Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Part (a) should be excluded unless clearly justified.

Part (a) does not provide sufficient clarity. Part appears to be general design advice. If the intention is to monitor the mix of tenures in an wider area (rather than "large new developments") then this should be made clearer. If that is the intention it will be important for the Council to justify why this is necessary, and if proven then how this should be assessed and implemented in practice. "Mixed and balanced communities" should be clarified by the policy to explain how this applies to the Cambridge context.

Part b should be deleted. The housing needs assessment accepts a need for single person households. There is no clear planning-based need to manage housing unit sizes across an urban area.
Part c should remove the upper cap. The housing needs assessment accepts a need for significant single person households. These development meet that need, and should not have caps.
The policy should state that either PIL in lieu of affordable housing, or onsite discounted market rent co-living units, would also be acceptable. The application of 20% affordable housing should be promoted in the Local Plan for this specialist housing tenure.

Part b. should clarify what is a "mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods" and what is "over-concentration" to allow an applicant to respond to the policy.
Part c. should clearly justify the 200 unit cap. Co-living schemes across the UK are averaging around 350 homes. There is good commercial and financial reasons for delivering a critical mass. The current explanatory text does not provide sufficient justification for the policy.
Although not captured within the Policy itself, the draft document states that co-living will be required to contribute towards the delivery of affordable housing in line with Policy H/AH. The common approach for co-living is a PIL payment or onsite DMR. Many sites are not large enough to accommodate two tenures with in two distinct buildings which is necessary for funding, management and other considerations. The Council's evidence base should also clearly justify the application of 40% affordable housing for this specialist housing tenure.

Delete 1(a-c)
Delete 4(b)
9 "Exceptional circumstances" should also include an applicant being able to demonstrate that traditional forms of residential development is unviable in that instance.

Policy elements 1(a-c) are replicated by 4(a-b) and are therefore unnecessary.
If 4a is satisfied, but then 4b is not possible for the educational establishment, it would not be justified nor lawful to restrict occupation of the property.
The limitation of PBSA on sites allocated for housing, or with an extant planning permission for residential is not justified. There will be cases where traditional residential accommodation is not viable.