Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 207994

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

We understand the rationale behind the approach and acknowledge that it supports relatively sustainable growth in a low‑conflict way by concentrating development around existing transport links in Cambridge and the larger towns. A key benefit for smaller villages is that they are largely protected from change. While this may be popular locally, it is not without consequences. Villages that currently lack local shops and services are unlikely ever to reach the scale at which such amenities become viable.

Comment

Representation ID: 207995

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Public transport is a particular concern. With a congestion charge strongly rejected by residents, there is no clear additional funding mechanism for public transport. As a result, these villages are likely to remain poorly connected, either without public transport altogether or with infrequent, low‑quality services. Even if communities wished to grow to a scale thatcould support viable services, this plan effectively prevents them from doing so. It may be argued that a future local plan could allow specific villages to pursue a different strategy. However, the current plan does not consider the consequences of rejecting growth. Bus franchising alone, without new funding, will not deliver the level of change required.

Comment

Representation ID: 207996

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Infill pressures already exceed the eight‑dwellings‑per‑site limit in villages such as Benwick, creating traffic and community concerns.

Comment

Representation ID: 207997

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The plan does not provide clear modelling of how Section 106 and CIL contributions will be used to improve village connectivity.

Comment

Representation ID: 207998

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The term “Rural Centres” is misleading – these settlements are close to Cambridge and well‑served, so they should not be grouped with larger hub villages; “Minor rural centres” function more like suburban areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 207999

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

New towns must safeguard land for high‑quality municipal swimming pools and leisure centres to meet future demand and reduce car trips.

Comment

Representation ID: 208000

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The plan lacks a coherent transport strategy – there are no ring roads, dedicated public‑transport corridors through the city centre, or strong inter‑village links, leaving north‑south connectivity weak.

Comment

Representation ID: 208001

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The ambition to double nature recovery is fully supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 208002

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The plan should create new rights of way across farmland and reserves to improve resident access to nature and active travel.

Comment

Representation ID: 208003

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

New developments should provide multiple, green‑linked entrances rather than a single car‑focused access point.