Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Search representations
Results for The Crown Estate search
New searchSupport
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Development strategy
Representation ID: 203570
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
TCE supports the emerging Development Strategy, specifically the retention of the NEC allocation and policy support for employment-led development and intensification of the existing science and business parks, taking advantage of the site’s highly sustainable location.
Cambridge Business Park lies at the heart of NEC and TCE is advancing proposals to comprehensively re-develop the site to deliver significant employment-led development and intensification of the site and is clearly aligned with the Development Strategy.
Policy criteria 2(a)(i) sufficiently supports development in NEC in the event the CWWTP is not relocated away from the site, which is uncertain during the plan period.
TCE supports the emerging Development Strategy, specifically the retention of the NEC allocation and policy support for employment-led development and intensification of the existing science and business parks, taking advantage of the site’s highly sustainable location.
Cambridge Business Park lies at the heart of NEC and TCE is advancing proposals to comprehensively re-develop the site to deliver significant employment-led development and intensification of the site and is clearly aligned with the Development Strategy.
Policy criteria 2(a)(i) sufficiently supports development in NEC in the event the CWWTP is not relocated away from the site, which is uncertain during the plan period.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Representation ID: 203584
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
Policy S/NEC (1-2) - TCE is supportive of the vision and identity set out in Policy S/NEC, specifically the policy support for NEC (including specific reference to Cambridge Business Park, which is an integral part of NEC) and employment-led development and intensification of the existing science and business parks, taking advantage of the site’s highly sustainable location. However, TCE is concerned that policy criteria 2 does not align with Policy S/DS (Development Strategy) – Policy criteria 2 should therefore be removed given the conflict with Policy S/DS and the fact the remainder of the NEC policy criteria covers the aspirations and spatial framework for NEC. Alternatively, as a minimum, policy criteria 2 should be amended to repeat the wording from Policy S/DS and thereby remove the focus on the CWWTP relocation ‘unlocking’ and ‘enabling’ development at NEC, which is not critical to achieving employment-led intensification of existing science and business parks.
Please refer to detailed comments provided in the attached document.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy WS/MU: Meanwhile uses during long term redevelopments
Representation ID: 203587
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
TCE is supportive of the principle of meanwhile uses, however clarification is needed in the policy wording as to what is considered “a long period of time”. The policy is currently too open ended; for instance an underused/vacant site or building for a period of 5 years in a 15-20 year masterplan might not be considered “a long period of time” on the context of the wider masterplan.
The GSCP should define what it considers to be “a long period of time” in the policy wording.
TCE is supportive of the principle of meanwhile uses, however clarification is needed in the policy wording as to what is considered “a long period of time”. The policy is currently too open ended; for instance an underused/vacant site or building for a period of 5 years in a 15-20 year masterplan might not be considered “a long period of time” on the context of the wider masterplan.
The GSCP should define what it considers to be “a long period of time” in the policy wording.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy H/CL: Co-living
Representation ID: 203591
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
TCE supports the Co-living policy as a means of helping diversify housing stock but raises concerns about policy criteria (c), arguing that the focus on schemes of 50-200 units may deter investment, as a minimum of 250 units is preferred by operators.
TCE suggests removing policy criteria (c) since policy criteria (b) already addresses the need to prevent over-concentration of co-living tenures and ensure a balanced housing mix.
Regarding policy criteria (i), TCE advocates for more flexible tenancy options, recommending the removal of the three-month minimum tenancy requirement to enhance the attractiveness and occupancy of co-living schemes.
TCE is supportive of Co-living policy as a means of helping diversify housing stock and encouraging housing delivery, however there is concern with policy criteria (c) for the reasons set out below.
Whilst there is an allowance in policy criteria (c) for co-living schemes of over 50-200 dwellings to come forward “where it is clearly demonstrated”, the ‘sweet spot’ for the co-living typology is usually 250+ units – 200 units is considered to be the bare minimum that would attract interest from an operational perspective. As such, the focus on schemes of 50-200 units is of concern as this would not be an attractive investment product to operators. Policy criteria (c) should be removed to address this issue as policy criteria (b) should sufficiently control the quantum of units delivered in any co-living scheme by preventing (as referenced in the policy criteria) an “over concentration of this type of tenure within an area or harm the overall mix of housing to meet needs”.
Policy criteria (i) – to maximise the potential for co-living as an investible product for operators and to maximise occupancy, co-living tenancies should be as flexible as possible. Many operators offer monthly tenancies and so a minimum of 3 months tenancy as stipulated in the policy criteria could limit to ability to deliver co-living schemes and/or limit the occupancy levels. To ensure flexibility, policy criteria (i) should be amended to remove reference to “with minimum tenancies of three months” and instead include a clause requiring the developer to provide evidence of the need for the intended minimum tenancy period.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles
Representation ID: 203592
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
Policy I/EV should take a more flexible approach to cycle parking which takes into account the projected employment demand for cycle parking on the basis of trip generation and monitoring, rather than a fully workplace-based workforce.
Policy I/EV should take a more flexible approach to cycle parking which takes into account the projected employment demand for cycle parking on the basis of trip generation and monitoring, rather than a fully workplace-based workforce.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Representation ID: 210077
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
Policy S/NEC (3) - The GCSP must urgently re-consider the quantum of development stated in Policy S/NEC and completely re-draft policy criteria 3(b) and 3(c). Additionally, amendments are required to policy criteria 3(e) regarding the new district centre, for the reasons set out below.
Policy criteria 3(b) and 3(c) - It is unclear what evidence base or data the employment floorspace figures are derived from, however the 320,000sqm of Use Class E(g) floorspace is not at all reflective of the current situation in NEC in terms of consented/committed schemes and emerging development proposals which are of significant scale. It is critical to the growth and success of NEC that the floorspace figures are re-visited and updated to ensure that policy does not unduly restrict growth.
Please refer to detailed comments provided in the attached document.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Representation ID: 210078
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
Policy criteria 3(e) - the policy should be amended to reference the need for the CWWTP re-location to take place in order for the district centre to be fully realised, otherwise it could risk placing an undue burden on surrounding development in NEC to contribute to the new district centre. Policy criteria 3(e) should be amended to include " e) Subject to the relocation of the CWWTP".
Please refer to detailed comments provided in the attached document.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Representation ID: 210079
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
Policy S/NEC (7) - Policy criteria 7(a) should be less prescriptive and rather than focusing mid to high density development and taller buildings around the ‘proposed district centre’ (which is predominantly reliant on the CWWTP relocation and Hartree scheme coming forward, both of which remain uncertain during the plan period) and fronting Milton Road. Policy criteria 7(a) should therefore be amended to remove reference to “primarily around the proposed district centre and fronting Milton Road”.
Please refer to detailed comments provided in the attached document.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Representation ID: 210080
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
As for policy criteria 7(i) (trip budget) TCE would reiterate its comments in relation to parts 19 to 24.
Please refer to detailed comments provided in the attached document.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NEC: North East Cambridge
Representation ID: 210081
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: WSP
Policy S/NEC (11) - Policy criteria 11(c) should be amended to include a clause that facilitates (where justified and suitably mitigated) the removal of hedgerows and vegetation to create crossings of the First Public Drain and in doing so achieve the desired north-south connectivity enhancements / contribute to achieving the vision for NEC. As drafted, policy criteria 11(c) causes tension with other NEC policy criteria, namely the desire for wider connectivity enhancements and improved linkages with the surrounding area. Policy criteria 11(c) should be amended as follows:
“The protection and enhancement of hedgerows and water bodies, including the First Public Drain, unless removal of hedgerows or vegetation is justified and suitably mitigated to facilitate crossing points over the First Public Drain to improve connectivity with Cowley Road.”
Please refer to detailed comments provided in the attached document.
