Draft Planning Obligations SPD

Your attention is drawn to Savills previous representations on the Proposed Submission Local Plan. Any representations made in respect of the policies noted here remain valid and should be considered as part of any future revisions to this document.

The relationship of obligations to the development should be clearly highlighted in this section to ensure that it is clear that obligations can/ will only be requested where they are directly necessary to make that specific development acceptable in planning terms and not risk a level of obligation which would put the delivery of development at serious risk.

Your attention is drawn to Savills previous representations on the Proposed Submission Local Plan. Any representations made in respect of the policies noted here remain valid and should be considered as part of any future revisions to this document.

Savills is concerned at CCCs approach to securing funding for informal open space through planning obligations in the context of other obligations which will be sought. It is imperative that the cumulative impact of these obligations do not jeopardise the delivery of new development opportunities and it is critical that obligations are not placed in front of the developer in order to create a burden. Only requirements directly necessary in planning terms to deliver that specific development can be funded through such means. As such a contribution may be required to accommodate the pressures of new development, but new development cannot and should not be expected to accommodate existing shortfalls.

With regards to replacement sports facilities, a significant part of the strategy outlined in the NPPF (para's 73 and 74) is missing. This NPPF outlines that replacement facilities should be required only where a surplus is not existing. Savills consider that this should be included here in the interests of fairness and transparency.

Para 73: Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up‑to‑date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.

Para 74: Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
● the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.

In the circumstances where calculations are needed to assess the amount of land for open space, the Council state that this will be done by calculating the number of new residents arising from new development. This approach needs to be set out more clearly since in the circumstances of an outline application guidance will need to be sought in the light of what information needs to be submitted by an applicant - that does not include the number of new residents in any scheme.

The issue of the availability on nearby open space is relevant in the consideration of new open space for new residential development . To that end the final paragraph should be amended to read :

".....Provision may be required on developments of less than 50 dwellings subject to design and context considerations and the availability of open space nearby"

Savills would like to understand the evidence base for the arbitrary figures set out in these paragraphs. How have these figures been arrived at? Given that the Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2011 is considered out of date and is subject to review which has not yet been published it is questionable whether these figures can be arrived at safe in the knowledge that they would not adversely impact upon delivery and development viability.

The inclusion of a table of maintenance costs based on Council's own costs is considered wholly unreasonable. The costs paid by Local Council's are likely to be significantly less (based on volume and trade discounts with suppliers) than that paid by a developer who operates nationally for example and will not have built up the same business relationships locally. No consideration is given to delivery and collection costs, nor to volume discounts or lead times, or other associated costs to developers such as overheads, staff training, travel costs (as staff will not necessarily be based in Cambridge) etc.

The costs do not relate to specific items and it is therefore unclear how this table would relate to items required by condition on a planning permission or to the general standards of items within the Cambridge setting. Street furniture required within each ward may be completely different dependant on the setting, and proximity to parks and gardens, listed buildings etc. may all impact upon the required type of furniture. The maintenance costs will vary dependent of material, position, usage etc. and as such the average type approach is warned against. The impact of this approach could be compounded by index linking the maintenance costs to the BCIS. Savills consider this approach should be firmly resisted. We are not aware of this scale of maintenance costs being addressed in this way before and suggests to us that the Council is seeking costs savings on elements that could more appropriately be covered through the normal rates payment approach

The linkage of the costs for the provision or improvement of open space to the likely number of inhabitants should be considered very carefully. Savills suggest that if this approach is progressed then it should be expanded to accommodate phasing of development and build out rates and as stated early will require clarification in the context of outline applications.