Option b

Comment

Representation ID: 19165

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Jennings

I would support a high level of affordable housing in Rye and the rural areas. In Rye and Winchelsea there are high levels of second homes (upto 30%) and it is important that new development goes to people requiring homes rather than the second home market.

For this reson I would support the higher figure of 50% for Rye as well as the rural areas.

Support

Representation ID: 19213

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council

Particularly important in the rural villages

Object

Representation ID: 19228

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Preferred Strategy for Housing. Sedlescombe Parish Council does not support the proposals in this section for the increase of affordable social housing in the countryside or villages. Sedlescombe currently has sufficient social housing but insufficient cheaper housing to buy.

Support

Representation ID: 19306

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: AmicusHorizon Ltd (Rother Homes)

We support the option B in the paper, to have 35% in Bexhill, 40% Rye and Battle and 50% in Rural communities.

Support

Representation ID: 20024

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. A. Miskin

Agent: DMH Stallard

Support the decrease in percentage of new development allocated as affordable housing in Bexhill to 35% and increase in rural areas to 40% due to evidence that rural areas can support (and require) this level of affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 20295

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

Box 20 does not yet identify an absolute preference for affordable housing targets subject to further viability work. We perceive the option of seeking a 50% affordable housing target in the rural areas to be overly ambitious, particularly given the current market, and recommend that the approach taken to affordable housing maintains a degree of flexibility.