Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document re-consultation - 2025

Comment

Representation ID: 201108

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

The SPD must not introduce new planning policy but only supplement existing adopted policies; the current draft risks over‑stepping this boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 201109

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

The SPD adds new obligations that have not been subjected to up‑to‑date viability testing, making schemes potentially unviable and delaying delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 201110

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

The routine use of a viability review mechanism for reduced contributions should be avoided; it creates uncertainty and can delay site delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 201111

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

The lack of an adopted CIL charging schedule means any future CIL must be underpinned by proportionate viability testing and coordinated with S106 to avoid double‑counting.

Comment

Representation ID: 201112

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

Cross‑boundary contributions are drafted too broadly; obligations should only be sought where there is robust evidence of a direct functional link to the infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 201113

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

A fee for reviewing financial viability assessments is proposed without any guidance on its scale or calculation, which is inappropriate and lacks transparency.

Comment

Representation ID: 201114

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

Requiring viability assessments to be publicly available by default risks breaching commercial confidentiality; a case‑by‑case approach to redaction should be adopted.

Comment

Representation ID: 201115

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

The affordable‑housing mix should be driven by identified local needs rather than simply mirroring the market mix proposed by developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 201116

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

Pre‑application discussion with the Housing Strategy Team should be encouraged but not made a mandatory requirement in the SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 201117

Received: 09/10/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land and Major Projects

Agent: Turley

The valuer appointed solely by the Council for payment‑in‑lie valuations is not truly independent; the valuer should be jointly agreed and costs borne by the applicant.