Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Support

Representation ID: 208491

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

We support the order of preference that has been identified in terms of meeting development needs, reflecting on the sustainability of different locations to accommodate development:

- Within the Cambridge urban area;
- On the edge of Cambridge whilst considering the impact on Green Belt purposes;
- At Cambourne and new settlements; and
- In the rural area at Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres.

We also support the long-term vision and strategy for the new plan- identifying developments that will continue new homes, jobs and infrastructure beyond the plan period, to help maintain a land supply and reduce the need for development in less sustainable locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 208494

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

The Draft Plan at pages 61-62 helpfully sets out clearly where the new housing growth will be delivered across the Greater Cambridge area. In relation to how Gypsy and Traveller needs will be met, it is understood that 120 pitches are to be met through six strategic allocations, and 22 pitches that were not permanently authorised are now authorised. The remaining pitches are likely to come forward through other sources including household dissolution enforcement action and through the
intensification within existing sites. The latter is anticipated to ultimately provide over and above the identified need for the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 208495

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

Whilst the housing and jobs figures have been identified through the Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Evidence Update (EHEU) 2025, and the homes target reflects the government’s standard method housing calculation for the area, the jobs number now proposed, increases significantly more that the housing need.

Whilst CBC recognises the desire for the Greater Cambridge area to capitalise on its strong growth sectors, and welcomes economic growth of neighbouring authority areas, particularly where there are opportunities for complementary economic growth within our own administrative area, we would not support a level of growth that could detrimentally impact upon the ability of Central Bedfordshire to meet and deliver their own economic ambitions and growth aspirations.

Comment

Representation ID: 208498

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

The EHEU (2025) identified a need of employment floorspace needs of almost 1,220,000qm.

We note the consultation plan identifies that around 1,000,000sqm of employment space is already planned for at locations including Cambridge Science Park and the Wellcome Genome Campus. Whilst it does not appear to be explicitly stated, it is therefore assumed that the plan needs to identify an additional 220,000sqm of floorspace to meet identified needs within the plan’s timeframe. Of this, 108,000sqm of floorspace is identified to be accommodated within the proposals for Cambourne North, but it is unclear where the remaining 112,000sqm is to be accommodated. It is understood that the remaining requirement will be distributed across other proposed allocations within the plan, but a table detailing this would be useful.

Comment

Representation ID: 208500

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

Whilst it is recognised that only 2,550 of the 13,000 new homes proposed at Cambourne North will come forward within the plan period, it is essential that the existing and future growth, and the implications on the wider area, are taken into consideration, with any required mitigation identified and planned for from the outset.

Development proposals of this scale must accommodate all of the resulting needs within the proposed allocation, so that there are not detrimental, or cumulative impacts on services, facilities and infrastructure outside of the Greater Cambridge area.

Comment

Representation ID: 208501

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

CBC recognises the benefits of locating growth at Cambourne due to the proposed busway, improvements to the A428 between Black Cat and Caxton Gibbet, as well as the proposals for East West Rail (EWR) providing rail services between Oxford, Bedfordshire and Cambridge. However, we would be keen to understand what work has been undertaken to date to identify impacts on the local and strategic road network outside of the Greater Cambridge area, and the mitigation identified to combat these impacts.

Comment

Representation ID: 208502

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

The plan and supporting evidence appear to lean towards a ‘vision led’ approach to transport, with the emphasis on delivery of sustainable transport schemes such as EWR and the Cambourne to Cambridge busway. This is supported, as is the recognition in Policy I/ST, point 3, of the need to address transport infrastructure in the wider area including across the district boundary; however, it is considered there will inevitably be an impact on the A1 corridor and local road network within Central Bedfordshire, which does not appear to be reflected within the impact assessment or Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).

Comment

Representation ID: 208503

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

With regard to the concept of ‘trip budgets’ in relation to specific Local Plan site policy, Policy S/CBN states: ‘The indicative trip budget is approximately 2,500 trips in the AM peak and 2,500 trips in the PM peak. A refined trip budget based on more detailed evidence must be agreed with the Local Highways Authority prior to submission of the outline application.

It is assumed, based on the limited information available, that a budget of 2,500 trips in the peak hours relies on significant investment in sustainable transport, which although proposed, cannot be guaranteed to be the preferred method of travel for future occupiers. CBC would have reservations about this assumption at this time as it appears to suggest what the modelling says the network can accommodate, rather than the result any sustainable transport interventions might have.

Comment

Representation ID: 208504

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

It is evident that further work still needs to be undertaken in relation to the traffic impacts of the combined proposals at Cambourne on the local and strategic road network, both within and beyond the Greater Cambridge area. Given the proximity of the proposals to Central Bedfordshire, it will be essential that CBC are engaged in this process as soon as possible, so we can help to identify the issues arising within our administrative area, understand the implications for our residents and communities, and help to identify where, and the extent to which, mitigation is required.

Comment

Representation ID: 208505

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

It may also be beneficial to include a commitment within part 43 of Policy S/CBN to adding other relevant stakeholders to what is currently a very short list, of those who the developer must consult with on the Strategic and Local Transport Mitigation Plan. It is also considered that Policy S/CBN would benefit from clearly stating that the busway link and EWR are prerequisites and development will not commence/continue until these schemes are place, given the trip budget they state.