In our response to you in January 2025 we suggested that the SPD should be more ambitious in what you ask for towards sustainable transport infrastructure and services with the aim of addressing cumulative impact. We were disappointed in your response which was essentially to restate the statutory requirements for compliance with CIL Regulations.
I would like to draw your attention to how Hertfordshire County Council Highways structures its S106 agreements. We encourage Cambridgeshire, Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire to aspire to the same.
The A106 Agreement has been divided into two parts.
Strand 1 includes the usual infrastructure and service requirements to make a development acceptable in planning terms: junctions with the road network; connections to nearby active travel paths and public rights of way (where land ownerships do not prevent this); upgrades to off-site infrastructure where it is part of a key route e.g. to a local school, bus stop or railway station; funding for a new or intensified local bus service; etc. These interventions are typically delivered under a Section 278 agreement, and comply fully with all three of the regulatory compliance tests:
1. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
2. directly related to the development; and
3. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Strand 2 covers interventions to address cumulative impact. These would not be 100% compliant with all three tests, in particular the third, when considered against a single development in isolation (otherwise they would be in Strand 1). Hertfordshire County Council describes the Strand 2 contribution in the Technical Appendix (attached) on transport contributions as follows:
Section 6.0 sets out the strand 2 calculations and shows how much an individual dwelling within each District/Borough would need to pay to cumulatively cover the cost of delivering the wider necessary sustainable transport works within their area. However, it should be stressed that these figures are the starting point for S106 discussions, and each application needs to be considered on its own merits
The justification and calculation set out in section 6.0 of that document arrives at a figure of £9,861 per dwelling, index-linked to March 2024. There can be some trade-off between Strand 1 and Strand 2: where a Strand 1 intervention (e.g. an enhanced bus service) will provide wider benefit, some of the value is deducted from the amount required under Strand 2.
The Strand 2 contributions will fund a step change in the scale and quality of off-site interventions to support sustainable travel in Hertfordshire.

Ref: PH/JL/ITL17310-011

Date: 17 October 2025


Introduction
1.1 The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) have prepared a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that details the approach the councils (South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council) will take on planning obligations for new developments. An initial version of this document was previously consulted on in late 2024, which has been updated based on comments collected during that consultation.
1.2 The stated aim of this SPD is “to provide greater clarity on the process and expectations around planning obligations with the objective of speeding up the planning process.” Once adopted, it will replace the Cambridge City Council Planning Obligations Strategy SPD 2010.
1.3 As stated within the draft SPD, “It is unlawful for a planning obligation to be taken into account when determining a planning application for a development, or any part of a development, if the obligation does not meet all of the following test:
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
• Directly related to the development; and
• Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
1.4 One of the hopes of this SPD is that it ensures that negotiations on planning obligations are fair, open and reasonable. Furthermore, it states that sites developed in phases will be considered in their totality and seek to match the infrastructure provision required to the pace of the development. This phasing will also apply to financial contributions sought in S106.
1.5 i-Transport represents Martin Grant Homes (MGH), who control long-standing options for development to the North of the A428 and have been promoting a strategic development of some 5,500 homes, extensive employment, infrastructure and open space in this area, called North Cambourne. This Representation looks to give feedback on the Chapter 10: Transport and Highways section of the draft SPD.
Trip Budgets & Monitoring
1.6 The policy looks to move away from the ‘predict and provide’ approach and towards a ‘decide and provide' approach. This accords with the vision-led approach advocated in the NPPF. One of measures stated for controlling transport impacts created by new developments is called a vehicular trip budget.
1.7 There is limited detail provided on what planning situations will require a vehicular trip budget and what these budgets will look like. One element of concern on the information provided is that “Should the monitoring demonstrate that the forecast trips have exceeded the agreed vehicular trip budget, then a financial penalty, hold on future development or a revised schedule of further transport or travel planning interventions will likely be triggered.”
1.8 It is not clear whether the vehicular trip budget will be applied dogmatically, and if, for example monitoring suggests that vehicular trips are at 101 in the peak hour against an agreed budget of 100 whether such an incursion will lead to penalties. While it is stated that the level of penalty will reflect the level of breach, a ‘common sense’ approach of allowing for leeway within the figures should be implemented, as monitoring and modelling undertaken during the planning application are not perfect methods of calculating how users of new development will interact with said development.
1.9 It is unknown whether the monitoring will only consider peak hour traffic or whether the entire day will be taken into account. If for example, a development was in breach of budget for just one hour of the day, while the rest of the day was under budget, would that count as a breach, or would it be taken in the context that the rest of the day is operating well and that a level of variation is expected and thus is not considered a breach.
1.10 Clarification is needed on how the vehicular trip budget figure will be reached and the extent of monitoring required to ensure that it is not breached. If monitoring takes the form of yearly TRICS SAM Surveys for example, they will only represent a singular day which while helpful for getting an idea of the general modal share, does not account for variations in daily life that might lead to temporary changes in travel patterns.
Penalties
1.10.1 A further concern is how the penalty system accords with the CIL planning obligation tests. It is the view of i-Transport that a vehicular trip budget and the use of penalties is likely to fail these tests as follows:
Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
1.10.1.1 Penalties must go towards specific improvements to make the development acceptable. Will these improvements be in addition to ones already delivered? If so, these measures will need to be included within the S106 agreement and therefore should be delivered? If not, then this will fail the first test as they were not necessary to make the development acceptable.
Directly related to the development
1.10.1.2 It is not clear how these penalties will be spent once collected. If they are to go towards a general pot of funding, this obligation will fail the second test of being directly relevant to the development.
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
1.10.1.3 There is no detail on the scale of the penalties and how they will be calculated. If it is simply based on the number of trips exceeding the trip budget this will not meet the test. As this could lead to a development of 10 dwellings exceeding its trip budget by 1 trip paying the same as a development of 1,000 dwellings exceeding it’s trip budget by the same amount.
1.10.1.4 It is also not clear how a penalty will ensure that the proposed development goes back under budget. If a breach is minor and thus the penalty is minor to reflect this, what can practically be done to ensure that measures will be effective. It does not seem proportional or fair for a development to be entirely responsible for transport infrastructure and service improvements to influence the travel behaviour beyond what is agreed within Travel Plans, S106 and S278 agreements which are written in line with the CIL tests.
1.11 There is a lack of clarity regarding timescales of interventions. It is stated that measures should “ensure appropriate and immediate action is taken to remedy the breach.” This is unclear in its definition in “action”. If for example, the deemed appropriate action is the implementation of a new cycle path between the development and a nearby trip attractor, this is likely to take longer than a year to implement and will cause disruption while it is being undertaken. This will have impacts on travel patterns (likely for the worse) and thus by the time the next monitoring period comes around (a year later) the development is likely to still be in breach despite taking the appropriate action. Would further penalties be incurred as a result?
1.12 Without far more clarity of how trip budgets and penalties would work in practice it is a concern that it could incentivise a return to the ‘predict and provide’ approach that the GCP is looking to move away from. Further, rather than speeding up the planning process it is likely to require more lengthy discussion and negotiation to agree trip budgets, penalties and the associated s106 provisions.
1.13 Substantially more detail is needed to understand:
• How such an approach would work in practice?
• How the monitoring would be undertaken and at what scale?
• What the unintended consequences would be? and
• Whether such an obligation complies with the tests set out in national policy.
1.13.1 It is the view of i-Transport and MGH that this element of the SPD needs to be significantly reworked or removed.

Paragraphs 10.13 and 10.14 set out the circumstances under which planning obligations will be sought. Whilst Pigeon understand why no development threshold has been set and why no types of development are automatically exempt from transport infrastructure requirements, it is considered important that the text highlights that the need for, extent and nature of any obligations will be proportionate to the extent and nature of the impact of the particular development as evidenced through the submitted Transport Assessments and Transport Statements. This will ensure compliance with the relevant statutory and policy tests, particularly the requirement that planning obligations should be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Similarly, it is considered that paragraph 10.26 should also be updated to reflect this point

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

1) Page 45- para 6.12- Chapter 6 Biodiversity
Reference should be made to the local needs/characteristics of the local area /informed by the LNRS Cambridgeshire (2025).

2)Para 6.13- ‘Adequate ecological information’- reference the LNRS is needed

3)Para. 6.15- Habitat Surveys- local Biodiversity Audits should be referred to ( for example Gamlingay Local Biodiversity Audit – (in draft 2025).

4)Para 7.9- Page 50 Also should reference Neighbourhood Plans in terms of community facility needs and infrastructure.

5)Page 63 Para 10.11 Other relevant transport strategies- reference needed to local Neighbourhood Plans (i.e. GAM8 policy in Gamlingay Neighbourhood Plan specifically relates to active travel infrastructure)

6) Page 77 para. 13.6- Should reference that developers should seek early engagement with the ‘Local Burial Authority’ concerning needs for burial space. This reference should encompass both town and parish councils and district councils who have this remit.

7) General comment- Page 118 para 21.5 keeping important local village PROWs open throughout build programmes is essential for keeping local facilities accessible to their residents. Resources should be made available for temporary diversions to be in place at all times.

8)Page 122- para.22.10 – reference is made to both Gamlingay and Bassingbourn GP practices. Please develop a clear protocol what happens in these areas with regard to providing healthcare infrastructure. There needs to be a clear alternative approach and clarification here, to ensure these communities do not lose out. What is the procedure in these areas?

Thank you for consulting National Highways on the abovementioned Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

National Highways is a strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN).

It has been noted that once adopted, the SPD will become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Where relevant, National Highways will be a statutory consultee on future planning applications within the area and will assess the impact on the SRN of a planning application accordingly. National Highways encourage applicants to seek pre-application advice on schemes which could impact the SRN and discuss any mitigation requirements ahead of submission.

Notwithstanding the above comments, we have reviewed the document and we offer no further comments at this stage.