Object

Representation ID: 200214

Received: 22/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Mr Michael Hendry

The recognition in Paragraph 18.1 that “new developments place new requirements for emergency services” is welcomed; however, the second sentence in the paragraph should be reworded to read “Developers will be required to mitigate this impact to make a development acceptable.” The above change would remove any ambiguity as to whether a development is required to mitigate its impact on emergency service provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 200215

Received: 22/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Mr Michael Hendry

Paragraphs 18.5, 18.6 and 18.7 and the form in which contributions should be made contained therein are welcomed and supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 200295

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Savills UK

Please see attached document for representations on behalf of Pigeon.

Comment

Representation ID: 200302

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Abbey Properties Cambridgeshire Limited

Please consider two High Court decisions were The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, R (On the Application Of) v Harborough District Council [2023] EWHC 263 (Admin) (“the Leicester NHS Trust”) and Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, R (On the Application Of) v Malvern Hills District Council & Ors [2023] EWHC 1995 (Admin) (“the Worcestershire NHS Trust”). Both suggest that NHS S106 contributions are not lawful.

Comment

Representation ID: 200323

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

This section of the SPD is based on Cambridge Local Plan Policy 85 and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan TI/8. The SPD suggests that planning obligations will be sought from all development, and that contributions will be dependent on the size and scale of the proposal. The HBF would query what evidence the Council have to support this proposal for funding for the emergency services, is there evidence of a capacity issue or a funding gap created by new development in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 200341

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge Fire and Rescue Service

Agent: James Lawson Planning

Submitted representation on behalf of Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Blue Light Partners)

"Insufficient recognition is given to the role of Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service as an ‘essential social infrastructure’ provider who contributes to the creation of sustainable new communities;

Insufficient detail is provided on the scope of developer funded infrastructure & facilities provision required to mitigate & manage the impacts of planned housing & population growth on the service capacity of the Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service;

Updated text is requested for Chapter 18- please see separate/related representations as part of the 'joint blue light' submission."

Comment

Representation ID: 200379

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: University of Cambridge

The chapter is too vague with respect to the nature and scale of potential contributions. For
very large scale development physical provision of infrastructure, such as ambulance or fire
stations may meet the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended)
Regulation 122 tests (where a costed project plan is provided) but the general funding of
emergency services (requests for revenue funding of any type, or, for example, police
cars/uniforms) are not acceptable uses of planning obligations. This text needs to be revisited.

Object

Representation ID: 200418

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge Biomedical Campus

The recognition in Paragraph 18.1 that “new developments place new requirements for emergency services” is welcomed; however, the second sentence in the paragraph should be reworded to read “Developers will be required to mitigate this impact to make a development acceptable.” The above change would remove any ambiguity as to whether a development is required to mitigate its impact on emergency service provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 200419

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge Biomedical Campus

Paragraphs 18.5, 18.6 and 18.7 and the form in which contributions should be made contained therein are welcomed and supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 200446

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Howard Felstead

The Councils will need to demonstrate how these obligations satisfy Regulation 122 with particular regard to the judgement in R (on the application of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust) v Harborough District Council (2023). The SPD should make explicit reference to the need for a Regulation 122 compliance assessment

Comment

Representation ID: 200579

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Carter Jonas

Number of people: 6

Regarding Paragraph 18.5, the draft SPD is vague on how contributions will be sought and this should be made much clearer. As, written, it is queried if the SPD meets the statutory tests. Unless the wording can be strengthened, the requirement should be deleted.