H/HM: Housing mix

Smaller units- 1&2 beds should be designed so that they can not be extended . The existing housing stock in the rural areas in the past 30 years has been flooded with larger 4 bed+ executive housing, and smaller 2 and 3 bedroom housing units have been extended, reducing the pool of smaller 1&2bedroom homes on the housing market. The proposed proportionof 4 bed+ market housing in the rural area is therefore too high- 25-35%. This figure should be reduced.

A good mix is essential for all ages, including accessible.

A policy for housing mix is required to ensure that an appropriate mix of housing sizes will be provided to address the identified need and create balanced and mixed communities. Objection is raised to the potential for a condition to be attached to end planning permissions to remove the permitted development rights for extensions that would harm the housing mix that the development was responding to. This approach is considered overly cautious and too restrictive.

USS notes that proposed policy H/HM states that exceptions to the specified housing mix will be allowed where an alternative housing mix is justified by site specific circumstances, such as local character, the built form of the new development, affordable housing demand on the councils’ housing registers, and the existing housing mix in the surrounding area. USS supports this caveat as individual sites often have very different circumstances, which can impact the most appropriate mix of uses.

This policy sets out specific percentages, based on bedroom number for different tenures of houses to create mixed and balanced communities to meet housing needs.
The percentages set out at paragraph 7 are largely based on those set out in the ‘Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk Housing Needs Study 2021’ prepared by GL Hearn.
Whilst Persimmon Homes recognise the need to create balanced communities and bring forward a mix of homes, it is considered that the wording of the policy needs to be more flexible and not stipulate set percentages. Instead, Persimmon Homes are of the view that the policy should be worded along the lines that schemes should demonstrate how the needs set out in the Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk Housing Market Needs of Specific Groups Study 2021 or similar needs assessment.
The advantage of this approach is that:-
- Housing Needs will continue to be met over the plan period;
- The policy will not be become out of date. Percentage range requirements will inevitably change over time;
- Schemes can be designed to meet the specific needs of an area which will ultimately vary both within different areas of both Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire; and
- Schemes have flexibility to be designed to reflect the character of the area.
The Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk Housing Needs Study 2021 recognises that needs will change as the document states:-
‘The strategic mix identified above shall inform policies. But in applying the mix the individual development sites regard should also be had to the nature of the site and character of the area, up-to-date evidence of need (such as the housing register) as well as the existing mix of turnover of properties at the local level and the need to create and maintain mixed and balanced communities. The Council’s should also monitor the mix of housing delivered and respond accordingly so that the strategic mix requirements are clearly met.’
Notwithstanding the above, if percentage range points for market dwellings are to be remain within the policy to allow for more flexibility, whilst still meeting needs consideration needs to be given providing more flexibility within the ranges, thus allowing developments to adjust to the housing needs at the time of submitting the application. To this end, Persimmon Homes suggested the range for 3 bed dwellings be amended to 40 -60% and 4 bed dwellings be extended to 20 – 35% for both Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. Such a change would be in line with the objective identified within the Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk Housing Needs Survey which recognises the need for family houses for which both 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings equally perform this function. Increasing the percentage of 3 bed dwellings will also support the emphasis on downsizing which is identified in the Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk Housing Needs Survey and will increase the supply of housing that is affordable to those on median incomes which is an objective site out in the document referred to in the associated text ‘Homes for our Future’ Greater Cambs Housing Strategy 2019 – 2023.’

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment on this matter.

The need for bungalows does need to be given due weight in setting the housing mix to address the overall lack of bungalows in the area.

A much higher proportion of “Homes for Life” on developments. Furthermore have a mix of dwellings (e.g. not the "only 5 bedroom properties" in one development in our village)

Need more bungalows for downsizers

Policy H/HM sets out that development proposals for 10 or more dwellings will be required to deliver the percentage splits for housing sizes (number of bedrooms) and tenures as set out within the policy. Whilst the mixes prescribed are from the Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk Housing Needs of Specific Groups study (2021) and the Housing Needs of Specific Groups – Addendum for Greater Cambridge (2021), we would caution the Authority that the percentages included within the policy are only a snapshot in time. Invariably, housing needs will change over the plan period and therefore we believe its wording should be amended to be more flexible to respond to the likelihood of changing housing needs over time.

In addition, it is considered that the prescriptive nature of the tenure mix for market homes is not robust and should be amended to allow developers, when they apply for planning permission, to deliver a mix of housing which will respond to local market demand.

This policy has begun to consider the mix of homes that are needed across Greater Cambridge to support the area’s needs. The policy identifies some broad ranges as recommendations for housing mix, but encourages applicants to work collaboratively with a Registered Provider, the relevant Councils housing team, and the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service, to discuss the final mix (market and affordable) for a new development ahead of the submission of a planning application. Marshall welcomes this approach.

– including student accommodation and purpose built Build to Rent (B2R) options for those working or studying at the university or in shorter term roles at the research hub or with businesses. There are also a range of affordable flats and houses to meet the needs of those on lower incomes. The range of units is also being developed to accommodate the needs of the middle earners who may not qualify for affordable housing options, but nonetheless require high quality but affordable options. The work is being been developed with a view to maximise internalisation (the number of people who live and work on site) as much as possible; as such there would be are a range of sizes of flats and houses to accommodate the diverse needs generated by the site and its local context.

The work that Marshall has undertaken so far on housing mix broadly aligns with this policy, but the deliverability and viability of these requirements may need to be reviewed as development proposals emerge.

TMLC supports the approach that new housing sites should have an appropriate mix of housing sizes.

We support the aims of a policy to secure an appropriate mix of housing on new developments in principle – but the future Local Plan policy must recognise that some sites where the housing offer is tailored to meet specific needs may not reflect a broader housing mix. We suggest ensuring that any future policy has flexibility to allow for important locations such as the Campus to develop a housing mix to suit their specific needs, with suitable site specific policies that can govern such exception sites.

The proposed flexibility for consideration to be given to site specific circumstances when determining an appropriate unit size mix is strongly supported. This policy should however include specific reference to ‘the nature and location of the site and the type of housing proposed’.
It is not always possible and/or appropriate to provide a specific defined mix of unit sizes. For example, some locations are better suited to smaller households than large families (e.g Town Centres). Moreover, smaller brownfield sites in urban locations tend to have a range of constraints beyond planning requirements which make it difficult to offer a range of sizes. For example, Pocket’s scheme at Newmarket Road in Cambridge City Centre could not come forward for re-development if it were required to provide a range of unit sizes due to its highly constrained nature. The addition of this policy reference is therefore critical for ensuring the right homes are built in the right locations and the efficient use of brownfield land for housing delivery. The exact type of housing product proposed may also be more or less suited to particular unit sizes (e.g rents vs sale). Finally, the delivery of smaller unit sizes can indirectly free up highly suitable family homes (with front doors and gardens) presently used as HMO’s or informal house shares. The delivery of housing for single persons therefore provides an important opportunity to create family homes.

This policy should include flexibility on unit mix where the large majority (75%+) of housing is proposed as affordable housing.
Encouraging the delivery of schemes in which the large majority of homes (75%+) are affordable homes is important for increasing and accelerating the delivery of new affordable homes and meeting unmet local housing need. Requiring these schemes to provide prescribed unit mix may make them less viable/ attractive for Registered Providers and SME developers of affordable housing such as Pocket. The need to support SME developers to widen housing choice is noted in the Council’s Housing Strategy (2019) evidence base (page 21). The Council’s evidence base illustrates there is significant un-met need for all unit sizes in Greater Cambridge. Allowing some schemes greater flexibility to focus on a particular unit sizes in order to encourage their delivery would therefore make an important contribution to meeting local needs. Attempting to require every scheme to meet every type of housing need (regardless of the nature of the site, proposal or developer) is likely to result in a reduction in housing delivery and fewer needs being met.

This policy should include specific reference to the need to ‘provide affordable ownership housing for young single person households’.
The growing needs of young single person households is recognised by the Council’s housing evidence base which notes Cambridge has one of the ‘youngest’ populations in the country with people aged 24 and under making up around 37% of the City’s population (page 12). This cohort typically comprises young single person households who have been forced to live in low quality overcrowded or otherwise unsuitable shared rental housing or leave the area. These households are largely aspiring first time buyers who cannot afford to buy locally within a reasonable commuting distance (Cambridge City Centre now has one of the longest average commute times of all UK cities). The number of single person or other households without children in Cambridge City Centres also projected to increase significantly (+8%) by 2043 whilst the number of households with children decreases (-17%) (ONS 2021).

Countryside are supportive of the approach to this policy in that housing mix ‘recommendations’ are provided, along with these being set out as a ‘range’. This is a positive format for the housing mix policy by providing flexibility which will allow the development at Bourn Airfield to respond to changing market conditions and requirements.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF requires local authorities to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community and reflected in planning policies. The NPPF also sets out that as part of achieving sustainable development a sufficient range of homes should be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations.
The proposed policy direction notes that new housing development of 10 or more dwellings will be required to provide an appropriate mix of housing sizes with the proportions of dwellings of each size to be guided by the housing mix for each tenure and for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire as set out in the recommendations from the ‘Housing Needs of Specific Groups – Addendum for Greater Cambridge (2021)’ or any future update to the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy or housing mix evidence published by the Councils.
Whilst this policy is applicable to traditional Class C3 residential schemes, consideration should be given on a site-by-site basis in respect of C2 residential institutional schemes as it is not always appropriate or viable to provide larger 4- and 5-bed properties on such type of schemes.
As set out at paragraph 3.3 in the accompanying ‘Representation by Inspired Villages – to support the practical delivery of much-needed specialist accommodation to meet the needs of an ageing population’ (Appendix 1), a standard model for an Inspired Villages site is for approximately 150 units of accommodation comprising a mix of cottages, bungalows and apartments ranging from 1, 2 and 3-beds with some 210,000sqft of floorspace, of which, approximately 20-25% would be communal facilities.
The policy approach should therefore be sufficiently flexible to take account of current identified and projected need for specialist housing for older people and recognise that such type of schemes may not necessarily meet the housing mix specified for C3 residential schemes, acknowledging that they serve different requirements for different markets.

The HBF consider the threshold of 10 or more dwelling proposed in this policy is appropriate. This is a very small level of development on which to achieve the proposed mix set out on page 268. The type of development on smaller sites will be dictated by its size, location, and topography and in many cases, it will not be possible to deliver mix proposed. We would therefore suggest a higher threshold is applied of greater than one hectare. It is also important to recognise that the mix being suggested in the proposed policy is a snap shot in time across each local authority area. Therefore, in considering the mix of homes on any site the policy should ensure that decision makers and application should not only have regard to the relevant and up to date housing study but should also have regard to other relevant evidence on housing needs and supply.

In terms of housing mix, Gladman would recommend that the Local Plan avoids a prescriptive housing mix requirement, rather that the policy should allow for schemes to determine the most appropriate housing mix for the particular location. The Plan could include an indicative mix which may be encouraged if appropriate rather than a strict requirement. The housing provided will need to reflect the needs across the area and any policy will need to be flexible and recognise that the specific housing needs may change over the course of the plan period.

See attached comments.

Taylor Wimpey are supportive of the approach to this policy in that housing mix ‘recommendations’ are provided, along with these being set out as a ‘range’. This is a positive format for the housing mix policy by providing flexibility, to also allow for differences between market and affordable housing mix, particularly with input from Registered Providers and to respond to local contexts.

Countryside are supportive of the approach to this policy in that housing mix ‘recommendations’ are provided, along with these being set out as a ‘range’. This is a positive format for the housing mix policy by providing flexibility which will allow developments to respond to changing market conditions and requirements over the Plan period.