Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211429

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

Logistics sites should be sited as close as possible to residential centres to encourage walking or cycling. It seems that Slate Hall Farm/C25 can meet this requirement, although there are significant issues with other forms of traffic generated by this site. It is less clear that Jaynic’s site is within reasonable active travel distance for existing or proposed housing sufficient for its needs. The Newlands site would seem to be too remote from centres of housing to result in a significant number of employees choosing active travel as a regular means of commuting. Noon Folly, or Tritax may provide more scope for active travel although this proposal suffers from other deficiencies referred to in the sections of this note covering traffic and size and scale of the development.

Comment

Representation ID: 211431

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

Policy I/ST Para 3 should be amended to require any logistics development above a defined size to demonstrate access from the National Highways network, including necessary junction upgrades.

Comment

Representation ID: 211432

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

Specific access proposals – Slate Hall Farm/C25 via the A1307, Jaynic via Boxworth Road, Tritax/Noon Folly’s new slip‑road onto the B1050, and Newlands via the Swavesey south roundabout – would add substantial traffic and are inadequately addressed. Where logistics developments are included in the local plan the relevant Policy should be amended to make specific reference to acceptable access routes to the national road network. We maintain that, far from being ‘detail’, without site access requirements being set out in the Draft Plan Policies we are unable to assess the cumulative impact on our local communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 211433

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

All developers should be explicit about how they will manage HGV parking provision to avoid further impacts on communities along the A14 corridor at Bar Hill and Boxworth.

Comment

Representation ID: 211434

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

Swavesey’s drainage system is already at capacity; the plan lacks cumulative attenuation data and basins capable of holding water for up to four weeks, and does not assure that Uttons Drove Treatment Works can handle the additional demands and that the drainage system will cope.

Comment

Representation ID: 211435

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

Future developments should support future industries whilst maintaining the essential nature of a university city in a still, largely, rural setting. It would be inappropriate for scarce resources of land and water together with fragile flood management to be used to support logistics hubs where the primary focus is not on supporting the local economy.

Comment

Representation ID: 211436

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

Cambridge is located in an environment where the land is flat and views are extensive. Such views need to be preserved. In this environment ‘big boxes’, with eaves hights of 24m, equivalent to a seven story building would be inappropriate. Neither Tritax and Newlands developments meet policy requirements nor the implied restrictions on the size and scale of rural developments. Any developments should be required to clearly demonstrate (including through 3D illustrations), at consultation phase, maximum size, including overall heights, of the buildings on developments and how through comprehensive landscaping their developments will not be visible beyond the site boundaries. Supported logistic/commercial developments on the A14 corridor should consist of small to medium size buildings. Eaves heights should be restricted and clearly set out; In this context 10/12 m would seem appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 211439

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

The plan does not provide a cumulative traffic assessment for the four proposed logistics sites, which is a significant shortfall.

Comment

Representation ID: 211440

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

No developer has supplied high‑ or low‑case traffic forecasts, making it impossible to evaluate access and mitigation measures despite numerous requests at the public consultations and in parish engagements. This is disappointing and makes meaningful assessment of proposed access to the sites and any mitigations difficult, if not impossible. Developers should be required to make this public prior to the next round of consultation.

Comment

Representation ID: 211441

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Boxworth Parish Meeting

Structural problems on the A14 bridges at junctions 24 and 25 are worsening and require permanent solutions, which the plan does not address.