Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Please see attached document from Horseheath Parish Council.

Comments on Draft Local Plan Submission - September 2026
Horseheath Parish Council submitted comments on the emerging draft Local Plan in January 2026 (see Appendix).
Since that time minor changes have been made to the draft Plan subsequent to the previous consultation. Horseheath Parish Council considers the direction, principles and structure of the plan to be the same. Our previous comments remain broadly extant.
Summary
There is one single issue which we believe undermines the utility of this plan. That is the situation with regard to regional water supplies. The draft Plan acknowledges that regional water availability and management are inadequate to support the proposals set out in the Local Plan. It states that the proposals require the successful completion of Cambridge Water’s Resources Management Plan (2024). In addition, acknowledging the scale of the problem, the Government has set up a Water Scarcity Group; the draft Plan states that East Anglia will be likely to require the development of desalination plants to manage future water needs.
There is no detail or certainty with regard to these proposals; the pipeline from Graffam Water is not projected for completion until 2032 and details on available supply quantities are not provided. This lack of water impacts all policies, from mitigating climate change and biodiversity loss to the proposals for the construction of new settlements.
We believe the draft cannot be considered to have been positively prepared given the lack of a detailed and credible strategy to resolve the water scarcity issue which is apparent now but can only deteriorate in the intervening year. We remain very concerned about the impact on the local environment, most particularly the chalk streams.
We remain very concerned about the draft Local Plan policies on water. We believe the ambition to reduce water use in larger new developments to 80L per person per day, whilst being noble is not evidence based. It is unlikely to be effective.
We must also add to our previous comments about the proposed Grange Farm development (Policy S/GF).
Policy S/GF – water is one of three major issues with this proposal, the others being traffic and transport and impact on the surrounding environment. The proposal is:
• Not positively prepared – this site will damage the village of Abington and the landscape; the strategy for water is dubious at best and there is no likelihood that necessary new access roads can be built within the plan period. There is no funding for the proposed bridge over the A11 that would connect the site to the travel hub and biomedical facilities.
• Not justified – it would be cheaper and provide better access to both the transport network and biomedical campuses if a new village was constructed south west of Babraham, the other side of the A11. This would reduce the impact on the A1307 and provide better traffic flows.
• Not Effective – Given the infrastructure uncertainties there is no evidence that this site could deliver the required contribution to the housing and commercial development targets required.
We believe a sensitive site such as this should have a credible costed and integrated infrastructure plan supporting the initial proposals; without this policy cannot be supported.

Appendix - Comments on draft Local Plan January 2026
Overall
We agree with the aim of having a vibrant economy that also significantly reduces impacts on the environment and climate. We would like to see a defined aim to increase biodiversity as we understand this is intimately linked with mitigating climate change and environmental degradation. We support a higher level of biodiversity gain to be required for new development than the current national requirement.
All development must be sustainable; we strongly support this basic tenet of the plan.
We agree with the order of preference and approach to future land use for housing. We support the retention and enhancement of the Cambridge green belt.
We note the proposed new pipelines to alleviate the shortage of drinking water and the proposal to reduce extraction from the aquifer and particularly chalk streams, both of which we strongly endorse. However it is our understanding that there is a delay in the availability of water from Lincolnshire using the new pipeline until after 2030. How will this gap be manged and what is the impact of this on the plan period?
We wholly support an emphasis on active travel as well as enhanced cultural opportunities.
We are concerned by the proposal to build a new community at Grange Farm. To our mind this should be green belt land; the historical importance of the landscape means the open character should be preserved for future generations.
We support the proposed overall policy for minimal development in small villages in rural South Cambridgeshire in preference for larger new centres that are already being established.
Specific Areas (where a policy is not listed we have no comment)
Policy S/DS (currently S/GF) – As stated we are gravely concerned about the proposal to develop Grange Farm. Worsted Street is most likely a bronze age or earlier route and the previous roman settlement at Worsted Lodge indicates that this again was also used in the Bronze Age. There is also a large bronze age barrow at Four Went Ways so we know the whole site has archaeological significance. The views down towards the A1307 and back up from the A1307 are thus historically hugely important and should be preserved in line with policy GP/HE.
We appreciate there is a need to find other sites for 6000 homes if Grange Farm is rejected but we feel further expansion of the new towns would be preferable to the loss of this highly significant site.
We support the development of the A11 travel hub. No other comment.
Policy CC/SD – while we support this approach we are concerned as to how it might be enforced. We fear these proposals will be ineffective without specific penalties for non-compliance.
Policy CC/NZ – 15-20 kwh/sqm is an 80% reduction on current requirements. How can this be mandated and monitored? It is likely to reduce the number of developers willing to build. Having said that, if these issues can be resolved we would strongly support the policy.
Policy CC/WE – again, how might this dramatic deep in water usage be policed and monitored? It will likely require grey water recycling for every home – how can developers be encouraged to pay for this facility?
Policy BG/EO – this is fine. But how will the plan ensure that the proposed accessible green space quantity standard is met in areas devoid of green space who are not seeing new developments under this plan?
Overall comments
We have found it difficult to provide detailed comments. This is because in general we feel the policies are described in overview without specifics. In general we support the direction of travel, but it is very difficult to fully endorse this document when in so many areas there are few details about the process of implementation and particularly the measures that will be put in place to detect and deal with non-compliance.

Comments on Draft Local Plan Submission - September 2026
Horseheath Parish Council submitted comments on the emerging draft Local Plan in January 2026 (see Appendix).
Since that time minor changes have been made to the draft Plan subsequent to the previous consultation. Horseheath Parish Council considers the direction, principles and structure of the plan to be the same. Our previous comments remain broadly extant.
Summary
There is one single issue which we believe undermines the utility of this plan. That is the situation with regard to regional water supplies. The draft Plan acknowledges that regional water availability and management are inadequate to support the proposals set out in the Local Plan. It states that the proposals require the successful completion of Cambridge Water’s Resources Management Plan (2024). In addition, acknowledging the scale of the problem, the Government has set up a Water Scarcity Group; the draft Plan states that East Anglia will be likely to require the development of desalination plants to manage future water needs.
There is no detail or certainty with regard to these proposals; the pipeline from Graffam Water is not projected for completion until 2032 and details on available supply quantities are not provided. This lack of water impacts all policies, from mitigating climate change and biodiversity loss to the proposals for the construction of new settlements.
We believe the draft cannot be considered to have been positively prepared given the lack of a detailed and credible strategy to resolve the water scarcity issue which is apparent now but can only deteriorate in the intervening year. We remain very concerned about the impact on the local environment, most particularly the chalk streams.
We remain very concerned about the draft Local Plan policies on water. We believe the ambition to reduce water use in larger new developments to 80L per person per day, whilst being noble is not evidence based. It is unlikely to be effective.
We must also add to our previous comments about the proposed Grange Farm development (Policy S/GF).
Policy S/GF – water is one of three major issues with this proposal, the others being traffic and transport and impact on the surrounding environment. The proposal is:
• Not positively prepared – this site will damage the village of Abington and the landscape; the strategy for water is dubious at best and there is no likelihood that necessary new access roads can be built within the plan period. There is no funding for the proposed bridge over the A11 that would connect the site to the travel hub and biomedical facilities.
• Not justified – it would be cheaper and provide better access to both the transport network and biomedical campuses if a new village was constructed south west of Babraham, the other side of the A11. This would reduce the impact on the A1307 and provide better traffic flows.
• Not Effective – Given the infrastructure uncertainties there is no evidence that this site could deliver the required contribution to the housing and commercial development targets required.
We believe a sensitive site such as this should have a credible costed and integrated infrastructure plan supporting the initial proposals; without this policy cannot be supported.

Appendix - Comments on draft Local Plan January 2026
Overall
We agree with the aim of having a vibrant economy that also significantly reduces impacts on the environment and climate. We would like to see a defined aim to increase biodiversity as we understand this is intimately linked with mitigating climate change and environmental degradation. We support a higher level of biodiversity gain to be required for new development than the current national requirement.
All development must be sustainable; we strongly support this basic tenet of the plan.
We agree with the order of preference and approach to future land use for housing. We support the retention and enhancement of the Cambridge green belt.
We note the proposed new pipelines to alleviate the shortage of drinking water and the proposal to reduce extraction from the aquifer and particularly chalk streams, both of which we strongly endorse. However it is our understanding that there is a delay in the availability of water from Lincolnshire using the new pipeline until after 2030. How will this gap be manged and what is the impact of this on the plan period?
We wholly support an emphasis on active travel as well as enhanced cultural opportunities.
We are concerned by the proposal to build a new community at Grange Farm. To our mind this should be green belt land; the historical importance of the landscape means the open character should be preserved for future generations.
We support the proposed overall policy for minimal development in small villages in rural South Cambridgeshire in preference for larger new centres that are already being established.
Specific Areas (where a policy is not listed we have no comment)
Policy S/DS (currently S/GF) – As stated we are gravely concerned about the proposal to develop Grange Farm. Worsted Street is most likely a bronze age or earlier route and the previous roman settlement at Worsted Lodge indicates that this again was also used in the Bronze Age. There is also a large bronze age barrow at Four Went Ways so we know the whole site has archaeological significance. The views down towards the A1307 and back up from the A1307 are thus historically hugely important and should be preserved in line with policy GP/HE.
We appreciate there is a need to find other sites for 6000 homes if Grange Farm is rejected but we feel further expansion of the new towns would be preferable to the loss of this highly significant site.
We support the development of the A11 travel hub. No other comment.
Policy CC/SD – while we support this approach we are concerned as to how it might be enforced. We fear these proposals will be ineffective without specific penalties for non-compliance.
Policy CC/NZ – 15-20 kwh/sqm is an 80% reduction on current requirements. How can this be mandated and monitored? It is likely to reduce the number of developers willing to build. Having said that, if these issues can be resolved we would strongly support the policy.
Policy CC/WE – again, how might this dramatic deep in water usage be policed and monitored? It will likely require grey water recycling for every home – how can developers be encouraged to pay for this facility?
Policy BG/EO – this is fine. But how will the plan ensure that the proposed accessible green space quantity standard is met in areas devoid of green space who are not seeing new developments under this plan?
Overall comments
We have found it difficult to provide detailed comments. This is because in general we feel the policies are described in overview without specifics. In general we support the direction of travel, but it is very difficult to fully endorse this document when in so many areas there are few details about the process of implementation and particularly the measures that will be put in place to detect and deal with non-compliance.