North Yorkshire Housing Strategy
Public Consultation Data Analysis
Public consultation on the draft North Yorkshire Housing Strategy 2024-29 took place between 4th October and 11th December 2023. Responses to the consultation were collected via an online survey and a dedicated email address, paper formats were also made available upon request. The consultation was promoted via press release, social media, North Yorkshire Council website and specific communications to our partners, residents and Parish Councils. Officers presented the strategy to various forums, to other services within North Yorkshire Council, a seminar with Elected Members and the North Yorkshire Wider Partnerships Conference.
Respondents were asked to review the draft housing strategy document and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the strategy’s vision and further to that, the proposed priorities contained within each of the strategy’s three themes; People, Places and Homes.
The consultation survey received 499 online responses analysis of these responses is the basis for this data report. In addition to the online survey responses a number of further detailed qualitative responses were received and included in the review of the draft strategy. Anonymised versions of these responses are included in the Additional Qualitative Responses section.
70.7% of respondents Agreed or Strongly Agreed
|
Count |
% |
|
|
Strongly agree |
172 |
34.47% |
|
Agree |
181 |
36.27% |
|
Neither agree nor disagree |
75 |
15.03% |
|
Disagree |
34 |
6.81% |
|
Strongly disagree |
28 |
5.61% |
|
Blank |
9 |
1.80% |
|
Grand Total |
499 |
100.00% |
60.7% of respondents Agreed or Strongly Agreed
|
Count |
% |
|
|
Strongly agree |
112 |
22.44% |
|
Agree |
191 |
38.28% |
|
Neither agree nor disagree |
81 |
16.23% |
|
Disagree |
62 |
12.42% |
|
Strongly disagree |
41 |
8.22% |
|
Blank |
12 |
2.40% |
|
Grand Total |
499 |
100.00% |
63.9% of respondents Agreed or Strongly Agreed
|
Count |
% |
|
|
Strongly agree |
134 |
26.85% |
|
Agree |
185 |
37.07% |
|
Neither agree nor disagree |
76 |
15.23% |
|
Disagree |
58 |
11.62% |
|
Strongly disagree |
33 |
6.61% |
|
Blank |
13 |
2.61% |
|
Grand Total |
499 |
100.00% |
71% of respondents Agreed or Strongly Agreed
|
Count |
% |
|
|
Strongly agree |
159 |
31.86% |
|
Agree |
197 |
39.48% |
|
Neither agree nor disagree |
64 |
12.83% |
|
Disagree |
34 |
6.81% |
|
Strongly disagree |
31 |
6.21% |
|
Blank |
14 |
2.81% |
|
Grand Total |
499 |
100.00% |
Responses were received from all localities. Harrogate was most highly represented in the responses (21%). 7% of responses were received from the Craven locality. Less that 1% of responses were received from respondents outside of North Yorkshire.
|
Row Labels |
Count |
% |
|
Craven |
35 |
6.94 |
|
Hambleton |
70 |
13.89 |
|
Harrogate |
105 |
20.83 |
|
Richmondshire |
49 |
9.72 |
|
Ryedale |
47 |
9.33 |
|
Scarborough |
84 |
16.67 |
|
Selby |
64 |
12.70 |
|
North Yorkshire |
38 |
7.54 |
|
Outside North Yorkshire |
5 |
0.99 |
|
Prefer not to say |
7 |
1.39 |
|
Grand Total |
504 |
100 |
75% of respondents identified themselves
primarily as North Yorkshire residents. Important to note that
respondents were able to select multiple responses to this
question.
The majority of responses came from respondents who own a home outright (52%) or who own a home with a mortgage (25%). 7% of responses came from respondents who rent from a private landlord or family member.
|
Row Labels |
Count of Q3 |
Count of Q3_2 |
|
Own a home (outright) |
260 |
52.10% |
|
Own a home (with a mortgage) |
124 |
24.85% |
|
Rent from a council/housing association |
24 |
4.81% |
|
Rent from a private landlord or family member |
36 |
7.21% |
|
Other (please state below) |
23 |
4.61% |
|
Prefer not to say |
25 |
5.01% |
|
Blank |
7 |
1.40% |
|
Grand Total |
499 |
100.00% |
The age profile of respondents
shows that the most represented age group was 50-64 years. Only 23%
responses came from those under 50.
|
Count |
% |
|
|
20-29 years |
17 |
3.41% |
|
30-39 years |
35 |
7.01% |
|
40-49 years |
61 |
12.22% |
|
50-64 years |
182 |
36.47% |
|
65-74 years |
111 |
22.24% |
|
75-84 years |
33 |
6.61% |
|
Prefer not to say |
49 |
9.82% |
|
Blank |
11 |
2.20% |
|
Grand Total |
499 |
100.00% |
The disability profile of respondents shows that 13% of respondents identify themselves as having a disability. This is slightly lower than the profile for North Yorkshire which is 19%.
|
Count |
% |
|
|
Yes |
67 |
13.43% |
|
No |
367 |
73.55% |
|
Prefer not to say |
52 |
10.42% |
|
Blank |
13 |
2.61% |
|
Grand Total |
499 |
100.00% |
The demographic profile of respondents shows that 81% of respondents identified as White, including White British. Only 2.2% of respondents identified as another ethnic group, this is below the profile for North Yorkshire generally where 4.77% identify as non-white british ethnic group.
|
Count |
% |
|
|
White (including Gypsy, Roma or Irish Traveller) |
404 |
80.96% |
|
Asian |
2 |
0.40% |
|
Black/African/Caribbean |
1 |
0.20% |
|
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups |
3 |
0.60% |
|
Other ethnic group (please tell us below if you would like to) |
5 |
1.00% |
|
Prefer not to say |
70 |
14.03% |
|
Blank |
14 |
2.81% |
|
Grand Total |
499 |
100.00% |
Both the sustainable and affordable aspects are not meaningfully described in the plan.
This delivery needs to speed up
Your vision must expand to suitable roads and public transport facilities too. Many rural places don't have highways that are suitable for the additional traffic home building creates. Workers are forced to travel by car as there's no industry in rural areas. With a minimum of 2 cars per household that's a massive increase in road users wherever you build new homes.
Simple, clear, concise
However, unless the council deals with the holiday let explosion (second homes) eg around The Green Richmond ,the rental market will be starved of property
The emphasis should be on good quality and built with environmental considerations.
There have been thousands of fancy houses built around Harrogate/Killinghall/Queen Ethelberga's/Hampsthwaite. The greedy builders have no regard for or interest in the local community! Who can afford a swanky new house for £800k? People who live in London! Who post covid are selling their million pound plus flats, moving to our lovely countryside, working from home and pocketing the change. Leaving locals still with no AFFORDABLE, GOOD QUALITY, SUSTAINABLE homes to have a cats chance in hell of getting a mortgage on. Besides, we've built over 100% more than our quota of new houses in Harrogate. So let someone else take up the batton now!
The commitment to affordable housing is crucial ; too often this is in the planning but reduces to next to nothing when the development is complete
The reality is that the homes built will be poor quality, unaffordable and in places that are unsustainable
Emphasis should be on social housing which is desperately needed
Too much building on green field sites with no thought of wild life or environment. No follow up checking development.
A commendable vision, but are you prepared to take the radical steps necessary to deliver it?
It’s really vague, appears to be a mix of hopes and dreams but no tangible mechanisms for achieving any of it. There are fundamental issues with housing that these strategies won’t touch, until central government reform planning laws nothing will change,
Not at the expense of destroying large swathes of green field sites
Vision doesn’t refer to volume or timescales
Stop with the net zero nonsense
More housing without more infrastructure, roads, doctors, etc is short-sighted
Houses are built randomly just to fulfil strategy quota
Need to address the infrastructure before any building begins
I just hope that individual planning applications will be looked at case by case. Some sites are just not suitable and would cause damage to local community/village life.
It sounds good but from my experience isn’t happening on the ground. Recent house building I have seen has been advertised as ‘luxury’ housing and has been bought as second homes or are rented out as holiday accommodation. Ordinary local people can’t afford them.
Communities needs include amenities, not just houses, this includes existing communities.
Delivery should not just be about new building but looking at current housing stock use 2nd empty homes, disused buildings etc
There is no infrastructure in place to accommodate such a large housing development of 13,000 houses
who are going to buy and live in these homes
"Affordable" shouldn't mean "only affordable to people who have salaries over £40k per year. Affordable should mean that it's affordable to people earning the average salary.
Social housing needs to be increased
particularly concerned about environmental issues, all new houses should be well insulated and suitable for air source heart pumps.
I hope local people, particularly young ones will be given priority
They should build additional zones onto big towns so schools and GPs can be built for need, not overpopulate small towns with zero hope for school places or traffic mitigation
And has the agreement of all our communities.
No indication of increase in services such as schools required to support 13000 new housing development
It is not clear how much of the strategy is developer lead, I.e allowing developers to build and how much council driven, I.e council commissioning new builds.
These need to be houses in the right place with infrastructure as opposed to soulless developments with no facilities
No point in a housing strategy that doesn’t include infrastructure, that doesn’t meet anyone’s needs.
Your vision should also include 2 and infrastructure"
The value of property is demand derived and consequently the market should determine what is affordable.
There is a desperate need for new homes in Tadcaster. In the past eleven years only 25 new homes have been built and only 2 ‘affordable’.The town’ has an ageing population. So there is also a need for homes for the elderly.
Why do you let so many developers build large expensive properties and very few low cost
More houses need to be under Public control rather than private if you truly wish to kerb homeless issues
Housing is only one element of a community. Easily accessible health care, schools and shops are also needed. Plus public transport. Housing estates are soulless without theses things.
Your housing strategies DO NOT ‘meet the needs of our communities’! You consistently ignore objections made by your employers regarding approvals of large scale housing developments on green land; we don’t want our towns to expand at the cost of our environment, nor do we want our services stretch even further, nor do we want more traffic and the associated pollution.
It fails to mention delivery of infrastructure to match
I don’t think a large portion should be for the aging population, it should be for the young, local people that have no chance of affording housing themselves through buying or renting!
Need more council/housing association properties in all areas especially villages for the local population that cant live we're they are brought up but all local properties are given to outside people/families
Affordable and meeting the needs of communities are areas where i see misalignment in the village i live in, Tollerton. Planning is being approved for overpriced homes that are not inkeeping with the village and are not suitable for younger families that want to move into the village.
The current quality of existing homes is atrocious, we haved lived in our council flat for 5 years, when we first moved in we were told that it was due tenants choice, but that never materialised. 2 years ago we were told they were doing a survey to see what was needed, we were told our flat was in desperate need of a new bathroom, kitchen, windows and outside doors, then miraculously the funding disappeared! Our kitchen has a hole in the wall that we have had to makeshift a patch over, none of the windows have closable vents because they were ripped off by the previous tenant, our bathroom has a bath with a wooden side on it that is water damaged and rotting, our front door doesn't have a full latch system as it had to be cut through when it got stuck and was never replaced! We've reported our toilet so many times i've actually lost count and it never gets fixed!
It is time to consider the post building infrastructure and consequences. It is all well and good asking residents for comments before approving planning applications. So many recently built estates are not fully occupied or have been sold to councils for 'social housing'. The residents of previously pleasant, low crime areas are then faced with mindless vandalism and 'mischief' crime. The police spend time chasing after wastrel families led by irresponsible parents who couldn't care less. After a few years of inflicted misery the families are moved on to cause the same nuisance effects on the next location. Yorkshire Water spend too much time 'fixing' issues caused by too many people being squeezed into a previously adequately serviced location, overloading the water system. This then causes the roads to be dug up only to find the gas company has inadequate supply lines and this then leads to more road disruptions; and so it goes on. New estates should have at least three retail units and a doctors surgery/health centre built into them. Also at least three parking spaces; after a few months of moving in, the roads are blocked with 'extra' vehicles for every household. The ‘green’ space might look good on the plans but is useless and requires council money to maintain. Why not have these areas for additional parking? Every estate looks the same; rather like they’ve been designed by players of the game, The Sims
Social housing should be a key driver, the obsession with affordable houses in a low wage economy is quite frankly wrong
Build more homes that have affordable rents and purchase prices
Will this include brownsite development
They havent included infra structure or opportunities for work. Its all right proving
It is easy to have a vision which any sane person would support. It is knowing what that statement really involves and means and delivering a fair policy which takes the whole community with it that is difficult. Words mean nothing.
As long as house building is in the hands of private developers the problem will never be solved - even so-called affordable houses (which aren't) will soon go on the market and become part of the problem of housing too expensive for people to buy. Control over developers seems very weak., with very little incentive for them to incorporate eco-friendly features in new homes.
To basic, doesn't really say anything, should state more on the points of affordable and sustainable. Sustainable as a priority
Everybody will agree with that statement. The really issue is the sensitivity in the planning process as well as the definition and standard to qualify as "sustainable" or "of good quality" or "affordable"
More needs to be done to prevent landlords buying multiple buy to lets and greater restrictions need to be put in place for air b&b’s. We were evicted ourselves due to our old landlord issuing a no fault eviction so that he could change the usage to air b&b which is now empty for most of the year. Lots of the old town are air b& b which removes the community aspect of living there and drastically reduces the housing stock for family homes.
All houses to be built should be sustainable and at least 50 percent must be for local indigenous people only. Nothing should be built for immigrants.
Depends on the definition of 'communities'.
The fact that affordable housing will not be built, it will be a small percentage of what will be built. Developers will end up bulding 4 and 5 bedroom houses to maximise their profits. Same as what has happened pretty much everywhere.
doubt you will abide to it
Building to many affordable homes is good but we need houses people move up to as families grow. People need good range to move up from smaller houses. Building more of these will free up less expensive homes. They also need drives and garages. New housing must also bring amenities like buses and schools or they become just dormitories.
There is a requirement to define what NYCC think the needs of the communities are
13,000 extra is way too many for the existing infrastructure’s!!!!
If second homes are part of the community I strongly disagree
Too many new builds overcrowded in sherburn in elmet ruined a nice village, do not want any more new builds, country side disappearing
There is an obvious need to relax building planning regulations to enable the vision
You may want this but it is so dependant on external companies who may not have the same vision.
How does this plan differ from the current plan ?? surely this is nothing new
The current roads aren’t suitable for the traffic that would come with new homes. Make more affordable sustainable public transport first - that will help everybody.
If it can be delivered, it will be amazing. It is the upcoming generation who need the help getting on the property ladder, so affordable homes will be paramount.
The title 'Affordable homes' as commonly used is an oxymoron. More council owned, rentable properties need to be built, let at sensible amounts. These must not be ugly faceless estates but beautifully designed areas incorporating solar energy use , outside space and bin sheds. It can be done.s s.
Will it survive contact with reality?
If it is truly sustainable I support it . This would mean no building on green belt.
Detail required as to where, when, how for all types of housing.
It's ok having vision but I doubt it will come to fruition.
It’s a great vision but unsure how it can be deluvered
Would like to see something about limiting second homes or holiday homes so young people can buy
Would like a stronger initial emphasis on true affordability, social housing and carbon neutrality. It’s in the strategy but not strong enough up frOmt.
Social (council) housing is not part of this strategy -It should be a core part of the strategy as many local people cannot afford even ‘affordable’ homes if they are only to buy.
Why NEW build, why not refurb existing or demolish & rebuild on same ground?
The reason I haven’t agreed more strongly with the vision statement as I haven’t been able to see any reference to the provision of private housing for older people, by means of changes to planning poli. You acknowledge there is a high level of home ownership in the County and it follows that as people get older they would want to move to a property more suitable for their age group which they could afford to buy rather relying on social housing.
It should include “on land suitable for development”
Facilities, buses and walking and cycling routes must be factored in to all new housing. You can't just strand people on the edges of existing towns.
Just don’t build any more in Whitby!
I would like to see a greater emphasis on the need to preserve green field and conservation sites given their essential role in protecting the environment and enhancing quality of life for residents.
It is short sighted
It should be 10 years not 5
The housing must be priced to meet the needs of the majority of residents not the minority with excess cash
No one could disagree with the vision statement. However, the Council needs to locate suitable sites, preferably brownfield, for development. The wellbeing and amenity of existing households should not be overlooked and developments in the open countryside directly behind existing homes should be avoided.
They need to be affirdable!
You have to define what the needs are.
Increase affordable accommodation for single people.
Too many houses here already built on good agricultural land No jobs here so more unemployment agricultural jobs lost current water systems cannot cope with effluent and sewage bad for anyone who has a job on the water or has water sport uk is most densely populated country in Europe and it would appear that a large percentage would be allocated to immigrants both legal and illegal if we stopped immigrants we would not need more housing
Due to the climate crisis more emphasis should be put on improving the current housing stock's energy efficiency.
Don't let developers dilute the social housing proportion.
At the moment it’s just words on a page
There is not enough detail in the strategy about how this will actually be implemented so I cannot agree with the statement. The wording of the strategy is too vague. It should be more detailed.
The vision lacks clarity on where all the new housing is likely to be built. The Heronby project doesn’t seem to have taken into account the lack of infrastructure to be able to support the amount of vehicles that the development will bring to the already struggling local road network. Not to mention the wildlife and habitat loss which is vital for our health and local ecosystems!
too many houses being built, The percentage of homes have been turned into holiday lets, breaking down the community and the natural wildlife environment.
We believe that the revised Local Plan does not properly consider the impact that the increased population growth will have on the wider social infrastructure and services of the village such as GPs, hospitals, social care, and schools. These local services are already at breaking point, there are nationwide shortage of GPs, care workers, dentists, and teachers. Many new residents in the village have been unable to secure local services since relocating here and are forced to travel outside the local area to access them, adding to the already high levels of travel outside the district. There are no details within the Local Plan to show how this would be addressed to support the doubling of the population.
Need more affordable housing / social housing in the villages around Knaresborough. Specifically Scotton
I worry that there will be limited creativity in delivering this vision and the same old mistakes will continue to be made
Good vision, but reality will mean snagging issues for gears unless qualified workmen are used.
No mention of omproved infrastructure which is already strained
Building that number of houses each year seems somewhat optimistic.
Location of developments needs to consider the impact on existing communities and infrastructure. There is no point in large housing developments in rural areas that have limited infrastructure. This must be a joined up vision with public transport considerations high on the agenda.
Realistic vision short and to the point.
It is important where these houses are built. Putting up houses in small villages without extra schooling, better roads, parking and amenities.
You will only fill them with overseas people
Good quality affordable home can only be built with sufficient facilities, public transport links, health services, shops, green areas, wild areas, etcto support them being planned in and built alongside the new houses. Your strategy cannot just focus on the building of new houses without ensuring the needs of the future communities will be met at the same time and not as an after thought years later
Providing development is contained to existing town / city area's & not in rural landscapes / green belt area's
Even better if "highest quality" of provision to prevent on costs and ensure stainability
I feel that it is important to try to tackle the issues raised by second home ownership and holiday homes in the vision as both these impact on the availability of housing for local people and on the affordability of housing that comes on the market. Also, how can you have a vision for housing that doesn't address how it is to be ensured that only locals will buy or occupy them?
Your strategy while identifying the growing elerly population fails to take account of their needs. One of the major reasons that there arent enough homes is that single or older couples are often left blocking family houses because there is no suotable accommodation for them to downsize into. For example 1200 new houses have been built and tgeres not a single bungalow or flat among them i cant believe that you haven't considered this.
Why do we need more housing. You dont orovide evidence or make the case. What is the level of housing shortage if it exists and where
Appearance is also a factor
I agree with the ideas in the strategy. However my concerns lie in how much expansion will be built on green belt and farming land. I have become concerned over the recent years about how potentially good farming land is being turned over to housing at a time when the government has an active strategy to ensure the development and future of British farming to support sustainability and its green strategies
This is good but infrastructure needs to be put in place before increasing housing, i.e. more school places, doctors surgeries, shops, leisure facilities, better public transport
I'd like to see something written in it regarding targets for regular consultation with our local communities.
I would like to know what formula will he used for ‘affordable housing’ - usually this term relates to 20% below market value but in North Yorkshire dales this would still be unaffordable for most and would lead to purchase by those that could afford and quite possibly then be used for holiday let, which would be unacceptable. Upper dales has plenty of second homes which means that the community suffers , young people can’t find homes to stay in the area and have to move out if the dale…….. leading to falling numbers in schools , lower economic growth because not everyone visiting a holiday let contributes - I have seen many visiting families arrive to holiday homes followed an hour ir so later by a large supermarket delivery = no spend locally
Large scale housing projects should be avoided unless there is a new town development. Village development should be characterful and in keeping with the area. Organic development and I fil should be permitted within village boundaries toProtect green belt
More affordable and sustainable stock required, onus needs to be on housebuilders to be green - would be good if NY could lead he way on any new stock
Building council housing should be a priority
I consider that the strategy should prioritise use of existing buildings/housing stock as number 1 poriority with the use of green space as the lowest priority
Although it has been identified that Richmondshire has issues, there is very little in the strategy about how this will be addressed
It is a well thought through document that clearly sets out the NYC aims and objectives.
Native residents should take priority
My worry is the disproportionate use of funding going to york as shown recently in funding cancellations rurally and higher funding allocation towards york. There appears to be a bias when it comes to financial allocation. This will only impact your strategy vision.
Our Places needs to include easy access to green and blue spaces, infrastructure to support active travel and public transport and infrastructure for the elderly, young people and access to services.provision.
Need to ensure adequate utilities particularly water and sewage are available where new homes are being built
'Affordable' is a very subjective term - and developers must be prevented from reducing the number of affordable homes because of cost overruns such as the A168 road junction improvement
It's easy to write a vision statement but does the strategy support the statement?
I believe that 'healthy' needs to be included as a vision. Sustainable is an often misused word
It is a platitude
Nice words, but it sounds like the C40.org agenda, smart cities. A globalist agenda that does not benefit the people nor what the people want. If you are not taking the constituents ideas into account, you are not serving the people. We have seen too often, that contracts go to certain connected people, a small group benefits only. Money generated by the council, the government, is the people's money, therefore should all be done in consultation with us. There are nice words, but no clear specifics. You mention carbon neutral and climate change, yet this is ridiculous. We are carbon. There is no mention of planting trees, ending toxic practices by local manufacturers dumping sewage in the sea - affecting health and wellbeing of the people. Yorkshire water is not held accountable, so using any words of concern for the "climate", our planet, is not being seen to be in action now so unlikely it will occur in the future. SMART homes are worse for our environment, and our health - read Silent Spring, emf's are causing much harm. Needs in our communities are not being met with the closures of small businesses, hospitals - maternity wards, dentists, there is no proof the needs of the community are being met at present. Deliver to the homeless, the veterans now, but utilising the many empty buildings and properties with the funding stated that is so easy to get. Do that first.
The vision is sound and based on a clearly understood set of needs and key deliverables. The 'how' is more of an issue.
As a high level Strategy, the draft document appears to cover all the necessary elements and provides a sound framework. However, as with all strategies, the key will lie in the detail going forward - hopefully this will also be consulted on. An ageing population must be a key priority going forward.
As long as the infrastructure is built up to be able to support the extra population.
Needs to include a vision to re-purpose disused commercial buildings as residential properties. We recycle everything in our daily lives, this should include buildings also.
If you can find some wasteland to build on but there is nothing sustainable about building on farmland as we need to eat
Housing in the UK in the past 20yrs has produced some shockingly poor & bland buildings . Gardens are a must . Trees in streets are a must. Roads on estates must be wide enough to accommodate 2 vehicles to easily pass (like it or not - people will have cars / need cars ).
SOULESS BOXES
Affordable ownership -- not part ownership
However, the housing needs to be near big towns for people to be able to live near to where the work is. Most of the housing is constructed in areas without any employment and for rich residents who have unlimited capital for buying housing. Not sensible or of any moral compass.
Sustainability has to be the main focus, that will deliver better quality in itself and will ensure the houses built are much more affordable to live in the long run.
Worthy words but what matters is what will be done. How could anyone disagree?
Existng green spaces must be preserved to help facilitate mental well being/health, new developments must avoid Conservation areas respecting the fact that continual urban sprawl is undesirable
Build council housing paid for by general taxation rather than relying on 106 provision , if you have a site with a hundred new builds and 10:are earmarked ‘affordable’ it’s the 90 remaining homeowners who actually subsidise them
Should be truly affordable housing, not a part ownership or a share in a house
We need smaller units. No more executive homes which are bought by retired couples. Decent living spaces for single people and couples plus family units. Genuinely affordable. Nit these part rent part buy which are pointless.
Should only do a certain amount of affordable housing within a development as you'll put too many potential issue's in areas and bring down house prices in the areas.
North Yorkshire is a rural county. I would therefore add 'with good access to employment and local services whilst maintaining a sustainable environment'
I think it needs to be easier for people like me and my partner who are currently homeless for us to be placed in housing. The applications are extensive and we are tired of waiting
More social housing is required for young people, low income families and asylum seekers/refugees to support independence.
I am not sure that anybody would disagree with it.
infrastructure needs improving before more housing ie doctors dentists public transport
What about infrastructure, jobs, schools?
Obviously is their vision but want to know the realistic possibility.
But current behaviours give me little confidence that NYC will deliver it. HBC did not improve their own stock with the environment in mind; e.g. no solar power. This needs to change. Furthermore, secret agreements between NYCC, HBC and Homes England about Clotherholme contravened the locally approved neighbourhood plan. They did not include high environmental standards of build; did not provide for employment on the development, meaning more carbon burnt in travel to work; and provided for too little improvement to highways, leading to more congestion and more carbon burnt.
Do not build on green belt
It lacks any reference to green spaces, and preservation of green belt. We need more houses, but not at the expense of protected countryside.
I would add 'healthy' homes as well as affordable/sustainable/good quality
I would like to see a commitment to ensuring that no greenfeild land is used for housing development and that brownfield sites, empty properties etc are always considered.
The vision is strong, but it is a fairly broad-brush aspiration. The needs of all communities may intersect and contradict, but the reference to quality, affordability and sustainability are welcomed.
Retrofitting existing housing to make it more energy efficient and only giving planning permission to new housing which is energy efficient should be the number one priority
it does not include enough about climate change, in particular having zero carbon homes in places where there is good public transport, and you will enforce developersto pay for school,doctors
I dont think there is enough emphasis on the types of housing you will need in the future for vulnerable groups including those with complex ASD, LD, MH and or foresnic needs. This is not linked to health inequalities enough
In order to fulfil this vision all new housing stock should be to Passive House standard as it currently is in other councils. EPC rating A should be standard in all building projects and gas boilers should be phased out within the next few years
Vision is great, however, blinkered by budgets adds distortion to vision.
Stop all building in the countryside
The majority of people given these homes will not look after them, the gardens, and probably won’t fit in to the community around them. There will be no extra infrastructure like surgeries or schools too.
Define "affordable". Unless it includes the concept of average earnings for the area it is meaningless
Affordable homes, payment to reside in these being funded by the council and therefore taxpayers?
Good quality, affordable and sustainable are key. At the moment, new houses are built but they are rarely any of these things.
Its all about build build build with zero infrastructure.
Provide homes for older people so they can move out of current larger private homes to release housing stock for younger generation. Many are cash poor but capital rich. Need to have bungalow or 'almshouse' style rather than boxes.
The vision does not seem to align with applications from developers your receive/approve. You should set a higher bar for applications on quality, size and sustainability.
The Green Belt must be protected. Also, properties should not be built on flood plains or land which is vulnerable to flooding.
The housing situation is far more complex and sophisticated than the simple statement suggests
YOUR DESCRIPTION IS COMMENDABLE BUT I CANNOT AGREE UNTIL I KNOW MORE ABOUT LOCATION AND BUILD QUALITY.
Nearly 13000 homes of which only 4000 will be affordable Thats a joke More holifay homes, more traffic on these already brojen lanes
Rather a broad statement which means nothing really
Rather meaningless in that I cannot think of anyone who would disagree
Whilst I agree that the priorities identified are important, the vision needs to express that balance is needed between the need for new homes as well as the rights and concerns of existing residents
It all seems to be located in Selby and surrounding area based on meaningless figures taken from the census. There is nothing about road improvement or improving provisions by the NHS and Dept of Education
All houses must have solar panels and batteries . I cannot understand why the government has not made this compulsory when building new houses, schools hospital factories and all buildings
I would really like to see the council push as hard as possible to ensure that all new homes built are built as sustainably as possible and with best available renewable energy solutions.
Many communities don't need more homes or they need lots of other improvements before homes.
This should mean well built homes that have been thoroughly checked out by competent house inspectors. Also the cost to buy or rent should not leave occupants short of money to live. Also sustainable should mean well insulated and energy efficient. Most new houses are I see are very poorly designed and built. The houses should not be too close together with lots of green spaces around them.
Lack of amenities e.g. trains, buses, schools.
As an older resident renting with no savings I feel desperate about my future
More council properties needed
There is not enough information to determine priorities. There should firstly be more extensive baseline surveys to determine the extent of problems and then priorities set in accordance with the most need for improving the health and well being of residents and of tackling climate change. Strategies need to be more comprehensive and details of strategies need to be set out. From baseline surveys the strategies need to have a plan and programme identifying resources required with milestones and targets. Proposed monitoring is inadequate. Monitoring needs to be on the full range of issues and against resources, milestones and targets. Repeat surveys are required to determine whether problems are reducing or worsening and this needs to be included in monitoring. The ways the strategy will be ambitious, excellent and exemplary need to be set out with evidence and included in monitoring. Strategies need to be linked to similar strategies in Homes England, Social Services, charities and the NHS Etc. See also Q8.
Could be a good idea
Affordable has to be within the earning capability of residents in the area. The draft strategy openly acknowledges that North Yorkshire is generally a low wage area.
Stating the obvious
sustainable - ie minimising whole-life carbon emissions during construction and use.
thought should be given on how to bringing older terraced homes up to modern standards .
Providing it doesn’t have adverse effects on local residents
If what you propose happens, then i believe it will be a good thing for North Yorkshire.
We support this as a Housing Association and provider of supported accommodation, also delivering homes for market sale and rent, and operating in the North Yorkshire area.
It is essential for NY Council to meet the needs of all aspects of the population. The Vision should place greater emphasis on the provision of family homes and first homes; this would help to rebalance the issue of the ageing population within the district and create more balanced communities. The vision should also refer to the role of market housing and its relationship with devliering affordable homes as part of strategic hosusing sites.
The York and North Yorkshire Housing Partnership agrees with the vision statement for the North Yorkshire Council Housing Strategy, although it may be helpful to make reference to both ‘existing’ and ‘future’ communities. We feel that the vision is strong, but it is a fairly broad-brush aspiration. The needs of all communities may intersect and contradict, but the references to quality, affordability and sustainability are welcomed.
There nothing about Tenant Involvement having a voices
Lacks vision and will fail to meet many of it's targets. Fails to address the issue of holiday and second homes, until these can be controlled to say maximum of 20% per Parish in perpetuity NYC will not meet its aims for sustainable and inclusive economic growth, central to ensuring that our communities are sustainable and inclusive, vital to delivering our climate change ambitions and our net zero targets. I agree with expanding council housing, but these must be in perpetuity, otherwise can be sold off again if “right to buy” schemes reintroduced. Lacks specifics, how can housing be “affordable”, lacks community owned land/housing etc, and needs to be much better at using present housing/commercial stock for primary housing rather than holiday/second homes. Much more emphasis needs to be placed on bringing redundant homes, buildings, commercial buildings back into use as primary housing, however we need to ensure there is a mix of commercial and primary housing stock available, particularly in Town Centres
Generally In summary – this is NOT a Strategy – it is (at best) a statement of intent with some very patchy statistics behind it. A Strategy should be a clear document of WHAT is to be achieved and HOW it is to be achieved. The acid test of a strategy is that a new employee can read it and be clear as to what they are meant to be doing – this document fails to achieve this. This document appears to be little more than a “tick in the box” exercise, including bland, woolly statements that nobody can disagree with, but without any analysis behind it, no prioritisation and no timescales for achieving anything. 1: Introduction Strategy claims average population density of 77 people per square kilometre. This “average across the county” statistic suggests that NYC are approaching this from a “one-size-fits-all” point of view. In reality, there are some extremely rural areas and some areas that are far more densely populated. Similarly, there are some very affluent areas and some areas of extreme depravation. If NYC adopts a “one-size-fits-all” approach, it is doomed to fail and will not meet the needs of those who need it most. Proposal: The strategy needs to recognise different needs in different areas – eg by a combination of population density and affluence / depravation. There should be some form of analysis of the characteristics of each area (drilling down to the level of parish wards, not big County Divisions), so that the real needs at a very local level are captured, quantified and understood. The Strategy then needs to address the different needs in different ways, depending on the characteristics of the area – for instance, what is necessary to tackle housing issues in the Dales / Moors is not going to be suitable for those living in Selby; and what’s suitable for Selby may not be suitable for those living in Scarborough / Whitby etc. In Section 1.3 the statement “we now face a ‘cost of living’ crisis, the impact of which we are only just starting to feel” reveals that this Strategy fails to recognise the challenges that some people have been facing for years – namely the lack of affordable social-housing for rent. Proposal: The Strategy needs to recognise and deal with the longer-term, historic and deep-rooted challenges that people face in living good-quality lives in good-quality homes (regardless of whether they are homeowners, private tenants, or public / social tenants). There’s mention of affordable housing, but I have yet to find any definition of this. Is this affordable-to-buy or affordable-to-live in?
I lived in a new estate with HA. Most tenants dont respect the house, garden or area and cause trouble. I moved because of this. I lived in a £250k house which i worked hard to pay for, next to people who had been given a brand new house and had party's every day.
We do not have the infrastructure .. lack of schools hospital doctors .
The Draft North Yorkshire Council Housing Strategy’s 2024-2029 (“Draft Housing Strategy”) vision of delivering “good quality, affordable and sustainable homes that meet the needs of all our communities” is supported by our client. In order to successfully deliver on this vision, our client notes the importance of setting clear and ambitious aspirations to align with future aims around both housing and economic growth. The aspirations of the Draft Housing Strategy should provide ambitious objectives that support the emerging North Yorkshire Local Plan, bolster growth and improve housing stock across the district. In order to ensure that the Draft Housing Strategy supports the potential ambitions of the emerging North Yorkshire Local Plan, it must present a holistic delivery strategy that includes both public and private sector development. Our client notes that there is a general lack of reference to the role of the private sector within the Draft Housing Strategy document which, despite largely being a framework for housing policies and projects to be delivered by North Yorkshire Council (“NYC”), should be included. When considering housing delivery across the district, public sector development cannot be considered in isolation from private sector development, as the process are interlinked i.e. through affordable housing delivery and when meeting climate change objectives through delivering homes with strong environmental credentials and providing high-quality green and blue infrastructure across the district. In light of this, the Draft Housing Strategy should consider and reference how the private sector will contribute to the delivery of its vision, priorities and strategies. The Draft Housing Strategy notes that “devolution presents opportunities to deliver housing at pace and meet our wider economic growth ambitions” and references the aspiration to develop a Housing Growth Plan. Our client considers that in order to ensure that the delivery of high-quality housing stock is optimised across the next 5 years, clarity on the role of the private sector within the Draft Housing Strategy, as a key driver of housing growth, should be provided. Furthermore, our client notes that the clarification of the role of the private sector should also be presented within the Housing Growth Plan, in order to bolster growth, and support the aspirations of the emerging NYC Local Plan.
It would be difficult not to agree but developing sustainable homes is key. This will enable lower cost of living.
No more house development in Sherburn in Elmet we are gull up we have a massive lack of facilities and also need the by-pass continuing to the West
I wont happen quick enough
Non of the developers provide good quality, solar panels should be mandatory on all new builds
No reference to preserving greenfield sites, wildlife and avoiding pollution.
On behalf of our clients, Taylor Wimpey, Spawforths has been instructed to submit comments on the Consultation Draft North Yorkshire Housing Strategy 2023-2029. Taylor Wimpey is one of the UK’s leading residential developers, with over 125 years of experience. Taylor Wimpey’s purpose is “to build great homes and create thriving communities”. Taylor Wimpey welcomes the opportunity to engage with North Yorkshire on the Housing Strategy and forthcoming Local Plan. Taylor Wimpey is supportive of the ambition within the North Yorkshire Housing Strategy, in particular the ambition to increase the supply of homes. Taylor Wimpey has a significant interest in North Yorkshire and can play a significant role in supporting the Council to deliver on the aims and objectives of the housing strategy through the delivery of new homes. It is in this context that Taylor Wimpey make the following comments on the Draft Housing Strategy. To what extent do you agree with the Vision Statement? Taylor Wimpey agree with the Vision Statement to deliver “Good quality, affordable and sustainable homes that meet the needs of all our communities”. This is strongly aligned with Taylor Wimpey’s purpose of delivering great homes and creating thriving communities. Taylor Wimpey has a focus on improving environmental performance, fostering community networks, supporting local economic activity, and helping customers to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle. Taylor Wimpey through strong placemaking principles seek to deliver schemes that promote social, environmental, and economic sustainability and the well-being of future residents. Taylor Wimpey agree with the ambition to deliver more homes. Taylor Wimpey makes a significant contribution towards the provision of housing, providing both private and affordable homes. In 2022 the group delivered 14, 154 homes and are committed to delivering high quality homes, 21% of which were affordable homes. Taylor Wimpey has significant interests in North Yorkshire and is committed to delivering high quality sustainable developments in key settlements. Since 2018 Taylor Wimpey has delivered 1373 units in North Yorkshire over the last five years (circa 275/annum). Taylor Wimpey can therefore play a significant role supporting the Council to deliver on their ambition and vision. Accordingly, Taylor Wimpey consider that the Strategy should recognise the role of the private sector in the delivery of new homes.
Migration hitting 700k a year, we don't need more houses we need less people. And if you're that hell bent on building all these houses
Need more bungalows
More focus needed on infrastructure and making new homes as energy efficient as possible, not just t9 the poor standards set by the government which fall far short of what is needed.
It would be difficult not to agree with the vision but there is so little detail in the actual Strategy about how it will be delivered, what resources will be available (and from where), how those resources will be distributed to the various aspects of the strategy and what are the anticipated outcomes and outputs
As a vision statement, this seems reasonable. I just wish that the rest of the strategy wasn't expressed at the same level of vagueness as the vision statement.
sustainable should include easy access to public transport and amenities
The vision needs to make sure it is delivered
The town centre brown land sites should be developed/knocked down/rebuilt not new properties built in this way.
Employment dont seam to be mentioned in this plan, if you have more people you need jobs
I have read the comprehensive report from NYCH Strategy and see no mention about Self Build custom plots being available for individuals like myself to build an average 3 bedroom bungalow so I can accommodate my severely Disabled Wife. This
I think it misses the key values of retaining the green spaces which is central to North Yorkshire’s identity.
There should be good quality homes for all. The links between poor housing and negative outcomes across health, education, self efficiency and income are well established. Access to a decent home is an important element in both helping address wide health and social inequalities in our region and promoting economic prosperity.
It's difficult to disagree with such a basic statement.
If it were up to me houses would be removed, leaving no trace that people had been there, and the land would be returned to nature. You wouldn't be building houses. The ethnically British population has been falling for decades - the population of the UK is rising due to massive immigration, which should be reversed. Then the population would fall and fewer houses would be needed, not more.
Affordable must be in relation to local incomes NOT local house prices. Need must be assessed by housing market areas NOT by former district/borough areas.
We support this as a Housing Association and provider of supported accommodation, also delivering homes for market sale and rent, and operating in the North Yorkshire area
But how could you disagree with such an aspiration. The document exists to explain how the vision will be achieved which this document singularly fails to do
Throw away statements such as "good quality, affordable and sustainable homes" belittle the value in having a vision. It is an overused statement and is highly subjective. A sustainable house in the centre of Harrogate is completely different to a sustainable dwelling in a hamlet in Hambleton. Equally, the definition of affordable varies massively across the new combined authority, as a house worth £400,000 in Harrogate is relatively cheap compared to a house of equal value somewhere near Scarborough. Also, how can the needs of all communities be realistically met? I think having a realistic vision is better, as plans, although should have ambition, should not be set to fail, and equally should not aim to deliver something that is not practical or realistic.
If you are going to allow this building work in various places across the county then I suggest that you insist that any houses builder builds the lost cost/affordable homes before they start on any others. I have seen too many times planning agreed based on x no.of low cost homes then to see builders say they can't afford to build them
Not sufficient infrastructure at the moment. The proposal to build even more houses at Cayton is lunacy.
The vision is all 'Motherhood and Apple Pie" and lacks specific but important commitments on, for example, the issue of holiday and second homes. There needs to be much more specific targets to control these. Expanding council housing is right, but there must be long term sustainability built into any such plan. There is no mention of community owned land/housing. Need more emphasis on bringing redundant homes, buildings, commercial buildings back into use as housing.
North Yorkshire Council’s Vision of delivering ‘good quality, affordable and sustainable homes that meet the needs of all our communities’ focusses on the key challenges that the Council face in meeting demand for market/affordable housing alongside ensuring that the strategy aligns with their economic growth aspirations. In seeking to achieve this overarching vision it is, therefore, critical that the housing strategy locates the majority of land for housing on sites in and around the main market towns where there is good access to employment along with public transport, education, retail and leisure facilities and, in doing so, ensuring that key sustainability objectives are met. The Council’s Housing Growth Plan and future North Yorkshire Local Plan, it is assumed, will look to progress the aforementioned strategy by targeting the main towns in North Yorkshire as the principal locations for both housing and employment moving forward. In identifying the key aims of the strategy, it recognises that high house prices (with the average house price in North Yorkshire having risen to £284,000 in October 2022) have created a significant lack of affordable housing, particularly in areas of high housing demand with this not only representing a real problem for sections of the population on lower incomes to access the housing market, but it also acts as a barrier to economic growth. This situation has been further affected by the Covid pandemic which needs to be recognised in identifying the future housing requirement for North Yorkshire as part of the emerging NY Local Plan.
Sustainable could read net zero carbon
• The vision is a bit limited – could it not be about ‘providing the people of NY with safe, affordable, environmentally appropriate housing in the right place to live and work.’ • The vision is about the ambition for the outcome of delivery, the current vision statement is a delivery statement not vision • The proposed vision simply focussed on a minimum approach and is not ambitious to create new ways of thinking and investing in homes. At the recently held North Yorkshire Council Wider Partnership Conference, the North Yorkshire Community Led Homes Hub facilitated a workshop which generated this feedback - the vision should be aiming to exceed not just meet the needs. • They will only meet the needs of the communities if they are listening to the communities - how do they know what their needs are other than in areas which are recorded for statutory purposes, eg homelessness. • How will they listen to the communities and then support them to come up with their own housing solutions (should they wish to).
The strategy should reference an ambition to meet the needs of all people. We have examples of the voice of people with lived and living experience of substance use and housing needs to feed into this consultation. Contact - Angela Hall and Dolly Cook (Public Health).
Very broad vision so detail in terms of delivery of the vision is critical to success
The provision of 'decent' housing must be included: Your currently stated goals would be achieved by shipping containers for the majority, which is an obvious nonsense
Specific groups should also include young parents - they often can't access suitable homes - linked to not being old enough to claim full benefits etc
Agree with theses grpups but families and young people should be included - there is little affordable housing for these groups
Young families should be prioritised
A duty exists to British people only
Stop properties being left empty
Housebuilders never build bungalows as they are not cost effective for their business model. Similarly, the infrastructure costs on smaller affordable homes are the same as larger homes from which more profit can be made. There is no incentive for housebuilders to provide for older generation or first homes. And the parking requirement in planning is woefully short of what's actuyneeded per household.
I would like to also see ex-service personnel identified as a specific group due to the high levels of homelessness in this group
We need to prioritise intergenerational housing solutions to encourage young people to live and work in NY as well as avoid building more care homes because average life expecancy in a care home is 18months. Cant we keep people living in their own homes and communities aupported by their own family and friends if we develop intergenerational community and housing solutions
Gypsies, travellers wont aettle into housing.
See above!
Landowners and house building companies are only interested in making as much money as possible and so this is not going to help those people mentioned above
Again emphasis should be placed on our existing homelessness
There does not seem to be mention of providing homes for youngsters who cannot afford to stay in the area. Without them our town and local services will reduce further and further.
Housing people who trash houses and expect ratepayers to provide them with a house is wrong.
Homelessness is so much more complex than just providing more housing, again vague notions around ‘bringing together’ services - have you even asked the services? This looks like poorly thought through management speak
More detail around the what/how/by when needed
All four noted groups pay nothing.
Different places (town/village/hamlet) have very different needs. This needs to be carefully considered in every case.
I can only refer to my own needs. In the next few years I hope to sell up and buy a bungalow to help keep me in my own home as I age. I feel I don’t need supported housing but builders are only building houses, bungalows are a rate commodity.
Wonderful objectives but just words. Sucess will depend on the models developed. For example how do people become homeless? Is there enough single person flats for young and old peopole whatever their ability or disability. Its impossible right now in Harrogate for a young person to afford to live and work outside of the their family unless they are lucky enough to earn higher than the average salary. Adverse life events can cause such people to fall off the ladder of housing and end up sofa surfing or on a park bench. Reasonably prices housing needs to be available not 4 bedroomed executive housing. City centre empty space needs to be developoed.
Older householders need bungalows not large houses, access to amenities, transport etc
I think that people on lower and middle incomes housing is very expensive in this area and unaffordable for the majority of people
You can’t look after the residents you have now
we need people who WORK in this area not scroungers
Potentially gives too much weight to minority groups. Some may have specific needs e.g. elderly, disabilities etc but others are based on perceived rather than actual differences or even preferences..
meeting needs of aging population essential
Disabled people need more help, so few properties available that are suitable for wheelchairs or poor mobility
Low cost homes and social housing plus care of the elderly should be a priority, with the correct infrastructure, asylum seekers yes but not economic migrants.
Young people unable to rent privately, key workers in our NHS and in general are equal priorities.
When describing "people" the various groups should be clearly defined and assessed as to their level of need, generalisation such as this to easily produces the required result.
As above.
See above answer
The priority for the NY housing strategy should be to limit all new developments to brownfield sites and no developments should be permitted unless all properties in the development are fully power sustainable (all new properties in NU should have solar solutions imbedded as a planning condition).
Young people/first time buyers need including
Every residents need should be of equal priority
Homelessness absolutely- but prioritise the younger population. We are working 40+ and overtime to simply pay rent! There’s 0 chance of buying and the houses in the Pickering area are older and damaged yet we’re still having to pay a fortune to live in them! We shouldn’t have to move away from our home/ family and social bubble to simply live! The state of people’s mental health will suffer drastically
Refugees and asylum seekers should not be giving housing unless they’ve got settled status… young people/families home less elderly in suitable housing, how about these people..
More bungalows and flats always good
I would like to see a priority around protecting the housing and living conditions of existing residents. We seem to be forgotten in many decisions that heavily impact us and our lives
Whilst you provide places for the homeless, i cannot say you are meeting the needs of the population aging or not if the current service we receive is anything to go by.
1. Threatened with homelessness, some families need to take responsibility and look after the property and the actions of their offspring. 2. Are they refugees or illegal immigrants? 3. Gypsies and travellers. These are nomadic people i.e. travellers. Go and look at the traveller sites in Harrogate and Thirsk, both look like wasteland strewn with litter and debris, the council has yet more money to fork out to try and clean them up. Perhaps your priorities are not correct.
Put locsl residents 1st. Before supporting others
Not included infra structure required or opportunuties fo employment
Affordability should be given a specific priority
You also need to account to the present residents who lose space, have a weakened GP service and over-crowded schools as a result of more housing. Increased traffic and lack of public transsport also needs to be tackled.
Single people often have enormous difficulty finding suitable housing, but are usually ignored in strategies. The independent elderly need bungalows, and flats.
Also building homes for young people trying to get on the property ladder, too many 4/5 bed homes not enough 1/2/3 bed homes
We need to build for our homeless so they have somewhere to live, so they are not on the street at the expense of others
The priorities should not include groups eg Gypsies, Travellers, Refugees and Asylum Seekers.
Same as above. None of this will be a concern to developers. The minimum will be done, developers profit will come first.
Homeless people often don't want to be responsible for a property and it's upkeep. They need shared accommodation. We don't need houses for gypsies, asylum seekers or refugees. We need homes for our existing population first.
Why the inclusion of those specific groups? Why nothing about young people and young families?
Look after the local indigenous population first and foremost!
Not refugees and asylum seekers. Shouldn't be put before local residents
These groups will only benefit from new houses if you've done the foundation work beforehand succ as understanding why they are homeless and supporting that issue first. It's not just about money, it's about their story and how helping them long term has an impact rather than just putting them in a house etc. They need a support network.
There are more than enough residences available, the problem is that none are affordable.
You need to include first time buyers as a priory. It took me two years to successful buy a house as I was out bid by older/families with cash in the bank and was only able to get on the ladder due to a new build as there is no "best and final" to them.
For this to happen an instant brake needs to be put on developers building big for big profits.
Needs emphasis on the provision of housing for key workers at a price they can afford in the areas where they need to live.
More emphasis on people with complex needs - substance users for example
I disagree if you build on green belt
We must allow our children the opportunity of own or rent at a fair cost to their income. The strategy should also have a desired outcome of ensuring rural communities stay of a scale, and age profile that makes, schools, shops, pubs etc. commercially worth while
Agree with the statement but not sure it will be delivered
We need homes for young people. In my area there seems to be a lot of older housing and holiday lets , there is no where affordable for young people who either live alone or have new familes
Why do we need more help for old people that lived through the greatest economic upturn is history but you people get nothing?
Need to provide homes younger people can buy and stop holiday letting of small houses
Not enough emphasis on children and families. Low income parents, children in unsuitable accommodation.
Yes improvement for elderly resident.
This is important as we need to be an open and welcoming county.
Why NEW build, why not refurb existing or demolish & rebuild on same ground?
I agree with the priorities but subject to also enabling/promoting the granting of planning permission for specialist privately owned housing for older people
Tackling homelessness and threatened homelessness is key. The Scarborough borough has no accommodation for rough sleepers that do t have a local connection. This is a massive issue and needs addressing. Rough sleepers will continue to come to Scarborough regardless and there need to be a provision for them to make them safe. Also there needs to be further funding to meet the needs of the most chaotic individuals who no longer have a housing duty.
I do not like to see over expansion which is curretly happening in green areas
It does not take into account specific needs for folk who may be suffering at the hands of a neighbouring tenant. We do not bother ensuring tenants have to comply with the rules
Providing suitable housing should be coupled with work and educational opportunities for those of working age.
We need for young people who xant afford to rent or buy
The current proportion of housing available for the aging population already exceeds the housing availability for under 55s so why are we going to create more housing for over 55s especially when you see over 55s properties not occupied.
Obviously vulnerable people need providing for, but there also needs to be housing for all
Add young families to vulnerable groups
I had never seen any 'homeless' in Sherburn in Elmet before we got 1,300 new homes built here. Nor is there any provision for the elderly.
You have correctly identified the key priorities and I am pleased and relieved to see Asylum Seekers and Gypsy Traveller groups specifically mentioned. In terms of preventing homelessness it is important to be vigilant regarding the difficulties young people experience when trying to rent privately. This particularly applies to unskilled and less educated young people who struggle to command decent salaries.
the priorities are laudable, but ALL people mater and none should be ignored because they do not fit into the required boxes.
Lack of affordable accommodation for young people
Please explain this in understandable English language not in gobbledegook not a good question
As long as the specific groups include young first time buyers on standard incomes
What about addressing fual poverty for the most vulnerable
Availability of public transport is a big issue for the elderly and disabled, it’s not been mentioned in your plans
What about young people
Again, Stop the holiday lets. also use building we have, You are breaking the delicate balance we have with nature,. We a building on areas that need to be left to farming, invest in towns and villages, We are a ship that is sinking under the weight.
What about providing the conditions for younger people to be able to stay in the place they were born. Affordable homes please.
As well as the above, there should be a focus on young people being able to afford to live where they grew up.
There are many vacant homes within the Selby district that should be utilised before builcing additional properties,
Rural housing ?
I welcome creative broad solutions that tackle both the creation of ghettos while also appeasing the nimbys.
It is clear in Ulleskelf where HGV are rolling through a tiny village en mass where affordable houses front the road they are allowed to travel on.
Ensuring appropriate housing is available for ageing population, including own homes that can be be cared for within rather than having to go into residential or hospital accommodation when ill. Ageing population require small homes, small gardens ie bungalows not apartments or flats or necessarily residential complexes. Good to mix ageing population with normal residents!
Meeting the needs of an ageing population should be the top priority.
homelessness needs to be tackled with appropriate employment opportunities and less reliance on benefits
Homelessness needs to be split down to show the military veterans. This may help in getting more funding from Military Charities and Central Government . The Armed Forces Covenant needs to be used in this situation.
You have selected the correct priorities but again only focused on the housing rather than the needs of the community and whether local communities have the facilities in place to support the extra population. A good example of 4his is 5he planning approval by Harrogate borough council for 1300 new homes to replace the army barracks in Ripon. Clearly this decision was made by people who do not live in Ripon and do not understand that 4he needs of Ripons current population are already not being met. I think the 1300 new homes should have 9nly been allowed on the basis that the government rebuilt and reopened the Harrogate to Northallerton railway line with a station in Ripon. This is essential as there are not enough jobs or schools to support increase in population and the roads could not cope with the increased traffic
And include ability for younger first time owners being able to stay with in a community that they have family support/work etc.
More needs to be done for the ageing population.
As much as I agree with the three elements above I feel you are missing one key category and that is the younger generation who would like to stay living in the local area and ensuring this is achievable.
I refer you yo my comments above about how we ensure local people are given priority.
Youve mentioned the elderly but have done nothing to provide for them. Elderly people often are home owners and hsve plenty of cash but no one is building for them. They dont all want to go into Mcarthy Stone developments they want to live un a smsll suitable house or bungalw in their community. All your small houses are shared ownership or housing association which they dont need or qualify for. They want to buy their own home with a garden.
Living in a rural location, the holiday lets are high and property is unaffordable for our young people who have to move away in order to get on the property ladder
But where are these vulnerable people and why are they vulnerable. Are we to he a region which is a repository for asylum seekers..if this the case why? We need our space protecting. Make the most of underused housing stock and commercial buildings and update these instead of building new. wk s
Providing housing for young people is just as important as meeting the needs of an ageing population
I have concerns regarding placing large numbers of one group of people in ruralAreas where services are tightly stretched and local people already struggle with access to health services. Rural areas do not have the infrastructure to deal successfully with a sudden influx of large numbers of people. Large influx of migrants can affect education services where there are simply not staffing to cope with particularly ethnic minorities. As a former resident of west London I hand seen first hand how this can rapidly effect a school being able to support these pupils successfully. Placing specific groups of people needs considerable planning as to be successful for those groups and the local area and services to ensure successful integration.
When considering older peoples housing it needs to be bungalows and assisted living available to rent
Agree to the above but also need to be thinking about younger people that are trying to get their first hones as it's almost impossible these days for some to do that .
Homes should be available to everyone - not just the vulnerable and homeless. Think of young people and their futures. The character of our area should not be destroyed. We are small county towns and villages - not metros.
It must ensure that there is no discrimination on the part of a Social Housing Manager affecting anyone on the housing register suffering from a disability, either physical, sensory or hidden, as one such manager is doing at present.
The most vulnerable should be no.1 priority
Supported accommodation needs to be commissioned with reputable providers for a reasonable cost
Everyone should be helped, this sounds like unless you are in a minority group or elderly then youve no hope of getting housed. There are thousands of working age families with kids in need of housing too.
No. But meeting the needs of an ageing population must ensure that there is an adequate transport system in place that enables that ageing population to remain in their local communities.
Housing needs must include wider needs eg. access to a garden, an allotment (right to grow), green space, blue space, access to public transport, ability to walk and cycle safely.
I think you have failed to identify in this list rural equity and overabundance of second homes / holiday lets preventing local people from accessing housing stock
It's great to include these - but how will you 'do' it - everything re housing is done on line - people have to log in to look at the housing lists - this doesn't work for older people or those with no internet/english as a second language. Staff do not accommodate people with mental ill-health or history of homelessness - is this being addressed? Priorities might be good to highlight 'people' it also needs careful publicity.
Those with support needs should be prioritised over ageing. Specific groups should not need to be specifically mentioned as their vulnerability should already be included in the description
It is a platitude
These past few years especially, we have seen more and more homelessness. In fact, I have a friend who was struggling, went in to speak to someone as she was having a hard time to pay her council tax, a single mother. She was told "well, you better get yourself a tent." This is horrific. Unfortunately our veterans, the homeless, those simply struggling financially are NOT being assisted by our very councils. We are being hit harder and harder, witnessing our money being wasted ie Apalmare loan in Scarborough, all the closures - the pool, the many other attractions sat on prime land - nothing is ever done. The people want the peoples market square, the council turned down the people. We are not heard. Tons of empty buildings and properties, our veterans are not supported, the only options available are pharmaceutical drugs. Which does not assist anyone. SBC brought in sex offenders, took payment for them - into a seaside town?! So it is hard to believe the council understands the priorities for the people.Again, nice words, but vague. There is no specifics in the plans and "models" of care written about. For the elderly, there is already horrific abuses happening in the care homes, and properties for our aging members of community. The prices are ridicules, the food is fake, not fresh, not healthy, packaged, every one ends up medicated, and as we saw in March/April of 2020, tens of thousands were murdered with midazolam. There are limited choices, all under medication, loss of dignity, freedom and are controlled. All of this proposal has the potential to lead to a total government control. There is no mention of green spaces etc as mentioned in previous question. We are carbon, it is an impossible mission to emit what we actually need for life. The climate change is a hoax as has been for over 50 years now, it changes every decade, nothing has ever happened. We all realise how poorly the government dealt with covid, which was not deadly at all. Small businesses closed, national huge corporate chains stores remained open - it made no sense. It was a massive transfer of wealth. To meet the needs of the people, we need all contracts to go the multitude of local builders, businesses, contractors etc who have varied suppliers so we are not again sending our money to China or overseas. Cut council tax and let the people spend again in their towns, and see the economy flourish. It's not rocket science. Sadly, this housing strategy reeks of serving a small few through a c40 city agenda. We do not consent. Have a look at the "one small town" concept, now that is something for the people. There will be a whole lot more support of that.
You are missing a vital component relating to privately owned land and property which remains empty/untenanted for years and an increasing, yet uncontrolled volume of second homes, holiday properties and leisure only accommodation. Legislation to address these will, by their very nature, open up significant avenues for the better utilisation of already available housing stock and accommodation which is currently unutilised.
As mentioned above, accommodating an ageing population will be a key challenge going forward which must be a high priority.
Very much welcome the focus on tackling homelessness - temporary housing is a vast waste of money.
If we stopped increasing the population we would not need more houses
New builds should not be allocated to refugees/asylum seekers : the indigenous, local population takes precedence. Housing for older people - please - not all old people want to sit around & sing Vera Lynn songs : imagination is needed - look up a scheme in Barnet , Hertfordshire : apartments for seniors , but with activities , leisure facilities .
Souless boxes, Ugly buildings are a choice. There is no reason low cost or Social housing shouldn't be beautiful as well. A recent study has shown 84% of people prefer Traditional design and character
Prioritise homelessness and affordable housing for the working poor. Pensioners have enough benefits as it is
Placing travellers, homeless, households with supported needs and asylum seekers in countryside areas is not a viable option - crime levels rise in the areas where people who do not work are resident with nothing to do.
Prioritise the many over the few; the needs of those that don’t fall into these groups should not be ignored or diminished.
Yes, but only if the houses are energy efficient and are embedded into local communities where there are local facilities that meet community needs.
Again, how could anyone disagree with such worthy words. The connection between the ‘bricks & mortar’ needs and the ‘support service’ needs should be made clearer.
We must support vunerable people
Selby has a great private landlord team who are very proactive who we work with within the private sector ,let’s hope it does not diluted now we are part of a much larger council which is not connected to the local people
people should be put on the register by application date not just because they are special needs or homeless, there should be social housing for those cases but the majority of the housing stock should be for the majority of the people on the list not the select few
As previous doesn't work causes problem areas
I would welcome a greater focus on the contribution that housing inequalities affect life chances and the health and wellbeing of people and there being a priority to reduce such inequalities by targeting/focussing on areas of particular need..
I would add ' in integrated communities with good access to employment opportunities, to medical and social services'
You highlight the high cost of housing in North Yorkshire, but appear to have no strategy to meet the needs of households comprising young families who (generally) have fewer assets and therefore are less able to purchase a home..
More social housing is required for young people, low income families and asylum seekers/refugees to support independence.
Whilst all those people need to be housed, nowhere do you mention single-occupancy households, or provision for housing for taxpayers..
Needs of older people not currently being addressed. Only option is for appartments. Moving from a large property many would like a small property, bungalows! Where are they being built?
When housing is available, what will be in place to support those groups? Currently there is no care or adequate support for those groups outside of accommodation.
Should be looking after the people that have grown up in the area and now cant afford to live there due to house price increase and holiday homes.
Surely there should be some specific discussion of the need for affordable housing in those picturesque areas where there is greater pressure on the housing stock.
Do not build on green belt
Multigenerational housing - relevant for ageing population
Homelessness, older people and vulnerable groups are clearly a priority, but the extent to which people on average incomes locally are priced out of the housing market, particularly in rural parts of the County is impacting on sustainability of local communities and the rural economy. We welcome the references to the retention of the Young People’s Pathway and consider that this is a useful model to consider in the design for accommodation strategies for other, vulnerable groups. Broadacres own and manage homes and have the capacity to develop more homes to support the needs of these group. We would welcome more integration of support from across Council services in health, adults and children’s social care to these projects, further discussions about how Partnership members can support this objective, and more clarity about the nature and scope of the Council’s offer in this regard.
Meeting the needs of our ageing population should be the top priority
you always need to be avoid phrasing which implies detriment to the majority. I don't think you have done this. So for example in this question it is not 'particularly our vulnerable households' but ensuring vulnerable groups have good quality etc housing which takes account of their needs. a
We need to ensure the needs of the 'specific groups' are identified and articulated particularly people with a learning disability or autism or mental health conditions. There is always a risk that strategies purely focus on older people and homeless households that is not enough
Not sure about the concentration on older people. Youngsters difficulty in getting housing seems equally important.
The Council house non North Yorkshire people for financial gain to the detriment of North Yorkshire residents.
Veterans FIRST PLEASE!! We do live in an area of HIGH occupation & need by VETERANS.. Serve them as served us please.. THEN look @ those listed in "VISION"
You are not thinking about outright home owners who like to look after their homes and gardens, and keep the estates pleasant.
Affordable housing is needed for young people as well
Creating homes that would not necessarily be paid for fully by the occupants. In particular homelessness, funding for current facilities would surely be more beneficial than increasing the strain on rural communities that already have stretched amenities?
Need more council houses so vulnerable groups are not so dependent on private landlords only interested in profit
Once again priorities are short sighted and lack proper vision for a sustainable future. What about young people trying to make their way in life. Struggling to pay bills and become home owners. Some of the groups mentioned are not a priority for most of the population. This is why the country is in such a mess.
Again no consideration for younger adults that would benefit from getting on the property ladder Gypsy and Travellers do not engage with local authorities so I’d question what evidence you have to suggest they want housing.
Young families who wish to stay in the locality but who cannot afford local prices are not recognised and should be as they will help make local communities sustainable.
Encourage conversion of underused office blocks or renovation of social housing currently not in use to provide more homes for homeless.
1. Provision is already made locally for travellers and older people. 2. Small scale community provision be made for local people within the priorities for the People theme.
Whilst the above categories are of importance, they have to be controlled and managed without causing over-crowding and also traffic gridlock. Land is scarce and agricultural land must be preserved.
It is vital to focus on UK nationals and contributors, past and present, to the housing and area
How many local people will be housed How many outsiders will you bring in
What about young people wasnting to get away from living with parents?
Agree but not meaningful without location information
The focus on these groups is welcome but lifting people out of poverty should be the priority along with ensuring an aging population is healthy and able to stay in their own homes
Meeting the needs of aging population would release family housing
Should also include meeting the housing needs for young adults and families particularly in rural communities.
Travellers, refugees and asylum seekers should not take priority over local people
Our Forces veterans must be included all too often they are seen on the streets begging and homeless
Rather than more affordable housing schemes in rural areas we need more houses suitable for elderly residents which will allow them to stay in their rural communities & free up much of the housing stock. My village, Osmotherley, has many family homes occupied by one or two elderly residents who don't qualify for the affordable housing & have no option but to continue residing in big two storey houses unsuitable for their needs.
Need to build new reasonably priced bungalows.
So nothing about communities already there and impacted by new developments thst are usually crammed into green spaces?
Too much emphasis on lower income residents and not enough on the local business economy to support growth to improve the commerce and transport to provide access to work opportunities
Good priorities but bring up the number of council propertiies above 4010
see Q4 and Q8
Homeless people or if smaller houses downsize others and put in theses houses so they can use there old property for bigger families
Housing needs should be applied within the areas they are needed. No use building houses in Wharfedale when they are needed in Swaledale to taking declining populations in the northern dales.
Again it must not affect the quality of life of existing residents . It must be done in a sympathetic way.
We are now getting older and will at sometime in the future be looking to rent an apartment with support available if needed. This must be affordable. We also have a son who is currently at University who worries about buying or renting an affordable home. Everyone needs a place to feel safe.
We support this as a Housing Association and provider of supported accommodation, also delivering homes for market sale and rent, and operating in the North Yorkshire area.
Whilst we support the need to meet the needs of groups of people with specified needs, the vision should also seek to boost the overall supply of both market and affordable homes in order to meet the needs of the whole population.
Not inclusive of the needs of rural communities
The York and North Yorkshire Housing Partnership agrees with the priorities for the People theme in the Housing Strategy, although there may be scope to include more detail in the document. Homeless people, older people and vulnerable groups are clearly a priority, but the extent to which people on average incomes locally are priced out of the housing market, particularly in rural parts of the County, is impacting on sustainability of local communities and the rural economy. We welcome the references to the retention of the Young People’s Pathway and consider that this is a useful model to consider in the design for accommodation strategies for other, vulnerable groups. The Housing Partnership members own and manage homes and have the capacity to develop more homes to support the needs of these groups. We would welcome more integration of support from across Council services in health, adults and children’s social care to these projects, further discussions about how Partnership members can support this objective, and more clarity about the nature and scope of the Council’s offer in this regard. We welcome the section of the strategy around support housing needs, however we understand the challenges of financial viability of such services. It would be useful to understand in more detail how the Council will meet the current and future support needs of its residents.
This should also include meeting the need for children in care
A key priority should also be keeping a working population in the Parish (housing for local young people/families and key workers).
3.1 Homelessness The statistics (Craven increase by 71%) seem to only drill down to ex-District level. As stated above, there are marked differences in the characteristics within a County Division or ex-District – which the Strategy does not appear to recognise. The section on homelessness has very little detail, and does not seem to recognise the varied reasons for someone being at risk of homelessness. There is no mention of issues and support in the areas of mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, care leavers etc – all of which come under the jurisdiction of North Yorkshire Council. The Strategy must have specific strategies for each of these vulnerable groups. There is the ubiquitous mention of “rough sleeping” – but no mention of other situations such as sofa-surfing. 3.2 Ageing Population Whilst there’s an understandable section relating to an ageing population, the strategy fails to have a section dedicated to the complex requirements of younger people (eg those leaving education) – who face enormous barriers to housing within North Yorkshire – especially where housing is taken up by second-home-owners or holiday lets. Failure to tackle this will see a continuation of young people moving out of these areas, leaving those areas unsustainable in terms of both housing and the local economy.
Our client agrees with the priorities of the Our People theme, however requests that more consideration be given to the role of private sector housing land when meeting the priorities of this theme. When looking at how to meet the needs of an ageing population, as well as the needs of specific groups, there is currently no mention of existing or future allocations or the role the private sector plays in delivering accessible and specialist housing within wider inclusive and sustainable neighbourhoods. The Draft Housing Strategy notes that “sparsely and super-sparsely populated communities present a challenge in terms of inclusion and community sustainability, as well as service delivery. In sparsely populated rural areas people can experience physical and digital isolation with difficulty accessing services, jobs and transport links”. New residential development in proximity to these communities could help bolster the vitality or areas and assist in the provision of supporting transport and social infrastructure, respectively providing greater interconnectivity within the district and accessibility to local services. Our client considers that reference should be made to the continued support for existing and future medium and large-scale allocations and sites, and their role in delivering supporting infrastructure that can reduce health and social inequalities of sparsely and super-sparsely populated communities. More widely, our client also notes that large-scale sites should be referenced more generally, in relation to their ability to meet the wider ambitions of Draft Housing Strategy with regards to increased connectivity, accessibility and sustainability within the district; as well as in relation to providing much needed affordable housing within the district. Our client considers large-scale allocations to be a sustainable method of delivering large scale numbers of new affordable homes within a sustainable community that also provides new infrastructure and services to support this community. This would assist in the delivery of the aspirations of the Draft Housing Strategy, specifically relating to reducing health and social inequalities across North Yorkshire.
We agree, but the critical point is that these need to be implemented. We would also like to raise the issue of a lack of suitable accommodation to downsize to. People are overpaying for larger properties when they are not needed. New housing needs to meet all aspirations, not just some.
You should be tackling the lack of policing in the county. Policing that is needed to keep people and properties safe, i see every day police vehicles parked in the Sherburn police house but never a police person on patrol
We need affordable homes for young people as well
Don't think tax payers should subside other peoples poor choices
Priority should always be for our own needy people first, there is a limit what can be be provided and to whom.
Taylor Wimpey agree with the Council’s priorities to prevent and tackle homelessness, meet supported housing needs, the needs of specific groups and meet the needs of an ageing population. With respect to the latter, Taylor Wimpey welcomes the recognition of the issues relating to an ageing population, however, Taylor Wimpey considers that actions to tackle this matter do not resolve solely around provision of extra care/specialist accommodation and home improvements. Taylor Wimpey considers that the market has a role in delivering suitable house types for an ageing population to provide a choice. Significantly, Taylor Wimpey consider that it is important that the ‘people’ theme recognises the need to attract and retain the working age population in order to sustain and grow the north Yorkshire economy, as well as deliver the workforce needed to support an ageing population. The increased supply of the right type of homes in the right locations, both market and affordable will be critical in ensuring that North Yorkshire tackles the complex issues surrounding an ageing population.
Priot
With migration hittingb700k a year we don't need more houses we need less people. And if you are hell bent on building all these houses, why not build a new town somewhere in stead of cramming them into already over populated areas with already full school and creaking at the joints infrastructure. ABSOLUTE INSANITY.
|Again hard to disagree because all the priorities are very important but the strategy fails to outline how the specific needs of each sector identified will be met and what resources will be available to deliver these. Figures are presented randomly as percentages but how should we interpret these. Is the 71% increase in Craven a big number and have we done any analysis as to the cause. likewise the 250% in Richmondshire looks big but 60 assessments are only 1.2 per week. The Scarborough information needs context - what is the increase in numbers of households in temporary accommodation, is there an increase in the length of their stay and how much have these costs increased? Is it due to numbers or higher charges? If these figures mean anything they evidence the differentiation which must be included in the Strategy to take account of different social factors and experiences throughout North Yorkshire. There is little evidence of this throughout the strategy.
I agree that these are appropriate priorities but it's difficult to see who from outside of these groups would need council help with housing so assigning these groups as 'priorities' is meaningless. Little effort seems to have been made to assess the different causes of homelessness in N.Yorks and differentiate between these causes which often give rise to different needs. Similarly, the needs of our ageing population differ depending on whether they live in isolated countryside or towns and no effort has gone into determining what proportions of our elderly live in particular areas and what support might be needed in those areas.
I would like the strategy to explicitly recognise the issue of affordability of houses for local people in areas like Whitby. There needs to be policies and practice to limit second homes and holiday accomodation so that housing remains affordable for locals. Policies like those adopted in the National Park, requiring a strong local connection for new housing would ensure that Whitby retains the people needed to work in tourism and other sectors like health and education. d
All groups not just those highlighted should be supported, including those in overcrowded housing
Inclusive design should be for everyone
Ageing population and people with disabilities yes. In terms of asylum seekers no as a huge percentage are not genuinely seeking asylum. Women and children yes but there is a too great percentage of young and middle age men who are not genuinely seeking asylum they are economic migrants.
When council sites for gypsies are supplied some dont like it so how to make them use the sites will be hard as for asylum seekers for all areas have to have their fair share if if areas have space then our own people should come first.
No mention of Custom Self Build opportunities
It’s all well and good providing housing for all, but we MUST make better use of existing stock, create new out of buildings left empty, regardless of original purpose, before deciding to break green ground for yet more overpriced new houses
A priority of NYC needs to be to do what it can to retain affordable care homes and to build or develop new affordable extra care or care facilities. This will ensure that those struggling in their own homes and need care due to physical or mental incapacity can release their homes to the market and move into care. Focus needs to be given to making it easier for private renters to raise concerns about their accommodation, and tougher enforcement action to be taken against poor standards and rogue landlords. Selective licensing could be considered to drive up the quality of private rented accommodation. NYC needs to work with delevlopers and registered social landlords to provide affordable homes that are affordable in perpetuity to meet the needs of local residents, are affordable to run- using green technologies for power and water conservation, are homes for life- fully adaptable for future needs.
Providing housing for the homeless and particularly rural homeless families is key in an area like North Yorkshire where some house prices are unattainable for many.
Gypsies, Irish Travellers, 'Refugees' and 'Asylum Seekers' can get houses in their homelands. This is page 4 and the last one was page 2.
A additional key priority should be to provide housing for local young people/families and key workers in order to keep a working population in each parish
Need more council houses or rental accommodation at affordable rents in rural areas
We support this as a Housing Association and provider of supported accommodation, also delivering homes for market sale and rent, and operating in the North Yorkshire area
It’s an obvious strategy however it must be proportionate to the scale of the problem - how big is the problem of hoemlessness compared to the scale of the problem of others being able to afford to buy their own home or find housing where they wish to live. Target resources at the largest problem by scale not the one that most tugs on the heart strings
I don't disagree with the priorities apart from linking them to community cohesion and growth. However, the policy is not convincing on how the needs of this large co-north of the population will be met. The key performance indicators need to be smarter as currently they are poor at giving any indication of success
The above text does not explain what the priorities are or any hierarchical order of priority. I believe the plan should cover all areas of housing need, as is the legal requirement. An ageing population's needs should be just as important as supporting younger and first time buyer's as ultimately without support and attraction for younger individuals who care/work for the older people, the service provision needed to support elderly accommodation would fall away, as is the issue in places such as Norfolk and Cornwall. Equally, custom and self-build housing, as well as urban and rural housing needs do not seem to be covered.
Focus on homes less and elderly
As above - there are more empty houses in Scarborough than you can imagine. Why not repurpose those instead of building on fields and flood plains.
It is of utmost importance that policies are aimed at making it possible and attractive for young people and young families to stay in the area.
For the reasons highlighted in our response to Q6, North Yorkshire Council rightly emphasises the requirement to address the housing needs of the County’s population with a shortage of affordable housing, in particular, an issue that needs to be targeted as part of the overall housing strategy.
Meeting the needs of our ageing population is essential as the proportion of people over the age of 65 will continue to increase over the next few years and is already higher than the national average. It is estimated that one third of our population will be over 65 in 10 years time with some areas already exceeding this. Recently highlighted in the Chief Medical Officer’s report – Health in an Ageing Society: ageing populations are more of an issue in rural and coastal areas, with people often moving away from cities before they reach older age. “Providing services and environments suitable for older adults in these areas is an absolute priority if we wish to maximise the period all older citizens have in independence.” This includes the provision of housing. The report also highlighted the importance of “things which can be done to adapt the environment to allow an individual with a set amount of disability in older age to live as independent and enjoyable a life as possible. In general, helping people maintain health is the role of public health and medicine. Improving the environment for older adults includes issues around urban planning, building design, social care and aids to independent living”. Failure to improve housing options for older people could increase health and social care costs. Need to ensure we have enough housing stock suitable for older people as numbers of over 65’s increase. There needs to be a plan focussing on how we are going to address the priority of meeting the needs of our ageing population. Multi agency – public health keen to support.
Provision for refugees/asylum seekers should not be prioritised over the needs of homeless UK residents.
• If you are meeting the needs of the ageing population you are solely focussing on the people you already have in the area, rather than the people you need in the area for it to become sustainable. • We appreciate that if you ‘right size’ homes for older residents, you are likely to free up homes for younger, larger families but we do not think you can just focus on one age group – the Strategy from the Council should be meeting the needs (or exceeding) of all ages, including young families as we know that retaining young people and families are critical to the economy of our region. • This is about having an adequate supply of a diverse range of affordable, sustainable housing that allows everyone in North Yorkshire the freedom and choice to live and work where they choose, in a way that contributes to their health and the health of the community in which they live. • The Council should also recognise a diverse range of housing delivery models that not only offer housing solutions, but wider social, economic, and environmental benefits, particularly those that are truly affordable, linked to local wages rather than the market. • In particular older peoples co-housing, intergenerational community led schemes and lifetime homes, or those built to the highest accessible standards (suitable for any age or level of ability) on mainstream developments, rather than standard homes which then need retrofitting at a huge cost to the LA. • If the LA do not have the capacity and resources to diversify their housing delivery, which partners are they aware of that can help them do this and can external resources be used to expedite both planning and implementation of the Strategy. By working with Community Led Homes, North Yorkshire and East Riding, along with the RP housing partnership together we can help create a diverse pipeline of housing across the region.
New housing is being focused in a small area which has created a traffic nightmare with insufficient consideration being given to the vale of green space and clean air, both of which are key areas for wellbeing and reducing lung desease.
There is no reference to the relationship between housing and safeguarding. This should be referenced. There is no reference to children and young people. This should be an all age strategy. There is no explicit reference to interdependencies with other strategies - including the draft Substance Use Strategy (which will be out to public consultation in early 2024 - contact Angela Hall, Public Health). People who experience harmful patterns of substance use should be explicitly referenced, in the same was as addressing housing needs is explicitly referenced in the 'protective factors' chapter of the draft Substance Use Strategy. Accommodation is vital to prevention of harmful patterns of substance use, and recovery - including reduced reoffending. The national Drug Strategy commits to improve housing opportunities for people. Nationally, evidence shows that around 2/3 of rough sleepers experience harmful patterns of substance use. There is good national and local data to evidence to relationship between harmful patterns of substance use and housing needs: In 2021/22, 18% of people starting substance use treatment nationally reported a housing problem, and this increased to 28% for people engaging for support with opiate dependence. We have local data - available via the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System. Housing needs is also referenced in our Drugs Needs Assessment - published on Data North Yorkshire. We have examples of the voice of people with lived and living experience of substance use and housing needs to feed into this consultation. For example, people have reported that 'having own front door' is really important; that property/ housing 'rules and restrictions' often make it very challenging to maintain a tenancy for someone who is experiencing harmful patterns of substance use - e.g. no alcohol or drugs; no visitors. There is a perception that access to accommodation for people who experience harmful patterns of substance use is conditional on (unrealistic) expectations and behaviour.
Vulnerable households need to include families struggling to meet housing costs given cost of living isdues
North Yorkshire has more homes than it needs: Your priority should not be in building new homes (very carbon intensive and environmentally destructive) but in bringing empty, holiday, and second homes into use; retrofitting homes on a massive scale to make your residents safer, healthier, and more comfortable; and supporting communities to invest in themselves
Affordable family housing is essential - families with two incomes, and children can't afford to get an appropriately sized house because costs are just too high.
Allow homes to be built in these areas
Brownfield sites should always be the first choice. The old BOCM site in Selby has been empty and an eyesore for years. Highways and public transport availability must be your top priority in rural areas as country roads cannot accommodate a sustained increase in traffic. Regeneration must include places for people to work not just to live.
Affordable housing is key for many groups, join development with RPs is key as private developers will offer minimal affordable housing
In my opinion a property is only ‘affordable’ the first time it is sold, after that market forces prevail. There needs to be a scheme whereby properties are kept affordable.
We must remember the population of NY fluctuates seasonally due to incoming visitors. There are over 15,000 park homes across NY and some of these are dwellings for 90% of the year. In addition have we quantified the numbers of empty homes and the number of holiday dwellings?0
There is no new affordable housing! Harrogate is full of cafes, charity and vape shops. Oh and M&S. How is that community regenerating and rebuilding? Went to a meeting with local councillors questioning what young people wanted. Average age of attendees at meeting was 65! If that's addressing needs of community, then have a meeting at a weekend, in the afternoon and invite the kids to come with their parents! The neighbourhoods are dying.
I think it is important that you work to ensure that village communities are supported. Development is currently restricted to towns, but villages needs some development to ensure they remain viable communities.
Far too many of our places have been destroyed by indiscriminate housebuilding over the past few years. Unsustainable locations, characterless sprawling housing estates blighting the North Yorkshire landscape. The "rural housing crisis" is nothing to do with the supply of housing, it is the affordability. Too many second homes and holiday houses.
Too many houses on green fields without thought of wildlife or environment IE trees and hedges.
Again planning needs to be reformed, see the government white paper from circa 2020, those reforms are how you get more building. I can’t see anywhere in this document a mechanism of how to achieve these goals. Waffle and ambiguity won’t help
Affordable homes need to be built in areas where generally younger people are able to find work . The rural housing crisis is fuelled by the ever increasing purchase for second homes and holiday lets. We need to consider a restriction of for example 20% in towns such as Whitby for second homes / holiday lets
More detail around the what/how/by when needed
You also need to ensure that other requirements are provided,doctors, dentists, school places immediately come to mind. Also ensure the local water supply can cope with the additional demands.
Investment in infrastructure to support new home and communities is vital as well. Ensuring there are convenient corner shops, chemists, Dr's surgeries and schools. and
This is just a statement so although I agree with the sentiment it makes me think of building over the Greenbelt which I wholeheartedly do not agree with under any circumstances
The town centre is almost derelict now and you haven’t done anything about that so why should I have confidence in the council
Affordable housing is not affordable for those who have very little money - affordable rented social housing needs to be addressed.
My definition of affordable is far from the London bubble’s definition
Providing houses are built with the appropriate increase in infrastructure to support all increase in population.
Green space is equally important
Build more council owned and managed property for rent don’t just shove half a dozen “cheap” houses into each developer scheme.
The needs of existing residents need to be taken into account, long term residents see their areas transformed beyond recognition with very little consultation. The road networks are inadequate, so is the number of health and school facilities. There is a lack of investment in the town infrastructure.
Supporting communities has been ignored for so long, this needs to be fully explained and understood and must include transport, education, access to health care and accessibility to employment through reliable public transport
what excatly does supporting communities through neighbourhood renewal and regenration mean in action.
It is imperative to include in these priorities - grow and improve infrastructure (roads) to accommodate new developments
attempts to penalise second home owners and landlords are counter productive
In the old Scarborough District the population over recent 10 years (Census data) has increased by 0%. It is not NYCC's remit to undertake social engineering.
Absolute must.
Too many noddy box character less large estates, leads to loss of community use and current infrastructure not strengthened with schools, sewage systems and gp surgeries. Too many fields disappearing. Why not look at brown field sites
Where is the infrastructure for the population we have, the issue is not just housing.
Again, a community needs more than housing. This strategy in isolation does not address the community needs of people.
Priority here should be the removal of all second home ownership (unless occupied by the owner for a minimum of 8mths per year)
Some market towns eg Boroughbridge have seen massive expansion in the last 5 years....how much more can these towns take?
The new council houses i have seen in the area are smaller and more expensive, the public transport is non-existent and you don't look after pre-existing accommodation.
Family members should be able to live near one another as in previous generations. Too often I hear of children having to buy homes over 20 miles from parents because they can’t afford like for like properties nearby. This has the knock on effect of the need to travel. Again, before approving the building of bland estates you need to think and act on what job and career options are available. North Yorkshire is predominantly rural with no big industry so residents need to be able to travel in a timely manner. Affordable RELIABLE public transport services needs to be in place and roads need to be vehicle worthy. The money given to NYC from the government should be used to mend and maintain the edges of roads so cyclist can confidently traverse in the safest position thus sharing the roads confidently with other vehicles. It should not be used to plan useless vanity projects, for example, a 200 yard cycle path which ends at nothing yet stops road tax paying vehicles using large tracts of suitable areas safely.
We need to address older people wanting to downsize from their large homes but still live in the same village . We do not wish to go into " old people's.bungalows" we would st we would like an individual bungalow with nice gardens etc.
Have homes that are affordable and only allowed to buy with a local connection
NYC need to spread the building of homes around the area - not just in the “usual” already overcrowded areas.
Affordable homes excludes some people who earn more but still cant afford a home
Is the AFFORDABLE housing really affordable? The public know that so far it is NOT affordable.
Developers would rather use precious green space than work with brownfield sites - we are losing local communities to large housing estates of endless "little boxes all the same", without any regard to what really makes a community thrive. There will soon be no such thing as a real "village" left, where there is a thriving community spirit. We need community halls and hubs, local shops, public transport, more schools, doctors etc etc to go with these huge swathes of bland housing estates, which simply serve as commuter belts. Residents need places to meet, places where they can stop (even a little corner would help), and chat in the street, green spaces for community events and to walk the dog. This is how you regenerate a community.
Again a statement where, due to its broadness, it seems impossible to disagree. The real questions will be found in the details and it seems imperative that the planning process is open to scrutiny.
Making sure there are enough facilities for the expanding towns and villages, need more primary and secondary schools, doctors, dentists etc.
Again, it all depends on which community is being catered for. Not all are equal.
I’ll believe it when if it happens
catterick town centre £21million is pointless, COF money given to pubs and churches needs changing to benefit stronger communities for all ages especially target youth retention as many rural towns / areas are turning into one big care home, gods waiting room!
We new to support normal people first to facilitate access to employment so people pay taxes. They need schools and transport in these places not just houses
Agree but needs to include community facilities and opportunities to work (so businesses)
We are currently overpopulated and we do not require additional non U.K. house seekers.
Stop second homes to allow houses to become more available and affordable
Allow amazing projects to be approved. Support the local people with their ideas and make a difference to the areas for our future generations. Deal with the issues that arise in the town centre.
Disagree with doing this by ruining green spaces to turn into housing estates.
The more brown field sites that are currently not being used and are derelict that can be used for regeneration the better. It seems a huge waste of resource.
This should not mean a green light to obliterate our wonderful open spaces and fantastic countryside. Utilise brownfield sites and in shopping centres.
I disagree with building on green belt
Rural housing at a scale that keeps families, young couples, and OAP's in the same community.
It's fine to build new houses within reason. Affordable houses in rural areas may mean more family expenditure to get to work etc.
Need to be pushing more genuine affordable rents and purchase and an emphasis on stopping poor landlords and buy to let cowboys
Focusing solely on the housing market and the excludes those who will never be able to afford their own home. Social housing targets must be included.
Why NEW build, why not refurb existing or demolish & rebuild on same ground?
Whilst I support the provision of social housing for the county, this is subject to careful analysis of demand in different areas. I have been informed that tenancies of new social housing in Stokesley where I live have been given to people who live outside the county which suggests lack of local demand
Prioritise brownfield over the often easy option of greenfield for developers
I do not like to see over expansion in green areas which is what is currently happening
Not taking any notice of the fact people live in one place and work in an entirely different one. Then there is the issue of 2nd homes which will not be addressed by putting up rates, so we have villages empty during the week. Plus the centre of places like Whitby has no one living in it
Some of the villages are losing their identity with the continual construction of new schemes priced above the level of local incomes
The Council should avoid building affordable housing estates and comply with HG3, integrating affordable housing into market value estates. The local rural community should be fully engaged with proposals to build and developers should clearly identify the needs of the local community.
A block, clause or preferential opportunity for local residents to buy/rent local houses before allowing 2nd home buyers the opportunity to buy property
Limit the amount of holiday homes, by licensing/registering them. Stop approving developments with very little affordable housing
Balancing tourism and communities
Sherburn in Elmet has grown too quickly, and the road through the centre can't cope at times. We need more services, and a bypass on the church side of the 'town' (was a village until a little while ago- but we didn't get a say in that either) to link up NewLane to the Church Hill and Tadcaster road. I don't know about a rural housing crisis- somebody rejected the plan to build a 'New Town' which would have been ideal.
It is important not to neglect infrastructure issues when looking at augmenting rural housing stock. Schools, health centres and public transport all need to be factored in when new developments are considered and planned - a holistic approach.
I worry that crowded, cramped newbuild homes will just create future slums.. as the tower blocks of the 6o's. people need space to enjoy life, breathe fresh air and enjoy privacy. not prefabricated boxes. They also need local amenities, and good transport links. The countryside should not be sacrificed and local open spaces and wildlife preserved at all costs! links
Accommodation needs to be allocated to help young people, and encourage to work and stay in the area.
i agree in principal with the priorities as long as long term plans also consider the swallowing of greenbelt and wildlife areas and this kept to a minimum.
Again, it’s not just about the housing, it’s the access to facilities and public transportation (not being cut off) in these areas, but also not losing their identity and becoming generic suburbs
You need to make sure that the housing developers are helping to provide adequate infrastructure. There are hundreds of new homes in our area and no additional infrastructure
The new houses only encourage more people to move here, this project only helps a small number of residents and makes money for those promoting it. How many holiday homes do we have? Look at Redcar people dont want to live there, building places like this encourage people to move, we need to invest in towns that are suffering.
The existing Selby Core Strategy (2013) must be the basis for identifying and allocating sites for delivering additional housing. The existing strategy states (1.18) ‘Promoting a healthy environment and lifestyle is also an issue which permeates a number of policy areas. Healthier Communities is one of the Council’s Corporate Strategic Themes and wherever possible Core Strategy policies aim to encourage good health and well being as well as improved access to health care and other facilities. The environment policies aim to create a green and healthy environment and aim to facilitate sustainable access modes, including walking and cycling. In addition, the spatial strategy as a whole aims to reduce the need to travel and minimise pollution. Therefore, the Local Plan must minimise the need to travel especially by car and restrain growth in less sustainable locations likely to generate increased travel by private car’, in Eggborough there are no practical alternatives to using a private car to commute, therefore the current proposal is not aligned with Selby’s own stated strategy or the national and global aims of reducing harmful emissions. The settlements of Eggborough and Kellington are separate, with clear boundaries and each with a distinctive individual character. The proposed development at Teasel Green which is in Kellington Parish and (EGGB-Y) which is in Eggborough Parish will effectively join the two villages in an urban sprawl. There are footpaths linking the two villages and open countryside which members of the community actively utilise for many activities including walking and cycling. These exercises help keep our bodies and minds healthy, giving us a breather from the stresses of daily life and the space to gather our thoughts. Exploring open countryside also brings us closer to nature These open spaces contain a number of wildlife corridors in and around the village. The principal ones being found along the river the canal, these need to be protected for use by our community.
I also think we should be proptinately expanding sustainable settlements
There must to be a focus on ensuring that new communities are creating within these developments. I live on the Capella estate and I remain concernedabout the lack of Community feel given there has been no consideration for any commercial areas. There needs to be a small shop and a pub and or cafe. These lack of amenities means no-one gets to know their neighbours. As things stand the area is very car focused. To do anything you need to drive. These things need considering as given the size the development is expected to grow to.
Limit number of holiday homes in rural areas. It is killing communities
Great to see afocus on rural housing
Collective solutions rely on more than just the creation of new houses
Yes appropriate housing is needed to meet local requirements. NOT necessarily large developments of box like properties that can be used for second or holiday homes. Houses are currently being built that are not fit for local population, and hence infringing on infrastructure
Location of developments needs to consider the impact on existing communities and infrastructure. There is no point in large housing developments in rural areas that have limited infrastructure. This must be a joined up vision with public transport considerations high on the agenda.
i am concern you are engaging with MOD, does this mean Refugees/asylum seekers are going to housed here. Turn the boats back
Local Residents do not want new houses in their neighbourhood/Green Areas mostly the elderly are the ones rejecting this. Utilise bigger empty buildings in Towns to house the homeless or asylum seekers, empty military camps. i.e Linton on Ouse
Affordable houses are still very low in % terms.
I strongly agree with most of this but this needs to be backed by sufficient funds to ensure public transport and other infrastructure matches the new and original communities needs. Also house builders should be forced not to cram new builds so close together to maximise profits but must reflect the character of rural communities with lower density of building, larger gardens, 2hilst still 3nsuring houses are affordable and relevant such as more sheltered accom for elderly and far fewer 4, 5 or 6 bedroom houses.
Define affordable so that the quality and opportunity for best standards to be applied ie insulation, energy source and therefore on going costs and maintenance reduced
Forward planning to ensure the next generation have the opportunity to remain living in their home town is key (the knock on effect of this is that they also ease the burden associated with elderly care as they remain close at hand to aid with looking after elderly relatives etc)
You need to support the communities you have by providing better schools/doctors/roads before you start bringing in extra houses
Growing a supply of affordable housing is tricky in an area where there is a high proportion of second homes or holiday homes. N
The introduction of the document makes on recognition of the contribution to the housing stock made by private landlords or working with them in partnership to increase standards and supply. The document identifies a wide range of key partners none of which are private landlords which you report as providing 18.7% of homes in the area. To my mind a provider of 18.7% of housing stock is a significant player and should be seen as a “key partner”. You have identified that the stock of private rented homes has declined significantly but make no suggestions of how to address this problem by working with landlords in supporting them to continue to deliver quality homes to quality tenants. In many areas owners of private rented homes are switching to holiday lets as this is, yes more lucrative, but also a lot less hassle from ever increasing legislation and rogue tenants that are actively encouraged to defy court orders for eviction by the Council. The only mention of private landlords in the introduction is a threat of enforcement action to drive standards. The council seems to be following the national press trend of viewing private landlords as the nasty, greedy people who are responsible for the lack of housing across the country. I live in the YDNP which in common with many other areas is being blighted by the ever increasing plague of second homes and holiday lets which are hollowing out our communities. The document makes a brief mention of this but proposes nothing to reverse the trend. In common with the YDNP the council solution seems to be to build yet more houses. Building more houses should be part of the solution to accommodate the increasing population but deterring second homes and restricting holiday lets should also be part of the solution. On the positive side it is great to see the proposal to increase council housing stock and the recognition of the needs of travellers, refugees and asylum seekers.
Who says theres a housing crisis? Where is the evidence. State your case.
The percentage of new homes that will be 'affordable' seems very precise as do the numbers - no indication of how these numbers were established or how they may need to change in the furture due to changing pressures. A percentage of 31.6% seems rather unambitious - why not 40% or 50%.There is also no clarity re. what is considered affordable - often developers describe homes as affordable but they are anything but in relaity. With regard to rural housing it seems many villages can get away with having no new housing whilst other are required to take on a larger proportion. The post war strategy of building a number of new homes in evry community ensured that many new houses were built without a diproportionate burden being placed on any one community in terms of not being able to provide sufficient infrastructure. A typical example is Helmsley which already far exceeds its capacity in terms of infrastructure (shopping, tansport etc.)
I agree that there needs to be a need for more affordable housing to support younger people to be able to stay in rural areas. But this needs to be alongside some generation of employment. In many rural parts of Yorkshire eg the Dales there is simply not enough opportunities to allow young people and families to move to or stay in these areas even if affordable housing stock is available.
Infrastructure needs to be put in place in the whole of Ryedale before more houses are built
Rural affordable is a great idea as both myself and my brother would have loved to carry on living where we were brought up but just could not afford the houses in the area . Also farming families that have children also grown up that still help on their families farms have no where to live locally so more rural affordable homes would be great .
Focus on the young and on families
Building council housing should be a priority
Brown field over green field development. In my view, the majority of green field development is driven by GREED
Very little concrete informaion on how you will address the rural housing crisis, merely aspirations which will not resolve the issues
This section is crucial to local communities. Without affordable housing many of the small villages will become places full of old people.
Business rates too high, killing town centre
No specific strategy. What we generally see is the constant destruction of green belt land when brown field and and alternative sites exist. Poor infrastructure limits this when rural communities already see a reduction or lack of support financially. s
The priority should be to identify brownfield sites, assess how many homes can be built on these sites and consider grey or green sites only if necessary. Places need to encompass the wider aspects of a thriving community eg. access to green spaces (playing fields, gardens/allotments - right to grow) to ensure positive mental, 20mph zones as standard, access to public transport and infrastructure for active travel, access to health, youth and wellbeing services.
Regeneration of areas with large amounts of derelict residential and commercial properties need to be utilised as new housing
as per the previous comment, I don't believe that this goes far enough, one of the problems in rural areas is the high levels of second homes and holiday lets, any affordable homes need to have an owner occupier status or local residence status to keep local people local and improve the opportunities for families or workers wanting to relocate
Second-home ownership should be discouraged/limited so locals can have a chance to stay in their home area
Again - easy to pick priorities - we can all say our priorities are..... How are they to be prioritised? Affordable and available housing? I don't see much affordable housing being built? New houses are not being built to the spec they should to enable disabled/older people to live there.
their shoule be a recognition that affordable housing should be distributed throughout the area , particularly where it has historically not been done eg Harrogate
Another platgitude
Again, it's very vague what is in strategy, a lot of nice words but no real clarity of a plan. As just written, invest in those who actually pay for the council, local businesses, contractors etc and invest in the vast empty properties in the area. Sort out our homeless, our vets first - the most vulnerable. Priorities. All needs to be done in transparency and above board. As a people, we have seen enough corruption in our councils, our governments. I mean look how few of our MP's even went to the recent debate on excess deaths. You are losing the faith of the people. Give specific, clear, transparent plans of how you plan to deal with this proposal before going ahead, let the people see and decide. These crappy, paper thin, new box houses that are being put up do not seem to be up to snuff. Spread communities out, not stuff them all together. There definitely needs to be more renewal and regeneration for what is already empty and available.
These are key priorities but are again impacted by the same issues in my earlier comments. Rural communities will be impacted by new housing stock reducing farming land when existing properties stand empty. They will not be improved by a reduction in green space and rural residents do not generally wish to be relocated to urban areas; they want better facilities and transport links. They also want to be treated equally when considered for housing; not deprioritised by a system which gives unfair advantage to other demographics, rendering most unlikely to ever be given the housing support they need.
As I am responding on behalf of Northallerton Town Council, we are strongly of the view that the provision of such housing stock should be at a modest rental price which will encourage workers to live in the town rather than commute, thus providing a local workforce for the business community. Reference is made in the draft document to the use of infill Council owned land for the delivery of houses. Whilst this is, generally, a sound approach, there are circumstances where such land should not be fully developed on, such as existing green spaces. For example, in Northallerton, the old college playing fields should not be developed on, though brownfield land in the same site would be an appropriate location for such housing.
The houses need to be built where there are services to support them. Not estates in villages where there are no schools no shops no buses etc. That will just put more vehicles on our overcrowded roads.
I don't think the target on affordable and available housing is anywhere near ambitious enough. I live in Whitby where we have huge problems with affordability. We need far more than a third of housing to be affordable. Also there is a big unacknowledged problem which is that in many areas large proportions of the rental stock are owned by big corporate landlords (in my area it is Mulgrave Estate, but there are many others). These companies are able to artificially inflate rents and wield unreasonable power over their tenants because there simply aren't any other options. It would be hugely valuable to us to have more council housing, so that residents have a choice of rented accommodation and large corporations are not permitted to dominate the local market. This could also be achieved by offering incentives for private landlords to rent their properties as full-time homes rather than holiday lets.
Where are you going to build these houses as we need to leave farmland for food
https://www.architecturaluprising.com/studies/study-reveals-84-favor-traditional-architecture/
If there are no big employers in an area with jobs available housing people in an area only contributes to degeneration of the entire site. People then moved from the area and it them becomes another ghost town/village.
Priorities should also include protecting the unique characteristics of our towns and communities. North Yorkshire is full of amazing places that need to be protected from rampant unsuitable development
Yes, but only if the houses are energy efficient and are embedded into local communities where there are local facilities that meet community needs.
So generalised as to be almost meaningless. No one could ever argue for the opposites - shrinking the supply of housing, ignoring the rural housing crisis, undermining communities!?
Agreed, but please see comment under vision
As outlined earlier fully managed built and owned council housing ,the only thing that needs improving is the management as with all housing associations and public sector departments there are two speeds slow and stop
Live local get first choice on housing stock, make them truly affordable
Already too many houses schools and doctors can't cope
I would add a further priority '-providing the essential infrastructure to maintain them with respect to the environment in which they are located' I am thinking of utilities, roads and services
Need to add: addressing the situation where second homeowners and short-term let landlords are outpricing local people both for purchasing homes and renting accommodation
The draft strategy refers to North Yorkshire's national parks (which represent 45% of the area of NY) implying that this strategy will encompass them too. However, They are each separate planning authorities and are making their own plans. The National Parks have special responsibilities (as defined when they were founded and underpinned by the Sandford Principle) however, the draft strategy appears to be (currently) blind to these.
Building should occur on brownfield sites first, then grey then green.
All of this must be supported by good rural transport provision.
Rural communities must be supported and local infrastructure must be improved if new developments are built in small villages with limited amenities and infrastructure.
Small developments in rural areas essential. NOT vast estates of non-descript housing in one or two locations. Access to and from locations is essential and not in evidence in reagent planning decisions, especially in Harrogate area.
There seems to be very little effort taken to ensure tradition and culture of the area is taken into consideration. There is still not an adequate public transport system for rural areas or even bike/walk ways.
Agree that the issue is affordable and number of housing but not too fussed about regeneration until we an comfortably house the people in the area.
They are fine, but current proposals for Ripon provide for less sustainability, greater congestion, potentially fewer visitors, more pollution and greater amounts of carbon burnt.
Do not build on green belt
Rural houses still need to be built carefully and green belt protected. There is no mention of this
Not much in terms of tangible solutions - anything on local connection or principal residence clauses, infrastructure connectivity (not just digital), ensuring developments have smaller/affordable properties as well as 4/5 bed ones, community housing etc.
As previously stated, to avoid wherever possible building housing on greenfield sites. In rural communities nbeed to look at existing empty buildings and limit the number of second homes. especially in the NY Dales national Park
We agree with the references to the chronic lack of affordable housing but question the level of ambition in the proposed target of 802 additional affordable homes per annum, as this tracks below the numbers delivered in both 20/21 and 21/22. We’d encourage the Council to adopt a more ambitious target to support the delivery of all types of affordable tenures, in order to address the challenges outlined in the Strategy. We welcome the references to an examination of Council land assets and would encourage an approach to disposal that balances the social capital returns associated with the delivery of affordable housing, with the capital receipt. Broadacres has established delivery capability, the requisite financial capacity and the commitment to delivering additional affordable homes in North Yorkshire now. As the Council builds up its in-house capacity to deliver new supply affordable homes, the Partnership members stand ready to support them and, alongside that process, deliver more homes without delay. We question the commitment to ‘keep sufficient focus on affordable housing supply in our rural communities’ and ask, how much is sufficient? The delivery of affordable homes in rural areas is essential to the sustainability of rural communities and economies, and we welcome the continued support for Rural Housing Enablers, who should be focussed solely on increasing housing supply. The issues of the chronic lack of affordable housing are well understood by YNY HP members, and we hope that this imperative to deliver more affordable homes is understood and acknowledged by Planning colleagues and Planning Committee Members when considering Broadacres’ applications for such proposals. We note the emerging opportunities and proposals in Selby and Harrogate, and Broadacres stands ready to engage with these projects to support the delivery of more homes of appropriate tenure to meet local need and demand.
Not enough emphasis on affordable.
There has already been a huge increase in housing yet public transport has not kept up, resulting in far too many cars on the roads.
Smaller rural village urgently need affordable housing or the businesses will not be able to continue to operate as they will be unable to obtain staff
Need to look @ bus / public transport links shopping, Doctor, Dental & Schools availabilities infrastructure too
Not in the countryside
All my above comments still stand. Putting these types of homes amongst true homes owners, particularly brining in young families who will not respect boundaries nor look after their own places is disappointing.
What do you consider to be "affordable and available"? is it based on local income and available to whom, locals who then rent them out for tourism?
Where are the measures to protect communities from non-primary residence? Where is the control over such issues?
Nowhere in the plan does it suggest how amenities, health care and space would be addressed by the growing supply of housing
Rural housing crisis???? In whose opinion. If this was so true why cant we sell our houses. Once again total rubbish. I have had a house for sale for 12 months. 5 viewings. That tells you what is going on in the housing market.
Some villages have had too much building on them. You need to develop the towns such as Selby.
You cannot keep adding houses to rural areas. They will no longer be rural!! Residents move to these areas because of the rural nature and often because getting away from busy, built up areas impacts on health. More housing added to rural areas rapidly changes places, often for the worse.
Need to ensure public transport either creates infrastructure in place and not just build houses on green land that is in green rural areas.
I would prefer a greater focus on environmental concerns.
Some places e.g. Harrogate are 'over-developed' and doesn't have the infra structure to support all services and provisions. It will take a more imaginative and intelligent approach to deal with future problems, including employment and environmental factors
The rural housing crisis needs to be supported by better access to jobs.
Nice thoughts but we know from passed experience the locals wont win homes
Where is an important consideration.
Again this needs to have a geographic reference
Villages should not be turned into towns. They do not provide affordable housing and builders like them because they can charge a premium for the houses they build. You just have see the price of the New Builds on Wheeland Road, Eggborough
A survey of second/holiday homes is needed & a limit needs to be decided upon with the community within many rural areas.
This just focuses on lower income families. It doesn't move us to great as it's trying to fix effects but not the real causes
Yes but make sure they are shops and busses close by or there own bus service to town
We want a strong commitment by NYC to the provision of social housing, including council built and managed homes
I have been renting privately to a landlord who wants craven rent but doesn't care. Its affecting my mental health
Rural housing should be suitable to the area in terms of character and scale. We do not need large (>20 properties) new housing estates in the Dales despite how attractive these are to developers.
The council need to get the infrastructure in place before contemplating building new properties. Transport ie bus availability , Drs surgery fully staffed , Available NH s Dentistand not forgetting places available in local schools!!!
I am concerned that there is no definition of affordable housing - we shouldl be looking at social,housing wheee the rent is fixed to local wages rather than inflated private sector rents
The problem here is what has been happening and still is. There has been so much building of houses but no increasing of infrastructure. This is causing so many problems with doctors, schools, etc. If these problems are not addressed first, then overall the health, education and quality of life will not improve. I also believe our green spaces are so important for people's mental health. Walking, cycling safely in these areas brings a sense of wellbeing. We must not become a concrete jungle.
We support this as a Housing Association and provider of supported accommodation, also delivering homes for market sale and rent, and operating in the North Yorkshire area. With reference to section 4.1 we also see an opportunity to investigate other avenues to support providing quality housing to meet housing needs, alongside existing tenures delivered. For example, the use of a product such as Flexi Rent that is able to deliver quality private rented homes with security of tenure, quality housing management and stable rents alongside a commitment to delivering discounted rents within the scheme initially and in the future, linked to financial performance of the scheme. The discounted rents can be made available to specific needs groups or key workers. Effectively working as a dynamic s106 agreement over the operational life of a Built to Rent scheme, the quantum of affordable housing would flex with the market converting from private rented to discounted and back to private rent as required at re-let subject to the cross funding available to deliver discounts. This would help deliver against the following statements made in section 4.1: • “pursuing opportunities to bolster housing supply (temporary and permanent) in the medium to long term by working with new partners” • " better understand the need for key worker accommodation” • “developing our affordable housing delivery model, ensuring that we capture the best delivery models and develop them further to enhance affordable housing supply” Which were in response to the following issues covered in section 4.1: • “This means that fewer local households can afford to purchase a home on the open market and are reliant on other forms of tenure.” • ““Our places” are also affected by growing shortages of affordable private rented housing” • “Decreasing numbers of private rentals result in higher demand and rising rents, making private rented homes less affordable to would be renters on low incomes.” • “As a result, we urgently need to increase the supply of affordable housing.” With reference to the statement within section 4.1 - “reviewing all our land assets to identify land that could be used for new housing (affordable and market homes)”. This is welcomed and look forward to seeing how the approach to delivery of these sites could best prioritise and enable delivery of quality mixed tenure homes to meet housing needs and any carbon reduction targets. With reference to 4.2 “keeping sufficient focus on affordable housing supply in our rural communities”. We support this principle and are keen to understand any further detail around how this will be delivered and provide suitably affordable, practical and well-integrated housing options.
We support the principles of growth, addressing the housing crisis and regeneration. Additional focus should be placed upon the importance of the sustainability of new development in order to ensure that new homes would be well connected to and would benefit from existing service provision, hence minimising environmental impacts and maximising social and economic benefits arising from new development (including market housing).
Targets should be met and delivered, and there should be sufficient infrastructure to support these priorities
York and North Yorkshire Housing Partnership members strongly agree with the priorities for the Places theme. However, the Council should ensure that other policies do not restrict this ambition, particularly for growth. For instance, the proposed allocations policy risks making new development in the area challenging if it restricts allocations to those with a local connection. This would limit the volume of applicants and demand for new homes may be insufficient. Local connection criteria and restrictions on staircasing can also limit demand for shared ownership homes. We agree with the references to the chronic lack of affordable housing but question the level of ambition in the proposed target of 802 additional affordable homes per annum, as this tracks below the numbers delivered in both 20/21 and 21/22. We would encourage the Council to adopt a more ambitious target to support the delivery of all types of affordable tenures, in order to address the challenges outlined in the Strategy. We welcome the references to an examination of Council land assets and would encourage an approach to disposal that balances the social capital returns associated with the delivery of affordable housing, with the capital receipt. The Housing Partnership has established delivery capability, the requisite financial capacity, and the commitment to delivering additional affordable homes in North Yorkshire. As the Council builds up its in-house capacity to deliver new supply affordable homes, the Partnership members stand ready to support them and, alongside that process, deliver more homes without delay. We question the commitment to ‘keep sufficient focus on affordable housing supply in our rural communities’ and ask, how much is sufficient? Additional detail on this would be welcomed. The delivery of affordable homes in rural areas is essential to the sustainability of rural communities and economies, and we welcome the continued support for Rural Housing Enablers, who should be focussed solely on increasing housing supply. The issues of the chronic lack of affordable housing are well understood by the York and North Yorkshire Housing Partnership members, and we hope that this imperative to deliver more affordable homes is understood and acknowledged by Planning colleagues and Planning Committee Members when considering Partnership members’ applications for such proposals. The Housing Strategy is useful in bringing focus to specific areas such as Scarborough and Catterick. We note the emerging opportunities and proposals in Selby and Harrogate, and Partnership members stand ready to engage with these projects to support the delivery of more homes of appropriate tenure to meet local need and demand. The Partnership welcomes the focus on regeneration, and the attention given to those losing out to second homes, and the need for new homes. The Partnership would welcome the inclusion of references to infrastructure, transport and connectivity of rural communities in the Places section of the strategy given the challenges this can create in more remote parts of the region. The strategy could include additional focus around the need for older rural areas to attract younger families in order to sustain and grow the population, regenerating neighbourhoods to ensure they continue to thrive in the future. We would also welcome a reference to developing a partnership with the Church as an opportunity to bring forward development opportunities, particularly in areas such as Northallerton where they have a number of land holdings.
People can not get homes in rural area to rent need for more Council Housing
The priority should be “Growing the supply of affordable, primary in perpetuity, available and suitable (size, accessible etc) housing per Parish. A key priority should also be keeping a working population in the area by restricting the number of holiday/second homes per Parish to a maximum of 20%, ensuring Parishes have a viable future. A further priority should be working with communities to purchase land, build their own housing & support co-housing projects. This plan has no priority for buiding better homes for well being, including increased green spaces & biodiversity, better connected “15 minutes” communities, with less cars.
4.1: Growing the Supplier of Affordable & Available Housing Yet again, the strategy mentions one statistic (house prices in Harrogate) – but fails to cover the differences in various areas or the comparison between house prices and family incomes. Therefore, concentrating on a particularly high increase in house prices in a possibly affluent area, misdirects attention away from other areas where house prices may not have increased so dramatically, but the affordability gap may indeed be higher. Again, the strategy document quotes various isolated statistics on their own (such as Craven having less than 10% social rented housing), but there is no comparison of demand vs supply – it is only by some form of comparison or gap-analysis that shortfalls in supply can be pinpointed and resources targeted at areas that need them. The simplistic approach adopted in the strategy runs the risk of resources being expended in areas that do not need them. The statement “delivering at least 2,537 new homes per year across all tenures” does not specify how many homes in which areas, and by what type of tenures. This runs the risk of providing the wrong kind of homes in the wrong places – what’s required is an approach that achieves the right number of the right type of homes in the right areas- based on a highly-granular supply and demand analysis.
Our client agrees with the priorities of the Our Places theme, however requests that more consideration be given to the role of private sector housing land when meeting the priorities of this theme. Private sector housing land can successfully deliver sustainable communities that can satisfy all key priorities for the Our Places theme, especially when considering the opportunities of large-scale sites that can provide communities with new infrastructure and services. Such sites also provide the opportunity for the creation of high-quality sustainable travel modes i.e., walking routes, cycle routes, and bus services as well as the possibility for mobility hubs which benefit not only the new community, but also existing residents within the wider locality, directly addressing issues around resident mobility as referenced within the Draft Housing Strategy. Sites of scale also provide the opportunity to holistically integrate green and blue infrastructure strategies into the wider design of the development from an early stage, ensuring appropriate biodiversity enhancements, open space and sustainable drainage solutions, which would assist NYC in satisfying existing and emerging climate change aspirations. To ensure that priorities of the Our Places theme are successfully met, there should be direct reference to the important role of the private sector, as well as the role of sites of scale and allocations specifically. Affordable Housing The growing demand for affordable homes, heightened by general house price inflation that has far exceeded growth in income, can be assumed to have worsened the shortfall in North Yorkshire’s affordable housing stock, which is already exacerbated by North Yorkshire’s low wage economy. As noted within the Draft Housing Strategy, the availability of housing that is affordable is a significant issue in North Yorkshire, with “social rented housing. . .[accounting]. . . for less than 12% of households (England: 16.6%)”. The Draft Housing Strategy notes a priority around “growing the supply of affordable and available housing”, in order to combat current shortages in affordable housing stock that is acting as a barrier to economic growth across the district. Our client agrees with this priority, but notes that there is a significant gap in how the Council plan to meet the challenge of affordable housing, specifically when considering the role of the private sector. In addition, NYC need be confident that the Draft Housing Strategy is supported by evidence that is sufficiently ambitious to support the future aims of the newly combined district. As there is a significant affordability issue within North Yorkshire, demonstrated within the and a rising need for affordable housing, our client considers that a minimum housing figure be identified within the Draft Housing Strategy, which should utilise the high growth assumption of the economic-led figure range, in order to successfully provide the level of affordable housing needed within the district. This would ensure that the minimum housing figure is ambitious enough to align with the future emerging North Yorkshire Local Plan, rather than the possibly outdated data that informed the various adopted Local Plans within the district. To support an ambitious housing figure, NYC should also provide further clarity on how this housing figure is reached in order to ensure that the figure does not unjustifiably underpin the emerging North Yorkshire Local Plan. This is increasingly important when considering the Draft Housing Strategy in the context of the devolution of North Yorkshire, as this strategy should go further than considering the aspiration of all adopted Local Plans, but also look to ensure that it is ambitious in order to support the emerging North Yorkshire Local Plan and bolster economic growth in this new context. Increasing the minimum housing figure could aid significantly in providing much needed affordable housing within the district. This would ultimately provide the residents of North Yorkshire with greater choice on where to live, and will satisfy identified need within the district, aligning with the objectives of the Draft Housing Strategy, and various Local Plan’s in which the strategy should align. The Draft Housing Strategy notes that it will aim to deliver “at least 2,537 homes per year across all tenures, including a minimum of 802 new affordable homes each year”, however there is no supporting evidence referenced within the document as to how this figure has been reached. Our client reiterates the importance of this figure being ambitious, to align with the future emerging North Yorkshire Local Plan, rather than the possibly outdated data that informed the various adopted Local Plans within the district and there needs to be further clarity on how this housing figure was reached – without the necessary evidence to do so, it is important that this figure does not unjustifiably underpin the emerging North Yorkshire Local Plan. The Draft Housing Strategy clearly notes the methods in which affordable housing will be delivered by NYC, however, does not mention the role of the private sector in delivering affordable housing provision within the district. There should be clear reference to the role of the private sector in delivering these much needed affordable homes, as it is unrealistic to consider that all affordable housing stock will be delivered through public sector mechanisms. Within this reference to the private sector in delivering affordable housing, reference should be made to the continued support for existing and future large-scale allocations and their role in delivering affordable homes, as they usually provide a much greater delivery opportunity than smaller allocations that maybe more acutely effected by viability constraints. Our client considers large-scale allocations to be a sustainable method of delivering large scale numbers of new affordable homes within a sustainable and inclusive community, assisting in the delivery of the aspirations of the Draft Housing Strategy.
We beleive residents should have strong, local connections to the city not broadly within the unitary authority. We are concerned that our residents could be displaced due to movement around the County. Priorities should be given to people with strong local connections. Consideration should be given to those moving for employment but this needs to be monitored for longevity and uptake of employment.
You priorities ARE what is needed. But it must be done sensible AND YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE IT WILL AFFECT
Our village has been destroyed by housing estates no rural to be had anymore every one is angry making it a miserable place to be can't go out without an altercation
No mention of environmental damage done by excessively large housing developments.
Taylor Wimpey agree that the priority in the Place theme is growing the supply of housing. Taylor Wimpey would stress that the priority should clarify that this should be across all tenures. As highlighted above Taylor Wimpey, make a significant contribution to housing delivery, both market and affordable. Taylor Wimpey welcome the Housing Strategy’s recognition under ‘meeting these challenges’ that the delivery across all tenures will be vital. Taylor Wimpey would however highlight that average delivery across North Yorkshire over the last five years has been significantly in excess of the 2,537 homes per annum (over 3,100/per annum), and that in order to address the challenges highlighted in the Housing Strategy around ageing population and affordability that the overall quantum of housing will need to be significantly higher than 2,537 homes per annum. Taylor Wimpey are committed to supporting the delivery of affordable housing in North Yorkshire. Taylor Wimpey consider that this can be best achieved through the S106. However, Taylor Wimpey note the current transfer values artificially restricts Taylor Wimpey’s ability to deliver affordable housing through S106 agreement, or to provide other S106/public benefits. Transfer rates should be determined on a site by site basis, subject to the market area and build quality. Transfer Values will become quickly out of date if they are not reviewed regularly (more than annually), and it will be difficult to reflect the diverse range of markets across the Plan area. Should the Planning Authority seek to maintain transfer values, these will need to reflect the diverse market areas across North Yorkshire, allow for negotiation and be subject to thorough viability testing, with a range of sensitivity testing. Taylor Wimpey would draw the Council’s attention to Paragraph 34 of NPPF and planning practice guidance which requires careful consideration, through the use of viability assessments, of the effects of proposed Plan policies on deliverability. The cumulative cost of all relevant policies should not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. Taylor Wimpey welcomes the opportunity to engage with the Council on the review of housing and affordable housing policies through the Local Plan, and any supplementary panning documents. Taylor Wimpey also notes that the Housing Strategy refers to a couple of allocations in Selby. Taylor Wimpey highlights at the time of writing the Selby Local Plan has not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination. Therefore, references made to ‘allocations’, such as the new settlement and Eggborough, should be updated to reflect their current status ‘draft’ or ‘proposed’.
Priority should be for more social housing for families and single people who might not necessarily meet the homelessness criteria. Prevention is better than cure.
The promise of affordable housing needs to be the priority, so often it’s left to the end and is an after thought. The building companies then cry the poor tale and under deliver.
Again hard to disagree with this but the test is in the how, when and where and with what resources. The stats around ageing population reveal that 72% are owner occupied and 40% of those owned outright (probably 65+). Should we therefore adjust the future needs assessment to take account of these realities - it is about much more than age? Our combined care provision now seems to be entirely private or third sector. NYC therefore needs to be clear what its role is as Strategic housing Authority and therefore what resources it will need to fulfil that. NYC needs to show clear leadership in bringing the sector together and providing reliable statistics for those other providers to ensure needs are met. Has any analysis been done of the VFM for Home Improvement Agencies? Are there better ways of doing this? What consultation has taken place with the identified groups about current and future needs. Would our gypsy, traveller communities agree that their current needs are being met and that sites are high quality and easily accessible? What about other groups? Investigations in Selby revealed a lack of sites for Showmen? Is this true in other areas? Have we investigated other unmet need?
I agree that growing the supply of affordable housing is a priority. I would feel more comfortable if the authors of this strategy had defined what they mean by affordable. This means different things in different areas and a national definition is not suitable for N Yorks. 'Available' housing is even more vague. It's difficult to see how you can address the rural housing crisis without growing the supply of affordable and available housing so separating the two feels incoherent..
As outlined above, we need to see some innovative thinking to ensure access to housing for the less well psid populstion in whitby and nearby villages
availability of public transport with affordable homes for rural areas
Maybe convert more old industrial buildings in small towns into residential places so not to hurt the picture of the
Please give opportunities for small Self Build people like myself.
New housing should be located close to existing amenities, transport connections and nearby employment
We do not need to grow supply if we better use empty buildings. Empty office buildings in Scarborough should be repurposed into affordable apartments first, before anything else.
There needs to be a focus on developing policies to prevent the growth of second homes and holiday lets. This could be done by requiring owners to pay a higher level of council tax, using planning powers to require owners to demonstrate a material occupancy of the property, lobbying hard to extend the local planning powers to require local consultation and planning permission for residential properties to be converted into holiday lets. Develop a scheme supporting organisations who understand the needs of their local communities to build small scale housing developments in village locations across the county. NYC should also lobby for the Council tax categories to be revised
Some parts of this section are ok but there should be no place in the strategy for Maltkiln. This is a white elephant and will not deliver sustainable, affordable housing, if indeed it delivers anything.
The priority should be “Growing the supply of affordable, primary in perpetuity, available and suitable (size, accessible etc) housing per parish. A key priority should also be keeping a working population in the area by restricting the number of holiday/second homes per Parish to a maximum of 20%, ensuring Parishes have a viable future. A further priority should be working with communities to purchase land, build their own housing & support co-housing projects. This plan has no priority for buiding better homes for well being, including increased green spaces; biodiversity, better connected “15 minutes” communities, with fewer cars.
We support this as a Housing Association and provider of supported accommodation, also delivering homes for market sale and rent, and operating in the North Yorkshire area. With reference to section 4.1 we also see an opportunity to investigate other avenues to support providing quality housing to meet housing needs, alongside existing tenures delivered. For example the use of a product such as Flexi Rent that is able to deliver quality private rented homes with security of tenure, quality housing management and stable rents alongside a commitment to delivering discounted rents within the scheme initially and in the future, linked to financial performance of the scheme. The discounted rents can be made available to specific needs groups or key workers. This could flex with the market converting from private rented to discounted and back to private rent as required at re-let subject to the cross funding available to deliver discounts. This would help deliver against the following statements made in section 4.1: • “pursuing opportunities to bolster housing supply (temporary and permanent) in the medium to long term by working with new partners” • " better understand the need for key worker accommodation” • “developing our affordable housing delivery model, ensuring that we capture the best delivery models and develop them further to enhance affordable housing supply” Which were in response to the following issues covered in section 4.1: • “This means that fewer local households can afford to purchase a home on the open market and are reliant on other forms of tenure.” • ““Our places” are also affected by growing shortages of affordable private rented housing” • “Decreasing numbers of private rentals result in higher demand and rising rents, making private rented homes less affordable to would be renters on low incomes.” • “As a result, we urgently need to increase the supply of affordable housing.” With reference to the statement within section 4.1 - “reviewing all our land assets to identify land that could be used for new housing (affordable and market homes)”. This is welcomed and look forward to seeing how the approach to delivery of these sites could best prioritise and enable delivery of quality mixed tenure homes to meet housing needs and any carbon reduction targets. With reference to 4.2 “keeping sufficient focus on affordable housing supply in our rural communities”. We support this principle and are keen to understand any further detail around how this will be delivered and provide suitably affordable, practical and well-integrated housing options.
I can't agree or disagree when there is so little information. Even he definition of affordability used is missing
Affordable housing needs better consideration. Although the NPPF sets out definitions for 'affordable housing' affordability across the plan area is a major issue. Equally available housing is also lacking in areas such as the southern half of the plan area. The rural housing crisis is a major issue, however this needs to be handled via a plan led system, not an all encompassing windfall policy. Renewal and regeneration is a great ambition if the funding and infrastructure is available, however I would personally de-prioritise this over other issues, such as developing connectivity to some places, to better support the growth of the region.
You also need to ensure an increase in appropriate services eg doctors/dentist schools
Until you get the infrastructure right, it's failing all the people already here.
See comments above. The plan is extremely disappointing for its lack of vision in developing and/or supporting green spaces and biodiversity- from the point of view of health and well-being and also as part of our wider environmental commitments (where does the NYC Climate Strategy imapct this report?). There does not appear any plan to facilitate active transport and reduce reliance on cars.
For the reasons highlighted in our response to Q4, growing the supply of affordable and market housing is supported as it is key to the future prosperity of North Yorkshire, with a sound strategy based on, first, retaining/attracting population through the provision of a range of homes and, secondly, ensuring that these homes are built in appropriate locations to benefit from access to existing/future employment opportunities, retail and leisure facilities and transport infrastructure in order to boost economic growth. In terms of the housing requirement, it is critical that this is sufficient to address the significant imbalance in affordability in North Yorkshire. With regard to the provision of affordable housing specifically, part of the Council’s strategy for providing market/affordable homes comprises reviewing all of their land assets to identify land that could be suitable for new housing, alongside pursuing potential sources of funding to boost affordable housing delivery. However, it is likely that the large percentage of affordable homes required over the Plan period will need to be provided as part of larger residential developments and the housing requirement needs to reflect this. Indeed, it should be recognised that there are already sites available, suitable and viable, within/on the edge of main towns within North Yorkshire, which can potentially meet both the market and affordable housing requirement, in full, over the projected Plan period. The Hambleton District Local Plan, adopted in February 2022, has put in place a robust, sustainable spatial strategy which seeks to ensure that the main market towns of Northallerton and Thirsk continue to be the prime focus for both housing and employment. This recognises the wide range of services and facilities and good transport connections of these two main towns and key employment locations within the central transport corridor, in order to provide future opportunities for expansion and inward investment along this strategic (A1/A19) transport corridor. In light of this, the majority of housing development requirements will be met from development located at Northallerton and Thirsk. It is important, in striving to achieve the aims of North Yorkshire Council’s Housing Strategy, extricably linked to supporting economic growth, that such a sustainable housing strategy of targeting the main towns in North Yorkshire as the principal locations for both housing and employment continues to be a priority moving forward. In terms of the market town of Northallerton, there are sites that are available, suitable and viable, the development of which would provide both market and affordable housing whilst also according with the sustainable housing strategy. Appropriate representations will be submitted to the forthcoming ‘Call for Sites’ consultation. However, even at this stage it is useful to highlight the availability of a site of circa 7ha, under the control of Cecil M Yuill Ltd/Miller Homes to the west of Boroughbridge Road, Romanby on the southern edge of Northallerton. This site has a potential yield of at least 100 dwellings and, in addition to supporting the economic growth aspirations for Northallerton, it would make an important contribution to the provision of both market, and importantly, affordable housing.
As part of the work on healthy ageing we have carried out lots of engagement with older people. Priorities emerging include: 1. The need for independent housing options advice/good home hubs. e.g. independent advice about rightsizing (not downsizing), types of accommodation available, adaptations, trusted tradespeople, retrofitting, technology etc. Needs to be face to face not just on line. Currently older people are often unsure about options so remain where they are which may not be suitable in later life. Promoting independent housing options could free up properties and support older people to access suitable housing. This should be before crisis happens – encouraging people to consider housing options before/early in retirement. https://ageing-better.org.uk/resources/putting-ideas-action-developing-local-good-home-hub 2. Encourage developers to look at age friendly, accessible housing, including dementia friendly and demonstrating the need for this. – similar to Manchester https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/8518/creatingagefriendlydevelopments.pdf Issue is how to market properties at older people when many do not consider themselves as old. 3. Need for multi-generational communities rather than isolating older people in one place. Housing people in safe communities, where residents can interact with each other, is proven to be better for people’s mental health and wellbeing. It again reduces the reliance on services to deal with issues of loneliness and isolation. https://www.housinglin.org.uk/Topics/browse/Housing/HousingforOlderPeople/intergenerational-housing/ Older people are more likely to live in sparsely populated/dispersed areas compared to the rest of the population of North Yorkshire. (Need to consider access to support, services, transport etc)
Specific mention of the need to repurpose disused retail properties in town centres for housing should be a priority.
• Growing the supply of affordable and available housing for people to live safe and healthy lives. Communities needs defining, ie age, ethnicity, communities of particular needs and geographic communities. • Should the phrasing be working with people in our towns, villages and neighbourhoods to understand and embrace neighbourhood renewal and regeneration. • More is needed about ‘supporting’, to know who is being supported on both the demand and supply side of the market, and who are the key partners and connections to be made to have a long term impact, for example linking with organisations helping people to manage their finances to ensure affordable accommodation remains affordable and sustainable. • Identifying and connecting planning at place level and new types of living accommodation to respond to the particular needs of people in the community. • There should be something about valuing and listening to the people within the communities …’supporting communities through’ – you support people through difficult situations so this already has negative connotations. • The LA working with partners, in particular other public sector planning organisations such as York and North Yorkshire LEP and the soon to be established Combined Authority, to fully understand the local needs of a community and to develop innovative solutions. The solutions should explore a range of enabling policies in place to allow flexibility, creativity and community ownership. More widely this will require assisting communities to lead the way with identifying their own solutions. Community led renewal is the most holistic and sustainable development, with both tangible and none tangible benefits. Engaging people to be involved in civic society is part of other funding streams as part of the Government Levelling Plans. Examples: Glendale gateway Trust • What about ‘Inspiring and engaging with communities to take ownership of their neighbourhood renewal and regeneration plans, with our support’ • People and communities should prioritise particular groups in the workforce and there is potential here to connect with large or groups of private sector businesses to look at how having shared investment in housing can enable a workforce to live locally. Partnerships with businesses will enable businesses to play an active role to address the lack of housing for their workforces. Thus avoiding the holding back of business growth, due to the inability to recruit staff from the local area. • This is very pertinent currently as people are required to travel distances to access work due to unaffordable housing or an inability to get on the private rented or housing ladder. Similarly there are people interested and able to work but do not live near where they could gain employment, there are pockets of unemployment in the NE for example but people are unable to move for work due to the difficulty of finding housing. The potential of attracting a workforce with accommodation attached for the workforce in some of our growing industries would be of real benefit to the NY economy. Villages • The recommendations of the rural commission report should continue to be investigated, and include partnership working with the Church of England. • For very small sites in rural villages, the LA should provide a supportive environment for CLT/RP partnerships, for example those delivered by Middlemarch CLT. These attract the support of the local residents (as it is led by them), benefit from the development expertise of an RP whilst delivering on smaller sites using local contractors and contributing to a sustainable community. • To support this, in the forthcoming draft local plan, the Council could have a call for small sites (up to a hectare) on the edge of settlements and create enabling policies to support delivery. • Particularly in smaller, rural areas, community involvement must take centre stage. In market towns and larger settlements: • Developing a new Empty Homes Strategy to bring long term empty properties back into use –(this is one of the statements in the strategy) • The hub would like to be a key partner in this strategy and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council on this. • Empty homes need to be brought back into use alongside the regeneration of town centres and the creation of additional homes in spaces that are not currently residential accommodation. These additional homes need to be secured as primary residences. Innovative projects such as Giroscope, We can Make and Latch should be considered to bring empty properties back in to use for the region, and policies around community ownership, use of commuted sums and right to buy receipt grants, should be in place to enable such enterprises. In Larger Towns and larger settlements • Community engagement needs to take place to understand the requirements of a place alongside traditional data analysis. • The local authority or partners need to work with the community and voluntary sector ensure a diverse range of voices are heard. • See also the data sets underpinning the York and North Yorkshire Local Enterprise Partnership concerning the economic plans, vision for market towns, housing and climate change. The challenges it sets out must be alleviated by the vision and priorities of this Strategy. • Planners to need to be fully resourced and upskilled to understand the benefits of innovative delivery, rather than just ‘settling’ for the norm due to lack of capacity. Also there needs to be a joined up approach to all the services within the LA, including housing, Heath and Adult Services and planning. Housing planners need to fully understand the impact on the work of other areas of the LA (and more importantly the community) in not delivering the right type of housing in the right places.
The ‘cost’ on environment, wildlife is disregarded. There is a danger of ghettoising.
See response to Q5. We do not have sufficient suitable, appropriate housing stock to meet the needs of people who experience harmful patterns of substance use. There is insufficient direct access hostel provision. Emergency accommodation options and allocation arrangements in some parts of the county are iatrogenically placing some people at risk - e.g. B&B's. The Council could strengthen allocations arrangements to more effectively safeguarding people who experience harmful patterns of recovery, and maximise their chances of achieving their goals, and ultimately developing and maintaining recovery capital.
Definitions of affordable and available housing are needed for clarification. Affordable in planning terms had a wide definition which some households will struggle to afford other than social housing options which are the smallest area of units being delivered by developers
Retrofitting your housing stock is of utmost importance, but there is no sense of how this might be achieved in your strategy. The pilots you point to in Harrogate are very small scale, have barely made a difference to the lives or bills of tenants, and are not scalable because you outsourced the jobs. You must take this seriously and create a county-wide retrofit taskforce team in collaboration with the housing associations to systematically renew all stock. You must also expand this to private homes because, in North Yorkshire, social housing scores highest on decent homes scale than any other tenure.
What about cold homes? Rural houses are often harder to heat, exposed to the elements, built a long time ago etc. Often owned by older people too who can't afford to update them.
Negligible intent to actually make housing sustainable and energy efficient. Too fixed on builder’s profitable box designs
Net zero is nonsense
Provide new homes with all the tools to achieve this and help current stock of homes to make changes to achieve this goal
There's a wider issue than just the housing stock and affordability. Hard working people are prevented from entering the housing market because paying (extortionate) rent monthly doesn't qualify to support a mortgage application. Even when rent exceeds the cost of a mortgage. You must work with the banking sector to change this.
Why not rates holidays to improve housing stock?
Proper insulation of homes and solar panels should be the basic minimum. We also need to move away from car focused housing developments.
Park homes need addressing, more and more people see these as an affordable housing solution. Are we doing anything to decarbonise these as the EPC rating is the worst!g
Why on earth are you spending tax payer funds on something that will make next to zero impact on global warming? By all means address the new stock but help for the private existing stock is throwing money away, that should be home owners own responsibility.
I didn't realise after Thatchers sell off there were any council owned houses left! I know my bungalow supposedly had the walls insulated before I moved in 2 yrs ago. I can believe that because it's like a fridge inside! Last winter I had Covid over Christmas and put 1 radiator on for 2 weeks. My gas bill was £200! I was looking for something in a wardrobe and my shoes are mouldy. My old house was cold, but I've had more chest infections in the 2 years in this place than I had in 42 years in my old home.
New homes need to be of the highest standard going forward, not the current acceptable standard - a recent proposed development in Leyburn gives no indication of any eco friendly items such as triple glazing in its very exposed site, no mention of grey water recycling, no mention of water butts for all robes to reduce the overload anticipated in our antiquated culverts and inadequate water treatment works, no mention of the type of heating system (there being no gas and the site plan not showing oil tanks for the dwellings) However the biggest ommission in the strategy is the lack of basic infrastructure to support housing growth. We have no nhs dentistry and our gp practice is overburdened, there is little public transport now and there seems nothing to be planned to support our increasingly aging population who will no longer be able to drive, but will be unable to afford taxis from our rural towns to hospitals .
Ratepayers who are struggling shouldn't have to pay for people who don't work.
Worthy idea but would need phenomenal investment
More detail around the what/how/by when needed
Its vital to think about the future and consider carefully - don't make rash decisions.
It sounds good but why aren’t builders already doing this. Instead of building on green belt land why can’t brown field sites be redeveloped for housing.
Promises promises
The mindless focus on 'Net Zero' is completely wrong. Putting aside the strong evidence that it is in itself a fallacy, if you create homes and/or adapt them to provide maximum material & energy efficiency then you are likely to hit this 'target' as a by-product of what you are doing. It should NOT be the main driver for the chosen methods as it creates far too narrow a focus on the issues of pollution and efficiency.
You know how rural towns in America have water towers? We should have something like that for energy production.
Why aren’t we demanding new builds have solar at least, maybe mini turbines too?
Fairness to all new and existing home owners.
This is a very wide area and some of your priorities here actually fight other priorities. You hardly have sufficient funds to both decarbonise at great expense and improve poor quality housing unless you have an extremely long programme that will please no-one.
Scrap the net-zero badge, if the houses are well maintained and refurbished as required then energy efficiency will look after itself.
No these are correct in my opinion.
Decarbonising and a net zero aim should only be considered if there is no additional cost involved.
good priority shame about lack of help to make it work. people want to be warm in their homes but retrofit insulation is fraught with difficulties
There is also a need to bring back into use properties which have been empty for years.
Not enough about extra insulation, solar panels or fuel efficient heating methods.
people want affordable housing over net zero, particularly those who are renting
Puting solar panels on the council houses would help loads and upgrade windows and doors that are 20 years old
To be honest it would be a miracle if you actually did improve existing council accommodation, we've been promised it twice for it to disappear.
Regarding climate change aspirations. The ideas so far are only penalising tax paying people who live quietly doing their best - not to waste, not to over use and not destroy their environment. Why do organisations think by moving into a newly constructed multimillion pound environmentally friendly building, whilst leaving these magnificent old buildings empty; rotting away until ‘a friend’ wants to buy it for peanuts, think this is either a good use of public money or will save the planet? What happens to the ‘unsuitable’ window frames, tiles, wall materials, etc when replaced with supposedly green alternatives? I know we all need to do our bit and be seen to do this. I recycle all my plastics, etc. Yet due to roadworks, the recycling collection isn’t done, so I either have to live with a pile of rubbish on my property blowing around and attracting vermin in the hope it will be collected on the next collection day two weeks hence; or drop it into the household waste and have it collected to be incinerated (funnily enough the collection vehicles are the same size). Electric vehicles are not carbon neutral so are not the answer, yes, the choice should be there. It is impossible to travel around NY effectively and safely without having your own transport. Subcontracting cleaning and maintenance work is not cost effective, in fact it has a detrimental effect on society. Why not bring back jobs you’ve replaced with machines to combat mental illness and isolation, here I’m thinking of car park attendants, street cleaners and many others. This will help you save so much money on mental health projects.
Lots of words
Build more accessible wheelchair homes
Net Zero is impossible, unnecessary and unaffordable. It should not be an objective or drive policy.
New builds should have solar panels but they dont
Many of the present occupiers of existing Council Housing stock run 2 - 3 cars, holiday abroad maybe twice a year and have a better life-style than people living in tiny houses,are unable to afford to run a car (thereby reducing job opportunities) and rarely have a holiday abroad. When income hits a certain level maybe these tenancies should be ended within an acceptable time scale.
Easy to say, hard to afford or achieve.
every new build should by law have solar panels etc, etc, new build estates should collect rain water, provide / tap into wind , solar, water renewable energy, every district should tap into harnessing the power of rivers, wind etc etc etc
Sounds good! Support is definitely needed to help people afford to increase EPC ratings of homes
This is going to be the biggest challenge.
The principle as a general statement is understandable however there needs to be a balance between the increased build cost for energy efficient housing and the benefit of reduced living costs. The cost of development, the property value and the value of land is a closed loop - if you increase the build cost something else must change, reduction in CIL, less affordable housing, lower contribution to 278 works, increase in market facing house price which is controlled by supply and demand, or reduction in land value. The latter will take a long time to change if at all given land ownership in the county, major land owners will sit on land rather than develop at lower returns for their land. The likely result being reduction in house building, reduced supply and ultimately increase in the cost of market facing property. To drive quantity of affordable housing up needs a building equation that maintains developer profit levels. You can’t squeeze the build cost equation and expect to increase number of houses built. The current situation with interest rates and inflation is constraining housing development, the return on investment in development is challenging. The Part L regulations relative to energy efficiency already place huge cost increase on developers, the cost to increase energy efficiency beyond Oart L is disproportionate to the benefit gained and would result in a negative impact on housing numbers being built. Therefore I would suggest the policy simply supports the delivery of the current regulations rather than imply energy efficiency for new build that would go beyond that,o
What help do you give to private home owners to improve the energy efficiency
However, instead of building new houses to do this, why not improve the ones already standing?
More maintenance teams are needed, there are too many empty properties waiting on maintenance while people with housing needs are left with nowhere to live.
House building today has't changed much since WW2, but beeds adapting to embrace zero emissions both at the construction and usage stages.
More on the rental market = rights of tenants
I live in a home with a heat source air pump and I have found it to be neither cost effective or efficient. Before forcing everyone to use these types of heating more needs to be done to make sure they are fit for purpose and are really cost effective and affordable. I agreepoor quality homes must be brought up to standard as a priority but i do not feel pushing the net zero agenda at the cost of people being able to afford to heat their homes should be a priority.
I disagree if you build on green belt
Be bolder about Council housing stock, state a number of houses achieved by a date.
Will residents receive any help with regard to your "Net Zero Ambitions"
Start making builders actually follow building regs. I see rennovations done all the time with NO insulation added
It’s not ambitious enough - all new homes need to have solar/ wind/heat pumps, every available renewable option at the home level. Be brave!!!!
Why NEW build, why not refurb existing or demolish & rebuild on same ground?
It is not realistic
Spending public money on making homes more energy effecient for those in council houses sends the wrong message unless it is applied evenly to those in their own homes as well by way of a grant
The first thing is that it is a requirement of all new houses that they are built with Solar panels. This is a not an add on but an essential.
Tackling empty homes
I don't agree with net zero. But I agree that homes should be efficient, and affordable. Our council houses in Sherburn look terrible, blocky, and a disgrace. There is enough land at the top of New Lane to demolish some of the ones with huge gardens and build multiple appartments on the land, but it would need landscaping, as it is horrible there. the
You will need to be very clear with developers about types of fuel, use of solar panels, proper insulation and any other approaches to decarbonisation. Anything that costs them extra money is unwelcome and they will always seek to exploit all possible waivers and loopholes.
All new build houses should have solar panels installed.
You must also consider what is best for the people Now, imposing one size fits all carbon programmes is Not the answer. I used little energy with an economically gas centrally heated home from a small combi boiler which provided only the heat. to switch to all electric heaters that provide far less warmth , cost far more and take up more space is a retrograde step. space
Private and social landlords need to be encouraged to improve housing conditions
All new builds should be built with roofs so that they are acceptable for solar panels so that solar fields are not built on good agricultural land also additional mini wind turbines could be incorporated on each new build New factories could be built locally instead of China to manufacture these items on the still vacant plots on light industrial estates which would increase employment building houses does not increase prosperity
Why doesnt Enviroumental Health ask to see the Waste Tranfer Note (which is a legal document) confirming the businesses waste collection and disposal arrangments when doing scores on the doors? This would help stop fly tipping, increase income to the directorate, increase the amount of waste kept within NY and not fly tipped.
Instead of net zero aims, why not go for net negative?
Suggest we concretrate on bringing existing housing stock uoto scratch. Convert and refurbish accommodation above shops. There are lots of these. Utilities already in place.
Again... we have homes that need investing in. Also get people working, feeling pride in their homes and environment.
The village of Eggborough has seen considerable growth in recent years with many new developments already completed resulting in a doubling of the size of the village. The bus routes have recently reduced despite this growth in population, journeys are too infrequent and long (time) to be of practical use. As there are no viable public transport options for commuting and other journeys the use of private cars has already increased emissions and lowered air quality in Eggborough. The increase in HGV traffic associated with the redevelopment of the Eggborough Power Station and Kellingley sites will further add to this and exacerbate the current poor situation. The proposed number of new homes in the Local Plan (EGGB-Y) will add in excess of 2,000 additional vehicular journeys per day, this will further increase emissions and reduce air quality impacting on the health and well being of residents. The plan does not contain any strategy to reduce this impact and maintain the air quality of the local environment. The ‘Preferred approach SG10 Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change states that ‘All new development proposals will be expected to support appropriate measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The proposal for Eggborough will see a significant increase in transportation mileage which is contrary to the aims of reducing climate change.
Decarbonising the entire stock in a single plan period appears unrealistic. Perhaps a signficant decarbonisation...
How do you achieve that while still making it affordable
In my view focus should be on renewing existing properties.
But seeing is believing. These priorities are often talked about but never happen
All new homes should have solar fitted to them, make it planning policy
Would like to see ambitions for decarbonising housing, especially looking at off-grid solutions, passivhaus etc.
This is hard, as prices go up each year the original budget is not correct. Developers need to ensure they adhere to Climate Change aspirations as part of their planning now. Stop them building until they can prove this - Long Term Gains
Take the properties that are derelict from Humphrey Smith in Tadcaster, and re-purpose them
You are on the right track but new houses must also not just meet next zero and decarbonising targets but also provide homes for wildlife, hedgehog friendly gardens, swift and bat boxes, compartments in roof waves for nesting sparrows and starlings, wildflower meadows, ponds, hedgerows and plenty of mature trees, etc
No apparent pledge towards net zero for existing Council housing
This feels like a dumbing down of what should be achieved. Currently can meet these objectives without really ever providing the highest standards possible.
Council housing stock crucial to help keep rental prices as low as possible.
Council properties must be routinely checked and maintained and penalties imposed for non compliance of tenants, i.e there should be a baseline requirement for keeping gardens neat and tidy, litter free etc.
All new homes should have solar panals and heat pumps fitted as standard. Mainly, it should be essablished that there are sufficient school places, medical facilities and infrastructure to cope with new housing stock.
The EPC rating is not a measure of carbon emissions - it is a measure of efficiency in terms of running costs. If carbon is the priority then the Environmental Impact Rating contained within the SAP/EPC calculations is the key figure. If the ambition for new housing is to be only rated as C then that is pathetic. Most new housing already reaches a B rating and the ambition should be to achieve an A rating for all new housing - this will ensure fuel poverty is minimised. The Future Homes Standard will be implemented by changes to Part L Building Regulations and are nowhere near zero carbon. Their implementation is already behind schedule (a consultation was meant to be published spring 2023). Those councils that have adopted the Passive House standard for new council homes e.g. Exeter have almost eliminated fulke poverty amongst tenants. You need to be more ambitious.
Agree that new housing should be energy efficient. However many homes in Yorkshire are as you state older and are not cheap or easy to make more energy efficient. People in council homes should have good quality housing but then so should everyone. Not everyone who owns their own home is well off and able to make changes to property without support.
I'd like to see something in the strategy about testing out innovative, new ways of meeting housing needs.
Focus on young people and families
This should be achieved focusing on reducing energy bills rather than clinging to 'green idioligy' that is seen by some as a cult rather than sound economic or evel logical thinking
While I agree that you will be able to do something about the council owned properties and possibly the housing association properties, I fail to see what the plan is to improve the quality of a lot of the privately rented housing stock
The decarbonising bit wouldn't be a priority for me, I think we just need to have clean modern homes with nice kitchens and bathrooms and that are safe secure and free from mould.
This is probably the most crucial of the strategies. New house must be built to the highest standards and builders must be 'made' to include the latest technologies. Equally, the existing housing stock must be brought up to a standard that is acceptable in the 21st century.
Again most housing stock is old. It is mainly in private ownership yet people do not have the money to access major carbon neutral initiatives. You simply cant rely on forcing people without the finances to adhere to carbon policies that will simply fail. Accessing appropriate grants will help. Looking at alternatives like solar storage will help. The sole reliance on heat pumps wont work as housing stock is old and properties inefficient. You cant simply alter houses that are listed. A better more holistic strategy is needed. Currently it excludes people from getting access to financial support to improve efficiencies. This is well documented and relevant in north yorkshire.
This is imperative to ensure homes are fit for purpose - to meet the needs of climate change and provide warm, quality homes for everyone. There MUST be more social housing to support young people, families on low incomes and asylum seekers and refugees. The Homes for Ukraine scheme was a great initiative but no thought was put into supporting their independence. It was just left to hosts and greedy landlords/agents to fight and negotiate, without any support from the local authority.
addressing stock condition is a major priority
It is wrong that most of the new Sowerby Gateway houses have no solar panels, grey water sysyetms or heat pumps; some of these at least should be standard on all new developments
Great to consider listing priorities - how will these be achieved.....
we should be ensuring that housing we develop, support and provide should meet the highest standards of health and welfare, not just 'decent'. We should be providing support to owner occupiers to improve standards of insulation and housing performance, and provide incentives to sell in exchange for older persons accomodation
A wish list
This climate change agenda is a lie. A perpetuated lie that has been going on for over 50 years, with changing names. Nothing has happened. We are carbon. There is no mention of planting trees, the best way to neutralise carbon dioxide. There is no scientific peer reviewed study that can claim what "number" we need to get to. It is an agenda that will benefit a small few. I have commented previously. Smart everything is more toxic to our environment - all the factories, the child slave labor, the emf's, the lack of sustainability in production, solar panels / wind turbines for example will never be recycled therefore have to benefit to our environment. There are many free energy options - we live on an island, invest in wave energy, look at Howsham Mill for example, Tesla technologies. Build new builds with Hemp, which is extremely beneficial to the environment - cheap, grows like a weed, strong - there are airplanes made from hemp. These are real solutions to invest in if you truly care about the earth and sustainability. Again, this plan just reeks of the globalist agenda. I do not consent.
I cannot understand how councils/local authorities face such a challenge but private builders are allowed to build without any significant need to include renewables, rainwater harvesting or energy efficient measures. It is ludicrous to make the tax payer foot the bill for this when a wholesale policy across all builds and renovations would plough surplus energy back into the national grid. It's just not thought through holistically.
The priorities are sound but it will be important to set realistic timescales for delivery.
Every roof should have solar these days.
but don't be sucked into thinking that energy saving tools such as heat source pumps and cavity wall insulation is the best solution for all properties. It is not. They will often cause other issues such as damp especially in older properties, they are not designed to be heated in this way. doing so is likely to cause high costs in other maintenance.
Where are you going to build?
Why the obsession with decarbonising everything - without carbon there would be no life. Focus on affordability.
Concerned what all this will do to council tax .
The designs are soulless boxes. They are ugly
New housing is only built by companies who want to sell homes for large sums of money. Old housing needs to be regenerated first. Landlords/house builders have only one vision and that is money - the council needs to built up its own property stock so that it can be controlled.
It must be compulsory for all new build and retro fitting to include simple measures like PV's and smart batteries to help reduce energy costs and help make the transition to net zero easier for households
Agree in part - contributing to net zero ambitions should not be allowed to slow down achieving a plentiful supply of affordable, energy-efficient housing
Listen , if I meet a young mother with her baby who are looking to get into a home in the private sector with the help of the selby team believe me she is not bothered about climate change and whether her newish gas boiler is carbon neutral she is bothered about getting a roof over her and her child’s head .As one recent bold politician put it ,enough of the green frap
Do what u need to to make them liveable
Need good insulation, solar where applicable, ground source heating etc, swift bricks
Homes are more than just bricks, mortar and insulation etc which you highlight well above. Housing policy has to have regard to broader planning objectives that are environmentally sound such as location and consideration of access to services, employment opportunities and utilities all of which impact on climate
Retrofit existing housing stock.
For older people you are following the same old system where they end up in care instead of being able to stay local
Can’t disagree with making all housing stock decent, however one-off upgrades are not the answer, groups of houses need to be upgraded together to make the projects efficient and cost effective.
When climate change starts to get banged about in policies it’s not about the people and the local area. What climate change is occurring here? What about support for farmers? Agriculture? We cannot have affordable housing that is acceptable when the policies that are tied up in climate mean higher cost of energy that is not sufficient to meet the needs of local area. This is becoming more and more apparent.
Want to help the environment but first focus should be enough affordable houses.
See other comments. i will not hold my breath waiting for actual delivery in line with the priorities.
I would like to see more reference to improving quality also improving health (e.g. ensuring appropriate ventilation and other measures to decrease damp/mould etc. which lead to chronic respiratory conditions). Net zero/energy efficiency is mentioned but not wider quality issues, e.g. overcrowding, sanitation, siting of housing – all with links to poor health.
There are specific issues with making rural properties more energy efficient - they are generally older and many of the approaches which may work for modern housing will not - improving insulation/heat pumps etc are not practical. This is a particular problem in North Yorkshire compared to other more urban counties.
Broadacres has a wealth of experience in planning and delivering decarbonisation and retrofit measures to our homes and we are happy to share this learning with the Council. There are opportunities to consider a joint approach to future Government funding opportunities to maximise local impacts, and capitalise on the economic and labour force development benefits associated with this work. We welcome the implementation of Design Codes to guide new supply requirements and would hope for a level playing field in the development of these requirements, such that RPs development proposals (which are often of a higher quality and standard than spec build homes) is not subjected to additional demands not required of the private sector.
You have the right priorities but I don't think you are doing enough to meet them, you need to be far more proactive and certainly not look to the current government for guidance or supprt
its not ambition enough compared to the problem of climate change and that we areliving in a world which has entered the 6th extinction period in terms of rate of death of species. New housing supply needs to be net zero, not just contribute to it, needs to be a plan to get existing stock to far better the EPC C, need it at A/net zero where practical,social house decarbonisation plan needs developing now and not waiting for the government, etc
Need to disallow all new housing planning that uses gas boilers for heating. With immediate effect.
A good aspiration, but little evidence of this taking place. It should be mandatory that all new housing is build with solar panel arrays and heat pumps as standard.
People put in council houses tend to abuse them imo and this is not a good thing amongst people who own their own homes and look after them. The neighbourhoods could go down in safety and consideration for others.
carbon net zero is a fantasy, as there will always be a carbon footprint in the manufacture of building supplies and equipment meant to deliver net zero appliances
Not defined affordable. Where is the long term rented accomodation? Currently in this area there is little, and most moved to be holiday rental
Planning permission should only be granted to sustainable houses with air sourse heat pumps, solar panels, electric vehicle charging points. It is much more expensive to retro fit these compared to installing when the house is built
You give planning approval to houses that are not even required to have heat pumps. So again just words.
Waste of time
Ensure all houses are fit for purpose and are future proof so anyone of any age can live in, ability or disability.
Education and guidance require to be provided to new tenants, to look after and maintain accommodation, including ventilation, cleaning and basic maintenance.
As long as ratepayers dont have to pay for this.
There is too much emphasis in climate change and because we are such a small country we could never hope to fulfill this priority. So far, we are doing our very best but it is the other countries of the world, such as Russia and China who make little, if any, contribution to net zero
Although a desirable aim, the time ('turning circle') will be longer than expected
Wanting to cut pollution yet over 8000 new homes for outsiders will create more pollution with their cars Its a joke
I would have thought that building homes was more important than climate
I presume housing stock owned by Richmondshire will be retained, that needs to be part of the statement
See previous comment re solar panels
Additionally the green areas surrounding new housing estates should be designed & maintained to support nature, existing trees & hedges should be kept where possible.
All new homes need to come with proper insulation, grey water recycling, solar etc and be A rated. Anything less
The quality of affordable houses isn't good enough as there's poor parking, often no usable garage space or drives so cars and vans are parked on roads and pavements. This will prevent these residents charging electric cars.
A lot of are homes need modernising
Legal enforceability is the key to achieving these objectives
Why when you the councils/ gov have the planning power to make all new developments have solar panels on is still not happening,if you were serous about climate change and carbon footprint you would make it happen. it will help with fuel poverty and power most of the home in the day. I have had solar panels on my home for over 10 years and have generated over 35,000kW of power free from the Sun ,the thing you need to stop granting permissions for these drive-through coffee cafes that cars are stationary polluting and making people lazy when if we didn’t have it you will just park up and get a coffee to go there is four new sites in our area one at Thirsk one at Eastfield Scarborough one at monks Cross one at Clifton Moor and now that another few at Malton Eden camp proposed If you were serious about climate change you would stop this happeningcamp
All new homes MUST be built to the highest standard of insulation, all roofs facing between SE and SW covered in photovoltaic panels, all properties fitted with heat pumps and no properties should have domestic gas supplied. As we transition to a carbon neutral environment, retro fitting of insulation, solar panels and heat pumps and conversion of gas appliances to electric becomes more expensive than mandating these things when building new homes. The Council MUST take a lead on this issue and not leave it to builders who wish to maintain outdated housing standards.
Fantastic, needs delivery
You must resist strong economic pressures. Build small and build well.You need to smash the poor imitations of central government and build to high standards - no gas, ground heat pumps (shared ground installation?), triple grazed, fully insulated, smart ventilation. Affordable housing needs to be actually affordable to the segment of society in most need NOT discounted executive homes in an upscale development.
No
There are no commitments to numbers or targets
We support this as a Housing Association and provider of supported accommodation, also delivering homes for market sale and rent, and operating in the North Yorkshire area. In relation to the key priority in section 5 - “Ensuring that new housing supply of all tenures contributes to our net zero ambitions”, and the statement in 5.2 “supporting our Registered Provider partners to meet net zero carbon ambitions in the delivery of new affordable homes”. We support this principle and are keen to understand any further detail around targets and how this will be delivered. It will be important to consider viability of delivery alongside other priorities, as well as practicality and cost in use for the customer. In relation to the statement in 5.1 “working with our Registered Provider partners and Homes England to implement investment plans to make their homes warmer and more affordable to live in”. We support this and welcome an opportunity to get involved, learn from experiences and collaborate on this as appropriate. In relation to the statement in 5.2 “implementing new Design Codes to ensure an increase in the quality of new housing, working towards the Future Homes Standard and Nationally Described Space Standards”. We support this and welcome opportunities to improve on quality in these areas, particularly in the all important fabric standards and internal space standards of new homes of all tenures.
The homes theme should place greater emphasis on recognising the role of new homes in contributing a supply of energy efficient homes that would rebalance the proportion of homes in the district that are compliant with climate change policies (and building regulations) relating to energy efficiency. This would be a significant step toward decarbonising the Council’s housing stock and would increase the proportion of homes that would contribute towards the Council’s climate change aspirations.
There should be more emphasis on maintaining and adapting existing housing stock. It is an ambitious target and may be difficult to achieve within the timescale
The York and North Yorkshire Housing Partnership members have a wealth of experience in planning and delivering decarbonisation and retrofit measures to our homes which we are happy to share with the Council. There are opportunities to consider a joint approach to future Government funding opportunities to maximise local impacts and capitalise on the economic and labour force development benefits associated with this work. We welcome the implementation of Design Codes to guide new supply requirements and would hope for a level playing field in the development of these requirements, such that Registered Providers development proposals (which are often of a higher quality and standard than spec build homes) is not subjected to additional demands not required of the private sector. It would be helpful to see reference made to working with developers to have a standard across all tenures that is reflective of the net carbon zero aims of North Yorkshire County Council. Any additional design codes need to complement the Future Homes Standard and building regulations to avoid any delays which can arise due to competing priorities and requirements. Although the strategy covers all tenures, when looking at improving communities and homes, development, and stock decency we would welcome a specific focus on landlords and the private sector.
Briging vacant homes back into use should also be considered within 'stock conditions'
All Homes are different improments should not be on block
The priority must be to ensure all new houses starting Jan. 2024 meet EPC A, and that clear guidelines are in place to protect our listed buildings and conservation areas. The lack of guidelines and innovations for protecting listed buildings is appalling.
Section 5: Our Homes 5.1 Decarbonising the whole housing stock The strategy mentions the work undertaken in Harrogate to retrofit homes. Whilst the strategy acknowledges there is a need for a comprehensive plan “when the target date is announced by the government” there is no mention of any existing audit / stock-take of housing EPC ratings, and surely the strategy should set its own deadline (rather than waiting for the government to do so). 5.2: New housing… contributes to our net zero ambitions Firstly, there is no mention of what NYC’s (“our”) net zero ambitions actually are. Furthermore, the main control that NYC has over the contribution of new-builds is through planning permissions – yet this doesn’t appear to be mentioned. Whilst design codes etc are all very well and good, there is no mention of a joined-up approach in terms of NYC’s planning policies which could / should include (inter alia) insistence that all new builds: • Must include photo-voltaic electricity generation on available and suitable roof areas (far cheaper to install as part of the construction rather than retrofitting) • Must include grey-water capture & management (to save on the energy and chemicals involved in cleaning water to potable standards, which is only going to be used for flushing toilets, watering the garden or cars) • Must include porous surfacing for driveways etc (to reduce the attenuation of water run-off and therefore reduce the risk of flooding or overloading sewerage systems and treatment facilities) 5.3 Addressing Stock condition issues The primary statement just recites changes to the Building Regulations – which is not something that NYC has achieved, it’s something that NYC is obliged to comply with. It appears that NYC is proposing to do the bare minimum that’s legally required of it. Even more frustrating, is that there is no mention of dealing with issues within NYC’s own housing stock. 5.4: Ensuring Council Housing Stock remains decent There is no mention of the current status of repair backlogs etc which need to be addressed. It seems this issue is being hidden from view. Whilst there’s a proposal to implement a robust investment plan “over the next 30 years” there’s no mention of what NYC should be doing now to address this issue.
Our client agrees with the priorities of the Our Homes theme and supports the priorities around the decarbonisation of the whole housing stock and improving poor quality housing in all tenures. However, our client considers that the priorities should go further, to ensure that all new housing that is delivered is also energy efficient and high-quality, which only currently noted in relation to new Council Housing. This will ensure that housing delivered within the next five years aligns with the future aspirations of the emerging North Yorkshire Local Plan. In order to successfully deliver this further identified priority, our client requests that more consideration be given to the role of the private sector in responding to climate change, and delivering not only high-quality energy efficient homes, but communities that assist in supporting existing and emerging NYC climate change aspirations. Sites delivered by the private sector, specifically large-scale sites such as urban extensions, have the opportunity to provide new build homes that are of a high quality, with strong environmental credentials. Furthermore, large-scale sites in particular provide the opportunity to holistically plan new development and integrate well-considered green and blue infrastructure strategy into a masterplan from an early stage, ensuring appropriate biodiversity enhancements, open space and sustainable drainage solutions, which would assist NYC in achieving its existing and emerging climate change aspirations. As previously mentioned, these sites can also provide the opportunity for the creation of high-quality sustainable travel modes i.e., walking routes, cycle routes, and bus services as well as the possibility for mobility hubs which benefit not only the new community, but also existing residents within the wider locality, directly addressing issues around resident mobility as referenced within the Draft Housing Strategy, as well assisting in meeting the district’s climate change aspirations.
We believe a strong priority should be that properties are as energy efficient as possible due to the impacts of cost/comfort this would bring.
The houses that you built need to have a lot more thought put into them. All new builds in Sherburn are boxes with brick on the outside really going back to the post war system of throwing them up (basically prefabs)
what about Empty properties couldnt you upgrade these to be used for people to get into homes for younger tennants
No realistic assessment of the cost and feasibility of reaching net zero, no questioning of the agenda just accepting an ideological goal that means little to ordinary people rdinary people who will b
Taylor Wimpey supports the priorities under the ‘homes’ theme, including ensuring new homes contribute to net zero ambitions, and improving the quality of housing stock. The strategy highlights the role in the Future Homes Standard and Design Codes in meeting this challenge. Taylor Wimpey has a purpose of building great homes and creating thriving communities. Aligned to that purpose Taylor Wimpey has a focus on improving environmental performance of homes, and is already in the process of piloting homes that meet the Future Homes Standard, to meet regulations and deliver energy efficient homes for Taylor Wimpey’s customer’s. The Housing Strategy highlights the role of Design Codes and Future Homes Standard, Taylor Wimpey would welcome the opportunity to engage with the Council during the preparation of future Design Codes and standards. It will be vital to ensure that any policy requirements for new homes are subject to appropriate viability testing, in line with the requirements of national policy.
New housing needs to have net zero built in from the beginning. Ground source heat pumps at a minimum should be installed when building all new homes.
Again the test is in delivery and emphasis. Every month that passes where we do not at least strongly advise developers to include items like solar panels, grey water storage, ground source heat pumps (accompanied by the essential insulation properties for all the properties to ensure this works to capacity)is just allowing developers to provide even more properties which will eventually need some kind of retrofit - we need to be leading on this issue not waiting for central government to set the pace. Certainly in Selby we had a lot of one-bed bungalows built for the elderly that were no longer what people wanted (they need a bedroom for family to stay when they visit). However the answer may not be making huge changes to those properties which are otherwise sound but to change the category of person who is offered those properties. Many single younger adults or couples would make excellent tenants for these properties . We need to change how we think not necessarily our properties. We can then concentrate our resources on building what people need not adapting what we have. Where we have a high concentration of less popular properties is updating the answer or should be look to demolish and rebuild different properties at greater density on the same site. There is always more than one way to solve a problem. Have we undertaken proper analysis of the amount and use of DFGs and do we have a proper understanding of this need for the next 5-10 years. Our capital programme shows an anticipated reduction in spend on this heading over the next 2 years? Why when we clearly accept with an ageing population that these costs will rise?
I agree with these priorities, particularly using the council's power over planning to support decarbonisation. However, I would prefer that the aims were more quantifiable. How many homes do you want to get more energy efficient? How much more energy efficient would you like the homes to be? 'Contributes to our net zero ambitions' is far too vague
The priorities are excellent. I find it hard to understand why none of the recent housing developments in Whitby were allowed without integrating all of the available carbon reduction strategies - lije solar panels, adequate insulation etc
All new build homes should be energy efficient not just social housing. Expensive to retrofit and unfair to those who have struggled to purchase on open market
Need to scrap net zero bullshit. Gas is far hotter heat & cheaper than electric!
Housing with affordable rents and mortgages are required but we cant have towns grow to swallowing villages
We need central government assistance to allow both council, and private landlords the ability to improve the efficiency of their assets at a not for profit rate. Since bricks and concrete are carbon intensive, new builds need to be Timber SIP built, and Passivhaus wherever new planning is agreed. As standard, all homes should have Solar Installs, with agreements to add batteries at cost on purchase. Existing stock should be retrofitted solar as standard, regardless of tenants wishes, and any electricity sold should fund further housing improvements.
Work with developers to maximise design and build quality, including meeting or exceeding planning guidance in space standards. NYC could also establish a private tenants association to give private tenants more security. NYC could also consider releasing brownfield land that it owns currently occupied by car parks.
Improving the existing stock is key, best of luck...
Reducing pollution and waste and making homes better and cheaper is good, however man made climate change is a fake pretext to take away our rights and freedoms.
The priority must be to ensure all new houses starting Jan. 2024 meet EPC A, and that clear guidelines are in place to protect our listed buildings and conservation areas. The lack of guidelines and innovations for protecting listed buildings is appalling.
We support this as a Housing Association and provider of supported accommodation, also delivering homes for market sale and rent, and operating in the North Yorkshire area. In relation to the key priority in section 5 - “Ensuring that new housing supply of all tenures contributes to our net zero ambitions”, and the statement in 5.2 “supporting our Registered Provider partners to meet net zero carbon ambitions in the delivery of new affordable homes”. We support this principle and are keen to understand any further detail around targets and how this will be delivered. It will be important to consider viability of delivery alongside other priorities, as well as practicality and cost in use for the customer. In relation to the statement in 5.1 “working with our Registered Provider partners and Homes England to implement investment plans to make their homes warmer and more affordable to live in”. We support this and welcome an opportunity to get involved, learn from experiences and collaborate on this as appropriate. In relation to the statement in 5.2 “implementing new Design Codes to ensure an increase in the quality of new housing, working towards the Future Homes Standard and Nationally Described Space Standards”. We support this and welcome opportunities to improve on quality in these areas, particularly in the all important fabric standards and internal space standards of new homes of all tenures.
I would love to strongly agree but need to see these aspirations linked to some idea of deliverability
Net Zero is an expensive and widely misunderstood concept. I believe the priority for new dwellings should focus on micro-renewables and energy saving principles, however the supply chains do not yet have net zero capabilities, and if they are not ready in 5 years, then the plan and any restrictive policy could impede housing delivery, counteracting the places, people, and homes priorities. I believe design quality should also have a greater emphasis and and the improvement of existing stock given a high priority.
Stop using heat exchangers they don't work
Don't care about Net Zero - there are far, far, far more important considerations and you should be thinking about those, not appeasing the government.
I fully support the given priorities here.
There are increasing numbers of older people living in rented accommodation which is impacting on their cost of living in retirement. There are concerns from older people about the condition of many of these properties and also the insecurity of being a tenant and the risk of being evicted/rent increases. The provision of adaptations is a key priority to support older people to remain in their home as long as they wish to do so. However the cost is often prohibitive when living on a pension so access to low cost loans and trusted traders could support with this. Concerns from older people about the cost, practicality, reliability and availability of adaptations/home improvements and suitable tradespeople. Feedback from older people about their interest in retrofitting their property but cost is prohibitive if they cannot access grants available. Some older people are often asset rich and cash poor, meaning their homes can fall into disrepair and they cannot keep on top of maintenance and keeping their home safe and warm.
Avoidance of housing development on floodplains is an essential element of preparing for climate change.
• Decarbonising the whole housing stock- How will they decarbonise all of their housing stock when there is a significant shortage of skills in retrofitting and sustainable construction? • Will there be a programme of apprenticeships in construction which can facilitate opportunities for the apprentices to secure work in local construction companies in turn allowing them to deliver more locally - contributing to a circular economy/community wealth building. This applies to both new build and retrofitting/refurbishment. See examples and policies: Preston community wealth building. Lancaster SPD - project which demonstrates success lune valley CLT (award winning) Please see This article around ambitious LA policies on sustainability - see in particular Exeter who delivered the uk’s first Passivhaus leisure centre. Ensuring Council stock remains decent -’Remains decent’ is incredibly unambitious. If they want to use the word decent it should at least say ‘always exceeds decent homes standard’ or similar.
Focusing on developing housing stock needs to be a key priority. NYLAF and Homeless Prevention Grant – operational deployment needs to be more consistent in order to meet all needs.
All new housing must reach zero now as an achievable target now we will reach overall national targets sooner. Gas boilers in particular need to not be used and a switch to insulated homes delivering heat efficient systems which are also cheaper to run
Additional responses were received from:
Church Fenton Parish Council
I am the Clerk to Church Fenton Parish Council and would like to offer a few comments on behalf of the Council to the Draft Housing Strategy: 2024-2029. I appreciate that the deadline passed in December but it was not possible for Council to give the matter proper discussion until the meeting last night. I hope that the comments below are helpful.
Church Fenton Parish Council supports:
1. The proposed developments in Selby
2. The development of Heronby as a new settlement
3. Expansion of Eggborough
The Council also felt that the proposed future reporting function looks progressive and would welcome it.
Please could you let me know if you can take this feedback into account so that I can inform the councillors?
Foundation Housing
Helmsley Town Council
Please would you forward this response to the correct person - I can't really place these comments in the online response forms.
At its meeting on the 20th November 2023, Helmsley Town Council resolved to make the following response to the NY Council Housing Strategy 2024-2029.
Helmsley Town Council would like to see a reduction in houses used for second homes and holiday lets. It would like housing to be made available for local people and block sales of housing to non-local housing associations restricted.
Kind regards,
Victoria
Ms Victoria Ellis
Town Clerk/RFO
Please note that the clerk works part-time hours and does not work on Fridays. Office visits by appointment only please.
MAILING LIST FOR AGENDA etc, please sign up on homepage of the council's website.
Helmsley Town Council
The Old Vicarage
Bondgate
Helmsley
YORK YO62 5BP
Tel: 01439 772572
Email: helmsleytc@gmail.com
Website: helmsleytowncouncil.co.uk
KCS Developments
Kirk Hammerton Parish Council
Knaresborough Community Land Trust
Lythe Parish Council
Ministry of Defence
North Yorkshire Health and Well-being Board
North Yorkshire Moors National Park
North Yorkshire Public Health
North Yorkshire Wider Partnerships Conference
Orb Community Arts
From an MH service user perspective I’m aware of the number of people with SMI who struggle to access sustainable housing options and have picked up a couple of things.
1) They need more support to navigate the complexities of housing, so having trauma informed housing officers, able to meet people in safe and trusted community locations where they already access wellbeing support, would be really valued.
2) Transport is vital – people with SMI need to be housed in places that have connectivity to the places they access support. With MH and physical health very much linked proximity to a transport route is also key even urban areas. How Housing and Transport policies dovetail feels crucial.
Taylor Wimpey
Thresfield Village Development Concern Group
Upper Dales Community Land Trust
Wensleydale and Coverdale Parish Council Forum
Yorkshire Dales National Park
Zero Carbon Harrogate
Anonymised Individual Responses
Thank you for sharing the draft.
I want to touch on point 5.1 and 5.2, as shown below.
1. : developing a social housing decarbonisation plan, with the aim of getting all our council homes to achieve EPC C and up to Decent Homes Standard (when the target date is announced by government)
2. : ensuring that all new council homes are built to Future Homes Standard and meet EPC C as a minimum with a net zero carbon aim
I would like to clarify that an EPC C rating does not signify carbon neutrality. According to calculations on the Savills Infogram, an average house with an EPC C rating will emit, on average, 2.9 tonnes of carbon per year.
Although this is less than a property with EPC D, it is still far from zero.
If our goal is to achieve net-zero carbon, we need to aim for EPC A or better, such as Passive House standards. Stating that we will aim for EPC C properties means we won't be able to achieve net-zero carbon.
