Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Stapleford Parish Council agrees with clause 1c (development proposals must demonstrate how they will… “Contribute financially to strategic public transport and active travel schemes in the south east corridor appropriate to the scale and nature of the development, including active travel links to Sawston and Shelford and other nearby villages”). Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan outlines aspirational active travel routes linking Gt Shelford, Dernford Fen SSSI and Sawston Village College, which could benefit from such financial contributions and extend the existing Sawston Greenway network. A Greenway is also necessary to link Stapleford/Gt Shelford to Whittlesford Parkway Station to access fast trains to London Liverpool St without having to negotiate fast-moving traffic on the A1301. We are also keen to ensure that pedestrian and cycling access in the vicinity of the former Spicers site is maintained, noting that previous planning approval for Huawei to redevelop the site would have reduced passage through/nearby on the grounds of contamination issues.

We strongly support clause 1: a multimodal hub with access and station improvements is crucial to providing sustainable transport in this area. We also support clause 2 (“An extended network of dedicated cycle links and safe crossing points” from which to access the station): a safe, more direct and dedicated connection between Stapleford/Gt Shelford and Whittlesford Parkway Station is needed to replace cycling in fast-moving traffic on the A1301.

P419, Policy CC/SD clause 1 – we are broadly supportive of this policy, but we are concerned about the exclusion of individual household applications from Sustainability Statement requirements, most particularly household applications for sizeable extensions or knock-down-rebuild. This is an important missed opportunity to improve the sustainability of existing properties. Many households would wish to do this as part of their renovation/building work and would benefit greatly from a single point of direction in what and how to prioritise their resources in this respect. We appreciate that creating a separate Sustainability Statement would be untenable, but it could and should be included in the Planning Statement provided alongside the application. Much of what is listed in para 4.11 as guidance on Sustainability Statement content could be readily incorporated into a Planning Statement for an individual householder application.

We are broadly supportive of this policy. However, consideration of the albedo effect of new development should be given in para 4.17. Albedo is the measure of a surface’s reflectivity, representing the fraction of sunlight it reflects back into space. High albedo surfaces reflect most sunlight, while low albedo surfaces absorb more. This has an impact on climate, microclimate and building comfort and can be mitigated through building design.

We are broadly supportive of this policy and note that proposed policy wording in Parts A and B aligns well with supporting text of Policy S&GS 7: Mitigating and adapting to climate change through building design.

P429 Policy CC/WE clause 2 – we have two comments: (a) it is unclear whether this clause applies to householder applications and we believe that it should, and (b) we see no reason why clause 2e should not also apply water efficiency standards to refurbishment and change of use of existing buildings, rather than merely requiring retrofitting to “increase water efficiency”.

We have significant concerns about the deliverability of this policy, which cumulatively threaten the deliverability of the entire draft Local Plan. The assumption (see p23 of the Summary of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan) that “We consider that there are now solutions available such that the development needs of Greater Cambridge can be met by sustainable water supplies, and we are able to move our Local Plan forward” is undermined by, for example:
1. the government’s decision in Aug 2025 not to fund relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant (CWWTP) through its Housing Infrastructure Fund
2. the motion approved by Cambridge City Council in Oct 2025 which recorded its “…huge disappointment at the decision not to fund the relocation (and expansion) of the Anglian Water waste water treatment plant from North East Cambridge which will…make future waste water treatment capacity a new potential obstacle to all development in our area”
3. a delay announced in Jan 2026 to the Regulator’s key decision on the Fens Reservoir Project because it is not yet ready for its next major approval stage due to unresolved concerns about where the water will come from to fill the reservoir, design issues and environmental protection requirements.

There was an opportunity before publishing the draft Local Plan to address points 1 and 2 in the text, but this was not taken up. Instead, the draft Local Plan ploughs on regardless, even though it clearly acknowledges in para 2.82 of p74 that delivery and phasing will need to respond to the availability of water supply improvements. If Policy CC/IW and the wider strategic issues relating to water scarcity and management cannot be delivered in a timely manner, the Greater Cambridge Local Plan will not be able to supply even a fraction of the new jobs and new homes demanded of our region, and certainly not in the desired strategic locations. Instead, growth will occur piecemeal across the region – negatively impacting our existing communities, infrastructure, greenbelt and green spaces – and rely predominantly on short-term water efficiency measures. This is an utterly unsustainable strategy.

P433 Policy CC/IW clause 4 – this clause is predicated on the assumption that SuDS are suitable for all locations, but they are not. To pass examination, wording of Policy S&GS 7: Mitigating and adapting to climate change through building design in the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan had to be amended to require their use wherever practicable and subject to being suitable to the location.

P441 Policy CC/RE clause 7 – we suggest that clause 7 (community-led renewable and low-carbon initiatives) is clarified such that initiatives will be supported as long as they protect or enhance landscape character in line with other policies in the Development Plan. See Policy S&GS 8: Renewable energy schemes in Stapleford and Great Shelford for guidance.

We are broadly supportive of this policy.

We are broadly supportive of this policy, with the following exceptions:

P455 Policy BG/BG clause 3 – the Local Nature Recovery Strategy is inaccurate as it applies to Stapleford parish and hence the parish would not benefit from delivery of replacement habitat within areas identified as LNRS priority areas. The LNRS needs urgently amending to recognise Wandlebury Country Park and Magog Downs (both are County Wildlife Sites) and Stapleford Pit (a Local Nature Reserve), as designated in Policy NH/5: Sites of biodiversity or geological importance. We cannot fathom their omission from the LNRS.

P455 Policy BG/BG clause 3 – where neighbourhood plans are in place and have identified suitable off-site locations for BNG within the neighbourhood area in circumstances when BNG cannot be fully delivered onsite, they should supersede delivery via biodiversity credits or schemes registered with Defra. Otherwise, the net result will be biodiversity depletion of not just the development site but also the wider locale. The latter is recognised in para 5.11 but a logical solution, as proposed here, is not provided. See clause 4 of Policy S&GS 10: Mitigation hierarchy and delivering biodiversity net gain and enhancements for how Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan addresses this issue.

P455 Policy BG/BG clause 6 – it is important for the Local Planning Authority to question the basis on which baseline biodiversity is measured for every prospective development. Sadly, it is not uncommon for developers to reduce the biodiversity of prospective sites prior to submitting a planning application as a means of reducing their future BNG commitments. We have seen this at greenbelt land behind Mingle Lane in Gt Shelford/Stapleford where, until 2024, a large area of land within the proposed development site had not been planted for arable use in over 30 years. It was occasionally used for sheep grazing and, more recently, for horse pasture. However, in 2024 it was ploughed and planted with a crop by contract farming company Coxalls. The crop has been harvested and a second crop is now growing. The upshot of this is that the mature and undisturbed biodiversity value of this tract of land has been eroded which, conveniently for the developer, reduces the overall biodiversity of the site and hence the BNG required of any future development.

P455 Policy BG/BG clause 6 – this clause should take the biodiversity of field margins into consideration, whether managed specifically for nature or not.