Comment

Representation ID: 25348

Received: 13/07/2024

Respondent: Catherine Isbell

Community Infrastructure Levy at this point is more important than affordable housing as there is little value in moving people to an area with insufficient infrastructure.

Affordable housing invariably gets waived on a return to planning and - even if it didn't - the housing associations' association has declared that due to the new laws requiring them to only provide safe housing and due to the high interest rates, most housing associations don't have the funds to buy the affordable housing that's already been built. While interest rates remain high, rents in the private sector will continue to rise and housing associations can't afford to fill the gap.

Comment

Representation ID: 25374

Received: 13/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jane de Garston

Affordable housing should be the priority although developers should not be monitored to ensure they are not calculating methods to avoid having to pay cil, including alterations to housing type mid development

Comment

Representation ID: 25747

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Miss Judith Rogers

Neither should be dropped and especially not after planning permission has been granted. What else is there for local people to get out of any housing development? Planning process should include a discussion with the community (not just the Parish Council) as to where CIL money should be allocated.

Comment

Representation ID: 26337

Received: 17/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Parish Council

Young people are key to the survival of smaller rural areas. If the policies are written to reflect the balance between infrastructure and affordable housing being available, this links directly to enforcement on planning permissions given to developers based on affordable housing allocation that is then taken away once viability studies are completed. Permissions linked to affordable housing need to be enforced.

Comment

Representation ID: 26936

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Brede Parish Council

A balance of both is necessary, truly affordable housing will always be needed,
but CIL should be the priority, without it we cannot improve the infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 27001

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Northiam Parish Council

It is not a question of one or the other. All housing, affordable or not, requires suitable and appropriate infrastructure.
We await the new government policy on affordable housing and how it may be funded.

Comment

Representation ID: 27118

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Westfield Parish Council

See point 162 in the attached submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 27253

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

Proposed Policy HOU2 on Affordable Housing is correct. Insufficient information is given in the Reg 18 Commentary to be able the answer Q118 [affordable housing v CIL]

Comment

Representation ID: 27425

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

This is a vague question. We need both and the plan needs to deliver both.

Comment

Representation ID: 27626

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

The supporting text (paragraph 8.22) states that the HEDNA indicates there is a need for 325 affordable homes per annum, and that this figure is greater than the annual average of all homes delivered since 2011. This highlights the severe lack of housing delivery across Rother. As set out in our responses to Q77 and Q76, the Council should aim for the higher level of growth to try and meet as much housing need as possible (both market and affordable). Failure to meet identified need will ensure a large level of unmet need later in the plan period/start of the next local plan period. This will make it difficult to deliver the level of economic and other growth identified in the draft local plan. Subject to the review identified at (paragraph 7.9) of the HELAA, RDC should consider maximising the number of homes and ensuring the percentage of affordable homes is adjusted accordingly.

We welcome the fact the draft policy (footnote 52) acknowledges the approach for First Homes may change. RDC should consider allowing flexibility to deliver other affordable tenures in lieu of First Homes, particularly on 100% affordable schemes.

Please see also our response to Q77 and Q76 relating to the development strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 28375

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

This was a David Cameron scheme. It often is not used for the infrastructures to
help with roads/transport/water supply etc . .It may go towards sports facilities,but
there still could be a built in levy on Affordable housing.
For example, Ashburnham wants to have a new village hall, while some don't wish
for more houses in the village. They would benefit, if all villages had say 20/30
homes for the local young people.
If as in the enclosed, and the land is there ,build 18 homes, 9 long two high, They
could still be about £160,000,add £20,000 to each one,=£180,000 they have then
£360,000 &£100,000 available, There is your new Hall and 18 new affordable homes
for the local residents.
This coupled with a 1066 walk, a camping site for those passing through, tea rooms,
and a small shop.