Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Object

Representation ID: 207436

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposed policy wording presents a requirement to deliver 73,300 jobs overs the period 2024-2045 as an objectively assessed need. In our opinion, this figure must be specifically treated as a minimum benchmark rather than a maximum or constraining target.

Supporting evidence to the policy titled 'Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Needs Update 2024-2045 (September 2025), concludes at 3.55 that the various scenarios modelled indicate the potential to deliver between 67,600 and 90,900 additional jobs over the plan period. This compares to between 66,600 and 75,800 additional jobs modelled under the previous 2023 evidence. This significant increase in the upper end of the modelling indicates that economic growth expectation have strengthened exponentially, not diminished.

Object

Representation ID: 207437

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Cambridge's success is not limited to the scientific area. Life science research and application has seen a technological transformation over recent years. Most of the life science community is now using some level of automation across their R&D processes (Bidwells & YouGov, 2023). Restricting employment growth to historical trends fails to embrace the advancement technology brings. To do so in one of the most innovative clusters in world fails to meet Government's key priority of growing the economy.

The Employment and Housing Needs Update acknowledges a 'High' and 'High Sensitivity' scenario, whereby growth would meet or exceed the 2010-2020 trajectory. It is important to recognise that higher-growth outcomes remain credible and should not be ruled out by policy.

Object

Representation ID: 207438

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We recognise that the pressures on housing and arising from the regional ambition, it is for these reasons, that we consider the Local Plan should utilise a more optimistic outlook regarding job numbers and include explicit support for higher-growth scenarios. At the very least, to avoid risk of Policy S/JH being found unsound, the jobs target should be explicitly set out as a minimum reflecting that of housing need.

Support

Representation ID: 207439

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Whilst we consider the policy to unnecessarily duplicate wider policy, the overall approach to encouraging development within the City Centre, and specifically at Fitzroy/Burleigh Street/Grafton Area, is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 207440

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Areas of Major Change should be considered as areas of opportunity in which development is actively supported and encouraged. As demonstrated by the wording "Excluding very minor development, development proposals within AMCs will only be permitted in the following circumstances..." it is considered that the policy seeks to negatively control development contrary to the presumption in favour. This will unnecessarily restrict the opportunity of the very change the AMC's are designed to facilitate.

The policy seeks to establish controls which are not necessary and which increase the burden of planning policy upon development viability. This fundamentally conflicts with aspiration to see growth in these areas. Wider requirements of the AMC policy are picked up elsewhere within the emerging Plan and should therefore be deleted. See attached proposed revisions to the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 207441

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Further to representations at earlier stages of the draft Plan's development, the Council will be aware that Pioneer represent significant landowners within the proposed FBG AMC. It is again considered that the policy is constructed in a negative manner. Rather than establishing a baseline that development within the AMC is acceptable, it establishes a shopping list of requirements, many of which conflict with the requirements of existing and emerging national policy.

In addition, the policy fails to recognise a) the flexibility afforded by reforms to the Use Classes Order, and b) that an existing planning permission has been granted for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Grafton Centre, and the process of implementing that permission is now underway. Revisions are therefore proposed to the policy (see attachment).

Comment

Representation ID: 207442

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Whilst worthy, the objectives of draft Policy CC/NZ are likely, upon adoption of emerging national policy, to become out of date as policies should not set quantitative standards nor duplicate matters addressed by Building Control. We therefore suggest that the policy should be deleted.

Comment

Representation ID: 207443

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Government makes clear within the emerging national policy that development plans should only set BNG targets in excess of statutory requirements within site specific allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 207444

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Both adopted and emerging versions of the NPPF make clear that planning policies should promote the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, particularly in sustainable locations. This is further strengthened through the direction of travel set out in emerging Policy L2 of the reformed NPPF.

An overarching requirement for major development to demonstrate a minimum of 30% tree canopy cover risks introducing an inflexible and prescriptive constraint that could undermine development capacity, density and viability. As such, it is not aligned with national planning policy or with the Government’s stated ambition for growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 207445

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

National planning policy requires that development plans, not planning applications identify shortfalls in the availability of community facilities and infrastructure. Reforms to the NPPF include a proposed requirement for developments which significantly increase local populations to provide for community facilities and improvements to public service infrastructure – either by delivery or financial contribution. The Council should follow the model as set out in emerging national decision-making policy HC3 to ensure ongoing consistency.