Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Submission of the Department of Education: 1. The Department for Education (DfE) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of planning policy at the local level. 2. Under the provisions of the Education Act 2011 and the Academies Act 2010, all new state schools are now academies/free schools and DfE is the delivery body for many of these, rather than local education authorities. However, local education authorities still retain the statutory responsibility to ensure sufficient school places, including those at sixth form, and have a key role in securing contributions from development to new education infrastructure. In this context, we aim to work closely with local authority education departments and planning authorities to meet the demand for new school places and new schools. We have published guidance on education provision in garden communities and securing developer contributions for education, at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-schools-to-supporthousing-growth. You will also be aware of the corresponding additions to Planning Practice Guidance on planning obligations, viability and safe and healthy communities. 3. We would like to offer the following comments in response to the above consultation document.

No uploaded files for public display

General Comments 4. DfE notes that growth in housing stock and economic activity due to the City Deal is expected in the Greater Cambridge Area (comprised of Cambridge City Council ‘CCC’ and South Cambridgeshire District Council ‘SCDC’). This will place additional pressure on social infrastructure such as education facilities. The Plan will need to be ‘positively prepared’ to meet the objectively assessed development needs and infrastructure requirements. 5. DfE welcomes reference within the plan to support the development of appropriate social and community infrastructure within the ‘Big Themes’ of plan, and specifically at paragraph 4.3.3 regarding the need for provision of infrastructure alongside growth. 6. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that local planning authorities (LPAs) should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of communities and that LPAs should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools to widen choice in education (para 94). 7. When new schools are developed, local authorities should seek to safeguard land for new schools and any future expansion where demand indicates this might be necessary, in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance and DfE guidance on securing developer contributions for education.1 We would be happy to share examples of best practice. 8. CCC and SCDC should also have regard to the Joint Policy Statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education on Planning for Schools Development2 (2011) which sets out the government’s commitment to support the development of state-funded schools and their delivery through the planning system. 9. In light of the above and the Duty to Cooperate on strategic priorities such as community infrastructure (NPPF para 24-27)3 (3 NPPF paragraph 24-27 specifies that this collaborative working should include infrastructure providers.), DfE encourages close working with local authorities during all stages of planning policy development to help guide the development of new school infrastructure and to meet the predicted demand for primary and secondary school places. Please add DfE to your list of relevant organisations with which you engage in preparation of the plan. 10. Please note that there are two routes available for establishing a new school. Firstly, a local authority may seek proposals from new school proposers (academy trusts) to establish a free school, after which the Regional Schools Commissioner will select the successful trust. Under this ‘local authority presumption route’ the local authority is responsible for finding the site, providing the capital and managing the build process. Secondly, school proposers can apply directly to DfE during an application round or ‘wave’ to set up a free school. The local authority is less involved in this route but may support groups in pre-opening and/or provide a site. Either of these routes can be used to deliver schools on land that has been provided as a developer contribution. DfE has published further general information on opening free schools4 as well as specifically in relation to opening free schools in garden communities.5

No uploaded files for public display

11. It is positive that the Plan recognises the need for the right infrastructure to be delivered at the right time to avoid undue pressures of new development impacting existing services. 12. DfE has a number of approved Free Schools in the delivery pipeline, for which it will be important that positive safeguarding of land/site allocation and delivery policies are in place to ensure that the necessary school places are able to be delivered. 13. There are three broad policy considerations DfE would suggest in relation to this issue. Site allocations and safeguarded land 14. At this early stage of the emerging Local Plan site allocations have not yet been drafted. The next version of the Local Plan should seek to identify and/or safeguard specific sites (existing or new) which can deliver the school places needed to support growth, based on the latest evidence of identified need and demand, and the need for choice in education, in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The site allocations and/or associated safeguarding policies should also seek to clarify requirements for the delivery of new schools, including when they should be delivered to support housing growth, the minimum site area required, any preferred site characteristics, and any requirements for safeguarding additional land for future expansion of schools where need and demand indicates this might be necessary. Flexible and positive policy framework 15. It is also important that the policy context for delivering education is not unduly restrictive or onerous, to the extent that it represents a barrier to the delivery of school places, which is required by NPPF paragraph 94. Not only are places required to meet ‘basic need’, but also to provide sufficient choice of places for children to meet a variety of different educational demands. 16. In relation to this, policies should not seek to prioritise existing or specific proposed uses in preference to D1 use. This is because of the scarcity of land in the Plan area, and the need for infrastructure to be able to be delivered. If sites are protected for other uses and D1 use restricted/prevented, this is likely to lead to the unintended consequence of insufficient infrastructure being able to be delivered. DfE would therefore suggest that the provision of social infrastructure be supported through the Plan. This is discussed further below with regard to specific existing policies in both CCC and SCDC’s adopted Local Plans. 17. While it is important to provide the clarity and certainty to developers and the communities affected by development through site allocations and safeguarding, retaining a degree of flexibility about site specific requirements for schools is also necessary given that the need for school places can vary over time due to the many variables affecting it. DfE therefore recommends the Councils consider highlighting in the next version of the Plan that: - specific requirements for developer contributions to increasing capacity of existing schools and the provision of new schools for any particular site will be confirmed at application stage to ensure the latest data on identified need informs delivery; and that - requirements to deliver schools on some sites could change in future if it were demonstrated and agreed that the site had become surplus to requirements, and is therefore no longer required for school use. Developer contributions strategy 18. Where new development generates the need for new school places, developer contributions should be sought. 19. Local authorities have sometimes experienced challenges in funding schools via Section 106 planning obligations due to limitations on the pooling of developer contributions for the same item or type of infrastructure. However, the revised CIL Regulations remove this constraint, allowing unlimited pooling of developer contributions from planning obligations and the use of both Section 106 funding and CIL for the same item of infrastructure. The advantage of using Section 106 relative to CIL for funding schools is that it is clear and transparent to all stakeholders what value of contribution is being allocated by which development to which schools, thereby increasing certainty that developer contributions will be used to fund the new school places that are needed. DfE supports the use of planning obligations to secure developer contributions for education wherever there is a need to mitigate the direct impacts of development, consistent with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations. 20. Therefore, DfE would suggest specific reference to this, in an infrastructurespecific policy, and/or as part of specific site allocations which are likely to be required to contribute land and construction costs. However, it is important that all developments regardless of whether strategic in scale (but where there is demonstrable impact on the requirement for school places) contributes proportionately thereto. 21. We also request a reference within the Local Plan’s policies or supporting text to explain that developer contributions may be secured retrospectively, when it has been necessary to forward fund infrastructure projects in advance of anticipated housing growth. An example of this would be the local authority’s expansion of a secondary school to ensure that places are available in time to support development coming forward. This helps to demonstrate that the plan is positively prepared and deliverable over its period. Development Management Policies 22. Development Management policies should not be unreasonably onerous or costly for the delivery of school expansions or sites. Value for money and efficient and effective use of public funds are clearly important, and the need for timely delivery is also essential. In addition, the educational requirements of prospective pupils are an important focus when considering school layout and design. Therefore, positive and robust yet flexible and creative development management policies regarding issues such as open space, sports provision, community use, biodiversity, design, sustainable drainage, and energy etc. should be considered.

Question 2: Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible. Q2 response: 24. DfE would like to be included as early as possible in discussions on potential site allocations, as there are central wave pipeline free school projects in Greater Cambridge which may be appropriate for specific designation. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Council in the near future to discuss these projects. The provision of school places is required to ensure that the needs of existing and future communities are met, as well as widening choice, increasing quality and maximising opportunity through education. Therefore, it is important that the policy framework ensures the expedient delivery of schools and expansions. 25. In relation to questions 38-48, regarding the specific location of development, DfE would request that the infrastructure delivery considerations are assessed as part of determining the overall spatial strategy. This is to ensure that the right sites are able to be brought forward in the right timescales for infrastructure delivery, with as few additional burdens to delivery as possible.

No uploaded files for public display

26. It is not clear whether the intention is to replace or review existing adopted Local Plan policies. Therefore, the abovementioned points relating to general policy strategy for the provision of education should be considered as the context for the specific policy changes proposed below. If entirely new policies are to be produced, then the below suggestions indicate the direction of travel, as well as the general themes implied above. Education Policies 27. Education provision through Free Schools seeks to provide not only school places to meet basic need and need generated by new development, but also to enhance choice, improve quality and deliver specialist education provision. Therefore, the following adopted policies relating to education are considered to be out of date in this respect, and not wholly compliant with the NPPF paragraph 94 (which seeks to ensure sufficient choice of school places) nor are the policies positively prepared. Specialist schools are a key opportunity for increasing choice, enhancing opportunity and skills and providing a high quality variety of education provision. As such, some schools may have a wider catchment area, providing a regional education offer rather than just local. This would also be the case for other types of specialist provision, including SEN schools and faith schools. 28. SCDC Policy TI/9 / CCC Policy 74: ‘Education Facilities’ as adopted, are too narrow to sufficiently support the delivery of Free Schools, in consideration of the specialist provision that they can offer, and the wider catchment associated. The policies are based on a sole Local Authority delivery model which is no longer the way in which schools are delivered. 29. Therefore, we would propose the following changes to the policy wording, in order to fully recognise this nature of provision: SCDC Policy TI/9: 1. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT - PAGE 5 FOR COMMENTS TO THIS SECTION a. Improve the scale, range, quality and accessibility of education provision; b. Be appropriately located to for the existing and future communities they serve; c. Be delivered and phased appropriately alongside Mitigate the impact of any associated residential development; and d. Comply with the strategic objectives of Cambridgeshire County Council, the local Children’s Services Authority, National Policy regarding the delivery of school places and/or the ambition of the community they serve. 2. The Council will work with the County Council and the Department for Education to provide high quality and convenient local education services in all parts of the district, but particularly in areas of population growth. 3. Developers should engage with the Children’s Services Authority at the earliest opportunity and work co-operatively to ensure the phasing of residential development and appropriate mitigation is identified in a timely manner to ensure appropriate education provision can be secured. 4. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT - PAGE 6 FOR COMMENTS TO THIS SECTION CCC Policy 74: New or enhanced education facilities will be permitted if: a. the scale, range, quality and accessibility of education facilities are improved; b. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT - PAGE 6 FOR COMMENTS TO THIS SECTION; c. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT - PAGE 6 FOR COMMENTS TO THIS SECTION; d. they comply with the strategic objectives of the Children’s Services Authority and National Policy regarding the delivery of school places. The Council will work with the Children’s Services Authority and the Department for Education to provide high quality and convenient local education services in all parts of Cambridge, but particularly in areas of population growth. Developers should engage with the Children’s Services Authority at the earliest opportunity and work cooperatively to ensure the phasing of residential development and appropriate mitigation is identified in a timely manner to ensure appropriate education provision can be secured. Planning permission will be granted for new education facilities in locations accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, where this will meet an existing deficiency, and support regeneration or new development or achieve wider educational needs for quality enhancement and/or specialist provision. Land Use Policies 30. SCDC Policy E/14: Loss of employment and CCC Policy 41: Protection of business space would prevent employment sites and uses being diversified to provide education uses. We would propose that an additional criterion is added to allow for the change of use to community uses and social infrastructure, without the need for marketing tests or viability evidence. This is to allow for the positive planning of educational establishments, in areas where land supply can be challenging. The economic and knowledge generating benefits of education provision should be considered from a policy perspective (in terms of meeting the overall aims for sustainable development) and supported through the Local Plan. 31. CCC Policy 11: Development in the City Centre Primary Shopping Area should remove the 70% requirement for A1 uses. The High Street character is changing, and therefore there is a need for planning policy to allow greater flexibility and include further uses which can enhance the town centre, such as education, more freely within the PSA. 32. CCC Site Allocations Policies for Areas of Major Change (including Policy 12: Fitzroy/Burleigh Street/Grafton Area of Major Change and Policy 15: Cambridge Northern Fringe East and new railway station Area of Major Change) do not all currently refer to the potential inclusion or acceptability of D1 uses. We would suggest that D1 uses be more expressly supported in these policies to create a more positive policy context for education provision. Development Management Policies 33. SCDC Policy SC/8: Protection of Existing Recreation Areas, Allotments and Community Orchards, as drafted, does not differentiate between publicly accessible open space and playing fields, and school playing fields which do not typically have unrestricted access by the public. 34. The NPPF (2019) sets out at paragraph 97 that: 97. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. 35. It is important that the Local Plan allows flexibility to allow the provision of educational facilities, where there is a clear overall benefit in terms of enhanced facilities provision (taking into account local needs), despite a potential limited loss in the quantity of existing facilities, such as a new school providing indoor and outdoor facilities for sport of significantly improved quality, accessibility and availability for shared use by the local community (secured through a community use agreement if appropriate). It should be acknowledged that enhancements can take the form of both quality as well as quantity and as such, any quantitative loss may be more than compensated by qualitative enhancements. This flexibility will enable greater benefits to health and wellbeing. Policy SC/8 should be updated to reflect this context. 36. CCC Policy 67: ‘Protection of Open Space’ includes a relevant caveat for schools, which should be further reworded as follows: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT - PAGE 8 FOR COMMENTS TO THIS SECTION 37. South Cambridgeshire Policy HQ/2 requires development over 1,000 sq m to provide or contribute to the provision of public art. The delivery of schools should not be burdened by challenging and onerous obligations. These requirements can add not only significant cost to projects (which does not assist in securing value for money) but it can also challenge the construction efficiencies for new schools and significant expansions. The DfE has produced guidelines for mainstream school areas, known as ‘BB103’.6 It is important that the compliance with BB103 is not hampered by additional demands made on sites at a local policy level. In relation to this, the Educational Building and Development Officers Group (EBDOG) has published Capital Efficiency Guidance (2019) with DfE, and advises against such blanket policy approaches.7 Therefore, we would propose that the policy include a caveat to expressly exclude social infrastructure from this requirement. Forward Funding 38. DfE loans to forward fund schools as part of large residential developments may be of interest, for example if viability becomes an issue. Please see the Developer Loans for Schools prospectus for more information.8 Any offer of forward funding would seek to maximise developer contributions to education infrastructure provision while supporting delivery of schools where and when they are needed. Evidence Base 39. An up to date Infrastructure Delivery Plan should be developed alongside the next iteration of the Plan, setting out clearly how the forecast housing growth at allocated sites has been translated (via an evidence based pupil yield calculation) into an identified need for specific numbers of school places and new schools over the plan period. This would help to demonstrate that the approach to the planning and delivery of education infrastructure is justified and based on proportionate evidence, and the wider Government policy context relating to the provision of school places to meet both basic need and widen choice in education. It would also be helpful if this related to the Infrastructure Funding Statement9 and Cambridgeshire County Council school place planning document, to ensure that the approach is joined up and there is a link between need, delivery and funding requirements (and funding sought) identified. The statement should be reviewed annually to report on the amount of funding received via developer contributions and how it has been used, providing transparency to all stakeholders. 40. Viability assessment should inform options analysis and site selection, with site typologies reflecting the type and size of developments that are envisaged in the borough/district. This enables an informed judgement about which developments would be able to deliver the range of infrastructure required, including schools, leading to policy requirements that are fair, realistic and evidence-based. In accordance with Planning Practice Guidance, there should be an initial assumption that applicable developments will provide both land and funding for the construction of new schools. The total cumulative cost of complying with all relevant policies should not undermine deliverability of the plan, so it is important that anticipated education needs and costs of provision are incorporated at the outset, to inform local decisions about site selection and infrastructure priorities.10 41. Given the significant cross-boundary movement of school pupils between SCDC/CCC and adjoining areas, DfE recommends that the Council covers this matter and progress in cooperating to address it, as well as engagement with Cambridgeshire County Council as part of its Statement of Common Ground.11 This should be regularly updated during the plan-making process to reflect emerging agreements between participating authorities and the Council's own plan-making progress. Developer Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 42. One of the tests of soundness is that a Local Plan is ‘effective’, meaning the plan should be deliverable over its period. In this context and with specific regard to planning for schools, there is a need to ensure that education contributions made by developers are sufficient to deliver the additional school places required to meet the increase in demand generated by new developments. DfE notes that there is no specific reference in the Plan to either existing or proposed Planning Obligations SPD, which should be developed/updated to reflect the new Plan priorities, and that the Councils will consider whether a review CIL rates is required to ensure appropriate rates are levied and the right infrastructure is secured across the borough. 43. DfE would be particularly interested in responding to any update to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan/Infrastructure Funding Statement, viability assessment or other evidence relevant to education which may be used to inform local planning policies and CIL charging schedules. As such, please add DfE to the database for future consultations on relevant plans and proposals.

Conclusion 44. Finally, I hope the above comments are helpful in shaping the Greater Cambridge Plan, with specific regard to the provision of land and developer contributions for schools. Please advise DfE of any proposed changes to the emerging Local Plan policies, supporting text, site allocations and/or evidence base arising from these comments. 45. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this response. DfE looks forward to continuing to work with SCDC and CCC to aid in the preparation of a sound Plan.

No uploaded files for public display