Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211805

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 16 - It is essential that the policy recognises that land optimisation will sometimes require development forms, scales, or configurations that do not enable the enhancement of all existing views into or across the
site. While the enhancement of views and visual amenity is an important consideration, it should not be treated as an absolute requirement where this would unduly constrain development or lead to the underutilisation of land that is critical to delivering the Campus’s wider strategic objectives. The proposed amendments introduce a more balanced and realistic policy approach that is positively prepared and justified, reflecting the
strategic importance of the Campus and the real-world constraints on land availability.

Comment

Representation ID: 211806

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

CUH is supportive of the position set out in Paragraph 16.a.

Comment

Representation ID: 211807

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 16.b - The use of “where appropriate” is essential and must be retained to provide the necessary flexibility for some buildings to use the ground floor for scientific equipment that must be located at that level.
This is a view that CUH is very supportive of, and the design process of both Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital and Cambridge Children’s Hospital have brought into focus the various competing demands on the ground floor. The desire for activation does need to
be balanced with other key design requirements, for example for a hospital building, where active uses are supporting the primary function of a building.

Comment

Representation ID: 211808

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 16.c - The policy wording should recognise that the proposals will bring about a substantial amount of change, and that some of these changes may adversely affect views or heritage assets. Those adverse effects may not be severe or significant, however, and even in instances where they are, are still capable of being
found acceptable depending on the nature of the proposals. This is a point raised by LCG (as a group) but is particularly pertinent when considering potential requirements for future hospital buildings. Seeking to avoid any adverse impacts would potentially be unrealistic and could prevent critical investment in our estate.

Comment

Representation ID: 211809

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Draft Policy CC/CE(d) recognises that, in certain circumstances, proposals for demolition may deliver benefits that outweigh the carbon savings associated with retaining the existing building. It is also recognised in supporting text paragraph 3.2.23 that many of the
older buildings in the Campus are in need of renewal. Accordingly, amendments are proposed to more closely align part 16(d) of this policy with the approach set out in Draft Policy CC/CE. From a CUH perspective, our long term ambition is to decant from the existing 1960s hospital buildings, into modern purpose built facilities, benefitting our staff, patients, visitors and researchers. We do however accept the need to justify this on a case by case basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 211810

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

CUH support Paragraphs 16.e, 16.f, 16.g, 17, 17.a, 17.b, 17.c, 18.a, 18.b, 18.c, 19, 19.a, 19.b, 19.d, 20, 20.a, 20.b, 20.d, 20.h, 26, 27.g and 27.h.

Comment

Representation ID: 211811

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

CUH has been part of the LCG team that developed a first draft masterplan proposal for the campus. We support the requirement for a well vegetated landscape buffer that will achieve the purposes listed at paragraph 17.d and feel that the land identified as the SEA is important given its relative proximity to the hospital, particularly as our centre of gravity moves onto the undeveloped Phase 1 land (over
time). We recognise that the Landscape Improvement Area may also have a role to play, but comprehensive landscape enhancements and recreational offering in the SEA could offer significant benefits to all campus users, close to the heart of the campus.

Comment

Representation ID: 211812

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 18 - CUH requests that GCSP consider giving greater clarity on the respective roles of the SEA and LIA such that the balance between such objectives as
biodiversity enhancement, recreational access, access and movement corridors, landscape buffering/screening and impact on views can be assessed in the round.
CUH feels that the SEA land remains a priority for elements of this strategy to maximise benefits to all campus users, with proximity being important.

Comment

Representation ID: 211813

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Amend Paragraph 19.c - The signage provided within buildings is not a planning matter.

Comment

Representation ID: 211814

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 19.e - CUH is supportive of this position, noting our comments elsewhere on the policy about the importance of providing accessible spaces in the areas where people need them. The northern edge of the SEA has a potentially important role to support recreational needs of campus users.