Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Search representations
Results for Mission Street & BGO Propco Newton Ltd search
New searchObject
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/AMC/SCL: South of Coldham’s Lane
Representation ID: 204031
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Mission Street & BGO Propco Newton Ltd
Agent: Stantec
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The application of a maximum storey height on buildings is inflexible when assessed in the context of other emerging spatial strategies and projects including East West Rail. The draft policy is also inconsistent with other parts of the draft Plan, including Policy S/C/SCL, and also with planning permission 23/04590/OUT. We propose that S/AMC/SCL paragraph 2c) should be amended.
We propose that S/AMC/SCL paragraph 2c) should be amended as follows:
“They are appropriate, [START OF NEW TEXT] in height, mass, density and landscaping, to the immediate residential context, to nearby designated and non-designated heritage assets and short, medium and strategic viewpoints of the site (in particular Strategic Viewpoint F (Little Trees Hill, Magog Down) [END OF NEW TEXT]. [START OF DELETED TEXT] historic environment including specific assets and their setting. implementing design-based mitigation, appropriate massing, and ensuring building heights are no taller than 6 storeys to ensure there aren’t negative impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets [END OF DELETED TEXT]. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Townscape Assessment should be completed to support this approach.”
Please refer to submitted supporting information.
The application of a maximum storey height on buildings is inflexible when assessed in the context of other emerging spatial strategies and projects including East West Rail. The draft policy is also inconsistent with other parts of the draft Plan, including Policy S/C/SCL, and also with planning permission 23/04590/OUT.
Object
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/C/SCL: Land South of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge
Representation ID: 204039
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Mission Street & BGO Propco Newton Ltd
Agent: Stantec
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The policy suggests that there are areas for potential archaeological activity in the vicinity of the site and that archaeological investigation will be required via Desk Based Assessment. It appears to us that this part of the policy has been drafted erroneously. Planning application 23/04590/OUT was subject to EIA where, at Scoping stage, archaeology was scoped out of the Environmental Statement, therefore indicating a very low risk of any archaeological significance - the Site was previous landfill. S/C/SCL paragraph 1c) should be deleted in full, as it is irrelevant to the Site’s conditions and context and is unnecessary.
S/C/SCL paragraph 1c) should be deleted in full, as it is irrelevant to the Site’s conditions and context and is unnecessary.
The policy suggests that there are areas for potential archaeological activity in the vicinity of the site and that archaeological investigation will be required via Desk Based Assessment. It appears to us that this part of the policy has been drafted erroneously. Planning application 23/04590/OUT was subject to EIA where, at Scoping stage, archaeology was scoped out of the Environmental Statement, therefore indicating a very low risk of any archaeological significance - the Site was previous landfill.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy J/AW: Affordable workspace and creative industries
Representation ID: 204047
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Mission Street & BGO Propco Newton Ltd
Agent: Stantec
We acknowledge that the Councils are open to ideas on how the J/AW policy should develop. However, we have some concerns over the way the draft policy is currently drafted and the effects the policy may have (if carried through) on the viability and deliverability of projects. We would challenge the draft policy’s requirements that affordable workspace should be delivered before or at the same time as 50% of the non-affordable workspace. Based on our understanding of the science and technology occupier market, start-up business prefer to co-locate close to established, more mature, businesses so that they can fully take advantage of the clustering benefits which can in turn drive innovation. Part 4, as drafted, therefore may not properly reflect market signals and again may hinder quick delivery of floorspace within the early parts of the plan period.
We acknowledge that the Councils are open to ideas on how the J/AW policy should develop. However, we have some concerns over the way the draft policy is currently drafted and the effects the policy may have (if carried through) on the viability and deliverability of projects. More detail provided in the attached.
