Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Object

Representation ID: 211499

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that the open space within the Spatial Framework is too prescriptive and the intricate nature of the area identified within Figure 17 is too detailed and should be removed.

Comment

Representation ID: 211500

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

The inclusion of Cambridge Science Park as an “existing innovation hub” within the vision and identity for North East Cambridge, including reference to “enabling [them] to evolve to meet future needs” is welcomed. It is considered extremely important for the policy wording to provide flexibility for the growth of Cambridge Science Park to continue to meet market demands over the coming decades and to ensure it remains a global hub of excellence.

Although the inclusion of Cambridge Science Park within the policy is supported and there is recognition that this policy is subject to change, there are some aspects of the policy wording which could impact delivery of the future of Cambridge Science Park.

Comment

Representation ID: 211501

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Comments on the "Uses" Section

Policy S/NEC caps the ambitions by allowing only “up to 320,000 sqm (GIA) of additional business floorspace (Use Class E(g))” by 2045.

It is not clear how the 320,000 sqm additional floorspace cap has been derived. This constraint would limit the scale of future growth at CSP, despite the site’s potential to expand beyond this level.

This is significant in the context of the Employment and Housing Evidence Update 2025 (EHEU 2025), where Iceni identifies a need for approximately 600,000 sqm of R&D floorspace and 302,600 sqm of office floorspace across Greater Cambridge.

Capping the development in North East Cambridge risks constraining the ability of the wider area to meet identified employment land requirements. The inclusion of a maximum figure is not consistent with the approach across the emerging Local Plan and should be a minimum figure to support economic growth within the wider constraints which are dealt with through the application of other parts of the emerging policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 211502

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Comments on the "Context" section

It is understood that this section of the Policy will need to be re-written following review of how this area and allocation will progress given the current uncertainty of the CWWTP decision.

Comment

Representation ID: 211503

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Comments on the "Built Form" section:

The following observations are made to relevant criterion:

"a. Mid- to higher-density development with taller buildings in well-justified locations, primarily around the proposed district centre and fronting Milton Road;
b. well-articulated urban skyline that responds to the setting of the city, key views and integrates varied rooflines and silhouettes;"

Broadly, SUPPORT is given to reference to mid- to higher-density development with taller buildings in well-justified locations, however with uncertainty regarding the delivery of the proposed district centre, and the wider area, the reference to “primarily around the district centre and fronting Milton Road” should be reviewed.

Comment

Representation ID: 211504

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Comments on the "Built Form" section:

The following observations are made to relevant criterion:

"c. A strong design character that draws on its industrial heritage (such as waterworks and sidings) while embracing architectural innovation;"

Given the 55 year history of Cambridge Science Park in this location, and the likely delivery of development at scale the embracing of architectural innovation is appropriate. However, the context to the west of Milton Road within the S/NEC area (with a 55 year history of scientific innovation and discovery) is quite different to the east of Milton Road (and its industrial heritage).

Comment

Representation ID: 211505

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Comments on the "Built Form" section:

The following observations are made to relevant criterion:

"e. Proposals must avoid closed ‘campus-style’ layouts and promote openness and inclusivity, providing public access to green spaces, roof terraces, cafes, and community facilities;"

Cambridge Science Park is evolving and a masterplan is being developed with a drive to actively promote wider use of the assets within by the wider community. For example the proposals include a ‘Park of Science’ within the green spaces at the heart of the Science Park open to and for the enjoyment of both employees on the Science Park and the wider community. In addition Cambridge Science Centre is now located on the Science Park, actively welcoming the wider community into the heart of the site.
However, given the nature of the science undertaken within certain buildings and with specific reference to roof terraces and cafes, the wording in this criteria should include ‘as appropriate’ rather than a blanket requirement for all roof terraces and cafes to be open to the public.

Comment

Representation ID: 211506

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Comments on the "Built Form" section:

The following observations are made to relevant criterion:

"i. NEC is anchored by Cambridge Science Park, St John’s Innovation Park, and Cambridge Business Park, which drive the local and national innovation economy. Commercial development will be delivered through intensification of existing employment parks and mixed-use development around the district centre and local centres, including land adjacent to Cambridge North Station. This level of development will require enhancements to sustainable travel and adherence to the identified trip budgets;"

Recognition of the importance of Cambridge Science Park and its role within not just the local but national economy is supported.

It is acknowledged that the principle of adherence to identified trip budgets is consistent with the approach across the emerging Local Plan, however it will be crucial to ensure that the identified trip budget is well evidenced and appropriate. Given the changing nature of this policy, further comment on the proposed trip budget will be reserved until the Regulation 19 consultation, and TCC would welcome the opportunity to work with the LPA to establish an appropriate trip budget for the Science Park.

Object

Representation ID: 211507

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Comments on the "Nature" section

Overall, the inclusion of policy wording in general on the delivery of green and blue infrastructure across Nort East Cambridge is supported.

However, as currently drafted we cannot support Part 11c of Policy S/NEC: “meeting 20% Biodiversity Net Gain on-site …”

The Environment Act 2021, the national legislative requirement as set out by Government for BNG is set at 10%, with no aspirational goals included within the Act for this to be increased through the local planning system.

It is considered that the inclusion of 20% BNG within the NEC policy wording has not met the tests required within the PPG. There is not strong enough or sufficient evidence to demonstrate the local need for the percentage to be raised to 20% from the statutory objective of 10%, particularly within Cambridge Science Park.

Therefore, the option to deliver BNG through application of the Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy should not be removed through this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 211508

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Trinity College, Cambridge

Agent: DP9 Ltd

Comments on the "Movement" section

13c states that development should be within 5 minutes’ walk of high quality pubic transport and active travel routes. This requirement may be unachievable across the entire North East Cambridge area. People are usually willing to walk further than 5 minutes for higher quality services on public transport, which the site provides through the close proximity of the Guided Busway and Cambridge North railway station.

Additionally, the policy does not mention the important role of cycling within the route to public transport as only walking is mentioned.