Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 207446

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

We again consider there to be conflict with emerging national planning policy. National decision-making policy HC6 provides a simplified policy which should be applied.

Support

Representation ID: 207447

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

We support the Councils in seeking to maximise local economic opportunities through major developments.

Object

Representation ID: 207448

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst we support the spirit of the draft policy it is considered that it should be revised to ensure that it does not unnecessarily conflict with wider aspirations for the optimisation of brownfield land impacting the ability to deliver on the aspiration for growth. See attachment for suggested amendments to the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 207449

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The draft policy should not allow for any harm to designated heritage assets and fails to recognise the balancing exercise required by both the NPPF (2024) and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The statutory duties under Sections 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act require decision-makers to have a special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings and special attention to preserving or enhancing character. These duties do not impose an absolute prohibitition on harm, but require any harm to be identified and weighed in the planning balance.

The NPPF (2024) explicitly allows for harm to designated heritage assets where this is justified and outweighed by public benefits, through a structured assessment of significance. The policy wording fails to reflect this approach. The policy wording should therefore be amended (see attachment).

Object

Representation ID: 207450

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The draft policy seeks to “ensure the retention and enhancement” of non-designated heritage assets. National policy does not require retention in all circumstances, but instead requires a balanced judgement, having regard to the significance of the asset and the scale of any harm or loss.

The proposed wording removes this necessary flexibility and risks precluding appropriate development regardless of context or public benefits. Draft Policy GP/ND should be amended to reflect the NPPF’s proportionate approach and allow impacts to be assessed through balanced decision-making.

Object

Representation ID: 207451

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The requirement for affordable workspace may significantly affect development viability for schemes that are already facing significant pressures. In the absence of detailed viability testing, and appropriate flexibility within the policy to account for unknown viability pressures, it is considered that the policy conflicts with requirements of the NPPF.

It is suggested that if the policy is carried forward, a viability clause should be added in. This could allow for negotiated contributions and provide justification for alternative delivery mechanisms as outlined in the draft policy.

Object

Representation ID: 207452

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 approach incorporates a restriction on use which results in fundamental conflicts with the NPPF and Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order which render the proposed policy to be unsound. It is well established that clear intention of Class E is to allow flexibility for businesses to adapt and diversify to meet changing demands. The current policy wording is inconsistent with this approach and without sufficient evidence to support.

To achieve our understanding of the Councils’ aims in respect of Policy J/RC, it could choose to adopt a requirement for active frontage and a requirement to consider the well-established principle of ‘Agent of Change’.

Object

Representation ID: 207453

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pioneer Group Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Given that the Council now proposes to split policy in respect of the Primary Shopping Area from draft Policy J/RC, the objections in relation to J/RC follow into the wording proposed for J/SA.