Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 208197

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

Local transport systems are failing to meet current needs and are completely inadequate to support the scale of growth in the Cambridge region, both historical and planned. The plan should state unequivocally that an integrated mass rapid‑transit (MRT) network is an urgent regional priority, extending beyond Cambridge to towns such as Huntingdon, St Ives, St Neots/Tempsford, Ely, Newmarket, Haverhill and Peterborough.

Comment

Representation ID: 208198

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

A phased construction timetable and explicit financing mechanisms (e.g., land‑value capture, workplace parking levy, green infrastructure bond) are needed to deliver the MRT network and link growth clusters to it.

Comment

Representation ID: 208199

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway should not be described as ‘high quality’ because busways lack the capacity, frequency and reliability of European light‑rail systems. The existing and planned busways also suffer from the major weakness that they are not integrated, or joined up. Nor do they extend into the core of the city. This lack of multi-modal and spatial integration greatly extends overall journey times, and acts as a serious disincentive to people in their decisions about use of public transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 208200

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

Cambridge Connect strongly supports EWR. However, we suggest Cambourne could be better served by light rail mass transit linking to Cambridge City and the central rail station. The route we propose follows parallel to the A428 via the Girton Interchange / Eddington / West Campus, and would provide a twenty-minute journey time into the city. A more southerly direct route would save money that could be directed to finance the light rail connection. We encourage the Government, local authorities and EWR to consider this option.

Comment

Representation ID: 208201

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

The proposed C2C busway should be opposed on strategic (poor city‑centre integration) and environmental (habitat loss at Coton Orchard) grounds. The lack of integration across the city will suppress demand and serve to perpetuate poor uptake of public transport. Destruction of habitat at Coton Orchard when there are viable alternatives, including use of the existing transport corridor of the A428 is objected to. The GCP has failed to consider alternatives properly when selecting the C2C route.

Comment

Representation ID: 208202

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

We note development at Grange Farm, Babraham Research Campus, Granta Park, Genome Campus and CBC. We strongly support transport improvements to meet these needs. However, we oppose CSET due to its unnecessary compromise and impact on chalk‑stream ecology and the Green Belt. A viable and less damaging alternative transport option exists nearby on the ready-made former rail corridor leading to Granta Park / Haverhill.

Comment

Representation ID: 208203

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

Re‑use of the former rail corridor to Granta Park / Haverhill could serve both new housing, campuses and surrounding villages and local communities with frequent and rapid shuttle services and providing 24‑hour autonomous shuttles. Moreover, many of those working at the southern biotech campuses reside in Haverhill (~14% of the CBC workforce), which provides much-needed housing at relatively lower cost.

Comment

Representation ID: 208204

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

A tunnel is essential for any MRT system in the historic core to protect heritage assets and the River Cam, and to free the surface for pedestrians and cyclists. The Local Plan should consider how mass rapid transit can be spatially integrated into the historic city, and at a minimum should review international case studies for strategic guidance. A tunnel is only likely to be viable for mass rapid transit such as metro or light rail. Buses and busways will never attract finance for a tunnel.

Comment

Representation ID: 208205

Received: 29/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

We welcome provision to “require developments to contribute towards the cost of these transport schemes”. However, the Local Plan needs to be more imaginative and consider a wider range of financing options, as this lies at the core of delivery of transport improvements. The strategy needs to be specific about the spatial plan – ie about clusters and corridors of growth – and how they will be facilitated and supported in a practical and sustainable way by the transport network.

Comment

Representation ID: 208754

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Cambridge Connect

The Local Plan should state unequivocally that an integrated mass rapid transit network is
needed to support sustainable development within the region. This mass rapid transit network needs
to be designed and delivered as an urgent regional priority to address pressures of growth and meet
economic, social and environmental goals.
The Local Plan should acknowledge that its radius (for local government administrative reasons) is
too small to cover the functional travel to work area, and as such is an inadequate basis for a
regional mass rapid transit system. The development of Greater Cambridge over the next 10-30 years
will inevitably require quick, cheap, reliable, safe public transport connections to surrounding
towns, not least Huntingdon, St Ives, St Neots / Tempsford, Ely, Newmarket, Haverhill, and indeed Peterborough. Imminent reorganisation of local
government should go some way to meeting this weakness in the draft Local Plan, although the
current planning authorities could anticipate and seek to address the deficiency.