Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 200393

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP support the purpose of a Planning Obligations SPD to provide
supplementary planning guidance on planning obligations required to secure infrastructure necessary to
support the needs generated by proposed developments. The draft SPD’s aim to provide greater transparency
on the types of planning obligations that may be applicable to new development is fully supported. However, the exact nature of some contributions and how certain financial contributions are calculated and justified, is questioned.

Comment

Representation ID: 200394

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Regarding paragraph 2.26, U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP do not consider it reasonable or lawful to link contributions to the date of committee resolution or the consultation date identifying the contribution amounts. It is requested that this sentence is removed from the SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 200395

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Currently in Paragraph 4.30 it states that "the council will expect a revised viability assessment to be submitted where any scheme has unavoidably stalled for 12 months". A more reasonable timescale of 18 months is suggested.

Comment

Representation ID: 200396

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Paragraph 7.18 states that the starting point for the negotiation of faith space is 0.5 hectares or heavily discounted land per 3,000 dwellings. U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP consider this requirement should be based on an identified level of need in a geographical area, rather than an arbitrary standard requirement. It is also unclear how the 0.5 hectare figure has been derived and evidenced, and if the use of this obligation would make a development acceptable in planning terms.

Paragraph 7.19 uses the terminology 'pump priming contributions'. What this is and how it is applied to development should be explained in the supporting text or glossary.

Paragraph 7.22 where it states "Community Support Workers could be required to address a range of issues" There appears to be no evidence to support this obligation. The obligation should be reviewed and justified against criteria set out in Regulation 122.

Comment

Representation ID: 200397

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Paragraph 9.8 states that where new housing development will have implications for the existing library provision they may require certain developer contributions. In the list of provisions that are given it is unclear whether the requirements are mutually exclusive. For example, if a new library building is provided, is the library fit out and new stock also required? We request a greater narrative is provided on this matter to improve developer expectations and improve transparency.

Comment

Representation ID: 200398

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Paragraph 10.20 states that largescale developments subject to a vehicular trip budget should be monitored, and should the agreed forecast trips be exceeded, then a financial penalty, hold on future development, or a revised schedule of further transport or travel planning interventions, will likely be triggered. We consider that a financial penalty and hold on future development are extreme measures for failure to comply with a trip budget. Yes, more support for additional contributions for specific mitigations may be necessary and required but to unduly stop active development construction goes against the Central Government’s aim of delivering 300,000 homes per annum. Furthermore, it is also unclear how the financial penalty would be calculated it is not consistent with Regulation 122. and we request that the wording is deleted relating to a financial penalty and hold on development.

U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP consider there should not be a link between the nonconsulted and non-evidenced Transport Position Statement and the emerging updated Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 200399

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Paragraph 11.12 states that “other contributions may be sought towards temporary accommodation
or school travel.”

U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP
query if this meets the reasonable tests within regulation 122. There needs to be evidence to support
these potential obligations within the draft SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 200400

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Regarding paragraph 12.12. U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP support the principle that a 1% public art value is not appropriate for setting budgets on large major sites as public art budgets for these types of sites should be determined on a site specific and wider-geographic basis. U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP do not agree that the starting point should be 1% as this is unrealistic on such large major sites. The contribution does not meet the Regulation 122 test as being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and is not directly related to the development, therefore it cannot be considered reasonable. We therefore request for this requirement to be deleted.

Paragraph 12.4. Wording should be amended to allow the budget to be included within the Public Art Delivery Plan. As on some large major sites it may not be possible to agree a public art budget for inclusion within the s106 agreement.

Comment

Representation ID: 200401

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Regarding Paragraph 13.7 U+I (Cambridge)
Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP would like to query how the threshold of 200 dwellings was arrived as it seems low.

Paragraph 13.11 contains the burial sites contribution by dwellings size. U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP query how these contributions by dwelling size have been formulated and what evidence was used to calculate the cost. It is also unclear if the need has been fully evidenced as required by Regulation 122.

Comment

Representation ID: 200402

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Paragraph 14.14 states that the Cambridge Local Plan requires 1.2 hectares per 1,000 people of playing pitches, courts and greens. Appendix I states that this is an amalgamation of standards for different sports, based on team generation rates and current provision, and provides guidance regarding how this should be addressed. It is recommend that wording is inserted to clarify that greater flexibility should be given to significant large previously developed sites in the urban context that are subject to the Area Action Plan.