Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Support

Representation ID: 210181

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome criterion 1c.

Object

Representation ID: 210184

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Figure 13: The figure is potentially misleading. The CSET proposals are still at Inquiry, it is not a committed scheme but a proposed scheme. We recommend that you amend status of CSET to proposed, not committed.

Object

Representation ID: 210185

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Paragraph 2.142: Does designated sites include designated heritage assets? If so, this should be made explicit with the addition of the word heritage. We recommend that you add reference to designated heritage sites.

Support

Representation ID: 210186

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

HE welcomes the ambition in paragraph 3.1.2 to ‘enable Cambridge to accommodate growth of the highest quality whilst protecting and enhancing the historic environment and the key public spaces which are an important part of what makes the city so special to local people’.

Object

Representation ID: 210187

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Figure 17: There are 4 heritage assets shown on this figure. These are not designated heritage assets. Are they non-designated heritage assets? Review and amend accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 210188

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Paragraphs 3.1.6 and 3.1.24 seem to be the same. Delete duplicate paragraph

Object

Representation ID: 210189

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Figure 134: Non-designated heritage assets (rather than non-designed)

Comment

Representation ID: 210301

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We appreciate that the introduction of B8 uses (albeit for local use) is something of a departure from previous employment policy in the Cambridge area. This potentially brings additional impacts on the historic environment, given the typical scale and massing of such development.
We have some concerns about the employment allocations along the A14, particularly in respect of impacts on some of the churches on the elevated land above the relatively open, flat landscape. The HIA for Slate Farm for example doesn’t address this matter, given the assets are at times over 500m, and yet there may still be some wider setting impacts. We need this issue to be explored further by you so that we may be clearer about the potential impacts for these employment sites. In order to do this, we would request revisiting the HIAs, and to explore this matter further so that we may have sufficient information to reach a more informed position. This should also include further evidence in relation to heights and mass informed by some visualisations.

Comment

Representation ID: 210302

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

a) We note that many of the policies are assessed as having significant positive or minor positive effects. However, there are quite a number of policies where effects re assessed as uncertain.
b) It would appear that some of the site allocations have been grouped together for assessment (e.g. City sites). This means that is it very difficult to see what the effects of particular site allocation policies would be. We expect future iterations of the SA to consider each site.
c) The SA would benefit from an overall summary table.
d) It would be helpful if the SA included a series of clear recommendations for the Regulation 19 version of the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 211976

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Figure 13 - The figure is potentially misleading. The CSET proposals are still at Inquiry, it is not a committed scheme but a proposed scheme. We recommend that you amend status of CSET to proposed, not committed.