Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210961

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210962

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy. We have learnt through recent experience of major development in the Green Belt to the east of Stapleford that clause 2j on p708 (compliance monitoring) is critical; however, the emphasis should not be on self-monitoring by the constructor but should instead sit with the LPA/planning enforcement.

Comment

Representation ID: 211934

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Great Shelford Parish Council remains opposed to any further expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus because, in summary, it believes that the estimates of demand on which the draft Local Plan relies are fundamentally flawed and the exceptional circumstances required under the NPPF for removal of further land from the Green Belt have not been established. We would also like to remind GCSP of the 3 December 2022 paper “Where we do not and do agree with CBC – summary” prepared by Trumpington Residents’ Association (TRA”) ourselves and Queen Edith’s Community Forum (“the Community Comments”). he issues raised in the Community Comments remain relevant and have not been addressed in this policy or elsewhere in the draft Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 211935

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

“Cambridge Biomedical Campus Vision 2050" is a key third party document included in your Document Library. Most, if not all, of the other third party supporting documents in the Document Library are based on Vision 2050. In February 2024, we and the TRA went to the considerable trouble of preparing an assessment of Vision 2050. This was sent to many parties, including GCSP, and remains relevant. Vision 2050, which clearly underpins your draft policy, has never been consulted on, or voluntarily subjected to, proper public scrutiny and comment.

Comment

Representation ID: 211936

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

There has been no programme of landowner engagement with the community. The opportunity to comment on landowners’ proposals (in so far as they are discernible through this consultation) does not even begin to fulfil the relevant condition. The landowners have had plenty of time to engage with the public and have failed to do so. Great Shelford Parish Council has sought to meet with Cambridgeshire County Council on the subject to no avail. Their only genuinely public appearance regarding the plans, as far as we are aware, was at an event organised by GCSP itself in October 2024, which presented scant information and allowed little opportunity for questions or feedback.

Comment

Representation ID: 211937

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We note that the draft policy and supporting information refer to the “Spatial Framework” in at least six places. While we assume that this means the indicative Spatial Framework prepared by GCSP, this has clearly been heavily influenced by the CBC Emerging Spatial Framework, Part 1 of which (context review, design principles and emerging framework plan) was prepared by Allies and Morrison in October 2023 and is included in the Document Library. Part 3 is also in the Document Library was also available in 2023, including its critically important proposals as regards development quantum and the siting of that development.

Comment

Representation ID: 211938

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Paragraph 25 of the draft policy refers to “the Amenity Strategy” and “Infrastructure Delivery Strategy” - we assume that these references are to requirements of the IDS and not to the Need for Amenity (2023) third party document that has not been subject to consultation. Paragraph 10 appears to have accepted unquestioningly the need for more than one hotel (contrast the position taken in paragraph 16 of the Community Comments and please also note what its paragraph 15 says about a conference centre).

Comment

Representation ID: 211939

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

CBC is unique and its purpose is different from other life sciences campuses such as Babraham Research Campus, the Wellcome Genome Campus and Granta Park. This unique character - its “secret sauce” needs to be reflected in the draft policy and is not. Third party documents make statements that seem to be driven by commercial desires. We draw the following conclusions:
a) It is important to understand what the mother (or anchor) institutes are on CBC. They clearly include the hospitals and the LMB.
b)only businesses which have a “mother institute” at CBC ought to be permitted at CBC. Some life sciences businesses do not need the sort of physical proximity to the hospitals described on page 10 of the “Power of Proximity”
c) the balance between the various strands of activity on CBC is crucial. We are sceptical about the shift in relative balances envisaged in the CBC Emerging Spatial Framework, Part 3 in the Document Library.

Comment

Representation ID: 211940

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Paragraph 1 of the draft policy should be amended to read:

“The Cambridge Biomedical Campus … is appropriate for a mix of uses centred on the Campus’s unique function of bringing together clinical care, clinical education and clinical research including medical research institutes which meet local, regional, and national health care needs – together with directly related biomedical and biotechnology research and development activities…” This amendment should also be reflected in paragraphs 3.2.20 and 21 of the supporting information and in paragraph 2b)ii) of Policy S/DS.

Comment

Representation ID: 211941

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

The Development Strategy Topic Paper prepared by GCSP for the “First Proposals” consultation said at its page 130 “After its original Green Belt release, successive policies have sought to reserve the campus for uses that need to be located there. It is proposed that this approach continues.” It hasn’t adequately been continued. The draft policy should include a restriction on the kinds of biomedical and biotechnology businesses that can occupy CBC designed to restrict them to the kinds of business which need the relevant proximity to a CBC anchor institution (for example, the planning permission for S/4329/18/OL Wellcome Genome Campus includes occupation use restrictions).