Affordable homes blow for Penryn
3:20pm Tuesday 2nd October 2012 in News
By Greg Fountain, Reporter/Photographer
Penryn Town Council’s attempts to boost the number of affordable homes on offer at a new housing development have been knocked back by county planners.
Walker Developments put forward an application for 41 homes at College Farm, off College Hill, in June but councillors were concerned that only four of the properties were earmarked for affordable housing.
They asked why more homes couldn’t be built on the site of a proposed play area, which is only a few hundred yards away from an existing playing field and a BMX track.
Head of the town planning committee, councillor Mark Snowdon, put the proposal to Peter Bainbridge, Cornwall Council’s |case officer for the application, but was told that storm water “attenuation tanks” were going to be installed under the play area and houses could not be built on top of these tanks.
Mr Snowdon said: “Part of me is saying, ‘we can put a man on the moon, I’m sure they can find a way to get surface water down to a drain.’ “But the case officer is going to approve it and unfortunately we were unsuccessful in our bid, if you will, to get more affordable houses down there.”
Cornwall Council was due to announce its decision on the application last Wednesday but has not yet done so.
However Mr Snowdon said he “believed” the application had been recommended for approval.
Comments(4)
PhilStarkey
says...
8:30am Wed 3 Oct 12
democracy4us
says...
1:31pm Wed 3 Oct 12
Ian Bennett wrote:i think cllr snowden is rightly disappointed at the low number of affordable houses for young, local families as a result of these 'attenuation tanks'... begs the question as to why fewer UNAFFORDABLE houses for incomers (letting to students or otherwise) couldn't be built instead!
Let me get this straight. The developers want to reserve part of the site for the installation of storm water tanks which will reduce the risk of the rest of the site being flooded. And the head of the town planning committee thinks this is a bad idea?
as for the flooding risk, strikes me if these attenuation tanks have to built to avert the flood risk, then the plan is flawed from the outset but that hasn't stood in the way of other recent approved local developments, and i doubt it will for those currently awaiting approval.
our local town councils act only in a consultative role, the real power rests at county level, and the local councils' consultative opinion seems always to be ignored... so much for local democracy!
Ian Bennett
says...
2:00pm Wed 3 Oct 12
democracy4us wrote:democracy4us wrote:"why fewer UNAFFORDABLE houses for incomers (letting to students or otherwise) couldn't be built instead!"
Ian Bennett wrote:i think cllr snowden is rightly disappointed at the low number of affordable houses for young, local families as a result of these 'attenuation tanks'... begs the question as to why fewer UNAFFORDABLE houses for incomers (letting to students or otherwise) couldn't be built instead!
Let me get this straight. The developers want to reserve part of the site for the installation of storm water tanks which will reduce the risk of the rest of the site being flooded. And the head of the town planning committee thinks this is a bad idea?
as for the flooding risk, strikes me if these attenuation tanks have to built to avert the flood risk, then the plan is flawed from the outset but that hasn't stood in the way of other recent approved local developments, and i doubt it will for those currently awaiting approval.
our local town councils act only in a consultative role, the real power rests at county level, and the local councils' consultative opinion seems always to be ignored... so much for local democracy!
Where do you think the money comes from to subsidise the "affordable" houses? (Let's not forget that "affordable" means "part paid for by someone else".) The more houses that can be sold at market price, the more money available for subsidy. You can have more subsidised houses or you can have a greater subsidy per house, but not both.
The plan isn't necessarily flawed if the flood risk can be ameliorated by intervention tanks. Without them, it almost certainly is.
Ian Bennett says...
7:59am Wed 3 Oct 12