Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208097

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We agree that it is not necessary to release land behind Mingle Lane from the Green Belt given opportunities for significant residential development elsewhere (particularly at Grange Farm). There are insufficient exceptional circumstances to justify releasing this Green Belt land.

Comment

Representation ID: 208099

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Climate policies omit household extensions from Sustainability Statements, lack albedo considerations, do not apply water‑efficiency standards to refurbishments, and assume integrated water management without funding for the wastewater‑treatment plant relocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 208100

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy with the following caveats:
P461, para 5.31-5.32 – the title of this section is green and blue infrastructure, yet there is nothing in these paragraphs about the aims of the policy which mentions blue infrastructure. This should be addressed. With respect to the policy itself, green infrastructure seems to be an all-encompassing term and this is confusing; look at, for example, the so-called ‘green infrastructure ’
initiatives listed in clause 5, the majority of which are actually water-related and so, surely, would be more accurately described as ‘blue infrastructure’.

Comment

Representation ID: 208101

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy, with the following caveats:
1. Nowhere in the policy or its supporting text is consideration given to the growing demand for end-of-life care services and facilities (e.g. hospices) that will sit alongside an expanding population. Providing for more and better end-of-life care is critical to overall quality of life and will ensure joined up planning between health and social care that needs to be explicitly captured in the draft Local Plan.
2. Clause 1c of the policy should be expanded to read, “Providing, protecting and enhancing accessibility to green and blue open spaces for sporting, recreational and mental health purposes (Biodiversity and Green Spaces).” The benefits of access to green and open spaces are noted in supporting para 6.8 but should also be explicit in the policy’s wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 208102

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We agree that improvements to key corridors should be pivotal to the transport strategy. However, CSET is not proposed to sit within a public transport corridor. Rather, it will create a new bus road across Green Belt land from the A11 at Grange Farm travelling north to terminate at Cambridge South Station. Better Ways for Busways has proposed an alternative route which does recognise the existing transport corridor and is, therefore, less environmentally destructive, improves accessibility for a range of different users, and is more cost-efficient. We would be happy to provide more detail of this alternative route if requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 208103

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy, with the following caveats:
• P615 Policy H/AH clause 2 – it is unclear how affordable housing requirements (type, size, affordability and design) set out in adopted neighbourhood plans will be dealt with under this policy, particularly where they differ from requirements set out in the policy. We suggest that the policy and/or its supporting text is amended to address this
• P618 para 9.14 – First Homes may be unlikely to be a suitable affordable housing tenure on the majority of new developments in Greater Cambridge, but that does not preclude them from coming forward where they are suitable. Affordable housing policy should allow for First Homes rather than discourage it.

Comment

Representation ID: 210887

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

It would be beneficial to residents of the parish to have a direct active travel route to Whittlesford Parkway station, taking in Dernford Reservoir and the nearby SSSI and Sawston Business Park. Great Shelford benefits from the Genome/Chisholm cycle path, however it has a poor surface with very poor lighting. In addition the connection into CBC is currently very poor due to construction work for Cambridge South station. The extension in the form of the Sawston Greenway is a shadow of the original proposals. The draft IDP refers to “Proportionate contributions to Addenbrooke’s Road to Shelford Tier 2 active travel network (LCWIP route)” and “Additional pedestrian and cycle connections from Babraham Road, south of Nine Wells”. We are not familiar with these projects, both of which appear to be within the parish.

Comment

Representation ID: 210888

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Great Shelford is relatively well served by bus routes. However like all other motorised transport buses suffer from extreme levels of congestion in and out of Cambridge and CBC at rush hours. Infrequent service in the evenings and at weekends contributes to the use of cars and taxis.

Comment

Representation ID: 210889

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Despite being just 4 miles from the centre of Cambridge the road journey into the city is both unreliable and slow, often taking a disproportionate time to travel the four miles. This is due to traffic congestion and the failure of the City Access Programme to improve non-car travel into the centre of Cambridge. This long standing issue requires urgent attention.We note that the CPCA has committed to preparing, engaging on - there appears to be no commitment to public consultation - and finalising the sub-regional Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy in time to support the finalisation of the draft Local Plan. This seems an extremely ambitious timetable as we have not seen any proposals on City Access Proxy or any other related matter to date.

Comment

Representation ID: 210890

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We do not believe that the draft IDP makes adequate provision for the secondary and tertiary healthcare needs of the existing, let alone the growing, population. We note with despair that the IDP says “There may also be a need to consider the implications of Children and Adult Social Services for healthcare and community provision.” There is surely no “may” about it; these implications MUST be considered. These services are crucial to the “wellbeing and social inclusion” aspects of the draft plan.