Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

We welcome the emphasis on sustainable transport in this introduction to the Infrastructure theme. However, the Strategic Priority would benefit from a clearer focus on people. We recommend amending the first sentence of the Strategic Priority to read “Plan for people to be able get to where they want to go in a sustainable and practical manner using public transport, walking or cycling, and for the energy and telecommunications services and facilities they need to be available when they get there.”

This policy would benefit from greater clarity and precision. In criterion 1, the reference to a “vision-led approach” is either unnecessary or should be clearly defined. In criterion 2(a), the policy should reference the specific “walkable neighbourhood” principles being applied, as no clear local, national or international standard is identified. Criterion 2(c) should explicitly include bus–bus and bus–rail interchanges, not only bus-cycle connections. In the final sentence of 2(c), “may include” should be strengthened to “will encourage the inclusion of” to reflect the evidence that additional facilities help hubs to function better as valued, safe community assets.

The policy would benefit from stronger and clearer commitments to accessibility and sustainability. Travel hubs should explicitly include accessible parking and facilities to ensure disabled people who cannot use public transport are not excluded. References to “safe and secure” cycle parking should be expanded to set clear expectations for genuinely secure provision, informed by best practice and consultation with local cycling organisations. In the supporting information, we recommend amending the second sentence of the third paragraph to read “Supporting facilities can include accessible parking and step-free access, safe and secure cycle parking designed in accordance with recognised best practice, micro-mobility hire and charging stations, electric vehicle charging points and high-quality walking infrastructure.” In addition, this policy should encourage travel hubs to be developed or redeveloped using sustainable, low-carbon and environmentally responsible construction methods wherever possible.

Point 2(g), requiring safe, secure and convenient cycle parking, is particularly important and should be supported by a clear commitment from the council or site manager to ongoing maintenance and management before locations are agreed. In relation to point 4, it is unclear whether the proposed provision for mobility scooter storage and charging is sufficient, and further justification or guidance would be helpful. In addition, the policy does not address the management of e-scooter and e-bike parking and drop-off areas, which currently present significant accessibility challenges, particularly for disabled people, and should be explicitly planned for within developments.

This policy is generally well-structured, particularly in its detailed approach to aircraft noise management. However, other areas feel less specific. For example, it is unclear whether equality or broader community impact assessments are expected. We recommend adding a new point 2(f) to state “Any potential impacts on the health outcomes of local residents.” We also recommend a new point 2(g) to state “The potential carbon emissions and wider climate impacts of the proposed development.” These additions ensure that aviation proposals explicitly consider both public health and climate impacts, aligning the policy with sustainability and community wellbeing objectives.

This policy is a positive step in supporting energy infrastructure for large developments, but it could be more ambitious in promoting renewable energy generation. It should explicitly encourage larger developments to consider on-site low-carbon energy solutions such as solar, wind or biomass, not just grid connections. Similarly, safeguarding land could include sites suitable for small-scale solar farms or wind turbines. Given Cambridge’s innovation potential, the policy could also support experimental or more efficient technologies, with council guidance, to integrate sustainable energy generation and reduce reliance on grid reinforcement. We recommend adding a new point 1.e to state “Opportunities for on-site low-carbon energy generation, including solar, wind, biomass or other emerging technologies, to support Net Zero carbon targets and reduce reliance on grid reinforcement.” This ensures that energy masterplans for large developments explicitly consider on-site renewable generation, aligns with the net zero goals in policy CC/NZ, and encourages innovation in sustainable energy technologies in Cambridge.

This policy is a positive step in supporting energy infrastructure for large developments, but it could be more ambitious in promoting renewable energy generation. It should explicitly encourage larger developments to consider on-site low-carbon energy solutions such as solar, wind or biomass, not just grid connections. Similarly, safeguarding land could include sites suitable for small-scale solar farms or wind turbines. Given Cambridge’s innovation potential, the policy could also support experimental or more efficient technologies, with council guidance, to integrate sustainable energy generation and reduce reliance on grid reinforcement. We recommend adding a new point 1.e to state “Opportunities for on-site low-carbon energy generation, including solar, wind, biomass or other emerging technologies, to support Net Zero carbon targets and reduce reliance on grid reinforcement.” This ensures that energy masterplans for large developments explicitly consider on-site renewable generation, aligns with the net zero goals in policy CC/NZ, and encourages innovation in sustainable energy technologies in Cambridge.

Policy I/ID is important but currently vague and lacks clarity. Key terms such as “acceptable in planning terms,” “appropriate physical and social infrastructure” and “adequate capacity” are undefined, making it difficult to interpret developers’ responsibilities. The policy would benefit from clearer definitions or references to supporting documents, including what coordination and phasing are required, which types of infrastructure are included, and how capacity should be assessed on- and off-site. Strengthening these points would provide greater certainty for applicants and ensure infrastructure delivery supports sustainable, healthy communities as intended. We recommend adding a sentence after the first sentence of point 1 to read “This means that the proposed development provides, or contributes appropriately to, all physical and social infrastructure necessary to support the development and sustainable, healthy communities.” After the first sentence of point 2, we recommend adding a new sentence to read “This includes, but is not limited to, roads, public transport, utilities, schools, healthcare, community facilities, green space and digital infrastructure.” After the first sentence of point 3, we recommend adding a new sentence to read “Adequate capacity means that existing or planned infrastructure can meet the needs of the development without reducing service levels for existing users.”

Riverside is a vibrant connected urban riverfront destination with city-wide benefit that celebrates Cambridge's relationship with water. Riverside unites Stourbridge Common and Midsummer Common through an elegant inclusive promenade that enhances community life, local heritage and ecological sustainability, and makes walking and cycling joyful experiences. We recommend that Riverside becomes its own Public Realm Improvement Area, focusing on Environment & biodiversity, Connectivity, Character, Heritage & identity, Safety & accessibility and Vehicular movement & parking.

We oppose plans to demolish the Elizabeth Way Roundabout, which would be an unsustainable loss of a public space. The underpass contains a thriving biodiverse landscape and also has great potential for adaptation as a public common. We support the Underpass and the Elizabeth Way bridge cultural hub project, supporting proposals that seek to regenerate and open for use, the empty storage facilities underneath the Elizabeth bridge and within the underpasses. This would enhance the area's vitality and use and benefit from the existing pedestrian and cyclist footfall along the river promenade.