Our proposal
We are suggesting that a maximum of 250 new homes be allowed across all the sites proposed. This is considerably less than the total of over 1,000 suggested by landowners in their response to the ‘Call for Sites’. The sustainable sites suggested can accommodate 250 homes at medium acceptable density.
20% of these would be affordable housing, and we would prioritise smaller homes (2 or 3 bed) and those suitable for older active people.
In addition about 60 houses could potentially be built by 2032 on land which already has planning permission – such as Cedrics site – as well as infill on some garden sites and vacant small plots.
This gives an estimated total of 310 new dwellings by 2032.
Why 250 new homes?
One constraint is the number of primary school places. The Wivenhoe schools are highly rated and are fully subscribed however there are currently 78 pupils in Wivenhoe schools who travel from outside the town. In the longer term these places could become available to Wivenhoe residents. Children who are already of primary school age who move to the area may not be able to get a place but, as long as we have good schools, this would be true even if we built no additional housing. Using the planning formula of 0.3 primary school age children per house, 260 homes could be built. This is less than the 310 mentioned above but some homes will be smaller and some designed. for the elderly so will have less impact on demand for primary school places.
Do you agree? Leave your comments below
Just wondering if it’s possible to ensure, legally, that the 20% affordable housing goes to local people in perpetuity. Unless I’m mistaken, I understand that the affordable housing erected in Butt Road, Colchester was purchased by Hackney Borough Council for the benefit of Hackney residents and, therefore, of no or little benefit to Colchester residents . I would guess that the accommodation the Hackney people left behind will have been purchased by speculators intending to rent it privately at high rates as Hackney is now very “up and coming”. It also seems to me that the Government figures for the numbers of houses needed, generally, have been hugely exaggerated in order to accommodate the wishes of property speculating corporations and that, countrywide, we have neither the skills nor the workforce available to meet the building of such large numbers, never mind the infrastructure.