Draft Affordable Housing SPD

Search representations

Results for bpha search

New search New search

Object

Draft Affordable Housing SPD

4.2

Representation ID: 28541

Received: 04/07/2014

Respondent: bpha

Representation Summary:

Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Object

Draft Affordable Housing SPD

5.6

Representation ID: 28542

Received: 04/07/2014

Respondent: bpha

Representation Summary:

Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Object

Draft Affordable Housing SPD

4.11

Representation ID: 28543

Received: 04/07/2014

Respondent: bpha

Representation Summary:

Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Object

Draft Affordable Housing SPD

3.26

Representation ID: 28544

Received: 04/07/2014

Respondent: bpha

Representation Summary:

Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Object

Draft Affordable Housing SPD

5.3

Representation ID: 28546

Received: 04/07/2014

Respondent: bpha

Representation Summary:

Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Object

Draft Affordable Housing SPD

5.4

Representation ID: 28547

Received: 04/07/2014

Respondent: bpha

Representation Summary:

The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Object

Draft Affordable Housing SPD

8.9

Representation ID: 28548

Received: 04/07/2014

Respondent: bpha

Representation Summary:

Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.