A maximum of 14 dwellings, apparently.
Have it in the back of my head that a development of under 15 dwellings need not have any 'affordables'.
And if I'm correct, then lots of under 15 dwellings developments all added up together could produce lots of market housing but with no 'affordables'.
Which would be a bit pointless as I was under the impression that the driving factor behind all this open market house building is that this is the only way 'affordable' housing can be delivered for those not able to buy on the open market.
The "Affordable Housing" tittle seems to have no defined parameters.
Last nights agents idea and understanding of what they had to supply was made quite clear. Their percentage of affordable houses whether it be 30% or less, will require the client to obtain a normal mortgage and deposit to cover 75% with the developer retaining the remaining 25% of the agreed sale price. They were adamant that no houses would be made available to social housing agents such as Cornerstone and Teign Housing.
As for the Gatehouse farm development 14 houses seems a very realistic and sensible measure to meet the real housing need in Dawlish. Unlike the totally unrealistic 350 house development being put forward by Shutterton Park. Incidentally last time plans where put forward for the shutterton site it was for 175 houses plus other commercial and community buildings and this was thrown out by TDC planning in 2005. Hopefully the same will happen this time.
Rest assured that the Conservative's disgraceful attack on our country, enshrined within their national planning policy framework, will mean that the proposals will be passed. This country has got worse since the tories and their lapdogs lied their way into government. God help us all if they survive the full 5-year term.
Just been looking at the online information about this new planning application at Gatehouse Farm.
Outline permission is being sought for 11 dwellings. 9 x 2/3 bed houses and 2 x 1bedroom flats.
The applicants have been told by TDC that if they build more than 14 dwellings then they will become liable for an 'affordable' quota.
Lynne, have you looked up the definition of affordable housing? If you did, then you wouldn't need to keep up the affectation of using single quotes around the word. There's really no need. As for this particular proposal, the landowner's field couldn't fit in more than 11 dwellings, that's why only 11 are being built - otherwise the landowner would want to build 14 surely?
Building houses is win win employment for those building them and money coming into Dawlish from those who purchase the houses it could be the savior for this town, a town that stands still dies and Dawlish has stood still for far to long get the houses built as soon as. And the answers will be what about infrastructure if the infrastructure works with the influx of tourists it will work for a few hundred houses if not it will get sorted these things always do. The favorite argument is the roads i have lived here for more than 30 years and have never had a problem getting from A to B i have been held up but for no more than 5or10 minutes you get the impression from the comments on here it will be like the North Circular Road yes you may get held up for 10 mins but so what thats motoring
Yes I know all about the different types of 'affordable' housing and I will continue to put inverted commas around that expression for the simple reason that 'affordable' housing is not necessarily affordable at all.
My point about the 14 max is, as I have stated in a posting above, that that is the magic number for not having to provide any 'affordable' units.
It has been known, I am told, that in other parts of Devon doing small units of development, bit by bit, was a means by which developers tried to get out of providing 'affordable' housing. Am told though that the authorities wised up to what was going on and demanded the appropriate % of 'affordables' got built.
Just been looking at TDC's proposed Core Strategy.
On page 36 it states that in the more urban areas of the district, like Dawlish, it would be looking for a 30% target of 'affordable' units on sites of 4 dwellings or more and then on page 37 it also says this:
"The Council reserves the right to calculate the capacity of the site to
accommodate dwellings where it considers that the development proposed is
not an appropriate density specifically for the purpose of avoiding the
affordable housing threshold. The Council may also consider the overall area
and capacity of adjoining parcels of land where development is phased or
subject to separate planning applications, where such parcels can be
considered to make up parts of a larger site. ""
"is not necessarily affordable at all." Ergo, it's not necessarily unaffordable either! If they were unaffordable, then wouldn't they all be empty??? They're not, therefore the occupants must have enough money to afford to live there! Logically speaking...
And you've also apparently missed the logic behind the reason for there being only 11 dwellings proposed for that field. If your allegation was true, then why aren't 14 dwellings being proposed for that field?
Perhaps I should have written "Not necessarily affordable to all" rather than "at all"
I don't know that I am alleging anything. More that I am making a statement of fact concerning new developments of under 14 dwellings and that under a certain number of new dwellings proposed for any one particular site, there is no need to provide any 'affordables'.
Note that in the Core Strategy TDC say they would be looking for a % 'affordable' contribution on sites of 4 dwellings or more. (although, thinking about it, I wonder if that is a typo and that it should really read 14?. Perhaps that needs checking out.)
Note also its policy on adjacent sites being developed by different people. There is a lot of land in that Gatehouse/Secmaton area that is scheduled for development in both the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan and in the TDC Core Strategy. So I'd say the likelihood of planning applications being put in by various landowners/developers for land in that area in the very near future is100% certain.
Oh behave, you sound like a party politician. A 40p newspaper is not necessarily affordable to all. Why only pick on affordable housing? Is affordable housing only affordable if [i]everyone[/i] can afford it? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "allegation", and used "implication" instead. The question still stands though - you implied that only 11 dwellings were being proposed for that field in order to ensure that affordable housing didn't need to be included in the proposal. So why aren't 12, 13 or 14 homes being proposed?
If you wish to see an "implication" when what in actual fact happened was that by your mentioning the number 14 in your first posting I vaguely remembered the housing policy concerning when 'affordable" housing has to be offered and when not, then that is entirely up to you.
My point remains that should it be the case that a lot of small housing developments are put forward, each separately, but physically adjacent to each other, then it could be the case that no "affordable" dwellings are a requirement from each of these individual small developments. That, however, would not be the case if those small, individual, planning applications were submitted as one much larger one.