Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208883

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

We appreciate that neither District Councils nor the Local Plan can create PROW, but we note the very important role played through developer levies, such as section 106 agreements, Community Infrastructure Levy and Master Planning in improving recreational access. A summary of shortfalls of the recent and current development/local planning system in relation to PROWs:

• S106 funded schemes affecting PROW agreed and signed off by Council officers/developers without any consultation with statutory users or Councillors
• Developer levy funds initially earmarked for filling in gaps in PROW network
transferred to cycleway schemes with a budget shortfall
• No priority list for funding recreational routes agreed
• Permissive paths approved in Northstowe which are open to cyclists, but not equestrians – at odds with policy
• Statutory user groups not involved in Master Planning

Comment

Representation ID: 208884

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

As Ramblers we support the use of Public Rights for leisure walking. The data for South Cambs shows that 77% people walk every week, 63% for leisure purposes and 43% for active travel. In all rural districts of Cambridgeshire the proportion of people walking for leisure and recreation is nearly 20% greater than those walking for other travel purposes.

Although there is clearly a need for increasing active travel the volume of people walking for pleasure should not be ignored. Routes for active travel tend to be direct, destination focused and have a hard surface. Routes for leisure walking tend to be circular, exploratory, take in
places of interest, often immersed in nature away from speed noise and distraction and with a soft surface underfoot. In making the case for promoting and safeguarding leisure routes with soft surfaces the Ramblers Groups echo the concerns of equestrians too.

Comment

Representation ID: 208885

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

It is important that the Local Plan’s maps show Public Rights of Way in relation to proposed areas of development. This is particularly important for all references to new developments and expanded settlements. But it is also important to show where there are deficiencies in the current network of paths – because this information can help direct and prioritise the provision of new links, opening up countryside access not only for new housing and workplaces but also for the existing population.

Comment

Representation ID: 208886

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

National Planning and Policy Framework, Paragraph 105, December 2024

‘Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks, including National Trails’.

The Plan could recognise the Icknield Way long distance footpath and bridleway which runs through South Cambridgeshire. This links two National Trails, the Ridgeway and Peddars Way and there is considerable pressure to get the route recognised as the next National Trail.

Comment

Representation ID: 208887

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

Pending the creation of Unitary Authorities in the next couple of years the Greater Cambridge Local Plan does need to have much stronger and coherent policies in relation to PROWs. There is a great opportunity to align highway and planning strategies in relation to the management of PROWs. If the Greater Cambridge Local Plan excludes PROWs now the risk is their maintenance and improvement would be set back many years.

What is needed is a vision, and a pan for improving the footpath and bridleway network. Currently, without a footpath and bridleway network plan, Policy I/ST has no teeth and planners are obliged to accept whatever the developers propose.

Comment

Representation ID: 208888

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

It is particularly disappointing that the only reference to ‘public rights of way’ is in an appendix – the Glossary for Green Infrastructure. It is vital that the Plan policies recognise and state the importance of protecting and enhancing this network. The master plans for those areas identified for substantial development require, as a minimum, the creation of perimeter bridleways, linking wherever possible to the established public rights of way network.

The Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum can contribute to the creation of a vision and plan with the development of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan in 2026 including prioritising the current gaps in the network. The Local Plan would be greatly enhanced by including maps of
existing PROWs, applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) and Public Path Agreements (PPAs).

Comment

Representation ID: 208889

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

The Local Plan needs to address how the improvement of the PROW network can be funded. Is the funding route through section 106 agreements, Community Infrastructure Levy or through other grants? The creation of connections of PROWS tends to be discounted by developers and planners with the easy excuse it is outside the curtilage of the development. This is not a sustainable approach and leads to a fragmented PROW network.

It is important to recognise that new recreational routes are, wherever possible, PROWS rather than more restrictive ‘permissive‘ paths. The responsibility for, and standard of path maintenance must be clearly identified.

Comment

Representation ID: 208890

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

PROWS between the main urban area of Cambridge to the villages and towns of South Cambs there are:

• A good number of PROWs to the west of Cambridge cross over the M11

• A reasonable number of PROWs to the north of Cambridge cross the A14. The proposal for a further PROW link between Histon and Girton is to be welcomed.

• There are very poor connections of PROWS to the east and south of Cambridge. Cherry Hinton is particularly poorly served, with no safe routes to Wandlebury, the Beech Woods, the Roman Road or Fulbourn.

• The proposed major development at Grange Farm is currently served by just one dead end public footpath. It is essential that new links are provided to the Roman Road,
offering a range of circular routes.

Object

Representation ID: 208891

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Cambridge Ramblers Objections are:

•Omission of the importance of PROWs for wellbeing and green infrastructure

• Lack of recognition of the distinct and different needs for active travel and for leisure activities

• No policies for funding the improvement of the PROW network

• No mapping of the areas for growth with the gaps in the existing PROW network

• No mechanism to ensure developers contribute to addressing the gaps

• No proposals to engage with organisations and users of PROWs

Object

Representation ID: 208892

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Group of Ramblers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Greater Cambridge Local Plan needs to acknowledge the importance of PROWs for leisure purposes. The areas that are a priority mentioned in attached are:

• Having a vision and plan based on a map of future growth with gaps in PROW network identified

• Having officers and councillors with responsibility for PROWS

• Having identified funding routes for improving the PROW network

• Consulting with non motorised users groups and organisations at an early stage of Master Planning.