Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211055

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

The site at Cambridge East comprises land at Cambridge Airport that was safeguarded from the previous plan, which was also identified as a growth area as part of the Cambridge Local Plan (2003). As set out in greater detail below, noting the significant amount of time that this allocation has been identified within previous Local Plans, we raise significant concerns over the delivery of this site within the timescales anticipated, particularly noting larger sites by their very nature can take longer to be delivered.

Comment

Representation ID: 211056

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

To encourage a more reliable delivery rate across the plan area we propose that additional sites are allocated to ensure the consistent delivery of dwellings to significantly boost the supply of homes as required by Paragraph 61 of the NPPF. Only 17 of these 19 sites are strictly ‘new’. In total the 17 sites will provide 7,013 dwellings (equating to approximately 12.69% of the total supply). It is therefore clear that the Plan continues to make provision for a very limited number of new sites. There is a heavy reliance on existing and previously identified sites rolled forward from the adopted Local Plans and many of these sites are on a large scale which also means they typically take longer to be brought forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 211057

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

The draft Local Plan illustrates within Table 4 that with the inclusion of capacity at North East Cambridge a 14.7% buffer, in excess of the minimum housing requirement, would be provided. However, with insufficient certainly over deliverability of this site it should be excluded from the calculation and therefore a resultant buffer of just 6.5% would remain. This is insufficient and therefore additional site allocations should be included at this stage in the plan making process to ensure the plan is effective (deliverable over the plan period) as required by the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 211058

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: 211059

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

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. It is considered that there should be a greater focus on a wide range of sites being brought forward 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 to the east side of Cambridge Road, Melbourn. Smaller sites can often be brought forward quicker and provide greater certainty of delivery, particularly in the early part of the plan period. As acknowledged by para. 83 of the NPPF, housing in rural areas can maintain the vitality of rural communities and provide opportunities for rural centres and villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. The same passage also recognises how, where there are groups of villages, development in one may support services in other nearby villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 211060

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: 211061

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments (and Landowners)

Agent: Boyer Planning

Melbourn is identified in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘Minor Rural Centre’. We do not disagree with Melbourn’s position in the Settlement Hierarchy and endorse its recognition as a sustainable location and able to accommodate additional residential growth. The approach proposed within Policy S/SH of the Plan, however, is that Minor Rural Centres will support an indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings. It is evident that Melbourn is capable of accommodating larger sites, with the proposed allocation for 120 dwellings at land to the west of Cambridge Road (Policy reference S/RRA/CR), underlining this point. We do not support the overly prescriptive restriction on the quantum of dwellings to come forward within this tier in the Settlement Hierarchy, which does not align with its position and identification as the largest village within the south west of the district and one which is both well served by local facilities, but also by public transport as well as provision for active modes, including further on-going investment through the Melbourn Greenway project.

Comment

Representation ID: 211062

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.