Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Comment

Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation

Representation ID: 200297

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Savills UK

Representation Summary:

Please see attached document for representations on behalf of Pigeon.

Full text:

Please see attached document for representations on behalf of Pigeon.

Comment

Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation

Representation ID: 200303

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Abbey Properties Cambridgeshire Limited

Representation Summary:

Whilst the principle of this approach may seem sensible care needs to be taken as to not dis-incentivise business from progressing beyond the affordable space that they occupy. Clear guidelines and thresholds would need to be established.

Full text:

Whilst the principle of this approach may seem sensible care needs to be taken as to not dis-incentivise business from progressing beyond the affordable space that they occupy. Clear guidelines and thresholds would need to be established.

Comment

Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation

Representation ID: 200356

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Jaynic

Representation Summary:

Jaynic appreciates that the new Local Plan provides an opportunity for a policy on affordable workspace
to be inserted. However, at present there are no policies within the adopted Local Plan and with the
emerging Local Plan only commencing works this Autumn/Winter 2025, we are of the opinion that this
should be something that is examined through the Local Plan process with an appointed Inspector, as
the threshold of affordable housing would be. Whilst Jaynic would not be averse to providing a certain
amount of affordable workspace on commercial development in South Cambridgeshire, further clarity
is required to understand the how this will be practically carried out, for example through S106

Full text:

Please find attached our representations regarding the Planning Obligations SPD Consultation which ends at 5pm today.
You will see from our comments that we have raised a number of matters pertaining particularly to commercial development and would be more than happy to assist the Planning Policy Team going forward if required.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation

Representation ID: 200381

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: University of Cambridge

Representation Summary:

We do not consider that affordable workspace requirements, which will
have financial implications for schemes (in some cases significant), can be introduced through
an SPD. This is introducing a new policy which SPDs cannot do as set out in National Planning
Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 61-008-20190315)

On a large scale employment development, 10% of space could equate to millions of pounds
worth of opportunity cost, with significant impacts on development deliverability.

This section of the SPD should be removed and if an affordable workspace policy is pursued,
it should be done so through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan where its impact on
development viability can be evidenced.

Full text:

Please find attached a response from the University of Cambridge to the Planning Obligations SPD consultation.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation

Representation ID: 200408

Received: 24/01/2025

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

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 20.11 states “the provision of an element of affordable employment space will be most suited to large commercial schemes, and as a minimum over 10,000m2, in use classes E(g), B2 and B8. In London typical agreements have secured 10% of space within qualifying schemes.”

A comparison to London is provided but London is a different market place with different rent levels, supply and demand. There does not appear to be a local policy basis to ask for a contribution in relation to affordable workspace and therefore U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP question if the planning obligation meets the Regulation 122 tests.

Full text:

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: 200454

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Urban & Civic

Agent: David Lock Associates

Representation Summary:

The aspirations behind affordable workspace are laudable, and at Waterbeach Barracks we have been involved in activating meanwhile-community-uses in existing buildings at early stages of development to meet local demand. It should be recognised however that delivering this with ongoing subsidy within new built commercial spaces will be a challenging obligation for many developers, as well as creating onerous management approaches which may lead to additional costs for developers. These aspects will need to be considered as part of the viability process to ensure the obligation is proportionate and sustainable.

Full text:

Attached is the representations submitted on behalf of our client Urban&Civic, in response to the Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation.

Comment

Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation

Representation ID: 200580

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Carter Jonas

Number of people: 6

Representation Summary:

Regarding Paragraph 20.11, It is not clear what is being asked for here. A comparison to London is provided but London is a different marketplace with different rent levels, supply and demand. There does not appear to be a
local policy basis to ask for a contribution in relation to affordable workspace and therefore it is questioned whether the planning obligation meets the Regulation 122 tests.

Full text:

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