Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Draft Policy I/ID and supporting text should be revised to make clear that objections from utility providers cannot automatically prevent the grant of planning permission, and that development should proceed where reasonable mitigation or planning mechanisms can address infrastructure requirements.

We object to Draft Policy I/ID.

Draft Policy I/ID makes continual reference to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a way to ensure that schemes are acceptable in planning terms. As CIL has not been adopted in the Greater Cambridge Area, this mechanism for securing contributions via CIL does not yet existing and therefore it is premature to reference this in policy. It is recommended that the policy instead only refers to planning obligations or contributions via Section 106 agreements. This will ensure that the policy is clear, justified, and effective as outlined within the NPPF.

The Policy seeks to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to support new development, requiring developers to deliver or fund infrastructure, including via Section 106 or CIL. While the objective of adequate infrastructure is supported, the policy should not allow objections from utility providers, such as water companies, to unreasonably delay or prevent the grant of planning permission. Planning permission should not be refused solely on the basis of current capacity constraints where mitigation or phased delivery is feasible. Appropriate Planning Conditions and/or Obligations should allow for capacity issues to be overcome to ensure that do not unduly restrict housing delivery.

It is therefore requested that Draft Policy I/ID and supporting text be revised to make clear that objections from utility providers cannot automatically prevent the grant of planning permission, and that development should proceed where reasonable mitigation or planning mechanisms can address infrastructure requirements.