Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210921

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy, notably clause 2 which may help to reduce the number of bungalows in our parish being knocked down and replaced by larger detached or semi-detached homes. Bungalows are an important part of our housing mix, particularly given our ageing population pyramid, and more generally of the history and character of our neighbourhood area.

Comment

Representation ID: 210922

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210923

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy. However, clause 3 – the Local Nature Recovery Strategy is inaccurate and hence the parish would not benefit from delivery of replacement habitat within areas identified as LNRS priority areas. The LNRS needs urgently amending to recognise Wandlebury Country Park and Magog Downs (both are County Wildlife Sites) and Clay Pit and Beechwoods (a Local Nature Reserve), as designated in Policy NH/5: Sites of biodiversity or geological importance. We cannot fathom their omission from the LNRS.

Comment

Representation ID: 210924

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy. However, clause 3 – where neighbourhood plans are in place and have identified suitable off-site locations for BNG within the neighbourhood area in circumstances when BNG cannot be fully delivered onsite, they should supersede delivery via biodiversity credits or schemes registered with Defra. Otherwise, the net result will be biodiversity depletion of not just the development site but also the wider locale. The latter is recognised in para 5.11 but a logical solution, as proposed here, is not provided. See clause 4 of Policy S&GS 10: Mitigation hierarchy and delivering biodiversity net gain and enhancements for how Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan addresses this issue.

Comment

Representation ID: 210925

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy. However, clause 6 – it is important for the LPA to question the basis on which baseline biodiversity is measured for every prospective development. We have seen developers reduce the biodiversity of prospective sites prior to submitting a planning application as a means of reducing their future BNG commitment, such as at Green Belt land behind Mingle Lane in Great Shelford/Stapleford.

Comment

Representation ID: 210926

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Policy BG/BG clause 6 – this clause should take the biodiversity of field margins into consideration, whether managed specifically for nature or not.

Comment

Representation ID: 210927

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Paragraph 5.16: We have looked at the HRA, although it acknowledges that it is important to consider “in-combination effects” (its paragraph 3.24) it does not consider the EWR project, a strategic project on which the development at North Cambourne is said to depend, which has the potential to impact significantly the Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC. This deficiency must be remedied. In responding to EWR's 2024 non-statutory consultation, both SCDC and Cambridgeshire County Council expressed significant concerns about EWR’s proposals and their potential adverse impact on the maternity roost of rare barbastelle bats at the SAC. We are assuming that neither GCSP nor its constituent local authorities want to see this rare population wiped out - there is no evidence that captive breeding is possible and the bats cannot be moved.

Comment

Representation ID: 210928

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Policy BG/GI clause 2b – we strongly support the use of green infrastructure to improve links within the landscape for the benefit of nature and people. With respect to benefits to people, our parish is surrounded by Green Belt, but we have very little access to it. And when we do, access is often limited to ‘out and back ’routes. Better links between open/green spaces would also reduce use of private cars to travel to sites. Policy S&GS 19 in the Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan highlights aspirational routes into and through our countryside that residents of these parishes, and elsewhere, would like to enjoy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210929

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Policy BG/GI clause 4 – where it is not possible to meet the greening factor onsite but a neighbourhood plan is in place for that location which identifies suitable opportunities to enhance green or blue infrastructure within the neighbourhood area, then those opportunities should take priority over resorting to off-site opportunities, otherwise the net effect of development on green infrastructure within that neighbourhood area is negative.

Comment

Representation ID: 210930

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Policy BG/GI clause 5(3) – we note the rightful inclusion of the Gog Magog Hills and chalkland fringe in the list of identified priorities for enhancing strategic green infrastructure across Greater Cambridge. However, (1) data underpinning this policy is flawed in its inaccurate portrayal of the extent of the Gog Magog Hills (2) the Gog Magog Hills are, unfathomably, not included in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, and (3) the Gog Magog Hills will be negatively impacted by CSET. We expand upon these points below.