Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

There is enormous tension between the NPPF’s requirement for local plan policies to make efficient use of land versus clauses b and c of this policy. In the absence of further evidence for the policy (as noted in para 7.27), it is difficult to comment on its merits or otherwise. This is unfortunate given how significant this policy will be in determining future planning applications in Greater Cambridge.

When considering how density should be applied in different locations, it is vital that explicit consideration is given to appropriate building densities for land released from greenbelt which is adjacent to an existing development framework. Such densities should reference density in the immediate surroundings but also present a soft edge to the surrounding landscape. A soft edge is created not just through planting but by gaps and longer sightlines between buildings, which will inevitably – and appropriately – reduce building density.

P537 Policy GP/ST clause 1(e) – glare (i.e. reflection of light from a glazed surface onto another surface or into a building or other amenity area) needs to be added to the list of adverse impacts on amenity and microclimate.

We are broadly supportive of this policy but please note the following important caveats:

The draft Policies Map needs updating to include the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan (adopted Oct 2025), in particular to include Policy S&GS 13 which introduces a new Important Countryside Frontage between 41 Gog Magog Way and houses at Chalk Hill, Stapleford.

P544-544 Policy GP/LC clauses 1 and 3 – application of clauses 1 and 3 to Stapleford parish would be inappropriate because data underpinning this policy is flawed in its inaccurate portrayal of the extent of the Gog Magog Hills. We request an urgent review of the Gog Magog Hill Landscape Character Area and return of its lower boundary to the 20m contour. We discuss this further below.

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 GP/LC. 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 settlement in the area which occurred below the spring line (arising 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.

Our parish’s development framework is surrounded by high quality farmland (Grade 2). As such, we strongly support this policy. However, the best agricultural land should not be used for solar farms and words to this effect should be incorporated into the policy or supporting text, and/or a more explicit link made between this policy and Policy CC/RE: Renewable energy projects and infrastructure.

Much of the higher quality farmland in S Cambs is also greenbelt land. It would be helpful to link Policy J/AL to greenbelt policy, either explicitly in policy wording or in the supporting text, as a double safeguard of the best agricultural land.

Supporting data for Clause 2 are incorrect. It is inappropriate to combine ‘Gt Shelford and Stapleford’ as a single entity in defining them as a ‘local centre’. They are two villages with their own history and identities, offering a very different range of amenities and services, which just happen to be adjacent to each other at a small part of the boundaries of their respective development frameworks but otherwise separated by greenbelt. It might be appropriate to consider Gt Shelford as a local centre in its own right since, of the two villages, it has the significant majority and range of shops. Considered on its own, Stapleford falls a long way short of the criteria to be deemed a ‘local centre’.

Failure to treat the two villages as separate entities would result in the inappropriate application of this policy to planning decisions relating to retail and other complementary uses in Stapleford, and lead to unacceptable development pressures on the two communities.

We are broadly supportive of this policy, with the following caveats:
• P615 Policy H/AH clause 2 – it is unclear how affordable housing requirements (type, size, affordability and design) set out in adopted neighbourhood plans will be dealt with under this policy, particularly where they differ from requirements set out in the policy. We suggest that the policy and/or its supporting text is amended to address this
• P618 para 9.14 – First Homes may be unlikely to be a suitable affordable housing tenure on the majority of new developments in Greater Cambridge, but that does not preclude them from coming forward where they are suitable. Affordable housing policy should allow for First Homes rather than discourage it.

We are broadly in agreement with this policy as it dovetails with aspects of Policies S&GS 1, 2 and 3 of the Stapleford & Gt Shelford Neighbourhood Plan. However, we note that almshouses at the rural exception site in Great Shelford (which make a significant and valuable contribution to our area’s affordable housing stock) are owned and maintained by Great Shelford Village Charity and that clauses in Policy H/ES do not take into account the specific circumstances of charitable almshouse associations in providing affordable housing.

We are broadly supportive of this policy. However, it is unclear how affordable housing mixes as set out in adopted neighbourhood plans would be dealt with under the policy, particularly where they differ from requirements set out in the policy. We suggest that the policy and/or its supporting text is amended to address this.

We are supportive of this policy, which broadly aligns with Policy S&GS 5: Residential annexes to facilitate multi-generational living.

We are broadly supportive of this policy.