Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

The tree canopy requirement should be removed, or restated as aspirational only.

We object to Draft Policy BG/TC.
The statutory requirement to deliver a minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain already provides a robust, outcome-based mechanism for securing ecological enhancement. This framework is flexible, evidence-led and capable of responding to site-specific circumstances. The proposed tree canopy requirement appears to duplicate or cut across the BNG regime, without sufficient justification, and risks prioritising a single ecological metric over a balanced planning judgement with respect to trees within a development site.
The requirement for major development to demonstrate a minimum of 30% tree canopy cover on site risks introducing an inflexible and prescriptive constraint that could undermine development capacity, density and viability. As such, it is not aligned with national planning policy or with the Government’s stated ambition for growth.
The Draft Policy and supporting text state that canopy cover should be calculated using a Council-approved calculator or metric. However, neither the policy itself nor the Biodiversity and Green Spaces Topic Paper identifies what calculator or methodology is intended to be used. In the absence of a defined and agreed approach, the policy lacks clarity and certainty.
In the Greater Cambridge context, where sites are often constrained and development viability is already heavily influenced by multiple policy requirements, the introduction of a fixed canopy cover threshold risks placing an additional and unjustified burden on development. This could compromise scheme deliverability and, in turn, the ability of the Local Plan to be implemented as intended.

The requirement should be removed from the Policy.

We object to Draft Policy H/CB.
We object to the proposed mandatory requirement for 5% self-build homes as part of any development. Such a blanket approach across all developments is unjustified and self-build provision should only be sought on sites where there is a demonstrable need. This would be inconsistent with the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act, which focuses on demand registers, not quotas.
The current wording of the policy requires that even flatted developments must provide 5% custom-build units. While the supporting text clarifies that self-build flats would be delivered as custom-finish units, these are often already incorporated by developers as part of standard delivery models. As such, the requirement does not result in any meaningful additional benefit but instead places an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on developers.

It is therefore requested that Draft Policy I/ID and supporting text be revised to make clear that objections from utility providers cannot automatically prevent the grant of planning permission, and that development should proceed where reasonable mitigation or planning mechanisms can address infrastructure requirements.

We object to Draft Policy I/ID.
Draft Policy I/ID makes continual reference to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a way to ensure that schemes are acceptable in planning terms. As CIL has not been adopted in the Greater Cambridge Area, this mechanism for securing contributions via CIL does not yet existing and therefore it is premature to reference this in policy. It is recommended that the policy instead only refers to planning obligations or contributions via Section 106 agreements. This will ensure that the policy is clear, justified, and effective as outlined within the NPPF.
The Policy seeks to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to support new development, requiring developers to deliver or fund infrastructure, including via Section 106 or CIL. While the objective of adequate infrastructure is supported, the policy should not allow objections from utility providers, such as water companies, to unreasonably delay or prevent the grant of planning permission. Planning permission should not be refused solely on the basis of current capacity constraints where mitigation or phased delivery is feasible. Appropriate Planning Conditions and/or Obligations should allow for capacity issues to be overcome to ensure that do not unduly restrict housing delivery.
It is therefore requested that Draft Policy I/ID and supporting text be revised to make clear that objections from utility providers cannot automatically prevent the grant of planning permission, and that development should proceed where reasonable mitigation or planning mechanisms can address infrastructure requirements.

Remove the ICF allocation on the northern boundary of the Land south of Church Street, east of High Street (HELAA Ref. 40300).

E W Pepper objects to Draft Policy S/RRA on the basis that there are insufficient site allocations in the Rest of the Rural Area. The following sites should be allocated for housing development, in the following settlements:

Guilden Morden – HELAA Refs. 40300 (Land south of Church Street, east of High Street) and 40304 (Land off Swan Lane)

Guilden Morden – HELAA Ref. 40315 (Land at Town Farm)

Steeple Morden – HELAA Ref. 40294 (Land to the west of Brook End)

Arrington – HELAA Ref. 40292 (Land to the southwest of Ermine Way)

Kneesworth – HELAA Ref. 40299 (Land to the east of Old North Road)