Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210058

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 45) Endurance are generally supportive of the principles set out and agree with the need to develop a sustainability focussed masterplan.

However, it is important that the aspirations are realistic. It should be noted that the policy context may no longer be applicable in light of proposed revisions to the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 210059

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

Endurance consider that the proposed operational energy targets in policy CC/NZ appear onerous and need further justification including the need for viability testing.

Similarly, the energy generation targets in policy CC/NZ may not be achievable due to land and grid constraints and require further consideration of their deliverability and viability.

The proposed Net zero targets will require further justification and viability testing to confirm potential viability and deliverability noting that these go substantially beyond Government policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210060

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

Whilst the sensitivity of water availability within the Greater Cambridge area is understood, the proposed water consumption targets in policy CC/WE are ambitious and should be tested further as these may require rain/greywater harvesting.

Comment

Representation ID: 210061

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 46) Endurance support this approach in principle. This will require careful consideration through further assessment work and masterplanning in support of future applications.

Endurance, MGL and GCSO should engage further with Anglian Water to ensure there is a deliverable strategy for the life of the development, given well publicised capacity constraints in the short term.

Comment

Representation ID: 210062

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 47) Endurance support this approach in principle. This will require careful consideration through further assessment work and masterplanning in support of future applications and detailed assessment in urban design and transport terms.

However, Endurance question whether the proposed Street Space and Kerbside Strategy is necessary. It is currently unclear what this is trying to achieve and it is considered in any event that it can be covered by other documents.

Comment

Representation ID: 210063

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 48) Whilst the ambition of achieving a highly sustainable new town is supported, further consideration of the feasibility and viability of the specific requirements is required, particularly as these go far beyond existing legislative and policy requirements.

Endurance consider that it is also important that the policy allows for flexibility, particularly in the earlier stages of the development recognising how requirements and technologies will change over the 30-year implementation period. The requirement for rigid compliance to ‘day 1’ principles may otherwise impact viability and prevent delivery of the wider scheme.

In addition, it also considered that there is also unnecessary overlap and duplication with point (45) above.

Comment

Representation ID: 210064

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 49) Endurance support this approach and consider that a clear phasing strategy that sets out the phased delivery of infrastructure and services alongside the delivery of new housing, commercial and other uses is essential to the successful delivery of the project.

However, it should also be recognised that this may need adapting and adjusting over time in response to changes of circumstances given the long-term nature of the development.

Comment

Representation ID: 210065

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 50) Endurance support this approach and consider that this is essential to the successful delivery of the project.

However, there also needs to be recognition that delivery of some of the infrastructure is dependent upon 3rd parties and beyond the promoters control. Further discussions with stakeholders will be required to ensure that the full range of requirements, anticipated costs and responsibilities for delivery are appropriately assigned.

Support

Representation ID: 210066

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 51) Endurance support this approach in principle and consider that this is important to ensuring the long-term successful delivery and ongoing management of the new town, ensuring that its benefits are maximised and will endure for future residents over the long term.

Support

Representation ID: 210067

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 52) Endurance support the preparation of a Meanwhile Strategy in general terms subject to incorporating the proposed report into a more general Economic and Employment Strategy to also include inter alia measures to avoid empty or unused spaces and facilities, and to ensure early provision of amenities and facilities that foster a culture of inclusivity and encourage early community building.