Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document

Support

Representation ID: 200378

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Great Shelford Parish Council welcomes the publication of this document which makes the approach of GCSP to planning applications on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (“CBC”) more transparent and helps to fill a gap left by the failure of CBC to update the 2010 Strategic Masterplan and Vision.

We would like GCSP to look for other opportunities in the SPD to emphasise the importance to CBC of sufficient and properly maintained healthcare provision at CBC. The Parish Council opposes any further expansion of CBC. Vision 2050 is not fit for purpose. Further development at CBC will place further strain on our already stressed infrastructure: water and electricity.

Comment

Representation ID: 200383

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We support the ambition set out in paragraph 2.9 but suggest it is redrafted as below to more accurately describe the complex four-stranded mission at CBC and the need for a balance between those strands.

“The Cambridge Biomedical Campus will be a world-leading location for excellence in healthcare, education, medical innovation and life science research integrated with surrounding communities as well as the wider landscape beyond the city. Campus occupiers will collectively pursue a shared mission of
• advancement in healthcare
• research and development related to human health
• the education and training of the healthcare workforce
• Health technology and healthcare process innovation.
Individual organisations will focus on a different aspect, or aspects, of the quadripartite mission, with overlaps. The campus is also home to a mixed economy of public, private and third sector organisations. Balanced development between the different strands of the shared mission, and between sectors will be critical to the achievement of the vision, as will the fostering of productive connections between organisations and sectors. The Campus already amounts to a significant and separately identifiable area of the City. The principles of placemaking, including the promotion of health and well-being, will be pivotal to its future sustainability and success.”

Comment

Representation ID: 200384

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

- In paragraph 3.2, as already noted, the NPPF2024 has recently been published. Its paragraph 7 now says “the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”. Paragraph 3.2 should more accurately reflect this.

Comment

Representation ID: 200385

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

4a.3 does not adequately capture the need to consider the appearance of CBC itself (as a whole), and the city edge it creates, from the Green Belt and from nearby hills or approach roads.

We do not believe that the development principles adequately reflect the dilapidated state of Addenbrookes and the urgent need for its redevelopment to be planned and then implemented.

Paragraph 4e.1.2 appears inappropriate in relation to old hospital buildings.

Comment

Representation ID: 200386

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

An informal meeting with the most closely impacted communities such as this parish would have been appropriate prior to publication of this draft SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 200666

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

The relevant purposes of the Green Belt should also be repeated in this SPD, namely:
“ to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;”.

Applicants should be required to have express regard to these matters. We are also concerned that CBC will never be satisfied with land allocated to it for expansion and will continue to ask for more.

Comment

Representation ID: 200667

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We wonder whether the draft SPD could drawing developers’ attention to both the Hobson’s Conduit Trust website (and especially its annual bioblitz information) and to the relevant parts of the 2020 Greater Cambridge Chalk Streams Project Report.

The draft document does not mention the Red Cross Lane Drain City Wildlife Site.

CBC’s recently released Travel and Transport Plan 2024 to 2029 has identified that there is “no clear east-west active travel or public transport links at [CBC]”. This, plus poor wayfinding signage, significantly contributes to CBC’s lack of legibility. We would suggest that this is also referred to in the draft SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 200668

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We agree with what you say in paragraph 2.7 about the opening of Cambridge South station being likely to lead to an increase in what is essentially non-motorised user through traffic.
- We query the use of statements such as 'unique globally' and 'world class'
- In paragraph 2.5, it would be helpful to include the size of each phase in hectares.
- We suggest target dates are avoided
- We suggest removing the statement that the Cancer Research and Children's Hospitals are under construction.
- Check the accuracy of claims about mortality rates and contribution to the economy

Comment

Representation ID: 200669

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

- The map in paragraph 3.17 is useful, but should also show
(i) the site reserved for the new acute hospital,
(ii) the sites of Cambridge Surgical Hospital, the East of England Ambulance Service, the Addenbrooke’s Centre for Clinical Investigation, GSK’s Experimental Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology Unit and IdeaSpace,
(iii) use 2000 and 3000 Discovery Drive for “Discovery Drive development”. The “Plot 9” description is not particularly meaningful. Labels such as “due 2025”, “due 2028” and “in development” should be avoided and, in any event, are already not accurate. In addition, the occupiers listed in paragraph 3.19 should be the same as those shown on the map and names should be used consistently throughout the draft SPD (e.g. Victor Dadaleh is not).

In paragraph 3.19, some places shown on the map (e.g. the NHS Blood and Transplant Cambridge Donor Centre) are not listed. Internet research suggests that Iota Pharmaceuticals is at the St John’s Innovation Centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 200670

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

-Are all the “outposts with catering facilities” open to the public (paragraph 3.20)? There will be more retail in the Cambridge South station.