Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Girton Position
Girton is a Green Belt–enclosed Minor Rural Centre where growth is tightly limited. Sustainable development for Girton depends on accurate population baselines, realistic growth assumptions, and clear recognition that Neighbourhood Plans cannot alter Green Belt boundaries. [consultati...anning.org]
Key Points

The Draft Plan’s use of “housing requirement” is inaccurate for Neighbourhood Plan areas and should be “indicative housing figure”. [consultati...anning.org]
The 2021 Census incorrectly included part of Eddington within “Girton,” inflating the housing figure from 80 to 90. [consultati...anning.org]
Growth assumptions must reflect the fundamental constraint of the Green Belt.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan

Replace “housing requirement” with “indicative housing figure” throughout the Plan.
Formally recognise Girton’s Minor Rural Centre status and limited growth capacity.
Ensure sustainable development principles acknowledge the Eddington census anomaly and correct the baseline. [consultati...anning.org]

Girton Position
Girton supports net biodiversity gain anchored in connected habitats and place‑specific protections, including the Girton Gap and locally important blue corridors (Washpit Brook, Beck Brook).

Key Points
The Girton Gap is strategic to identity and ecological continuity; releasing AR1 would merge Girton with Cambridge.
Non‑chalk watercourses (Washpit/Beck Brooks) are locally significant for ecology and flood pathways; they require explicit safeguards.
Biodiversity corridors should link the Rec, Town End Close LNR (pending), Hibbert‑Ware Garden & Smithy Green, and Active Travel routes.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Require meaningful biodiversity gain with connected corridor mapping through Girton.
Explicitly protect Washpit Brook and Beck Brook within biodiversity policy text.
Embed Girton Gap as a strategic biodiversity and settlement‑separation asset.

Girton Position
Girton needs a joined‑up green–blue network that doubles as flood resilience, habitat corridors, and safe Active Travel.

Key Points
Washpit and Beck Brooks contribute to flooding but also function as blue corridors; infrastructure must not degrade them.
Active Travel routes can host linear SuDS, trees, and rain gardens to add shade, habitat, and attenuation.
The network should connect the Rec, Town End Close, Hibbert‑Ware Garden & Smithy Green, and the Girton–Histon corridor.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Safeguard Girton’s green–blue corridors and add a no‑net‑increase downstream flood risk test.
Require nature‑based SuDS integrated with Active Travel.
Map and protect links between village spaces and brooks.

Girton Position
Girton wants tree canopy gains targeted along Active Travel corridors, brook margins, and gateway edges to reinforce habitat and cooling while protecting the Girton Gap.

Key Points
Street trees and riparian planting deliver shade, overheating resilience, and biodiversity.
Canopy expansion should connect Rec → Town End Close → Brooks → Active Travel. [consultati...anning.org]
Protect mature trees and hedgerows that define rural character.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Prioritise riparian and corridor planting in Girton.
Require replacement ratios and long‑term management for canopy assets.
Guard hedgerows and mature trees, particularly within the Girton Gap.

Girton Position
Girton’s Washpit Brook and Beck Brook are locally critical river corridors for ecology, flood paths, and connectivity; they must be explicitly protected.

Key Points
These non‑chalk corridors affect village flooding and ecology.
Development affecting their catchments must show no net increase in downstream flood risk and deliver biodiversity gain.
Align SuDS and riparian buffers with community access where safe.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Name Washpit and Beck Brooks within BG/RC and safeguard them.
Require nature‑based riparian buffers, SuDS, and connectivity to wider habitats.
Tie river‑corridor enhancements to Active Travel where feasible.

Girton Position
Girton welcomes mapped open‑space designations but is concerned that BG/PO treats Local Green Space (LGS) less protectively than national policy that requires “exceptional circumstances.”

Key Points
NPPF para 108 requires LGS development only in exceptional circumstances; BG/PO should match that strength.
Where a site is both POS and LGS, the LGS protection should prevail.
Girton NP evidence supports LGS designations for valued spaces.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Amend BG/PO to apply the exceptional circumstances test to LGS.
Confirm LGS overrides POS on dual‑designated sites.
Recognise Girton’s LGS evidence (landscape, ecology, heritage, recreation).

Girton Position
Girton seeks village‑scale recreation and wellbeing land near or within the built‑up area, with shared‑use agreements with schools and biodiversity‑friendly design.

Key Points
Parish councils spend up to 85% of budgets on youth/sport — demand is real.
Open spaces should connect to Active Travel, habitat corridors, and blue‑green networks.
Area 11 (Hibbert‑Ware Garden & Smithy Green) meets the Local Plan definition of open space; assess for POS/LGS.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Allocate land for youth, sport, and wellbeing facilities in/adjacent to Girton.
Require school shared‑use agreements within allocations.
Assess Area 11 for POS and LGS with mapping verification.

Girton Position
Healthy development in Girton is delivered through local, accessible recreation spaces, strong Active Travel networks, and youth‑focused community infrastructure, not through distant strategic hubs.

Key Points
Girton residents prioritise walkable, local recreation and youth facilities.
Village‑scale provision improves mental health, reduces loneliness, and encourages safe activity.
Health outcomes depend on safe cycling/walking routes, the Pavilion upgrade, and green‑space protection.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Prioritise local recreation and wellbeing spaces within/adjacent to Girton.
Anchor healthy‑development criteria to Active Travel connections and accessible community facilities.
Ensure health infrastructure is village‑scale, not only district‑scale.

Girton Position
Girton’s needs revolve around youth provision, shared‑use facilities, and accessible recreation land, reflecting its existing and emerging community profile.

Key Points
Parish councils spend up to 85% of budgets on youth/sport — signalling real need.
Shared‑use agreements with Girton Glebe and local schools will unlock vital space.
Growth without matching community infrastructure risks further strain on limited local assets.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Require school–parish shared‑use agreements in new development proposals.
Support land identification for youth, sport, community space, and active recreation.
Embed localised service‑provision expectations for Minor Rural Centres like Girton.

Girton Position
Girton’s identity and wellbeing depend on local sport and leisure, especially the Pavilion, recreation ground, and youth activity spaces.

Key Points
Strong public support for Pavilion upgrades, youth sport, and accessible recreation.
Active Travel enhances access to facilities and reduces parking stress.
Shared school use is essential to meet rising demand.

GPC Requests to the Local Plan
Allocate land for youth, sport, community wellbeing facilities in/near the village.
Require shared access to school facilities.
Prioritise village‑scale investment, not only large district centres.