Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19102
Received: 31/12/2008
Respondent: Mr Neil Cameron
Remove Stonegate from Box 17.
The policy approach is inconistent. Stonegate is not identified as a service centre. It is not a sustainable location for new housing development.
If the intention is to promote the development of affordable housing to meet a local need, that intention would best be achieved by allowing affordable housing to come forward under the rural exceptions policy. The effect of including Stonegate in Box 17 will be to encourage market housing on a site/s which could otherwise provide for affordable housing under the rural exceptions policy.
Objection: remove Stonegate from the list of settlements in Box 17.
The preferred option for the distribution of development is based upon option 2 (paragraphs 5.52-5.58. Option 2 seeks to concentrate development in service centres. Stonegate is not a local service village identified at paragraph 9.20. The Rural Settlements Study (at page 92) states that Stonegate is not a particulary sustainable location for development.
The Rural Settlements Study states that there is a need for affordable housing in Stonegate, and envisages that the Core Strategy should identify Stonegate as having the capacity to accommodate up to 15 housing units to meet that need.
If the intention is to allow housing development in an unsustainable location in order to meet a local need for affordable housing it is inappropriate to identify Stonegate in Box 17. The proper course of action is to allow such a proposal to come forward as part of a rural exception affordable housing site (see paragraph 30 of PPS3). It is likely to be counter productive to include Stonegate in Box 17 as this gives an indication that market housing is appropriate, whereas the Rural Settlements Study suggests that the need is for affordable housing.