Comment

Representation ID: 200171

Received: 08/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

This approach to getting investment in GI is supported. However, we need to ensure that the money is sufficient to manage the sites in the long term and not just for the first 15 years. Investing the funds in an endowment which provides a return sufficient for long term maintenance of the land should be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 200271

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Abbey Properties Cambridgeshire Limited

Paragraph 5.7 suggests that this would apply to all residential and commercial developments regardless of their scale. There is no stated commercial formula to work out the contribution. It seems excessive to also seek contributions from single or minor scale new dwellings and therefore the threshold should relate to major development. By introducing a S106 requirement for minor scale development this will slow up the planning process for those applications and potentially reduce delivery for small and medium sized developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 200281

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Savills UK

Please see attached document for representations.

Comment

Representation ID: 200349

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Jaynic

The SPD states that all new residential and commercial development is to make provision to enhance
the Green Infrastructure network. Applications should consider and detail how they are addressing the
requirement to enhance the Green Infrastructure network.

Whilst we acknowledge that it is a requirement for all development to contribute to the Green
Infrastructure Network, where Green Infrastructure enhancement is not part of an onsite proposal, there
needs to be an off-sites contributions table for commercial which reflects the residential dwelling
contributions table and sets out the Council’s expectations for financial contributions based on
commercial floorspace where Green Infrastructure cannot sufficiently be provided on site.

Comment

Representation ID: 200359

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

The SPD presents a contribution table. While this appears to relate to South Cambridgeshire only, the structure of the SPD’s supporting text would make it appear that the contribution could cover both authority areas based on the sub-heading format set out in the SPD. While the supporting text of the SPD does not imply this, it is not explicit in confirming the approach and the way the information presented is somewhat unclear. We suggest that the Councils review how this is presented and confirm that the contribution calculation is only required within South Cambridgeshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 200429

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Natural England

We welcome that a link has been provided to Natural England's GI framework in the Further Guidance section. We advise that it is referred to the text in Chapter 5 perhaps in paragraphs 5.6 or 5.8.

We also recommend that paragraph 5.8 suggests that GI contributions should be evidence-led and aligned with strategic planning.

The upcoming Local Nature Reserve Strategy will also set out biodiversity opportunities and accessible natural greenspace measure. The SPD could therefore provide guidance that future planning obligations should seek to contribute to achieving these measures.

Comment

Representation ID: 200531

Received: 16/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

GI is included in the South Cambs Local Plan. It is included in the Cambridge Local Plan. GI is included in the District Design Guide. However, the definitions of GI are different within these documents. In some, rights of way are included as part of GI, in others, including this SPD, they are not.

It would be very easy to misinterpret GI as green rural public paths and conclude that the need to protect and enhance the rural rights of way network is covered under this heading. It is not. Can this section be revisited to clarify what is included in GI and the rights of way section.