Question 33. What kind of housing do you think we should provide?

Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. It is noted that the existing and planned new settlements in South Cambridgeshire and some of the strategic sites are not delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. As such, it is considered that emerging GCLP should seek to allocate sites which are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The promoted development at land rear of 113 Cottenham Road in Histon includes housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. It has been determined at appeal that there is a significant shortfall in the delivery of self-build housing in South Cambridgeshire (see Appeal Ref. APP/W0530/W/19/3230103).

All forms of accommodation, including the needs of the young, families and the elderly. In terms of elderly residents housing allocations need to be at locations with good public transport, medical facilities and settlements with a wide range of local facilities.

All forms of accommodation, including the needs of the young, families and the elderly.

New housing needs to be way above current building regulation requirements, i.e. build to passive house standard in an attempt to slow down climate change, and also create more comfortable homes which are cheaper to power.

Mixed, small scale, well-designed, shared community housing. Highest possible eco standards. Balanced with community facilities, employment spaces etc etc as previously written. This form feels like an old-style disability living allowance application form. You ask the same question 14 different ways - are you trying to catch me out and are you expecting me to suddenly beg for more horrors like the CB1 development? I’m not going to.

6.7 Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, older people, students, renters and self-builders. 6.8 There should be flexibility within the Local Plan to respond to changing housing needs over the Local Plan period. Consideration of individual site circumstances and the circumstances of a local area should be taken into account to determine the appropriate type of housing for development sites. Separate housing needs assessments should be used to inform the appropriate size, type and tenure of housing needed for different sections of the community, as set out within the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2019-2023. Flexibility will be key to a successful Local Plan; through market and affordable housing.

More family-sized homes.

A mix of housing in sustainable locations, close to employment - i.e. villages such as Fulbourn that are located in close proximity to local facilities/services and employment sites.

Pigeon consider that the Councils should make provision for a wide mix of types, sizes, tenure, methods of construction, ownership and management of housing in the Local Plan. This should include provision for specific groups including the elderly and students. We appreciate that the Councils need to undertake more work as part of their SHMA to identify the extent of demand for different types of housing and the ability of the market and the Plan to meet specific needs. Whilst it is important to encourage a range of provision to meet different needs it is also important that the Councils recognize that needs will change over time and that individual site circumstances may also affect the housing mix It is therefore considered important that any such Policies within the Plan should provide flexibility and not be too onerous in this respect.

Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. It is noted that the existing and planned new settlements in South Cambridgeshire and some of the strategic sites are not delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. As such, it is considered that emerging GCLP should seek to allocate sites which are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The promoted development at land south of Old House Road in Balsham would include market and affordable housing. It would provide affordable housing to meet local needs of the village; in 2018 there was an identified need for 32 affordable dwellings in Balsham for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018).

Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. It is noted that the existing and planned new settlements in South Cambridgeshire and some of the strategic sites are not delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. As such, it is considered that emerging GCLP should seek to allocate sites which are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The promoted development at land south of St Neots Road Eltisely includes market housing, affordable housing and self-build plots. It has been determined at appeal that there is a significant shortfall in the delivery of self-build housing in South Cambridgeshire (see Appeal Ref. APP/W0530/W/19/3230103). A need for affordable housing in Eltisley also exists, with an existing need for 6 dwellings identified. This has increased by 33% since 2017 and is likely to increase further during this new plan period (see SCDC Housing Statistical Information Leaflet December 2018).

In Sweden they have the "right" to rent, which means that the landlord cannot increase the rent by certain amount per year and it can't end the contract unless there is an breach of agreement. It can be named either by a private company or run by the council. This would create an opportunity for people to get to Cambridgeshire and help out with economic development

Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. It is noted that the existing and planned new settlements in South Cambridgeshire and some of the strategic sites are not delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. As such, it is considered that emerging GCLP should seek to allocate sites which are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The development promoted by Endurance Estates at land off Poplar Farm Close In Bassingbourn would include self-build housing. It has been determined at appeal that there is an identified unmet need for self-build plots in South Cambridgeshire. The developments promoted by Endurance Estates at land off Elbourn Way and land off The Causeway in Bassingbourn would include market and affordable housing. The sites would provide affordable housing to meet local needs of the village; in 2018 there was an identified need for 76 affordable dwellings in Bassingbourn for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2018). If those affordable housing needs are to be met then additional housing sites need to be allocated in Bassingbourn through emerging GCLP.

Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. As noted in the response to Questions 16, 18 and 46 the existing planned new settlements (Northstowe and Waterbeach) and other strategic sites (Cambourne West and Wing at Cambridge East) are not delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. As such, it is considered that the emerging GCLP should seek to allocate sites which are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing; for example developments on greenfield land on the edge of Cambridge have sufficient residual value to meet affordable housing and other planning obligations. The promoted development at South West Cambridge could provide a mix of house types, sizes and tenures, including housing and affordable housing for key workers (including but not limited to University and College staff) and residential accommodation for the elderly (including care provision). The fact that this site is owned by a consortium of Colleges and the University means that it would be in the landowners’ interests to ensure that housing is provided to meet the needs of their students and research staff, and that those facilities could be managed by those institutions.

Community led housing schemes would be good along with opportunities for mutual home ownership societies including opportunities to self build. See for example schemes like LILAC in Leeds. If you are intent on building "affordable housing" it should be made truly affordable- current houseprices of affordable houses show they are clearly not affordable. (https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridges-affordable-housing-anything-but-15831502). Perhaps more council built social housing would meet the deamsn of the community better.

Concern for the availability for 'family homes' is in danger of maintaining a system that actually makes this harder. As a family who has recently bought, with two young children, we were only able to do this because we have been in HMOs for years, which reduced our outgoings so we could save. Conventional 4 bed family homes were always going to be out of our budget: a well-designed 2 or 3 bed flat is suitable and attainable as a starter home. Also, living in a cohousing community has given us support and flexibility in our living arrangements: what we have lost in private garden space is more than made up for in having access to shared outdoor space. We need space for fewer things by sharing with or borrowing from neighbours. This way of living isn't for everyone, but current availability means it is possible for very few.

Social housing. This should be provided by the City and District Councils, working with housing societies where appropriate. Why is there no mention of social housing in the consultation document? Affordable Housing is a misnomer. It should be called "Housing which is slightly cheaper than the market price, but still unaffordable for most people".

Social housing is needed to reduce unsustainable commuting by essential but lower paid workers.

Flats for single people and families, with large communal gardens. Ground floors should be reserved for those with accessibility issues.

Microapartments

How many empty home are there in the City/Greater Cambs? How many second homes are there in the City/Greater Cambs? How many 'investment' homes are there left unoccupied in Greater Cambs? How many unoccupied students homes are there in the City? Are these unoccupied homes taken into consideration when the number of homes we think we need is being suggested? We need homes for our key workers, which apparently now includes Town Planners!

A varied mix of all types of housing is required to cater for all needs. The preferred locations are important in informing such types. There is substantial demand from the downsizing older population for modest sized high-quality schemes in villages relatively close to Cambridge or public transport connections. Furthermore, a mix of housing in sustainable locations, close to employment, i.e. villages such as Ickleton that is already in close proximity to the various tech-campuses such as Wellcome Genome Campus (1km from the village) should be provided.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the approach that has been taken in the developments in the Southern Fringe of having communities with a mixture of market and affordable housing. More attention should be given in further new developments to local demographics and the pattern of homes matching the needs of people over 50 and the elderly, including more provision of land for care homes. Also, we think there is a strong case for the provision of more council housing at social rents and key worker housing, to bring rents within the reach of a wider cross-section of local people.

Paragraph 61 of NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. It is noted that the existing and planned new settlements in South Cambridgeshire and some of the strategic sites are not delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. As such, it is considered that emerging GCLP should seek to allocate sites which are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The submitted Concept Masterplan for land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard demonstrates how 160 dwellings could come forward on the site. The promoted development includes options to provide a range of dwelling sizes and styles and affordable housing to meet local needs of Papworth Everard. In 2018 there was an identified need for 56 affordable dwellings in Papworth Everard for those with a local connection to the village – see South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' December 2018. The delivery of 160 dwellings at Land to the east of the Ridgeway and Old Pinewood Way, Papworth Everard with a level of affordable housing which is compliant with current planning policy requirements (40%) would deliver 64 affordable dwellings. This would address the current need that there is for affordable housing within Papworth Everard and help address future needs also.

Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed by St John’s College, Cambridge to make the necessary submissions to the Council’s consultation “The First Conversation” as part of the Issues and Options consultation process for a new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. The College is a significant landowner in and around Cambridge and accordingly needs to make the necessary representations to the Councils in respect of its assets and on other relevant planning policy issues that will arise in the context of any new development plan for the two administrative areas of South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City. As part of the University, the College is being asked to accommodate a small but steady increase in student numbers year on year. The growth is primarily in the postgraduate community which comprises a diverse and international cohort of students. As such, they require types of accommodation ranging from single rooms for individuals to furnished flats for couples and small flats and houses for families with and without children. Often, there is a wish to accommodate the students on site, to enhance the sense of community. During the period of the new Local Plan, policies will be required which enable the Colleges to continue to grow and adapt their on and off site student/College accommodation to meet the diverse and changing needs of the future cohorts.

Social housing is needed to reduce unsustainable commuting by essential but lower paid workers.

I think the co-housing model offered by K1 in Marmalade Lane is somethng that the council should explicitly support. I thought long and hard about joining this - but ultimatly couldn't because of the noise pollution at its current location. As a model for helping manage the inter generational needs to live a appy and fulfilled life with less draw on local govt resources this is surely a model to pursue - the LA cannot make it thus but designating land for such high density but socially-centred developments will be an important - if not to say THE critical - contribution.

A wide range of homes should be provided for. In particular, a wider range of types and tenures of affordable housing is needed. The plans should support routes into home ownership, not only shared ownership, but tenures such as and discounted market for sale as part of the affordable provision. We support the principle of custom/self build. However, current policies, where which is sought on existing sites, is not facilitating the delivery of more homes. The aim of custom/self build should be to help that sector come forward to provide more homes and meet a different need than that which is and can already be met by house building companies. With the possible exception of the very largest sites, such as new settlements, self/custom build should not be sought from sites allocated for development. Rather a self/custom build exceptions-type policy should be included within plans to help facilitate the delivery of more homes.

A mix of different types of housing, including housing for the climate refugees who will come south, 100% of which is ultra-environmentally-friendly and 100% affordable. No more big/luxury housing. It takes up too much space, uses too much energy and encourages the occupier to fill it with consumer rubbish. This is an emergency. We must all be practical, rather than having a few in comfort and the majority destitute.

Housing for key workers and the low-paid. How are all these offices and new businesses to be serviced if no-one can afford to live here? Penalties should be introduced for properties on new developments that are kept empty as investments or used for rentals