Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 207670

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan. We have reviewed the Local Plan in conjunction with the associated supporting documents. We have provided comments and recommendations below which align with the various constraints within our remit. We appreciate the opportunity to engage with you on the Local Plan Review and look forward to ongoing engagement as the review progresses.

Comment

Representation ID: 211127

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We note in the policy’s Supporting Information on “Ensuring a deliverable plan” mentions “is not anticipated to be completed in the housing trajectory accompanying the Local Plan until 2032" - We would recommend the statement “is not anticipated to” to be improved by
including further information from developers of the strategic sites on their planned phasing.

Comment

Representation ID: 211128

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Table 2 highlights Allocations for the periods ‘Homes 2024-2025' and ‘Homes Post 2045’. We recommend this table be revisited and an additional column be added which details new local plan allocations for ‘Homes 2024/25-2031/32’ and ‘Homes 2032/33-2045’ (or any further breakdown, that reflects when water supply is planned to be available from other strategic schemes like the Fens Reservoir).

Comment

Representation ID: 211129

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are encouraged by the statement “Delivery and phasing plans will need to demonstrate engagement with the water industry, and respond the availability of water supply improvements.” and would recommend including this wording to this policy or to policy CC/WE.

Comment

Representation ID: 211130

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Paragraph 2.86 appears to be missing the word ‘waste’ before ‘water treatment works’, in the first sentence. We recommend being clear throughout the Plan when referring to Waste Water Treatment Works, to avoid confusion with Water Supply Treatment Works, which are commonly referred to as just water treatment works.

Comment

Representation ID: 211131

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We recommend the addition of the following wording at the end of points 1 and 3:
‘Residential development and redevelopment…..provided that adequate services, facilities and infrastructure are available or can be made available as a result of the development and areas of flood risk are avoided.’.

Comment

Representation ID: 211132

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We welcome this policy and the requirement for Sustainability Statements to be submitted for major development proposals. In particular, we support the requirement for statements to include how water management has been considered in an integrated way which protects and enhances water quality and the reference to the use of ‘naturebased design solutions’ in point 2. We recommend adding the following wording to bullet 8 on what a Sustainability Statement should include:
‘Demonstrate that flood risk from all sources has been avoided or managed if it is not possible to sequentially locate all development outside areas of flood risk.’

Comment

Representation ID: 211133

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are pleased to see an ambitious water efficiency policy and would encourage GCSP to commit to monitoring reports which will give periodic updates on the policy’s effective implementation. We would like to highlight
the following to improve the policy’s effectiveness:
Part 1: We would encourage the wording to be changed from “adequate” to “sufficient and sustainable”.

Comment

Representation ID: 211134

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Part 2: a) We support the enhanced ambitious 80 l/p/d policy. We note that, according to the Integrated Water Management Study Detailed Water Cycle Study, these figures were proven to be deliverable based on the Integrated Water Management Study from 2021. We recommend GCSP review its 2021 evidence base in light of additional evidence provided in the Shared Standards for Water Efficiency and to include this within its policy’s justification to improve its future soundness at later examination stages.

Comment

Representation ID: 211135

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Part 2 (b): We would like to suggest the wording “subject to amendments to relevant water legislation” be amend to “subject to amendments to relevant water re-use policy”. Moreover, please clarify to what degree the water re-use and recycling expectation is dependent on amendments to relevant water legislation occurring and what the implications would be on the policy’s effectiveness if this reform does not occur.