Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208918

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

As a general comment, Historic England very much welcomes the emerging plan and the considerable work undertaken to date. We can see the incorporation of many of the comments we have made in previous consultations which is appreciated. We particularly welcome the substantial effort that has been made in preparing a comprehensive evidence base including both strategic and site-specific heritage impact assessments, topic papers, skyline and tall buildings strategy, townscape characterisation study, landscape sensitivity assessment including renewable energy assessment.

Comment

Representation ID: 208919

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We recognise the area faces intense pressure for growth, driven by both the economic success and the attractiveness of the area, in large part a consequence of its rich architectural and cultural heritage. We are keen to support sustainable growth in the right locations, but this growth must be carefully managed to ensure that the very things that contribute to the success of the City and surrounding area are not harmed in the process. Historic England is keen to ensure that the emerging plan gives full consideration to the historic environment, both in the choice of site allocations and policy criteria for sites, as well as through a robust and clear suite of historic environment and other policies that seek to both protect but also enhance the historic environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 208920

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

For some sites the policy wording states that a Heritage Impact Assessment will be required (e.g. North Cambourne/Grange Farm). This is a helpful requirement, but we suggest adding the words ‘more detailed HIA’, given that an HIA has already been prepared for these sites. The policy should also make clear that the HIA is needed to inform the masterplanning/proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 208921

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the preparation of HIAs for many of the site allocations in the Plan. There are a few sites where there is no HIA. We appreciate that some of these are policy areas. In those cases, we would suggest that the policy should still include reference to nearby heritage assets and potential mitigation measures and enhancements that will be sought in the policy areas. There do not appear to be HIAs for two University Sites in Cambridge – Mill Lane and the Museums sites. We appreciate there may be a reason for this but would nonetheless recommend that an HIA should be prepared for each of these sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 208922

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome that many of the policies refer to heritage as well as potential mitigation and enhancement measures identified through the HIAs. However, as currently drafted, some of the policies are quite vague and generic, some of the policies do not currently include all of the recommendations including diagrams from the heritage impact assessments, some of the policies are imprecise about what further evidence may be needed, when and why. Therefore, the policy wording could usefully be further tightened and strengthened to ensure that robust policies are in place that will promote opportunities where these heritage assets can be used to support sustainable growth (including heritage-led regeneration) and secure the benefits of positive placemaking within the historic city and wider sub region.

Comment

Representation ID: 208923

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Historic England is supportive of renewable energy development and supports the inclusion of a policy for renewable energy. Our advice note Commercial Renewable Energy Development Historic Environment Advice Note 15 provides further advice on Local Plans and renewable energy including site selection and development of policies and maps in plans. This needs to be set out in robust policy criteria and in supporting text which is also reflected in the key of the policies map. We welcome references to heritage in the policy. However, we suggest a number of changes to wording to ensure that the policy and supporting text and policies map key is clearer and more robust.

Comment

Representation ID: 208924

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

In terms of heritage policy wording for sites, we recommend:
i.use the phrase ‘Conserve or where appropriate enhance…’
ii.mention specific heritage assets
iii.specify appropriate mitigation and enhancements as identified through the HIA
iv.refer to the HIA (with hyperlink)
v.use Concept diagrams to illustrate key site considerations/ recommendations

For larger sites, or where there are very complex heritage issues, we would expect to see a policy requirement for masterplanning informed by both the Council’s HIA and also a further, more detailed, heritage impact assessment as well as Historic Landscape Characterisation and Landscape Character Assessment.

We welcome the inclusion of a criterion relating to archaeology where needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 208925

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the inclusion of policies for the historic environment. We broadly support the draft policies to date although we offer the following suggestions as to further enhancements:
i.Policy wording should have a more local flavour whilst being consistent with the NPPF. Heritage policies should be more spatially specific, unique to the area, describing the local characteristics of the area and responding accordingly with policies that address the local situation.
ii.The Strategy policy could make more of opportunities to enhance the historic environment, recognising its important role in placemaking and the contribution made by heritage to well-being as well as to the economy. The strategy should also acknowledge the increased pressures being placed on existing heritage destinations and promote and facilitate greater access to other heritage sites in order to reduce the current pressures on honeypots.
iii.The part of the policy and supporting text relating to enabling development should be deleted.
iv.Additional clarification is needed regarding the identification of non-designated heritage assets
v.Include link to your Local List criteria.

Comment

Representation ID: 208926

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the inclusion of a policy for tall buildings and the skyline. We are keen to support growth in appropriate locations whilst protecting and enhancing what is important in relation to the skyline of the City and surrounding area. Cambridge is set within a low-lying landscape. Much of the city is hidden within a well treed skyline, punctuated by a few landmark buildings. Maintaining the settings of highly graded heritage assets and well-known features on the skyline, including how they sit within the skyline, particularly from key views in and out of the City, will be important. In the wider area, we are seeking to ensure that the rural character of the area is maintained and that even within the new settlements, buildings do not over-dominate the wider landscape and have a negative impact on the historic environment. The relatively flat nature of the area means that impacts can be felt over considerable distances.

Comment

Representation ID: 208927

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the detailed work that has been undertaken to prepare an evidence base in the form of the Skyline and Tall Buildings Baseline, Strategy and Guidance (although the detail is, at times, hard to follow – we recommend an executive summary is prepared to draw out the main points). We note that the Local Plan policy wording itself is very similar to the previous Local Plan, albeit with greater emphasis on design quality and the addition of a further criterion relation to suicide prevention. We welcome the reference to the historic environment in criterion b of the Policy and seeking to protect important views.