Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

The Plan places undue reliance on large, uncertain strategic allocations, particularly NE Cambridge, where delivery is contingent on the unfunded relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant. Housing and employment supply figures are overstated and insufficiently robust. The Plan leaves ongoing pressure on surrounding villages through Green Belt evidence and promoted sites, despite the absence of formal allocations. The final Plan should remove or discount speculative development dependent on unresolved infrastructure funding, provide clearer distinction between allocated and non-allocated supply, and adopt a more cautious, deliverability-led approach that protects Green Belt land, water resources, village character and transport networks.

Policy S/NEC does not provide sufficient certainty to justify its continued inclusion as a cornerstone of housing and employment delivery.
The redevelopment of North East Cambridge is explicitly dependent on the relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant. The Draft Plan acknowledges that Government funding for relocation will not be provided, yet retains the allocation on the basis that “alternative funding may be found”. This is not a sound basis for strategic planning.
Relocation costs have escalated from approximately £227 million to over £400 million, with no identified funding partners, delivery mechanism or confirmed relocation site. In these circumstances, no reliance should be placed on the council’s ability to relocate the CWWTP, and the residential component of North East Cambridge (including Hartree) should not be included in housing supply calculations.
It is unclear from the housing trajectory whether NEC’s full capacity is assumed within the plan period, and if so how risk is mitigated should relocation not occur. Any assumptions contingent on future funding must be explicitly identified and discounted from supply until secured.
The proposed relocation site at Honey Hill lies within Green Belt agricultural land and is not allocated for development in the Draft Local Plan. It is therefore inappropriate for the Plan to rely on this option, directly or indirectly.
There is also insufficient clarity on safeguarded uses, required relocations, phasing and viability. The policy contains internal contradictions between uses that must remain and those whose relocation is presented as essential to unlocking development potential.
If the policy is retained, the Plan should clearly set out what has changed since the former North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, including funding decisions, infrastructure assumptions and revised requirements. Without successful relocation and early delivery of enabling infrastructure, the full 8,350-home mixed-use vision is unlikely to be achievable within the plan period, undermining the Plan’s overall strategy.

The scale and pace of development proposed at Waterbeach New Town presents significant deliverability and infrastructure risks.
The stated capacity may overestimate what can realistically be delivered by 2045 given the reliance on phased provision of major infrastructure, including station relocation, highway access, utilities and community facilities. The Plan should provide an updated position on which key milestones have been met and realistic delivery timelines.
There is a clear risk that housing delivery could outpace infrastructure provision, leading to congestion, overburdened services and substandard living conditions.
The access strategy relies heavily on the A10, with both northern and southern access points. The southern junction must be designed to actively prevent rat-running through neighbouring villages such as Horningsea. Given the scale of development—up to 11,000 homes plus employment and retail—traffic impacts on the A10/A14 network require robust and timely mitigation.
Water supply, wastewater treatment, drainage and energy demand are also critical concerns. The Draft Plan rightly highlights water stress and chalk aquifer sensitivity, yet the cumulative demand arising from Waterbeach New Town risks undermining these objectives if not tightly constrained.
Long-term stewardship arrangements for open space, community assets and unadopted infrastructure are essential but challenging at this scale. Experience from other new towns demonstrates the risk of fragmented governance and delayed social infrastructure, which the Plan should address more explicitly.

Policy S/CE contains multiple interdependent risks that do not appear to be sufficiently resolved.
Comprehensive development of the airport site is dependent on a change in airport status, meaning the entire site is available for development. The policy says that some parts of Cambridge East can go ahead while the airport continues to operate. This is contradictory and introduces significant uncertainty into delivery assumptions.
The Plan continues to refer to the relocation of Marshall Aerospace to Cranfield, despite news reports in Occtober 2025 that this proposal was cancelled. This needs to be corrected and the implications clearly addressed.
The policy seeks sensitivity to townscape, landscape and heritage, particularly in relation to Teversham, yet allows potential development within the Green Corridor where “very special circumstances” are demonstrated. Without precise, binding tests, this wording risks incremental erosion of protection and conflicts with the Plan’s stated objectives.
Airport safeguarding constraints (noise, height, aviation safety and CAA consultation) are not set out clearly enough. Without explicit limits, there is a risk of speculative proposals requiring complete redesign once aviation constraints are applied, this seems counterintuitive and a potential enormous waste of money.
Given the complexity of phasing, infrastructure dependency and environmental constraints, the final Plan should include a clear phase-by-phase deliverability table identifying which homes are deliverable in the near term and which are contingent on airport availability, major infrastructure and other prerequisites.

Policy S/CE contains multiple interdependent risks that do not appear to be sufficiently resolved.
Comprehensive development of the airport site is dependent on a change in airport status, meaning the entire site is available for development. The policy says that some parts of Cambridge East can go ahead while the airport continues to operate. This is contradictory and introduces significant uncertainty into delivery assumptions.
The Plan continues to refer to the relocation of Marshall Aerospace to Cranfield, despite news reports in Occtober 2025 that this proposal was cancelled. This needs to be corrected and the implications clearly addressed.
The policy seeks sensitivity to townscape, landscape and heritage, particularly in relation to Teversham, yet allows potential development within the Green Corridor where “very special circumstances” are demonstrated. Without precise, binding tests, this wording risks incremental erosion of protection and conflicts with the Plan’s stated objectives.
Airport safeguarding constraints (noise, height, aviation safety and CAA consultation) are not set out clearly enough. Without explicit limits, there is a risk of speculative proposals requiring complete redesign once aviation constraints are applied, this seems counterintuitive and a potential enormous waste of money.
Given the complexity of phasing, infrastructure dependency and environmental constraints, the final Plan should include a clear phase-by-phase deliverability table identifying which homes are deliverable in the near term and which are contingent on airport availability, major infrastructure and other prerequisites.