Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission
Search representations
Results for Bywater search
New search
New search
Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission
Representation Summary:
Seeking to establish a quantum of development within the policy itself is unjustified, and fails to respond to market needs. The emerging Plan itself directs that Co-living should be located in “sustainable, highly accessible areas”, where national policy notes densification is appropriate. As such, an unjustified cap should not be placed on the appropriate scale of co-living developments and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, continuing to pursue the cap it risks soundness. To ensure the most effective use of land, scale of development should be considered on a site-by-site basis in accordance with local and national policy.
Change suggested by respondent:
Please refer to the attached letter for proposed amended policy wording.
It is proposed that the second part of limb 1(d) is deleted, to leave the following: "Developments will consider and respond to the need for Co-living units, and proposals must be supported by evidence of the need for this form of development in Greater Cambridge."
Full text:
Bywater wish to raise a specific and focussed objection with respect to draft Policy H/CO in respect
of Co-living.
Limb 1(d) of the draft policy states:
Developments will consider and respond to the need for Co-living units, and proposals must be
supported by evidence of the need for this form of development in Greater Cambridge. It is
expected that developments will be of a moderate scale of between 50 and 200 units, but a
higher number of units will be considered where it is clearly demonstrated that:
i. There is a need for the proposed number of Co-living units in the proposed location; and
ii. The proposed number of units will not result in a harmful concentration of Co-living units within an area or place undue pressure on local infrastructure.
Whilst we agree it is appropriate to consider the need, in our opinion, seeking to establish a quantum/
scale of development within the policy itself is unjustified, and fails to respond to market needs.
The emerging Plan itself directs that Co-living should be located in “sustainable, highly accessible areas”
(Policy H/CO Part 1), and the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (NPPF) provides that
“Development proposals should make efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for
different types of housing” (NPPF L1,1) and “Within settlements, development proposals for residential
and mixed-use development should contribute to an increase in the density of the area in which they are
situated” unless there is a clear justification that this would be inappropriate (NPPF L1, 2a).
As such, an unjustified cap should not be placed on the appropriate scale of co-living developments and
should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, continuing to pursue the cap it risks
soundness. To ensure the most effective use of land, scale of development should be considered on a site-by-site
basis in accordance with wider development plan policy and the NPPF.
Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission
Policy I/ID: Infrastructure and delivery
Representation Summary:
We are concerned that the cumulative and multiplicity of policy requirements, in addition to
the aspiration to adopt a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) tariff, are likely to create significant viability
issues and therefore risk under-delivery in the plan period. In doing so, it puts this Vision at risk and
creates a significant and pressing question as to the overall soundness of the Plan.
Full text:
Bywater wish to raise a specific and focussed objection with respect to draft Policy H/CO in respect
of Co-living.
Limb 1(d) of the draft policy states:
Developments will consider and respond to the need for Co-living units, and proposals must be
supported by evidence of the need for this form of development in Greater Cambridge. It is
expected that developments will be of a moderate scale of between 50 and 200 units, but a
higher number of units will be considered where it is clearly demonstrated that:
i. There is a need for the proposed number of Co-living units in the proposed location; and
ii. The proposed number of units will not result in a harmful concentration of Co-living units within an area or place undue pressure on local infrastructure.
Whilst we agree it is appropriate to consider the need, in our opinion, seeking to establish a quantum/
scale of development within the policy itself is unjustified, and fails to respond to market needs.
The emerging Plan itself directs that Co-living should be located in “sustainable, highly accessible areas”
(Policy H/CO Part 1), and the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (NPPF) provides that
“Development proposals should make efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for
different types of housing” (NPPF L1,1) and “Within settlements, development proposals for residential
and mixed-use development should contribute to an increase in the density of the area in which they are
situated” unless there is a clear justification that this would be inappropriate (NPPF L1, 2a).
As such, an unjustified cap should not be placed on the appropriate scale of co-living developments and
should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, continuing to pursue the cap it risks
soundness. To ensure the most effective use of land, scale of development should be considered on a site-by-site
basis in accordance with wider development plan policy and the NPPF.
Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission
Chapter 1: About the Plan
Representation Summary:
The Greater Cambridge Local Plan
Reflecting the clear alignment with Bywater’s interests with the Vision for Greater Cambridge, we support
the recognition throughout the draft Plan that Cambridge will see a decrease in climate and
environmental impact whilst creating the thriving neighbourhoods with a variety of jobs, homes and
supporting infrastructure that the city and its surroundings need. The strategic priorities are clear and
should be supported.
Full text:
Bywater wish to raise a specific and focussed objection with respect to draft Policy H/CO in respect
of Co-living.
Limb 1(d) of the draft policy states:
Developments will consider and respond to the need for Co-living units, and proposals must be
supported by evidence of the need for this form of development in Greater Cambridge. It is
expected that developments will be of a moderate scale of between 50 and 200 units, but a
higher number of units will be considered where it is clearly demonstrated that:
i. There is a need for the proposed number of Co-living units in the proposed location; and
ii. The proposed number of units will not result in a harmful concentration of Co-living units within an area or place undue pressure on local infrastructure.
Whilst we agree it is appropriate to consider the need, in our opinion, seeking to establish a quantum/
scale of development within the policy itself is unjustified, and fails to respond to market needs.
The emerging Plan itself directs that Co-living should be located in “sustainable, highly accessible areas”
(Policy H/CO Part 1), and the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (NPPF) provides that
“Development proposals should make efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for
different types of housing” (NPPF L1,1) and “Within settlements, development proposals for residential
and mixed-use development should contribute to an increase in the density of the area in which they are
situated” unless there is a clear justification that this would be inappropriate (NPPF L1, 2a).
As such, an unjustified cap should not be placed on the appropriate scale of co-living developments and
should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, continuing to pursue the cap it risks
soundness. To ensure the most effective use of land, scale of development should be considered on a site-by-site
basis in accordance with wider development plan policy and the NPPF.
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
