Steeple Morden Parish Council would like to see that all information contained in the Viability Assessment is made public seven days before the meeting.

Viability (Chapter 2)

It is noted that the draft SPD sets out 20 potential areas (Chapters 4 to 23) where planning obligations maybe sought. These could place significant additional costs on development. As set out above, the PPG (Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 61-008-20190315) states ….“They should not add unnecessarily to the financial burdens on development”.

We note a “Costing Report” has been prepared but this does not deal with the costs of all SPD proposed obligations (e.g. BNG or affordable workspace) or cumulative impact on viability.

It will therefore be important to ensure Reg 122 tests are appropriately applied by the planning authority and applicants. In addition and as set out at Para 2.49 there will be need to tailor obligations on a case by case basis subject to a financial viability assessment being submitted, reflecting the current recommended approach set out in National Planning Guidance.

Endurance is concerned that there are a number of areas where the Councils appear to be introducing new policy approaches which go beyond the requirements of the adopted Development Plan, contrary to Planning Practice Guidance. This includes:

• An aspirational target for 20% BNG (Chapter 6) that is not supported by adopted policies.
• Financial contributions towards Social and Community Support Services (Chapter 8).
• Financial contributions towards Burial Space (Chapter 13)
• A requirement for residential developments to contribute towards Local Employment & Skills (Chapter 19)
• A requirement for large commercial developments to provide affordable workspace (Chapter 20)

Endurance considers that there is insufficient policy support to justify the use of planning obligations for these services and is concerned that the Councils appear to be introducing new policy approaches which go beyond the requirements of the adopted Development Plan contrary to the PPG. As such, it is considered that the proposed approach within the draft SPD would not meet the statutory and policy tests within Regulation 122 and the NPPF.

Endurance notes that the draft SPD proposes a number of new or updated funding formulas for financial contributions towards various infrastructure or services potentially impacted by new development and which are based on the Council’s Infrastructure Costings Review (July 2025). These include formulas for calculating:

• Off-site provision of Natural Greenspace within South Cambridgeshire (Chapter 5),
• Community Services (Chapter 7),
• Burial Space (Chapter 13)
• Public Open Space (Chapter 14); and,
• Indoor Sport (Chapter 16).

Endurance is concerned that these have not been tested in the round to ensure that the cumulative effect of the proposed contributions does not compromise the viability of development. It is noted that the Infrastructure Costings Review on which the new formulas are based has been produced to support the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan and Endurance therefore question its appropriateness as a basis for justifying increases in development contributions at this time, ahead of the adoption of the new Local Plan.

We would highlight that, according to the PPG (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901), it is inappropriate for plan-makers to establish new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not undergo examination and the effect on site viability and delivery cannot be considered in the round. We therefore question the Councils’ approach in seeking to undertake major changes to planning obligations funding requirements through this SPD and consider that the proposed approach within the draft SPD would not meet the statutory tests within Regulation 122

Accordingly, to remedy this, the Councils should either delay the publication of the SPD until the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan has been adopted or at the very least remove these new formulaic funding requirements from the SPD.

Paragraph 2.14 sets out the approach that applicants should take in providing details of proposed planning obligations for new developments and states that “In the case of strategic development proposals, a detailed proposal setting out draft ‘Heads of Terms’ (HoT’s) should be submitted” rather than a full s106 Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking as would otherwise be the case. However, “strategic development” is not defined such that it is unclear under which circumstances the two approaches will be applied.

More generally, we would add that the draft SPD does not currently include a Glossary of Terms and would suggest that this would provide helpful clarity in terms of the interpretation of the SPD.

We have reviewed the current draft, are satisfied with the level of engagement through the process. However we wish to raise two specific matters, the first of which is a number of minor drafting issues (see table in attached response).

The second is with regard to the removal of text relating to 'specialist housing for older people' and 'specialist supported accommodation for other groups' (paragraphs 4.12 to 4.14). The County Council has a statutory duty to commission services that meet the care needs of children and adults across Cambridgeshire. The omission of these refences presents a significant challenge, particularly in light of rising demand for specialist housing demonstrated through demand profiles shared. The Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy acknowledges the importance of both market and affordable housing in meeting this demand. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the SPD to set out how such provision will be secured through Section 106 agreements for residential developments.

Introduction:
Churchill Living and McCarthy Stone are independent and competing housebuilders specialising in sheltered housing for older people. Together, they are responsible for delivering approximately 90% of England’s specialist owner-occupied retirement housing. These companies are therefore well placed to comment on planning policy insofar as it impacts the delivery of this specialist housing typology.

Please find below our comment on the draft policies within this consultation insofar as they impact the delivery of specialist accommodation for older persons.

Viability Considerations:
Having reviewed the draft SPD, we feel that it is important to provide comment in respect of the possible cumulative impact of planning obligations on development viability. We have concerns about how these rates impact on specialist housing proposals for older people and the lack of clarity at present as to how the cumulative impact of these requirements impact on the viability of housing for older people in particular.

The PPG sets out the following requirements:

Where should policy on seeking planning obligations be set out? Policies for planning obligations should be set out in plans and examined in public. Policy requirements should be clear so that they can be accurately accounted for in the price paid for land.

Such policies should be informed by evidence of infrastructure and affordable housing need, and a proportionate assessment of viability. This evidence of need can be standardised or formulaic (for example regional cost multipliers for providing school places. See the guidance from the Department for Education on
‘Securing developer contributions for education’. However, plan makers should consider how needs and viability may differ between site typologies and may choose to set different policy requirements for different sites or types of development in their plans.

It is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not be subject to examination. Whilst standardised or formulaic evidence may have informed the identification of needs and costs and the setting of plan policies, the decision maker must still ensure that each planning obligation sought meets the statutory tests set out in regulation 122. This means that if a formulaic approach to developer contributions is adopted, the levy can be used to address the cumulative impact of infrastructure in an area, while planning obligations will be appropriate for funding a project that is directly related to that specific development.

Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of development which benefits local communities and supports the provision of local infrastructure. Local communities should be involved in the setting of policies for contributions expected from development.
See related guidance:
Viability and Plan-Making
Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901
Revision date: 01 09 2019 See
previous version

The Draft SPD states at paragraph 2.48 that:

Planning obligations are a necessary cost of development and it will be expected that the likely cost of obligations, including requirements for affordable housing provision, will be factored into the development cost from an early stage. Furthermore, both Local Plans have been informed by evidence of infrastructure and affordable housing need and supported by a proportionate assessment of viability that took into account all relevant policies, and local and national standards including the cost implications of planning obligations. Therefore, if a developer is seeking to raise viability concerns regarding the obligations due, the onus will be on the developer to provide robust information regarding the viability of an individual scheme.

It is noted that the draft SPD is accompanied by a Costing Report dated July 2025 which sets out specific and current rates for the provision of various planning obligations.

Given that the costings associated with the draft SPD requirements post-date any plan wide viability assessment on the council website, it would be beneficial if the councils might reconfirm that the cost expectations have been accurately assessed within the Greater Cambridge plan wide viability study.

We cannot locate the results of any plan wide testing which demonstrates that the viability of older persons housing remains unchallenged which would put the SPD at odds with the requirements of the PPG as referenced above.

It is imperative that each typology is accurately assessed in terms of viability and the reasonable S106 ask applied to demonstrate these proposed obligations do not put delivery at risk.

The SPD creates an expectation that any S106 ask should be viable but in reality, most brownfield sites experience viability constraints. This is particularly the case in respect of specialist housing proposals (e.g. housing for older people) which possess different viability characteristics.

In our view it is premature to adopt the SPD without first clearly addressing the requirements of the PPG and ensuring that the ‘asks’ are financially viable. It should not be left to site specific viability testing to ensure that this requirement is met as the PPG is clear that the primary role for viability testing should be at the plan making level. By simply introducing these requirements without addressing the PPG viability requirement, the expectation of decision makers is that such requirements are always
viable and deliverable Paragraph 2.53 already refers to viability ‘disputes’.

We would be grateful if you could inform us of future opportunities to comment on the emerging SPD including any viability evidence base produced to support this document.

Introduction:
Churchill Living and McCarthy Stone are independent and competing housebuilders specialising in sheltered housing for older people. Together, they are responsible for delivering approximately 90% of England’s specialist owner-occupied retirement housing. These companies are therefore well placed to comment on planning policy insofar as it impacts the delivery of this specialist housing typology.

Please find below our comment on the draft policies within this consultation insofar as they impact the delivery of specialist accommodation for older persons.

Viability Considerations:
Having reviewed the draft SPD, we feel that it is important to provide comment in respect of the possible cumulative impact of planning obligations on development viability. We have concerns about how these rates impact on specialist housing proposals for older people and the lack of clarity at present as to how the cumulative impact of these requirements impact on the viability of housing for older people in particular.

The PPG sets out the following requirements:

Where should policy on seeking planning obligations be set out? Policies for planning obligations should be set out in plans and examined in public. Policy requirements should be clear so that they can be accurately accounted for in the price paid for land.

Such policies should be informed by evidence of infrastructure and affordable housing need, and a proportionate assessment of viability. This evidence of need can be standardised or formulaic (for example regional cost multipliers for providing school places. See the guidance from the Department for Education on
‘Securing developer contributions for education’. However, plan makers should consider how needs and viability may differ between site typologies and may choose to set different policy requirements for different sites or types of development in their plans.

It is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not be subject to examination. Whilst standardised or formulaic evidence may have informed the identification of needs and costs and the setting of plan policies, the decision maker must still ensure that each planning obligation sought meets the statutory tests set out in regulation 122. This means that if a formulaic approach to developer contributions is adopted, the levy can be used to address the cumulative impact of infrastructure in an area, while planning obligations will be appropriate for funding a project that is directly related to that specific development.

Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of development which benefits local communities and supports the provision of local infrastructure. Local communities should be involved in the setting of policies for contributions expected from development.
See related guidance:
Viability and Plan-Making
Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901
Revision date: 01 09 2019 See
previous version

The Draft SPD states at paragraph 2.48 that:

Planning obligations are a necessary cost of development and it will be expected that the likely cost of obligations, including requirements for affordable housing provision, will be factored into the development cost from an early stage. Furthermore, both Local Plans have been informed by evidence of infrastructure and affordable housing need and supported by a proportionate assessment of viability that took into account all relevant policies, and local and national standards including the cost implications of planning obligations. Therefore, if a developer is seeking to raise viability concerns regarding the obligations due, the onus will be on the developer to provide robust information regarding the viability of an individual scheme.

It is noted that the draft SPD is accompanied by a Costing Report dated July 2025 which sets out specific and current rates for the provision of various planning obligations.

Given that the costings associated with the draft SPD requirements post-date any plan wide viability assessment on the council website, it would be beneficial if the councils might reconfirm that the cost expectations have been accurately assessed within the Greater Cambridge plan wide viability study.

We cannot locate the results of any plan wide testing which demonstrates that the viability of older persons housing remains unchallenged which would put the SPD at odds with the requirements of the PPG as referenced above.

It is imperative that each typology is accurately assessed in terms of viability and the reasonable S106 ask applied to demonstrate these proposed obligations do not put delivery at risk.

The SPD creates an expectation that any S106 ask should be viable but in reality, most brownfield sites experience viability constraints. This is particularly the case in respect of specialist housing proposals (e.g. housing for older people) which possess different viability characteristics.

In our view it is premature to adopt the SPD without first clearly addressing the requirements of the PPG and ensuring that the ‘asks’ are financially viable. It should not be left to site specific viability testing to ensure that this requirement is met as the PPG is clear that the primary role for viability testing should be at the plan making level. By simply introducing these requirements without addressing the PPG viability requirement, the expectation of decision makers is that such requirements are always
viable and deliverable Paragraph 2.53 already refers to viability ‘disputes’.

We would be grateful if you could inform us of future opportunities to comment on the emerging SPD including any viability evidence base produced to support this document.

Please find attached representation submitted on behalf of our client, Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects, regarding the draft Planning Obligations SPD.

Please find attached representation submitted on behalf of our client, Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects, regarding the draft Planning Obligations SPD.

Please find attached representation submitted on behalf of our client, Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects, regarding the draft Planning Obligations SPD.

Please find attached representation submitted on behalf of our client, Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects, regarding the draft Planning Obligations SPD.

Please find attached representation submitted on behalf of our client, Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects, regarding the draft Planning Obligations SPD.

Please find attached representation submitted on behalf of our client, Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects, regarding the draft Planning Obligations SPD.

This is the response of Fowlmere Parish Council to the re-consultation on the Planning Obligations SPD. We made a response on the first consultation.

-Page 14, para 2.3, second bullet. This now reads “Where approval is recommended, the detailed proposed heads of terms will need to have been agreed prior to the application being considered by the Planning Committee (Cambridge City Council Planning Committee, South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee and the Joint Development Management Committee)”. This replaces the requirement for a fully agreed and executed s.106 agreement to accompany the planning application. In our view this is a retrograde step. The negotiation of planning obligations tends to be lengthy where negotiation is delayed until after the committee resolution. We very much doubt that detailed heads of terms will stop this. In short, the adrenaline disappears after the resolution, the assumption is that all is agreed, done and dusted, and planning officers are required to deal with the next application (which is usually more interesting than spending time with lawyers) and the process becomes protracted. This has been the professional experience of the chair of our planning committee who acted at one time or another for developers, landowners and local planning authorities in the negotiation of their planning agreements.
We strongly urge SCDC and CCC to return to the original wording.

-Page 21, para 2.38. We are surprised that the monitoring and administration fees are being reduced. Reducing the charge will make monitoring and enforcement of planning obligations worse. SCDC’s experience with the community centre at Northstowe, should have burned into them and neighbouring authorities the need for close monitoring of development progress against planning obligation triggers. We urge SCDC and CCC to be absolutely certain that the fees they propose will improve monitoring and administration of s.106 agreements so that the obligations in them are delivered in full, on time.

-Page 24, para 2.50. We do not understand why the reference to the need to follow a UK recognised professional standard has been omitted, together with the example of the RICS. It is vital that development appraisals are reliable. To omit reference to recognised professionals and their regulatory bodies simply invites risky and unreliable shortcuts from persons not held to the highest standards of integrity.

-Page 42, para 4.35: “versus” not “verses”.

-Page 85, Table 13-2: the reductions in the burial cost per dwelling are very substantial. The original figures have gone down to less than a third of the original version. Are SCDC and CCC councillors certain the new figures are correct?

This is the response of Fowlmere Parish Council to the re-consultation on the Planning Obligations SPD. We made a response on the first consultation.

-Page 14, para 2.3, second bullet. This now reads “Where approval is recommended, the detailed proposed heads of terms will need to have been agreed prior to the application being considered by the Planning Committee (Cambridge City Council Planning Committee, South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee and the Joint Development Management Committee)”. This replaces the requirement for a fully agreed and executed s.106 agreement to accompany the planning application. In our view this is a retrograde step. The negotiation of planning obligations tends to be lengthy where negotiation is delayed until after the committee resolution. We very much doubt that detailed heads of terms will stop this. In short, the adrenaline disappears after the resolution, the assumption is that all is agreed, done and dusted, and planning officers are required to deal with the next application (which is usually more interesting than spending time with lawyers) and the process becomes protracted. This has been the professional experience of the chair of our planning committee who acted at one time or another for developers, landowners and local planning authorities in the negotiation of their planning agreements.
We strongly urge SCDC and CCC to return to the original wording.

-Page 21, para 2.38. We are surprised that the monitoring and administration fees are being reduced. Reducing the charge will make monitoring and enforcement of planning obligations worse. SCDC’s experience with the community centre at Northstowe, should have burned into them and neighbouring authorities the need for close monitoring of development progress against planning obligation triggers. We urge SCDC and CCC to be absolutely certain that the fees they propose will improve monitoring and administration of s.106 agreements so that the obligations in them are delivered in full, on time.

-Page 24, para 2.50. We do not understand why the reference to the need to follow a UK recognised professional standard has been omitted, together with the example of the RICS. It is vital that development appraisals are reliable. To omit reference to recognised professionals and their regulatory bodies simply invites risky and unreliable shortcuts from persons not held to the highest standards of integrity.

-Page 42, para 4.35: “versus” not “verses”.

-Page 85, Table 13-2: the reductions in the burial cost per dwelling are very substantial. The original figures have gone down to less than a third of the original version. Are SCDC and CCC councillors certain the new figures are correct?

This is the response of Fowlmere Parish Council to the re-consultation on the Planning Obligations SPD. We made a response on the first consultation.

-Page 14, para 2.3, second bullet. This now reads “Where approval is recommended, the detailed proposed heads of terms will need to have been agreed prior to the application being considered by the Planning Committee (Cambridge City Council Planning Committee, South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee and the Joint Development Management Committee)”. This replaces the requirement for a fully agreed and executed s.106 agreement to accompany the planning application. In our view this is a retrograde step. The negotiation of planning obligations tends to be lengthy where negotiation is delayed until after the committee resolution. We very much doubt that detailed heads of terms will stop this. In short, the adrenaline disappears after the resolution, the assumption is that all is agreed, done and dusted, and planning officers are required to deal with the next application (which is usually more interesting than spending time with lawyers) and the process becomes protracted. This has been the professional experience of the chair of our planning committee who acted at one time or another for developers, landowners and local planning authorities in the negotiation of their planning agreements.
We strongly urge SCDC and CCC to return to the original wording.

-Page 21, para 2.38. We are surprised that the monitoring and administration fees are being reduced. Reducing the charge will make monitoring and enforcement of planning obligations worse. SCDC’s experience with the community centre at Northstowe, should have burned into them and neighbouring authorities the need for close monitoring of development progress against planning obligation triggers. We urge SCDC and CCC to be absolutely certain that the fees they propose will improve monitoring and administration of s.106 agreements so that the obligations in them are delivered in full, on time.

-Page 24, para 2.50. We do not understand why the reference to the need to follow a UK recognised professional standard has been omitted, together with the example of the RICS. It is vital that development appraisals are reliable. To omit reference to recognised professionals and their regulatory bodies simply invites risky and unreliable shortcuts from persons not held to the highest standards of integrity.

-Page 42, para 4.35: “versus” not “verses”.

-Page 85, Table 13-2: the reductions in the burial cost per dwelling are very substantial. The original figures have gone down to less than a third of the original version. Are SCDC and CCC councillors certain the new figures are correct?