Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211942

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

The introductory paragraph of the draft policy says “[This policy] establishes requirements for a new masterplan which will secure a coordinated approach to infrastructure, services and facilities to meet the needs of campus users, to ensure a campus which can deliver high quality local health services as well as compete internationally as a centre of research”. We do not see anything in the policy itself or in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which gives us any confidence on the italicised point. Quite the opposite. The latter is completely silent on the subject of hospitals and the supporting information for the draft policy merely acknowledges that many of the older buildings are now in need of renewal and improvement. It does not put this important issue where it should be - at the heart of CBC’s needs - and with appropriate contributions and support from those who benefit from new development.

Comment

Representation ID: 211943

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

UH NHS Foundation Trust (“CUH”) has plans in progress for three new hospitals. None yet have full business case approval and so none have committed government funding. These are the Cancer Research Hospital, the Children's Hospital, the new Acute Hospital. It should be obvious from the content of the third party documents that the need is high and growth cannot go ahead without this investment being secured and planned. It needs to be appropriately reflected and prioritised in the draft policy (for example, its paragraph 8a could be more specific) and in your Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Without the new acute hospital, we would suggest that the Local Plan is not viable and certainly does not deliver appropriate health facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 211944

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Royal Papworth is not mentioned at all in the draft policy, yet the “Power of Proximity” document makes clear that it is very important to CBC. Its move to CBC was a key achievement of Vision 2020. It ranks at 1 in the NHS acute trust league table for Q2 2025/26.

Comment

Representation ID: 211945

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

CBC Ltd has asked for prioritisation of mental health space on the Phase 4 land. Page 39 of the CBC Demand and Deliverability Report (2022) in the Document Library refers to a CPFT hospital on the Phase 4 land of 20,000 sq m. It is not mentioned anywhere else, but the Power of Proximity refers on page 8 to a Brain and Mind Science Institute. No healthcare is shown on Phase 4 land in figure 63 of the draft policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 211946

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We note that none of the NHS trusts which operate in Greater Cambridge are listed in paragraph 6.36 of the Draft Plan Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement or in paragraph 2.29 of the draft Plan itself. This is surprising.

Comment

Representation ID: 211947

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

The supporting information to this policy says (emphasis added) “Given the importance of the Campus both the local and national economy, and in its role in meeting the health needs of the region, it is considered that there are exceptional circumstances for this Green Belt release.” We do not see how CBC’s hospitals can be used to justify the Green Belt release. Land for all of them has been identified and reserved on Phase 1 of CBC. Nor should proposed meanwhile uses of land reserved for healthcare provision distract from the basic need for hospital provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 211948

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

As your supporting information acknowledges, there must be exceptional circumstances to permit a further release of land from the Green Belt. We dispute the Development Strategy Topic Papers conclusions due to unreliability of source data in third party documents (based on over-estimations) and misinterpretations in assessment of harm to the Green Belt as found between Paragraph 2.23 of the Green Belt assessment and Paragraph 3.107 of the Site Allocations Topic Paper. In other words, GCSP has applied the wrong test in concluding that the release proposed in the draft policy causes “only” high harm to the Green Belt. It causes very high harm and we believe that consideration i) identified by LUC is not fulfilled.

Comment

Representation ID: 211949

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

A small point, but GCSP suggests that the additional release of land through the diversion of Graham’s Road is around 3 hectares, whereas the CBC Granhams Road Realignment document prepared by Quod suggests it is 5.8 hectares. There is a very considerable difference between the two. Which is correct?

Comment

Representation ID: 211950

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

There is a gas main to the south of Granham’s Road where it meets the Babraham Road (see page 21 of the CBC Emerging Spatial Framework Part 1 in the Document Library). This may potentially undermine the scope for realigning Granham’s Road, as proposed, or for developing at least some of the additional land.

Comment

Representation ID: 211951

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

An alternative would be to realign Granham’s Road, but either to leave the additional 3 hectares to the north of it in the Green Belt and undeveloped or to, in effect, swap it for 3 hectares from the Phase 3 land and allow development in the newly included area to increase the protection for the Nine Wells Local Nature Reserve.