Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Search representations
Results for Friends of St Matthew's Piece search
New searchComment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/PRIA/EG: Eastern Gate
Representation ID: 201187
Received: 27/12/2025
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
115524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score
of 'Red'. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect
our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space - noting St
Matthew's Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of
this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each
pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO,
and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
115524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score
of 'Red'. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect
our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space - noting St
Matthew's Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of
this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each
pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO,
and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/PRIA/EG: Eastern Gate
Representation ID: 201262
Received: 30/12/2025
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
115524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score of 'Red'. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space - noting St Matthew's Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO, and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
115524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score of 'Red'. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space - noting St Matthew's Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO, and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
About the Plan
Representation ID: 201277
Received: 03/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
115524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score
of 'Red'. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect
our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space - noting St
Matthew's Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of
this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each
pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO,
and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
115524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score
of 'Red'. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect
our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space - noting St
Matthew's Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of
this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each
pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO,
and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
Representation ID: 201341
Received: 13/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
❌ Throughout this Policy and the whole Local Plan: replace “changing climate” with “climate crisis”.
❌ Point 1: Design solutions must "respond proportionately and actively to the emerging climate crisis" (not "positively respond to our changing climate").
❌ Point 2: must explicitly address the impact of any development not only on future edifices but (more importantly) on surrounding townscape and biosphere.
❌ Point 2: all applications must include credible design solutions that first formally evaluate, second actively and effectively reduce existing and/or any future Urban Heat Island Effect.
❌ Point 3: delete the words "where possible".
❌ Throughout this Policy and the whole Local Plan: replace “changing climate” with “climate crisis”.
❌ Point 1: Design solutions must "respond proportionately and actively to the emerging climate crisis" (not "positively respond to our changing climate").
❌ Point 2: must explicitly address the impact of any development not only on future edifices but (more importantly) on surrounding townscape and biosphere.
❌ Point 2: all applications must include credible design solutions that first formally evaluate, second actively and effectively reduce existing and/or any future Urban Heat Island Effect.
❌ Point 3: delete the words "where possible".
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/TC: Improving tree canopy cover and the tree population
Representation ID: 201342
Received: 13/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
✅ Point 1: + 30% minimum is supported, with adequate monitoring and enforcement.
❌ Point 2: If less than 30% is agreed on site, then compensatory canopy increase must be agreed offsite (the farther, the greater the compensatory provision)
❌ Point 3a: hedgerows should meet Wildlife Trust size standards
✅ Point 3b support protecting "space below ground"
❌Point 4a change text to "climate crisis" THROUGHOUT
✅ Point 4b support "long lived trees"
✅ Point 6 strongly support
❌ Point 7: ancient and woodland trees must be explicitly defined as by the Woodland Trust
✅ Point 1: + 30% minimum is supported, with adequate monitoring and enforcement.
❌ Point 2: If less than 30% is agreed on site, then compensatory canopy increase must be agreed offsite (the farther, the greater the compensatory provision)
❌ Point 3a: hedgerows should meet Wildlife Trust size standards
✅ Point 3b support protecting "space below ground"
❌Point 4a change text to "climate crisis" THROUGHOUT
✅ Point 4b support "long lived trees"
✅ Point 6 strongly support
❌ Point 7: ancient and woodland trees must be explicitly defined as by the Woodland Trust
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces
Representation ID: 201424
Received: 16/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
✅Point 1: Inclusion of "undesignated areas" - strongly support.
❌Point 1 (Add): Any 'Open Space' with a new development must be automatically "protected" from the start.
❌Point 1 (Add): Add every opportunity must be taken to restore lost historic protected open space.
✅Point 2a: "suitable distance" - strongly support.
✅Point 2b: "before" - strongly support.
❌Point 3 needs strengthening; development should not be permitted if it impairs community access to and use of protected open space.
✅Points 4 & 5: - strongly support
✅Point 1: Inclusion of "undesignated areas" - strongly support.
❌Point 1 (Add): Any 'Open Space' with a new development must be automatically "protected" from the start.
❌Point 1 (Add): Add every opportunity must be taken to restore lost historic protected open space.
✅Point 2a: "suitable distance" - strongly support.
✅Point 2b: "before" - strongly support.
❌Point 3 needs strengthening; development should not be permitted if it impairs community access to and use of protected open space.
✅Points 4 & 5: - strongly support
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Cambridge urban area
Representation ID: 201427
Received: 17/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
15524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score of 'Red'. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space - noting St Matthew's Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO, and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
15524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score of 'Red'. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect our vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space - noting St Matthew's Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO, and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy H/AH: Affordable housing
Representation ID: 201461
Received: 18/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
To support the aims of Policy H/AH, where non-residential development is proposed, the Council should require the provision of homes (excluding student housing) to enable a mix of uses.
Development providing additional floorspace of <200sqm or new floorspace of <1000sqm should require 50% of additional floorspace to be housing, subject to criteria (attached).
Housing should be required on site. Where not practical, or more appropriately off-site, provision of housing on an alternative nearby site, or (exceptionally) a payment-in-lieu could be considered, based on three further criteria (attached).
Where financial viability is raised, the Council should seek the standard deferred-contingent contribution.
To support the aims of Policy H/AH, where non-residential development is proposed, the Council should require the provision of homes (excluding student housing) to enable a mix of uses.
Development providing additional floorspace of <200sqm or new floorspace of <1000sqm should require 50% of additional floorspace to be housing, subject to criteria (attached).
Housing should be required on site. Where not practical, or more appropriately off-site, provision of housing on an alternative nearby site, or (exceptionally) a payment-in-lieu could be considered, based on three further criteria (attached).
Where financial viability is raised, the Council should seek the standard deferred-contingent contribution.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/JH: New jobs and homes
Representation ID: 201581
Received: 21/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
❌Housing needs cannot be responsibly, realistically or sensibly articulated without parallel consideration of all of the necessary associated physical (e.g., sewage/wastewater, sustainable fresh-water supply, transport capacity, electrical grid capacity) and societal (e.g., community centres, recreational open-space, sports facilities, schools at all levels and of all types – including special-needs facilities, healthcare and employment-support including for those with disabilities) infrastructure provision, as well as sustainable green–blue infrastructure – when there are already Council-declared climate and biodiversity crises (including e.g., capacity for ensuring food-security for existing and new residents). These vital matters all need to be front-and-centre in Planning ... not afterthoughts.
❌Housing needs cannot be responsibly, realistically or sensibly articulated without parallel consideration of all of the necessary associated physical (e.g., sewage/wastewater, sustainable fresh-water supply, transport capacity, electrical grid capacity) and societal (e.g., community centres, recreational open-space, sports facilities, schools at all levels and of all types – including special-needs facilities, healthcare and employment-support including for those with disabilities) infrastructure provision, as well as sustainable green–blue infrastructure – when there are already Council-declared climate and biodiversity crises (including e.g., capacity for ensuring food-security for existing and new residents). These vital matters all need to be front-and-centre in Planning ... not afterthoughts.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces
Representation ID: 201653
Received: 22/01/2026
Respondent: Friends of St Matthew's Piece
❌Point 1 (Add): The provision of open space in a new development must take additional and compensatory account of the level of existing provision in the setting, particularly when this is poor.
❌Point 2: "The Councils are exploring the potential to require" is unacceptable. Replace by "All development must meet" and delete "major".
✅Point 3 - very strongly support.
❌Point 5 (Add): New development must not use pesticides or herbicides in management of green space or buildings/infrastructure.
❌Point 5 (Add): Any tree guards must be conditioned and enforced as temporary.
❌Point 1 (Add): The provision of open space in a new development must take additional and compensatory account of the level of existing provision in the setting, particularly when this is poor.
❌Point 2: "The Councils are exploring the potential to require" is unacceptable. Replace by "All development must meet" and delete "major".
✅Point 3 - very strongly support.
❌Point 5 (Add): New development must not use pesticides or herbicides in management of green space or buildings/infrastructure.
❌Point 5 (Add): Any tree guards must be conditioned and enforced as temporary.
