Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 207669

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

Thank you for consulting SCC on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. We have presented our comments in the format of a letter. As you will be aware the new plan-making system provided by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, and the November 2025 Commence and Update Local Plan (CULP) guidance, does not include the Duty to Co-operate. It has been advised that LPAs should continueto collaborate across their boundaries, including on unmet development needs from neighbouring areas and Inspectors should continue to examine plans in line with the policies in the NPPF on
‘maintaining effective co-operation’.

Comment

Representation ID: 210629

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

SCC understands from the settlement strategy and allocations that there is a low level of windfall and allocated growth in the area of South Cambridgeshire that directly affects our border. Our comments relate to
highways and transport; minerals and waste planning, and education issues. Our officers would be happy to further engage with you as your plan progresses.

Comment

Representation ID: 210630

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

The influence of Cambridge on western Suffolk is acknowledged in the Suffolk Local Growth Plan
and by the fact that it is part of the Cambridge-Norwich Tech Corridor, and the Cambridge Housing Market Area. The County Council would welcome strong recognition of the role of South Cambridgeshire in the wider sub-regional economy as part of this strategy, as alluded to in paragraph 1.17. A good example is several large pharmaceutical companies, benefiting from their proximity to Cambridge’s life science cluster including the international pharmaceutical company Sanofi has a research facility in Cambridge and a manufacturing facility in Haverhill. The County Council would support efforts from and with local authority partners, in both Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, to develop economic strategies that realise the benefits of these economic interrelationships, whilst recognising and mitigating the negative impacts.

Comment

Representation ID: 210631

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

A small number of pupils, living in Greater Cambridge, attend schools in Suffolk (and, indeed, vice versa). Any development proposal near the border with Suffolk should include consideration as to whether or not any resulting demand for school places will result in demand being placed upon Suffolk schools. In rare circumstances, developer contributions may be required. Please see the Section 106 Developer’s Guide to Infrastructure Contributions in Suffolk for further information on the County Council’s approach to seeking education and other infrastructure contributions.

Comment

Representation ID: 210632

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

The approach set out in H/SS is strongly supported from a public health perspective, as accessible and adaptable housing plays a key role in supporting healthy ageing, enabling independent living, and reducing the risk of falls, injury, and avoidable hospital admissions. However, we have concerns with paragraph 9 which allows exceptions to the M4(2) and M4(3) standards where viability or site-specific constraints are demonstrated. We recommended that the policy be strengthened to clarify that exceptions are expected to be robustly justified, and subject to transparent scrutiny, with M4(2) requirements embedded into viability assessments from the earliest stages of scheme design. Consideration could also be given to requiring partial compliance where full compliance is evidenced to be unviable, ensuring that long term public health outcomes remain central to decision making.

Comment

Representation ID: 210633

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

It is welcome that Policy WS/HD 1.e and Policy GP/PP 1.b.ii. contain important principles for active travel.

Comment

Representation ID: 210634

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

The link between enabling active travel and improved physical and mental health, reduced health inequalities, and the prevention of chronic disease should be emphasised, as this provides a stronger rationale for prioritising active travel in all new developments. It is suggested that wording in the supporting information could be amended to include:
Active travel such as walking, wheeling, and cycling, plays an important role in supporting the health and wellbeing of communities. Regular physical activity can reduce the risk of chronic diseases including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some cancers, whilst also supporting healthy weight management and mental health. Prioritising active travel in neighbourhood design can also help to reduce health inequalities by making healthy choices easier and more accessible for all, including those who may not have access to a car.

Comment

Representation ID: 210635

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

The Plan acknowledges the significant demographic shift anticipated in Greater Cambridge, projecting a 26% increase in residents aged 65+ by 2031, with the most rise among those aged over 80 years old, raising concerns about dementia prevalence. Whilst policies such as GP/PP, criterion 1.a.ii, and GP/QP, criterion 1.e, address accessibility and inclusivity for older people and those with reduced mobility, they lack dementia friendly design principles. It is suggested that Policy GP/QP could be strengthened by including features like clear wayfinding and appropriate street furniture to improve cognitive accessibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 210636

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

While the Local Plan places appropriate emphasis on healthy ageing, accessibility, and inclusive design, there is no specific reference to neurodiversity or sensory inclusive design principles. Neurodivergent people, including those with autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, and sensory
processing differences, may experience barriers in the built environment such as noise, visual clutter, poor legibility or unpredictability. Therefore, it is recommended to include incorporating sensory-inclusive principles into policies and design principles, such as clear layouts, controlled lighting, reduced overstimulation, and quiet spaces. These measures would create healthier, more
inclusive environments for neurodivergent people, older adults, and others with cognitive or sensory impairments.

Comment

Representation ID: 210637

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Transport 2000 Cambs & W Suffolk

The need for aggregates, required for building the proposed new developments, could have an impact on available supplies, and their transportation, for development in Suffolk. Such matters may need to be given further consideration as the plan progresses and as more detailed information becomes available.