Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document re-consultation - 2025

Paragraph 1.2 of the Introduction Chapter notes that:

“The purpose of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is to provide supplementary planning guidance in support of the Policy 85: Infrastructure delivery, planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy of the Cambridge City Local Plan 2018 and Policy TI/8: Infrastructure and New Developments of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.”

With that in mind, it is important that the SPD is consistent with the wider policy framework provided by the adopted Plans and do not seek to introduce new policies or unduly undermine the deliverability of planned development in accordance with PPG Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 61-008-20190315.

Paragraph 1.7 confirms that specific elements of the South Cambridgeshire Open Space in New Development SPD will be superseded, in particular in relation to costings, but the document overall will remain a material consideration. It is important that the SPD provides clarity as to which specific elements of the Open Space in New Development SPD are to be superseded by guidance within the document to ensure clarity and consistency. Accordingly, it is suggested that the relevant paragraphs and figures in the Open Space and New Development SPD are listed in an appendix with confirmation of which parts of the new Planning Obligations SPD replace them.

Paragraph 2.14 sets out the approach that applicants should take in providing details of proposed planning obligations for new developments and states that “In the case of strategic development proposals, a detailed proposal setting out draft ‘Heads of Terms’ (HoT’s) should be submitted” rather than a full s106 Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking as would otherwise be the case. However, “strategic development” is not defined such that it is unclear under which circumstances the two approaches will be applied.

More generally, we would add that the draft SPD does not currently include a Glossary of Terms and would suggest that this would provide helpful clarity in terms of the interpretation of the SPD.

Paragraphs 4.17 - 4.18 provide guidance on the Tenure Mix of development. Whilst Pigeon notes and welcomes the proposed changes to this section, it is noted that the Councils have now added a table providing a detailed breakdown of the percentage of affordable housing by tenure. However, there is no table title or explanatory text to clarify whether the percentages set out are to form the basis for negotiations or are simply a worked example. It is considered that the purpose of the table should be clarified to avoid confusion as to how the Councils’ requirements should be interpreted.

Moreover, it is important to note that the standards and need outlined may change over time and therefore, assuming the mix set out is to form the basis for affordable housing tenure discussions, an additional paragraph should be added to confirm that the indicative mix should be used unless sufficient evidence demonstrates a different appropriate mix should be provided. This mix should be agreed in consultation with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to respond to the needs at the time.

Paragraph 4.24 states “The Councils may require phased developments to submit a viability assessment if during any phase of the development, the amount of affordable housing being delivered during that phase decreases…” Whilst Pigeon agree with this approach in general, additional guidance should be added for completeness to address phased developments which provide increased affordable housing in an earlier phase to allow for a reduction in another.

Pigeon notes that the SPD proposes a new funding formula for financial contributions towards off-site provision of Natural Greenspace within South Cambridgeshire only. This is one of a number of new funding formulas proposed as part of draft SPD and which are based on the Council’s Infrastructure Costings Review (July 2025). Pigeon is concerned that these have not been tested in the round to ensure that the cumulative effect of the proposed contributions does not compromise the viability of development.

We would highlight that, according to the PPG (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901), it is inappropriate for plan-makers to establish new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not undergo examination and the effect on site viability and delivery cannot be considered in the round. We therefore question the Councils’ approach in seeking to undertake major changes to planning obligations funding requirements through this SPD and consider that to remedy this, the Councils should remove this formulaic funding requirement from the SPD.

Whilst Pigeon welcome a number of the changes made to this section to highlight that the provision of 20% BNG is only an aspirational target to be encouraged it is considered that it should go further by adding the words “where possible” as a reflection of the fact that provision of 20% BNG will simply not be possible in many cases, particularly many smaller, more constrained sites within the Cambridge urban area or within village settlement frameworks.

Pigeon considers that paragraph 7.10 should be updated with regard to the types of developments from which funding will be sought. The current wording proposed that ‘all new residential’ development would be eligible and it is accepted that this reflects the requirements of and is consistent with Policy SC/4 and SC/6 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and Policy 85 of the Cambridge Local Plan. However there doesn’t appear to be a clear policy or evidential basis to justify that all major commercial developments in South Cambridgeshire should be required to make provision for community facilities to meet the needs arising from the development.

Moreover, to ensure consistency with the statutory tests it is necessary to demonstrate need. As such it is considered that, only where there is a demonstrable need can provision / a financial contribution be requested. This need should be identified, directly related to the development and justified by the LPA. In this context, Policy SC/2 Health Impact Assessment require developers to submit Health Impact Assessments of varying scales dependent on the scale of residential development and/or commercial floorspace proposed. The assessments are required to consider community related impacts in accordance with the Screening Matrix set out in the Councils related SPD. It is considered that, in the absence of any other clear evidence, it is only developments that are to be subject to a HIA and where the HIA demonstrates significant community impacts which require mitigation where such a requirement could reasonably be justified.

As stated above Planning obligations “assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms.” Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the statutory test that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms as set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, with regard to the various formulas for calculating planning obligations in relation to Community Facilities set out in Table 7-1 we would stress that Paragraph 23b-004-20190901 emphasises that it is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents as they would not be subject to examination. These should therefore be removed.

Pigeon considers that this section of the SPD lacks justification and clarity and therefore does not currently meet the statutory and policy tests referred to above. The requirement for new residential development to make provision for new social and community support services has no clear policy basis for the specific nature of the obligations being sought.

It is considered that the impact of new development on the social and community support services referred to is not particularly clear or distinct from other forms of health and community services referred to in other parts of the SPD (notably Chapters 7, 9, 11 and Chapter 22). Therefore, the justification for new provision or financial contributions for these particular services is not sufficiently made. Pigeon is concerned that the overlap with other healthcare, community and education services will lead to ‘double-counting’ and that there is insufficient evidence and justification provided to demonstrate a clear and quantified link between new development and increased impacts on these particular services.

Pigeon is therefore concerned that the Councils appear to be introducing new policy approaches which go beyond the requirements of the adopted Development Plan, contrary to Planning Practice Guidance. It is also considered that there is insufficient evidence to justify the use of planning obligations for these services. As such, it is considered that the proposed approach within the draft SPD would not meet the statutory and policy tests within Regulation 122 and the NPPF. Accordingly, it is considered that this section should be deleted in its entirety.

The SPD requires that all new residential developments must address the need for new library provision with further detail set out within the Cambridgeshire County Council Draft Planning Obligations Strategy. Whilst we understand the Council’s aim to promote life-long learning, Pigeon questions the continued appropriateness of funding this initiative through new residential development when there is no clear evidence to demonstrate that this is necessary to make all residential developments acceptable in planning terms. Indeed, this is particularly so now that so much information is widely available on-line and this the reliance on libraries for reading and as sources of publicly accessible information is diminishing.

Notwithstanding the policy provisions set out within the Adopted Plans, we would stress that the Local Planning Authorities and the County Council will still need to demonstrate that additional capacity/provision will be required having regard to the use and capacity of existing facilities within the two authority areas and that any new development will directly impact upon the use and capacity of those particular facilities to ensure that the statutory and policy tests in Regulation 122 and the NPPF are met.

Paragraphs 10.13 and 10.14 set out the circumstances under which planning obligations will be sought. Whilst Pigeon understand why no development threshold has been set and why no types of development are automatically exempt from transport infrastructure requirements, it is considered important that the text highlights that the need for, extent and nature of any obligations will be proportionate to the extent and nature of the impact of the particular development as evidenced through the submitted Transport Assessments and Transport Statements. This will ensure compliance with the relevant statutory and policy tests, particularly the requirement that planning obligations should be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Similarly, it is considered that paragraph 10.26 should also be updated to reflect this point

Paragraph 11.1 of the draft SPD states that new residential developments create additional demand for education services. Pigeon would stress that this is not necessarily the case for all residential developments, such as where they are for specialist forms of housing (e.g. retirement apartments). Indeed, this is acknowledged through the Exemptions listed at paragraph 11.18. It is therefore suggested that the wording of the paragraph should be updated to include the word “can” for clarity and consistency.

It is also important to highlight that the creation of additional demand is not the same as having an impact since this will depend on the capacity of the existing schools to meet that demand. With birth rates falling, the capacity of some rural schools in particular is increasing. In this context, Pigeon considers that the wording of Paragraph 11.4 is not appropriate as it is not consistent with the relevant statutory and policy tests for seeking Planning Obligations. Just because a development creates a child yield does not automatically mean there will be an impact on schools that should be addressed through planning obligations. The need for developments to make provision for education services will need to be justified based upon whether there is a need to create additional capacity. Where there is sufficient existing capacity in nearby schools to accommodate the child yield arising from a development there will be no need to provide additional capacity.

It is also noted that paragraph 11.9 of the draft SPD states that school capacity will be assessed based on school catchment capacities rather than school rolls. Given that school roll information, which are the usual means of establishing school capacities, is publicly available it is important that a similarly clear and transparent approach is taken with school catchment capacity information being made clearly available to enable a transparent approach to be taken in establishing school capacity and thus the need to make financial contributions.

Paragraph 11.13 of the draft SPD suggests that the County Council or DfE will usually deliver all education projects. It is considered that this is not consistent with paragraph 11.17 which highlights that the County Council will not itself provide nursery provision. It is therefore considered that the wording of paragraph 11.13 should be updated to reflect this to ensure clarity and consistency.