Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211240

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Living Space Housing Ltd

LSH supports the Councils decision for housing density to be appropriate in order to reflect the local character and context.

However, LSH note that no density figures have been provided. Whilst it is acknowledged and supported that character and local context should inform appropriate density levels, the absence of any benchmark figures creates uncertainty at the early planning, feasibility and land valuation stages. The inclusion of broad density guidance, alongside the policy’s design-led and context-led approach, would improve consistency in decision-making and provide greater certainty for delivery.

Therefore, it is recommended that Policy GP/HD be altered to include indicative density ranges that provide clarity for developers and decision-makers. While a design-led approach is welcomed, clear benchmarks would support early feasibility work, improve consistency across decisions, and reduce uncertainty at pre-application and application stages.

Support

Representation ID: 211241

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Living Space Housing Ltd

LSH supports the inclusion of at least 40% affordable housing within major residential developments, and increasing to 50% on Green Belt land, in accordance with the NPPF (2024).

The option for an off-site provision or financial contribution to be considered as an alternative to on-site affordable housing if it is not suitable or viable, is something that is supported by LSH.

Comment

Representation ID: 211242

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Living Space Housing Ltd

LSH supports the Council’s approach to securing a varied housing mix within new residential developments and welcomes the flexibility within the policy to allow for alternative mixes where this can be robustly justified. This balanced approach recognises the importance of responding to local housing needs and demographic trends, while also allowing schemes to reflect site-specific constraints, market demand and viability considerations. Such flexibility will help ensure that developments remain deliverable and can respond effectively to changing housing requirements over the plan period.

Whilst it is understood that there is a need for a mix of house types, tenures and sizes, it is important that such a policy is flexible and ensures that delivery of housing is not stalled due to overly prescriptive requirements that do not consider the scale and viability of sites. LSH supports the flexibility of this Policy, which allows home builders and developers to provide alternative housing mixes as required by the market.

Object

Representation ID: 211243

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Living Space Housing Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The requirement for all new residential developments to comply with NDSS standards is not supported by LSH. The requirement for NDSS compliance on all new dwellings lacks flexibility and does not comply with National Guidance. There is also a lack of evidence surrounding this compliance requirement. Therefore, it not been justified and should be removed from the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 211579

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Living Space Housing Ltd

Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, are essential for Small and Medium Enterprise housebuilders to deliver new homes, and are often built out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should:

a) Identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare; unless it can be shown, through the preparation of relevant plan policies, that there are strong reasons why this 10% target cannot be achieved.

b) Seek opportunities, through policies and decisions, to support small sites to come forward for community-led development for housing and self-build and custom build housing.

c) Use tools such as area-wide design assessments, permission in principle and Local Development Orders to help bring small and medium sized sites forward;

d) Support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes.

e) Work with developers to encourage the sub-division of large sites where this could help to speed up the delivery of homes.

Therefore, in order for the plan to be consistent with National Policy, the Council should seek to promote the delivery of small and medium sites through allocations within the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 211580

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Living Space Housing Ltd

Given the high levels of services and facilities that Cottenham provides, as acknowledged within the settlement hierarchy study, the identification of Cottenham as a minor rural centre should be re-evaluated.

LSH therefore suggest that the Councils re-evaluate their settlement hierarchy to identify higher scoring ‘minor rural
centre’ settlements, such as Cottenham, as a higher tiered village, such as reverting it to its previous standing from 2018 as a "Rural Centre".

Comment

Representation ID: 211581

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Living Space Housing Ltd

5% minimum Market homes to meet M4(3) regulations and 10% minimum Affordable homes to meet M4(3) regulations within developments of over 20 dwellings is partially supported by LSH, in principle. However, the Council should be aware of National Building Regulation requirements and be conscious not to double count.

It should also be noted that if the Council are to implement such a policy in the way outlined within their draft plan, they should allow reflection of this within cost viability assessments. The implementation of such a policy may be a challenge from a viability and deliverability perspective, meaning that further flexibility would be favoured with regards to this policy in order to address these concerns. This is especially important given the mandatory delivery of 10% BNG throughout the UK affecting how viable and deliverable a scheme can be.