Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Object

Representation ID: 203202

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The meaning of this is unclear: the wording is much too vague- it does not explain the aim of the policy clearly to plan users.

Object

Representation ID: 203212

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In reviewing this chapter of the local plan, the policies stated are too detailed and provide significant overlap with national planning policies. The Plan does not recognise that the additional impact and costs which providing the information required will have on the viability and content of planning applications. Some of this information may be appropriate for a large application but for smaller schemes below 100 dwellings a more considered approach should be taken to the amount of information sought.

Comment

Representation ID: 203215

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

This policy is supported subject to the thresholds at which different complexities of statements is retained.

In relation to hot food takeaways, it is questionable whether this section is required as there is clear and unambiguous advice provided in the current and draft NPPF. It is unnecessary repetition of national policy

Comment

Representation ID: 203343

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

Whilst the objectives of this policy are laudable it is contended that the threshold at which this policy applies should be set higher.

In the case of schemes of 10 dwellings it is likely that the scheme would be built by a small contractor who has an established workforce in under a year from approval. The threshold should be raised to +50 dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 203360

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is contended that the wording of this policy is too extensive and needs to recognise that some of the adverse impacts can be mitigated by suitably worded conditions or via validation checklists. There is also a need to recognise that other regulatory regimes can rectify some of the issues specified. The policy could result in unnecessary cross-over between regimes.

Object

Representation ID: 203369

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Again, this policy is aimed at large-scale developments and there should be a recognition that if development is provided in villages that are also communities, it may not be possible to meet the full checklist of information being sought and a proportionate approach should be used.

Object

Representation ID: 203376

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Is this really required when such information could be sought by a design guide and addressed in a detailed Design and Access Statement?

Comment

Representation ID: 203382

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

It is important that policy is reviewed to ensure that it is in accordance with the advice contained within the draft revised NPPF which is due to be adopted in June/July 2026.

Comment

Representation ID: 203387

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

Care should be taken to ensure that non-designated heritage assets are not by default elevated to the status of Designated Assets. The policy implies a similar level of assessment, protection and recording for non-designated assets as would be expected for, for example, listed buildings.

Object

Representation ID: 203395

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: ESCO Prospect

Agent: Chaplin Farrant Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is contended that the percentage of one-bedroom units being sought in the South Cambridgeshire area is too high. The Plan should recognise that providing larger units, (i.e. two bedrooms- still relatively small homes), will allow families to grow without the need to move. Also, a clearer distinction should be made between urban and rural areas.