Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Stapleford Parish Council is broadly supportive of this policy with the following caveats:

P461, para 5.31-5.32 – the title of this section is green and blue infrastructure, yet there is nothing in these paragraphs about the aims of the policy which mentions blue infrastructure. This should be addressed. With respect to the policy itself, green infrastructure seems to be an all-encompassing term and this is confusing; look at, for example, the so-called ‘green infrastructure’ initiatives listed in clause 5, the majority of which are actually water-related and so, surely, would be more accurately described as ‘blue infrastructure’.

P461, Policy BG/GI cause 2b – we strongly support the use of green infrastructure to improve links within the landscape for the benefit of nature and people. With respect to benefits to people, our parish is surrounded by greenbelt, but we have very little access to it. And when we do, access is often limited to ‘out and back’ routes. Better links between open/green spaces would also reduce use of private cars to travel to sites. Policy S&GS 19 in the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan highlights aspirational routes into and through our countryside that residents of these parishes, and elsewhere, would like to enjoy.

P462, Policy BG/GI clause 4 – where it is not possible to meet the greening factor onsite but a neighbourhood plan is in place for that location which identifies suitable opportunities to enhance green or blue infrastructure within the neighbourhood area, then those opportunities should take priority over resorting to off-site opportunities, otherwise the net effect of development on green infrastructure within that neighbourhood area is negative.

P462, Policy BG/GI clause 5(3) – we note the rightful inclusion of the Gog Magog Hills and chalkland fringe in the list of identified priorities for enhancing strategic green infrastructure across Greater Cambridge. However, (1) data underpinning this policy is flawed in its inaccurate portrayal of the extent of the Gog Magog Hills (2) the Gog Magog Hills are, unfathomably, not included in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, and (3) the Gog Magog Hills will be negatively impacted by CSET. We expand upon these points below.

1. We are very concerned that the mapped extent of the Gog Magog Hills in supporting documents for the LPA is arbitrarily shrinking over time. This will undermine the aims of the Policy BG/GI. With respect to our immediate area, the northwestern extent of the Gog Magog Hills for the purposes of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan is established in Landscape Character Area 7B: Gog Magog Chalk Hills. This is incorrect: (a) it is at odds with the underlying local geology (b) it excludes the prominent slope and bulk of the open chalk hill in Stapleford which puts the ‘character’ into the ‘character area’ (c) it excludes the aptly named Chalk Hill Down, a new countryside park on rare open chalk soil managed by The Magog Trust as calcareous grassland, and (d) it is at odds with the pattern of early development which occurred below the spring line (which occurs at the junction between chalk and clay) at the 20m contour to avoid contamination of valuable fresh water supplies and the need to dig deep wells.

The consequences of inaccurately mapping the extent of the Gog Magog Hills have already been felt in Stapleford. In fact, it critically influenced the Appeal Inspector’s decision in Dec 2021 (appeal ref. APP/W0530/W/21/3280395) to approve major development of a retirement care village on greenbelt outside Stapleford’s development framework. As the Inspector noted in his decision report (paras 15-19): “Two recent landscape character assessments place the boundary between the two local character areas in different places, either side of the site. The Cambridge Inner Green Belt Study produced in 2015 as part of the evidence base for the extant South Cambridgeshire Local Plan adopted in 2018 places the boundary between what it calls Landscape Character Area 4B Granta Valley and Landscape Character Area 3B Gog Magog Hills along the edge of the built extent of Stapleford village, hugging the 20m contour line but rising to the 30m contour line further to the east of the site. The Greater Cambridge Landscape Assessment, produced in 2021 as part of the evidence base for the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan places the boundary between what it calls Landscape Character Area 3D Cam and Granta Tributaries Lowland Farmlands and Landscape Character Area 7B, Gog Magog Chalk Hills along the track which hugs the northern boundary of the site. In effect, one landscape character assessment places the site within the valley; the other places it on the hills.” Against this discrepancy, the Inspector effectively created a third location for the boundary, at the 25m contour line, and was then able to approve major development below this height because it placed it in the ‘valley area’ rather than on the higher chalk hills, which rightly have greater protection from development.

2. There is a glaring inconsistency between the draft Local Plan, which prioritises the Gog Magog Hills for enhancing strategic green infrastructure, and the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, which inexplicably fails to recognise them appropriately. There is no recognition of Wandlebury Country Park or Magog Downs (both are County Wildlife Sites), or of Stapleford Pit (a Local Nature Reserve) in the LNRS, all designated in Policy NH/5: Sites of biodiversity or geological importance. Ironically, the LNRS hails S. Cambs for its growing network of chalk grassland yet singularly fails to map them accurately; we are alarmed about the impact this will have on opportunities to enhance calcareous grassland sites, buffer and enlarge them, and to create habitat stepping stones and corridors.

3. Inaccurate mapping of the Gog Magog Hills and their exclusion from the LNRS means that, despite being a priority for enhancing strategic green infrastructure across Greater Cambridge, they are not being accorded sufficient value and hence protection when evaluating the environmental and landscape impacts of the proposed route of the CSET busway. As proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership, the lengthy section of the busway from where it crosses the track to the east of Stapleford Granary and continues in a north-westerly direction to where it passes Nine Wells Local Nature Reserve near Cambridge South Station will use the lower slopes of the Gog Magog Hills. There is, therefore, a glaring inconsistency between the green infrastructure aims of the draft Local Plan and its transport strategy. This inconsistency could be at least partly mitigated if an alternative, on-road route along the A1307 corridor from the A11 to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus was pursued instead. If requested, we can provide more evidence of the benefits of this on-road route.

P462, Policy BG/GI clause 5(13) – we fully support the inclusion of allotments and community gardens as an identified priority for enhancing strategic green infrastructure across Greater Cambridge.

We are generally supportive of this policy but surprised to see no reference to prioritising native trees and hedgerows.

P466 Policy BG/TC clause 1 – would it be possible to state in the policy within what timeframe this 30% canopy cover should be achieved? Or at least that more than half of this 30% canopy cover should be achieved within x years of development commencing?

P467, para 5.43 – we agree that LPAs need to understand the existing tree resource so they can make an informed judgement about what might be needed/appropriate, in terms of tree impact, from development. However, the problem remains that land/homeowners can generally remove as many trees and hedgerows without TPOs as they wish prior to submitting a planning application. Cumulatively, this represents a significant loss of canopy cover over time. Consideration needs to be given to how data on tree/hedgerow resources pre-submission can be captured and compared with the resources in place at the point at which a planning application is submitted. Google Earth or similar could play a role in this.

There is a lack of joined up thinking in the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Whilst it recognises the desecration of our globally significant and rare chalk streams, this appears to be only within the context of how it limits water abstraction and places limits on development. There is a specific need to consider the impact of development on our chalk rivers and river corridors in greater Cambridge because of their local and global environmental significance, something which neither Policy BG/RC nor its supporting text fails to do. We recommend seeking input from, amongst others, Hobson’s Conduit Trust, for how to improve the wording and strength of this policy.

We are broadly supportive of this policy but make the following comments:
1. The draft Policies Map needs updating to include new open spaces, Local Green Spaces and Protected Village Amenity Areas arising from adoption of the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan in Oct 2025
2. We value the policy’s emphasis on protecting open space of environmental and/or recreational significance in undesignated areas that fulfil the criteria used to assess protected open space (clause 1)
3. We value the policy’s emphasis on protecting space immediately around designated areas such that their value to the community is not compromised (clauses 3 and 4)
4. The draft Policies Map needs updating to include Stapleford’s cemetery (land north of Mingle Lane) as ‘open space’
5. The draft Policies Map needs updating to include Gt Shelford’s cemetery (off Cambridge Rd) as ‘open space’
6. The draft Policies Map needs updating to include Gt Shelford’s Davey Field Rugby Football Ground off Cambridge Rd as ‘open space’
7. The open space designation at More’s Meadow, Gt Shelford (site ref. ZA 032) is in the wrong place. It covers land which has been developed since 2021 by Gt Shelford Village Charity as affordable almshouses but should instead be immediately to the NW of this on land allocated to allotments and a community garden
8. The extensive new countryside park (Chalk Hill Down) between Haverhill Rd (Stapleford) and Hinton Way (Gt Shelford) is not shown as open space on the draft Policies Map
9. The Clay Pit on Granhams Rd needs to be included in the open spaces map (see Map 4 on p72 of the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan for its location)

We are broadly supportive of this policy. We are particularly pleased to see the inclusion of open space management provisions in clause 1. The burden of insurance, grounds maintenance, health and safety checks, etc, is likely to fall on parish councils, yet the additional precept generated from the expanded population is unlikely to cover these and other eventualities associated with major development once occupied. It is not enough for a developer to supply new open spaces and have no responsibility and accountability for their longer term maintenance.

We are broadly supportive of this policy, with the following caveats:
1. Nowhere in the policy or its supporting text is consideration given to the growing demand for end-of-life care services and facilities (e.g. hospices) that will sit alongside an expanding population: more people living in Greater Cambridge will mean more people dying in Greater Cambridge, and even, given the role of Greater Cambridge as a regional and national centre of healthcare excellence, more people coming to Greater Cambridge to die. Providing for more and better end-of-life care is critical to overall quality of life and needs to be explicitly captured in the draft Local Plan. Recent pushback from the community and many healthcare providers about a proposed reduction in bed capacity at Arthur Rank Hospice (in Gt Shelford parish) is testament to local strength of feeling on this matter and is one illustration of the local impact of a lack of joined up planning between health and social care.
2. Clause 1c of the policy should be expanded to read, “Providing, protecting and enhancing accessibility to green and blue open spaces FOR SPORTING, RECREATIONAL AND MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES (Biodiversity and Green Spaces).” The benefits of access to green and open spaces are noted in supporting para 6.8 but should also be explicit in the policy’s wording.

We are broadly supportive of this policy, with the following caveat: nowhere in the policy or its supporting text is consideration given to the growing demand for end-of-life care services and facilities (e.g. hospices) that will sit alongside an expanding population: more people living in Greater Cambridge will mean more people dying in Greater Cambridge, and even, given the role of Greater Cambridge as a regional and national centre of healthcare excellence, more people coming to Greater Cambridge to die. Providing for more and better end-of-life care is critical to overall quality of life and needs to be explicitly captured in the draft Local Plan. Recent pushback from the community and many healthcare providers about a proposed reduction in bed capacity at Arthur Rank Hospice (in Gt Shelford parish) is testament to local strength of feeling on this matter and is one illustration of the local impact of a lack of joined up planning between health and social care. Para 6.25 of the supporting text to Policy WS/NC lists examples of the facilities and services which could be required to meet the needs of new and growing communities; provision for burials is included in the list but nothing relating to palliative/hospice care provision; para 6.33 is explicitly about healthcare facilities but, again, does not mention end-of-life care.

We are broadly supportive of this policy, most notably those clauses relating to light pollution, which tally well with the aims of Policy S&GS 15: Preserving our dark landscape.

Where neighbourhood plans have been adopted, local communities have invariably undertaken extensive community engagement to produce at the very least a design guide and, in many instances, a detailed design guidance and codes. No mention of this (other than an oblique reference in para 7.12 to village design guides, which can be created outside of the neighbourhood planning process) is made in either the policy or supporting text. Design guidance and codes are invaluable documents with long lifespans which should be a major influence on development design and, by their very nature, already demonstrate people and place responsive design. We request that clear reference is made to them at an appropriate place in either the policy or its supporting text. Such reference is made in clause 4 of Policy GP/QD: Achieving high quality development, but we strongly suggest that there is need for it in Policy GP/PP as well.

P530 Policy GP/QD clause 4 – we are very pleased to see reference to the role of neighbourhood plans in setting design principles. We request that a similarly explicit reference is also incorporated into Policy GP/PP: People and place responsive design.