Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Support

Representation ID: 205211

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

✅support point 2a-d- catchment area and wider community - with reference to S/PRIA/EG and the Elizabeth Way bridge and Underpass(es) cultural hub community project, I support community facilities that help to meet the day-to-day needs of local residents. ✅With reference to the above community project, I support a range of affordable facilities to be made accessible to local graduates and creatives, as well as target demographic groups (pupils, youth, students etc) ✅a wider audience of creatives, artists in residence, visitors/tourists and/or people obtaining a membership will assist with maintaining financial sustainability and wider social impact.

Comment

Representation ID: 205221

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

✅support: integrate youth and young people with open space and public realm: with reference to S/PRIA/EG and the Elizabeth Way bridge and Underpass(es) cultural hub community project, I support integration of Youth and young people with public realm provisions to suit outdoors, non-programmed behaviours, ✅I support accessible urban sports provisions including active landscaping, skating a.o. ✅Expand programme for a youth centres to allow for outdoors gathering (not in playgrounds) ✅provide young people with public realm adjacencies that increase safety, particularly enabling girls and young women: provide ample lighting, heat/shelter, toilets, food, water a.o.

Support

Representation ID: 205224

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

✅support: designated temporary, flexible outdoors markets/street trading: with reference to S/PRIA/EG and the Elizabeth Way bridge and Underpass(es) cultural hub community project, ✅I support establishing a designated centre for street trading operations. ✅I support regular outdoors markets on the Walnut Tree Avenue under-used access road, hosting various types o fmarkets for residents and visitors. ✅The area is not currently designated but has strong potential for smaller markets to emerge and grow over time, given pedestrian footfall and cycle flow data E/W along the river promenade and also N/S between the wards with better connectivity.

Support

Representation ID: 205228

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

✅support: principles of sustainable development / etention of concrete infrastructures in a climate emergency: with reference to S/PRIA/EG and the Elizabeth Way bridge and Underpass(es) community project, ❌I object to proposals to demolish the Underpass, proposals were rejected during the 2023 consultation. It would cause unnecessary disturbance and high-carbon emissions to backfill and level the underpass drum 70’s transport infrastructure which contains existing biodiversity and has proven potential as an inviting public square. ✅ I support minimal environmental footprint / maximum impact redevelopment of the as-found underpasses and undercrofts, greening of the public realm in and around the transport infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 205233

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

✅support: Vision-led integration of vehicular transport, prioritising active transport and better connectivity: with reference S/PRIA/EG and the Elizabeth Way bridge and Underpass(es) project, I support reduced reliance on vehicular transport and better integration of pedestrians and active transport users within a car-dominated infrastructure. ✅I support integration of a bus network to mitigate reliance on vehicular traffic in this central, congested area. ✅the new urban realm surrounding the infrastructure must achieve better connectivity N/S and E/W by redesigning the roundabout transport node, Prioritise pedestrian and cyclist desire lines and active transport modes (pedestrians, cyclists a.o.)

Comment

Representation ID: 205347

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

I support Cambridge Junction in asking that (supported by Theatres Trust):
temporary provision for all cultural functions must be secured before any demolition or displacement
reprovision is delivered as an early phase; no gap in provision
any future Junction is at least equivalent in standard and capacity, including audience, back-of-house, technical capability, servicing
long-term operational/financial viability assessed alongside spatial design
delivery governed through a structured process (CJ/Council governance, RIBA stages, shared brief before developer engagement)
Agent of Change applied so residential development doesn’t restrict Junction operations
I cannot support this allocation unless continuity, equivalence and viable delivery mechanisms are secured.

Comment

Representation ID: 205356

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

I support Cambridge Junction in asking that:
operational sustainability (management, revenue, long-term viability) is explicitly required alongside spatial and design briefs
flexibility is embedded to allow culture to evolve over time
stronger links are made to delivery mechanisms, including the Cultural Infrastructure Strategy and partnership models
This ensures cultural hubs are viable, adaptable and resilient.
I support Create Cambridge in asking that:
the Agent of Change principle is explicitly embedded, placing responsibility for mitigation on new residential development, not existing venues
major developments demonstrate equitable access, including late-evening public transport, so hubs serve the wider region, not only immediate residents

Comment

Representation ID: 205367

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

I support Cambridge Junction and Create Cambridge in asking that:
• cultural infrastructure’s ongoing revenue and organisational capacity needs are recognised, not just physical buildings
• culture is embedded in cross-cutting outcomes (innovation, health, education, community resilience)
• partnership frameworks between councils, cultural organisations and communities are referenced as delivery mechanisms
This aligns community infrastructure with lived cultural use.

Comment

Representation ID: 205381

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

I support Cambridge Junction and Create Cambridge in asking that:
• cultural infrastructure’s contribution to climate outcomes (adaptive reuse, shared spaces, walkable places) is explicitly recognised
• culture is embedded within this chapter, not treated solely as a social outcome
Cultural venues support low-carbon placemaking and should be reflected in climate policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 205390

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Junction / Create Cambridge

I support Cambridge Junction and Create Cambridge in asking that:
• “Affordable Office Space” is clearly distinguished from “Cultural Production Space”
• genuinely affordable cultural production space is required (e.g. peppercorn, with rental charges well-below market rates and established based on evidence, ie Wysing Arts Centre’s research on affordable artist studios)
• rehearsal, making and sole-use studios are prioritised over generic co-working
• a minimum requirement (e.g., 10% in schemes over 1,000 sqm) is introduced
This safeguards usable creative space from being diluted.