Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211835

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 27.f - The proposed amendment clarifies that future strategies should apply to the area covered by the application. While coordination across the wider campus is encouraged where possible, it is unlikely that existing management strategies can be revised.

Comment

Representation ID: 211836

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 28 - The wording here is not clear and needs to be revised. Reserved matters applications are required to be made in accordance with the outline permission to which they are pursuant and should not themselves require parameters or design codes (instead they
should demonstrate how they comply with such as set by the ‘parent’ outline permission). The same goes for full planning applications which do not need parameters and design codes because they are made in detail. The requirement for applications to be submitted with a LVIA and a Heritage Impact Assessment is unnecessary; applications will need to be made in accordance with the local planning authority’s validation requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 211837

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 3.2.19 - CUH acknowledges GCSP’s desire to include a spatial framework but is concerned that is may appear more prescriptive/precise than the stage of the process we are at. This creates an unnecessary risk that inevitable changes to the framework (as may be agreed by the collective parties and GCSP) will be seen as being in conflict with this diagram. Its status therefore needs to be clear and more emphasis given to the indicative, high level and early stage indication of how development may come forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 211838

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

As noted elsewhere in our representations, CUH (and wider LCG representatives) have made the case for flexibility. By including an apparently “fixed” proposal, we are concerned that subsequent changes may be resisted due to non compliance with such a diagram. We would ask that particular attention is given to framing the role
and status of the plan, with a clear acknowledgement that it is likely to change. Amendments are suggested to the Spatial Framework and further work is required on the masterplan to establish if this is ultimately the most appropriate design solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 211839

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 3.2.21 - This supporting text does not add anything that is not already clearly set out in parts 1-7 of the draft policy and so can be removed.

Comment

Representation ID: 211840

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 3.2.23 - CUH is in strong support of this statement which needs to be retained in the Regulation 19 Draft.

Comment

Representation ID: 211841

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 3.2.25 - The proposed amendment is more concise and would ensure the terms of allocation are consistent with other parts of the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 211842

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 3.2.30 - The policy is not contingent on identifying a single delivery body, nor should it be interpreted as such. CUH encourage a focus on establishing the approach to Infrastructure Delivery to ensure the ambitions for the campus, and the expectations of each landowner / area of the masterplan are clearly defined.

Comment

Representation ID: 211843

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

3.2.31 - proposals may need to come forward on an expedited timeframe. The draft policy should not prejudice this happening, but be flexible enough to accommodate them in an appropriate way that does not prejudice the rest of the masterplan being built out in accordance with its terms. Those proposals may include major
development and so should not be limited to ‘small scale’ development. If the Council is minded to include a threshold, then CUH considers this requires further conversation. We note the wording in the adopted SPD is
supportive of giving absolute priority to clinical needs (at times over other planning objectives) and wonder whether similar wording might be considered for inclusion.