Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

With ref. to p36, para 1.18 - Stapleford Parish Council notes that the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan (adopted Oct 2025) has not been incorporated into the draft greater Cambridge Local Plan and that this will need doing before the next version of the Local Plan is produced. The draft Policies Map will also need updating to reflect this.

Stapleford Parish Council broadly agrees with the 7 strategic priorities. However, the wellbeing and social inclusion priority should be modified to read, “Help improve equality of access and opportunities for people in Greater Cambridge to lead healthier and happier lives, ensuring that everyone benefits from the development of new homes, jobs AND ACCESS TO NATURE AND GREEN SPACES.” Access to nature and green spaces is also vital to leading healthier and happier lives, and will be increasingly important as housing density increases and where apartments are the major form of housing.

P64, paras 2.44-2.45 – Stapleford Parish Council agrees that identifying large numbers of small sites is not a practicable approach, given the lack of necessary infrastructure that such sites in rural areas have and the undesirable impact that this could have on the green belt which often surrounds such small rural sites.

P69, paras 2.62-2.66 – as a rural parish surrounded by greenbelt which is highly valued locally as a landscape setting for the village and for its benefits to nature, health and recreation, Stapleford Parish Council agrees with the assertion that it is not necessary to release greenbelt to meet the general development needs identified in the draft Local Plan and that, consequently, it is not necessary for the Local Plan to identify grey belt land.

P71, para 2.70 – Stapleford Parish Council agrees that it is not necessary to release land behind Mingle Lane from the greenbelt given opportunities for significant residential development elsewhere (particularly at Grange Farm). There are insufficient exceptional circumstances to justify releasing this greenbelt land, notably: it represents inappropriate over-development of the rural hinterland (Policy S&GS 6); its proposed affordable housing is not of the dwelling size needed within the neighbourhood area (Policy S&GS 1); it lacks car parking spaces (Policies S&GS 6 and 18); it would lead to a loss of locally valued views and is not in accordance with the characteristics of the landscape character area (Policy S&GS 12); the basis of its BNG calculations is fundamentally flawed; it does not respect the identity of Stapleford and Gt Shelford as two villages distinct and separate from the City of Cambridge (Policy S&GS 12) and indeed would actively erode the gap between them (contravening draft Policy S/GB1c); a single access/egress for emergency vehicles is demonstrably insufficient, as proven by the extensive field fire behind Mingle Lane in August 2025; its negative impact on traffic volumes on narrow Mingle Lane and on the Sawston Greenway (Policy S&GS 18). If requested, the Parish Council can elaborate on these points.

P75, para 2.90 – Stapleford Parish Council agrees that improvements to key corridors should be pivotal to the transport strategy. However, CSET (which we note is not mentioned in conjunction with the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor and Cambridge Eastern Access in para 2.88) is not proposed to sit within a public transport corridor. Rather, it will create a new bus road across greenbelt land from the A11 at Grange Farm travelling north to terminate at Cambridge South Station. Better Ways for Busways has proposed an alternative route which does recognise the existing transport corridor and is, therefore, less environmentally destructive, improves accessibility for a range of different users, and is more cost-efficient. We would be happy to provide more detail of this alternative route if requested.

P79-80, paras 2.108-2.109 – Stapleford Parish Council agrees that specialist housing should be in sustainable sites with access to services and facilities and we support plans to increase numbers of accessible/adaptable homes (e.g. via application of M4(2) building standards). We request that planning decisions relating to large retirement living facilities or institutions take into consideration the number of units already provided via such facilities/institutions within a neighbourhood area to ensure that healthcare facilities are not overwhelmed and that neighbourhoods do not become dormitory communities with a top-heavy population pyramid. A balanced population pyramid is required to deliver a sustainable community. Data in the Housing Needs Assessment (AECOM 2023) conducted to support the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan (adopted Oct 2025) already predicts that the population aged 65 and over in the two villages will increase by 79% between 2011 and 2043. Unrestrained specialist housing to meet the needs of older people would further exacerbate the problems that this will present.

P82, clauses 4 and 5 – Stapleford Parish Council challenges the inclusion of a combined ‘Gt Shelford and Stapleford’ as a ‘rural centre’, which would mean that “Residential development and redevelopment without any limit on individual scheme size will be permitted within the defined development extents of Rural centres, as defined on the Policies Map, provided that adequate services, facilities and infrastructure are available or can be made available as a result of the development.” The convenience of treating the two villages as a unified entity in their allocation as a single ‘rural centre’ masks what is actually seen on the ground and contravenes clause 1a of Policy S&GS 12 (in which, to be supported, development proposals should respect the identity of Stapleford and Gt Shelford as two villages distinct and separate from the City of Cambridge). Each village has its own distinct history and identity; they have a very different range of amenities and services; geographically, they are dispersed, with only two touch points but a very broad expanse of high value farmland and greenbelt between them in all other places; the civic core is located in Gt Shelford, with few amenities meeting daily needs located in Stapleford; many residents rely heavily on private cars to travel between the two villages.

Data supporting this policy are incorrect.

The defined development extent of Stapleford is incorrect as it is portrayed on the Draft Greater Cambridge Policies Map (2025). Stapleford and Great Shelford Parish Councils raised this issue during the examination process of the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan because it could have undermined acceptance of a proposed new important countryside frontage (which is actually between two built-up areas but according to the out-of-date defined development extent map lies outside of the development framework). The built up area of the village was extended to the east of Stapleford in the early 2000s by residential development at Chalk Hill and again in the 2020s by development of the Strawberry Fields residential care village by Rangeford. Neither development (which together contribute around 200 new dwelling units to Stapleford) is captured on the draft Policies Map.

Stapleford Parish Council's ability to comment on this aspect of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan is limited by the inability to locate ‘Strategy topic paper Appendix 14: Defined Development Extents Report’, which does not yet appear to have been published. In this instance and more generally, it would be hugely beneficial if references to any and all supporting evidence/documentation could be hyperlinked throughout pdf consultation documents.

We strongly support this policy and, as a rural parish, particularly value clause 1c which protects the role of the greenbelt in preventing communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the City. However, we are disappointed that clause 1 of the policy does not explicitly pick up on supporting para 2.145: “National planning policy also requires local planning authorities to plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of Green Belts, such as looking for opportunities to provide access…” Despite our parish being surrounded by greenbelt, we have very limited access to it or links between our green spaces; hence, the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan (Policy S&GS 19) proposes multiple new off-road routes and linkages between existing routes. It is wrong that such a basic need as access to green spaces for recreation, health and wellbeing remains aspirational unless facilitated by major development.

P91, Policy S/GB clause 2 – the draft Policies Map is incorrect in that it does not accurately depict the greenbelt boundary to the east of Stapleford. The map needs amending to show land removed from the greenbelt and now occupied by Strawberry Fields retirement care village on Haverhill Rd, Stapleford.

P214-215, Policy S/CBC clauses 14, 17 and 18 – Stapleford Parish Council is broadly supportive of Policy S/CBC clauses 14, 17 and 18 (e.g. new development must “Integrate sensitively with adjoining residential neighbourhoods, the wider Green Belt, and countryside to the south, ensuring appropriate transitions in height, scale, and landscaping” and “Retain and enhance key strategic and local views and landscape features, especially from Nine Wells Local Nature Reserve, Magog Down and wider countryside approaches”) on the basis that these locations fall within Stapleford parish or the adjoining Gt Shelford parish, and fall within the neighbourhood area covered by the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan.

However, we are concerned that the cumulative breadth, density and height of building on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus will increasingly present a ‘concrete wall’ on the southern approach into Cambridge and from high points on the Gog Magog Hills (including from Little Trees Hill, a strategic viewpoint within Stapleford parish identified in the Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment 2021, in which it is referred to as Strategic Viewpoint 7 Little Trees Hill, Magog Downs), which no amount of dense planting will be able to soften. Greater consideration needs to be given to ‘fingers’ of trees and other plants penetrating into and through the site from the southern fringe to break up the visual and environmental impact of this concrete wall.

P214, Policy S/CBC 14a – greater specificity should be given to the phrase “appropriate transitions in height, scale and landscaping”. Information in ‘Appendix 1 Skyline and tall buildings guidance’ does not alleviate these concerns, supporting the tallest of all buildings within Greater Cambridge on the Addenbrooke’s Campus (Appendix 1, para 5.6) and validating the use of building height as a status symbol. This appears contradictory given that Appendix 1 simultaneously notes that consideration should be given to the impact of tall buildings on long-distance views from the greenbelt, from high vantage points and strategic views towards Cambridge (e.g. Little Trees Hill and the wider Gog Magog Hills) and approach routes.

P214, Policy S/CBC clause 16c – we are concerned that a lack of building height restriction will encourage taller and taller buildings over time, reduce views towards the City from the southern gateway and key viewpoints, and overshadow/dominate the soft edge and greenbelt to the south. In particular, building heights should be restricted at new site allocations removed from the greenbelt to the south of Cambridge Biomedical Campus (S/SEA/CBC) to ensure that they don’t overshadow/dominate public amenity areas, strategic enhancement areas and landscape improvement areas. Medium-mature trees should be incorporated into the planting mix to reduce the time that a raw built edge is visible at the southern fringe.

P215, Policy S/CBC clause 17d – we support the provision of a vegetated landscape buffer within the Strategic Enhancement Area to the south of the campus (S/SEA/CBC). This will be key to securing Policy S/CBC clause 18a. However, we would like to see the Strategic Enhancement Area expanded: additional benefits to nature and landscape character would accrue if the Strategic Enhancement Area extended further south, along the SW side of Babraham Rd (i.e. that part of Babraham Rd which falls between Hinton Way and Haverhill Rd) all the way to Magog Down.

P215, Policy S/CBC clauses 17 and 18 – we do not consider that sufficient attention has been given to incorporating improved landscaping policies from the 2008 Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (notably Policy CSF/5 Countryside Enhancement Strategy) into the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan, something which the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan deliberately set out to do in Policy S&GS 20 to ensure that these benefits to the local community and environment are (a) not lost and (b) can direct future CIL/S106 funds, because we predicted that the 2008 Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan would not be taken forward in the new Local Plan. Policies CSF/5 and S&GS 20 list and map specific landscape improvements over a wider area of, and around, the southern fringe. We therefore request that more specificity from Policies CSF/5 and S&GS 20 is incorporated into Policies S/CBC clauses 17 and 18.

P216, Policy S/CBC clause 20f:
• We are very concerned that a new multi-modal access road from a realigned Granhams Rd which is intended to relieve pressure on Babraham Rd and Hills Rd will merely shift this pressure westwards to the A1301 (which is already heavily congested at peak times). Careful consideration needs to be given to the impact of additional traffic accessing the multi-modal access road via the A1301 at the junction with High Green/Granhams Rd. This will cause significant congestion at this turning and at the level crossing on Granhams Rd (which already often tails back onto the A1301), which will be further exacerbated by problems associated with access/egress to the Coop and other commercial properties at the same site. Granhams Rd level crossing is already recognised in local planning policy as a key congestion point (see Policy S&GS 18: Managing the impacts of new development in the neighbourhood area with respect to the movement of people and vehicles)
• It is unclear in the policy what forms of transport and who will be able to use this road; either way, private car access should be limited
• We question whether this multi-modal access road is needed at all given that (a) the proposed CSET is intended to significantly reduce traffic volumes in the immediate vicinity of Addenbrooke’s, and (b) its proximity to Babraham P&R
• The problem, however, is that the CSET route will actually do nothing to improve connectivity within the CBC, thereby necessitating this bodge to Granhams Rd to fix the problem. In contrast, Better Ways for Busways’ alternative on-road route for CSET would connect all parts of the CBC, including Cambridge South Station, and would create a new access route into the CBC from the A1307, negating the need for a new access road from a realigned Granhams Rd
• To facilitate the alternative CSET route, we support upgrades to Francis Crick Avenue and Dame Mary Archer Way, as per clause 20b.

Stapleford Parish Council is broadly supportive of proposals to develop a new town at Grange Farm with placemaking and nature at its heart. We note and support the benefits of providing a range of planned housing, jobs, amenities, services and other infrastructure at one location in preference to a more ad hoc approach in which fewer dwellings are appended to multiple existing rural locations, putting strain on existing infrastructure and increasing car reliance.

However, we do not believe that a new town at Grange Farm will be sustainable. Instead, it will effectively be a large suburb in the countryside. Residents will have to travel to access, for example, large-scale retail and leisure facilities, cultural and religious amenities, secondary education, and mature open spaces and sites of biodiversity. This will put further pressure on existing congestion points and amenities. With respect to the latter, we are particularly concerned that the location of Grange Farm and the number of new residents that it will bring to S. Cambs will increase pressure on existing open and biodiverse spaces in Stapleford parish, notably Magog Down, Chalk Hill Down and Wandlebury Country Park. Established recreational spaces will be more attractive and rewarding for people to visit than new sites, and the associated overcrowding that will result at mature sites will have a significant negative impact on these natural assets. CIL/S106 funds may need to be used to assist owners of existing natural assets to manage and mitigate an increase in footfall.

We are concerned that:
• In contrast to plans for the Babraham Research Campus, none of the 1,500 residential dwellings proposed for Wellcome Genome Campus workers will contribute towards the total number of affordable dwellings coming forward in Greater Cambridge. This will increase demands on nearby settlements to provide land for affordable housing to support growth of the Wellcome Genome Campus, given that not all Campus workers can, or want to be, accommodated on site
• The development is too small to be sustainable and is not sufficiently plugged into the public transport network to overcome this without reliance on private cars. Residents will have to travel to access, for example, large-scale retail and leisure facilities, secondary education, and existing open spaces and sites of biodiversity. This will put further pressure on key existing congestion points, such as the A1301 into/out of Cambridge at peak times, junction 9 of the M11 at Duxford, and the ‘McDonald’s roundabout’ junction of the A1301 and A505. As such, significant infrastructure upgrades are needed
• It will further contribute to a significant expansion in the population of S. Cambs which travels by private car to enjoy existing open spaces in Stapleford parish, notably Magog Down and Wandlebury Country Park. These biodiverse assets are already under pressure and will need S106/CIL support to manage the impact of additional users. Additionally, “Securing general public access to the existing and expanding campus…” (p342, clause 26) should be prioritised to reduce the impact of population growth on existing recreational and natural assets.

P349, Policy S/BRC clause 15 – with the loss of greenbelt that expansion of the Babraham Research Campus will involve, we strongly support the need for substantial compensatory improvements to the environmental quality of, and accessibility to, the proposed Strategic Enhancement Area (S/SEA/BRC). As supporting para 3.4.26 notes, “These measures are important because they will support South Cambridgeshire District Council’s aim to improve biodiversity in the region.” Development at the Campus must also maintain key views, enhance existing tree coverage, relate sensitively to its surroundings, and maintain and enhance the wider landscape (paras 2.4.25 and 2.4.26). These requirements are all laudable. Yet they are entirely at odds with plans by the Greater Cambridge Partnership to construct a busway (i.e. a concrete road), with all the visual, noise and particulate pollution that it will bring, straight through the Strategic Enhancement Area as part of the Cambridge South East Transport scheme. The double standards here are extraordinary.