Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Amend the Policies Maps to include additional housing allocations within a range of villages including Girton, Oakington and Over. This should include two sites put forward under the Call for Sites on 29/1/2026 (representations 67d954 and f233c2) and a site put forward under the Call for Sites Site ID:115392. These sites are in Over, Oakington and Girton respectively.
The cumulative housing within those new allocations could be taken from other locations across the plan.
This would ensure a more dispersed allocation of housing across Greater Cambridgeshire which would provide a more balanced supply of housing across a range of villages within South Cambridgeshire which have sufficient services to sustain further housing growth.

The rest of the rural area policies contain insufficient housing and/or care home allocations. The only allocations are 20 homes at Melbourn (S/RRA/ML), 65 homes at Caldecote (S/RRA/H), 200 homes at Fulbourn (S/RRA/FID) and a further 120 homes at Melbourn (S/RRA/CR). This amounts to less than 1% of the overall housing need across Greater Cambridgeshire within Policy S/JH. This approach is contrary to NPPF paragraph 83 as it will leave settlements such as Girton, Oakington and Over without any prospect of any meaningful housing supply over the plan period. This approach also appears to be at odds with Appendix D of the Plan which identifies a housing requirement for Girton's neighbourhood plan of 90 new homes yet no new housing is included within the Local Plan.

Increase the housing delivery to a minimum of 61,000 new homes which is more akin with the likely housing needs given the planned employment growth.

The ratio of jobs to new homes appears to be insufficient with 73,300 jobs compared to 48,195 new homes. This would likely lead to an imbalance which would create excessive commuting from outside of Greater Cambridgeshire. Given the extent of the investment within infrastructure within the area (including EW Rail and the A428) additional housing development should be delivered in order to maximise the use of sustainable transport options. The location of the southern cluster appears unjustified when compared with the area around Cambourne, areas close to the A1307 and the land to the edges of Cambridge which all have comparable connections including from the guided bus and EW Rail.

Delete criteria 1 e and replace this with:
In the rural areas deliver appropriate housing to the scale of settlements across Rural Centres, Minor Rural Centres and Group Villages.
Extend the development framework boundary of Cambourne to include all of the land up to the A428.
Allocate new housing developments in Over, Girton, Oakington and other villages.

The strategy is not justified nor consistent with national planning policy as it does not consider suitable alternatives nor deliver sustainable development. The expansion of Cambourne is supported in principle but the development framework excludes the existing food retail uses at Caxton Gibbet, the EV charging car park and the land to the east of that (Call for Sites ref: 115583) which would be suitable for a variety of uses (including residential and commercial). The inclusion of the food retail site and the associated land is logical given the location of the A428 to the north. The boundary appears to follow the outline planning permission boundary for Cambourne West and has not therefore been the subject of any further review it would seem.
The relative concentration of allocations within the rural southern cluster appears to result in fewer allocations within the remainder of the rural area. The southern cluster's transport links appear to be no better than many other locations across the rural area. Locations such as Girton, Oakington and Over all have good transport links via different modes of transport. A more dispersed strategy of allowing villages to experience some (rather than none or very limited) growth would help to sustain villages whilst also utilising the delivery of the infrastructure which has been delivered across Greater Cambridgeshire.
This approach also aligns with Appendix D of the Local Plan which sets housing requirements for Neighbourhood Plans.
There are some errors within the policy with Figures not named and the setting out of part 2 c 2 of the policy is unclear and confusing.

Move Over to the Minor Rural Centres category.

The policy is not justified nor consistent with national policy as no clear evidence confirms why Over, which is a sustainable location, should not be elevated from a Group Village to a Minor Rural Centre. The village has seen housing growth which has mainly been secured at appeal with Inspector's identifying that the village is capable of accommodating development well above the 8 dwelling 'limit'. The village has a good range of services and benefits from access to the Guided Bus route also. The village can continue to grow sustainably and therefore it's elevation to a Minor Rural Centre would foster sustainable development.

The policy itself is acceptable - the policy maps require amending as per my comments.

The policy maps which accompany the policy do not allocate sites which should be either included within the development framework or allocated for development (and therefore within the framework).
The Cambourne settlement boundary at the location closest to Cambourne West should be extended to include the land up to the A428. This would include the Caxton Gibbet food retail site (which includes McDonald's Costa and Subway), the EV car charging area close to that and land identified through the Call for Sites as ID 115583.
The development frameworks of Girton, Oakington and Over should be amended to include Call for Site ID 115392 and sites submitted on 30/1/2026 under the further Call for Sites (references: f233c2 and 67d954).

The final part of Policy S/GB which states ", and having regard to the Cambridge Green Belt purposes set out above" appears to be unnecessary text.

Amend the development framework boundary to include the land shown on the attached submission as well as land further east. The northern extent of the development framework boundary for Cambourne West should be the southern verge of the existing A428. Figure 78 on page 271 of the Local Plan also appears to be inconsistent with the policy maps.

The policy is not justified owing to the policy maps needing to be amended to include further land within the development framework boundary for Cambourne West.
To the north-west of the Cambourne West development the settlement boundary appears to follow the boundary of the Outline Planning Permission for Cambourne West. It needs to be amended to take into account the land to the north of the Outline Planning Permission boundary up to the verge of the existing A428 road. This would include the Caxton Gibbet food retail site (which includes McDonald's and Costa), the EV charging area and the land put forward under Call for Sites ID 115583. It would also be logical to include the land further east at Oak Tree Cottage including the land which has planning permission for 5 new dwellings.

There appears to be an error in paragraph 3.3.67 which states 10,18000 homes

The policy is unnecessary as net zero can be achieved through applying energy policy and building regulations. The policy could potentially be re-worded to confirm that significant weight will be given to schemes which deliver net zero carbon buildings.

The policy would appear to apply to all developments - the term where appropriate needs clarifying. How would the policy be applied to a change of use application or a modest extension?
Parts A and B of the policy include requirements which may not be enforceable by the Council. The wording of the policy should be made clear that the intention of the policy is to deliver a form of development which fulfills these requirements but any such assessment or prove compliance will be hypothetical only.
The requirement to not connect to the gas grid may have viability considerations.
Parts A and B do not appear to be justified as Building Regulation requirements would be sufficient.
Part D of the policy is not justified nor consistent with national planning policy as it creates a tariff for payments which could apply to all developments. This would be cumbersome owing to the need for a Section 106 Agreement. The approach of the policy is not consistent with national planning policy: whilst net zero is sought to be achieved this is not reflected in national planning policy to the extent which is proposed by the policy. Net zero can be achieved by a variety of means. Properties will in any event require back up power (electricity and potentially gas) to function when renewable sources are not sufficient to power the property.

Delete part 2 a of the policy or re-word it.

The policy is not justified. Part 2 a. of the policy is, by it's own wording, subject to amendments to water legislation. Those amendments may never be delivered and the policy can only be worded to require this if the legislation comes in to force. This would be considered in a later iteration of the Local Plan. Paragraph 4.31 also needs amending to reflect this.