Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

See representation attached. Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Part 1:
Development proposals that break or result in a significant change to the existing skyline, or are significantly taller than the surrounding built form (as defined by the local context heights in Appendix I: Skyline and Tall Buildings Guidance), must demonstrate how they will maintain or enhance the distinctive skyline and character of Cambridge and the surrounding district. Such proposals will be supported where they demonstrate a positive response to their wider setting, and satisfy the following criteria having regard to the following considerations, and where any identified harm, individually or cumulatively, is not judged in the overall planning balance, to outweigh the public benefits of the proposal including the contribution it makes to meeting identified housing and employment needs and to the efficient use of land:

Supporting information 7.37 insertion:
The scope and detail of assessment required under criteria (a)–(e) should be proportionate to the extent to which a proposal exceeds the relevant local context height and tall building threshold.

Para 7.34
Given the large number of designated heritage assets within the historic core of Cambridge, including a significant number of highly graded heritage assets of great national importance, the potential impact that a proposal for a tall building may have on the significance of those assets will be a critical factor in the consideration of the proposal. Proposals in or around the historic core will be subject to a correspondingly high standard of justification and scrutiny under criterion 1(b), assessed on their individual merits. The impact on the setting of heritage assets should be assessed in accordance with the guidance set out in The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition) and Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice Note 4 or any successor documents.

Please see representation attached for Policy GP/ST (Skyline and tall buildings)
Policy GP/ST is overly restrictive and should be amended to provide greater flexibility and ensure that decisions are based on a balanced assessment of planning considerations.

The policy adopts a cautious approach to tall buildings and places significant limitation on opportunities to optimise development capacity in a sustainable way. This is of particular concern for commercial development, where building upwards can be an effective way of accommodating growth, supporting intensification and making efficient use of constrained sites. The policy should more clearly recognise that, in appropriate locations, taller buildings can make a positive contribution to sustainable development and economic growth.

Criterion e states that “applications must demonstrate that there is no adverse impact on neighbouring buildings and open space…”. By its nature, development can give rise to some level of impact, and the planning system requires these impacts to be weighed against the benefits of a proposal. The current wording establishes an unreasonable "no adverse impact" test, rather than applying the balanced approach expected through the planning process.

Please provide your comments below (100 words max) (give details of why you consider the plan is not legally compliant or is unsound.)
Railpen considers Policy GP/ST overly restrictive and seeks greater flexibility to ensure decisions reflect a balanced assessment of planning considerations. The policy takes an unduly cautious approach to tall buildings, potentially limiting opportunities to intensify commercial development, optimise constrained sites and support sustainable economic growth. In suitable locations, taller buildings can make efficient use of land and deliver positive planning benefits. Criterion e is also problematic because requiring “no adverse impact” on neighbouring buildings and open space sets an unrealistic test. Development will often create some impacts, which should instead be weighed proportionately against the wider benefits of the proposal and should rather be assessed against “no unacceptable impact”.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Part 1:
Development proposals that break or result in a significant change to the existing skyline, or are significantly taller than the surrounding built form (as defined by the local context heights in Appendix I: Skyline and Tall Buildings Guidance), must demonstrate how they will maintain or enhance the distinctive skyline and character of Cambridge and the surrounding district. Such proposals will be supported where they demonstrate a positive response to their wider setting, and satisfy the following criteria having regard to the following considerations, and where any identified harm, individually or cumulatively, is not judged in the overall planning balance, to outweigh the public benefits of the proposal including the contribution it makes to meeting identified housing and employment needs and to the efficient use of land:

Supporting information 7.37 insertion:
The scope and detail of assessment required under criteria (a)–(e) should be proportionate to the extent to which a proposal exceeds the relevant local context height and tall building threshold.

Para 7.34
Given the large number of designated heritage assets within the historic core of Cambridge, including a significant number of highly graded heritage assets of great national importance, the potential impact that a proposal for a tall building may have on the significance of those assets will be a critical factor in the consideration of the proposal. Proposals in or around the historic core will be subject to a correspondingly high standard of justification and scrutiny under criterion 1(b), assessed on their individual merits. The impact on the setting of heritage assets should be assessed in accordance with the guidance set out in The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition) and Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice Note 4 or any successor documents.

See representation attached.
Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Policy I/ID should be amended in several ways to address the cumulative burden identified in this text. Criteria 8 and 9 should be redrafted to state expressly that viability includes both direct financial cost and the practical and commercial deliverability of individual policy requirements, and should adopt NPPF policy DM5's grounds (a materially different development type or site characteristics, costs not accounted for in the plan-wide viability assessment, or significantly changed economic circumstances) in place of the single, high "cannot be viably developed" bar currently set. Because I/ID is the Plan's general infrastructure and delivery policy, it is the place for an explicit cumulative impact test. A new criterion should require the Councils, in assessing viability under criteria 8 and 9, to consider the combined effect of all applicable Local Plan requirements together rather than each policy's burden being tested in isolation, since no individual policy's own evidence base is positioned to capture the others stacking up on the same scheme. There should also be an insertion into the policy regarding the reasonable expectation that utility providers will undertake their statutory duty to provide required connections.

Please see representation attached for Policy I/ID (Infrastructure and delivery)
There is an extensive policy burden within the Draft Plan, representing a significant increase compared with both the 2018 Adopted Local Plans and the 2026 NPPF (in relation to development management policies).

Whilst many of the individual policies are proposed for valid reasons and support Greater Cambridge's ambition to achieve high-quality development, their cumulative effect presents a significant risk to the deliverability of future schemes. For example, the Draft Local Plan introduces a number of new policy requirements, including:
• Net Zero Operational Carbon (CC/NZ);
• Supporting a circular economy and sustainable resource use, including a greater emphasis on retaining existing buildings, which can be complex and costly to deliver, may reduce overall floorspace, and can affect market attractiveness (CC/CE);
• Biodiversity Net Gain of 20% (BG/BN);
• Accreditation under the Building with Nature Standards (BG/GI);
• Urban Greening Factor requirements (BG/UGF);
• Provision and enhancement of open space within commercial schemes (BG/EO); and
• Affordable Workspace requirements (J/AW).

These requirements sit alongside the already high expectations for development quality within Greater Cambridge, including standards relating to public realm, landscaping, architecture, materials, public art and cycling infrastructure. Whilst these are positive and important aspects of successful development, they contribute to a higher cost base for development in Greater Cambridge than in many competing locations.

A particular concern is that many of the newly proposed policy requirements are drafted as generic obligations, with limited regard to site-specific circumstances, viability considerations or demonstrable local need. The cumulative impact of these requirements risks undermining the delivery of development, particularly during the first five to ten years of the Plan period. This issue is likely to be most acute for sites already under contract or progressing through the development pipeline, where land transactions and investment decisions could not reasonably have anticipated such a substantial increase in policy requirements (and potentially CIL liabilities).

Paragraphs 8 to 10 of Policy I/ID appropriately recognise viability as a material consideration in the planning process. However, viability can be affected not only by direct financial costs, but also by the practical operation of policy requirements. For example, mandating affordable workspace within smaller commercial schemes may present significant delivery challenges, whilst requiring the retention of existing buildings may reduce market appeal and limit the flexibility needed to meet occupier requirements.

Given the number of fixed and broadly applicable policy requirements proposed, the Plan should provide a clear mechanism for balancing policy aspirations against deliverability and viability considerations. Such flexibility is necessary to ensure that high quality, commercially attractive and sustainable development can continue to come forward, supporting Greater Cambridge's growth objectives while delivering buildings and places capable of meeting long-term market needs.

Summary
Railpen considers the Draft Local Plan’s cumulative policy burden a significant risk to development viability and delivery. New requirements include net zero carbon, circular economy measures, 20% biodiversity net gain, Building with Nature accreditation, Urban Greening Factor standards, commercial open space and affordable workspace, alongside already demanding design expectations. While individually justified, their combined cost and practical implications may undermine schemes, particularly those already in the development pipeline. Many requirements are applied generically with insufficient regard to site circumstances, viability or need. Railpen therefore seeks greater flexibility to balance policy aspirations against deliverability, market attractiveness and long-term economic growth.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Policy I/ID should be amended in several ways to address the cumulative burden identified in this text. Criteria 8 and 9 should be redrafted to state expressly that viability includes both direct financial cost and the practical and commercial deliverability of individual policy requirements, and should adopt NPPF policy DM5's grounds (a materially different development type or site characteristics, costs not accounted for in the plan-wide viability assessment, or significantly changed economic circumstances) in place of the single, high "cannot be viably developed" bar currently set. Because I/ID is the Plan's general infrastructure and delivery policy, it is the place for an explicit cumulative impact test. A new criterion should require the Councils, in assessing viability under criteria 8 and 9, to consider the combined effect of all applicable Local Plan requirements together rather than each policy's burden being tested in isolation, since no individual policy's own evidence base is positioned to capture the others stacking up on the same scheme. There should also be an insertion into the policy regarding the reasonable expectation that utility providers will undertake their statutory duty to provide required connections.

See representations attached:
Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Railpen requests that the 1,000 sqm threshold be raised and aligned with the Plan's other commercial thresholds, that the in-perpetuity requirement be replaced with a defined review period, and that the cumulative viability impact of J/AW alongside WS/NC, BG/EO and CC/CE be tested and reported.

See representations attached for Policy J/AW (Affordable workspace and creative industries)
Railpen objects to Policy J/AW as unsound and considers its drafting raises legal compliance concerns under section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regard to national policy). The objection is tested against the same four soundness tests as before: positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The objection is supported by the appended Affordable Workspace Viability Assessment prepared by Bidwells Land and Development.

Criterion 1 catches office and R&D development "over 1,000 square metres" with a minimum 30% (or 20%) rent discount "in perpetuity." The 30% tier alone applies across the Defined Development Extent of Cambridge and sixteen named science and business parks (para 8.50), which is the knowledge-intensive floorspace Policy S/JH relies on. Unlike affordable housing, which has extensive, tested national policy behind it, NPPF contains no equivalent mandate for discounted commercial floorspace held in perpetuity, this is a locally invented obligation with no defined review or release mechanism if the identified need reduces over a building's life. It permanently impairs asset value, not merely development-stage viability, and the evidence base does not appear to model that long-term effect.

Criteria 3(b)(ii) and 3(c) turn on matters "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council", which is an undefined test. Criterion 3(b)(i)'s route via an "approved list" of providers cannot presently be relied on, since paragraph 8.55 confirms the list "will be developed ahead of adoption" and so does not yet exist. Payment in lieu is restricted to four narrow circumstances (criterion 4), with any general viability case requiring a full independently assessed open-book assessment, the one general discount for high fit-out typologies like R&D (para 8.53) is confined to supporting text, undefined in amount, and purely discretionary.

This is a further, cumulative burden on scheme delivery, and Railpen understands it is not alone in that view. J/AW's 10% floorspace-in-perpetuity obligation, plus an annual monitoring requirement for the life of the building, sits on top of Policy WS/NC's community needs assessment and contributions, Policy BG/EO's 2.0 hectares per 1,000 employees open space standard, and Policy CC/CE's compliance costs, all capable of applying to the same office or R&D building. Unless the whole-plan Viability Assessment (para 2.27) has modelled this cumulative effect on representative office and R&D typologies, rather than testing J/AW in isolation, the policy risks being neither justified nor effective, undermining delivery of Policy S/JH's own 73,300 jobs requirement.

A concern is raised that the 1,000sqm threshold is arbitrary and risks creating a cliff-edge for development required to provide affordable workspace. A transitional and graduated approach should be introduced rather than a cut off at 1,000sqm which may discourage developers from pursuing schemes which may trigger the 1,000sqm threshold but do not benefit from the economies of scale of large and strategic schemes which may be better placed to absorb affordable workspace requirements. Introducing such a low threshold with such severe policy implications will create a two-tier offer in the commercial market, with those schemes consented after the policy is adopted having a commercial disadvantage in an already competitive market. If the policy principle is supported, then a much higher threshold will support a softer transition such that only larger schemes that are more able to accommodate the impacts of the policy are first asked to accommodate affordable workspace.

Please provide your comments below (100 words max) (give details of why you consider the plan is not legally compliant or is unsound.)
Railpen considers Policy J/AW unsound and potentially legally non-compliant because it imposes substantial, uncertain and potentially permanent obligations on office and R&D development. The requirement for discounted commercial floorspace in perpetuity lacks an equivalent national policy basis, clear review mechanisms and evidence of long-term viability impacts. Several criteria rely on undefined Council discretion, while key implementation mechanisms remain undeveloped. Railpen also raises concern about the cumulative burden of J/AW alongside other emerging policies affecting commercial development. Unless whole-plan viability evidence robustly tests these combined requirements on representative office and R&D schemes, the policy risks undermining delivery and economic growth.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Railpen requests that the 1,000 sqm threshold be raised and aligned with the Plan's other commercial thresholds, that the in-perpetuity requirement be replaced with a defined review period, and that the cumulative viability impact of J/AW alongside WS/NC, BG/EO and CC/CE be tested and reported.

See representations attached for Policy J/AW (Affordable workspace and creative industries)
Railpen objects to Policy J/AW as unsound and considers its drafting raises legal compliance concerns under section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regard to national policy). The objection is tested against the same four soundness tests as before: positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The objection is supported by the appended Affordable Workspace Viability Assessment prepared by Bidwells Land and Development.

Criterion 1 catches office and R&D development "over 1,000 square metres" with a minimum 30% (or 20%) rent discount "in perpetuity." The 30% tier alone applies across the Defined Development Extent of Cambridge and sixteen named science and business parks (para 8.50), which is the knowledge-intensive floorspace Policy S/JH relies on. Unlike affordable housing, which has extensive, tested national policy behind it, NPPF contains no equivalent mandate for discounted commercial floorspace held in perpetuity, this is a locally invented obligation with no defined review or release mechanism if the identified need reduces over a building's life. It permanently impairs asset value, not merely development-stage viability, and the evidence base does not appear to model that long-term effect.

Criteria 3(b)(ii) and 3(c) turn on matters "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council", which is an undefined test. Criterion 3(b)(i)'s route via an "approved list" of providers cannot presently be relied on, since paragraph 8.55 confirms the list "will be developed ahead of adoption" and so does not yet exist. Payment in lieu is restricted to four narrow circumstances (criterion 4), with any general viability case requiring a full independently assessed open-book assessment, the one general discount for high fit-out typologies like R&D (para 8.53) is confined to supporting text, undefined in amount, and purely discretionary.

This is a further, cumulative burden on scheme delivery, and Railpen understands it is not alone in that view. J/AW's 10% floorspace-in-perpetuity obligation, plus an annual monitoring requirement for the life of the building, sits on top of Policy WS/NC's community needs assessment and contributions, Policy BG/EO's 2.0 hectares per 1,000 employees open space standard, and Policy CC/CE's compliance costs, all capable of applying to the same office or R&D building. Unless the whole-plan Viability Assessment (para 2.27) has modelled this cumulative effect on representative office and R&D typologies, rather than testing J/AW in isolation, the policy risks being neither justified nor effective, undermining delivery of Policy S/JH's own 73,300 jobs requirement.

A concern is raised that the 1,000sqm threshold is arbitrary and risks creating a cliff-edge for development required to provide affordable workspace. A transitional and graduated approach should be introduced rather than a cut off at 1,000sqm which may discourage developers from pursuing schemes which may trigger the 1,000sqm threshold but do not benefit from the economies of scale of large and strategic schemes which may be better placed to absorb affordable workspace requirements. Introducing such a low threshold with such severe policy implications will create a two-tier offer in the commercial market, with those schemes consented after the policy is adopted having a commercial disadvantage in an already competitive market. If the policy principle is supported, then a much higher threshold will support a softer transition such that only larger schemes that are more able to accommodate the impacts of the policy are first asked to accommodate affordable workspace.

Please provide your comments below (100 words max) (give details of why you consider the plan is not legally compliant or is unsound.)
Railpen considers Policy J/AW unsound and potentially legally non-compliant because it imposes substantial, uncertain and potentially permanent obligations on office and R&D development. The requirement for discounted commercial floorspace in perpetuity lacks an equivalent national policy basis, clear review mechanisms and evidence of long-term viability impacts. Several criteria rely on undefined Council discretion, while key implementation mechanisms remain undeveloped. Railpen also raises concern about the cumulative burden of J/AW alongside other emerging policies affecting commercial development. Unless whole-plan viability evidence robustly tests these combined requirements on representative office and R&D schemes, the policy risks undermining delivery and economic growth.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Railpen requests that the 1,000 sqm threshold be raised and aligned with the Plan's other commercial thresholds, that the in-perpetuity requirement be replaced with a defined review period, and that the cumulative viability impact of J/AW alongside WS/NC, BG/EO and CC/CE be tested and reported.

See representations attached for Policy J/AW (Affordable workspace and creative industries)
Railpen objects to Policy J/AW as unsound and considers its drafting raises legal compliance concerns under section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regard to national policy). The objection is tested against the same four soundness tests as before: positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The objection is supported by the appended Affordable Workspace Viability Assessment prepared by Bidwells Land and Development.

Criterion 1 catches office and R&D development "over 1,000 square metres" with a minimum 30% (or 20%) rent discount "in perpetuity." The 30% tier alone applies across the Defined Development Extent of Cambridge and sixteen named science and business parks (para 8.50), which is the knowledge-intensive floorspace Policy S/JH relies on. Unlike affordable housing, which has extensive, tested national policy behind it, NPPF contains no equivalent mandate for discounted commercial floorspace held in perpetuity, this is a locally invented obligation with no defined review or release mechanism if the identified need reduces over a building's life. It permanently impairs asset value, not merely development-stage viability, and the evidence base does not appear to model that long-term effect.

Criteria 3(b)(ii) and 3(c) turn on matters "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council", which is an undefined test. Criterion 3(b)(i)'s route via an "approved list" of providers cannot presently be relied on, since paragraph 8.55 confirms the list "will be developed ahead of adoption" and so does not yet exist. Payment in lieu is restricted to four narrow circumstances (criterion 4), with any general viability case requiring a full independently assessed open-book assessment, the one general discount for high fit-out typologies like R&D (para 8.53) is confined to supporting text, undefined in amount, and purely discretionary.

This is a further, cumulative burden on scheme delivery, and Railpen understands it is not alone in that view. J/AW's 10% floorspace-in-perpetuity obligation, plus an annual monitoring requirement for the life of the building, sits on top of Policy WS/NC's community needs assessment and contributions, Policy BG/EO's 2.0 hectares per 1,000 employees open space standard, and Policy CC/CE's compliance costs, all capable of applying to the same office or R&D building. Unless the whole-plan Viability Assessment (para 2.27) has modelled this cumulative effect on representative office and R&D typologies, rather than testing J/AW in isolation, the policy risks being neither justified nor effective, undermining delivery of Policy S/JH's own 73,300 jobs requirement.

A concern is raised that the 1,000sqm threshold is arbitrary and risks creating a cliff-edge for development required to provide affordable workspace. A transitional and graduated approach should be introduced rather than a cut off at 1,000sqm which may discourage developers from pursuing schemes which may trigger the 1,000sqm threshold but do not benefit from the economies of scale of large and strategic schemes which may be better placed to absorb affordable workspace requirements. Introducing such a low threshold with such severe policy implications will create a two-tier offer in the commercial market, with those schemes consented after the policy is adopted having a commercial disadvantage in an already competitive market. If the policy principle is supported, then a much higher threshold will support a softer transition such that only larger schemes that are more able to accommodate the impacts of the policy are first asked to accommodate affordable workspace.

Please provide your comments below (100 words max) (give details of why you consider the plan is not legally compliant or is unsound.)
Railpen considers Policy J/AW unsound and potentially legally non-compliant because it imposes substantial, uncertain and potentially permanent obligations on office and R&D development. The requirement for discounted commercial floorspace in perpetuity lacks an equivalent national policy basis, clear review mechanisms and evidence of long-term viability impacts. Several criteria rely on undefined Council discretion, while key implementation mechanisms remain undeveloped. Railpen also raises concern about the cumulative burden of J/AW alongside other emerging policies affecting commercial development. Unless whole-plan viability evidence robustly tests these combined requirements on representative office and R&D schemes, the policy risks undermining delivery and economic growth.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Railpen requests that the 1,000 sqm threshold be raised and aligned with the Plan's other commercial thresholds, that the in-perpetuity requirement be replaced with a defined review period, and that the cumulative viability impact of J/AW alongside WS/NC, BG/EO and CC/CE be tested and reported.

See representations attached for Policy J/AW (Affordable workspace and creative industries)
Railpen objects to Policy J/AW as unsound and considers its drafting raises legal compliance concerns under section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regard to national policy). The objection is tested against the same four soundness tests as before: positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The objection is supported by the appended Affordable Workspace Viability Assessment prepared by Bidwells Land and Development.

Criterion 1 catches office and R&D development "over 1,000 square metres" with a minimum 30% (or 20%) rent discount "in perpetuity." The 30% tier alone applies across the Defined Development Extent of Cambridge and sixteen named science and business parks (para 8.50), which is the knowledge-intensive floorspace Policy S/JH relies on. Unlike affordable housing, which has extensive, tested national policy behind it, NPPF contains no equivalent mandate for discounted commercial floorspace held in perpetuity, this is a locally invented obligation with no defined review or release mechanism if the identified need reduces over a building's life. It permanently impairs asset value, not merely development-stage viability, and the evidence base does not appear to model that long-term effect.

Criteria 3(b)(ii) and 3(c) turn on matters "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council", which is an undefined test. Criterion 3(b)(i)'s route via an "approved list" of providers cannot presently be relied on, since paragraph 8.55 confirms the list "will be developed ahead of adoption" and so does not yet exist. Payment in lieu is restricted to four narrow circumstances (criterion 4), with any general viability case requiring a full independently assessed open-book assessment, the one general discount for high fit-out typologies like R&D (para 8.53) is confined to supporting text, undefined in amount, and purely discretionary.

This is a further, cumulative burden on scheme delivery, and Railpen understands it is not alone in that view. J/AW's 10% floorspace-in-perpetuity obligation, plus an annual monitoring requirement for the life of the building, sits on top of Policy WS/NC's community needs assessment and contributions, Policy BG/EO's 2.0 hectares per 1,000 employees open space standard, and Policy CC/CE's compliance costs, all capable of applying to the same office or R&D building. Unless the whole-plan Viability Assessment (para 2.27) has modelled this cumulative effect on representative office and R&D typologies, rather than testing J/AW in isolation, the policy risks being neither justified nor effective, undermining delivery of Policy S/JH's own 73,300 jobs requirement.

A concern is raised that the 1,000sqm threshold is arbitrary and risks creating a cliff-edge for development required to provide affordable workspace. A transitional and graduated approach should be introduced rather than a cut off at 1,000sqm which may discourage developers from pursuing schemes which may trigger the 1,000sqm threshold but do not benefit from the economies of scale of large and strategic schemes which may be better placed to absorb affordable workspace requirements. Introducing such a low threshold with such severe policy implications will create a two-tier offer in the commercial market, with those schemes consented after the policy is adopted having a commercial disadvantage in an already competitive market. If the policy principle is supported, then a much higher threshold will support a softer transition such that only larger schemes that are more able to accommodate the impacts of the policy are first asked to accommodate affordable workspace.

Please provide your comments below (100 words max) (give details of why you consider the plan is not legally compliant or is unsound.)
Railpen considers Policy J/AW unsound and potentially legally non-compliant because it imposes substantial, uncertain and potentially permanent obligations on office and R&D development. The requirement for discounted commercial floorspace in perpetuity lacks an equivalent national policy basis, clear review mechanisms and evidence of long-term viability impacts. Several criteria rely on undefined Council discretion, while key implementation mechanisms remain undeveloped. Railpen also raises concern about the cumulative burden of J/AW alongside other emerging policies affecting commercial development. Unless whole-plan viability evidence robustly tests these combined requirements on representative office and R&D schemes, the policy risks undermining delivery and economic growth.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Railpen requests that the 1,000 sqm threshold be raised and aligned with the Plan's other commercial thresholds, that the in-perpetuity requirement be replaced with a defined review period, and that the cumulative viability impact of J/AW alongside WS/NC, BG/EO and CC/CE be tested and reported.

See representations attached for Policy J/AW (Affordable workspace and creative industries)
Railpen objects to Policy J/AW as unsound and considers its drafting raises legal compliance concerns under section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regard to national policy). The objection is tested against the same four soundness tests as before: positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The objection is supported by the appended Affordable Workspace Viability Assessment prepared by Bidwells Land and Development.

Criterion 1 catches office and R&D development "over 1,000 square metres" with a minimum 30% (or 20%) rent discount "in perpetuity." The 30% tier alone applies across the Defined Development Extent of Cambridge and sixteen named science and business parks (para 8.50), which is the knowledge-intensive floorspace Policy S/JH relies on. Unlike affordable housing, which has extensive, tested national policy behind it, NPPF contains no equivalent mandate for discounted commercial floorspace held in perpetuity, this is a locally invented obligation with no defined review or release mechanism if the identified need reduces over a building's life. It permanently impairs asset value, not merely development-stage viability, and the evidence base does not appear to model that long-term effect.

Criteria 3(b)(ii) and 3(c) turn on matters "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council", which is an undefined test. Criterion 3(b)(i)'s route via an "approved list" of providers cannot presently be relied on, since paragraph 8.55 confirms the list "will be developed ahead of adoption" and so does not yet exist. Payment in lieu is restricted to four narrow circumstances (criterion 4), with any general viability case requiring a full independently assessed open-book assessment, the one general discount for high fit-out typologies like R&D (para 8.53) is confined to supporting text, undefined in amount, and purely discretionary.

This is a further, cumulative burden on scheme delivery, and Railpen understands it is not alone in that view. J/AW's 10% floorspace-in-perpetuity obligation, plus an annual monitoring requirement for the life of the building, sits on top of Policy WS/NC's community needs assessment and contributions, Policy BG/EO's 2.0 hectares per 1,000 employees open space standard, and Policy CC/CE's compliance costs, all capable of applying to the same office or R&D building. Unless the whole-plan Viability Assessment (para 2.27) has modelled this cumulative effect on representative office and R&D typologies, rather than testing J/AW in isolation, the policy risks being neither justified nor effective, undermining delivery of Policy S/JH's own 73,300 jobs requirement.

A concern is raised that the 1,000sqm threshold is arbitrary and risks creating a cliff-edge for development required to provide affordable workspace. A transitional and graduated approach should be introduced rather than a cut off at 1,000sqm which may discourage developers from pursuing schemes which may trigger the 1,000sqm threshold but do not benefit from the economies of scale of large and strategic schemes which may be better placed to absorb affordable workspace requirements. Introducing such a low threshold with such severe policy implications will create a two-tier offer in the commercial market, with those schemes consented after the policy is adopted having a commercial disadvantage in an already competitive market. If the policy principle is supported, then a much higher threshold will support a softer transition such that only larger schemes that are more able to accommodate the impacts of the policy are first asked to accommodate affordable workspace.

Please provide your comments below (100 words max) (give details of why you consider the plan is not legally compliant or is unsound.)
Railpen considers Policy J/AW unsound and potentially legally non-compliant because it imposes substantial, uncertain and potentially permanent obligations on office and R&D development. The requirement for discounted commercial floorspace in perpetuity lacks an equivalent national policy basis, clear review mechanisms and evidence of long-term viability impacts. Several criteria rely on undefined Council discretion, while key implementation mechanisms remain undeveloped. Railpen also raises concern about the cumulative burden of J/AW alongside other emerging policies affecting commercial development. Unless whole-plan viability evidence robustly tests these combined requirements on representative office and R&D schemes, the policy risks undermining delivery and economic growth.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Railpen requests that the 1,000 sqm threshold be raised and aligned with the Plan's other commercial thresholds, that the in-perpetuity requirement be replaced with a defined review period, and that the cumulative viability impact of J/AW alongside WS/NC, BG/EO and CC/CE be tested and reported.

See representations attached for Policy J/AW (Affordable workspace and creative industries)
Railpen objects to Policy J/AW as unsound and considers its drafting raises legal compliance concerns under section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regard to national policy). The objection is tested against the same four soundness tests as before: positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The objection is supported by the appended Affordable Workspace Viability Assessment prepared by Bidwells Land and Development.

Criterion 1 catches office and R&D development "over 1,000 square metres" with a minimum 30% (or 20%) rent discount "in perpetuity." The 30% tier alone applies across the Defined Development Extent of Cambridge and sixteen named science and business parks (para 8.50), which is the knowledge-intensive floorspace Policy S/JH relies on. Unlike affordable housing, which has extensive, tested national policy behind it, NPPF contains no equivalent mandate for discounted commercial floorspace held in perpetuity, this is a locally invented obligation with no defined review or release mechanism if the identified need reduces over a building's life. It permanently impairs asset value, not merely development-stage viability, and the evidence base does not appear to model that long-term effect.

Criteria 3(b)(ii) and 3(c) turn on matters "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council", which is an undefined test. Criterion 3(b)(i)'s route via an "approved list" of providers cannot presently be relied on, since paragraph 8.55 confirms the list "will be developed ahead of adoption" and so does not yet exist. Payment in lieu is restricted to four narrow circumstances (criterion 4), with any general viability case requiring a full independently assessed open-book assessment, the one general discount for high fit-out typologies like R&D (para 8.53) is confined to supporting text, undefined in amount, and purely discretionary.

This is a further, cumulative burden on scheme delivery, and Railpen understands it is not alone in that view. J/AW's 10% floorspace-in-perpetuity obligation, plus an annual monitoring requirement for the life of the building, sits on top of Policy WS/NC's community needs assessment and contributions, Policy BG/EO's 2.0 hectares per 1,000 employees open space standard, and Policy CC/CE's compliance costs, all capable of applying to the same office or R&D building. Unless the whole-plan Viability Assessment (para 2.27) has modelled this cumulative effect on representative office and R&D typologies, rather than testing J/AW in isolation, the policy risks being neither justified nor effective, undermining delivery of Policy S/JH's own 73,300 jobs requirement.

A concern is raised that the 1,000sqm threshold is arbitrary and risks creating a cliff-edge for development required to provide affordable workspace. A transitional and graduated approach should be introduced rather than a cut off at 1,000sqm which may discourage developers from pursuing schemes which may trigger the 1,000sqm threshold but do not benefit from the economies of scale of large and strategic schemes which may be better placed to absorb affordable workspace requirements. Introducing such a low threshold with such severe policy implications will create a two-tier offer in the commercial market, with those schemes consented after the policy is adopted having a commercial disadvantage in an already competitive market. If the policy principle is supported, then a much higher threshold will support a softer transition such that only larger schemes that are more able to accommodate the impacts of the policy are first asked to accommodate affordable workspace.

Please provide your comments below (100 words max) (give details of why you consider the plan is not legally compliant or is unsound.)
Railpen considers Policy J/AW unsound and potentially legally non-compliant because it imposes substantial, uncertain and potentially permanent obligations on office and R&D development. The requirement for discounted commercial floorspace in perpetuity lacks an equivalent national policy basis, clear review mechanisms and evidence of long-term viability impacts. Several criteria rely on undefined Council discretion, while key implementation mechanisms remain undeveloped. Railpen also raises concern about the cumulative burden of J/AW alongside other emerging policies affecting commercial development. Unless whole-plan viability evidence robustly tests these combined requirements on representative office and R&D schemes, the policy risks undermining delivery and economic growth.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Railpen requests that the 1,000 sqm threshold be raised and aligned with the Plan's other commercial thresholds, that the in-perpetuity requirement be replaced with a defined review period, and that the cumulative viability impact of J/AW alongside WS/NC, BG/EO and CC/CE be tested and reported.

See representations attached for Policy J/AW (Affordable workspace and creative industries)
Railpen objects to Policy J/AW as unsound and considers its drafting raises legal compliance concerns under section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regard to national policy). The objection is tested against the same four soundness tests as before: positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The objection is supported by the appended Affordable Workspace Viability Assessment prepared by Bidwells Land and Development.

Criterion 1 catches office and R&D development "over 1,000 square metres" with a minimum 30% (or 20%) rent discount "in perpetuity." The 30% tier alone applies across the Defined Development Extent of Cambridge and sixteen named science and business parks (para 8.50), which is the knowledge-intensive floorspace Policy S/JH relies on. Unlike affordable housing, which has extensive, tested national policy behind it, NPPF contains no equivalent mandate for discounted commercial floorspace held in perpetuity, this is a locally invented obligation with no defined review or release mechanism if the identified need reduces over a building's life. It permanently impairs asset value, not merely development-stage viability, and the evidence base does not appear to model that long-term effect.

Criteria 3(b)(ii) and 3(c) turn on matters "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council", which is an undefined test. Criterion 3(b)(i)'s route via an "approved list" of providers cannot presently be relied on, since paragraph 8.55 confirms the list "will be developed ahead of adoption" and so does not yet exist. Payment in lieu is restricted to four narrow circumstances (criterion 4), with any general viability case requiring a full independently assessed open-book assessment, the one general discount for high fit-out typologies like R&D (para 8.53) is confined to supporting text, undefined in amount, and purely discretionary.

This is a further, cumulative burden on scheme delivery, and Railpen understands it is not alone in that view. J/AW's 10% floorspace-in-perpetuity obligation, plus an annual monitoring requirement for the life of the building, sits on top of Policy WS/NC's community needs assessment and contributions, Policy BG/EO's 2.0 hectares per 1,000 employees open space standard, and Policy CC/CE's compliance costs, all capable of applying to the same office or R&D building. Unless the whole-plan Viability Assessment (para 2.27) has modelled this cumulative effect on representative office and R&D typologies, rather than testing J/AW in isolation, the policy risks being neither justified nor effective, undermining delivery of Policy S/JH's own 73,300 jobs requirement.

A concern is raised that the 1,000sqm threshold is arbitrary and risks creating a cliff-edge for development required to provide affordable workspace. A transitional and graduated approach should be introduced rather than a cut off at 1,000sqm which may discourage developers from pursuing schemes which may trigger the 1,000sqm threshold but do not benefit from the economies of scale of large and strategic schemes which may be better placed to absorb affordable workspace requirements. Introducing such a low threshold with such severe policy implications will create a two-tier offer in the commercial market, with those schemes consented after the policy is adopted having a commercial disadvantage in an already competitive market. If the policy principle is supported, then a much higher threshold will support a softer transition such that only larger schemes that are more able to accommodate the impacts of the policy are first asked to accommodate affordable workspace.

Please provide your comments below (100 words max) (give details of why you consider the plan is not legally compliant or is unsound.)
Railpen considers Policy J/AW unsound and potentially legally non-compliant because it imposes substantial, uncertain and potentially permanent obligations on office and R&D development. The requirement for discounted commercial floorspace in perpetuity lacks an equivalent national policy basis, clear review mechanisms and evidence of long-term viability impacts. Several criteria rely on undefined Council discretion, while key implementation mechanisms remain undeveloped. Railpen also raises concern about the cumulative burden of J/AW alongside other emerging policies affecting commercial development. Unless whole-plan viability evidence robustly tests these combined requirements on representative office and R&D schemes, the policy risks undermining delivery and economic growth.

Railpen proposes the following amended wording to replace the existing text in the draft Local Plan:
Railpen requests that the 1,000 sqm threshold be raised and aligned with the Plan's other commercial thresholds, that the in-perpetuity requirement be replaced with a defined review period, and that the cumulative viability impact of J/AW alongside WS/NC, BG/EO and CC/CE be tested and reported.