Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Object

Representation ID: 208236

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The College welcomes the allocation for a student accommodation-led scheme. We are uncertain whether the Old Press/Mill Lane site qualifies as a “university or college campus site” under Affordable Housing policy H/AH and believe it should be treated as such.

Object

Representation ID: 208237

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is also not clear why the site area includes Little St Mary’s Lane etc when the southern portion of the site has already been developed by Pembroke College and so the impact of any development on this residential street has already occurred. The College suggests the plan is amended to exclude this. It is also not clear why the site plan is different from that for Policy S/PRIA/OPML (or indeed why separate policies are needed).

Object

Representation ID: 208238

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As the implication of S/C/OPM is that the room capacity will be determined by the acceptability of detailed proposals, it seems unnecessary to specify 256 rooms. If a number is considered desirable, then ‘around 260 rooms’ would make more sense. The phrase ‘for university related sites’ seems unnecessary / unclear and should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 208239

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Restricting uses to those in only subsections a), b) and c) of Class E is unnecessary. Other Class E uses may be equally suitable.

Object

Representation ID: 208240

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As a consequence, we would suggest the following revised wording for bullet point 2: Allocation to provide mixed use student accommodation (approximately 260 student rooms) and faculty buildings, commercial business and service in Class E and other ancillary facilities. Site capacity to be subject to detailed proposals. In point 1) limb b) is unnecessary as a Heritage Impact Assessment is required by Policy GP/HE and the Council’s validation requirements anyway. Our experience from other schemes is that the phrase ‘active frontages’ in limb c) can be taken by members of the public to mean retail units. As active frontages can also sensibly include building entrances / designs which ensure natural surveillance of the street, the expectation should be clarified by providing a definition of ‘active frontages’ (this would also relate to policy J/FD 2 where a similar aspiration appears).

Object

Representation ID: 208241

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We would also comment as follows on the supporting information to the policy: The last sentence in paragraph 3 appears incomplete and so the meaning is unclear.
Although the aspirations are understood, there is duplication with the PRIA policy. However, to say that redevelopment must ensure that safer streets etc are created is unacceptably onerous when works will be carried out in the public highway etc over which the College has no control. Replacing the word ‘must’ with ‘should take reasonable opportunities’ would suffice. The landscape etc aspirations in paragraphs 5 and 6 are similarly understood but could be in conflict with the desire to retain aspects of the site’s formerly industrial character which was a feature of discussions during the development of the 2018 Masterplan.

Object

Representation ID: 208242

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The College would suggest that this policy is combined with S/C/OPM as there is both repetition and inconsistency between the two policies. It is not clear why this policy requires accordance with the 2018 Masterplan, when Policy (S/C/OPM), which is more fundamentally concerned with the redevelopment of the area not just the public realm, doesn’t. The first sentence of the policy should therefore be deleted. Despite being concerned with public realm, this policy strays into more detailed design aspects which are covered in the redevelopment policy – consequently limbs a) b) and c) should be deleted from this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 208243

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We would also comment as follows on the supporting information. It is not clear why the site plan differs from that in Policy S/C/OPM. The third paragraph is entirely unnecessary as Design and Access Statements are a requirement of the Councils’ planning application validation requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 208244

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is unfortunate that this policy repeats an issue with Policy 60 of the 2018 Cambridge Local Plan policy by continuing to imply that any building which breaks the skyline is unacceptable. Even modest additions at high level can break the skyline – it depends on where you are looking from. The policy would be clearer if it simply stated: ‘developments that cause significant change to the existing skyline and / or are significantly taller….’. As this policy effectively uses the old Cambridge Local Plan Policy and extends it into the villages and rural areas of South Cambridgeshire, the above clarification is even more necessary – otherwise any new building or addition to the height, no matter how modest, would break the skyline from somewhere and potentially be unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 208245

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Kings College

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As there are specific policies relating to both designated and non-designated heritage assets, why is this policy needed? The requirement for a Heritage Impact Assessment could (if considered necessary given the Council’s application validation requirements) be easily added into the other policies. Notwithstanding this comment, in limb b), the meaning of ‘nature’ with respect to heritage assets needs to be clarified.