Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211136

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Part 2 c): We are encouraged to see a high standard being promoted for non-household development. Regarding the phrasing “unless demonstrated not practicable”; we strongly encourage GCSP to define how “non-practicable” will be assessed. We would also encourage a minimum of 3 credits for Wat 01 where 5 credits cannot be achieved, as per the Shared Standard.

Comment

Representation ID: 211137

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Part 2 d) Please clearly state whether point d applies in addition to point c for nonhousehold developments which use as part of a commercial process(es).

Comment

Representation ID: 211138

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Part 2 “should consider” to be changed to “must consider” to further the policy’s application.

Comment

Representation ID: 211139

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We also recommend the inclusion of a section dealing specifically with Data Centre’s water efficiency as these are an emerging sector with a high-water consumption. We
have provided additional comments in our section Comments on the Cambridge Area Water Supply Evidence (October 2025) part 5.5 Future for non-household demand.

Comment

Representation ID: 211140

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We would encourage wording in the policy’s justification (“Where Government policy or legislation relating to water efficiency is more stringent or at significant variance with this policy in the future, the more stringent standard will be adopted when determining planning applications.”) to be transferred as an additional point to the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 211141

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

In respect of groundwater, we are glad to see that Policy CC/WE mentions the importance of groundwater as a vulnerable resource for drinking water and highlights
the need for improved water efficiency as a way of protecting groundwater.

Comment

Representation ID: 211142

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We would recommend the inclusion in relation to aquifers and source protection are added to the supporting text. These considerations can be useful to guide decisions regarding development and water availability:
- Bedrock geology from the northwest to southeast
- Principal Chalk aquifer and Source Protection Zones
Superficial deposits classified as Secondary aquifers
- Aquifers that underly the area that are of high value.

We also recommend referencing Groundwater Protection, and other guidance and any superseded versions.

Comment

Representation ID: 211143

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We generally support the draft policy wording, particularly given that many of the WWTW are already at or close to capacity. Wording around the conveyancing infrastructure (within part 6.a. of the policy) should be tightened to ensure that it is not just ‘adequate’, but that there is sufficient capacity in any existing conveyancing infrastructure that the new network might connect into. This is important to protect the water environment from increased storm overflows (from combined sewers, or at pumping stations), or from flooding of manholes on the wider, existing sewer network.

Comment

Representation ID: 211144

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We welcome the distinction between capacity for waste water treatment and also adequate waste water conveyancing infrastructure, as stated in 6a. However, defining and differentiating between separate capacity considerations can often be confused, and we regularly see information submitted within planning applications failing to address all aspects of waste water capacity. We recommend that the supporting text section includes a paragraph to capture these nuances.

Comment

Representation ID: 211145

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

If sufficient waste water infrastructure capacity is unavailable at the time of planning application submissions, risk to the environment from the development combined with wider planned growth could be mitigated by using a condition to delay occupation of the development until it can be evidenced that the anticipated additional net increase in waste water generated by the development is capable of being accommodated by the receiving WWTW to protect water quality and support the achievement of water quality objectives.