements to address under-delivery in initial phases. Therefore, it is considered that the strategic extensions and garden villages identified as reasonable alternatives for housing allocations at Wymondham would not meet the policy requirements for affordable housing. In these circumstances, other sites that can deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing should be identified in emerging GNLP. As set out in the representations to the Site Allocations document, land south of Gonville Hall Farm in Wymondham (Ref. GNLP0320) should be allocated for development or identified as a reasonable alternative. It should be noted that the development currently under construction to the north of Gonville Hall Farm is delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 20642
Received: 11/03/2020
Respondent: Noble Foods Ltd
Agent: Carter Jonas LLP
The affordable housing requirements in Policy 5: Homes are noted, including that the affordable housing requirement is lower for development in Norwich compared with Broadland and South Norfolk. The promoted development at Fengate Farm in Marsham (Ref. GNLP3035) would deliver affordable housing for local people.
The affordable housing requirements in Policy 5: Homes are noted, including that the affordable housing requirement is lower for development in Norwich compared with Broadland and South Norfolk. The promoted development at Fengate Farm in Marsham (Ref. GNLP3035) would deliver affordable housing for local people.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 20677
Received: 11/03/2020
Respondent: CPRE Norfolk
Ideally, affordable and social housing should be provided where needed as a stand-alone provision, and not be connected to private developers’ housing targets. Lessons must be learned from the history of poor delivery of affordable homes, to ensure that the policy to provide 28% or 33% affordable houses must be enforced. We support rural exception sites as a means of supplying needed local affordable and social housing.
CPRE Norfolk supports the affordable housing policy within Policy 5 – Homes. It is essential that the requirements of this policy are followed when progressing applications for housing on sites of 10 dwellings or more. Any policy which encourages the building of a greater proportion of affordable homes should be adopted. It is to be hoped that government policy will change further regarding viability tests so they become more transparent, so that it would be less easy for developers to evade their responsibilities to deliver affordable homes. More central government intervention is required if these needed homes are to be built. Ideally, affordable and social housing should be provided where needed as a stand-alone provision, and not be connected to private developers’ housing targets. Lessons must be learned from the history of poor delivery of affordable homes, to ensure that the policy to provide 28% or 33% affordable houses must be enforced. We support rural exception sites as a means of supplying needed local affordable and social housing. An approach based on the provision of stand-alone sites such as these, in our opinion is a far better method for addressing affordable and social housing needs.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 20795
Received: 12/03/2020
Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council
These are detail comments after much research and a summary would not be sufficient to make the necessary points.
Affordable Housing.
Linking affordable housing targets to overall housing targets has potentially damaging consequences. This is because the delivery of necessary affordable housing then becomes reliant upon large housing targets. Developers can make a case for needing higher targets in order to provide the required level of affordable housing.
Hempnall Parish Council believes that ideally, affordable and social housing should be provided where needed as a stand-alone provision, and not be connected to private developers’ housing targets. We support rural exception sites as a means of supplying needed local affordable and social housing. An approach based on the provision of stand-alone sites such as these, in our opinion is a far better method for addressing affordable and social housing needs.
Where affordable housing is expressed as a percentage of the housing to be provided on a site, it is essential that the requirements of draft Policy 5 are followed when progressing applications for housing on sites of 10 dwellings or more. It is to be hoped that government policy will change further regarding viability tests so they become more transparent, so that it would be less easy for developers to evade their responsibilities to deliver affordable homes. More central government intervention is required if these needed homes are to be built. Lessons must be learned from the history of poor delivery of affordable homes, to ensure that the policy to provide 28% or 33% affordable houses must be enforced.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 20976
Received: 14/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Andrew Cawdron
Please ensure Officers, Committees and Councils stick with Policies and affordable housing numbers and do not adopt the principle of something is better than nothing. Mix, types, sizes and adaptable needs are an essential requirement. What is the definition of "major" which requires 20 % to be adaptable. It should be universal. "Future proofing" housing. Space standards. Having only 75% leaves 1 in 4 either above or below nationally described standards. 100% requirement is therefore essential. Also of note is that evidence about type and mix etc will be revisited in 2020. This is now !
Please ensure Officers, Committees and Councils stick with Policies and affordable housing numbers and do not adopt the principle of something is better than nothing. Mix, types, sizes and adaptable needs are an essential requirement. What is the definition of "major" which requires 20 % to be adaptable. It should be universal. "Future proofing" housing. Space standards. Having only 75% leaves 1 in 4 either above or below nationally described standards. 100% requirement is therefore essential. Also of note is that evidence about type and mix etc will be revisited in 2020. This is now !
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 20992
Received: 14/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Keith Benjafield
Approx. 40 years ago ( I am now 65) I was considering purchasing a new build small property which basically was an upmarket bedsit. This was an ideal way of buying a property, should something like this be considered for single person accommodation.?
Approx. 40 years ago ( I am now 65) I was considering purchasing a new build small property which basically was an upmarket bedsit. This was an ideal way of buying a property, should something like this be considered for single person accommodation.?
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21185
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Saving Swainsthorpe Campaign
We support the commitment to affordable housing and the target of 33% within Policy 5. Our view is that such targets should become enforceable given the poor delivery of such targets.
We support the commitment to affordable housing and the target of 33% within Policy 5. Our view is that such targets should become enforceable given the poor delivery of such targets.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21188
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hopkins Homes, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Bidwells
Flexibility should be provided within the Policy to deviate from the stated percentages, should unforeseen circumstances arise that threaten the viability of a site, or where there are changes in the most up-to-date evidence of need. In this regard, the Policy should delete reference to the words ‘at least’ as affordable housing requirements should not be expressed as minimums.
Flexibility should be provided within the Policy to deviate from the stated percentages, should unforeseen circumstances arise that threaten the viability of a site, or where there are changes in the most up-to-date evidence of need. In this regard, the Policy should delete reference to the words ‘at least’ as affordable housing requirements should not be expressed as minimums.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21212
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Kier Living Eastern Ltd
Agent: Bidwells
The Policy should delete reference to the words ‘at least’ as affordable housing requirements should not be expressed as minimums. Flexibility should be built into the policy to deviate from the stated percentages should unforeseen circumstances arise that threaten the viability of a site, or where there are changes in the most up-to-date evidence of need.
The Policy should delete reference to the words ‘at least’ as affordable housing requirements should not be expressed as minimums. Flexibility should be built into the policy to deviate from the stated percentages should unforeseen circumstances arise that threaten the viability of a site, or where there are changes in the most up-to-date evidence of need.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21271
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hannah Guy
We broadly welcome and support the Policy on Housing and the wording contained there in.
It must also be noted that the policy continues to be silent on the support for affordable housing sites on Entry Level and Rural Exception sites. Both these categories and elements of housing provision are supported and encouraged by the NPPF 2019, as approved.
We broadly welcome and support the Policy on Housing and the wording contained there in.
It must also be noted that the policy continues to be silent on the support for affordable housing sites on Entry Level and Rural Exception sites. Both these categories and elements of housing provision are supported and encouraged by the NPPF 2019, as approved.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21318
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Lanpro Services
Agent: Stephen Flynn
No justification or viability information has been provided to support the increase from 28% (2017 SHMA) to 33% affordable housing within the draft plan, unless there is compelling new evidence to support the increase. Lanpro object to Student accommodation schemes being asked to provide a commuted sum equivalent to the amount of affordable housing that would be expected if the site was developed for general needs housing. Accommodation for older people should not be required to provide onsite provision for affordable housing and should instead be required to provide a commuted sum in lieu of provision.
No justification or viability information has been provided to support the increase from 28% to 33% affordable housing within the draft plan. The 28% figure was confirmed through the 2017 SHMA and we are not aware that there has been any update to the SHMA, or any other evidence that would support this change. Unless there is compelling new evidence to support the increase to 33%, then the requirement should remain at 28% in line with the latest SHMA.
The term “at least” should be removed from the policy prior to each percentage requirement as this does not provide the necessary certainty for developers. Affordable housing policies should not be seeking to establish requirements as minimums.
Lanpro object to Student accommodation schemes being asked to provide a commuted sum equivalent to the amount of affordable housing that would be expected if the site was developed for general needs housing. This will be very difficult to accurately assess without an alternative housing scheme being drawn up to take into account individual site constraints and viability and market factors. What will be the mechanism for agreeing this? It is too simplistic to consider doing it on a site area basis and is likely to delay schemes coming forward and potentially affect viability.
Student housing is meeting a particular identified housing need in its own right as evidenced by Norwich City Council’s Student Accommodation Need Assessment.
The policy requires C3 accommodation for older people to provide on-site affordable housing and this provides insufficient flexibility. Such affordable housing provision has proven to be incompatible with managed sheltered housing developments as housing providers are often unwilling to take on such units. We are concerned that the policy would stifle delivery of sheltered housing accommodation. Such an approach conflicts with the positive approach towards housing delivery contained within the NPPF and as such is unsound. Accommodation for older people should not be required to provide onsite provision for affordable housing and should instead be required to provide a commuted sum in lieu of provision. The policy should be amended accordingly.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21406
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Glavenhill Ltd
Agent: Stephen Flynn
No justification or viability information has been provided to support the increase from 28% (2017 SHMA) to 33% affordable housing within the draft plan, unless there is compelling new evidence to support the increase. Glavenhill Ltd object to Student accommodation schemes being asked to provide a commuted sum equivalent to the amount of affordable housing that would be expected if the site was developed for general needs housing. Accommodation for older people should not be required to provide onsite provision for affordable housing and should instead be required to provide a commuted sum in lieu of provision.
No justification or viability information has been provided to support the increase from 28% to 33% affordable housing within the draft plan. The 28% figure was confirmed through the 2017 SHMA and we are not aware that there has been any update to the SHMA, or any other evidence that would support this change. Unless there is compelling new evidence to support the increase to 33%, then the requirement should remain at 28% in line with the latest SHMA.
The term “at least” should be removed from the policy prior to each percentage requirement as this does not provide the necessary certainty for developers. Affordable housing policies should not be seeking to establish requirements as minimums.
Glavenhill Ltd object to Student accommodation schemes being asked to provide a commuted sum equivalent to the amount of affordable housing that would be expected if the site was developed for general needs housing. This will be very difficult to accurately assess without an alternative housing scheme being drawn up to take into account individual site constraints and viability and market factors. What will be the mechanism for agreeing this? It is too simplistic to consider doing it on a site area basis and is likely to delay schemes coming forward and potentially affect viability.
Student housing is meeting a particular identified housing need in its own right as evidenced by Norwich City Council’s Student Accommodation Need Assessment.
The policy requires C3 accommodation for older people to provide on-site affordable housing and this provides insufficient flexibility. Such affordable housing provision has proven to be incompatible with managed sheltered housing developments as housing providers are often unwilling to take on such units. We are concerned that the policy would stifle delivery of sheltered housing accommodation. Such an approach conflicts with the positive approach towards housing delivery contained within the NPPF and as such is unsound. Accommodation for older people should not be required to provide onsite provision for affordable housing and should instead be required to provide a commuted sum in lieu of provision. The policy should be amended accordingly.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21482
Received: 12/03/2020
Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council
Linking affordable housing targets to overall housing targets has potentially damaging consequences. This is because the delivery of necessary affordable housing then becomes reliant upon large housing targets. Developers can make a case for needing higher targets in order to provide the required level of affordable housing.
Hempnall Parish Council believes that ideally, affordable and social housing should be provided where needed as a stand-alone provision, and not be connected to private developers’ housing targets. We support rural exception sites as a means of supplying needed local affordable and social housing. An approach based on the provision of stand-alone sites such as these, in our opinion is a far better method for addressing affordable and social housing needs.
Where affordable housing is expressed as a percentage of the housing to be provided on a site, it is essential that the requirements of draft Policy 5 are followed when progressing applications for housing on sites of 10 dwellings or more. It is to be hoped that government policy will change further regarding viability tests so they become more transparent, so that it would be less easy for developers to evade their responsibilities to deliver affordable homes. More central government intervention is required if these needed homes are to be built. Lessons must be learned from the history of poor delivery of affordable homes, to ensure that the policy to provide 28% or 33% affordable houses must be enforced.
Please see attached for consultation response from Hempnall Parish Council.
Please see also the Hempnall Parish Council Position Statement on sites in Hempnall proposed by landowners for inclusion in the GNLP - included with this submission. This Position Statement, which deals directly with the detail of what Hempnall Parish Council wants for Hempnall, should be considered alongside our consultation response which makes a number of more general comments about the Draft GNLP.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21578
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Hingham Town Council
The Council would like to raise the a concern regarding the location of social houses within developments. These homes are often for families and are placed on less desirable plots within a development, with rear gardens adjacent to the main road, this will mean that children residing there will being exposed to increased levels of pollution and noise whilst playing in their gardens.
Hingham Town Council support the policy that “Residential proposals should address the need for homes for all sectors of the community having regard to the latest housing evidence, including a variety of homes in terms of tenure and cost. New homes should provide for a good quality of life in mixed and inclusive communities and major development proposals should provide adaptable homes to meet varied and changing needs”
The Council would like to raise the a concern regarding the location of social houses within developments. These homes are often for families and are placed on less desirable plots within a development, with rear gardens adjacent to the main road, this will mean that children residing there will being exposed to increased levels of pollution and noise whilst playing in their gardens.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21628
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Aylsham TC
With regard to affordable housing there is a need, from past experiences, to ensure there is no wiggle room for developers over the 33% figure. We would also like to see an addition so that the development is ‘tenure blind’
With regard to affordable housing there is a need, from past experiences, to ensure there is no wiggle room for developers over the 33% figure. We would also like to see an addition so that the development is ‘tenure blind’
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21665
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Our Place
Agent: Lanpro Services Ltd
Whilst Our Place are committed to the delivery of much needed affordable housing across a range of tenure types, they object to the imposition of a 28% affordable housing requirement under draft Policy allocations GNLP3054 and GNLP2114 in the absence of any supporting viability evidence.
They are willing to cooperate with the Council and contribute positively to any reviews focusing on viability evidence to enable the delivery of affordable housing should this be requested.
See representations submitted to GNLP3054 and GNLP2114 for further information.
Whilst Our Place are committed to the delivery of much needed affordable housing across a range of tenure types, they object to the imposition of a 28% affordable housing requirement under draft Policy allocations GNLP3054 and GNLP2114 in the absence of any supporting viability evidence.
They are willing to cooperate with the Council and contribute positively to any reviews focusing on viability evidence to enable the delivery of affordable housing should this be requested.
See representations submitted to GNLP3054 and GNLP2114 for further information.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21696
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Persimmon Homes (Anglia)
Would support a housing requirement uplift.
The requirement for 33% affordable housing is questioned given that the evidence suggests 28% would be appropriate.
Persimmon Homes (Anglia) prides itself on building market homes that are more affordable by those on average household incomes as well as playing a significant role in delivering affordable rent and low cost home ownership tenures for those households whose needs are not met by the market. Persimmon Homes would support an appropriate housing requirement uplift to ensure delivery of the full affordable housing need to compensate for lack of delivery on small and unviable sites. Increasing the housing requirement would in itself increase competition and improve affordability of market housing.
If a higher affordable housing percentage is adopted as proposed under Policy 5, this could have an effect on the viability of some sites. In these cases, the policy should be clear that flexibility on percentage and tenure will be accommodated where there is reasonable justification as part of normal negotiations with Officers without the need for rigorous open book assessments which create uncertainty, expense and delay in delivering housing.
Persimmon Homes (Anglia) also question the justification for applying 33% affordable housing across the plan area, except in Norwich City Centre where the requirement is for 28%. As highlighted in Paragraph 241 of the Strategy Document, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2017 identifies a need for 28% affordable housing as a percentage of the total housing need. We therefore question the justification for introducing a higher affordable housing requirement across the plan area.
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21752
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Brown & Co
We support the approach to affordable homes.
Clarion Housing is the country’s largest housing association, they are therefore well positioned to provide policy compliant affordable housing. Clarion believe that the issue is about access to housing generally, not just the provision of affordable housing. It is their belief that the provision of high quality mixed tenure housing is key to the creation of sustainable communities. Honingham Thorpe would provide high quality, energy efficient affordable housing throughout the development.
We support the approach to affordable homes.
Clarion Housing is the country’s largest housing association, they are therefore well positioned to provide policy compliant affordable housing. Clarion believe that the issue is about access to housing generally, not just the provision of affordable housing. It is their belief that the provision of high quality mixed tenure housing is key to the creation of sustainable communities. Honingham Thorpe would provide high quality, energy efficient affordable housing throughout the development.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21798
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Quantum Land
Please see attached for full submission
Policy 5 – Homes – whilst we welcome the acknowledgement that high costs can have an impact on viability, and therefore the ability of sites to deliver 33% affordable housing, it is our view
that this approach should not be restricted solely to the City centre area. All sites within the Norwich Urban Area will by their urban nature be constrained and will face the same challenges as City centre sites, and it is our view that the same flexible approach should be applied to those sites, with the lower 28% threshold being applied. It is acknowledged that such a flexible approach would need to be supported by viability evidence;
Please find attached representations, submitted on behalf of our Client – Berliet Limited.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21854
Received: 12/03/2020
Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council
Linking affordable housing targets to overall housing targets has potentially damaging consequences. This is because the delivery of necessary affordable housing then becomes reliant upon large housing targets. Developers can make a case for needing higher targets in order to provide the required level of affordable housing.
Hempnall Parish Council believes that ideally, affordable and social housing should be provided where needed as a stand-alone provision, and not be connected to private developers’ housing targets. We support rural exception sites as a means of supplying needed local affordable and social housing. An approach based on the provision of stand-alone sites such as these, in our opinion is a far better method for addressing affordable and social housing needs.
Where affordable housing is expressed as a percentage of the housing to be provided on a site, it is essential that the requirements of draft Policy 5 are followed when progressing applications for housing on sites of 10 dwellings or more. It is to be hoped that government policy will change further regarding viability tests so they become more transparent, so that it would be less easy for developers to evade their responsibilities to deliver affordable homes. More central government intervention is required if these needed homes are to be built. Lessons must be learned from the history of poor delivery of affordable homes, to ensure that the policy to provide 28% or 33% affordable houses must be enforced.
Please see attached for full submission
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21908
Received: 12/03/2020
Respondent: Home Builders Federation
We would recommend that the term “at least” is removed from the policy prior to each percentage requirement. Policies on affordable housing should not seek to establish requirements as minimums. This does not provide the necessary certainty for either the decision maker or applicant as to the required level of provision. The policy should set out clearly what is expected of the developer and if they meet that expectation then an application should not be refused.
It would also appear that this policy will require C3 accommodation for older people to be provide on-site affordable housing and as such provides insufficient flexibility. Such affordable housing provision has proven to be incompatible with managed sheltered housing developments. It is often the case that housing providers are unwilling to take on such units. We are therefore concerned that the policy would stifle delivery of sheltered housing accommodation. Such an approach conflicts with the positive approach towards housing delivery contained within the NPPF and as such is unsound. We would suggest that accommodation for older people not be required to provide onsite provision for affordable housing and instead be required to provide a commuted sum in lieu of provision.
It is further noted that the interim viability study has not considered a specific typology with regard to retirement homes. Such development has, for example, a higher proportion of its floorspace as communal areas and general assessments of residential viability cannot be relied on when assessing the viability of more specialist accommodation to meet the policy requirements of a local plan. We would therefore recommend a specific typology for special older people’s accommodation is tested in the viability study.
Please find attached the HBF’s comments on the GNLP.
Object
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21915
Received: 12/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Peter Dalby
We see much 'development', mostly middle-income housing.
The 'affordable' housing is little, and nevertheless, well out of reach for those who really need it.....
A plan,- in these times especially, should surely include, as a PRIORITY:
i) Getting cold, pained, and potentially dying young people off the streets of Norwich into small warm dry eco habitations.
ii) Rehousing individuals and families who are suffering in damp squalid rip-off rent conditions,
as a means of staying off the streets, into something similar.
Clearly neither of these will be a cash cow for developers,(as they are in need of being within the Univeral Credit budget!!)
However, it seems obvious that a Greater Plan needs to be Great in some respects, and has little to do with greedy landowners and hungry builders circling to make a killing.
We see much 'development', mostly middle-income housing.
The 'affordable' housing is little, and nevertheless, well out of reach for those who really need it.....
A plan,- in these times especially, should surely include, as a PRIORITY:
i) Getting cold, pained, and potentially dying young people off the streets of Norwich into small warm dry eco habitations.
ii) Rehousing individuals and families who are suffering in damp squalid rip-off rent conditions,
as a means of staying off the streets, into something similar.
Clearly neither of these will be a cash cow for developers,(as they are in need of being within the Univeral Credit budget!!)
However, it seems obvious that a Greater Plan needs to be Great in some respects, and has little to do with greedy landowners and hungry builders circling to make a killing.
Secondly, more specifically, and with regard to this and Reedham NR13 (GNLP 1001 & 3003):
Reedham often described as 'one of the most picturesque villages in the Broads' has already been partly vandalised with housing estates, the latest being 'Barn Owl Close' -(where the barn owl now does not fly),
and which after 2 years is still ongoing, with dust and noise,-including constant bleeping of machinery.
So is there a benefit to even more housing, bearing in mind the following:
*The primary school will almost certainly be full before these houses are built.
*The Surgery is already fit to burst.
*Potential FLOODING is an issue in Witton Green (1001)
*There is little or no employment in the village,
and as one of the most outlying areas public transport is difficult and expensive,
leading to the alternative of choking all the small access roads with cars (and more delivery vans)
I would urge the planners to seriously consider , by visiting the reality ,
rather than the onscreen virtual reality.
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21949
Received: 13/03/2020
Respondent: UEA Estates & Buildings
Agent: Bidwells
Policy 5 of the draft GNLP highlights that outside of the UEA Campus, provision should be made to deliver a quantum of affordable housing that would be expected if the site was developed for general housing needs. Accordingly, given that GNLP0133-C and GNLP0133-E are proposed for purpose built student accommodation on the UEA Campus, neither site should be required to provide affordable housing. This has been reflected in each individual Representation for both sites, with proposed amendments to each preferred allocation policy wording.
Please see attached for full submission
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 21998
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Ms Carol Sharp
SNGP supports the affordable housing policy within Policy 5 – Homes. It is essential that the requirements of this policy are followed when progressing applications for housing on sites of 10 dwellings or more. Any policy which encourages the building of a greater proportion of affordable homes should be adopted.
Ideally, affordable and social housing should be provided where needed as a stand-alone provision, and not be connected to private developers’ housing targets. Lessons must be learned from the history of poor delivery of affordable homes, to ensure that the policy to provide 28% or 33% affordable houses must be enforced. We support rural exception sites as a means of supplying needed local affordable and social housing. An approach based on the provision of stand-alone sites such as these, in our opinion is a far better method for addressing affordable and social housing needs.
Developers who use viability assessments to try to argue down their affordable housing contribution should be required to show that they have explored options for redesigning schemes that do not impact on the level of community benefits to be provided. These viability assessments should be open to public scrutiny, and should be published online early enough for meaningful scrutiny to take place.
Please see attached for full submission
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 22025
Received: 15/03/2020
Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council
Affordable and social housing should be provided where needed as a stand-alone provision, to meet the needs of local people.
Please see attached for full submission
Support
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 22165
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Norwich Liberal Democrats
Number of people: 3
We agree the need to provide 33% affordable housing, except in Norwich City Centre where the requirement is at least 28% and the policy requirement for accessible and adaptable housing to provide 20% for major housing development.
Please see attached for full submission
Comment
Draft Greater Norwich Local Plan – Part 1 The Strategy
Representation ID: 22260
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Carter Jonas LLP
Number of people: 2
The affordable housing requirements in Policy 5: Homes are noted, including that the affordable housing requirement is lower for development in Norwich compared with Broadland and South Norfolk. However, it is normal for strategic extensions and new settlements/garden villages to not provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing during the initial phases of development because of the costs of providing primary infrastructure e.g. roads, drainage, strategic landscaping, and community uses in advance of residential development. It is very unlikely, and potentially undesirable, for affordable housing requirements to be increased for later phases of development at strategic extensions and new settlements to address under-delivery in initial phases. Therefore, it is considered that the strategic extension identified as reasonable alternatives for housing allocations at Costessey would not meet the policy requirements for affordable housing. In these circumstances, other sites that can deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing should be identified in emerging GNLP. The preferred allocation at land to the west of Green Lane West in Rackheath (Ref. GNLP0172) and the promoted development at land off Townhouse Road in Costessey (Ref. GNLP0284R) will both deliver affordable housing. The planning application for the proposed development at Green Lane West in Rackheath provided for 33% of the dwellings to be for affordable housing.
On behalf of my client, Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land, please find attached representations relating to Land South of Townhouse Road, Costessey, and Green Lane West, Rackheath.