Draft Affordable Housing SPD

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.

Dear Sirs,

Please see bpha's responses and generic comments to the recent consultation on the above document:


* Housing clusters should be self contained so that RP's can manage their own properties without the need to buy into third party management companies.

* Access to flats in a single core at 15 units. Can this be 16 flats i.e. 4 flats per floor, 4 floors.

* Para 4.11 - 75:25 split. This paragraph refers to the tenure split being for the life of the Cambridge Housing Strategy 12/15. This may mean developers may argue that this split is irrelevant for schemes which go beyond 2015

* Will any 'off site' affordable contributions collected on non qualifying sites be available as grant from Cambridge City Council to RP's for other developments?

* Schemes of over 20 units require a 5% wheelchair design requirement. Will there be any opportunity for part of this to be made up from private sales units rather than all falling to RP's?

* The introduction of minimum space standards will drive up costs for RSL's but rent caps in place, will squeeze RSL's and may hinder delivery.

* Lifts in flat blocks. This needs to be discretionary. Cost of lift provision and on going maintenance is a very costly burden for RSL's and residents who pay for this service through service charges. Requirements for a lift should be considered on the basis of the client group - storey height and number of dwellings served by the lift.

* Para 8.9. The requirement that the affordable housing must be completed before 50% of the Market Housing can be occupied may seem high leading to areas RSL stock only where there is clustering. Sustainability issues surrounding higher numbers of RP's stock with no privately occupied properties. May hinder balanced communities as they settle in.