Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208928

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

More generally, we consider that the policy currently underplays the semi-rural nature of parts of Cambridge and the surrounding area. In addition, development should be seen as an opportunity to enhance Conservations Areas and the skyline of the city in general. Finally, it will be important that increases in height do not affect our experience and perception of coalescence between the city and surrounding villages. The policy should be amended to better reflect these three points.

Comment

Representation ID: 208929

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We have some ongoing concerns regarding the densities and heights on some of the edge of Cambridge sites. Development at very high densities/heights has the potential to impact on the overall setting of this historic city. We appreciate that there will inevitably be a trade-off between height versus further urban expansion.
We have particular concerns about heights in north-east Cambridge and remain so about impacts on views from Ditton Meadows and the Conservation Areas, as well as wider views approaching the City from the north-east and east.

Comment

Representation ID: 208930

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Similarly, unless the Strategic Enhancement Areas start to deliver a softening of the landscape e.g. around Addenbrookes, we will have ongoing concerns about heights of development in the proposed CBC extension to the south of Addenbrookes.

Comment

Representation ID: 208931

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

In relation to new settlements, there will still need to be some caution in relation to heights owing to nearby Conservation Areas and other heritage assets such as the Roman Road. In particular, we note that the Strategy does not consider Grange Farm. This needs to be addressed prior to Regulation 19, perhaps through an addendum to the Tall Buildings Strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210084

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Figure 9: The symbol for Grange Farm is shown in different locations on the online version and a PDF version of this diagram.

Support

Representation ID: 210086

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the reference to heritage in criterion 1b.

Support

Representation ID: 210087

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the 3 key purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt being set out in the Policy. We welcome the reference to a compact city and historic core.

Object

Representation ID: 210088

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We broadly welcome the allocation of this strategic brownfield site. It offers an exciting opportunity for regeneration in a highly accessible, sustainable location. It will be important that the policy ensures the protection and enhancement of the historic environment including the conservation areas, river corridor and wider city scape.
We appreciate there are still some uncertainties about the site and the funding for the relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant. However, we acknowledge the approach being taken to retaining the draft allocation whilst not relying on the housing numbers to meet the need.
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site, there are several Conservation Areas nearby including Riverside and Stourbridge Common, Fen Ditton, Baits Bite Lock and Horningsea as well as their associated listed buildings. The River Cam, the meadows and its setting are an important part of the wider setting of the City.
Development within this area therefore has the potential to harm the significance of these assets through development within their settings.
We recognise that a the HIA for North-East Cambridge has been prepared. However, this does not appear to have been included as part of the evidence base for this Plan. It is important to include this as part of the evidence base. Furthermore, it is important to incorporate the recommendations of the HIA into the Policy. This includes recommendations such as increased landscaping along the eastern boundary. The HIA should also be referenced in the policy.
We welcome criterion 7c.
There is currently no reference to nearby conservation areas and the River. This should be included in the policy.
There should also be a new criterion requiring careful consideration of impacts on the Conservation Areas and River as well as views into the City and an appropriate urban edge.
We continue to have concerns about potential increases in heights in North-East Cambridge in both the existing Science Park and also the land to the east of Milton Road. We remain concerned about impacts on views from Ditton Meadows and the Conservation Areas as well as wider views approaching the City from the north-east and east. Heights must be carefully managed through appropriate criteria in the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 210089

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, the site lies adjacent to the boundary of the Mill Road Conservation Area and close to the grade II Listed Church of St Matthew.
Development within this area therefore has the potential to harm the significance of these assets through development within their settings.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA. While some of the recommendations of the HIA are included in the policy wording, reference should also be made to contextually appropriate materials, local context heights and also the addition of an archaeology criterion.

Object

Representation ID: 210090

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, the Castle and Victoria Conservation Area lies adjacent to the site.

Development of the site has the potential to impact upon the Conservation Area and its setting.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA.
While some of the recommendations of the HIA are included in the policy wording, reference should also be made to contextually appropriate materials, local context heights and also the addition of an archaeology criterion.