Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 207613

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

We would encourage your authority to add wording to the Nature sections of this policy about sensitive lighting strategies and providing dark habitats/corridors where possible, particularly if these can link with those planned in Policy S/CBN, and around the outer edge of the settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 207614

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

This site is directly adjacent to Roman Road SSSI and although we welcome the inclusion of the SEA to buffer this protected site from development, concerns currently remain about how impacts will be avoided. We will be happy to have discussions with you about this.
We note that an amount of greenspace has not yet been specified. We advise that 3ha/1000 greenspace which meets the Natural England GI Framework Standards criteria should be an absolute minimum, particularly where mitigation for recreational pressure is needed, and that more should ideally be required. For a site of 6000 homes, a minimum of 43.2ha semi-natural greenspace would be needed. Please also note our above point, under ‘New Settlements’ about agreeing minimum buffer distances from the SSSI.

Comment

Representation ID: 207615

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

As recommended for policy S/CBN, we advise that ecological survey and monitoring should also be added as a requirement for specific sensitive locations outside of the site’s red line boundary that may be impacted by the development. There should be a requirement to monitor the effectiveness of measures put in place to combat recreational disturbance on the SSSI, for example, and a commitment to implementing alternative solutions if the initial measures are ineffective.

Comment

Representation ID: 207616

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

As with Policy S/CB, we would encourage your authority to add wording to the Nature section of this policy about sensitive lighting strategies and providing dark habitats/corridors where possible, particularly if these can link with those planned in Policy S/CBN, and around the outer edge of the settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 207617

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

We welcome the inclusion of water efficiency measures within Local Plan Policy, particularly the requirement for development of 100 or more dwellings to achieve water usage of no more than 80 litres/person/day.

The Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Climate Change Topic Paper (2025) covers the reasoning behind the policy decisions, and refers to the significant work that has been carried out around water efficiency. It also explains, in paragraph 6.39, why the 85 litres/person/day recommended by the Shared Standards in Water Efficiency for Local Plans (2025) has not currently been included for developments of less than 100 homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 207618

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

This policy is welcomed, particularly the requirements around Water quality, which will be necessary to avoid impacts to various protected sites including the Ouse Washes.
The part 1d requirement for water management to be ‘designed in such a way that makes use of nature-based solutions wherever practicable’ is also strongly supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 207619

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

We advise that you consider adding wording clarifying your authority’s position on potential solar proposals on peat soils. We would suggest that if a solar proposal is found to be on peat-based land, that it should only be approved if it is part of a well-researched and appropriately designed wider scheme to protect or enhance the carbon sink of such land, and includes strong fire prevention and rapid response extinguishment systems. Please see Appendix 1 for additional comments relating to peat soils.

Comment

Representation ID: 207620

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

The general principles of this policy are welcomed, however, Natural England does not support part 2a of Policy CC/CS which allows sites to be allocated on peat soil, or for those allocations which are later discovered to be on peat to proceed. Part 4 refers to the removal of peat soils. We advise strengthening this, along the lines of ‘If there are any exceptional proposals allowed by the LPA to remove peat soils, this must only be done with the guidance and supervision of a suitably qualified and experienced soil scientist / practitioner, to an approved plan. The peat must be appropriately stored and then eventually used, all in a way that would limit carbon emissions into the atmosphere as far as possible.’
We also note that part 4 refers to the DEFRA Code of Practice, however, the current (2009) version does not mention peat, which requires specialist handling techniques. Refer to: Broads Authority Guide to understanding and addressing the impact of new developments on peat soil: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/130887/Peat-Guide-Adopted-March-2021.pdf.
We also advise that it should be made clear that tree planting on areas of peat is not normally appropriate as this contributes to the drying and wasting of peat, therefore releasing carbon rather than storing it as intended. Please see Appendix 1 for additional comments relating to peat soils.

Comment

Representation ID: 207621

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes this policy. We would however like to have further discussions with you about part 9 in particular, to agree on a suitable approach to the recreational pressure issue. See Policy BG/GI and Policy S/CBN for further related comment.

Comment

Representation ID: 207622

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

Additionally, we would like to flag the Buglife mapping of Important Invertebrate Areas (IIA) as these support some of Britain’s rarest species and possess unique assemblages of invertebrates. There is currently a small section of IIA mapped within South Cambridgeshire, associated with the Fens IIA. For any proposals in or near to an IIA, we recommend that site design (especially any on-site BNG, Green Infrastructure or SuDS) and ongoing management (i.e. Landscape Environmental Management Plan) should aim to protect and enhance habitat features for invertebrates.

Buglife has produced a general guidance note on practical measures to achieve this and is developing site-specific profiles.
Solar panels adjacent to running water can also attract aquatic invertebrates with reflected polarised light appearing as suitable egg laying sites. We therefore recommend that solar proposals in these locations should follow the advice in the Fens IIA profile (page 12) that patterned, roughened or painted glass, or a horizontal light-blocking grid can be used to reduce the attraction of solar panels to aquatic invertebrates.