Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Object

Representation ID: 205277

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Draft Local Plan’s underlying evidence base grossly underestimates the need for storage and distribution floorspace in Greater Cambridge, which is not aligned with the area’s ambitious growth aspirations. Please see the accompanying Representations for further detail.

Object

Representation ID: 205300

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The hostile approach to strategic scale logistics (units 100,000ft2+) applied in Policy J/NE, carried through from the adopted Local Plan, is at odds with national planning policy and the Government’s Industrial Strategy. The notion that supporting these uses will prejudice the growth of the life sciences sector is unsubstantiated. On the contrary, supply chain infrastructure is critical to its success.

The size and height of buildings is essential to ensure properties are successfully let and do not become obsolete in a short period of time. The demand for properties greater than 100,000 sq ft has increased significantly to enable racking, internal automation, and offer flexibility, to such an extent the average unit size now exceeds 100,000 sq ft. For Greater Cambridge to seek to exclude the ‘average’ unit size or greater, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the needs of the logistics sector, and the acute shortage of supply that exists along such an important freight/logistics corridor such as the A14.

Given that NPPF Paragraph 85 adds that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development (our emphasis), and Paragraph 86(c) adds that planning policies should facilitate development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including freight and logistics uses, the Plan as drafted is clearly unsound on three counts: it is not positively prepared; it is not effective in the absence of any joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters; and the approach is not consistent with national policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 211678

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

Paragraph 2.72 of the draft plan states that additional new industrial/logistics floorspace will be facilitated through longer term provision at Cambourne, and through incorporating some industrial/logistics floorspace within other, unspecified mixed-use employment allocations. However, it is important to note that the existing permitted employment floorspace, pursuant to Outline Planning Permission S/2903/14/OL, comprises 6.25 Hectares, and is solely restricted to B1 (uses), which since the changes to the Use Classes Order, would equate to offices, R&D
or Light Industrial uses (i.e. not B2 or B8). Further, the allocation (Draft Policy S/CBN) does not identify what uses the 24 Hectares of employment land would be allocated for. Accordingly, there is no clarity at all as to whether any B2/B8 floorspace is planned to be delivered at Cambourne.

Further, it is not clear what use classes are proposed to be delivered at mixed use allocations referenced at Para Accordingly, no commitment is made that sites at
Cambourne, or any other sites referenced at Para 2.72 will deliver any of the B2/B8 need that has been identified.

This is a common theme throughout the Local Plan, and far greater clarity is required through the policy allocations as to the anticipated uses each employment allocation will be seeking to deliver if the approach is to be effective in ensuring the employment needs of Greater Cambridge are met.

Comment

Representation ID: 211679

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

Given the Government’s commitment to delivering 150,000 new homes in and around Cambridge, and the national importance of Cambridge as a net producer of jobs to a far wider area (beyond the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Districts), it is considered that the more ambitious ‘high’ scenario should have been adopted. The Standard Method is considered to be the “starting point” or the minimum target for housing delivery. Accordingly, the ‘High’ growth, or indeed an even higher growth scenario, would align with the scale of the Government’s ambition to 2050, whereas the Draft Local Plan represents circa one third of that.

Comment

Representation ID: 211680

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

NPPF Paragraph 32 states that the preparation and review of Local Plans should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence.

As highlighted in the accompanying evidence prepared by Stantec, the local requirement for B8 is considered to be 609,230 sq m. Draft Policy S/JH therefore plans for a shortfall of more than 270,000 sq m when assessed against Stantec’s assessment, which is considered to
reflect the NPPF and PPG.

Comment

Representation ID: 211681

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

Whilst Iceni reference Strategic Need within their own evidence, contrary to NPPF Para 32 and the PPG, this strategic need has not been planned for. There is no evidence of Greater Cambridge working with adjacent Authorities to deliver on the wider strategic need, and thus clearly the needs of an economic sector (logistics) whose importance is emphasised at Paragraph 86(c) of the NPPF, has not been planned for.

Comment

Representation ID: 211682

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

In support of this representation, a critical review of the evidence base has been undertaken within the submitted Newlands Park Cambridge Economic Needs and Benefits Statement, which identifies the following key findings:

1) Greater Cambridge has, historically, resisted provision of additional strategic distribution/warehousing floorspace through the imposition of restrictive planning policies, on the unevidenced assumption that such floorspace would stifle opportunities for high-tech businesses to flourish by absorbing large quantities of allocated employment space.

2) The acceleration of the high-tech and life science sector in Greater Cambridge has led to the irreversible loss of many existing industrial/warehouse sites, while opportunities to replace and upgrade the supply are limited, leading to pent up demand.

3) Iceni’s approach to calculating the 317,000 sqm floorspace requirement is based upon a net absorption methodology (the total space occupied after adjusting for space vacated). An analysis of gross completions is considered to form a better indicator of actual demand, as the logistics market in Greater Cambridge experiences low vacancy levels, given the lack of supply.

The Report concludes that the 317,000 sqm floorspace figure underestimates the demand for industrial/warehousing floorspace in the region, and that additional land (comprising 609,760 sqm in total) should be allocated ensure that the logistics sector, mid-tech, manufacturing, and life sciences sectors can address local, regional and national demands.

Object

Representation ID: 211683

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The principal reason for this is due to the Draft GCLP seeking to place a restriction on the size of a logistics Unit. An arbitrary restriction of 9,300 sq. m/100,000 sq ft is applied.

As noted within the Greater Cambridge Warehouse and Industrial Space Needs report, supply and demand for storage and distribution floorspace is acute in Greater Cambridge.

Therefore, the Draft GCLP is wholly contradictory to Paragraph 32 and Paragraph 87 of the NPPF, the latter stating that planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors.

Object

Representation ID: 211684

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The only apparent justification for not planning for anything other than local logistics/warehousing need is predicated on the ‘high land take’ and undefined ‘local pressures’ on land supply of specialist sectors, yet the Council’s own evidence base already provides allocations for R&D/Life Science Space, well beyond the need that has been assumed by Iceni.

Clearly, land, which is not within the Green Belt, is available, and being actively promoted by our client to deliver development that would go some way to meeting that strategic industrial /warehousing and logistics need, in a location, for which there is no demand for any other more prioritized or specialist sectors (by which we assume is referring to Life Sciences; R&D). To argue there is insufficient land to accommodate specialist sectors is wholly untrue.

Object

Representation ID: 211685

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Newlands (Cambridge) Limited

Agent: Twenty5 Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There is clear evidence that industrial, storage and distribution uses are essential parts of the supply chain that support those sectors that are perceived to be of higher value by Greater Cambridge. Research undertaken by Savills found that the key sectors contained in the Government’s Industrial Strategy purchased £250 billion worth of inputs from the I&L sector, which is the equivalent of 22% of their overall inputs. Therefore, a failure to plan
sufficiently for local and strategic industrial and logistics space will serve to undermine the wider economic ecosystem.

Whilst the rationale is clearly not justified, it could be understood if there was evidence of working with other Authorities to deliver on the strategic industrial and logistics need. However, there is no such evidence within either the Duty to Cooperate’ Statement of Common Ground ‘(October 2025) or ‘Duty to Cooperate’ Statement of Compliance (October 2025).