Pigeon generally agrees that all housing developments should include or contribute to the provision of the services and facilities necessary to meet the needs of the development. However, there are no specific policy requirements within the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan or available in adopted SPD to justify new major residential developments making financial contributions towards new Burial Space within the District. Indeed, as paragraph 13.1 acknowledges, there is no statutory duty to provide burial space. It is also noted that no planning obligations are to be sought within Cambridge City which is welcomed.

Notwithstanding the in-principle concerns regarding the requirement for major development to contribute towards the provision of new burial space, Pigeon considers that, if planning obligations are to be sought, the stated threshold above which the requirement would be applicable should be raised such that it is only applicable where new development is likely to have a material impact requiring mitigation. Paragraph 13.4 confirms that the requirement is applicable to major residential developments. Whilst this is undefined, it is assumed that this refers to developments of 10 dwellings or more in accordance with the definition of major development within the GDPO. Pigeon consider that this threshold is too low and that a more appropriate threshold would be the 200 dwellings referred to in Policy SC/4 given that these require a detailed assessment of community needs and thus the impact of such developments can be properly assessed, enabling the need for such provision to be justified or otherwise based upon demonstrable evidence.

Paragraph 13.10 states that for smaller developments, where it can be demonstrated that existing provision is insufficient to meet the needs of the development a planning obligation will be sought towards the improvement of existing provision. It is assumed that the Council is referring to developments smaller than 200 dwellings but it is considered that this should be clarified to avoid confusion as to how the guidance should be interpreted.

Moreover, with regard to the various formulas for calculating planning obligations in relation to burial space set out in Tables 13-1 to 13-2 we would again stress that Paragraph 23b-004-20190901 of the PGG emphasises that it is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents as they would not be subject to examination. Pigeon therefore consider that these should be deleted.

Endurance is concerned that the requirement for Financial contributions towards Burial Space goes beyond the requirements of the adopted Development Plan, contrary to Planning Practice Guidance.

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.

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

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?

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?