Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.
If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.
You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.
OBJECT CPREssex (David Green)
We are sure the Council recognise that, especially with the current high rates of growth, infrastructure is not keeping pace with the need for it. This situation will be exacerbated by the proposed level of growth. The draft plan acknowledges that major investment is needed in the trunk roads and railways serving the Borough. However, the timescale for addressing most of this is uncertain and, with the railways, it is difficult to see how it can be addressed at all given the lack of capacity.
More details about Rep ID: 3253
OBJECT Persimmon Homes (Ms Anna Davies)
Criteria a and b are contradictory. The developer should have the choice in providing affordable housing in line with criteria a or b.
It may be more appropriate for the affordable housing to reflect the need for affordable housing as assessed.
The wording is too vague and would likely result in confusion as to what mix of affordable housing is required by way of the policy, leading to dispute.
The policy should also be re-worded to make reference to the SHMA.
More details about Rep ID: 2597
SUPPORT Persimmon Homes (Ms Anna Davies)
We support the inclusion of starter homes. Whilst central government have provided limited details on starter homes to date the policy is future proofed and will enable development to meet the need from starter homes as a result.
More details about Rep ID: 2596
COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)
ECC recommends that housing classified as 'independent living' is included within the definition of affordable housing. This would support the delivery of ECC's Independent Living programme, which seeks to provide market and social housing for those within this specialist housing category.
More details about Rep ID: 2515
The plan proposes a level of affordable housing in new development below that indicated as essential by its own research. This is unacceptable. It means that in new developments there will be insufficient smaller and more affordable dwellings to satisfy local need with these displaced by larger dwellings which will cater for wealthier in-migrants from London and elsewhere.
More details about Rep ID: 2249
OBJECT Mr Christopher Lee
This plan does not address the housing needs of Colchester. According to the evidence base there are going to be 45% of first time buyers priced out of the market. Colchester is fifth highest in the eviction rankings. Being evicted from private landlords is the highest contributor to homelessness in Colchester. There is not enough social housing in this already and the 20% committed to at the end of the Local Plan is not going to make the situation better.
More details about Rep ID: 2232
OBJECT Cllr rosalind scott
30% sustainable housing is essential if local people are to be housed adequately. But rented accommodation is also required by a growing number of people and supply and capped rents should be improved by the decisions made by the group of councils.
More details about Rep ID: 2188
OBJECT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)
LANGHAM - SCHOOL ROAD (EAST) AND WICK ROAD SITES
We consider that although an affordable housing ceiling figure of 20% of new housing might be applicable, the ultimate % must reflect the local Parish Council's desires (amount and location), the suitability of the location, the related infrastructure commitments, and site preparation costs, and the aggregate overall costs and package of other planning gain contributions and measures provided by the development in question, as well as the overall viability.
Please see the supporting Mark Liell Planning Statement attached at SS11 for supplementary comment on the treatment of affordable housing.
More details about Rep ID: 1824
OBJECT Greene King plc represented by David Russell Associates (Mr David Russell)
We find Policy DM8's aim to seeking a level of 20% affordable housing on schemes of 10 or more dwellings broadly acceptable. However, the policy does not make reference to any specific methodology for assessing overall scheme viability. This is a weakness that should be rectified before the policy is formally adopted.
The Government is seeking to boost housing supply from plots for self and custom built homes, encouraging LPAs to make appropriate provisions in their Local Plans. We think the Colchester Local Plan could consider including an appropriate policy on self and custom built homes.
More details about Rep ID: 1116
SUPPORT Peter O'Donnell represented by Cheffins (Mr Ian Smith)
We support Policy DM8 concerning affordable housing provision at 20%. We do also feel that provision of affordable housing should be made in all of the sustainable settlements, including Copford/Copford Green in line with housing need assessments.
More details about Rep ID: 483
COMMENT Mr Simon Hall
It is suggested that the affordable housing in rural settlements should be provided on contiguous space to the village boundary. While recognising the practicalities every effort should be made to integrate affordable housing with other housing to avoid ghettoes being created
It is a pity the target is being set at 20% particularly as 30% is the target in the new Garden Communities.
More details about Rep ID: 275