Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208293

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: Turley

We request that the mandatory net‑biodiversity gain for major developments remain at the statutory 10 % rather than the draft’s 20 % requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 208294

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: Turley

We note that the Net Zero Carbon Building Standard results are not yet published, so our comments on the Designing for a Changing Climate policy may be revised at the Regulation 19 stage.

Object

Representation ID: 208295

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The College fully supports the need to improve water efficiency in new developments given the serious issue within the Greater Cambridge area with respect to water stress. We acknowledge the need to find practical and viable solutions that can go beyond current targets, but any solutions must also be reliable and acceptable to development and recognise the challenges of specific building types.

The College assumes that for student accommodation, the target of 5 credits for category Wat01 of BREEAM will be relevant (strand c) of the policy) is relevant. To achieve these targets will require extensive water management and recycling facilities including potentially rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling. The use of these technologies may not be possible within the constraints of the broader environment. The College therefore considers the term ‘unless demonstrated not practicable’ should be applied to decision making and all the water efficiency targets presented.

Object

Representation ID: 208296

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The College considers that the introduction of Riparian Buffer Zones in Part 2 of the policy. is excessive and unnecessary. Imposing a blanket restriction on development with a fixed buffer of 10m fails to take into account the considerable variation in the existing and historic development pattern along the riverbank and associated watercourses. For example, a fundamental aspect of the character of central Cambridge is the relationship of open space with historic (including College) buildings many of which sit on or very close to the riverbank. To reinstate a 10-15m buffer zone along the river Cam would significantly harm the character and appearance of many established areas, the vast majority of which are protected by Conservation Area designation. This policy would therefore be at odds with the Statutory Duty within Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (and potentially Section 66 of the same act relating to the setting of Listed Buildings) and the heritage policies within the existing and this draft local plan.

In any case, the College considers that Part 2 of the policy is unnecessary as the protection of water quality and watercourse habitats (the aims of this policy) are already covered by a range of robust policies in the draft Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 211490

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

It is considered important that Employment and Skills Plans are applied in a flexible and proportionate manner, having regard to the nature, scale and phasing of individual developments, as well as the operational requirements of occupiers. An appropriately tailored approach will ensure that Employment and Skills Plans remain effective, deliverable and aligned with existing initiatives across the Science Park, while continuing to provide meaningful benefits to the local community and workforce.

Support

Representation ID: 211491

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Trinity College Cambridge supports the inclusion of flexibility to allow affordable workspace requirements to be met off-site in exceptional circumstances. These circumstances may include, but are not limited to, developments where an occupier requires exclusive use of a single office building, or where mixed-use sites comprise multiple landownerships that make on-site provision impractical.

Object

Representation ID: 211494

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

TCC recognise the importance that open spaces play across Cambridge Science Park. All of the open spaces and biodiverse areas within the Science Park have been planned and curated over its 55 year history.

However, TCC OBJECT to the inclusion as currently outlined on the draft policies map.

Firstly, the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Team have not adopted this approach on any other strategic employment site. Having reviewed Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Granta Park and the Wellcome Campus none of these employment sites contain land designated under policy BG/PO.

The designation's green outline is not logical as shown. It includes car parking areas and development sites. It is considered that the inclusion of numerous other policies within the draft local plan, including Policy BG/BG and written elements within Policy S/NEC, cover off the retention and reprovision of open space where necessary.
Appendix 1 includes an Open Space Assessment of the currently proposed designated open space and demonstrates the inconsistencies within the emerging Local Plan designations across the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 211496

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

The spatial framework should be categorised as “illustrative”.

The inclusion of specified uses within the site (namely the Cambridge Science Park portion) including the link road, active travel connections and roundabout locations is objected to as currently drafted. There are numerous policies within the draft Local Plan that manage and monitor both existing and proposed infrastructure development on the site, and so it is therefore not necessary for the Spatial Framework to dictate the position of these too.

Comment

Representation ID: 211497

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

It is further considered that the key on the Spatial framework is not simple to understand. The roundabout and link road currently identified on the Cambridge Science Park site does not have a label within the key. Additionally, a roundabout is drawn on the Science Park which is visually similar to the New Guided Busway Stop symbol. Given only one roundabout is shown on the entire framework plan it is suggested that this should not be shown.

Comment

Representation ID: 211498

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

There is also a grey outline of a bus on the Cambridge Science Park site which is considered to potentially demonstrate the location of the existing busway stop, but is not shown on the key, or duplicated outside of Cambridge North Station, where another busway stop exists. Clarification on this matter and the key is requested.