Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211755

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Urban & Civic

Agent: David Lock Associates

U&C seek clarification on the use of ‘maximise’ for the draft Policy wording which relates to generating on-site renewable energy (Part C, bullet no.5 ). This should be quantified.

Comment

Representation ID: 211756

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Urban & Civic

Agent: David Lock Associates

In relation to energy offsetting (Part D, bullet no.6), U&C seek clarity on the offsetting payments referred to in the draft Policy – the Authority should establish an appropriate calculation methodology and define the costs to be paid.

U&C is extremely concerned in relation to the assured performance aspect of the draft Policy (Part D, bullet no.7). U&C suggest that the policy is amended to refer to
specific development types where the use of an assured performance method should apply. It is prohibitive and particularly onerous to require this for all development types.

Object

Representation ID: 211757

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Urban & Civic

Agent: David Lock Associates

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

U&C is extremely concerned that the policy as drafted will require ‘all major development’ to undertake a whole life carbon emission assessment.

U&C suggest that the policy is amended so that it is specific about types of development where this is required and flexibility should be added to indicate how this will be applied in relation to phased development and sustainability strategies.

Comment

Representation ID: 211758

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Urban & Civic

Agent: David Lock Associates

U&C objects to Policy CC/WE as drafted. The onus is on the utility providers to engage with the Plan process and ensure there is a connection and capacity to support the proposals.

It is not reasonable to expect proposals to demonstrate adequate water supply infrastructure capacity off site to serve development at some later stage; there must be a solution in prospect and planned. For this reason, bullet 1 is not effective Policy and should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 211759

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Urban & Civic

Agent: David Lock Associates

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

U&C further raise concerns about the water usage targets in the draft Policy. Water usage of ‘no more than 80 litres/person/day for residential development of 100 or
more homes’ is a very ambitious target that is not achievable without grey water recycling and rainwater harvesting systems in place.

This raises significant technical, management, maintenance and cost challenges and is proving, through even small demonstration projects, to be extremely difficult to deliver and secure longer term.

U&C suggest that the policy is amended to refer to a more achievable requirement for ‘no more than 95 litres/person/day for residential development of 100 or more homes’.

Object

Representation ID: 211760

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Urban & Civic

Agent: David Lock Associates

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

U&C raise concern that for non-residential development five BREEAM credits under category Wat 01 is onerous. The flexibility allowed in the policy which refers to ‘unless demonstrated not practicable’ is supported and should be retained, so as not to fetter development coming forwards in circumstances where 5 credits is not achievable.

Comment

Representation ID: 211761

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Urban & Civic

Agent: David Lock Associates

U&C note that the draft Policy doesn’t provide information (per population target) for all open space standards. The draft Policy lacks clarity and as written is difficult to interpret.

U&C impress upon SCDC the need to provide evidence to support an up to-date position on average household size and its application to policy.