Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

• Draft Policy S/AMC/IWM: Imperial War Museum, Duxford
We wrote this in our representation on the January 2026 consultation. “SCDC have omitted comments regarding any impact on the A505 running through to Junction 10 and beyond. The additional encroachment from the expansion of operations at the site needs careful consideration.

Any development at this site should minimise any negative impact on the A505 which it boarders to the north as an important thoroughfare from east to west & its junction (10) of the M11.

These should include:
Improvements to junctions on the A505 to increase safety, access and capacity

Improved connectivity between nearby public transport & the IWM Duxford

An extended network of dedicated cycle links connecting local transport & villages plus safe accessible crossing points for pedestrians without impeding the flow of traffic crossing the A505.

Recommendations from the Royston to Granta Park Strategic Transport Study https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/documents/s3030/Appendix%20B%20-%20Royston%20to%20Granta%20Park%20-%20Strategic%20Outline%20Case%20FINAL.pdf regarding the improvements to the A505 (recent updates are here https://democracy.cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/documents/s3028/Royston%20to%20Granta%20Park%20Strategic%20Transport%20Study%20Update.pdf) should be implemented before any of the developments at Duxford are commenced.

There is a good active travel network between Fowlmere and Thriplow, up to the A505.

There is footpath from Thriplow to Heathfield and through to Pepperslade and getting to the A505. But you cannot link into the two existing rights of way on the Northside of the A505. Crossing points should be looked at to include broader active travel including cycleways to link with the existing active travel networks.” 


None of our comments are reflected in the Reg 19 draft. We maintain the comments and seek the amendment of the policy to address them. Since the previous consultation proposals for AvTech have emerged. These proposals will be on a prominent part of the site seen the from west by approaching traffic. They will be the first buildings on the site seen from that direction. We additionally draw attention to the fact that the American Air Museum at the IWM site, is a Grade 2* listed building. The buiding was opened in 1997 and listed only three years later. It is a significant and distinguished structure by Foster Associates and Ove Arup and future development should capitalise on and respect it.

See our representation

Fowlmere Parish Council (“FPC”) made the following representation in January 2026 on the then consultation draft. The representation has not been reflected in the Proposed Submission Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Reg 19, August 2026. FPC wrote:

“Draft Policy H/GT: Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Show people sites

Fowlmere Parish Council (hereinafter “FPC”) [considered] the draft Greater Cambridge Plan at the meeting of its planning committee on 8 January 2026 when it resolved to submit the comments on policy H/ GT.

Fowlmere is a village of about 1200 inhabitants (adults and children), about 500 dwellings. It has one public house / restaurant, a village hall, a primary school, a nursery and a playgroup. There are no shops. The nearest doctors’ surgeries are in Harston and Melbourn. At the time of writing (14 January 2026) two sites on the edge of the village are occupied as small travellers sites (less than three caravans in each) in breach of planning control. Planning applications were submitted for each of the sites. One of those applications was withdrawn ten days ago. Neither application complied with planning policy.

FPC notes that draft policy H/GT recognises that some pitches within the plan area have become occupied by persons who are not members of the gypsy or traveller community, nor travelling showpeople. The draft seeks to ensure that proposed occupiers of any site for which permission is sought will be members of the gypsy or traveller community.

FPC also notes that the draft policy does not contain mechanisms or safeguards to ensure that subsequent occupiers are only members of the gypsy or traveller community. It is not enough only to regulate the first occupiers.

FPC considers that the policy should be explicit on this issue and require planning permissions to limit occupiers to members of those communities so as to ensure that the stock of pitches across the plan area is not depleted.“

FPC maintains this view and seeks amendments to the policy accordingly.

In addition, in the light of FPC’s experience in dealing with the 2025 planning applications and, in September 2026, with an appeal against an enforcement notice at one of the two sites referred to, FPC seeks amendments to the policy to require the LPA to follow the sequential test set out in the report it commissioned in March 2023 and received in September 2024 on the need aspect of the policy. It is one of the supporting documents to the policy listed in the consultation draft. The title of the report is the Accommodation Needs Assessment of Gypsies, Travellers, Travelling Showpeople and Bargee Travellers and other caravan and houseboat dwellers. The report is usually known as the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment or GTAA for short.

GTAA point 7.27 sets out a sequential test of steps to be taken before identifying sites, as follows:
• Firstly, turnover on existing sites.
• Secondly, regularising of sites that are not permanently authorised.
• Thirdly, additional pitch provision using existing sites.
• Fourthly, making pitches on existing sites available.
• Fifthly, sites becoming vacant through household dissolution.
• Finally, new sites for permanent pitches identified either as standalone sites or associated with major development sites.

Only after the first five steps have been exhausted should the final sixth option of a new site be adopted.

FPA seek amendments to the policy to ensure that the LPA follow this sequential approach and only grant permission for new sites if after the first five steps there is still a shortfall.

see our representation

Fowlmere Parish Council (“FPC”) made the following representation in January 2026 on the then consultation draft. The representation has not been wholly reflected in the Proposed Submission Greater Cambridge Local Plan – Reg 19, August 2026. FPC wrote:

“Draft policy S/RRA/CR: Land to the west of Cambridge Road, Melbourn

Fowlmere Parish Council (hereinafter “FPC”) considered policy S/RRA/CA and the draft Greater Cambridge Plan at the meeting of its planning committee on 8 January 2026 when it resolved to submit the following comments.

The civil parish of Fowlmere is to the east of Melbourn. It adjoins the parish boundary of Melbourn. Residents of Fowlmere use the facilities in Melbourn, such as the shops, village college and leisure centre. Access to Melbourn from Fowlmere is from the east along Cambridge Road. The proposal site is on Cambridge Road.

The proposal is for a mixed development of approximately 120 homes and 8,000 square metres gross internal area of floorspace for employment uses.

The proposal also states that “any employment uses must be integrated with the existing Science Park”. There is no indication why this should be the case. One effect will be to make the development dependent on the consent of the owners of the existing Science Park; access will have to be across their land. FPC has no information about who owns the site. Whilst planning is not concerned with ownership, ownership and commercial advantage can create a monopolistic situation which is generally undesirable. The requirement of integration will give the Science Park owners a ransom strip. They may currently be the owners of the site, but should they not be, or should that change, the requirement will make the development less likely to occur.

The proposal is for a mixed development of approximately 120 homes and 8,000 square metres gross internal area of floorspace for employment uses. The area of the site available for each use is not specified FPC has not been able to find any density standards in the draft plan. FPC simply observes at this stage that housing density should be appropriate for village dwellings and recognise the beneficial effects of private outdoor space and the spaciousness which people expect and seek in villages.

FPC recognises the importance of commercial development, particularly science and technology development in the Greater Cambridge area. FPC generally supports such development where sensibly located. Designating this site for such development, being situated alongside the existing science park, clearly has significant benefits. It should be recognised that there will also be increases in traffic along Cambridge Road, the A10 and other nearby parts of the road network. Meldreth railway station is over a mile away from the site so rail access unless supported by shuttle-bus and bicycle parking on site is unlikely to be desirable. There will be a commercial incentive to providing shuttle-bus and cycle parking. However the policy could usefully specify the need to address that aspect. Shuttle-buses can be made available to the wider public on the route and FPC strongly suggests that the policy includes a requirement to do so. Other commercial developments envisaged by the draft local plan should also have such a requirement. This will be helpful for sustainable transport and to maintain a level playing field across all such developments.

The draft policy also includes a requirement to screen the development from sight. It reads: “Boundaries facing the rural setting, at the southeast and northwest of the site, must be strengthened to mitigate unacceptable adverse impacts on the surrounding landscape”. (The southeast boundary is in fact Cambridge Road, the other side of which at this point is already partly built up with some post-war housing.) In the view of FPC this part of the policy is an unnecessarily pessimistic view of the design of the development and opportunities presented by the site. Rather than requiring the development to be hidden, the policy should require a high standard of appropriate design. The buildings and their setting should be something the site owners, its developers and the residents of Melbourn would be proud to see and to be seen. The site is close to the eastern edge of Melbourn. The only development further east is a collection of utilitarian and uninspired light industrial buildings and car wash. Sadly, they are the face which Melbourn is currently compelled to present both to visitors and to its own residents approaching the village from the east. But the proposal in the plan gives the opportunity to create a sense of entry with an elegant design and setting which could reflect the presence of science, homes and rural life.

Subject to the above comments, FPC supports this policy.’

The proposal for 8,000 sq m of commercial development appears to have been dropped entirely. FPC supported that proposal. However integration with the adjacent science park is still required by the policy. As we pointed out that will hand a ransom to the owners of the Science Park which is undesirable. Whilst integration would undoubtedly be good master planning and design, to make it a condition of planning is likely to hinder the delivery of the 125 dwellings for which the site is now to be designated.

We maintain our view on the desirability of employment uses, particularly given the importance of Cambridge to the national economy.

We are pleased to note that the policy has been amended to require the development to create an enhanced entrance into the village from the east.

For the above reasons we do not consider the plan to be sound. We do not have the capacity to confirm that the place is legally compliant and as the question allows only a yes or no answer we must therefore answer no.

See our representation

Fowlmere Parish Council (hereinafter “FPC”) considered policy S/RRA/ML and the draft Greater Cambridge Plan at the meeting of its planning committee on 8 January 2026 when it resolved to submit the following comments.

The civil parish of Fowlmere is to the east of Melbourn. It adjoins the parish boundary of Melbourn. Residents of Fowlmere use the facilities in Melbourn, such as the shops, village college and leisure centre. Access to Melbourn from Fowlmere is from the east along Cambridge Road. The proposal site (The Moor) is reached from Cambridge Road.

FPC draws attention to the fact that the site has no other access to the highway network. Vehicles to and from the site would pass Melbourn Village College (which is also on The Moor) and Melbourn Leisure Centre (which is part of the college).

The supporting information in the draft plan states that the site is “close to a number of village services and benefits from public transport connections offered by Meldreth Railway Station”. Obviously, closeness is a relative and subjective concept. But FPC observes that the distance to the railway station is about 1.1 miles and the route runs through the centre of Melbourn and the four way traffic light controlled junction formed by Cambridge Road, High Street, Mortlock Street and Station Road. In terms therefore of access to public transport links it is buses rather than trains which are truly proximate and preferable for those not using cars. Buses are of course much less frequent than trains, are more susceptible to variation and cover shorter distances.

The supporting information also states that the site “is bounded by development on three sides, with screening provided by existing vegetation”. The existing development appears to FPC only to be on two sides, namely on the south-east boundary and across the road on the south-west. On the north-west boundary there are allotments (not traditionally referred to as “development”) and whilst the science park is on the north-east boundary it is open green land rather than buildings across the boundary.

The proposal is for about 20 dwellings on 1.08 hectares. That would give 54 540 square metres per dwelling. [There was a typographical error in the original submission. It should have read “540 square metres”.

To make that area easier to visualise, it is only slightly bigger than a square whose sides are the length of a cricket pitch. But from that must be deducted the land needed for roadways, public open space and land for public utilities and services. The policy also requires landscaping to the southern and eastern boundaries which will further reduce the area per dwelling. FPC has not been able to find any density standards in the draft plan. FPC simply comments at this stage that the density envisaged appears to be high, particularly for housing in a village. It ignores the beneficial effects of private outdoor space and the spaciousness which people expect and seek in villages.”


The supporting information on the boundaries as not changed and remains inaccurate. Nor have our comments on density been acknowledged – nothing has changed in the Reg 19 version.

We maintain those comments.

See our representation.

Draft Policy S/AMC/IWM: Imperial War Museum, Duxford
We wrote this in our representation on the January 2026 consultation. “SCDC have omitted comments regarding any impact on the A505 running through to Junction 10 and beyond. The additional encroachment from the expansion of operations at the site needs careful consideration.

Any development at this site should minimise any negative impact on the A505 which it boarders to the north as an important thoroughfare from east to west & its junction (10) of the M11.

These should include:
Improvements to junctions on the A505 to increase safety, access and capacity

Improved connectivity between nearby public transport & the IWM Duxford

An extended network of dedicated cycle links connecting local transport & villages plus safe accessible crossing points for pedestrians without impeding the flow of traffic crossing the A505.

Recommendations from the Royston to Granta Park Strategic Transport Study regarding the improvements to the A505 (recent updates are here) should be implemented before any of the developments at Duxford are commenced.

There is a good active travel network between Fowlmere and Thriplow, up to the A505.

There is footpath from Thriplow to Heathfield and through to Pepperslade and getting to the A505. But you cannot link into the two existing rights of way on the Northside of the A505. Crossing points should be looked at to include broader active travel including cycleways to link with the existing active travel networks.” 


None of our comments are reflected in the Reg 19 draft. We maintain the comments and seek the amendment of the policy to address them. Since the previous consultation proposals for AvTech have emerged. These proposals will be on a prominent part of the site seen the from west by approaching traffic. They will be the first buildings on the site seen from that direction. We additionally draw attention to the fact that the American Air Museum at the IWM site, is a Grade 2* listed building. The buiding was opened in 1997 and listed only three years later. It is a significant and distinguished structure by Foster Associates and Ove Arup and future development should capitalise on and respect it.