Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200300
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: 200327
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Home Builders Federation
The HBF is concerned that there are further potential planning obligations that may be required from development, that are not detailed in this policy or the Plan. This does not make it straightforward for the development industry to factor these costs into their land purchases or their consideration of the costs of development. This lack of certainty can be a real issue for developers, and may lead to delays in development coming forward.
This section of the SPD then suggests that the previous sections of the SPD may not represent all of the possible planning obligations requirements that may be applicable to any individual development. It then lists some additional potential planning obligations these include community, sports or leisure or open space facilities; impacts on the historic environment; pollution, air quality, noise or odour mitigation measures; sustainable drainage systems; sustainable show homes; and digital infrastructure.
The HBF is concerned that there are further potential planning obligations that may be required from development, that are not detailed in this policy or the Plan. This does not make it straightforward for the development industry to factor these costs into their land purchases or their consideration of the costs of development. This lack of certainty can be a real issue for developers, and may lead to delays in development coming forward
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200365
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects
Agent: Turley
It is clear that the Council have not tested the viability implications of the additional requirements the SPD seeks to introduce and we are concerned about the impact that the SPD will have for existing planned for development. There are also several proposed obligations / contributions where it is not clear if the Councils have tested whether there are differences between the two authority areas. Overall, we are concerned that the document is lacking in detail and failing to provide detailed information around costings as highlighted.
On behalf our client Vistry Strategic Land, please find attached our representations to the current Planning Obligations SPD consultation.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Consultation
Representation ID: 200409
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: U+I (Cambridge) Limited and Cambridge 4 LLP
Agent: Carter Jonas
The list included in the second paragraph appears to contain a broad list of requirements as a "catch-all" at the end of the document. Although policy references are listed alongside the potential obligations, the policy wording is also vague. Planning obligations should fall within Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) and should be specific requiring the land to be used in a specific way or restricting the development or use of the land in a specific way. The inclusion of general obligations in this chapter should be reviewed.
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: 200581
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Number of people: 6
The second paragraph provides a list of additional planning obligations which relates to a broad range of issues. The list appears to set out requirements as a "catch-all" at the end of the document. Although policy references are listed alongside the potential obligations, the policy wording is also vague. Planning obligations should fall within Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) and should be specific, requiring the land to be used in a specific way. The inclusion of general obligations in this chapter should be reviewed.
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