Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Issues that need to be addressed include:
a) Avoidance of vehicle-dominated space in front of station
b) Disconnection between bus stops and station entrance/exit, which encourages taxi use for journeys that could be made by bus
c) Congestion on Great Northern Road which inflicts pollution on residents living along the street and, if it backs up to Station Road, disrupts bus services
d) Conflict between cars and pedestrians on the heavily used route between Devonshire Road and the station entrance
e) Lack of provision for future expansion of cycle parking that is integrated both with the existing cycle parking and better integrated with the station
f) Narrow and cluttered footway along the north side of Station Road
g) Slow three-stage pedestrian crossing arrangements at the Hills Road–Station Road junction
h) Unobvious and inconsistent signage along route to city centre (20 minute walk).
i) Welcoming facilities for millions of visitors arriving by train.

If the city is to consider seriously a light rail network, it will need a stop at Cambridge station. A design will need to be commissioned, and land safeguarded for its construction.

The policy covers archaeology and building heights but makes no mention of the fact that the bulk of the permitted Block B2 will be a multistorey car park, which will add nothing to the local area or the city’s economy. The policy should set out an alternative more sustainable use prefaced with, “If the extant permission is not implemented ….”

This policy lacks objectives and parameters to create a primary transport interchange and properly functioning, attractive, legible and future-proof gateway to the city. A detailed vision is necessary to ensure that a large growth in flows of people to and from the station, in particular on foot, cycle and bus, can be accommodated, and that funding for this can be secured from East West Rail (and/or any other rail growth project).

Generally, we support this policy but have one concern. This site includes the building on the eastern side of the Mill Pond. The building is not listed but is of heritage value, being the last remaining vestige of the mill workings (ie a building associated with the purposes of milling) and, as such, the building helps to tell that history and provide the context as to why there is a lock and a mill pond in this location. We are aware that the building owner was considering demolishing this building in order to create an open space which would allow it to showcase the new buildings that would be constructed on Laundress Lane (including retail outlets). CPPF was opposed to the demolition on heritage grounds, as were others, and we would want to see the building repurposed rather than demolished. We strongly support the policy wording of 1a and 1b but point out that policy 1c could be used to justify the demolition of the mill building. We would like to see this policy conflict resolved.

There is a conflict in the description of listed buildings between the policy and supporting information. Part 1a of the policy notes the listed buildings within the site yet the supporting information says there are no listed buildings within the site. The Policy says that the Pitt Building adjoins the site but is shown within the policy boundary.

We support this policy but would like to see policy 1c revised to make specific mention of the historic skyline, our suggestion would be: “preserve or enhance heritage assets and their setting, the historic skyline, open spaces and the River Cam”. It could be argued that the historic skyline is ‘setting’ but this is not clear and therefore is open to interpretation.

Revise wording to enable redevelopment to support the city's nature recovery ambitions.
Revise the wording of Policy part 1 j to include the Leper Chapel:
Preserve or enhance the setting of the Grade I Listed Leper Chapel, Grade II Listed Buildings, 529 and Papermills, Newmarket Road and the Riverside, which are opposite the development site, and an Historic Impact Assessment should be submitted with any application.
Revise the wording of Policy part 2 to read:
An urban design led approach should be taken to inform the appropriate scale and massing of development proposals, minimising adverse impacts on adjacent residential properties and avoiding adverse impacts on adjacent open spaces.

We believe that the draft policy wording is missing an opportunity for wider environmental regeneration in the area. The stadium is surrounded by land to the south and west that is owned/managed by the city council, and to the northwest by CambridgePPF. All of this land forms part of the Cambridge Nature Network and is an important wildlife corridor and public open space. There are opportunities for improving the biodiversity value of the land in this location. CPPF would like to see policy wording that would enable a redevelopment of the stadium to support the city’s nature recovery ambitions (not least because there is some negative indirect impacts associated with the stadium: large crowds on match day result in increased disturbance to wildlife and some littering and floodlighting can also have an impact on nature).

We object to the lack of specific reference to the Grade I listed Leper Chapel.

Impact on adjacent open spaces should be avoided and not just minimised.

We would like to see an additional policy added: 1d: Protect and enhance any heritage assets and their setting.

We object that this policy does not include any reference to heritage (which is why we believe that a Historic Environment Strategy is required as part of the Local Plan).

Part 2 of the policy needs to be coordinated with the transport strategy for Cambridge.
Additional policy added: 1g: Protect and enhance any heritage assets and their setting.
Include within the policy a requirement that any development over a certain size to be mixed use to help meet the city’s housing need.

Policies 1b and 2 and highlights how this draft Local Plan is not co-ordinated with transport planning. The transport strategy for Cambridge (as pursued by the councils and GCP) is for bus-based travel, with a reliance on Park & Ride. For this strategy to work, buses need to be able to travel relatively quickly and reliably. One of the factors that reduces speed and reliability is traffic being held at crossings. This is why the Elizabeth Way roundabout has a subway and why a subway was created for the Chisholm Trail. At the same time, we have several new developments along the same stretch of Newmarket Road that are potentially introducing new at-grade crossings. The approach is confused. Either we have bus priority and introduce subways and bridges, or we don’t have a bus-based strategy?

We are concerned that this policy does not include any reference to heritage (which is why we believe that a Historic Environment Strategy is required as part of the Local Plan). We would like to see an additional policy added: 1g: Protect and enhance any heritage assets and their setting.

There has been massive frustration in Cambridge (including from the Council) that the redevelopment of the Beehive will not involve a residential element. This area of Cambridge is perfect for new residential development and one of the few remaining places in the city that has potential to meet the city’s housing need. The reason that the city was not able to persuade the developer to bring forward a mixed-use development at the Beehive was because there was no policy hook to do so. Please do not repeat that mistake and include a policy which requires any development over a certain size to be mixed use to help meet the city’s housing need.

The policy should give guidance on securing a new public use for the Old Library.

Generally, we support this policy but have one concern. This site includes the building on the eastern side of the Mill Pond. The building is not listed but is of heritage value, being the last remaining vestige of the mill workings (ie a building associated with the purposes of milling) and, as such, the building helps to tell that history and provide the context as to why there is a lock and a mill pond in this location. We are aware that the building owner was considering demolishing this building in order to create an open space which would allow it to showcase the new buildings that would be constructed on Laundress Lane (including retail outlets). CPPF was opposed to the demolition on heritage grounds, as were others, and we would want to see the building repurposed rather than demolished. We strongly support the policy wording of 1a and 1b but point out that policy 1d could be used to justify the demolition of the mill building. We would like to see this policy conflict resolved.

The policy should be strengthened on maintaining the extent of the Green Belt within the site.
There should be a commitment within the policy to explore optimal locations for the railway station to enhance service to Cambridge East.

CPPF supports the policy recognition given to biodiversity and green infrastructure issues. The policy represents a good framework to avoid adverse impacts on nearby high-value nature sites and to provide high quality green infrastructure including off-site strategic natural greenspace.

We note however that the supporting text anticipates that proposals may be brought forward which include development within the Green Belt which runs through Cambridge East. While there may be some flexibility in the precise boundaries of the corridor, it is important that its alignment and width is retained to ensure it continues to function as a key green link, connecting Coldham’s and Stourbridge Commons and Ditton Meadows to the surrounding countryside to the east of the city, and serving as one of the city’s principal green corridors.

It is a significant oversight that this policy makes no mention of a Cambridge East railway station. Although a station in the vicinity of Coldham’s Lane is now part of the plan for East West Rail, it is subject to third party funding (You Said, We Did Autumn Update 2025 §4.12). S106 contributions are almost certainly necessary to make it viable, so there should be a policy basis for asking for these.
The policy should go further than the EWR plan, which proposes a station in a relatively inaccessible location, surrounded by land that is mostly not suitable for development. It is also only one mile from the main Cambridge station. By comparison, Cambridge North is 2.25 miles from Cambridge station, and Cambridge South, 1.4 miles.
The policy should commit to exploring the best location for the station so that it can better serve Cambridge East.

Supporting Information needs to refer to Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD.
Policy needs to require the masterplan to be updated.
Consider restricting development to those uses where it is essential to be onsite.
Amend policy to direct housing development to sites not needed for biomedical purposes.
Heavily scrutinise and sensitivity-test forecasts for modal shares for transport to/from the CBC. Test all routes onto and through the Campus for adequate capacity for all modes, recognising that there will be large cohorts of people walking and cycling to and from Cambridge South station.
Revisit the options for providing bus priority between the Babraham P&R and the Biomedical Campus to also accommodate buses arriving on the A1307 from Haverhill via the Babraham Research Park.

Land use
CPPF recognise the local, national and international importance of this site and consider that the public benefits arising from the clinical and research investment justify the release of Green Belt land. However, CPPF would challenge further boundary creep every time the Local Plan is reviewed.
The Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD was adopted in April 2025 and therefore is relevant and should be referred to in the supporting information.
There should be a requirement to update the existing master plan for the entire site to demonstrate where redevelopment opportunities exist so housing and other uses can be accommodated and make efficient use of land, including within the hospital site or outmoded hospital residential accommodation. The masterplan should also identify locations for strategic landscaping to mitigate the impact of large buildings on the open landscape and Gog Magog Hills.
CPPF is concerned that the limited land available for the CBC is not given up for uses which could be provided elsewhere in the Cambridge area, leading to future proposals for further CBC expansion into the Green Belt and Gog Magog Hills in this sensitive location.

CPPF are concerned that residential development will result in the loss of land for biomedical development resulting in the need to release more land from the Green Belt. Residential accommodation must only be built on land which is not suitable for other purposes. If the residential development is to be provided in high rise blocks, they need to be located in areas suitable for tall buildings.
Suggest amending point 8d to include “in locations where the land is not suitable for health and life sciences, commercial and innovation floorspace.’
The housing should be restricted to key worker housing.

Context
CPPF strongly supports policies 14a, b and c.

Built Form
CPPF strongly supports policies 16d, e, f and g.

Nature & Green Space
We welcome the significant greenspace habitat creation being proposed by the policy but believe there could be a different approach taken to development and green space on the south-east boundary of Cambridge, which could deliver even better outcomes for nature and people. We refer you to the response made by the Wildlife Trust BCN and the potential for an enabling development which could better deliver the ambitions of the Cambridge Nature Network by extending new green space and habitat creation from Nine Wells, northeastwards to Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this in more detail with officers, where we can also show plans of potential locations for extended green space/habitats and active travel improvements.
In designing the mitigation strategy and planning new habitats, it is important to use the significant data available on red listed farmland birds which use the area south of the Campus. These birds are of high conservation concern because changes to the farmed environment have led to rapid and significant population declines. New habitats should be suitable replacement habitat, such as meadows, and should include areas with no public access to support ground-nesting birds. Or alternatively, mitigation will need to be off-site areas of nature friendly arable farming with a secure long-term future.

Transport
The Transport Strategy (Appendix A) indicates that, by 2050, the number of daily trips to the CBC will reach 93,874 , almost double the number in 2023 (48,096). (CBC Transport Strategy Appendix A Table 4).
This is a staggering level of growth in the context of poor provision for walking onto or around the CBC site, slow and convoluted access for buses, inadequate cycle parking, and persistently severe congestion on Babraham/Hills Road, Hauxton Road and Addenbrooke’s Road. It is essential that the strategy for accommodating this growth is scrutinised for realism and robustness, in particular with respect to the mode-shares by train and bus, which will have to absorb most of the growth in trips.
The technical note on the proposed realignment of Granham’s Road (Realignment of Granham’s Road page 8) is unclear on precisely what options have been tested, and some of the claimed advantages of the Do Something option do not stand up to scrutiny (e.g. that the Do Something provides a “better integrated and connected CBC and P&R” than the Do Maximum, which provides a “physically direct connection”).
Consideration needs to be given to services arriving on the A1307 from Haverhill and the Babraham Research Campus. Even with CSET2 built, the most direct route between the Biomedical Campus and the Babraham Research Campus will be via the A1307. The advantage afforded by a continuous inbound bus lane and/or separate busway from at least the Hinton Way roundabout could be significant.