Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Search representations

Results for Axis Land Partnerships Ltd search

New search New search

Object

Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Policy S/JH: New jobs and homes

Representation ID: 205080

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services (Cambridge office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The total number of dwellings that the Councils calculate will be provided across the emerging Plan Period is greater than the standard method, which is supported. However, the potential for additional growth to support the ambitions of the Cambridge Growth Company and by extension, the Government, should be incorporated into the draft Local Plan as a material consideration. Therefore, Policy S/JH should be revised to incorporate the additional growth ambition of the Cambridge Growth Company, updating the housing‑need calculation accordingly.

Object

Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Policy S/DS: Development strategy

Representation ID: 205104

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services (Cambridge office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The Housing Trajectory is based on over-optimistic delivery rates for strategic sites, well above historic rates, and is not credible. Many new strategic sites require uncertain new infrastructure, often without funding or consent. The Development Strategy is so reliant on high levels of housing delivery in major strategic sites that the risk that housing need is not met is excessively high and the draft Local Plan is therefore unsound.

Object

Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Policy S/SH: Settlement hierarchy

Representation ID: 205132

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services (Cambridge office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Draft Policy S/SH: Settlement Hierarchy undervalues railway‑station settlements like Foxton. Consideration should be given to upgrading settlements with railway stations within the Settlement Hierarchy, particularly considering the Government’s recent announcement about focusing development in locations well served by rail. The draft Local Plan fails to address this.

Object

Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Policy S/GF: Land adjacent to A11 and A1307 at Grange Farm

Representation ID: 205241

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services (Cambridge office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The proposed new settlement at Grange Farm relies entirely on major new transport infrastructure that is not consented, does not have secure finance and is technically challenging. Design of the settlement itself has not begun. The housing trajectory expects delivery of completed dwellings to start within 8 years of adoption of the new Local Plan. Drawing on experience from other new allocations in the region, this would not appear to be realistic. In transport terms, the site is not sustainable. The allocation should be removed or the trajectory should be reduced and pushed back.

Object

Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Development strategy

Representation ID: 205311

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services (Cambridge office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The Development Strategy ignores the sustainability benefits of homes in rural areas for community resilience and is flawed. For example, Foxton’s access to a mainline railway station and its existing railway link to the CBC has been ignored or underplayed in the site assessment process. Furthermore, the Local Plan has directed virtually no growth to settlements with existing railway stations, and this is a huge lost opportunity as it fails to utilise existing transport infrastructure. Therefore, additional small sites should be allocated to ensure delivery rates in sustainable locations early in the plan period.

Object

Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Policy S/RRA: Other site allocations in the rest of the rural area

Representation ID: 208782

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services (Cambridge office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Additional allocations in rural areas are required to make the plan sound. The site at Land at Station Fields, Foxton (Site ID: 115171 and HELAA Ref: 40084) is sustainable, located close to public transport links, active travel routes and a range of services. This site could support growth of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and new local infrastructure such as a level‑crossing bypass, A10 bridge and multimodal travel hub. It would therefore contribute to the objectives of the Local Plan. The site meets the requirements of the new draft NPPF for development close to railway stations.

Object

Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Appendix E: Housing trajectory and five year housing land supply calculation

Representation ID: 208783

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services (Cambridge office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The Housing Trajectory is based on over-optimistic delivery rates for major strategic sites, well above historic rates, and is not credible. Anticipated completions for 2028/29 and 2029/30 are particularly high. A more reasonable estimate for sites such as Northstowe, Waterbeach New Town and North West Cambridge reduces the five-year supply to under 5.

Object

Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity

Representation ID: 208784

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: Lanpro Services (Cambridge office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The requirement of this draft policy for 20% BNG does not comply with the draft new NPPF. Paragraph 2 of Policy N1 of the draft new NPPF states that:

“Development plans should only set local standards for biodiversity net gain which are in excess of the statutory net gain requirement where this is for specific site allocations, and is fully justified and deliverable.”

A blanket policy requirement for 20% does not account for site specific conditions and should be removed.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.