Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208337

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

The proposed development strategy outlined within draft Policy S/DS seeks to rely on existing allocations and permissions to deliver 37,865 homes, with an additional 13,463 dwellings identified through brownfield redevelopment, new towns, large-scale strategic allocations and smaller rural development. Whilst Thakeham acknowledges and supports the Council in choosing a wide range of sources to meet its housing requirement, as set out above, the Council has failed to consider the unmet need of the adjoining local authorities. The emerging Local Plan therefore needs to identify additional homes to meet its housing requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 208338

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Whilst the emerging Local Plan will be assessed against the 2024 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), draft Policy S/DE should seek to accord with draft Policy S5 of the 2025 NPPF. This would ensure that the Local Plan, upon adoption would not conflict with National Policy, but also widen the scope of where the principle of development would be applied allowed outside of settlements. This would subsequently allow housing to come forward where the Local Plan fails to ensure a five-year housing land supply is maintained.

Comment

Representation ID: 208339

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Thakeham supports and endorses to the Government’s desire to see land which does not contribute fully to the purposes of Green Belt, make a meaningful contribution to housing supply. In a recent letter to The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) dated 9 October 2025, Matthew Pennycook MP, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, emphasised the important of Green Belt reviews in the plan making process, increasing the powers of PINS to enable recommendation of Green Belt reviews during Local Plan examination to identify additional sites where necessary.

Whilst draft Policy S/GB is considered to align with National Policy, the Council should ensure that consideration is given to promoted sites within the Green Belt that can come forward to meet the Local Housing Need, whilst not strongly contributing to purposes a), b) or d) of the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 208340

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Thakeham supports the inclusion of a settlement hierarchy within the emerging Local Plan, that reflects the size and sustainability of the settlements within the District.

However, the draft policy seeks to limit the size of new development at ‘minor rural centres’ and lower tiers. The draft policy should not restrict the scale of growth for rural settlements, as this may affect the settlement's ability to maintain its existing facilities and support necessary growth. As seen across the county, where settlements have not been able to grow, they have lost facilities such as primary schools or local shops, as there has not been the need within the settlement to keep the facilities viable and therefore, operational. The Council should therefore consider the delivery of services and facilities alongside the planned strategic growth of settlements.

Support

Representation ID: 208341

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Thakeham support the inclusion of draft Policy GP/HD which seeks to ensure that development proposals must make efficient use of land. As required under paragraph 129 of the 2024 NPPF “planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land”. This is also supported within the draft 2025 NPPF with policy L1 supporting effective and efficient use of land, and L3 ensuring that appropriate densities are delivered, including setting a minimum density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare where located within walking distance of a train station, or 50 dwellings per hectare where the station or stop is defined as ‘well-connected’.

Comment

Representation ID: 208342

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Thakeham supports the delivery of affordable housing with draft Policy H/AH. Yet, whilst the Council has sought to propose an approximate tenure provision of affordable housing, the Policy should seek to retain flexibility on the tenure to allow developments to reflect localised need for affordable housing.

Whilst supportive of the draft policy, Thakeham would raise the inclusion of paragraph 5e and the table it refers to within draft Policy H/AH. The table 5e refers to, duplicates the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) requirements, which affordable housing is already required to comply to under draft Policy H/SS. The table also fails to recognise some of the minimum number of bedrooms allowed under NDSS. To avoid duplication and confusion with NDSS, it is recommended that paragraph 5e is removed.

Object

Representation ID: 208343

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Thakeham does not support the requirements of draft Policy H/SS and the blanket application
of NDSS requirement across Greater Cambridge. National Policy is clear that such requirements need to be justified by need, and it is unclear how the Council have determined the requirement for a blanket policy requiring all homes to meet NDSS.

Flexibility needs to be adopted within local policies, to ensure that market housing reflects the market needs of Greater Cambridge. Market homes should be provided across a variety of sizes, and there may be market demand for smaller dwellings that do not necessarily meet NDSS standards, but importantly provide market choice and increase affordability for first-time buyers.

Comment

Representation ID: 208344

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Draft Policy H/SS requires all new dwellings to have direct access to private external amenity space that is immediately outside their living accommodation. Thakeham would question the ‘Outdoor Amenity Space’ requirement that each dwelling must have access to private outdoor space. This is due to the physical practicality of providing private outdoor space.

Where flatted development is provided, communal outdoor space can be provided to allow residents access to outdoor space. providing an area for residents to access open space which encourages physical activity, a connection to nature and community cohesion. It also offers the benefit to residents who may not be able to physically maintain a private open space with open space that they are not required to maintain.

Object

Representation ID: 208345

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

With regards Policy H/SS' requirements for M4(3) standards, this is not supported by the Council's own evidence base. Paragraph 1.91 of the Housing Needs of Specific Groups in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire (August 2025) states that “there is a need for around 970 dwellings to be for wheelchair users (meeting technical standard M4(3))”.

However, when applying the requirement to the new proposed draft allocations, they already delivers a surplus of the evidenced need. When considering all the draft allocations and existing allocations which are yet to be delivered, the delivery of M4(3) plots would significantly over deliver on unmet need.

The Council's evidence base therefore shows that there is not the demand to justify the current draft policy requirement for M4(3) standards.

Object

Representation ID: 208346

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Thakeham Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

With regard to the need for M4(2) plots, paragraph 11.107 raises that it expects Building Regulations to mandate M4(2) under revised Building Regulations. It should however be noted that this report was published under the Johnson Conservative government and therefore may not align with the current political agenda. The requirement for M4(2) should therefore be on evidenced need and where Building Regulations are to change, this will supersede planning policy.

The Council's evidence base therefore shows that there is not the demand to justify the current draft policy requirement for both M4(2) and M4(3). Such policy requirements should only be based on evidenced need.