Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

Draft Policy H5 is a criterion based policy which indicates that the Council will support co-living schemes provided the individual proposals meet a number of different criteria. Notably, the draft policy requires schemes to be provided solely for rent, that the designs should provide a range of communal facilities, that the scheme should not lead to an excessive concentration of co-living developments in the area concerned and that 20% of the accommodation should be provided as affordable private rent. Response Overall, SGD are very supportive of the Council’s approach towards the provision of co-living in the city. The inclusion of a policy on this use is a recognition of the role that co-living can play in the delivery of a balanced mix of housing in the area and of the considerable demand from prospective residents, developers and operators that housing of this type be provided to help address local requirements. The recognition which Policy H5 gives also reflects the wider objectives set out in the draft plan (for example within Policy S1) that the Council will provide good quality homes of a variety of types to meet Exeter’s needs. In relation to the various specific criteria which the policy sets outs, SGD note that in general, these are reasonable requirements. We also note that (at paragraph 5.25 of the supporting text) the policy indicates that private bedrooms should meet national space standards but that flexibility on this is to be given to allow for account to be taken on the amount and form of communal space being proposed. It is important that such flexibility is retained within the policy to allow for developments to come forward where there are different site requirements - and which may influence site design - and where the offer to different residents may vary from other developments. Notwithstanding the above, SGD do object to the stipulation at criterion c) of the policy that at least 20% of co-living schemes be provided as homes for affordable private rent. It is very unclear whether the provision of affordable private rent, which would need to be managed by a social housing provider, could be made to work within a scheme which by its very nature is designed to meet very different occupier requirements. In practice, it is likely that it would be necessary for the scheme to have very different design requirements to those for the wider co-living parts of the scheme, for example in relation to the design of separate entrances, parking provision and so on. Such requirements will not only impede the design of the scheme as a whole but also make it more expensive to deliver and thus undermine scheme viability. We would suggest therefore that this criterion be deleted from the policy as its inclusion may actually act as a deterrent to the delivery of what is a much needed alternative form of housing provision. We would also note that as a form of housing which is aimed squarely at meeting the needs of (mainly young) people who are encountering difficulties in accessing the traditional housing market in the city due to lack of availability and affordability, co-living is, in effect, a form of affordable housing. The delivery of co-living should be incentivised as part of the Council’s wider ambitions to diversify its housing supply and this further indicates that undue constraints in the form of on-site affordable rent requirements should be removed from the policy. Given their concerns about the inclusion of the requirements under criterion c), and notwithstanding their support for many aspects of the draft policy, SGD currently OBJECT to Policy H5 as drafted and we suggest that criterion c) be deleted from the policy.

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

The Water Sports Association headquarters and adjoining buildings and boat storage hardstanding at the Canal Basin have been zoned for housing to help meet Government housing requirements for Exeter. We believe water-related and maritime functions are the prime importance at the Canal Basin. Accessible water sport is one of Exeter’s essential active community offerings. Housing could be a modest part of development of the water sports site which must improve current water sports facilities. The housing should be viable and provide some affordable homes. The water sports site includes some modest, traditional vernacular buildings that give character to the area and should be considered for preservation and re-purposing. Building over an area of hardstanding will permanently take out hardstanding space at the basin which at present can be used for boat storage. Today’s limited ability to offer services to maritime visitors and the consequent economic viability of the canal and basin, and the overall attractiveness and useability for boat owners, would be reduced further. This is relevant to Full Draft, Section 5, because the waterway network of the Basin and Ship Canal is a component of Liveable Exeter’s objectives for life in the city and its neighbourhoods, not to be thought of as only a backdrop for new homes or a pastime. The need for sustainable and attractive housing has never been greater and the imperative is recognised. An alternative but complementary context for judgement is to consider the contemporary benefits of the heritage harbour’s legacy, and the long-term benefits that working regeneration of the canal and basin will bring to the lives, health and engagement of generations of Exeter citizens at large. The fascination and vibrancy of boats and boating bustle will connect with residents and visitors. We believe this is in the public interest. The Draft asserts, ‘Planning is concerned with the control of land use in the public interest.’

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

An addition is suggested to ‘b’: v. The impact or its mitigation of the proposed development on existing or other desirable waterway uses.

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

The policy of not making many more council houses: This policy does obviously not help the crisis for young people who cannot afford to pay commercial rents or buy their own property.

How do you feel about policy H1: Housing requirement?

Happy

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

I was told the policy has moved away from building on greenfield sites and towards brownfield sites. I think this is a far more sensible approach to building. The reasons are: 1. People will not be upset by having their green spaces removed or their trees cut down. 2. There are ugly post-industrial areas in Exeter which it would be good to replace with modern housing. 3. These new buildings will be ... city centre more attractive and to cause fewer transport problems than building on the outskirts of the city.

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom

Why do you feel this way and do you have any other comments?

See comments submitted on behalf of Broom