Object
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200275
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Abbey Properties Cambridgeshire Limited
The approach appears to relate to all scales of residential development which is inappropriate in our view. There is also no formula or indication of the level of contribution that may be sought. Seeking contributions from non-major housing schemes will delay the determination of applications and undermine delivery.
The approach appears to relate to all scales of residential development which is inappropriate in our view. There is also no formula or indication of the level of contribution that may be sought. Seeking contributions from non-major housing schemes will delay the determination of applications and undermine delivery.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200285
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Savills UK
Please see attached document for representations on behalf of Pigeon.
Please see attached document for representations on behalf of Pigeon.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200316
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Home Builders Federation
This section of the SPD suggests that applicants should set out the details of the number of dwellings or expected population arising from the new development. It then suggests that the Cambridgeshire County Council Planning Obligations Strategy sets the County’s approach to securing contributions. This information is not actually set out in the SPD, and it is not evident whether these figures are to be updated or indexed, or what justification there is, that these are still appropriate. Based on the link in the SPD the contributions appear to range from £28.92 per head of population increase to £97, and are based on the consultation draft Planning Obligations Strategy from 2016. The HBF would question if it is appropriate for life-long learning to be funded through residential development.
20. This section of the SPD is based on Policy 85 of the Cambridge Local Plan and Policy SC/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. The SPD states that all new residential development are to meet the developments needs for new library provision. It suggests that applicants should set out the details of the number of dwellings or expected population arising from the new development. In then suggests that the Cambridgeshire County Council Planning Obligations Strategy sets the County’s approach to securing contributions. This information is not actually set out in the SPD, and it is not evident whether these figures are to be updated or indexed, or what justification there is, that these are still appropriate. Based on the link in the SPD the contributions appear to range from £28.92 per head of population increase to £97, and are based on the consultation draft Planning Obligations Strategy from 2016. The HBF considers that it is appropriate for the Council to want to facilitate life-long learning. The HBF would question if it is appropriate for this to be funded through residential development.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200369
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: University of Cambridge
Paragraph 9.8 should acknowledge the role of the Council in running library facilities. While it
may be appropriate in some contexts for a developer to provide a library building, it should not
be incumbent on that developer, or the volunteer time of the new community, to be made to
run that facility. A library space or service should only be required as a planning obligation
where there is demonstrable need and where there are strategies in place to maintain it, that
do not require a long term commitment from the developer to do so.
Please find attached a response from the University of Cambridge to the Planning Obligations SPD consultation.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200397
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP
Agent: Carter Jonas
Paragraph 9.8 states that where new housing development will have implications for the existing library provision they may require certain developer contributions. In the list of provisions that are given it is unclear whether the requirements are mutually exclusive. For example, if a new library building is provided, is the library fit out and new stock also required? We request a greater narrative is provided on this matter to improve developer expectations and improve transparency.
On behalf of our client, U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP, please find attached our formal Representations to the Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200459
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Hill Residential Ltd (Hill)
Agent: Tor & Co
It is suggested that this separate consideration of obligations for libraries be either moved to be included within Chapter 7: Community Facilities, or cross referenced in Chapter 7 for clarity.
On behalf of Hill Residential Ltd (Hill), we have set out in the attached letter a response to the following draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations SPD.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200574
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Number of people: 6
Regarding paragraph 9.8, it states that new housing development will have implications for the existing library provision they may require certain developer contributions. In the list of provisions that are given it is unclear whether the requirements are mutually exclusive. For example, if a new library building is provided, is the library fit out and new stock also required?
We request a greater narrative is provided on this matter to improve developer expectations and improve transparency.
Dear Sir / Madam,
Here are some representations in respect of the above reference consultation draft SPD’s submitted on behalf of the following named clients:
• TLC Group
• Rockley Dene Homes Ltd
• The Fellows House Ltd
• SPK Residential Cambridge Ltd
• London Inn Hotels (Cambridge) Ltd
Yours faithfully
Colin Brown
Colin Brown MRTPI
Partner, Head of Planning & Development