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

Paragraph 12.6 of the draft SPD sets out the overarching policy basis for securing public art from new developments in South Cambridgeshire and suggests that, as well as being artist-led with involvement from the local community the provision of Public Art could also be ‘community-led’. It is considered that this provides inconsistency with paragraph 12.14 which states “Public art should be developed through a three-way partnership between the developer, an art consultant, and the Council and involve consultation with the local community.”

In this context, the Public Art SPD provides limited guidance on what level of ‘consultation with the local community’ is required. Further guidance as to the level of consultation expected would be welcomed.

Pigeon also notes that paragraph 12.13 of the draft SPD states that, unless otherwise agreed, VAT and other taxes are not seen as being eligible costs as part of the public art budget. Given that most if not all services and materials required to implement the public art delivery plan will include VAT this is considered to be unduly onerous and unreasonable. Pigeon considers that this approach should be reviewed.

Pigeon generally agrees that all housing developments should include or contribute to the provision of the services and facilities necessary to meet the needs of the development. However, there are no specific policy requirements within the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan or available in adopted SPD to justify new major residential developments making financial contributions towards new Burial Space within the District. Indeed, as paragraph 13.1 acknowledges, there is no statutory duty to provide burial space. It is also noted that no planning obligations are to be sought within Cambridge City which is welcomed.

Notwithstanding the in-principle concerns regarding the requirement for major development to contribute towards the provision of new burial space, Pigeon considers that, if planning obligations are to be sought, the stated threshold above which the requirement would be applicable should be raised such that it is only applicable where new development is likely to have a material impact requiring mitigation. Paragraph 13.4 confirms that the requirement is applicable to major residential developments. Whilst this is undefined, it is assumed that this refers to developments of 10 dwellings or more in accordance with the definition of major development within the GDPO. Pigeon consider that this threshold is too low and that a more appropriate threshold would be the 200 dwellings referred to in Policy SC/4 given that these require a detailed assessment of community needs and thus the impact of such developments can be properly assessed, enabling the need for such provision to be justified or otherwise based upon demonstrable evidence.

Paragraph 13.10 states that for smaller developments, where it can be demonstrated that existing provision is insufficient to meet the needs of the development a planning obligation will be sought towards the improvement of existing provision. It is assumed that the Council is referring to developments smaller than 200 dwellings but it is considered that this should be clarified to avoid confusion as to how the guidance should be interpreted.

Moreover, with regard to the various formulas for calculating planning obligations in relation to burial space set out in Tables 13-1 to 13-2 we would again stress that Paragraph 23b-004-20190901 of the PGG 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. Pigeon therefore consider that these should be deleted.

It is noted that paragraph 14.16 of the draft SPD requires that the delivery of outdoor playing pitches should be made with regard to the most recently adopted Greater Cambridge Playing Pitch Strategy and refers to an updated Greater Cambridge Playing Pitch Strategy being prepared to inform the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. In this regard, we would stress that this should not be used as means of changing policy requirements in advance of the new Local Plans being adopted. Until this is the case, it is important that the requirements of any Playing Pitch Strategy remain consistent with the policies and requirements in the Adopted Local Plans. As noted above, the PPG makes it clear that as SPDs do not form part of the development plan, they cannot introduce new planning policies into the development plan.

Paragraph 14.32 describes commuted maintenance fees “where the circumstances of a particular site require a contribution calculated on a longer period where there is sufficient justification.” We would emphasise that any financial contributions being sought need to be fully justified by supporting evidence provided within a Public Open Space Study or Open Space SPD.

With regard to the various formulas for calculating planning obligations in relation to public open space set out in Tables 14-1 to 14-16 we would again 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. Pigeon therefore consider that these should be deleted.

It is noted that paragraph 15.6 of the draft SPD requires that the provision of indoor sports and recreation facilities should be made with regard to the most up-to-date version of the Greater Cambridge Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy. It is also noted from paragraph 15.10 that an update of the Strategy is being prepared to support the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Whilst we have no concerns with this in-principle, we would emphasise that this should not be used as means of changing policy requirements in advance of the new Local Plan being adopted. Until this is the case, it is important that the requirements of any indoor Sports Facilities Strategy remain consistent with the policies in the Adopted Local Plans. As noted above, the PPG makes it clear that as they do not form part of the development plan, SPDs cannot introduce new planning policies into the development plan.

With regard to the various formulas for calculating planning obligations in relation to Indoor Sport set out in Tables 15-1 to 15-4 we would again 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. Pigeon consider that these should therefore be removed from the SPD.

Paragraphs 18.6 of the draft SPD confirms that all the emergency services referred to in the preceding sections are currently operating at capacity. It then goes on to confirm that, as a result, the growth planned for Greater Cambridge will place additional demand on all emergency services through an increase in the prevention, protection and response activities. On this basis, paragraph 18.7 concludes that the additional demand placed on service capacity would require new infrastructure and facilities to be provided to mitigate impacts appropriately.

Pigeon considers that the link between the increase in population arising from new development and the increased demand for police and fire services in particular is unclear. It is considered that the draft SPD does not set out clear justification to fully demonstrate the need for all developments to contribute towards new emergency services and that without this, developments would otherwise be unacceptable. As such there is currently insufficient justification to meet the statutory and policy tests in Regulation 122 and the NPPF respectively.

Whilst further justification should be provided within the draft SPD it should be stressed that, in responding to individual applications, emergency services providers will need to clearly set out the necessary justification that any financial contributions or other planning obligations sought meet the statutory and policy tests in Regulation 122 and the NPPF.

Pigeon considers that the requirement for new residential development in particular to contribute towards local employment and skills has no clear or justified policy or evidential basis. Paragraphs 19.2 and 19.3 of the SPD refer to generic objectives and policies within the respective Local Plans that provide no clear link with employment or the economy and do not provide an appropriate policy basis or justification for the obligations being sought.

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 the PPG. Moreover, the link between residential developments and the need for them to support local employment and skills is not clear with no clear and direct impacts on local employment arising from such developments.

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, all references to residential development should therefore be removed from this chapter.

Pigeon considers that the requirement for new major commercial development to make provision for an element of affordable workspace has no clear or justified policy basis. Paragraphs 20.7 and 20.8 of the SPD refer to generic objectives and policies within the respective Local Plans that provide no clear link with employment or the economy and do not provide an appropriate policy basis or justification for the obligations being sought.

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.

As such, it is considered that the proposed approach within the draft SPD would not meet the statutory tests within Regulation 122. Accordingly, this section should be deleted in its entirety

Paragraph 22.20 of the draft SPD highlights that engagement with the ICS is encouraged for all scales of developed that propose 200 or more residential units. This raises the question of what if the ICS do not engage effectively with the applicant. Guidance should be added on this to ensure the developer will not be hindered in the decision-making process if the ICS have failed to engage effectively or make changes to their preferred approach.

This section of the draft SPD indicates that the previous sections may not encompass all potential planning obligations that could apply to any given development. It lists additional possible obligations, including community, sports, leisure, or open space facilities; impacts on the historic environment; pollution, air quality, noise, or odour mitigation measures; sustainable drainage systems; sustainable show homes; and digital infrastructure.

Pigeon has concerns with the possibility of further planning obligations that are not specified in this SPD. This lack of clarity and uncertainty complicates the development industry’s ability to account for these costs in their land purchases or development cost considerations. Such a lack of clarity can pose significant challenges for developers and may result in delays in bringing developments forward. Further clarity should be provided, otherwise the section should be deleted.