Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210626

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

• The Polices Map shows protected open spaces and nature reserves. Public rights of way are an amenity as well as providing connectivity to key sites. As such could they be included on the policy mapping.

Comment

Representation ID: 210627

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

• In addition to filling in missing natural links, developments should wherever possible provide
routes that enable access to the wider countryside, ideally through public rights of way, or
otherwise by permissive routes.

Comment

Representation ID: 210999

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The plan treats such development as “windfall”, but it is unclear whether communities will be adequately supported to manage it in line with green and blue infrastructure, climate objectives, and active travel ambitions. If policy does not actively encourage growth in smaller settlements, is it nevertheless strong enough to ensure that any growth which does occur delivers appropriate supporting infrastructure? Will future limits of two or eight dwellings per site be enforceable, given past experience? More broadly, there is a lack of clarity around how Section 106 and CIL funds generated by
growth will be distributed to improve connectivity within villages and across the wider area. Has this been properly considered or modelled?

Comment

Representation ID: 211000

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

“Rural Centres” is a misleading term. These are among the least rural villages: they do not feel remote, lack strong rural characteristics, are close to Cambridge, benefit from good transport links, and are not shaped by a rural economy. The label is therefore unhelpful and should not
be applied to the largest hub villages.
• “Minor rural centres” are more genuinely rural, although many function economically as suburban settlements, with high levels of commuting and, in some cases, their own science parks. Describing these places as rural introduces bias into policy discussions and planning decisions, obscuring their hybrid or suburban character.
• “Smaller villages”, by contrast, are distinctly rural, facing traditional rural challenges and displaying classic rural characteristics, yet they are not classified as rural under the current terminology.

Comment

Representation ID: 211001

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

It is essential that new towns include high-quality municipal swimming pools. While operation through secondary schools may be acceptable initially, this approach is unlikely to be sufficient as towns grow. Even if funding through Section 106 or CIL is not
prioritised, land should still be safeguarded for future provision. Swimming pools are vital community assets: they support children, young people and older residents, help build a strong sporting culture, and can significantly reduce car dependency when provided locally. A lack of
local pools is a major driver of car travel.

Comment

Representation ID: 211002

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Leisure centres are critical for public health and for fostering a culture of sport and physical activity. South Cambridgeshire is the only district without its own leisure centres, relying heavily on village college sports facilities and on Cambridge City to meet demand. Purpose-built leisure centres offer higher-quality facilities and a wider range of activities. The current shortfall undermines participation in sport, increases car journeys, and leaves some residents unable to access facilities at all.

Comment

Representation ID: 211003

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

While this is not intended to be a transport strategy, the absence of ring roads, dedicated public transport routes through the city centre, and an active travel ring road or strong inter‑village connections means the plan does little to reduce reliance on private car travel. New towns are predominantly planned to the north of the city, while most employment opportunities are located to the south, and connectivity—particularly for journeys from the north—is not consistently strong.

Comment

Representation ID: 211004

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

We strongly support the ambition to double nature recovery. In particular, we ask whether the Local Plan could be used more proactively to increase residents’ access to nature and promote active travel, for example by creating new rights of way into and across adjacent farmland or nature reserves. Many new developments remain designed with a single point of access focused on car use. Could stronger requirements ensure that developments are better connected to surrounding farmland, green spaces, or nature reserves? In addition, the Plan provides little detail on the five proposed “dispersed” green infrastructure initiatives. While some of these may be achievable, it is unclear how they will be delivered in practice. Further clarification is also needed on how the Plan will actively promote and support
environmentally friendly farming.

Comment

Representation ID: 211005

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Last‑mile delivery is referenced, but this should more explicitly consider solutions such as delivery lockers within new communities at the earliest planning stages. There is also an opportunity to support how people live today by retrofitting existing communities. Can planning policy actively support the provision of parcel lockers, particularly given the widespread closure of post offices? This is a significant driver of unnecessary car journeys.

Comment

Representation ID: 211006

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Letterboxes and parcel storage also require attention. Where letterboxes are inaccessible, for example, located behind gated or locked entrances, it becomes much harder for residents to receive deliveries and manage day‑to‑day life. Safe, secure, and accessible locations for letterboxes and parcel storage should be a priority in new developments. Anecdotally, residents often redirect deliveries to parents’ homes to avoid these issues, which in turn increases travel demand and undermines trip budgets for schemes.