Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Object

Representation ID: 209690

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is considered that the approach taken by Greater Cambridge is fundamentally incorrect, including failing to consider the potential for Grey Belt sites to accommodate growth. As both the NPPF and PPG identify clearly, a full Green Belt review should be undertaken in authorities where Green Belt release is required to fulfil development needs. The development of some Green Belt sites on the edge of Cambridge such as South East Cambridge would lead to more sustainable forms of development through shortened commuting distances and prevalence of public transport options than strategic growth options beyond the Green Belt. Therefore, the approach taken on Green Belt land is currently incomplete, including failing to consider the availability of Grey Belt land on the edge of Cambridge.

Object

Representation ID: 209691

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Greater Cambridge is vital to the economic aspirations of the UK, both now and in the future. However, to ensure that continues, the GCLP needs to respond positively to the concerns raised by a range of stakeholders which would threaten the delivery of sustainable growth in the area, which include: 1) the delivery of a quantum of housing that will enable the job growth expected across
the wider Greater Cambridge region, including a wide range of sizes and tenures, to ensure that businesses can draw upon the necessary labour pool; and 2) the location of houses in areas which are accessible to and well supported by public transport links and can take advantage of the significant investment that is going into improving local infrastructure such as the delivery of Cambridge South station, East West rail and new guided busways.

Object

Representation ID: 209692

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The evidence produced in support of the GCLP demonstrates that the edge of Cambridge could be a sustainable location for homes and jobs, noting its accessibility to existing jobs and services. Whilst acknowledging that the Councils have to give consideration to the Green Belt, CEG considers that the approach to discounting sites based on Green Belt constraints has significantly hindered the plan’s ability to take advantage of the most sustainable development opportunities. These sustainable locations are those which could do the most to help ease transport congestion and their associated environmental pressures by placing growth where there is a very viable alternative to the private car. This runs contrary to the strategic priorities related to climate change, wellbeing, great places and connectivity.

Object

Representation ID: 209693

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The approach to Green Belt release represents a frustrating lack of ambition by Greater Cambridge. CEG highlight that they support the expansion of the Biomedical Campus, but Cambridge cluster companies successfully pitched for $2bn funding in 2025, which was across both the tech sector ($1.19bn) and life sciences ($896m).Therefore, Cambridge has both a booming life sciences sector and tech sector, and CEG note that the removal of Fulbourn Technology Park from the Green Belt in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 has since allowed this space to flourish, as well as TusPark at the Cambridge Science Park. Restricting the release of the Green Belt to just enabling the expansion of one existing life sciences operator feels restrictive, and a highly limiting option in facilitating and realising the undoubted economic growth.

Object

Representation ID: 209694

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

At the very minimum, the Councils should be considering the ‘high’ job growth scenario of c.4,300 jobs per year – if not even higher job growth scenarios – to ensure that its evidence base contains the full range of aspirational scenarios for Cambridge. This evidence should be used to inform housing needs in the GCLP. we consider the economic basis of the plan to be insufficiently ambitious, failing to reflect Cambridge’s economic potential, the amount of homes in the plan is insufficient even to support the planned level of job growth. The GCLP provides significant upward flexibility for its employment land provision, providing significantly more floorspace than the EHEU shows to be required for the ‘high’ scenario in both R&D and industrial/warehousing uses. Whilst this is welcomed, this degree of employment land must be supported by a commensurate amount of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 209695

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Councils’ total identified housing supply amounts to 51,328 homes (excluding North East Cambridge), giving a 6.5% buffer above the minimum requirement of 48,195 dwellings set out in Policy S/JH. As a point of principle, 6.5% does not provide sufficient headroom to ensure delivery of the housing requirement should some sites not deliver in the timescales, or at the pace assumed in the housing trajectory. This is particularly so in the context of the market pressures set out above. Something akin to 10% would be more reasonable.

Object

Representation ID: 209696

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As set out in our response to Policy S/DS, the Strategy Topic Paper which summarises the SA growth options assessed states that edge of Cambridge sites in the Green Belt, or urban extensions to Cambridge, would be likely to deliver more homes within the plan period than those away from Cambridge. Yet, the spatial strategy for the GCLP is allocating sites away from the edge of the city which evidence shows deliver more slowly in this geography. It also notable that the GCLP carries forward allocations in the urban area which have not delivered since the adoption of the previous local plans. There are well documented difficulties around the viable delivery of brownfield sites in the current economic climate so assumptions about their delivery should be realistic in this context.

Object

Representation ID: 209697

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Cambridge Housing Delivery Study Addendum (October 2025) (‘the Addendum’) cites particularly high annual build out rates, noting these have previously been achieved due to the continued economic growth within Greater Cambridge. However, the Addendum fails to advance any evidence at all that policy changes will have a material impact on the delivery of windfall sites and therefore it is unclear how this policy aligns with the requirements of the NPPF. In lieu of not allocating further sites, the Councils should consider the potential of omissions sites which could be strategically planned with accompanying policies designed to meet the strategic goals of the plan, the Councils could facilitate a more joined-up approach to development for the 7,225 homes currently anticipated on windfall sites. This would encourage plan-led development, in line with the NPPF’s ambitions.

Object

Representation ID: 209698

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The allocation of Grange Farm from a spatial planning perspective is not a logical conclusion when the evidence on sustainable patterns of development around the Greater Cambridge area are taken into account. Grange Farm is heavily reliant on the delivery of the CSET busway to enhance its sustainability credentials, which has suffered delays and is only now close to public inquiry later this year.

Object

Representation ID: 209699

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As set out extensively in our response to Policy S/GB, when there is a need to allocate so many more housing sites, the blunt application of Green Belt to any consideration of further allocation on the edge of Cambridge, which is shown to be one of the most sustainable locations for growth in the GCLP evidence base, is at best illogical.