As mentioned in the comments for chapter 1, 4.12 says 4.41 – 4.45 below shows calculations. Only goes up to 4.38!!!!

Without knowing the method for calculating the contribution, how can we make a comment to support this (or not)

With regards to Negotiation of affordable housing any negotiation MUST be made public and be readily available within the planning portal. Where a developer is unable to provide the required affordable housing, all communications resulting in a lesser amount MUST be made public and be readily available.

In the same way, any calculations made under "Calculation of payments in lieu of on-site provision" must also be made public and made readily available within the planning portal. Transparency on why applications which, for example, provide a lesser amount (including zero) must be made public with justification as to why approved when criteria is not met.

With regards to 4.37, we fully support this.

Paragraphs 4.17 - 4.18 provide guidance on the Tenure Mix of development. Whilst Pigeon notes and welcomes the proposed changes to this section, it is noted that the Councils have now added a table providing a detailed breakdown of the percentage of affordable housing by tenure. However, there is no table title or explanatory text to clarify whether the percentages set out are to form the basis for negotiations or are simply a worked example. It is considered that the purpose of the table should be clarified to avoid confusion as to how the Councils’ requirements should be interpreted.

Moreover, it is important to note that the standards and need outlined may change over time and therefore, assuming the mix set out is to form the basis for affordable housing tenure discussions, an additional paragraph should be added to confirm that the indicative mix should be used unless sufficient evidence demonstrates a different appropriate mix should be provided. This mix should be agreed in consultation with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to respond to the needs at the time.

Paragraph 4.24 states “The Councils may require phased developments to submit a viability assessment if during any phase of the development, the amount of affordable housing being delivered during that phase decreases…” Whilst Pigeon agree with this approach in general, additional guidance should be added for completeness to address phased developments which provide increased affordable housing in an earlier phase to allow for a reduction in another.

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.

See attached the comments from Linton Parish Council in relation to the GC Local Plan Supplementary Planning 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.

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?