Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210008

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 10) Endurance consider that there is a degree of overlap between a number of requirements for supporting evidence and that some rationalisation of the policy requirements would be beneficial to ensure a more streamlined and legible application submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 210009

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 11) Endurance support the need for a strong and robust landscape framework to be incorporated into the proposed masterplan for the scheme. However, it is considered that the extent and approach to the SEA needs further consideration to ensure that the approach is supported by robust evidence and is deliverable. It is also important that the detailed extent of the development area is informed by the landscape framework to ensure a robust and integrated approach. Flexibility should be provided within the policy to enable departures from the indicative development envelope to enable this.

Comment

Representation ID: 210010

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 11) More generally, the policy requirements and context for the S/SEA/CBN Cambourne North Strategic Enhancement Area seem unclear and it is considered that a specific policy / policy section should be set out for this rather than just being shown on the Policies Map and referenced within the Cambourne North policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 210011

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 11) The land to the north, where the majority of the forest is planned (noting that this would be a mixture of different landscape typologies and not just planted trees), falls away from the ridge that the A428 is on. Therefore planting in this buffer can only offer a limited visual buffer to the village to the north. However, Papworth has limited intervisibility with much of the site and there is scope to reduce the buffer here and increase the development envelope subject to detailed landscape assessment – due to the undulating nature of the land.

Comment

Representation ID: 210012

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 11) The land to the north, where the majority of the forest is planned (noting that this would be a mixture of different landscape typologies and not just planted trees), falls away from the ridge that the A428 is on. Therefore planting in this buffer can only offer a limited visual buffer to the village to the north. However, Papworth has limited intervisibility with much of the site and there is scope to reduce the buffer here and increase the development envelope subject to detailed landscape assessment – due to the undulating nature of the land.

Comment

Representation ID: 210013

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 11b) Endurance considers that there is no reason to include a buffer at the western edge of the proposed settlement between the A428 junction land at the East Rail Route. It is considered that this land should be incorporated into the scheme, providing additional employment land a further point of access directly onto the new A428 junction.

Our suggested approach is illustrated further on drawing Masterplan Spatial Framework Strategy (Drawing Ref: 19-237-SGP-STE-XX-DR-A-011003-P03) which shows potential additional development areas to the west which Endurance consider to be suitable for development as part of the Cambourne North proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 210014

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 11c) Endurance agree that a proportionate and phased amount of desk based and field evaluation will be required to determine the impact of the development on both known and unknown heritage assets.

It is of note that whilst extensive archaeological features were identified during the survey work before the Caxton Gibbet to Black Cat extension works began, these did not impact upon the layout and route significantly.

Comment

Representation ID: 210015

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 11d and 12) Endurance agree that it is essential that the East West Rail route is fully integrated with the Cambourne North development and that delivery of EWR should not be compromised.

However, it is unclear why Part 11 (e) of the policy is necessary. Since the major infrastructure (EWR, C2C and A428 enhancements) are to be delivered by others and schemes will likely be implemented, approved and or advanced prior to submission of an application for Cambourne North, this is a difficult requirement to meet.

Support

Representation ID: 210016

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 13) Endurance generally agree with the focus for development around the station in a station quarter and consider that this provides the opportunity to create a high-density mixed-use centre around the primary public transport gateway in accordance with the Government’s emphasis on maximising opportunities for sustainable growth around train stations.

It will be important that close working and cooperation is maintained between the Council, Site Promoters and East West Rail to ensure that emerging proposals are aligned.

Comment

Representation ID: 210017

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 13) Endurance considers that up to date economic data on employment and retail demand should be used to inform the proposals for a station quarter – such that it can become a lively and well-used gateway to the wider development from early on in the delivery of the scheme.

However, it is important to recognise that the delivery of the new station itself will be carried out by East West Rail rather than the Site Promoters and it is therefore important that the Local Plan policy should recognise this and incorporate flexibility given that design is progressed by the East West Rail Co. and will be consented via the DCO process.