Draft Core Strategy January 2011

Draft Core Strategy January 2011

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Pat Gibson no 11 Mar 2011 16:54
All Souls College, Oxford No 11 Mar 2011 16:34
Smiths Gore Generally supportive to overall staregy except on affordable housing - the 50% policy on small site in villages is not viable and restricts the supply of small sites coming forward - we suggest over five units then one affordable. Use of the exception site policy should encourage more sites to come forward and increase supply of affordable. 11 Mar 2011 16:25
D Martin Development in Carterton will put considerable pressure on road use, unlike say Didcot which has a good rail link to other towns. Are there any possibilities of a light rail link or metro ? 11 Mar 2011 16:05
Crest Nicholson No 11 Mar 2011 13:09
Hailey Parish Council In general terms, Hailey Parish Council supports the policy for housing development outlined, with the main centres for proposed major development being in West Witney and Carterton.
We support the objective of creating more affordable housing, and would be pleased to play a role taking appropriate schemes forward in Hailey.
11 Mar 2011 11:58
Cornbury Park Estate The Cornbury Park Estate supports the provision of affordable homes on rural exception sites in CS11 but considers it vital to consider viability of rural schems, given the reduction in potential funding. It is suggested that cross subsidy open market housing should be permitted in appropriate circumstances to enable the levels of delivery of affordable homes to be achieved. 11 Mar 2011 11:19
Rutilus The requirement for affordable housing to meet local needs will not be met by development of 1,000 plus housing estates. At 30-40% of affordable housing beinmg built into these estates this will concentrate 600-800 afordable homes in West Witney and Carterton. This does not solve the problems in local requiremnt for other small towns or villages.WODC SHOULD RE-VISIT THIS PROPOSAL 11 Mar 2011 09:28
Mother Nature What concerns me greatly is, to build anywhere that is liable to flood, would not only be foolish but also extremely irresponsible and selfish. The water from fields has to have a run-off somewhere. The misery for property to be flooded is not only AWFUL but EXPENSIVE TOO. 11 Mar 2011 00:48
chompfest We were told thatthe housing requirement had been dictated by the last Government. It appears you have wholeheartedly embraced and adopted the same policy. I suspect this is to offset the loss of all that potential developer money. Councils are NOT businesses. They should be run with the interests of their residents at heart and not with profit in mind and it often appears that this is not the remit being followed at all and particularly when it comes to funding available from developers. 10 Mar 2011 23:05
Next pageLast page