Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 207633

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

We advise that your authority should include wording within this Policy about assessing environmental impacts, particularly in relation to Air Pollution. Your authority should follow Natural England’s new Air Quality standard advice for guidance on this matter (see Appendix 2).

Additionally, the Cambourne GBI document (page 13) refers to a buffer of 100m between Woodlands and Major Roads. Please note however that Habitats Sites and SSSIs (and woodland) at risk from local impacts are those within 200m of a road with increased traffic, which feature habitats that are vulnerable to nitrogen deposition and/or acidification. The HRA includes an assessment of air pollution in relation to Habitats Sites (using a 200m buffer), but SSSIs should also be assessed by your authority as part of the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 207634

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

The Light Pollution section of this Policy could also specifically mention the Eversden and Wimpole Wood SAC Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) and have requirements specific to this area, for example to follow the Institute of Lighting Professionals GN08 Bats and Artificial Lighting. The proposed requirements in Policy S/CBN parts 23 to 26 could also provide some useful wording. Please see our comments about the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) below for more about the imminent changes to this IRZ.

Comment

Representation ID: 207635

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

We welcome this policy, particularly part 1c, which recognises the many benefits of incorporating natural elements into development to respond to climate change.

Comment

Representation ID: 207636

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

The 25 Year Environment Plan (25YEP) sets out government action to help the natural world regain and retain good health, including highlighting the need to:
•protect the best agricultural land
•put a value on natural capital, including healthy soil
•ensure all soils are managed sustainably by 2030
•restore and protect peatland.

We advise adding to this Policy the requirement for detailed Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) surveys to support plan allocations and for subsequent planning applications (for all sites larger than 5 ha). ALC surveys to support plan allocations and for subsequent planning applications for smaller sites (1 – 5 ha) would also be welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 207637

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

To assist in understanding agricultural land quality within the plan area and to safeguard Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land in line with the NPPF, strategic scale ALC Maps are available. Natural England also has an archive of more detailed ALC surveys for selected locations. Both these types of data can be supplied digitally by contacting Natural England. Some of this data is also available on the magic website. Your authority should ensure that sufficient site specific ALC survey data is available to inform decision making. For example, where no reliable or sufficiently detailed information is available, it would be reasonable to expect developers to commission a new ALC survey, for any sites they wish to put forward for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 207638

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

General mapped information on soil types is available as ‘Soilscapes’ on the magic website. Additional information regarding obtaining soil data can be found on the LandIS.

A requirement for soil handling and sustainable soil management strategies is also advised. This should be based on a detailed assessment of the soil resource following best practice guidance (for all sites larger than 5 ha), ideally as part of the planning application process for major sites. This would help to safeguard delivery of ecosystem services through careful soil management and appropriate, beneficial soil re-use. Soil handling and sustainable soil management strategies for smaller sites (1 – 5 ha) would also be welcomed. Sustainable soil management should aim to minimise risks to the ecosystem services which soils provide, through provision of suitable soil handling and management advice. The planning authority should ensure that sufficient site-specific soil survey data is available to inform decision making. To include, for example, assessment of suitability of soil properties for type of landscaping and planting
proposed to inform beneficial re-use, appropriate soil management, and drainage, where required.

Comment

Representation ID: 207639

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

Further guidance for protecting soils (irrespective of their ALC grading) both during and following development is available in Defra’s Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, to assist the construction sector in the better protection of the soil resources with which they work, and in doing so minimise the risk of environmental harm such as excessive run-off and flooding. The aim is to achieve positive outcomes such as cost savings, successful landscaping and enhanced amenity whilst maintaining a healthy natural environment, and we would advise that the Code be referred to where relevant in the development plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 207640

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

We agree that ‘new development must be co-ordinated and phased in tandem with the provision of appropriate physical and social infrastructure’, and, in the case of accessible greenspace provision, this is particularly important where housing is located close to sensitive sites at risk of recreational pressure (e.g. SSSIs). See our response to Policy BG/GI: Green and blue infrastructure for additional comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 207641

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

We advise that the HRA and AA should assess water quality impacts to protected sites in greater detail (4.117 onwards), and consider protected sites on an individual basis (as has been done for water quantity at 4.110 onwards). The impacts to sites will vary based on their current condition and capacity to cope with changes. We acknowledge that the HRA necessarily has to be at a fairly high level, but it still needs to be robust. Our main concerns are in relation to Portholme SAC and the Ouse Washes.

Additionally, from 5.71 onwards, we advise that the HRA requires more detail and separation of water pollution impacts to the Upper Ouse catchment and the Cam and Ely Ouse catchment. Development that depends on a Sewage Treatment Works that drains into the Upper Ouse catchment will affect the Ouse Washes, which is currently failing its water quality targets.

Comment

Representation ID: 207642

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Natural England

The HRA references the Stantec report (Greater Cambridge Integrated Water Management Study (IWMS) from Stantec) but it is not clear which Sewage Treatment Works / Water Recycling Centres (StW / WRC) are in scope here. For example, Utton’s Drove StW effluent drains into the Ouse and so will flow into the Ouse Washes. Uttons Drove WRC serves significant growth areas including Cambourne and Northstowe and currently has considerable issues, according to the IWMS.
We do however broadly agree with the conclusion (5.77) that ‘it will be necessary for GCSP to continue to engage with Anglian Water and ideally reach a statement of common ground prior to submission of the Local Plan to gain certainty that the necessary WWTW upgrades will be achieved’.