Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 201661

Received: 22/01/2026

Respondent: BioMed Realty

Agent: Bidwells

BioMed Realty support the continued allocation of Fulbourn Road East under Policy S/EOC/FRE. However, to ensure the policy remains flexible and effective, several amendments are required. In particular, the policy should allow greater flexibility in the floorspace quantum and building height parameters, avoiding overly prescriptive limits that could constrain delivery. In addition, clarity is needed regarding the approach to any landscape buffer to the east of the site to ensure this is appropriately defined and controlled. Please refer to the covering letter for further detail on the recommended amendments to the policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 210427

Received: 22/01/2026

Respondent: BioMed Realty

Agent: Bidwells

Planning permission for development has been
granted and implemented on site (ref. 21/00772/OUT, as amended by 23/03182/S73), demonstrating the deliverability of development within the proposed allocation. This is a fact that must be noted in the supporting text of the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210428

Received: 22/01/2026

Respondent: BioMed Realty

Agent: Bidwells

The policy cites 56,000 sqm of development (the sub-text states ‘approximately’ 56,000 sqm). While the policy does not impose a fixed cap on development, the reference to a specific floorspace figure is unhelpful in its current form and risks being misinterpreted as a limit on the quantum of development. An amendment is needed to either remove the floorspace reference or replaced with a reference to an approximate figure of development. The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the policy remains effective and flexible, particularly where additional floorspace could be delivered without adverse impacts and tested through the detailed assessment of a planning application.

Comment

Representation ID: 210429

Received: 22/01/2026

Respondent: BioMed Realty

Agent: Bidwells

The policy in its current form does not define what constitutes the ‘eastern part’ which introduces ambiguity. Additionally, this criterion is considered unnecessary given criterion 1 (e), which requires a landscape buffer to the eastern part of the site, which reflects the approved application (21/00772/OUT) and its landscape buffer to the eastern boundary. Amendments to the wording of the policy are needed in order to define the extent of the ‘eastern part’ clearly (to match the eastern landscape zone of the approved application) or the preferred approach is to remove criterion 1 (b) to avoid unnecessary duplication with the landscape buffer requirement in criterion
1 (e).

Comment

Representation ID: 210430

Received: 22/01/2026

Respondent: BioMed Realty

Agent: Bidwells

The inclusion of a fixed height restriction within the policy wording is unnecessary and overly prescriptive. The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed to provide greater flexibility to improve the effectiveness of the policy and avoid the risk of limiting development over the plan period. A detailed matter that would be better assessed and determined through the assessment of any future planning application. The draft NPPF promotes a greater density of development. It is not necessary or helpful for the policy to unduly control the details of a future development that would act against the effective use of the land.