Policy 27: Planning Contributions

Object

Representation ID: 53280

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

Criterion a) of Policy 27 should be reworded as follows to ensure that health care facilities are explicitly required as part of the developer contributions (changes in BOCK CAPITALS):
a. “finance the early delivery of major strategic infrastructure as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan established up-front by the Councils, such as a strategic noise barrier, road, rail and guided busway crossings, digital infrastructure such as a site wide energy efficient power network, open space and recreation facilities, strategic drainage, education facilities, training and community facilities, HEALTH CARE FACILITIES and strategic public transport;”

Comment

Representation ID: 55702

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
The requirement for developments to mitigate site specific impacts made necessary by the proposal is recognised. The requirement to “finance the early delivery of major strategic infrastructure as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan established up-front by the Councils” needs to be carefully considered and justified. Further engagement with stakeholders when further details are available on this would be expected, and certainly well in advance of a Regulation 19 version of the Plan. Development viability will need to be a key consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 55856

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Veolia and Turnstone Estates

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 27 sets out the purpose and approach to planning contributions for development within the
North East Cambridge Area. It is acknowledged that the policy contains some flexibility, in that
contributions will be assessed on a site by site basis and that viability will be assessed where
relevant. It is requested that the level of planning contributions and viability matters should also
take into account whether a development is related to the relocation of an existing business or
use within the AAP area and enable the delivery of wider aspirations and a coordinated strategy
for the area. For example, it is proposed in the AAP that the existing waste recycling transfer
facility operated by Veolia will relocate off site. The Veolia site needs to be redeveloped for high
value business and housing uses. However, there will be costs associated with the relocation of
the waste recycling transfer facility to an alternative site including the purchase of land. The
relocation of the waste recycling transfer facility is a prerequisite and essential for the successful
redevelopment of this part of the AAP area. It should be noted that HIF funding has been
provided to enable the relocation of Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Works, but no public
funding is available to support the relocation of Veolia’s operations. Therefore, it is requested that
any planning contributions and viability considerations for the redevelopment of the Veolia site
reflect and take into account the costs associated with the relocation of the waste recycling
transfer facility. As outlined within these Representations the value of the Veolia site needs to be
maximised to enable a future relocation and therefore the introduction of business (B1) and
housing uses are supported. S106 or other associated development costs should be minimised.
If the redevelopment of the Veolia site and the associated relocation of the existing waste
recycling transfer facility is not viable, then it will either not happen or adjustments will need to be
made to the proposed quantum of development or mix and type of uses provided at the site
and/or to the level of planning contributions provided.

Object

Representation ID: 55910

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Sphere25

A holding objection to the inclusion of this policy is made, given that neither the Infrastructure
Delivery Plan nor the Viability Assessment have been made available prior to, or during the
Regulation 18 consultation.

Comment

Representation ID: 55937

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Ridgeons Timber & Builders Merchants and Turnstone Estates

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 27 sets out the purpose and approach to planning contributions for development within the
North East Cambridge Area. It is acknowledged that the policy contains some flexibility, in that
contributions will be assessed on a site by site basis and that viability will be assessed where
relevant. It is requested that the level of planning contributions and viability matters should
also take into account whether a development is related to the relocation of an existing business
or use within the AAP area and enable the delivery of wider aspirations and a coordinated strategy
for the area. For example, if Ridgeons decide to relocate its existing builders merchant operations
elsewhere within the AAP area, e.g. to Cowley Road Industrial Estate, then any planning
contributions and viability considerations should take these circumstances into account. Equally,
if Ridgeons is able to relocate and release their site for development the existing vehicular
movements from the Ridgeons operations should be carried forward to the new use.

Comment

Representation ID: 55960

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Natural England

We welcome the requirement for appropriate planning contributions on a scheme-by-scheme basis
to finance the early delivery of major strategic infrastructure including open space.

Support

Representation ID: 55985

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Hawkswren Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 27 sets out the purpose and approach to planning contributions for development within the
North East Cambridge Area. It is acknowledged that the policy contains some flexibility, in that
contributions will be assessed on a site by site basis and that viability will be assessed where
relevant. It is requested that the level of planning contributions and viability matters should also
take into account whether the successful delivery of a development parcel is related to the
relocation of an existing business e.g. Barr Tech will need to find an alternative building for their
existing business operations.

Object

Representation ID: 56006

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 27 sets out the purpose and approach to planning contributions for development within the
North East Cambridge Area. It is acknowledged that the policy contains some flexibility, in that
contributions will be assessed on a site by site basis and that viability will be assessed where
relevant. The Tarmac site is proposed to be redeveloped for business and housing uses,
however, there will be costs associated with the relocation of the existing operations to an
alternative site including the purchase of land. If the redevelopment of the Tarmac site and the
associated relocation of the existing operation is not viable, then it will either not happen or
adjustments will need to be made to the proposed quantum of development or mix and type of
uses provided at the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 56162

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

We accept the need to contribute to NEC-wide infrastructure as well as to provide that necessary to support
development of the Core Site. However, the late production of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, coupled with the
associated viability work, has a number of significant implications. It means that assertions as to the level of development
(and hence scale, density and building heights) required across NEC to support the infrastructure development and place
making cannot be tested. Also there is a risk of early developments not being sufficiently caught – either due to existing
(modest) capacity or by failure to have an appropriate infrastructure tariff or similar in place.
Aspirations for early funding of strategic infrastructure but this must be cashflowed by public sector (eg use of PWLB
funding).