Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211962

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

As regards paragraph 16c, we are concerned that a lack of building height restriction will encourage taller and taller buildings over time, reduce views towards the City from the southern gateway and key viewpoints, and overshadow/dominate the soft edge and Green Belt to the south. In particular, building heights should be restricted at new site allocations removed from the Green Belt to the south of the existing CBC (S/SEA/CBC) to ensure that they don’t overshadow/dominate public amenity areas, strategic enhancement areas and landscape improvement areas. Medium-mature trees should be incorporated into the planting mix to reduce the time that a raw built edge is visible at the southern fringe. Paragraph 16g might well benefit from a reference to public safety.

Comment

Representation ID: 211963

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

As regards paragraph 17d, we support the provision of a vegetated landscape buffer within the Strategic Enhancement Area to the south of the campus (S/SEA/CBC). This will be key to securing the ambition in paragraph 18a of the draft policy. However, we would like to see the Strategic Enhancement Area expanded: additional benefits to nature and landscape character would accrue if the Strategic Enhancement Area extended further south, along the SW side of Babraham Rd (i.e. that part of Babraham Rd which falls between Hinton Way and Haverhill Rd) all the way to Magog Down.

Comment

Representation ID: 211964

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

As regards paragraphs 17 and 18, we do not consider that sufficient attention has been given to incorporating improved landscaping policies from the 2008 Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (notably Policy CSF/5 Countryside Enhancement Strategy). The Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan deliberately set out to do this in Policy S&GS 20 to ensure that these benefits to the local community and environment are (i) not lost and (ii) can direct future CIL/S106 funds. We therefore request that more specificity from Policies CSF/5 and S&GS 20 is incorporated into these paragraphs. In addition, we would like to see references to our “Pocket Park” in this part of the policy. It would also be useful to add references to the Red Cross Lane Drain City Wildlife Site as much as anything else to raise awareness of it. Similarly in paragraph 3.2.27 - there is a risk of Nine Wells Local Nature Reserve being overwhelmed due to its proximity to Phase 3.

Comment

Representation ID: 211965

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

In the context of paragraph 17, we note that on page 10 of the CBC Emerging Spatial Framework Part 1 in the Document Library it says “The CBC Green Belt Enhancement land, south of the CBC Expansion Land, is of value locally for biodiversity, particularly for red-listed farmland bird species.” This could be read to imply that Phases 3 and 4 (and indeed Phase 2) are not relevant to these bird species. John Meed’s book, “A haven for farmland birds” directly contradicts this.

Comment

Representation ID: 211966

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Not of direct relevance to paragraph 18, but the site reserved for the new acute hospital has often visible surface water flood risk. How might this be dealt with?

Comment

Representation ID: 211967

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

As regards paragraphs 23 to 25 - Might a CBC-wide energy masterplan be in order? And what about a CBC-wide water masterplan? It is also understood that any discharge of water into the Hobson’s catchment area requires a written agreement with Hobson’s Conduit Trust. It would be helpful for this to be mentioned, including the significance of the frequency at which water is discharged (which can impact the levels of oxygenation) and its temperature. Similarly, use of salt for de-icing can also have a deleterious effect on the catchment.

Comment

Representation ID: 211968

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We assumed paragraph 26 is intended to capture the planned, but not implemented, developments on Phases 1 and 2, such as the relocation of the acute hospital. This could be made clearer in the drafting. This might also be the place to include something about the appropriate balance of different institutions. Paragraph 3.2.26 of the supporting information could also expand on this point.

Comment

Representation ID: 211969

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We strongly welcome the proposal for a single integrated, comprehensive campus-wide masterplan in paragraph 27a as we consider it essential. In paragraph 27c, we would like see a reference to the prioritisation of the new acute hospital and in paragraph 27e, we consider that the reference to infrastructure ought to include the new hospitals.

Comment

Representation ID: 211970

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We agree and applaud Paragraph 3.2.30 of the supporting information. The current situation with several landowners and CBC Ltd with a limited mandate makes abdication of responsibility far too easy. The failure for many years to take properly engage with and take appropriate steps to monitor and enforce against anti-social behaviour spilling out from CBC.

Comment

Representation ID: 211971

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Paragraph 20 - We are very concerned that a new multi-modal access road from a realigned Granhams Rd
which is intended to relieve pressure on Babraham Rd and Hills Rd will merely shift this pressure westwards to the A1301. Careful consideration needs to be given to the impact of additional traffic accessing the multi-modal access road via the A1301 at the junction with High Green/Granhams Rd.