Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply - Main Document

Comment

Representation ID: 168445

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Gladman note that whilst the Councils calculate their housing land supply jointly, this document sets out the position in relation to South Cambridgeshire, Cambridge City and Greater Cambridge. Gladman support this approach and believe it is useful to be able to see the three separate calculations.

Whilst Gladman would normally advocate the use of the Sedgefield method, it is acknowledged that in this case the Liverpool approach was recently endorsed through the Local Plan examination and therefore in the absence of any material changes remains appropriate.

It is acknowledged that a 20% buffer is applicable. It is important that the housing land supply in Greater Cambridge is refreshed with a constant stream of new planning permissions to ensure that a five-year supply can be maintained. The five-year requirement with 20% buffer is only a minimum requirement, and the Council should aim to adopt a five-year supply position which is in excess of this to ensure that housing delivery is consistent.

Comment

Representation ID: 168446

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Waterbeach New Town

It is critical that the delivery rates and lead-in times associated with sites in the supply are realistic and achievable. Gladman are concerned regarding the lead-in times of a number of sites, in particular on the basis of the time assumed for gaining planning consent.

Within South Cambridgeshire, our concerns regarding lead-in times relate primarily to three large sites (Waterbeach New Town, Bourn Airfield New Village and Cambourne West) where the anticipated delivery by the Council is considered overly optimistic given that in two cases outline consent has not yet been granted.

Comment

Representation ID: 168447

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Bourn Airfield New Village

It is critical that the delivery rates and lead-in times associated with sites in the supply are realistic and achievable. Gladman are concerned regarding the lead-in times of a number of sites, in particular on the basis of the time assumed for gaining planning consent.

Within South Cambridgeshire, our concerns regarding lead-in times relate primarily to three large sites (Waterbeach New Town, Bourn Airfield New Village and Cambourne West) where the anticipated delivery by the Council is considered overly optimistic given that in two cases outline consent has not yet been granted.

Comment

Representation ID: 168448

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Cambourne West

It is critical that the delivery rates and lead-in times associated with sites in the supply are realistic and achievable. Gladman are concerned regarding the lead-in times of a number of sites, in particular on the basis of the time assumed for gaining planning consent.

Within South Cambridgeshire, our concerns regarding lead-in times relate primarily to three large sites (Waterbeach New Town, Bourn Airfield New Village and Cambourne West) where the anticipated delivery by the Council is considered overly optimistic given that in two cases outline consent has not yet been granted.

Comment

Representation ID: 168449

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Gladman raise concerns regarding a number of sites included within the deliverable supply, specifically in Cambridge City, as they are currently occupied by an alternative use and there is no evidence provided to demonstrate that they are capable of coming forward for housing in the short term. Whilst the Council has, in some cases, acknowledged the active use and that the site will not come forward in the plan period, and has consequently taken the site out of the trajectory, this approach has not been applied to all sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 168450

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Whilst Gladman acknowledge that the report references the new definition of deliverable and also the types of evidence to be used to provide justification, these need to be taken into proper consideration when determining whether sites should be included in the deliverable supply or not. The change in definition of 'deliverable' is significant.

The PPG provides further details on what constitutes a 'deliverable site'. Furthermore an appeal decision for a residential development in Woolpit, Suffolk deals with the issue of deliverable supply and the revised definition. The burden is now with the Councils to demonstrate that sites are deliverable. Gladman note that the level of information provided by the Councils is detailed and that there is good evidence to suggest the Councils have sought to reach out to landowners, agents and developers to inform the trajectory.

Comment

Representation ID: 168451

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

The Council's five year supply position set out within the September 2019 report is considered to be marginal, with only a small level of oversupply identified. It would therefore only take one site not to deliver for this position to negatively affect the supply position.

Having reviewed the Councils' Five Year Housing Land Supply Assessment, Gladman do not consider this to provide a realistic and accurate position. Whilst the document does provide detailed site-by-site evidence and justification for a number of the assumptions made, Gladman consider there to be a number of sites where the assumptions applied are overambitious or not realistic. Gladman believe the housing land supply position for Greater Cambridge currently falls short of the required 5 years, and that this position is likely to remain for the next few years.