Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210555

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

We are concerned that the location and scale of the proposal for the Cambourne North allocation site and the adjacent to Cambourne North SEA have the potential to adversely impact irreplaceable habitat (ancient woodland) and protected sites (including Special Area of Conservation). We do not believe this potential impact on biodiversity has been adequately considered. The allocation does not comply with the NPPFs notion of ‘sustainable development’ and there will be significant conflict with draft BG/BG. It also appears to be wholly at odds with the two Council’s draft biodiversity strategies and their support of the LNRS. We urge that the current form of the site allocation is reviewed, including more detailed rigorous ecological investigations, reworked and potentially removed / relocated / scaled back to avoid significant impacts to biodiversity and avoid blocking the delivery of the LNRS.

Comment

Representation ID: 210556

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

As noted in your supporting evidence, the allocation site may support functionally linked land for the barbastelle bat population of Eversden and Wimple Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and therefore, we are surprised not to see baseline study of bat usage in the landscape to inform the site allocation process, or a draft Habitats Regulations Assessment. Currently, there is not sufficient publicly available information to ascertain the usage of this
landscape by bats and therefore, we recommend a more detailed assessment, potentially including detailed bat survey work, is complete to determine whether the proposed site allocation for Cambourne North is appropriate, in the correct location or of the correct type /
scale.

Comment

Representation ID: 210557

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The LNRS Local Habitat Map, which shows approximately half of the Cambourne North & adjacent SEA being allocated for habitat creation, primarily woodland. We would strongly recommend these areas are excluded from
the allocation site – if they continue to be included, then we would suggest they are allocated as woodland creation within the SEA, but it would be essential that woodland creation is secured in advance of urban development. We also suggest to further minimise impact to biodiversity, that the allocation site if focused immediately adjacent to existing urbanised areas (e.g. A428, Cambourne and potential railway station), rather than sprawling into the rural countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 210558

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The County Council support the requirement in part 2 to secure 20% BNG as part of major developments. We are concerned that protection in part 7 is solely focused on existing sites of biodiversity or geological importance, as identified on the policies map. This will result in any proceeding changes to existing or new Local Sites not captured on the policies map, will not be afforded the same protection. We seek that this section of the policy be expanded to include impact on all land (designated or not)
supporting habitats/species that meet City Wildlife Site or County Wildlife Site criteria. We would also suggest that the policy map in ‘live’ and measures are put in place to update it on an annual basis, following release of the updated Local Sites GIS layers from CPERC.

Comment

Representation ID: 210559

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Throughout the Plan, reference is made to ‘Rights of Way’. This is not a class of highway and it is ambiguous as to whether the document is referring to public, permissive, or private rights of way. If the Plan is intending to refer to public rights of way, i.e., Public Footpaths, Bridleways,
Restricted Byways, and Byways Open to All Traffic, then it should be unambiguous about this and use the term ‘public rights of way’ - easily abbreviated to ‘PROW’. If the reference to ‘Rights of Way’ is also intended to encompass permissive rights of access or other privately managed routes, then this should be clarified.

Comment

Representation ID: 210574

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

We support the inclusion of the policy as it covers the importance of managing flood risk in new developments. Please note we would encourage reference to the NPPF and PPG in this policy. It is appreciated the policy has a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, with reference to surface water flooding within the local plan. Please note, in section 4.44, there is a reference to 'safe access and egress route'; however, this should be revised to read as 'safe access and escape route' in line with PPG.

Comment

Representation ID: 210575

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

This policy places emphasis on how new developments should demonstrated flood risk from all sources has been avoided or managed. Perhaps, it would be beneficial to list all sources of flood risk. Sources include rivers and the sea, direct rainfall on the ground surface, rising
groundwater, overwhelmed sewers and drainage systems, reservoirs, canals and lakes and other artificial sources (Paragraph 001 PPG)

Comment

Representation ID: 210577

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Support, as blue/green infrastructure can provide multi-functional benefits for surface water
management.

Comment

Representation ID: 210578

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Support. It is noted that benefits of green roofs are listed in terms of passive cooling of
buildings which is supported. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to incorporate how green
roofs assist in surface water and climate management. Green roofs can mimic predevelopment state of hydraulic and hydrology as well as remove atmospherically deposited urban pollutants. It is appreciated that climate change is widely discussed; however, reference should be made on how surface water systems should be designed with an allowance for climate change (Climate change allowances for peak rainfall).

Comment

Representation ID: 210579

Received: 28/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

• CCC supports the allocation of the NEC Area as set out in the position Statement issued in January 2025. The site is subject to a vehicular trip budget this requires the developers to contribute to the delivery of a wide range of strategic and local mitigation measures.

• The position statement is being reviewed in light of the news that the Waste Water Treatment Works are unlikely to be relocated. This has an impact on the level of development that can be accommodated in the NEC area while still remaining within the vehicular trip budget.

• The Transport Position Statement for North East Cambridge is currently being updated.