Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208904

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

NLHRL contend that the site S/RSC/HW is Grey Belt and given the Government’s emphasis of directing homes where they are well related to rail services it should be
reallocated for development. The Site Allocations Topic Paper states the Housing Land and Availability Assessment considers the site as a deliverable option. At paragraph 6.67 it states that the decision to allocate the new settlement at Grange Farm now means that there is a significant allocation in this area and on the route of the Cambridge Southern Corridor transport improvements. It concludes that the Council considers sufficient sites have been identified without the need to release land from the Green Belt.

The identification of Grange Farm, whilst located in the southern cluster does not specifically respond to the needs of individual settlements such as Great Shelford and Stapleford.

Comment

Representation ID: 208905

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

NLHRL support the identification of Great Shelford and Stapleford as a Rural Centre which is one the largest and most sustainable villages within Greater Cambridge. The settlements have access to a number of services including rail, primary education, employment opportunities, shops, and restaurants.

While we agree with the placement of Great Shelford and Stapleford within the settlement hierarchy, it must be remembered that this area has excellent access to Cambridge which will improve as part of future infrastructure initiatives such as the CSET busway and the new Cambridge South Station as part of the Cambridge
Biomedical Campus which will be directly accessed from Shelford station.

Given the recognition of the number of services and facilities available within the settlement, it is imperative that growth is directed to this location. The Land at Mingle Lane allocation should therefore be re-introduced.

Comment

Representation ID: 208906

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

The use of settlement boundaries should not preclude the ability of sustainable development opportunities from coming forward and should include a mechanism to ensure that development beyond settlement boundaries can come forward to respond to changes in circumstances over the plan period. Indeed, such an approach is currently being consulted by Government as part of the national decision-making policies and the policy should be modified to allow such flexibility with circumstances relevant to Greater Cambridge. Development should be directed to the more sustainable villages including Great Shelford and Stapleford to support existing services and facilities, deliver additional facilities, and meet identified affordable needs of villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 208907

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

NLHRL are aware that the Councils are seeking to update the Green Belt assessment to comply with national policy. The Council is seeking to allocate land within the Green Belt relating to the draft allocations at Cambridge Biomedical Campus and land at Babraham Research
Campus. Whilst recognising the importance of these locations and their expansion to the local and national economy, the PPG is clear that where local authorities
seek to review and alter Green Belt boundaries it is expected that authorities identify grey belt land to inform this work and prioritise development in accordance with paragraphs 147 and 148 of the Framework.

The site as shown in the Green Belt assessment (see attached), meets the criteria for Grey Belt set out in the NPPF. Given the site meets the criteria for Grey Belt, is within walking distances to rail services and would provide significant market and affordable housing to meet the local community housing needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 208908

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

This policy requires updating so that it takes account the latest guidance in the PPG to take account of the fact that the sequential test no longer needs to be applied where a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the occupiers will remain safe from surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Comment

Representation ID: 208909

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

The draft Local Plan Viability Assessment (2025) considers the proposed 20% threshold is viable, this could have significant implications on the delivery of wider plan requirements. BNG is a statutory requirement which cannot be amended. Setting the threshold at double the legal requirement may hinder the wider plan requirements such as the need to deliver affordable homes and the deliverability of strategic sites the Council is currently proposing.

The Draft Local Plan Viability Assessment (2025) considers that the 20% threshold is viable. The evidence supporting the 20% threshold is based upon the DEFRA
‘Impact Assessment Biodiversity Net Gain and Local Nature Recovery Strategies No. RPC Reference No: RPC-4277(1)-DEFRA0EA and SQW report ‘Viability
Assessment of Biodiversity Net Gain in Essex’ (August 2024). In this regard, the market in Essex is invariably different to Greater Cambridge and it is unclear what
effects setting a 20% threshold will have on development viability in the local area.

Comment

Representation ID: 208910

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

In principle, NLHRL are generally supportive of Policy H/AH which sets out the affordable housing requirements for the area. It requires all major developments to provide at least 40% of new homes on site as affordable housing unless a different requirement is set out within an allocation policy or is on land within the Green Belt to which at least 50% affordable housing requirement will apply.

In principle, NLHRL are generally supportive of Policy H/AH which sets out the affordable housing requirements for the area. It requires all major developments to provide at least 40% of new homes on site as affordable housing unless a different requirement is set out within an allocation policy or is on land within the Green Belt to which at least 50% affordable housing requirement will apply.

Comment

Representation ID: 208911

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

It is important that the policy allows for sufficient flexibility so that it can respond to housing mix over the lifetime of the plan period and that the proposed housing mix is not strictly adhered to as an overall approach and is instead treated on a case by case basis through the development management process.

Comment

Representation ID: 208912

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

The policy requires development proposals including 20 or more dwellings to provide at least 5% of new homes as service plots for custom and self build
homes.

In principle, NLHRL are generally supportive of the approach to assist in the delivery of custom and self build homes if evidence demonstrates the need for this
type of development. However, it is typically the case that if plots remain unsold that they are returned to the developer to be provided as part of the market housing element. Whereas in this instance, the developer is required to either allow for a period of further marketing or that the plots are transferred to a registered provider at affordable housing land values.

The imposition of this aspect of the policy is therefore a never-ending period of marketing which could slow down housing delivery on the wider site until plots are acquired and stalling the delivery of much needed housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 208913

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Nightingale Land and Hill Residential Ltd

Agent: Nightingale Land

NLHLR also question how this policy interacts with the 40-50% affordable housing policy requirement as it seems if self build plots are not sold then this will artificially increase affordable housing contributions above a policy compliant affordable housing contribution and thus questions whether this policy is compliant with Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.The policy should be modified so that after a period of marketing that the homes will revert to open market housing.