Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Search representations
Results for Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations search
New searchComment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/PRIA/EG: Eastern Gate
Representation ID: 203420
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
Strongly support concerns that 115524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score of ‘Red’. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect a vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space – noting St Matthew’s Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO, and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
Strongly support concerns that 115524 would be a disaster for this community. Site 115524 was given an Overall Score of ‘Red’. The exclusion of Site 115524 must be permanently enforced. That will protect a vital, extremely limited and increasingly pressurised local amenity space – noting St Matthew’s Piece as the only public park in North Petersfield. Unambiguous evidence of this need lies in the sequence of five Planning Refusals since 2021 (none appealed), each pertaining to this area: 25/0432/TTPO, 24/0413/TTPO, 23/0119/TTPO, 22/0271/TTPO, and (most significantly) 20/04514/FUL.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate
Representation ID: 203522
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
Policy CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate (91 words)
❌Throughout this Policy AND the whole Local Plan: replace “changing climate” with “climate crisis”.
❌Point 1: Design solutions must “respond proportionately and actively to the emerging climate crisis” (not “positively respond to our changing climate”).
❌Point 2: must explicitly address the impact of any development not only on future edifices but (more importantly) on surrounding townscape and biosphere.
❌Point 2: all applications must include credible design solutions that first formally evaluate, second actively and effectively reduce existing and/or any future Urban Heat Island Effect.
❌Point 3: delete the words “where possible”.
Policy CC/DC: Designing for a changing climate (91 words)
❌Throughout this Policy AND the whole Local Plan: replace “changing climate” with “climate crisis”.
❌Point 1: Design solutions must “respond proportionately and actively to the emerging climate crisis” (not “positively respond to our changing climate”).
❌Point 2: must explicitly address the impact of any development not only on future edifices but (more importantly) on surrounding townscape and biosphere.
❌Point 2: all applications must include credible design solutions that first formally evaluate, second actively and effectively reduce existing and/or any future Urban Heat Island Effect.
❌Point 3: delete the words “where possible”.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/TC: Improving tree canopy cover and the tree population
Representation ID: 203595
Received: 29/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
✅Point 1: + 30% minimum is supported, with adequate monitoring and enforcement.
❌Point 2: If less than 30% agreed on site, then compensatory canopy increase must be agreed offsite (the farther, the greater compensatory provision)
❌Point 3a: hedgerows should meet WildlifeTrust size standards
✅Point 3b support protecting “space below ground”
❌4a change to “climate crisis”
✅4b support “long lived trees”
✅6 strongly support BUT NOT
❌ 'unless otherwise approved by LPA on case-by-case basis weighing up impacts of removal against benefits of development.' .
Add 'IF' felling approved
❌7: define ancient & woodland trees explicitly
Add value of street trees
✅Point 1: + 30% minimum is supported, with adequate monitoring and enforcement.
❌Point 2: If less than 30% agreed on site, then compensatory canopy increase must be agreed offsite (the farther, the greater compensatory provision)
❌Point 3a: hedgerows should meet WildlifeTrust size standards
✅Point 3b support protecting “space below ground”
❌4a change to “climate crisis”
✅4b support “long lived trees”
✅6 strongly support BUT NOT
❌ 'unless otherwise approved by LPA on case-by-case basis weighing up impacts of removal against benefits of development.' .
Add 'IF' felling approved
❌7: define ancient & woodland trees explicitly
Add value of street trees
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/PO: Protecting open spaces
Representation ID: 204065
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
Point 1: Inclusion “undesignated areas” – strongly support.
❌Point 1 (Add) Where loss permitted, agree replacement should be like for like or better.
❌Point 1 (Add): 'Cultural character & Biodiversity, including that relating to semi-natural areas and informal green space, should be key in assessing open space quality
✅Point 2a: Open spaces in this policy already subject to official evaluation. Needs more compelling argument to allow evaluation to be overridden.
✅Point 2b: “before” – strongly support.
❌Point 3 Strongly object. Delete. Undermines whole purpose of strategy. Why should educational establishments be privileged ?
✅Points 4 & 5: – strongly support
Point 1: Inclusion “undesignated areas” – strongly support.
❌Point 1 (Add) Where loss permitted, agree replacement should be like for like or better.
❌Point 1 (Add): 'Cultural character & Biodiversity, including that relating to semi-natural areas and informal green space, should be key in assessing open space quality
✅Point 2a: Open spaces in this policy already subject to official evaluation. Needs more compelling argument to allow evaluation to be overridden.
✅Point 2b: “before” – strongly support.
❌Point 3 Strongly object. Delete. Undermines whole purpose of strategy. Why should educational establishments be privileged ?
✅Points 4 & 5: – strongly support
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/EO: Providing and enhancing open spaces
Representation ID: 204199
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
❌Point 1 (Add): The provision of open space in a new development must take additional and compensatory account of the level of existing provision in the setting, particularly when this is poor.
❌Point 2: “The Councils are exploring the potential to require” is unacceptable. Replace by “All development must meet” and delete “major”.
✅Point 3 – very strongly support.
❌Point 5 (Add): New development must not use pesticides or herbicides in management of green space or buildings/infrastructure.
❌Point 5 (Add): Any tree guards must be conditioned and enforced as temporary
❌Point 1 (Add): The provision of open space in a new development must take additional and compensatory account of the level of existing provision in the setting, particularly when this is poor.
❌Point 2: “The Councils are exploring the potential to require” is unacceptable. Replace by “All development must meet” and delete “major”.
✅Point 3 – very strongly support.
❌Point 5 (Add): New development must not use pesticides or herbicides in management of green space or buildings/infrastructure.
❌Point 5 (Add): Any tree guards must be conditioned and enforced as temporary
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/RC: River corridors
Representation ID: 204553
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
Point 2 Omit text from 'except for domestic extensions, soft landscaping, small amenity areas, or proposals where it is necessary for the nature and function of development....to demonstrate'
If the policy is serious about protecting rivers it should not include lots of exemptions like this.
Add 'Any developments along the river/tributaries should demonstrate they will not damage riverine nature reserves, SSI's etc and water supply
Point 2 Support requirement for a riparian buffer zone with protections but WITHOUT exceptions proposed.
Add An iconic river like the Cam needs an overarching strategic vision and strategy like that of Thames Landscape Strategy
Point 2 Omit text from 'except for domestic extensions, soft landscaping, small amenity areas, or proposals where it is necessary for the nature and function of development....to demonstrate'
If the policy is serious about protecting rivers it should not include lots of exemptions like this.
Add 'Any developments along the river/tributaries should demonstrate they will not damage riverine nature reserves, SSI's etc and water supply
Point 2 Support requirement for a riparian buffer zone with protections but WITHOUT exceptions proposed.
Add An iconic river like the Cam needs an overarching strategic vision and strategy like that of Thames Landscape Strategy
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity
Representation ID: 204731
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
It's not clear how development which is likely have adverse impact on water supply and biodiversity can be mitigated/offset.
See Water Use In AI and Data Centres report for UK government. Government has just announced £36m investment in Cambridge AI.
Atkins Report for GCPS is realistic about problems https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/sites/gcp/files/2025-10/EBGCLPCAWSEOct25.pdf
There isn’t currently enough water supply identified that enables government’s housing delivery objectives in broader Greater Cambridge area. Water regulators RAPID have delayed building of new Cambs reservoir because neither Anglian Water or Cambridge Water can explain how they will fill it.
Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
It's not clear how development which is likely have adverse impact on water supply and biodiversity can be mitigated/offset.
See Water Use In AI and Data Centres report for UK government. Government has just announced £36m investment in Cambridge AI.
Atkins Report for GCPS is realistic about problems https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/sites/gcp/files/2025-10/EBGCLPCAWSEOct25.pdf
There isn’t currently enough water supply identified that enables government’s housing delivery objectives in broader Greater Cambridge area. Water regulators RAPID have delayed building of new Cambs reservoir because neither Anglian Water or Cambridge Water can explain how they will fill it.
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy BG/GI: Green and blue infrastructure
Representation ID: 204798
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
Support the initiatives for enhancing strategic green infrastructure and Dispersed initiatives (Point 5) but how will they (especially for the Cam Corridor and chalk streams) be achieved without adequate supply of water?
Support the initiatives for enhancing strategic green infrastructure and Dispersed initiatives (Point 5) but how will they (especially for the Cam Corridor and chalk streams) be achieved without adequate supply of water?
Government has announced £36m investment in Cambridge AI.
(Water Use In AI and Data Centres report)
Atkins Report for GCPS is realistic about problems https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/sites/gcp/files/2025-10/EBGCLPCAWSEOct25.pdf
There isn’t currently enough water supply identified that enables government’s housing delivery objectives in broader Greater Cambridge area. Water regulators RAPID have delayed building of new Cambs reservoir because neither Anglian Water nor Cambridge Water can explain how they’re going to fill it
Comment
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy GP/ST: Skyline and tall buildings
Representation ID: 204883
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
❌Point a (Add): Mandatory protection for domestic-scale building heights, particularly in Conservation Areas.
✅Point b “For Cambridge…. relevant viewpoints” – support.
✅Point d – strongly support.
❌Point e: the use of of “adequate” is too weak and undefined, particularly for surrounding properties or spaces. Must be clarified, strengthened and improved.
❌On “microclimate”, Point e is far too weak. It must also require that the effect of any development should prove that, at minimum, it will not increase (and, ideally, decrease) the Urban Heat Island Effect.
❌Point a (Add): Mandatory protection for domestic-scale building heights, particularly in Conservation Areas.
✅Point b “For Cambridge…. relevant viewpoints” – support.
✅Point d – strongly support.
❌Point e: the use of of “adequate” is too weak and undefined, particularly for surrounding properties or spaces. Must be clarified, strengthened and improved.
❌On “microclimate”, Point e is far too weak. It must also require that the effect of any development should prove that, at minimum, it will not increase (and, ideally, decrease) the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Support
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy GP/LC: Protection and enhancement of landscape character
Representation ID: 204983
Received: 30/01/2026
Respondent: Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations
Point 1a & e – support
✅Points 1b, c & d & Point 3- strongly support
Would welcome a Cambridge Design Strategy setting out a Strategic Vision for protecting what Communities value and for protecting and enhancing the unique "rus urbe" landscape character of Cambridge and the Cam Corridor villages with their duck ponds and chalk streams.
See "Keeping Cambridge Special" talk given at Cambridge Univ
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/pvl1//vision/blythe.pdf
Point 1a & e – support
✅Points 1b, c & d & Point 3- strongly support
Would welcome a Cambridge Design Strategy setting out a Strategic Vision for protecting what Communities value and for protecting and enhancing the unique "rus urbe" landscape character of Cambridge and the Cam Corridor villages with their duck ponds and chalk streams.
See "Keeping Cambridge Special" talk given at Cambridge Univ
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/pvl1//vision/blythe.pdf
