Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Search representations
Results for G Robinson and Partners search
New searchComment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/GB: The Cambridge Green Belt
Representation ID: 205054
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: G Robinson and Partners
Agent: Pegasus Group
The respondent indicates that the client's site at Teversham (HELAA Reference 40295) may be classified as 'grey belt' due to its poor performance against green belt purposes, suggesting it could be suitable for development.
The respondent argues for greater flexibility in permitting development on grey belt land to support the government's aim of increasing housing supply, highlighting the site's connectivity to Fulbourn and Cambridge.
A thorough green belt review is recommended as part of the Local Plan process to ensure the development strategy for Greater Cambridge is based on an accurate assessment of green belt contributions.
The respondent points out a divergence in Policy S/GB, specifically criterion c), which should be amended to align with the NPPF by preventing communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging with the city.
A further recommendation is made for a comprehensive review of the green belt to identify additional sustainable development sites that do not compromise the purposes of green belt designation.
On behalf of G Robinson and Partners.
The government’s initial reforms of the NPPF in December 2024 included a modernisation of the way the green belt works. This included the consideration of development being permitted on low-quality green belt land that is identified as ‘grey belt’. An initial assessment of our client’s site at Teversham indicates that it is likely to be classed as grey belt, as it performs poorly against the purposes of green belt in the NPPF.
Given the importance of grey belt land in the government achieving its aim of significantly boosting the supply of new homes, greater flexibility is needed for more homes to come forward on sites that are well related to existing settlements. Our client’s site meets these criteria, as well as having cycle connectivity with Fulbourn and Cambridge.
In light of the significant changes to national policy with regards to development within the green belt, there is the need for the Councils to undertake a thorough green belt review as part of the Local Plan process. This is essential to ensure that the development strategy for Greater Cambridge is based on a sound assessment of the strategy allocating more sites nearer to Cambridge and new jobs. It is inconceivable that the development strategy for an area so tightly constrained by green belt is not supported by an up to date review of the green belt, and the contributions that land parcels within it make to its purposes.
Whilst Policy S/GB follows the themes of the NPPF there is one clear area of divergence. That is in criterion c), which seeks to “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. Criterion b) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF relates to preventing neighbouring ‘towns’ merging into one another. As the environs surrounding Cambridge are villages, draft Policy S/GB needs to be consistent with the NPPF.
Recommended change: criterion c), of Policy S/GB needs to be amended to read “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging with the city.”
Further recommendation: That a comprehensive review of the green belt be carried out to identify further sites for development in sustainable locations that can be delivered without harm to the purposes of land being designated as green belt.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/JH: New jobs and homes
Representation ID: 211475
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: G Robinson and Partners
Agent: Pegasus Group
Whilst the projected figures would provide an appropriate buffer, there are concerns about the strategy that is being proposed to meet the identified needs and whether it is truly deliverable. There are also concerns about the location of new development and the fact that the majority of the new homes would be delivered by way of new settlements to the north and west of Cambridge. This strategy ignores the growth in the villages to the east of Cambridge that have good access to the city and would inevitably benefit from the services and facilities that will one day support Cambridge East.
On behalf of G Robinson and Partners.
The government’s initial reforms of the NPPF in December 2024 included a modernisation of the way the green belt works. This included the consideration of development being permitted on low-quality green belt land that is identified as ‘grey belt’. An initial assessment of our client’s site at Teversham indicates that it is likely to be classed as grey belt, as it performs poorly against the purposes of green belt in the NPPF.
Given the importance of grey belt land in the government achieving its aim of significantly boosting the supply of new homes, greater flexibility is needed for more homes to come forward on sites that are well related to existing settlements. Our client’s site meets these criteria, as well as having cycle connectivity with Fulbourn and Cambridge.
In light of the significant changes to national policy with regards to development within the green belt, there is the need for the Councils to undertake a thorough green belt review as part of the Local Plan process. This is essential to ensure that the development strategy for Greater Cambridge is based on a sound assessment of the strategy allocating more sites nearer to Cambridge and new jobs. It is inconceivable that the development strategy for an area so tightly constrained by green belt is not supported by an up to date review of the green belt, and the contributions that land parcels within it make to its purposes.
Whilst Policy S/GB follows the themes of the NPPF there is one clear area of divergence. That is in criterion c), which seeks to “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. Criterion b) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF relates to preventing neighbouring ‘towns’ merging into one another. As the environs surrounding Cambridge are villages, draft Policy S/GB needs to be consistent with the NPPF.
Recommended change: criterion c), of Policy S/GB needs to be amended to read “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging with the city.”
Further recommendation: That a comprehensive review of the green belt be carried out to identify further sites for development in sustainable locations that can be delivered without harm to the purposes of land being designated as green belt.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/JH: New jobs and homes
Representation ID: 211476
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: G Robinson and Partners
Agent: Pegasus Group
It is also clear that given the government’s aspirations for Greater Cambridge there is a strong justification for adopting a higher growth scenario than envisioned in the emerging Local Plan. This would also have an implication for the number of new homes proposed to support this growth in locations where new jobs would be created.
Whilst the proposed allocations would deliver a five-year supply of housing, there should be aspiration for a more ambitious target to meet the government’s growth targets. This can be achieved through the allocation of further sites on locations where changes to the NPPF make it inevitable that they will otherwise come forward as speculative applications.
On behalf of G Robinson and Partners.
The government’s initial reforms of the NPPF in December 2024 included a modernisation of the way the green belt works. This included the consideration of development being permitted on low-quality green belt land that is identified as ‘grey belt’. An initial assessment of our client’s site at Teversham indicates that it is likely to be classed as grey belt, as it performs poorly against the purposes of green belt in the NPPF.
Given the importance of grey belt land in the government achieving its aim of significantly boosting the supply of new homes, greater flexibility is needed for more homes to come forward on sites that are well related to existing settlements. Our client’s site meets these criteria, as well as having cycle connectivity with Fulbourn and Cambridge.
In light of the significant changes to national policy with regards to development within the green belt, there is the need for the Councils to undertake a thorough green belt review as part of the Local Plan process. This is essential to ensure that the development strategy for Greater Cambridge is based on a sound assessment of the strategy allocating more sites nearer to Cambridge and new jobs. It is inconceivable that the development strategy for an area so tightly constrained by green belt is not supported by an up to date review of the green belt, and the contributions that land parcels within it make to its purposes.
Whilst Policy S/GB follows the themes of the NPPF there is one clear area of divergence. That is in criterion c), which seeks to “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. Criterion b) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF relates to preventing neighbouring ‘towns’ merging into one another. As the environs surrounding Cambridge are villages, draft Policy S/GB needs to be consistent with the NPPF.
Recommended change: criterion c), of Policy S/GB needs to be amended to read “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging with the city.”
Further recommendation: That a comprehensive review of the green belt be carried out to identify further sites for development in sustainable locations that can be delivered without harm to the purposes of land being designated as green belt.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/DS: Development strategy
Representation ID: 211477
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: G Robinson and Partners
Agent: Pegasus Group
Our client supports the principle of focussing development in the most sustainable locations and note that this is identified ‘as far as possible’ in draft Policy S/DS (Development strategy). Due to site specific issues that may presently be unknown, it may not always be possible for sites allocated for being in the most sustainable locations to come forward. Therefore, the ability to accommodate the growth needs of the Greater Cambridge area around and within Cambridge itself and at the new settlements must be treated with a degree of caution.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF requires strategic policies to provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. In accordance with paragraph 77 d) of the NPPF, the Councils must make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery and take into account the lead-in times for large scale sites. Based on uncertainties surrounding the delivery of Cambridge East and the rate at which Eddington can be delivered, our client is concerned about the rate at which new homes can come forward in the short to medium term. This brings into question the development strategy set out in the emerging Local Plan.
On behalf of G Robinson and Partners.
The government’s initial reforms of the NPPF in December 2024 included a modernisation of the way the green belt works. This included the consideration of development being permitted on low-quality green belt land that is identified as ‘grey belt’. An initial assessment of our client’s site at Teversham indicates that it is likely to be classed as grey belt, as it performs poorly against the purposes of green belt in the NPPF.
Given the importance of grey belt land in the government achieving its aim of significantly boosting the supply of new homes, greater flexibility is needed for more homes to come forward on sites that are well related to existing settlements. Our client’s site meets these criteria, as well as having cycle connectivity with Fulbourn and Cambridge.
In light of the significant changes to national policy with regards to development within the green belt, there is the need for the Councils to undertake a thorough green belt review as part of the Local Plan process. This is essential to ensure that the development strategy for Greater Cambridge is based on a sound assessment of the strategy allocating more sites nearer to Cambridge and new jobs. It is inconceivable that the development strategy for an area so tightly constrained by green belt is not supported by an up to date review of the green belt, and the contributions that land parcels within it make to its purposes.
Whilst Policy S/GB follows the themes of the NPPF there is one clear area of divergence. That is in criterion c), which seeks to “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. Criterion b) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF relates to preventing neighbouring ‘towns’ merging into one another. As the environs surrounding Cambridge are villages, draft Policy S/GB needs to be consistent with the NPPF.
Recommended change: criterion c), of Policy S/GB needs to be amended to read “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging with the city.”
Further recommendation: That a comprehensive review of the green belt be carried out to identify further sites for development in sustainable locations that can be delivered without harm to the purposes of land being designated as green belt.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/DS: Development strategy
Representation ID: 211478
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: G Robinson and Partners
Agent: Pegasus Group
The geographical distribution of new homes does not maximise the potential for growth in Group Villages that are well connected to Cambridge and other higher order settlements. The emerging Local Plan needs to allow for greater flexibility for interim growth needs to be located on sites well-located to village edges such as Land to the east of Fulbourn Road, Teversham (HELAA Reference 40295). Without a more balanced approach to meeting future housing needs, both in terms of interim delivery and geographical locations, there is a risk that Greater Cambridge will fail to deliver the homes it needs within the plan period.
Without more flexibility and a greater balance between strategic and medium sized sites, the Councils risk failing to maintain a sufficient supply of new homes in the early years of the Local Plan. That could result in the inability to defend appeals for sites in less desirable and less sustainable locations.
On behalf of G Robinson and Partners.
The government’s initial reforms of the NPPF in December 2024 included a modernisation of the way the green belt works. This included the consideration of development being permitted on low-quality green belt land that is identified as ‘grey belt’. An initial assessment of our client’s site at Teversham indicates that it is likely to be classed as grey belt, as it performs poorly against the purposes of green belt in the NPPF.
Given the importance of grey belt land in the government achieving its aim of significantly boosting the supply of new homes, greater flexibility is needed for more homes to come forward on sites that are well related to existing settlements. Our client’s site meets these criteria, as well as having cycle connectivity with Fulbourn and Cambridge.
In light of the significant changes to national policy with regards to development within the green belt, there is the need for the Councils to undertake a thorough green belt review as part of the Local Plan process. This is essential to ensure that the development strategy for Greater Cambridge is based on a sound assessment of the strategy allocating more sites nearer to Cambridge and new jobs. It is inconceivable that the development strategy for an area so tightly constrained by green belt is not supported by an up to date review of the green belt, and the contributions that land parcels within it make to its purposes.
Whilst Policy S/GB follows the themes of the NPPF there is one clear area of divergence. That is in criterion c), which seeks to “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. Criterion b) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF relates to preventing neighbouring ‘towns’ merging into one another. As the environs surrounding Cambridge are villages, draft Policy S/GB needs to be consistent with the NPPF.
Recommended change: criterion c), of Policy S/GB needs to be amended to read “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging with the city.”
Further recommendation: That a comprehensive review of the green belt be carried out to identify further sites for development in sustainable locations that can be delivered without harm to the purposes of land being designated as green belt.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/DE: Defined development extents
Representation ID: 211479
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: G Robinson and Partners
Agent: Pegasus Group
Focusing development only within the defined development extents of settlements is inconsistent with the proposed changes to the NPPF by way of draft Policy S5. The changes propose a more flexible approach to the location of development with weight given to sites that are well-related to existing settlements. If the Councils were to adopt a more flexible approach to the development of sites well related to defined development extents, it would result in greater opportunities for the 6,976 new homes identified to come through on windfall sites to be delivered.
New homes in demonstrably sustainable locations can be restricted from coming forward due to locations being just outside defined development extents of highly sustainable settlements. Where any harm to the countryside can be mitigated through landscaping and design, such sites should not be restricted in coming forward if they can demonstrate sustainable development.
Recommended change: part 1 of Policy S/DE needs to be amended to read “Development and redevelopment of unallocated land and buildings within defined development extents, and on land well-related to the defined development extents, (as shown on the Policies Map) will be permitted provided that:.."
On behalf of G Robinson and Partners.
The government’s initial reforms of the NPPF in December 2024 included a modernisation of the way the green belt works. This included the consideration of development being permitted on low-quality green belt land that is identified as ‘grey belt’. An initial assessment of our client’s site at Teversham indicates that it is likely to be classed as grey belt, as it performs poorly against the purposes of green belt in the NPPF.
Given the importance of grey belt land in the government achieving its aim of significantly boosting the supply of new homes, greater flexibility is needed for more homes to come forward on sites that are well related to existing settlements. Our client’s site meets these criteria, as well as having cycle connectivity with Fulbourn and Cambridge.
In light of the significant changes to national policy with regards to development within the green belt, there is the need for the Councils to undertake a thorough green belt review as part of the Local Plan process. This is essential to ensure that the development strategy for Greater Cambridge is based on a sound assessment of the strategy allocating more sites nearer to Cambridge and new jobs. It is inconceivable that the development strategy for an area so tightly constrained by green belt is not supported by an up to date review of the green belt, and the contributions that land parcels within it make to its purposes.
Whilst Policy S/GB follows the themes of the NPPF there is one clear area of divergence. That is in criterion c), which seeks to “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. Criterion b) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF relates to preventing neighbouring ‘towns’ merging into one another. As the environs surrounding Cambridge are villages, draft Policy S/GB needs to be consistent with the NPPF.
Recommended change: criterion c), of Policy S/GB needs to be amended to read “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging with the city.”
Further recommendation: That a comprehensive review of the green belt be carried out to identify further sites for development in sustainable locations that can be delivered without harm to the purposes of land being designated as green belt.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Homes
Representation ID: 211480
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: G Robinson and Partners
Agent: Pegasus Group
These representations have been accompanied by a Housing Needs Survey Report for Teversham.
On behalf of G Robinson and Partners.
The government’s initial reforms of the NPPF in December 2024 included a modernisation of the way the green belt works. This included the consideration of development being permitted on low-quality green belt land that is identified as ‘grey belt’. An initial assessment of our client’s site at Teversham indicates that it is likely to be classed as grey belt, as it performs poorly against the purposes of green belt in the NPPF.
Given the importance of grey belt land in the government achieving its aim of significantly boosting the supply of new homes, greater flexibility is needed for more homes to come forward on sites that are well related to existing settlements. Our client’s site meets these criteria, as well as having cycle connectivity with Fulbourn and Cambridge.
In light of the significant changes to national policy with regards to development within the green belt, there is the need for the Councils to undertake a thorough green belt review as part of the Local Plan process. This is essential to ensure that the development strategy for Greater Cambridge is based on a sound assessment of the strategy allocating more sites nearer to Cambridge and new jobs. It is inconceivable that the development strategy for an area so tightly constrained by green belt is not supported by an up to date review of the green belt, and the contributions that land parcels within it make to its purposes.
Whilst Policy S/GB follows the themes of the NPPF there is one clear area of divergence. That is in criterion c), which seeks to “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. Criterion b) of paragraph 143 of the NPPF relates to preventing neighbouring ‘towns’ merging into one another. As the environs surrounding Cambridge are villages, draft Policy S/GB needs to be consistent with the NPPF.
Recommended change: criterion c), of Policy S/GB needs to be amended to read “prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging with the city.”
Further recommendation: That a comprehensive review of the green belt be carried out to identify further sites for development in sustainable locations that can be delivered without harm to the purposes of land being designated as green belt.
