Comment

Representation ID: 200173

Received: 08/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

The delivery of public art by developers has not been successful in Cambridge and has led to controversy. A better use of a financial contribution would be towards improved and new cultural venues to cater for the growing population of Cambridge.

Object

Representation ID: 200219

Received: 22/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Mr Michael Hendry

Paragraph 12.7, final sentence to read “It further establishes the approach for determining the level of public art provision.”

Comment

Representation ID: 200288

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Savills UK

Please see attached document for representations on behalf of Pigeon.

Comment

Representation ID: 200352

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Jaynic

Jaynic query the necessity of the additional work involved in the application concerning the provision of
a Public Art Strategy followed by a Public Art Delivery Plan, especially as the SPD already stipulates
that the provision of public art should be a three-way partnership between the developer, an art
consultant, and the Council, in consultation with the local community.

Given the nature of the types of development Jaynic undertake from a commercial perspective, whilst
it is acknowledged that future employees of future occupiers can enjoy the enhanced urban realm due
to the public art installations, we query whether provision should be made for public art to be provided
in a more public setting in proximity to a development site, particularly where the end development
might be a commercial/business park, or industrial site.

Comment

Representation ID: 200400

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Regarding paragraph 12.12. U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP support the principle that a 1% public art value is not appropriate for setting budgets on large major sites as public art budgets for these types of sites should be determined on a site specific and wider-geographic basis. U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP do not agree that the starting point should be 1% as this is unrealistic on such large major sites. The contribution does not meet the Regulation 122 test as being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and is not directly related to the development, therefore it cannot be considered reasonable. We therefore request for this requirement to be deleted.

Paragraph 12.4. Wording should be amended to allow the budget to be included within the Public Art Delivery Plan. As on some large major sites it may not be possible to agree a public art budget for inclusion within the s106 agreement.

Object

Representation ID: 200423

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge Biomedical Campus

Paragraph 12.7, final sentence to read “It further establishes the approach for determining the level of public art provision.”

Comment

Representation ID: 200450

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd

We would seek to understand whether major infrastructure projects, such as those related to essential utility provision, should be subject to public art requirements. Statutory utility companies are only mentioned within the South Cambridgeshire District Design Guide in the context of technical consultations related to the installation of public artwork.

It is acknowledged that decisions on the exemption of public art requirements for specific developments will be assessed case-by-case. We welcome additional clarification to confirm public art obligations would be limited to major residential developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 200577

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Carter Jonas

Number of people: 6

Regarding Paragraph 12.12, the principle that a 1% public art value is not appropriate for setting budgets on large major sites is supported. It is not considered that such a contribution would, in any event, meet the Regulation 122 test as being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and is not directly related to the development, therefore it cannot be considered reasonable. Furthermore, it is not possible to tell how the 1% gross development cost has been calculated therefore this fails the Regulation 122 test of being reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.