Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210951

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Our parish’s development framework is surrounded by high quality farmland (Grade 2). As such, we strongly support this policy. However, the best agricultural land should not be used for solar farms and words to this effect should be incorporated into the policy or supporting text, and/or a more explicit link made between this policy and Policy CC/RE: Renewable energy projects and infrastructure. Much of the higher quality farmland in S Cambs is also Green Belt land. It would be helpful to link Policy J/AL to Green Belt policy, either explicitly in policy wording or in the supporting text, as a double safeguard of the best agricultural land.

Comment

Representation ID: 210952

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Supporting data for Clause 2 is incorrect. It is inappropriate to combine ‘Great Shelford and Stapleford ’as a single entity in defining them as a ‘local centre’. They are two villages with their own history and identities, offering a very different range of amenities and services, which just happen to be adjacent to each other at a small part of the boundaries of their respective development frameworks but otherwise separated by Green Belt. It is also inappropriate to consider Great Shelford as a local centre in its own right with its limited service and falls a long way short of the criteria to be deemed a ‘local centre’.
Failure to treat the two villages as separate entities would result in the inappropriate application of this policy to planning decisions relating to retail and other complementary uses, and lead to unacceptable development pressures on the two communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 210953

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly in agreement with this policy as it dovetails with aspects of Policies S&GS 1, 2 and 3 of the Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan. However, we note that almshouses at the rural exception site in Great Shelford (which make a significant and valuable contribution to our area’s genuinely affordable housing stock) are owned and maintained by Great Shelford Village Charity and that clauses in Policy H/ES do not take into account the specific circumstances of charitable almshouse associations in providing affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 210954

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy. However, it is unclear how affordable housing mixes as set out in adopted neighbourhood plans would be dealt with under the 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 210955

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are supportive of this policy, which broadly aligns with Policy S&GS 5: Residential annexes to facilitate multi-generational living.

Comment

Representation ID: 210956

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210957

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy. We strongly support para 9.60 on p637, which makes clear the need for C2 and C3 developments to contribute towards the delivery of affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 210958

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210959

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are broadly supportive of this policy. Policy I/ST clauses 2d and 2e – it should be recognised that many walking routes in daily use are not public rights of way but are instead either informal tracks used without permission (often around the edges of farmland) or permissive paths (lapsed or otherwise). They are an integral and largely unmanaged part of the daily walking network and improve connectivity in the absence of an adequate network of public rights of way. It is unclear how clause 2e could be applied under such circumstances. Therefore, routes in daily use should be upgraded to PRoW status such that they can be managed appropriately and better and more safely improve local connectivity. Dual benefits will accrue from their use for recreational purposes.

Comment

Representation ID: 210960

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We are concerned that:
• Policy I/TH and supporting paras 10.16-10.17 give undue precedence to P&R facilities. Building new and expanding existing P&Rs encourages driving to those P&Rs and merely provides a more sustainable alternative for part of the journey. In so doing, it undermines the commercial viability of local bus services, which would otherwise have the potential to provide a sustainable alternative for the whole journey.
• Travel Hubs and Travel Hub facilities must be appropriate to the location. For example, we would support them in principle at Whittlesford Parkway, where there is currently an underused station.