Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210931

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are very concerned that the mapped extent of the Gog Magog Hills in supporting documents for the LPA is arbitrarily shrinking over time. This will undermine the aims of the Policy BG/GI. With respect to our immediate area, the northwestern extent of the Gog Magog Hills for the purposes of the Plan is established in Landscape Character Area 7B: Gog Magog Chalk Hills. This is incorrect: (a) it is at odds with the underlying local geology (b) it excludes the prominent slope and bulk of the open chalk hill in Stapleford which puts the ‘character ’into the ‘character area ’(c) it excludes the aptly named Chalk Hill Down, managed by The Magog Trust as calcareous grassland, and (d) it is at odds with the pattern of early development which occurred below the spring line at the 20m contour to avoid contamination of valuable fresh water supplies and the need to dig deep wells.

Comment

Representation ID: 210932

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

There is a glaring inconsistency between the draft Local Plan, which prioritises the Gog Magog Hills for enhancing strategic green infrastructure, and the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, which inexplicably fails to recognise them appropriately. There is no recognition of Wandlebury Country Park or Magog Downs in the LNRS, all designated in Policy NH/5. Ironically, the LNRS hails S. Cambs for its growing network of chalk grassland yet singularly fails to map them accurately; we are alarmed about the impact this will have on opportunities to enhance calcareous grassland sites, buffer and enlarge them, and to create habitat stepping stones and corridors.

Comment

Representation ID: 210933

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Policy BG/GI clause 5(13) – we fully support the inclusion of allotments and community gardens as an identified priority for enhancing strategic green infrastructure across Greater Cambridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 210934

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are generally supportive of this policy but surprised to see no reference to prioritising native trees and hedgerows.

Comment

Representation ID: 210935

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Policy BG/TC clause 1 – would it be possible to state in the policy within what timeframe this 30% canopy cover should be achieved? Or at least that more than half of this 30% canopy cover should be achieved within x years of development commencing.

Comment

Representation ID: 210936

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

P467, para 5.43 – we agree that LPAs need to understand the existing tree resource so that they can make an informed judgement about what might be needed/appropriate, in terms of tree impact, from development. However, the problem remains that land/homeowners can generally remove as many trees and hedgerows without TPOs as they wish prior to submitting a planning application. Cumulatively, this represents a significant loss of canopy cover over time. Consideration needs to be given to how data on tree/hedgerow resources pre-submission can be captured and compared with the resources in place at the point at which a planning application is submitted. Google Earth or similar could play a role in this.

Comment

Representation ID: 210937

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

There is a lack of joined up thinking in the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Whilst it recognises the desecration of our globally significant and rare chalk streams, this appears to be only within the context of how it limits water abstraction and places limits on development. There is a specific need to consider the impact of development on our chalk rivers and river corridors in greater Cambridge because of their local and global significance, something which neither Policy BG/RC nor its supporting text fails to do. We recommend seeking input from, amongst others, Hobson’s Conduit Trust, for how to improve the wording and strength of this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210938

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy but the Policies Map needs updating to include:
- New open spaces, LGS and PVAAs arising from adoption of the Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan.
- Stapleford’s cemetery (land north of Mingle Lane) as ‘open space’
- Great Shelford’s cemetery (off Cambridge Rd) as ‘open space’
- Great Shelford’s Davey Field Rugby Football Ground off Cambridge Rd as ‘open space’
- The open space designation at More’s Meadow, Great Shelford (site ref. ZA 032) is in the wrong place
- The extensive new countryside park (Chalk Hill Down) between Haverhill Rd (Stapleford) and Hinton Way (Great Shelford) is not shown as open space
- The Clay Pit on Granhams Rd needs to be included in the open spaces map.

Comment

Representation ID: 210939

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We value the policy’s emphasis on protecting open space of environmental and/or recreational significance in undesignated areas that fulfil the criteria used to assess protected open space (clause 1). We value the policy’s emphasis on protecting space immediately around designated areas such that their value to the community is not compromised (clauses 3 and 4). Within the Great Shelford area there is already a lack of recreation space and natural assets, and population growth will only exacerbate this. Green space commensurate with accelerating development must also be provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 210940

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy. We are particularly pleased to see the inclusion of open space management provisions in clause 1. The burden of insurance, grounds maintenance, health and safety checks, etc, is likely to fall on parish councils, yet the additional precept generated from the expanded population is unlikely to cover these and other eventualities associated with major development once occupied. It is not enough for a developer to supply new open spaces and have no responsibility and accountability for their longer term maintenance.