Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211166

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We welcome the inclusion of this policy and are generally supportive of the wording. However, we recommend the inclusion of an additional bullet point under part 2. to ensure there is no cumulative loss of floodplain storage due to development within riparian buffer zones, which could increase flood risk elsewhere. We suggest using the following wording: ‘d. that there will be no loss of floodplain storage or impedance to flood water flows.’

Comment

Representation ID: 211167

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We would recommend greater emphasis and encouragement for the redevelopment of land affected by contamination as this is a sustainable approach which provides an important opportunity for environmental improvement via remediation.

Comment

Representation ID: 211168

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are pleased to see these included and that Plan
highlights the necessity for soil and groundwater investigations and mitigation of any contamination prior to development. Any development proposed on brownfield sites, historic landfill sites, or sites suspected to have been affected be contamination, should follow the requirements of our Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM)
guidance. This would initially require a Preliminary Risk Assessment, which would likely be followed by intrusive site investigation, and potentially detailed quantitative risk assessment to assess whether remediation can be undertaken to ensure the protection of the surface water and groundwater environments.

Comment

Representation ID: 211169

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We recommend that the following guidance be referenced: Paragraphs 123, 146, 180, 189 and 190 within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; The Land Contamination Technical Guidance on gov.uk including the Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM) guidance. Our guidance is regularly revised, and therefore, throughout the plan's duration, the most recent version or replacement guidance for superseded versions should be consulted.

Comment

Representation ID: 211170

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We support the inclusion in The Local Plan the requirement to use native species in landscaping. We recommend that should anyone proposing to plant species as part of development submit a planting schedule that specifies species native to the area and sourced locally to maintain genetic integrity and ecological resilience. The schedule should also include details of establishment care, such as watering and maintenance, to ensure successful growth and long-term survival.

Comment

Representation ID: 211171

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We recommend that the ‘Reuse of buildings in the countryside for residential use’ section of this policy refers to the need to place restrictions on changes of use within
flood risk areas. The following bullet point could be added to this section: ‘The buildings are located outside of Flood Zones 2 and 3 and outside areas of high surface water flood risk, or a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the development will be safe for its lifetime, taking into account the effects of climate change.’

Comment

Representation ID: 211172

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We have previously encountered issues in relation to foul sewage disposal at the permanent traveller sites in the area. These sites are not connected to the mains foul
sewage system, instead utilising multiple package treatment plants that produce inadequately treated final effluent. Consequently we regularly receive reports of
pollution to the River Cam and its tributaries. We are pleased to see that section 2(f) includes the need for provision of essential utilities including drainage and sewerage. However, we are unclear if the term ‘essential
utilities’ refers to ‘mains’ sewerage. Please confirm. it is preferable that this policy should provide for ‘mains foul drainage’ where possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 211173

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We would welcome working with the local authority and Anglian Water to establish if/when the land is redeveloped, the traveller site could be connected to the mains foul sewage system. This would have a positive impact on Cambridge’s water environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 211174

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We recommend that this policy clarifies that any proposals for new Gypsy and Traveller pitches must not be located within Flood Zone 3. Annex 3 of the NPPF classifies caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use as ‘highly vulnerable’ and table 2 of the Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change indicates that ‘highly vulnerable’ development should not be permitted within Flood Zones 3a or 3b.

Comment

Representation ID: 211175

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We note that this policy mentions the possibility of battery storage facilities (often referred to as battery energy storage sites (BESS)). There is a risk that highly polluting chemicals in batteries could enter groundwater or
surface water in firewater or rainfall. Applicants should consider this risk and ensure mitigation is in place to ensure containment of this water. To appropriately manage the risks from pollution of groundwater and surface water, applicants will need to assess the likelihood of pollutants within the site coming into contact with nearby waterbodies, directly or indirectly, and the degree of risk posed by the particular pollutants in question. Guidance is available from National Fire Chiefs Council.