Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211045

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

The windfall reliance is considered high, particularly in light of the Councils’ apparent anticipation that these will mostly comprise previously developed sites. A more appropriate strategy is for the windfall requirement to be reduced and a greater range of sites explicitly allocated, including for the lower order settlements where the current development strategy is for very limited development.

Comment

Representation ID: 211046

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

The current development strategy with the high reliance on windfall sites is much more likely to lead to unsustainable village development than a strategy where the Council has control over ensuring village development is located where there is good access to a high quality public transport network and provides the required infrastructure. We have concerns regarding the robustness of the development strategy and its ability to bring sufficient land forward for development at a sufficient rate to address the objectively assessed need over the plan period as required by NPPF para. 23. The Plan should increase the distribution of development across the plan area ensuring that a wide range of sites are proposed for development by including a greater number of site allocations in sustainable rural areas with good access to public transport and facilities, such as Land West of London Road, Fowlmere.

Comment

Representation ID: 211047

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

Development should be assigned across the settlement hierarchy, with development proportionate to the provision of services and facilities and access to the public transport network. Applying restrictions on the maximum amount of development that is appropriate to any particular tier is not considered to be a justified approach, as the sustainability of settlements and the availability of suitable sites for development can vary between settlements within the same tier. A more appropriate strategy would be to make additional site allocations, considering the rural settlements on an individual basis. This would help meet with the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes by ensuring that that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed (NPPF, para. 61).

Comment

Representation ID: 211048

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

It is strongly considered that the failure of the evidence base to consider all modes of transport and bus services within Fowlmere and its connectivity to the surrounding settlements represents a flaw in the overall settlement assessment. This has subsequently resulted in sites that are being promoted within Fowlmere not being properly considered for development and not being subject to an independent site assessment.

Comment

Representation ID: 211049

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

The proposed policy based on settlement boundaries (or defined development extents) around settlements is supported. However, the proposed development strategy to restrict the number of dwellings in certain tiers of the settlement hierarchy and the low number of site allocations proposed for the rural areas will prevent sustainable development from being brought forward unless further sites are allocated for development and included within the settlement boundary. Should the Councils wish to continue to apply a heavy reliance on windfall development to accommodate growth, the settlement boundaries will need to be drawn more loosely around existing settlements, particularly those beyond the outer Green Belt boundary, to allow for speculative development to come forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 211050

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

Promotion of Land to the East Side of Cambridge Road, Melbourn (HELAA: 47757). It is considered that Melbourn has access to a good range of facilities and services, including public transport as noted below and reflected in its identification as a Minor Rural Centre, able to accommodate additional housing growth. Land East of Cambridge Road, Melbourn offers a sustainable location for accommodating residential development.

Comment

Representation ID: 211051

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

It is noted that the plan period encompasses a total of 21 years, from 2024 through to 2045. Whilst, on the face of it, this appears to be a reasonable timeframe, it is important to consider whether this would meet the NPPF requirement (set out at para. 22) for strategic policies to look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from adoption, and for policies to be set within a vision that looks ahead at least 30 years, where larger scale developments such as new settlements and significant urban extensions are proposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 211052

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

Whilst the supporting text of the Plan acknowledges the need for flexibility to allow for potential achievement of higher job growth, so as not to restrict employment growth, it is unclear that this has been reflected in the wording of Policy S/JH itself, given application of the lower, central scenario and acceptance of the standard method on the basis that its housing levels would meet this. As such there is a potential risk of restricting job growth and failing to meet the economic objective of sustainable development included in the NPPF (para 8a).

Comment

Representation ID: 211053

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Councils propose allocation of enough sites to provide a buffer to enable flexibility to deal with unforeseen circumstances (under Policy S/DS, on which we provide separate comments), flexibility to support higher jobs growth should also be incorporated in the Local Plan. To provide for appropriate flexibility for unforeseen economic growth, a range of additional contingency site allocations should be included within the housing trajectory. This will ensure the Local Plan is positively prepared, justified and effective in accordance with the NPPF tests of soundness. Land West of London Road, Fowlmere offers a sustainable location for development and is immediately available for development, therefore able to contribute to the Councils’ short to medium housing delivery rates.

Comment

Representation ID: 211054

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

It is noted that the ‘Overview’ section of the supporting text, at para. 2.55 refers to a blended strategy to meet a variety of needs which responds to opportunities provided by different sources of supply. This general approach is supported, although we have comments on the balance of supply from different sources, as well as on specific identified sites with regard to deliverability concerns. It is supported that (at para. 2.55d) sites should be developed that can be well-integrated with existing communities to reinforce the distinctive character of the city, towns and villages, having regard to development at densities and in forms which make best use of land whilst creating well-designed, characterful places.