I would like to see more smaller (hence hopefully cheaper) self contained flats available in Cambridge.
An application for planning permission has been made to Cambridge City Council for the construction of four one bedroom flats behind the kitchen shop at 300 – 302 Mill Road at the junction with Cyprus Road.
Policy 50 of the Draft Cambridge Local Plan 2014 contains a “Proposed Internal Residential Space Standard” of 37m2 for a one bedroom studio.
While not final, draft local plans do have significant weight and are “material considerations” when determining planning applications, ours in Cambridge has been supported by the full council. It has also though been criticised by planning inspectors for not having been based on a proper assessment of the housing market, and in particular, affordability.
Two of the flats proposed at this location on Mill Rd are 29m2, one is 31m2 and the other 41m2. Three of the four are smaller than the proposed space standards.
I have submitted a representation:
I anticipate there may be concern about the small size of the proposed flats in this development.
My view is the flats which are proposed would add much needed diversity to the housing market in Cambridge through the provision of smaller, cheaper, self-contained properties.
I urge consideration of the number of people in Cambridge sharing houses and flats with those they are not related to and are not their partners. Some of those living in such shared accommodation may prefer the kind of self contained accommodation that this development offers.
Councillors should not, though planning restrictions, prevent people who wish to live in self-contained accommodation from having the opportunity to do so.
When considering the amount of space in the proposed properties I urge a comparison not only to other flats, but to the amount of space someone renting a room in a house of flat would have available to them.
Statistics on the prevalence of house and flat sharing is hard to come by as the state, quite reasonably and rightly in my view, does not record when properties below the threshold for mandatory licensing, and which don’t require planning permission for the specific use, are occupied by groups of unrelated individuals.
The 2011 census found a 28% increase in “other” households, the category which includes “unrelated persons sharing a household”.*
I would like to see the report suggest to councillors that they could consider their own experiences of canvassing and reviewing electoral rolls in Cambridge which may have given them some idea of the prevalence of house sharing in the absence of hard statistics.
I think this development has the potential to provide some people with more appropriate and suitable accommodation than they can currently afford.
I don’t want to see people living in accommodation which is too small, or over crowded, and I particularly don’t want to see public money spent providing small, poor quality accommodation. I don’t think though those concerns are exacerbated by merely the simple provision of smaller self-contained flats.
In light of the criticism of the draft local plan by planning inspectors** I suggest reduced weight is put on the proposed internal residential space standard contained within. A proper review of the state of the housing market in the city, considering affordability, may well impact, and prompt the relaxing of, that proposed policy.
This submission only addresses the issue of the size of the proposed flats. I am supportive of the development of flats of the size proposed. I have not considered other aspects of the proposed development such as its relationship with neighbouring buildings etc and I take no stance in respect of the approval or otherwise of the application as a whole.
While we know nothing about the internal specification of the proposed properties here I do think that clever, high quality, fitting out of smaller spaces can make them appropriate and comfortable places to live.
If we are to have controls on small accommodation then where I am most concerned is where people have no choice; where their rent is being paid by society at large. I think we should have minimum standards for properties which are funded via benefits to prevent exploitation of vulnerable individuals and to ensure we get value for public money.
I’m very concerned about overcrowding and particularly children being brought up in small flats. I’ve seen couples with children in studio flats in London and in a shed in Cambridge. I think though generally we have to let people exercise their own judgement about what’s best for them, and if they have them, their families. People may reasonably choose to live in less than desirable accommodation for a period when taking a holistic and longer term view of their lives.
I hope a re-opened consultation on the local plan will enable the proposed minimum space standards to be reviewed.
14 responses to “Supporting More Small Self Contained Flats for Cambridge”
A recent Cambridge News story included figures showing the highest increases in rents in Cambridge are room rents, followed by studios:
Information on the source of the statistics is published at
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-rental-market-statistics-england-only/release-notes-10-june-2014
It’s based on a non-statistically representative sample based on information obtained by the Valuation Office Agency in doing their work; it’s information collected for rent officers and staff informing the DWP’s decisions on housing benefit rates.
If room rents are obtained from letting agents on the basis of agents renting individual rooms in properties if they’re not capturing rents people pay for rooms when groups of people get together to rent a whole house. I suspect it’s the cost of an individually rented room, with a contract direct with an agent, which these statistics indicate is rising rapidly.
Councillors rejected the application mentioned above.
A new application for a pair of three bedroom semi-detached properties has now been made:
https://idox.cambridge.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NYS05MDXIV100
I’ve no objection to the pair of houses, I think this is a good use for the site. The supply of homes in the city will increase and pressure on prices will be, albeit only slightly, relieved.
As I wrote in my article though I don’t think the council should have been insisting on houses over small flats. I’m in favour of diversity and choice in the housing market.
Councillors allowed their officers to reject the application, with one councillor, Cllr Catherine Smart, asking for it to be taken to the planning committee only if officers were intending to approve it.
The council has written to me on paper sent through the post (I commented electronically) to tell me the applicants have appealed to the Secretary of State against the rejection of the original application by councillors.
The council have let me know that they’ve forwarded all comments on the original application to the Planning Inspectorate (an unelected planning inspector will probably make the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State).
The rejection appears to be on the basis largely of the lack of garden!
The report states:
I think in this instance the planners mean “garden” when they say “amenity space”.
In the appeal document the applicant argues:
A further reason for refusal is given as “The application fails to submit adequate information in relation to highway safety”. The report explains the County Council’s objection as the highway authority:
In the appeal document the applicant argues:
I’m surprised to see garden quality being the key issue here.
I want to see diversity in the range of accommodation available in Cambridge and think some people would on balance be happy to live in a property with poorer outside space if that meant they could, for example, afford to rent, or buy, a property alone rather than with others, or balance the value they put on outside space against price, commuting time, and other factors.
I think the demand for smaller flats can be shown by the statistics.