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

Status of SPDs

SPDs by definition cannot introduce new planning policies. The purpose of SPDs is to provide detailed advice or guidance on the adopted Local Plan policy. Planning Practice Guidance - Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 61-008-20190315,states:

What is the role of supplementary planning documents?
Supplementary planning documents (SPDs) should build upon and provide more detailed advice or guidance on policies in an adopted local plan. As they do not form part of the development plan, they cannot introduce new planning policies into the development plan. They are however a material consideration in decision-making. They should not add unnecessarily to the financial burdens on development.
Para 1.6 of the draft SPD recognises that ….”The SPD does not introduce new planning policy but seeks to give effect to existing development plan policies”, i.e. the Cambridge City Local Plan 2018 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

However, we highlight below two examples (BNG and Affordable Workspace) where the draft SPD appears to encourage new or greater obligations than national law or currently adopted local planning policy allow or require. In other words the proposed BNG (i.e. 20% net gain) and Affordable Workspace (i.e. 10% of total floorspace) obligations are not supplementary to existing adopted local plan policy.

As such this document goes beyond the intended purpose of SPDs as set out in national planning policy guidance.

Given the stage the Councils are in preparation of the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan (in advance of Regulation 18 consultation draft policy), very little weight can be attached to and therefore any obligations seeking to be attached to it. Further it means that only those parts of the SPD which relate to adopted policy could reasonably be regarded as a material consideration and not the document as a whole.



Regulation 122

In the absence of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Planning obligations will typically be secured through a s106 Agreement, made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

As Para 1.26 of the draft SPD notes, Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (“the CIL Regulations”) (as amended) sets out that it is unlawful for a planning obligation to be taken, if the obligation does not meet all of the following tests:
a. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b. directly related to the development; and
c. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

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.

Biodiversity (Chapter 6)

The adopted Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans contain policies requiring “no net loss in biodiversity”.
However, in England Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is mandatory under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Nationally, developers must deliver a BNG of at least 10% for all developments to deliver more or a better quality natural habitat than there was before development.

The draft SPD incorporates the introduction of statutory BNG of 10% (Para 6.4) but also sets out …” an aspirational vision to achieve 20% BNG encouraged as best practice”, for which there is no national requirement, nor does this requirement appear in adopted plan policies. It is noted that the amended draft has now dropped the original SPD intention to incorporate the 20% BNG level within the new GCLP.

Caius seeks confirmation that the emerging GCLP will only seek the statutory BNG of 10% and will not seek a 20% BNG as a minimum. Whilst at this stage the wording appears discretionary, Caius (along with its partners IWM and Henry Boot Developments) is concerned that the stated intention to encourage 20% BNG could give rise to uncertainty in viability assessments and pressure to deliver the 20% target in negotiations without justification, delaying delivery of important development projects.

If the planning authorities wish to encourage 20% BNG then this should be a matter for an independent Inspector of the emerging Local Plan to review by way of an EiP based on whether it will actually impact viability of development, as this is outside the remit of the SPD.

At Para 20.9 the draft SPD states. … “New major commercial developments, including mixed use schemes, are encouraged to make provision for affordable employment space. The provision of an element of affordable employment space will be most suited to large commercial schemes, e.g. proposals over 10,000m2, in use classes
E(g), B2 and B8, with 10% as the suggested amount of floorspace to be given
over to affordable use”.

The adopted Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans do not include policies requiring affordable workspace provision. In other words there are no adopted plan policies for affordable workspace to be supplementary to. It is noted that…”The potential for a requirement is being explored through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan”.

Whilst at this stage the wording appears discretionary Caius, along with its partners IWM and Henry Boot Developments at IWM Duxford AvTech (which is proposing circa 50,000 sqm of specialised employment space) are concerned that the stated intention to encourage 10% affordable workspace could give rise to uncertainty in viability assessments and pressure to deliver the 10% target in negotiations, delaying delivery of important development projects. If the planning authorities wish to encourage 10% affordable workspace, then this should be a matter for an independent Inspector of the emerging Local Plan to review by way of an EiP based on whether it will actually impact viability of development, as this is outside the remit of the SPD.