Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Support

Representation ID: 209252

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Paragraph 3.3.58: PE welcome the suggestion that delivery will be within the Local Plan period and beyond.
PE note that the Council’s updated Greater Cambridge Housing Delivery Study Addendum assumes delivery of 2,550 new homes in the plan period to 2045. This is lower than the position as we set out within our initial Delivery Strategy and we remain committed to this objective (c. 4,750 dwellings). PE do welcome the ambition to plan for a coherent, well planned new town, with a scale and mix of uses to promote self containment, with the range of uses and amenities provided on site to support the needs of all residents. As landowner, PE look forward to working constructively with GCSP and wider stakeholders to determine the most appropriate form of development for the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 209253

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Policy S/GF – 1: PE suggest that careful consideration is given to the term “new town”. The terminology is important and new towns might create an association in people’s minds with some of the larger London overspill towns such as Milton Keynes or Stevenage, which are very much different to our ambition for this proposal.

Support

Representation ID: 209254

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

S/GF – 2: PE welcome the intentions as described by the policy, and look forward to working with all parties to bring this to reality.

Comment

Representation ID: 209255

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

S/GF – 3: PE are very supportive of the ambitions of the
CSET project, which would bring improved public transport connections very close to the site, with the Travel Hub to be located south west of the Fourwentways roundabout. Full integration with CSET is supported, however, the policy sets out a “segregated connection”, supported by a preliminary study by Mott MacDonald as part of the Council’s evidence base. PE feel that there is insufficient work undertaken to be certain over deliverability and until work has been undertaken, we think it is premature to conclude that a segregated connection is the right solution taking account of deliverability and viability. PE have commissioned KMC Transport Planning to prepare a transport strategy for the project, and a key focus will be on the options for achieving integration with CSET.

Support

Representation ID: 209256

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Policy S/GF - 4: As landowner, PE have been the stewards of the farm for generations. We are committed to ensuring that the scheme is sensitive to the character and context, and is distinctive and separate from the surrounding settlements. PE look forward to working with GCSP to develop masterplan principles which will achieve this shared objective.

Object

Representation ID: 209257

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy S/GF – 5: PE are concerned about the lack of clarity about the purpose, appropriate land uses, location, definition/purpose and spatial extent of the proposed SEA. The term Strategic Enhancement Area is potentially misleading given the wide-ranging nature of the policy intention and its generalised use across different contexts and boundary interfaces. PE are fully supportive of a landscape led design, but we consider that further work is required to establish the size and nature of the proposed SEA, the purposes and land uses for this area. As long term landowners, both PE and Mr Franklin intend to continue to farm their residual land holdings, and therefore definition over the proposed SEA and consideration of impacts on the residual farm will be important considerations for both landowners.

Object

Representation ID: 209258

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy S/GF – 6: PE support the principles of this policy, and the desire to respect and sensitively integrate all of the important heritage, ecological and landscape features into the masterplan for the scheme. However, it could be interpreted that the SF has already determine the most appropriate design solutions and mitigation. PE have commissioned a full multi disciplinary team to explore these issues in detail, and to develop a robust masterplan framework for the site, which identifies and respects the site’s ecological and heritage constraints/opportunities.

Comment

Representation ID: 209259

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Policy S/GF – 7: Minor point. PE query numbering of subsequent bullet points in the policy – should start with a).

Object

Representation ID: 209260

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy S/GF – 7 (f) (i and ii): PE very much support the principle of a new settlement but housing numbers and the mix of housing typologies and tenure needs to be developed based on further work on character, acceptable building heights, and housing needs (by typology and tenure). We are concerned with the suggestion that 10% of the dwellings should be specialist accommodation. For a scheme of this scale this will generate a very significant number of these homes, and this should be a product of up to date assessments of need (over time), rather than a policy requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 209261

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Pampisford Estate Farms Limited and the Trustees of the James Binney Will Trust

Agent: No. 6 Developments

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy S/GF – 7 (g): PE do not feel that the Council has prepared a robust justification for requiring the provision of Gypsy and traveller pitches on the site. This is a point that we wish to explore further with GCSP. Our reading of the Council’s own evidence is that is signposts a number of other solutions as being sequentially preferred, with allocations on new development as a last resort. The approach to siting of any G&T site would require great care to ensure effective integration with the wider community.