Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208686

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

JMS Planning is in general support of the inclusion of a policy for rural exception sites for local housing need and first homes. JMS Planning would, however, recommend
that these two development types form two policies to allow for more convenient interpretation by applicants in order to meet the overall needs for housing and other development types such as community.

Comment

Representation ID: 208687

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

JMS Planning would recommend that the wording for 1. a. be altered from ‘demonstrable social or economic need for affordable housing for local residents which cannot be met in any other way, which can reasonably be expected to persist in the long term’ to ‘demonstrable need for affordable housing for those with a connection to the settlement and which is evidenced by a local housing needs assessment’. It is not necessary that the LHNA be ‘independent’ as this will be scrutinised by the decision-taker. It is also not reasonable to demand that the need for
affordable housing be met via a different mechanism since rural exception sites are entirely for this purpose. It is also not reasonable to include as a policy requirement that the need should persist in the long term; this is ambiguous and overly stringent.

Comment

Representation ID: 208688

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

It should also be noted that requiring Registered Providers to be named in S106 agreements, while understandable, hampers the delivery of the site. This prevents the applicant from engaging with multiple RPs throughout a planning application process or the sale of the site post planning in order to meet both parties' needs for adaptation to circumstances at the time of land disposal.

Comment

Representation ID: 208689

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

GMD and JMS Planning ask for clarification on how applicants should have regards to ‘location and character of the area, the built form of the new development, the nature or type of development being proposed, the viability of delivery given site-specific constraints or requirements, changes in affordable and market housing demand in the
local area, and the existing housing mix in the surrounding area’, when justifying deviations.

Comment

Representation ID: 208690

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

Policies should not repeat existing legislation or regulations. The requirement in part 2 is inappropriate given its inapplicability to all applications; for instance, compliance with the Building Regulations cannot be demonstrated for applications at the outline
planning stage. Compliance with the Building Regulations is for the Building Control process rather than planning applications. Instead, it is recommended that signposting
to the Building Regulations in supporting text would be more appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 208691

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

JMS Planning and GMD are supportive of the provision of specialist housing; however, we seek clarity on the application of the policy to minor development. Cross
referencing with Policy S/DE is welcome; however, JMS refers GCSP to comments made with respect to this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 208692

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

JMS Planning and GMD are supportive of this policy; however, we seek clarity on the application of the policy to minor development, i.e. less than 10 units (albeit noting
South Cambridgeshire’s current sub-11 unit definition). Cross-referencing with Policy S/DE is welcome; however, JMS refers GCSP to comments made with respect to this
policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 208693

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

The policy, as worded, is vague at part 1.a. JMS Planning recommends that the term ‘dominate’ be specifically identified so as to ensure consistent application of the policy
to development proposals. Similarly, wording to encourage flexibility if there is a demand for the development type (i.e. C3) exists.

Comment

Representation ID: 208694

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

JMS Planning and GMD welcome the inclusion of a policy specific to co-living. The respondents wish to raise the contradiction presented at part 1.a.; ‘where the development does not contribute to car dependency’ and ‘parking can be minimised reflecting the high level of accessibility’. JMS Planning also seeks justification as to the scale of between 50 and 200 units that GCSP requires under this policy. However, this Policy needs to recognise that many parts of the rural areas of the Plan area would be suitable for such development and that sufficient Car Parking is required to allow the occupiers beneficial occupation.

Comment

Representation ID: 208695

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Guilden Morden Developments Ltd

Agent: JMS Planning & Development

The policy, as worded, is vague. JMS Planning recommends that the term ‘over concentration’ be specifically identified. JMS Planning suggests that the ‘over concentration’ definition is applied to Tiers within the Settlement Hierarchy in order for a proportionate approach to be taken. Similarly, 1.b. should be justified: the policy
places an inherent negative stance on the ‘sandwiching’ of a C3 property by C4/Sui Generis HMO; however, compliance amenity matters in 1.a. would negate the need
for 1.b. Part 2 of the policy is also presumptive, with the prevention of antisocial behaviour a requirement for retention of an HMO license; this is not a planning policy
matter.