Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200292
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: 200321
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Home Builders Federation
The SPD suggests that planning obligations will be sought from all development, and that S106 agreements could be used for a variety of on-site and off-site public realm improvements.
The HBF considers that most public realm measures will be provided as the new residential development is provided and it is considered unlikely that further provision should be considered necessary. It is also considered that the Council should be working closely with the development industry to ensure that these public realm schemes are adopted and therefore there should not be any ongoing maintenance costs for these measures. Therefore, the HBF considers that this section of the SPD should be deleted.
This section of the SPD is based on Cambridge Local Plan Policies 10, 56 and 59 and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy HQ1, along with their District Design Guide SPD. The SPD suggests that planning obligations will be sought from all development, and that S106 agreements could be used for a variety of on-site and off-site public realm improvements including improving footways, street furniture, lighting or removal of street clutter, applicants will also need to demonstrate that public realm measures are suitably managed in perpetuity.
The HBF considers that most public realm measures will be provided as the new residential development is provided and it is considered unlikely that further provision should be considered necessary. It is also considered that the Council should be working closely with the development industry to ensure that these public realm schemes are adopted and therefore there should not be any ongoing maintenance costs for these measures. Therefore, the HBF considers that this section of the SPD is not needed and should be deleted.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200533
Received: 16/01/2025
Respondent: British Horse Society
There is nothing in this SPD to encourage rurality into public realm design nor access to the countryside. There is an opportunity within the rights of way section to include the need for a rural peripheral restricted byway around developments and enhance the opportunities for residents. In fact, this is an opportunity for Cambridgeshire to create a policy to ensure that this happens. That concept is already supported by the Cambs ROWIP and NPPF 104.
Please see attached report.