Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 210018

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 13b) Whilst Endurance generally support the idea of providing flexible spaces, it is considered that this level of detail on the design of the frontages is too detailed and prescriptive for this initial stage.

These matters should be addressed through future applications when detailed design considerations can be fully considered.

It is also important that the Policy does not unduly prejudice market interest from retailers by being too prescriptive about retail formats whilst recognising that creation of active frontages and a balance of uses within the centres will be important.

Comment

Representation ID: 210019

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 13c) Endurance support the principle of providing active frontages within the centres and providing flexible spaces at ground floor that enable future adaptation. However, it is considered that the level of detail on the design of the frontages are too detailed for this initial stage and should be addressed through future applications and Design Codes.

Comment

Representation ID: 210020

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 14a) Endurance support the provision of a mixture of densities within the site, with the highest focussed around the proposed new station and Town Centre. It is considered that the neighbourhood centres and employment locations whilst being higher in density than most of the site are likely to be at a lower density than the Station Quarter and Town Centre given their less fee central location and function.

Comment

Representation ID: 210021

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 14b) Endurance consider that this approach is too inflexible and does not currently provide sufficient flexibility to reflect the wide range of potential commercial uses appropriate to support a town of this size and market demands.

Whilst such an approach will be appropriate for office and research and development uses, it would be less appropriate for industrial and logistics or mid-tech uses or many commercial and retail uses. The stacking of some employment uses has not, to our knowledge, been achieved in the Greater Cambridge market and we would question whether this requirement is realistic, justified or necessary and we are concerned that it would make the site less attractive in the market and therefore be contrary to the aim of achieving an economically prosperous new town.

More flexibility should be incorporated into the policy to enable different approaches to be taken to enable a wide range of employment uses to come forward in response to market demand.

Comment

Representation ID: 210022

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 14c) Whilst Endurance understand the need to deliver higher density development to make best use of land, this should not compromise the objective of creating a high-quality new community with design that responds to its setting and constraints and a range of house sizes and house types to meet a variety of needs. It is considered that the density range proposed is ambitious, and with a narrow range that is too limited and risks being unduly prescriptive. This could inhibit the place-making aspirations, resulting in a homogeneous development, lacking character and variety, or worse, render development unviable before the development even gets underway.

Comment

Representation ID: 210023

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 14c) Officers will be aware that challenging market conditions, cost of finance, and implications of the Building Safety Act have created very challenging conditions for housebuilders to deliver apartments. Whilst these circumstances may adjust and improve, our view is that the policy should be flexible enough to account for changing circumstances over time through to 2060. Such a prescriptive density range in today’s market, in this location, is considered a challenge.

Comment

Representation ID: 210024

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 14c) It is considered that a greater range of densities will aid overall delivery with lower densities in edge of settlement and other sensitive areas (such as near heritage assets) and higher densities in the town centre / the new Station Quarter. It is therefore suggested that a density range of 40-90dph, would allow for more design flexibility to respond to the various placemaking objectives and allow for a scheme that can deliver 13,000 dwellings at North Cambourne.

Comment

Representation ID: 210025

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 16) Endurance agree with the general intent behind this part of the policy and consider that it is important that the residential neighbourhoods provide a coherent built form that creates a distinct character for the different neighbourhoods.

However, whilst the aspiration to incorporate complementary employment uses in each neighbourhood is generally supported, it is considered that some flexibility should be built into the policy through the addition of the words ‘where possible’. This will allow a more flexible and evidence led approach, reflecting needs and the character of each area.

Comment

Representation ID: 210026

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 16) The need for co-working spaces should be considered further as part of the Employment Strategy as it is important to avoid over-provision with spaces that then sit empty. The policy needs flexibility to enable the scheme to respond to market demand, viability and changes in way people work/live.

Comment

Representation ID: 210027

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Endurance Estates

(S/CBN: Part 16) Endurance support the intention to encourage a flexible range of mixed-use and employment uses which respond to their context. However, it is important that sufficient flexibility is built-in to the wording of the policy to reflect the different types of employment uses that may come forward in different parts of the site. Endurance are committed to working with all partners to develop an Economic and Employment Strategy for the scheme, which should consider these issues further. For example, provision of active frontages for industrial and logistics units is less appropriate. The approach must reflect the different context and role of the different employment areas through the masterplanning process.