Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

This vision requires upbeat economic forecasts, which rather than simply being anchored in historic trends need to embrace innovation and multi-faceted campus proposals such as Quy Tech, able to provide employment floorspace alongside bespoke residential proposals and wider ancillary facilities in a self-powered campus and in doing so be able to attract global operators in research and innovation.

We strongly urge Greater Cambridge to look again at the evidence which underpins the economic strategy and to positively plan for more economic development growth, especially to the East of Cambridge to complement and serve the new development already coming forward in the area.

We strongly object to, and think it unsound given the lack of justification, the scale of employment development identified in draft Policy S/JH: New Jobs and Homes. We recommend that Greater Cambridge review the economic forecasts underpinning their economic strategy and support increased employment development, including the allocation of land at Quy Tech for campus development to include employment floorspace, bespoke employment housing, ancillary facilities and the ability to be self-powered.

Policy S/JH: New Jobs and Homes

These representations are submitted by Quy Tech Ltd, on behalf of the landowners, and are made with reference to a potential employment land allocation at Quy Tech (The Site), a 165 ha site in Stow-cum-Quy.

The Site is promoted for the development of a campus based mid-tech employment facility, not only providing important contemporary employment floorspace but bespoke ancillary housing needed to serve the employment uses and additional complimentary facilities. All with the wider ability to be self-powered by the site’s own solar farm.

East Cambridge is a clear direction of travel for growth in Greater Cambridge. The failure to recognise the east of Cambridge as a wider gateway opportunity, with the necessary infrastructure and connectivity already in place, to sustain greater levels of economic and residential growth represents a wasted opportunity.

This Site is just 250m north of the Cambridge East allocation and ideally located to connect into, and complement the new development at Marleigh and that proposed for Cambridge Airport. In terms of wider connectivity the Site has direct access to the A14, whilst the Cambridge East development, Newmarket Road travel hub and Cambridge North are all directly accessible from the Site by standalone foot and cycle routes.

These representations are accompanied by an Economic Assessment (hereby submitted) of the economic aspirations of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan. This concludes that:

• The need for employment, and especially knowledge-intensive employment, is much greater than that identified and allocated for in the draft Local Plan.

• The identified needs do not reflect new and emerging trends.

• The conclusions drawn are primarily quantitative i.e. simple floorspace figures, without qualitative assessment of the location, nature and setting of accommodation needed. Fundamentally, this work fails to recognise the growing need for campus based contemporary commercial floorspace.

A Vision Document (hereby submitted) for the Site also accompanies these representations. The document sets out how proposals for the Site can come forward and the strength of connectivity to the Cambridge East development i.e. Marleigh and the proposals for the airport, the nearby Newmarket Road Travel Hub and Cambridge North train station.

The Site is recommended for allocation in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan on this basis.

Draft policy S/JH identifies a need for 73,300 additional jobs over the period 2024-2045. Need is specifically identified for:

• 302,600 sqm officers and 600,000 sqm of Research and Development (R&D) space
• 317,000 sqm of industrial / warehousing (use classes B2/B8).


The Employment and Housing Evidence Update 2025 (EHEU), which informs the Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan, assumes a ‘central’ rather than a ‘high’ jobs growth scenario, in effect downgrading growth to a lower longer term growth trend (the last 20 years) rather than the higher rate of growth seen in Greater Cambridge over the last 10 years. The EHEU assumes that this is the most realistic scenario on the basis of the anticipated housing delivery. A full assessment of the EHEU is provided in the accompanying Economic Assessment.

It is notable that at paragraph 3.62 the EHEU states:

“It is important to acknowledge that the high scenario could be achieved or exceeded. For this to take place it is considered that a step change in infrastructure investment and development would be needed to facilities growth…”

In 2024 the Government established the Cambridge Growth Company with the driving goal to maximise Cambridge’s full economic potential and to deliver nationally significant growth. The Growth Company specifically aims to unlock and accelerate development for Cambridge, and to deliver the homes, jobs and infrastructure needed for the long-term and sustainable growth of the City. Further to this, the Government recently announced, 23rd October 2025, a £400 million investment in Cambridge to help facilitate the delivery of affordable homes, infrastructure and business expansion.

It is not clear in this context why therefore the draft Cambridge Local Plan would assume impediment to the higher growth scenarios and adopt a more conservative ‘central’ scenario. As a result, opportunities, such as the continued growth of East Cambridge are being lost.

It is worthy of note that the conclusions of the EHEU are caveated as being conservative, and at page 19 of the report it is explained that:

“The [Centre for Business Research] CBR data presents a more positive picture of economic growth for recent years than the adjusted [Business Register and Employment Survey] BRES data. The BRES data indicates compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for employment in Greater Cambridge of 1.4% between 2020 and 2023. By contrast, CBR’s analysis suggests that overall employment grew by 2.5% in 2020-21, 6.7% in 2021- 22, 6.3% in 2022-23, and 5.3% in 2023-24. This amounts to a CAGR from 2020-21 to 2022-23 of 5.1%.

CBR’s data also provides a more positive view of growth in key sectors in Greater Cambridge. The CBR data suggests that knowledge-intensive (KI) employment has been strong, with growth of 5.8%, 7.8% and 11.2% in 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively.”

In the EHEU report it is argued that the CBR data confirms that it would not be appropriate to revise growth forecasts downwards (which latest BRES might suggest). The CBR data would instead lean towards a conclusion of planning for a high level of employment growth, and yet that higher growth scenario is not the one planned for in the emerging Local Plan.

It is also evident that even the EHEU “High figure” is below the 10-year historic growth rate and there is potential for greater alignment to 20-year growth ambitions, which would be more appropriate for a nationally, and globally important economic ecosystem such as that in Cambridge.

The “Greater Cambridge: Growth Scenarios” research published by Government in November 2025 identifies that additional activity in knowledge intensive sectors and housing delivery could enable a substantial increase in employment. Over and above that identified by the draft Local Plan.

The growth scenarios modelled in this research suggest that Greater Cambridge could support a total of 380,000 to 465,000 jobs by 2050. This represents between a 60% and 100% increase in the size of the existing Greater Cambridge workforce (236,000 jobs) and would see employment growth around 20% to 45% higher than is assumed the baseline forecast (321,000 jobs) of the draft Local Plan.

Whilst these scenarios stretch as far as 2050 it is clear that these figures are significantly higher than the 73,300 new jobs envisaged by the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

We are extremely concerned that the needs identified in the evidence base to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan do not reflect Cambridge’s potential, are not sufficiently ambitious and do not match up to Government objectives for the area. Too few sites are allocated for employment development.

The Government’s aims for Cambridge are ambitious whilst the vision for the Local Plan distinctly seeks to ‘encourage a flourishing, dynamic and mixed economy in Greater Cambridge which includes a wide range of jobs, while maintaining our area's global reputation for education, research and innovation’. There is then a clear disconnect between the strength of these ambitions and detailed policy which is not sufficiently proactive and fails to identify suitable employment sites to deliver the economic development sought. The entirety of the draft Local Plan policy needs to align with Government’s ambitions for Greater Cambridge.

This vision requires upbeat economic forecasts, which rather than simply being anchored in historic trends need to embrace innovation and multi-faceted campus proposals such as Quy Tech, able to provide employment floorspace alongside bespoke residential proposals and wider ancillary facilities in a self-powered campus and in doing so be able to attract global operators in research and innovation.

We strongly urge Greater Cambridge to look again at the evidence which underpins the economic strategy and to positively plan for more economic development growth, especially to the East of Cambridge to complement and serve the new development already coming forward in the area.

We strongly object to, and think it unsound given the lack of justification, the scale of employment development identified in draft Policy S/JH: New Jobs and Homes. We recommend that Greater Cambridge review the economic forecasts underpinning their economic strategy and support increased employment development, including the allocation of land at Quy Tech for campus development to include employment floorspace, bespoke employment housing, ancillary facilities and the ability to be self-powered.

It requires forward thinking, proactive policy that responds to market demands to provide the necessary conditions to attract future innovative businesses not reliance simply on past trends and historic economic growth rates. Cambridge East, and namely Quy Tech, provide the perfect environment in which to bring forward the necessary employment multi-faceted campus facility.

The allocation of Quy Tech, focusing on the mid-tech sector will help position the east of Cambridge to attract advanced engineering, technology and life science firms which is currently unable to do. Quy Tech can leverage proximity to the A14 and its access to both Newmarket Road travel hub and Cambridge North Train Station to enhance connectivity credentials whilst ensuring that it aligns with regional economic objectives and complements major allocations such as Northeast Cambridge and Cambridge East.

Additionally, Quy Tech offers real potential to underpin wider growth aspirations to the east of Cambridge with the ability to integrate with, through strong physical linkages, and support both the residential and employment uses to come forward as part of the Cambridge East allocations. In this respect the Site would both help promote and sustain the City’s innovative global reputation whilst also supporting sustainable growth and in so doing respond positively to the development vision as set out through the draft Plan.

We object to Policy S/DS: Development Strategy and think it unsound. There is a need to identify additional sites for employment development in Greater Cambridge. Despite the clear direction of growth towards the east of Cambridge, it is underrepresented in terms of allocations as set out at draft Policy S/DS and as such policy fails to build on already committed growth in this area including the allocations at Cambridge East, notably areas such as Marleigh, Cambridge Airport and Springstead Village.

Further we object to Policy S/DS failure to allocate land for a new campus led employment development and acknowledge the benefit bespoke housing aimed at employment users and ancillary facilities such a development would bring in attracting innovative and global operators to Cambridge. This represents a significant lost opportunity for the local economy as the plan is currently drafted.

It is strongly recommended that the opportunity presented at Quy Tech is considered in this context.

Policy S/DS: Development Strategy

These representations are submitted by Quy Tech Ltd, on behalf of the landowners and are made with reference to a potential employment land allocation at Quy Tech, a 165-ha site in Stow-cum-Quy.

The Site is promoted for the development of a campus based mid-tech facility, not only providing important contemporary employment accommodation but also bespoke complementary housing and ancillary facilities. All with the wider ability to be self-powered by the site’s own solar farm.

These representations are accompanied by an Economic Assessment (hereby submitted) of the economic aspirations of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan. This concludes that:

• The need for employment, and especially knowledge-intensive employment, is much greater than that identified and allocated for in the draft Local Plan.

• The identified needs do not reflect new and emerging trends.

• The conclusions drawn are primarily quantitative i.e. simple floorspace figures, without qualitative assessment of the location, nature and setting of accommodation needed. Fundamentally, this work fails to recognise the growing need for campus based contemporary commercial floorspace.

A Vision Document (hereby submitted) for the Site also accompanies these representations. The document sets out how proposals for the Site can come forward and the strength of connectivity to the Cambridge East development i.e. Marleigh and the proposals for the airport, the nearby Newmarket Road Travel Hub and Cambridge North train station.

The Site is recommended for allocation in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan on this basis.

We object to the employment allocations as listed in draft policy S/DS. The plan is too conservative; the growth rates are not sufficiently ambitions and there is a need to identify additional sites for employment development. This is critical if both Government aspirations for the area and Greater Cambridge’s own vision to ‘encourage a flourishing, dynamic and mixed economy in Greater Cambridge which includes a wide range of jobs, while maintaining our area's global reputation for education, research and innovation’ are to be realised.

Policy S/DS confirms that sites on the edge of Cambridge will be prioritised as locations for meeting the need for jobs and homes in Greater Cambridge, outside the Cambridge urban area. Opportunities are not however identified within this hierarchy.

There is a complete failure to recognise the direction of growth towards the east of Cambridge and the opportunity this area presents. Further development to the east offers the potential to build on already committed growth in this area including the allocations at Cambridge East, notably areas such as Marleigh and Springstead Village which are already built out and occupied.

The failure to recognise the east of Cambridge as a wider gateway opportunity, with the necessary infrastructure and connectivity in place, to sustain greater levels of economic and residential growth represents a wasted opportunity.

This Site is just 250m north of the Cambridge East allocation and ideally located to connect into and complement the new development at Marleigh and that proposed for Cambridge Airport. In terms of wider connectivity, the Site has direct access to the A14, whilst the Cambridge East development, Newmarket Road travel hub and Cambridge North are all directly accessible from the Site by standalone foot and cycle routes.

Additionally, no site in Greater Cambridge has been identified to provide a new campus-based employment facility able to offer complementary facilities, such as housing targeted to the needs of the employment operators. This represents a lost opportunity. It is unclear how policy aims to meet the Greater Cambridge Vision to maintain Cambridge’s global reputation without such forward thinking, innovative proposals able to tap into contemporary commercial needs.

Need for additional sites:

We are extremely concerned that the economic forecasts of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan are not as ambitious as they should be and do not match up to the Governments aspirations for the area. As a result, too few sites are allocated for employment development.

We consider that Greater Cambridge should look again at the evidence which underpins the economic strategy, should adopt more proactive and positive scenarios for growth and should support more economic development on sites such as the opportunity presented at Quy Tech.

East Cambridge:

It is clear that R&D as a sector has a long tradition of growth in and around Cambridge. This growth remains strong and is an important contributor to not only the local and regional economy but also the whole of the UK. It is vital therefore, that the right quantum of new development is identified, but also that it is in the right places, and can support a range of occupiers.

There is a clear shortage of large-scale office, R&D, and mid-tech space in the eastern Cambridge corridor. Industrial and light industrial provision is similarly constrained, with few options for units above 50,000 sq. ft. The Site at Quy Tech represents a development opportunity well located to bring forward, high-quality space to meet these unmet needs. An economic assessment accompanies these representations that makes clear this position.

Quy Tech has the benefit of being on the edge of Cambridge and as such being prioritised as a suitable location for growth, outside of the Cambridge built up area. In terms of wider connectivity, the Site has direct access to the A14, whilst the Cambridge East development, Newmarket Road travel hub and Cambridge North are all directly accessible from the Site by standalone foot and cycle routes.

Currently the employment allocations as listed at Policy S/DS: Development Strategy are predominantly to the north (Waterbeach) the North West (off the A14) and the South (Cambridge Bio Medical Campus and Wellcome Genome Campus).

To the east, there is limited employment allocations given the proposed housing growth. Quy Tech is ideally located to support the growth of the existing Cambridge East allocation. Much of the northern phase of the allocation (the Marleigh development) is now built out including the development of foot and cycle ways to connect to Low Fen Drove which directly accesses the Quy Tech Site, approximately 250 m to the north.

Quy Tech offers the unique opportunity therefore to provide a campus led mid-tech employment floorspace that is fully integrated into the wider aspirations for Cambridge East aspirations, as is evidenced in the accompanying Vision Document. This should be recognised through Policy S/DS: Development Strategy.

Campus led mid-tech accommodation:

It is evident that the growth scenarios for establishing need for employment floorspace are derived principally from quantitative modelling. Little regard has been had to the bespoke nature of the accommodation, facilities and locations required by the innovative operators that Greater Cambridge is keen to attract.

The ‘update’ to the EHEU is fundamentally based on a market report from some 6 years ago, in 2020. The draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan is reliant therefore on market trends that are already outdated. Over and above the quantity of development aspired to in the draft Local Plan we have significant concerns that the nature of development sought does not accurately reflect current commercial needs and is not aligned with the vision to ‘encourage a flourishing, dynamic and mixed economy in Greater Cambridge which includes a wide range of jobs, while maintaining our area's global reputation for education, research and innovation’.

Specifically, the EHEU fails to appropriately reflect more recent mid-tech trends such as bespoke office/lab enabled on Site production and distribution, as demanded by newly forming and ‘spin-out’ business in the KI sector. In qualitative terms, there is insufficient consideration, in the EHEU, and Greater Cambridge Local Plan, of the nature and location of property stock likely to be sought by such operators. This position is explored fully in the accompanying Economic Assessment submitted in support of these representations.

Whilst the Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton is specifically referenced in the 2020 Employment Land and Economic Development Evidence Study no further work appears to have been done to identify the benefits of campus-based space i.e. the benefit of providing complimentary facilities, such as short lease housing for visiting global researchers etc.

It is evident that none of the other employment land allocations identified in the plan specifically target a campus based mid tech offering, able to offer the complementary facilities needed to attract global operators. We object to Policy S/DS: Development Strategy on this basis.

Campuses are crucial for the UK's economy, fostering innovation, driving growth in high-tech sectors (like life sciences, AI, space), creating high-value jobs, attracting investment, and strengthening collaboration between universities, businesses, and government, essentially acting as regional innovation hubs that anchor talent and boost productivity in the knowledge economy.

Campuses are at the forefront of delivering:
• Economic growth and innovation
• Facilitating Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing
• Talent Attraction and Development
• Sustainability and Future-Proofing
• Creating a "Sense of Place"

Quy Tech offers the unique opportunity to create a campus that prioritises mid-tech facilities, requiring adaptable floorplates to cater to hybrid occupiers and the flexibility of office, lab, and light manufacturing capabilities. It is then proposed that the Site can be supplemented by a proportion of office / R&D space with supporting amenities.

It is proposed Quy Tech comprises not only employment accommodation, but bespoke housing able to complement the employment uses i.e. short term leases to attract global researchers, and other wider ancillary facilities demanded by innovative and global operators. Without a new multi-facetted campus facility able to provide this breadth of offer the draft policy simply won’t attract the innovative sectors of the economy it is seeking. Furthermore, Quy Tech offers the opportunity for this new floorspace to be self-powered through an on site solar farm. A completely self-sufficient and sustainable approach to energy requirements.

It requires forward thinking, proactive policy that responds to market demands to provide the necessary conditions to attract future innovative businesses not reliance simply on past trends and historic economic growth rates. Cambridge East, and namely Quy Tech, provide the perfect environment in which to bring forward the necessary employment multi-faceted campus facility.

The allocation of Quy Tech, focusing on the mid-tech sector will help position the east of Cambridge to attract advanced engineering, technology and life science firms which is currently unable to do. Quy Tech can leverage proximity to the A14 and its access to both Newmarket Road travel hub and Cambridge North Train Station to enhance connectivity credentials whilst ensuring that it aligns with regional economic objectives and complements major allocations such as Northeast Cambridge and Cambridge East.

Additionally, Quy Tech offers real potential to underpin wider growth aspirations to the east of Cambridge with the ability to integrate with, through strong physical linkages, and support both the residential and employment uses to come forward as part of the Cambridge East allocations. In this respect the Site would both help promote and sustain the City’s innovative global reputation whilst also supporting sustainable growth and in so doing respond positively to the development vision as set out through the draft Plan.

We object to Policy S/DS: Development Strategy and think it unsound. There is a need to identify additional sites for employment development in Greater Cambridge. Despite the clear direction of growth towards the east of Cambridge, it is underrepresented in terms of allocations as set out at draft Policy S/DS and as such policy fails to build on already committed growth in this area including the allocations at Cambridge East, notably areas such as Marleigh, Cambridge Airport and Springstead Village.

Further we object to Policy S/DS failure to allocate land for a new campus led employment development and acknowledge the benefit bespoke housing aimed at employment users and ancillary facilities such a development would bring in attracting innovative and global operators to Cambridge. This represents a significant lost opportunity for the local economy as the plan is currently drafted.

It is strongly recommended that the opportunity presented at Quy Tech is considered in this context.

The Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (August 2021) makes clear that the Quy Tech Site is closely associated with the settlement of Stow-cum-Quy. It therefore makes no contribution to the unique character of Cambridge.

It is clear then that all sites in close proximity to Cambridge require Green Belt release to meet additional need for employment floorspace. Of these the opportunity at Quy Tech presents the least impact in terms of loss of sensitive Green Belt land.

We object to Policy S/GB: The Cambridge Green Belt, and find it unsound, on the basis that further green belt release is required to meet additional need for employment floorspace. It is recommended that the removal of the Quy Tech Site from the Green Belt should be considered in this context.

Policy S/GB: The Cambridge Green Belt

These representations are submitted by Quy Tech Ltd, on behalf of the landowners, and are made with reference to a potential employment land allocation at Quy Tech, a 165 ha site in Stow-cum-Quy.

The Site is promoted for the development of a campus based mid-tech employment facility, not only providing important contemporary employment floorspace but bespoke ancillary housing needed to serve the employment uses and additional complimentary facilities. All with the wider ability to be self-powered by the site’s own solar farm.

East Cambridge is a clear direction of travel for growth in Greater Cambridge. The failure to recognise the east of Cambridge as a wider gateway opportunity, with the necessary infrastructure and connectivity already in place, to sustain greater levels of economic and residential growth represents a wasted opportunity.

This Site is just 250m north of the Cambridge East allocation and ideally located to connect into, and complement the new development at Marleigh and that proposed for Cambridge Airport. In terms of wider connectivity the Site has direct access to the A14, whilst the Cambridge East development, Newmarket Road travel hub and Cambridge North are all directly accessible from the Site by standalone foot and cycle routes.

These representations are accompanied by an Economic Assessment (hereby submitted) of the economic aspirations of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan. This concludes that:

• The need for employment, and especially knowledge-intensive employment, is much greater than that identified and allocated for in the draft Local Plan.

• The identified needs do not reflect new and emerging trends.

• The conclusions drawn are primarily quantitative i.e. simple floorspace figures, without qualitative assessment of the location, nature and setting of accommodation needed. Fundamentally, this work fails to recognise the growing need for campus based contemporary commercial floorspace.

A Vision Document (hereby submitted) for the Site also accompanies these representations. The document sets out how proposals for the Site can come forward and the strength of connectivity to the Cambridge East development i.e. Marleigh and the proposals for the airport, the nearby Newmarket Road Travel Hub and Cambridge North train station.

The Site is recommended for allocation in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan on this basis.

Draft Policy S/GB states the intention that the Green Belt will be maintained around Cambridge with the specific purpose to:

a. Preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city, with a thriving historic centre
b. Maintain and enhance the quality of its setting; and
c. Prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the City.

We object to draft Policy S/GB: The Cambridge Green Belt, on the basis that none of these purposes are as listed at paragraph 143 of the NPPF. Having regard to the merging of places paragraph 143 makes it clear that the purpose of the Green Belt is ‘specifically to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another’ as opposed to ‘communities in the environs…’.

It is notable that the policy does not reference Grey Belt, nor does the policy allow for any consideration of need or Green Belt review over the plan period. Notwithstanding, that Green Belt release has been considered acceptable to facilitate development at East Cambridge and Cambridge Bio Medical Campus.

We are extremely concerned that the economic forecasts of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan are not as ambitious as they should be and do not match up to the Governments aspirations for the area. As a result, too few sites are allocated for employment development. Equally, Policy S/DS: Development Strategy makes clear that sites on the edge of Cambridge are to be prioritised for housing and employment development, outside of the Cambridge Urban Area. In this context further release of green belt, to facilitate opportunities such as Quy Tech, needs to be considered to meet this need.

The NPPF (December 2024) defines Grey Belt as land in the Green Belt that does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, (b) to prevent the neighbouring towns merging into one another or (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, listed at paragraph 143.

The Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (August 2021) makes clear that the Quy Tech Site is closely associated with the settlement of Stow-cum-Quy. It therefore makes no contribution to the unique character of Cambridge. In this context, the Quy Tech opportunity is considered below having regard to Grey Belt considerations:

(a) To check the unrestricted spawl of large built up areas: to the east the urban area of Cambridge is restricted by farmland and the A14 beyond. Whilst benefiting from strong connectivity to the east of Cambridge generally Quy Tech would operate as a standalone campus facility associated with Stow-cum-Quy. Development of the Site would not visually read as the sprawl of the Cambridge Urban Area.

(b) To prevent the neighbouring towns merging into one another: the development of this Site would not lead to the merging of neighbouring towns. Cambridge is identified at the top of the settlement hierarchy, whilst Stow-cum-Quy is identified as a 6th (lowest tier) ‘Infill Village’ in the draft Local Plan. Notwithstanding this, Cambridge is bordered by agricultural field, the A14 is between the two Sites and further landscape buffers would be designed into the campus itself. Development of the Quy Tech Site would not read as a continuation of the Cambridge Urban Area.

(c) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Development of the Site would not impact the historic setting of Cambridge. As is identified in the Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (2021) the land is not close enough to the main urban area of Cambridge to be associated with it.


Having regard to Policy S/GB: The Cambridge Green Belt, it is not considered that the Site contributes significantly to any of the three stated purposes.

Relative to the consideration of the impact on the Green Belt however is the ability to expand any existing large-scale research and development sites within Greater Cambridge to meet the need for additional mid-tech floorspace. The Green Belt implications of any such proposal is considered in the context of draft Policy S/GB below:

• Cambridge Biomedical Campus: The site is not considered Grey Belt and additional expansion to the west would have significant impact on the setting of Cambridge, whilst we consider that expansion to the east would also result in moderate to relatively significant impact.

• Babraham Research Campus: Whilst this site may have Grey Belt credentials expansion of the campus would, we consider, have moderate to relatively significant impact on Cambridge’s setting.

• Cambridge Science Park: The Site is not considered grey belt. Development of the Site would have significant impact on the unique character of Cambridge whilst also having moderate impact on Cambridge’s setting.

• Peterhouse Technology Park: The site is not considered grey belt. Development of the site would have a relatively significant to significant impact on the unique character of Cambridge whilst also having a relatively significant impact on the quality of Cambridge’s setting.

• St John’s Innovation Centre: Green Belt considerations are not applicable, but the site is subject to other constraints.

• Wellcome Genome Campus: Outside of the Green Belt

• Melbourn Science Park: Outside of the Green Belt

• Granta Park: Outside of The Green Belt

It is clear then that all sites in close proximity to Cambridge require Green Belt release to meet additional need for employment floorspace. Of these the opportunity at Quy Tech presents the least impact in terms of loss of sensitive Green Belt land.

We object to Policy S/GB: The Cambridge Green Belt, and find it unsound, on the basis that further green belt release is required to meet additional need for employment floorspace. It is recommended that the removal of the Quy Tech Site from the Green Belt should be considered in this context.