Decision:
Council AGREED the following recommendations, subject to issues raised during discussion:
(a) To confirm the Preferred Approach to housing objectives (CS19);
(b) To confirm the Preferred Approach to roll forward the existing housing allocations made in the 2004 Local Plan (CS20);
(c) To confirm the Preferred Approach to densities of at least 30 dwellings per hectare and at least 40 dwellings per hectare in more sustainable locations (CS22);
(d) To confirm the Preferred Approach for the target for the mix of house sizes, based on the number of bedrooms, in market housing:
· 40% 1 and 2 bedroom : 30% 3 bedroom : 30% 4 or more bedrooms for Northstowe to address locally identified housing needs whilst not compromising the development of a balanced community in a new town (CS23); [This decision was subsequently overturned by full Council on 1 February 2005 in favour of a 50 : 25 : 25 ratio]
· 50% 1 and 2 bedroom : 25% 3 bedroom : 25% 4 or more bedrooms for development district-wide (primarily in villages) to address the high level of need for 1 and 2 bedroom properties identified in the Housing Needs Survey (CS26);
(e) To confirm the Preferred Option for the target of Affordable Housing at approximately 50% of all dwellings proposed (CS27);
(f) To confirm the Preferred Approach of requiring Affordable Housing to be provided as set out in the 2004 Local Plan, i.e., a threshold of more than 10 dwellings in settlements over 3,000 population and 2 or more dwellings elsewhere (CS30);
(g) To confirm the Preferred Options for funding Affordable Housing:
· To pursue CS32 District-wide, negotiating a lower proportion of Affordable Housing if there were insurmountable subsidy issues; and
· To pursue CS33 for small sites, negotiating a contribution to Affordable Housing to be provided elsewhere.
Minutes:
Land Supply and Windfall Allowance (CS19 and CS20)
Further housing allocations in villages were not required as Council had agreed on 20 January 2005 that additional capacity at Cambourne would be sufficient to satisfy housing land supply needs.
Whilst locating housing and employment in close proximity to help reduce travel to work were aims of the Plan, it was acknowledged that people did not always wish to live and work in the same area. The Structure Plan made allowance for some small-scale general employment opportunities to take advantage of local skills, and local employment opportunities were key criteria for the identification of Rural Centres.
Contrary to some representations, it was felt that the windfall allowance had not been overestimated, although the allowance would be monitored and managed, and could be adapted as necessary in future reviews of the Core Strategy. As agreed on 20 January 2005, windfalls within Rural Centres’ frameworks could be brought forward into the LDF with no development ceiling.
The allocation at Highfields Caldecote referred to the residue of land left for development from the original site; this would be clarified in the final document.
Members noted that the rate of construction, rather than land supply, often slowed development pace.
Densities (CS22)
Densities from the adopted Structure Plan and PPG3 had been included in CS22. It was confirmed that the 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) minimum required in the Structure Plan allowed for the provision of gardens. Officers confirmed that CS22 provided for densities below 30 dph in very special circumstances that required a different treatment. This would be included in the wording of the policy in the draft Core Strategy.
Proposals for major developments would be considered in Area Action Plans, but it was likely that there would be, potential for higher with densities in the new settlements and on urban extensions to Cambridge than in existing villages. Although historically development had at low density on village edges, the LDF sought the most sustainable form of development, which could include higher densities on village edges where appropriate, subject to a suitable edge treatment to the village. Apartments could also be constructed in higher density areas.
Parking allocations would be considered in the travel chapter, but developments of at least 40 dph would be sought in areas with good access to public transport.
Members commented on the use of quality landscaping and design, and constructing smaller houses and apartments to look like 4 or 5 bedroom houses to give the impression of lower densities in higher density areas.
Market Housing (CS23 – CS26)
CS26 required a 50% District-wide target for market housing for 1 and 2 bedroom properties as a single category without prescribing how many of each size of dwelling should be provided within that percentage. The actual provision would be market-driven, although the Development and Conservation Control Committee would decide what was appropriate to local circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The policy aimed at being flexible while still requiring developers to provide a suitable proportion of smaller dwellings. The LDF would not be able to specify minimum interior room sizes and the reference to “bedroom size” would be clarified to refer to the number of bedrooms in the property. Northstowe and the Cambridge edge developments had separate targets in the Area Action Plans.
Separate Building Control legislation governed sound insulation between houses and such issues therefore could not be included in the LDF. Members were encouraged to contact the Building Control section if they had specific questions about lifetime housing standards and other building regulations.
Affordable Housing (CS27 – CS33)
The draft Core Strategy would address situations where developers parcelled land into smaller packages to avoid meeting affordable housing requirements. Density policies would guide the appropriate number of dwellings on a site, which should reduce the amount of applications for fewer houses per site than could be accommodated.
Caution was urged on introducing a policy requiring affordable housing to be required based on density, as it was considered that the proposed 50% target was challenging but still reasonable. Councillor NJ Scarr, seconded by Councillor Mrs SA Hatton, proposed that the distinction between larger and smaller villages be abolished and the threshold of two or more dwellings be applied district-wide. Officers explained that the Council had successfully introduced in the 2004 Local Plan a minimum threshold of more than 10 dwellings in villages of 3,000 or more population, while the national requirement was for a minimum of 25 dwellings, or 15 in areas of high need. Members were encouraged to roll forward into the LDF the tested and approved 2004 Local Plan policy, as changing the policy was high-risk and could result in the Inspector applying the national thresholds, thus reducing affordable housing provision in South Cambridgeshire. The Housing Corporation did not appear to have different funding regimes available based on village sizes. Officers explained that the national policy was being reviewed imminently and, if this enabled thresholds to be reviewed, they would be as part of the preparation of the Core Strategy, having regard to Members’ views. In view of the risks of changing the accepted policy, Councillors Scarr and Mrs Hatton WITHDREW their proposal. It was confirmed that a 50% affordable housing target had been suggested for the Northstowe Area Action Plan.
It was important to have a suitably flexible policy to take account of the changing situation in light of conflicting signals from the government on affordable housing funding. There could be some exceptional circumstances where a 50% affordable housing requirement would not be appropriate on a particular site, for example on a very small site in a smaller village, in which case the Council may accept a financial contribution to help fund affordable housing elsewhere. It was unlikely that the Inspector would approve a policy of accepting a financial contribution to affordable housing on sites of a single dwelling.
Councillor Mrs GJ Smith, seconded by Councillor RB Martlew, proposed that, subject to the matter being examined, any developers building housing below the threshold of more than 10 dwellings be required to make an appropriate contribution to affordable housing, the contribution to be kept in a ring-fenced account to be used for RSL or other affordable housing providers. Members were reminded that government consultation had been conducted previously on a similar “roof tax”, to which the Council had been strongly opposed. Councillor Dr DR Bard cautioned that, if implemented, the Cambridgeshire County Council may wish to enact a similar tax requiring a contribution to education and Councillor Mrs DSK Spink reminded Members that RSLs received central government funding through the Housing Corporation, so the Council would have no control over directing the funding, assuming that the central government allowed the Council to retain its own funding pot. As government consultation on revisions to its affordable housing policy was due on 24 January 2005, Councillors Mrs Smith and Martlew WITHDREW their motion and officers agreed to consider the strategy in light of the government consultation.
In situations where existing housing was demolished and replaced by new build, the net figure was considered when imposing affordable housing requirements, therefore a site where one house had been demolished and replaced by two new dwellings, the net change was one property, which was too low for affordable housing requirements.
Existing policies for exception sites outside the village framework in areas with a high level of need would be rolled forward into the draft Core Strategies and were in line with government policies of 100% affordable housing to meet local needs.
With higher percentages of affordable housing, it was important to have a mix of tenure in affordable housing provision and to distribute affordable dwellings within sites.
CS30 would be amended to refer specifically to “2 or more dwellings”.
Conclusion
Council AGREED the following recommendations, subject to issues raised during discussion:
(a) To confirm the Preferred Approach to housing objectives (CS19);
(b) To confirm the Preferred Approach to roll forward the existing housing allocations made in the 2004 Local Plan (CS20);
(c) To confirm the Preferred Approach to densities of at least 30 dwellings per hectare and at least 40 dwellings per hectare in more sustainable locations (CS22);
(d) To confirm the Preferred Approach for the target for the mix of house sizes, based on the number of bedrooms, in market housing:
· 40% 1 and 2 bedroom : 30% 3 bedroom : 30% 4 or more bedrooms for Northstowe to address locally identified housing needs whilst not compromising the development of a balanced community in a new town (CS23); [This decision was subsequently overturned by full Council on 1 February 2005 in favour of a 50 : 25 : 25 ratio]
· 50% 1 and 2 bedroom : 25% 3 bedroom : 25% 4 or more bedrooms for development district-wide (primarily in villages) to address the high level of need for 1 and 2 bedroom properties identified in the Housing Needs Survey (CS26);
(e) To confirm the Preferred Option for the target of Affordable Housing at approximately 50% of all dwellings proposed (CS27);
(f) To confirm the Preferred Approach of requiring Affordable Housing to be provided as set out in the 2004 Local Plan, i.e., a threshold of more than 10 dwellings in settlements over 3,000 population and 2 or more dwellings elsewhere (CS30);
(g) To confirm the Preferred Options for funding Affordable Housing:
· To pursue CS32 District-wide, negotiating a lower proportion of Affordable Housing if there were insurmountable subsidy issues; and
· To pursue CS33 for small sites, negotiating a contribution to Affordable Housing to be provided elsewhere.