Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Support

Representation ID: 211456

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Hayfield supports the requirement of providing a minimum of 48,195 homes over the Greater Cambridgeshire area. The Housing Needs of Specific Groups in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Report (August 2025) concluded that there was an annual need in Greater Cambridge for 2,309 dwellings, with paragraph 7.159 stating that there is an acute need for affordable housing in both local authorities (Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire) and that it is clear that the provision of new affordable housing is an important and pressing issue in the area (para. 7.169).

Comment

Representation ID: 211457

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

The allocation of small sites should be recognised as a priority and supports small house builders to ensure that they benefit from having their sites identified for development. Allocations within a Local Plan take away someof the risk from a development by providing greater certainty of that site coming forward. The effect of this is
that it allows the SME sector to grow, delivering homes to increase the range of new homes available. This aligns with Paragraph 73 of the NPPF.

Whilst the draft NPPF can be given limited weight at this moment in time, it does signal the Government’s overall drive to encourage SME housebuilders back into the marketplace, such as through greater planning certainty being provided for the delivery of small to medium sites. Therefore, the Council should seek to promote the
delivery of small and medium sites through allocations within the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 211458

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Hayfield do not agree with the development caps put on each settlement tier. The application of a blanket cap
of 15 dwellings for development in Group Villages, such as Orwell, is overly restrictive and limits the ability to optimise site capacity. This may undermine efficient land use and restrict the delivery of much-needed housing in sustainable village locations. Greater flexibility within the policy would support more effective site-led decision making while still ensuring development remains proportionate and well-designed.

Hayfield request that the Council remove or certainly re-evaluate their settlement hierarchy development caps, allowing for further flexibility which considers aspects such as the local need requirement, settlement context, and surrounding settlement characteristics.

Object

Representation ID: 211459

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposed restriction on water use to 80 litres per person per day in developments of 100+ dwellings, and
90-100 litres per person per day in developments of less than 100 dwellings is unduly onerous and is not consistent with national requirements. By Building Regulation standards, the current restriction is 125 litres per person per day (LPPPD) with an optional uplift / reduction to 110 litres per person per day. The 'Water Ready’ report published earlier this year by the Future Homes Hub outlines a framework for new homes to achieve 90
LPPPD by 2035.

These restrictions to the LPPPD is considered unreasonable. The Policy should instead be written to reflect national regulations. Hayfield consider the Policy is reworded to reflect National Building Regulations Standards of 125 LPPPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 211460

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Hayfield agrees with the integration of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) into developments as a way of managing surface water runoff.

Object

Representation ID: 211461

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Hayfield are concerned that this Policy does not reflect the updated Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) relating to sequential testing. Policy CC/FM states that development proposals will be supported where the sequential test has been passed. However, this is not in compliance with the updated PPG, which states that a proportionate approach should be taken, applying NPPF Paragraph 175.

The PPG makes clear that where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates clearly that the proposal would ensure that occupiers and users would remain safe from surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development (without increasing flood risk elsewhere) a sequential test is not required. Hayfield therefore request that this Policy be amended to reflect the updated PPG.

Comment

Representation ID: 211462

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Hayfield do not agree with Policy BG/BG as it is not a consistent approach in relation to the National Requirements for BNG. We accept that on-site net gain delivery should followed however, the Policy requirement of 20% BNG on major sites should not be followed. The uplift of the minimum BNG requirement unfairly penalises SME developers who deliver smaller residential developments that cannot often feasibly deliver the mandatory 10% net gain in biodiversity, in full, on-site. Hayfield suggest that Policy BG/BG needs to be amended to be consistent with the national requirements for delivering a net gain in biodiversity, to be justified.

Comment

Representation ID: 211463

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Hayfield agrees that future development should be of quality design and should contribute and respond to the local character of the surrounding settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 211464

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Hayfield agrees that future development should be of quality design and should contribute and respond to the local character of the surrounding settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 211465

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Hayfield Homes Construction Ltd.

Hayfield supports the Council’s decision for housing density to be appropriate in order to reflect the local character and context.

However, Hayfield note that no density figures have been provided. Whilst it is acknowledged and supported that character and local context should inform appropriate density levels, the absence of any benchmark figures creates uncertainty at the early planning, feasibility and land valuation stages. The inclusion of broad density guidance, alongside the policy’s design-led and context-led approach, would improve consistency in decision making and provide greater certainty for delivery.

Therefore, it is recommended that Policy GP/HD be altered to include indicative density ranges that provide clarity for developers and decision-makers. While a design-led approach is welcomed, clear benchmarks would support early feasibility work, improve consistency across decisions, and reduce uncertainty at pre-application and application stages.