Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Policy: WS/NC: Meeting the Needs of New and Growing Communities

COMMENT

Hill supports in principle efforts to improve the services and facilities in villages. Hardwick Parish Council also has an aspiration for health services to be provided within the village.
It should be noted that there are no allocations identified in the draft GCLP for Hardwick that could make financial contributions or provide land for new or additional services and facilities. It is not clear how additional services and facilities, including the aspiration for health services to be provided within the village, would be delivered in the absence of any related development. As set out elsewhere in these representations, amendments should be made to the development strategy for the draft GCLP to direct development to the more sustainable villages including Hardwick. This approach could support the delivery of additional services and facilities for the village.
Hill has promoted land east of Cambridge Road in Hardwick (Site Ref. 40414) for a mixed-use development including residential. The promoted development would include a local centre that could accommodate health services (doctor’s surgery, pharmacy, dentist). The promoted development would also include additional community facilities and open space for the village. The promoted development would make land available and contributions towards additional services and facilities in the village if this site was allocated in the draft GCLP. Hill has held discussions with the Parish Council, the Primary School, and the wider community on what could be delivered on land now being promoted to best support the village. To this end the site offers significant potential for local benefit over and above simply the delivery of new housing. Hill are keen to continue these discussions as part of the ongoing promotion of the site. Hill made this position clear at Reg.18 stage albeit it is clear from the Reg 19 draft that these comments have not been acted upon.
No changes are requested to Policy WS/NC.

Policy I/ST: Sustainable Transport and Connectivity

COMMENT

Policy I/ST of the draft GCLP seeks to ensure that development promotes sustainable transport to reduce reliance on the car. Paragraph 110 of the NPPF expects the planning system to actively manage patterns of growth to support transport objectives. It is expected that significant development would be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, by limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF identifies factors that should be considered when assessing sites to be allocated for development, including that sustainable transport modes are prioritised, safe and suitable access can be provided, and the impacts on the transport network and highway safety can be mitigated. Opportunities to utilise existing or proposed transport infrastructure are cited as important factors. Policy I/ST is broadly consistent with this national policy.
The principle of directing development to locations that are accessible by sustainable modes of transport is supported, but land should be allocated in the more sustainable and accessible villages including Hardwick, particularly where these benefit from existing and/or planned major public transport enhancements.
Hardwick is currently accessible by a range of modes of transport, including bus services from St Neots Road. The promoted site (Site Ref. 40414) is near the route for the approved Cambourne to Cambridge Busway, which will include bus stops on St Neots Road, immediately adjoining the site. The Cambourne to Cambridge Busway would connect with a proposed railway station at Cambourne on the East West Rail project. The proposed Comberton Greenway (for walking and cycling) includes a route from Main Street in Hardwick that would provide connections to the University’s Cambridge West site and into Cambridge City Centre.
Hardwick is a sustainable location in transport terms, and the planned transport improvement projects (such as the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway and the Comberton Greenway) would make Hardwick more accessible by sustainable modes of transport in the near future. It is considered that additional development in Hardwick would be consistent with Policy I/ST of the draft GCLP and with national policy. Hill highlighted the transport related sustainability credentials of Hardwick at Reg.18 stage, but no sites are allocated in these villages in draft GCLP.
As set out elsewhere in these representations, amendments should be made to the development strategy for the draft GCLP to direct development to the more sustainable villages including Hardwick.

Vision for Greater Cambridge

COMMENT

Hill Residential Ltd (Hill) have promoted three sites for residential development: Land east of Balsham Road, Fulbourn (Site Ref. 40271); Land south of Pampisford Road, Great Abington (Site Ref. 200808); and Land at Mill Lane, Sawston (Site Ref. 40052). Hill are a trusted house builder with a strong track record of delivering successful developments in all three villages. The Vision for Greater Cambridge in the Reg.19 Proposed Submission Greater Cambridge Local Plan (draft GCLP) refers to increasing quality of life for communities, minimising carbon emissions, reducing car use, providing housing, supporting infrastructure and increasing green spaces. Hill commented on the Vision at Reg.18 stage.

Hill remains concerned that the proposed housing requirement, development strategy and site allocations in the draft GCLP will not fully deliver this Vision. As set out in these representations, the proposed housing target, the development strategy and the selected allocations for the draft GCLP are unlikely to fully deliver the Vision for Greater Cambridge. The housing requirement is not aligned with jobs growth, which would lead to more people commuting into Cambridge to work mostly by car. The development strategy is too focussed on the delivery of large strategic sites including an expanded Cambourne, existing new settlements at Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield, and a proposed new settlement at Grange Farm. The delivery timetable for infrastructure to support an expanded Cambourne and at Grange Farm is uncertain. The development strategy avoids directing development to the larger villages, including Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston, regardless of their sustainability credentials, existing services and facilities, accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, or affordable housing needs. Hill made these comments at Reg.18 stage, but those previous concerns have not been considered, which means that the Vision will still not be delivered.

As raised in previous representations, it is considered that the Vision for Greater Cambridge would only be fully delivered with a higher housing requirement, an amended development strategy, and additional development at the more sustainable villages.

Strategic Priorities

COMMENT

The draft GCLP identifies seven strategic priorities relating to climate change, biodiversity and green spaces, wellbeing and social inclusion, great places, jobs, homes, and connectivity and infrastructure. Hill commented in the strategic priorities at Reg.18 stage. As set out in these representations, the preferred housing target, the development strategy and the selected allocations for the draft GCLP are unlikely to fully deliver the strategic priorities.

The housing requirement is not aligned with jobs growth, which would lead to more people commuting into Cambridge to work mostly by car. This outcome would not meet the climate change strategic priority. The development strategy avoids directing development to the larger villages, including Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston regardless of their sustainability credentials, existing services and facilities, accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, or affordable housing needs. This approach does not support the residents or services and facilities in those villages, and would not meet the great places, homes, connectivity and infrastructure strategic priorities. It is noted that some green infrastructure opportunity areas identified in the draft GCLP, including close to Fulbourn, are unrelated to strategic development allocations that could support their delivery. In such circumstances it is unclear how those proposed green infrastructure opportunity areas are to be delivered, failure to deliver them would not meet the biodiversity and green spaces strategic priority. Hill made similar comments at Reg.18 stage, but no changes to policies have been made in draft GCLP.

It is considered that the strategic priorities for the draft GCLP would only be fully delivered with a higher housing requirement, an amended development strategy, and additional development at the more sustainable villages including Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston.

Requested Change

The following changes to Policy S/JH are requested.

It is requested that the housing target is recalculated to include the previous commuting patterns adjustment, consistent with the adjustment made in the 2023 ‘Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Evidence Update Employment Land, Economic Development and Relationship with Housing’ Report.

It is requested that the housing target includes some upward adjustments for growth ambitions, that reflect the Greater Cambridge City Deal and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal, the adopted Local Growth Plan of the Mayor for Peterborough & Cambridgeshire, and the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation.

It is requested that housing target include some upward adjustment to address affordable housing needs.

Consistent with the representations to Appendix C, a new policy is required in the draft GCLP to ensure that the housing requirements for neighbourhood plan areas are delivered.

Policy S/JH: New Jobs and Homes

NOT SOUND – NOT JUSTIFIED, NOT EFFECTIVE, AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

OBJECT

Policy S/JH of the draft GCLP sets out the targets for jobs and housing during the plan period from 2024 to 2045. The jobs target is 73,300 additional jobs, and the housing target is a minimum of 48,069 dwellings. The proposed housing target is derived from the national standard method figure for calculating local housing needs, which for Greater Cambridge is 2,289 dwellings per annum, marginally lower than the figure outlined at the Regulation 18 stage of the Plan preparation. In summary, the housing target is the minimum standard method figure and is not consistent with national policy because upward adjustments for growth and affordable housing have not been considered. Hill and others raised the same concerns about Policy S/JH at Reg.18 stage, but those concerns have been ignored.

The job target is not aligned with the housing target, and a job target that is higher than the housing target would require potential employees to commute into Greater Cambridge to fill those jobs. This outcome would lead to an increase in in-commuting to Greater Cambridge. This outcome would be exacerbated by the proposed development strategy that avoids directing development to the larger villages that are accessible by sustainable modes of transport. It is anticipated that most of the in-commuting would be by car, particularly if public transport options are not available or the delivery of transport infrastructure projects are subject to unconfirmed funding decisions and associated development. A housing target that is not aligned with the jobs target will increase pressure on the cost of housing, making houses less affordable as employees compete for available houses to rent and buy. These outcomes would be inconsistent with the climate change, homes, and infrastructure key themes of the draft GCLP.

The housing target identified in the 2023 ‘Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Evidence Update Employment Land, Economic Development and Relationship with Housing’ Report was based on a Central Growth Scenario, the preferred 2011 Census commuting data, and included a 1:1 commuting patterns adjustment. This previous approach sought to better align the job and housing targets. The 2025 Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Needs Update 2024-2045 Report does not include a similar commuting patterns adjustment, which is an inconsistent approach. The ‘Review of Economic Data, Context and Representations’ Report (Iceni Projects Ltd June 2026) does not explain why the previous commuting patterns adjustment is no longer included. Hill made the same comment at Reg.18 stage. It is requested that the housing target is recalculated to include the previous commuting patterns adjustment. This approach would be consistent with Paragraph 110 of the NPPF, which refers to limiting the need to travel.

Paragraph 61 of the NPPF confirms the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of housing, and to achieve this by ensuring that a sufficient amount and variety of land for housing is identified. Paragraph 62 expects the standard method to be used to determine the minimum number of houses needed. Paragraph 63 expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need. Paragraph 69 states in part that “The requirement may be higher than the identified housing need if, for example, it includes provision for neighbouring areas, or reflects growth ambitions linked to economic development or infrastructure investment”. Paragraph 008 (ID. 67 - Housing needs of different groups) in the Planning Practice Guidance states in part that “An increase in the total housing requirement included in the plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes”. It should be noted that Paragraph 008 relates to the delivery of affordable housing and is distinct from housing affordability which is a separate factor included in the standard method calculations. The housing target in Policy S/JH is based on the standard method only, with no adjustments for growth linked to economic development and infrastructure investment or to meet affordable housing needs, all of which are relevant to Greater Cambridge. Hill made the same comment at Reg.18 stage.

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the relationship between housing and economic growth, and that the shortage of available and affordable housing within Greater Cambridge has had an impact on house prices, commuting patterns, and recruitment and retention of employees. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal included a commitment to deliver substantial economic growth and to double economic output during the next 25 years. The adopted Local Growth Plan of the Mayor for Peterborough & Cambridgeshire sets out two growth scenarios: a core scenario which doubles the economy by 2050; and an aspirational scenario which triples the economy by 2050. The National Infrastructure Commission, the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership have previously acknowledged and supported the economic growth potential of the Greater Cambridge area, and concluded that there is a need to substantially increase housing delivery in order to support that economic growth and address the significant housing affordability issues that exist. At present there is an imbalance between rates of economic growth and housing delivery in Greater Cambridge. The housing target in Policy S/JH ignores the commitments made in the Greater Cambridge City Deal and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal, and the emerging growth ambitions of the Mayor for Peterborough & Cambridgeshire. It also ignores the findings of work undertaken by the National Infrastructure Commission, the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge and Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership. Hill made the same comment at Reg.18 stage.

Cambridge is an area of national and international economic significance. In 2024 the Government established a Cambridge Growth Company to maximise Cambridge’s full economic potential and to deliver nationally significant growth. Building on that, the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation was subsequently established by Government in July 2026 to unlock and accelerate development for Cambridge, and to deliver the homes, jobs and infrastructure needed for the long-term and sustainable growth of the City. It will seek to deliver more ambitious levels of growth than are proposed in the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan. To deliver more ambitious levels of growth, the Development Corporation will need to tackle some of the barriers to growth including water and transport infrastructure, traffic congestion, and housing affordability. It is acknowledged that the draft GCLP does not need to consider the levels of growth to be addressed by the Development Corporation. However, it does indicate that there are growth ambitions for Greater Cambridge and there should be some upward adjustment to the housing target in Policy S/JH to reflect this future growth during the plan period for the draft GCLP.

There are several proposed and planned infrastructure projects in Greater Cambridge that should have been considered in deciding whether adjustments should be made to the housing target in Policy S/JH. The list of infrastructure projects includes East West Rail, Cambourne to Cambridge Busway, Cambridge South East Transport project, Waterbeach to Cambridge Busway, Cambridge Eastern Access project, and Cambridge South Station. In addition, the Greater Cambridge Partnership is delivering greenways to connect surrounding villages to Cambridge by walking and cycling. The funding for some of these projects have not been confirmed, and it is anticipated that they will need to be supported by associated development.

The 2025 ‘Housing Needs of Specific Groups in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire’ Report identifies the housing needs of different groups, including the need for affordable housing. Chapter 7 of the Report deals with affordable housing need. The Report identifies an acute need for affordable housing in Greater Cambridge. It estimates an annual need for 1,083 affordable homes for households unable to buy or rent housing across Greater Cambridge, excluding those that can rent but not buy – see Paragraph 7.62 in the Report. It includes an analysis of the affordable housing need if those households already living in accommodation are excluded, which would be an affordable need for 425 homes per annum in Cambridge and 318 dwellings per annum in South Cambridgeshire – see Paragraph 7.63 in the Report. A combined figure for Greater Cambridge would be 743 affordable homes per year.

It is acknowledged that the affordable housing data is complex, households needs will change over time, and the annual affordable housing needs should not be multiplied to generate a figure for the whole plan period. However, the Report concludes that no adjustments are required to the housing target for the draft GCLP to address affordable housing needs. This cannot be correct. The annual monitoring data shows that, whilst affordable housing delivery in Greater Cambridge fluctuates each year, the average number of affordable homes delivered is c.500, which is significantly below the identified need. In addition, some the existing strategic sites are not able to deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing (e.g. Northstowe and Waterbeach new settlements) because of the need to provide significant amounts of new infrastructure, and it is anticipated that the outcome would be the same for the proposed strategic sites at North Cambourne and Grange Farm. If affordable housing needs are to be met, then a higher housing target and additional allocations should be identified in the draft GCLP to address the shortfall in the delivery of affordable housing from some of the existing and proposed strategic sites. It is considered that the housing target in Policy S/JH should include some upward adjustment to address affordable housing needs. It should be noted that Paragraph 008 (ID.67 in the PPG) relates to the delivery of affordable housing and is distinct from housing affordability which is a separate factor included in the standard method calculations. Hill raised the same concerns about the delivery of affordable housing at Reg.18 stage.

The assessment of Policy S/JH in the Sustainability Appraisal for the draft GCLP only assesses the preferred housing target (see pg. 183-185) on the assumption that all other alternative options are not reasonable (see Appendix G pg.6). As set out above, a higher housing target that was better aligned with the jobs target, and included adjustment for commuting patterns, growth ambitions and affordable housing needs is a reasonable alternative that should have been assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal. The failure to assess reasonable alternatives for the housing target in Policy S/JH is not justified.

As currently drafted, the housing target in Policy S/JH would be unsound. It is not justified because it does not assess all reasonable alternatives. It is not effective because it is not deliverable. It is not consistent with national policy (NPPF Paragraph 69 and PPG Paragraph 008 in ID.67) because appropriate adjustments to the standard method figure are not made.

The representations to Appendix C deal with the part of Policy S/JH that relates to the housing requirements for neighbourhood plan areas.

Requested Change

The following changes to Policy S/JH are requested.

It is requested that the housing target is recalculated to include the previous commuting patterns adjustment, consistent with the adjustment made in the 2023 ‘Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Evidence Update Employment Land, Economic Development and Relationship with Housing’ Report.

It is requested that the housing target includes some upward adjustments for growth ambitions, that reflect the Greater Cambridge City Deal and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal, the adopted Local Growth Plan of the Mayor for Peterborough & Cambridgeshire, and the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation.

It is requested that housing target include some upward adjustment to address affordable housing needs.

Consistent with the representations to Appendix C, a new policy is required in the draft GCLP to ensure that the housing requirements for neighbourhood plan areas are delivered.

Requested Change

The requested changes to the development strategy in Policy S/DS are as follows.

It is requested that the housing delivery assumptions for all the strategic sites are reassessed, taking into account realistic annual housing delivery rates and the delivery of critical infrastructure required for those sites.

It is requested that land is released from the Green Belt to meet development needs.

It is requested that additional allocations are made in the more sustainable villages, including Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston.

Policy S/DS: Development Strategy

NOT SOUND – NOT JUSTIFIED AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

OBJECT

Policy S/DS of the draft GCLP sets out the development strategy. In summary, the development strategy comprises delivery at the following locations: sites within Cambridge; existing urban extensions on the edge of Cambridge; existing new settlements; proposed new settlements; housing and employment at employment sites in the rural southern cluster; proposed new strategic employment allocations; and, a limited number of sites at villages in the rural area.

It is acknowledged that the principle of development at most of the strategic sites is already established through adopted development plan documents e.g. Eddington, Cambourne West, Northstowe, Waterbeach, Bourn Airfield, and Cambridge East. The proposed strategic sites at Cambourne North (related to the proposed East West Rail and new station for Cambourne) and proposed new settlement at Grange Farm (related to a new stop on the proposed Cambridge South East Transport project) are new strategic allocations for the draft GCLP. The development strategy also assumes a significant amount of housing from windfall sites that are currently unknown and delivery is uncertain.

There are several risks associated with the development strategy in Policy S/DS. It is proposed that 44% of the housing target would be delivered at new settlements. It is very reliant on the delivery of the existing strategic sites. Whilst Hill supports the development of strategic sites and is keen to see efforts maximised to bring these forward, there is no evidence that delivery at these sites will increase above current rates, particularly given challenging market conditions and absorption rates. The draft GCLP assumes that housing delivery at some of the strategic sites would be 300 dwellings per annum, but this rate has not been achieved at existing strategic sites in Greater Cambridge or delivered at these rates for a sustained period. The housing delivery rates at some of these strategic sites appear to be optimistic and not based on evidence from other similar developments. Hill raised these same concerns at Reg.18 stage, but they have not been taken into account and no amendments have been made for draft GCLP.

The anticipated build-out rates on the strategic sites do not consider current build cost inflation or the ending of market support such as Help to Buy.

Furthermore, the delivery of the proposed strategic sites at Cambourne North and at Grange Farm are reliant on the delivery of transport projects that are not approved at the time of the Regulation 19 consultation, and where funding and delivery timescales are uncertain. Most of the existing new settlements will deliver less affordable housing than the normal policy requirement of 40%, mainly because of the need for these developments to also deliver significant levels of new transport and community infrastructure in initial phases. If the strategic sites do not deliver as currently predicted, this will lead to a housing land supply shortfall in the future and the presumption in favour of sustainable development being applied to planning applications for housing. In these circumstances, the Council will lose control of when and where housing is delivered. It is requested that the housing delivery assumptions for all the strategic sites are reassessed.

Most of the existing new settlements will deliver less affordable housing than the normal policy requirement of 40%, mainly because of the need for these developments to also deliver significant levels of new transport and community infrastructure in initial phases. The housing target and development strategy for draft GCLP should be amended so that more affordable housing is delivered during the plan period i.e. by increasing the housing target to meet more affordable housing needs, and by allocating more land for residential development at sites that can deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing. It is anticipated that affordable housing delivery at Cambourne North and at Grange Farm would also be reduced for the same reasons, and particularly during the initial stages of those developments. A reduction in the delivery of affordable housing in the initial stages of Cambourne North and Grange Farm would also affect the housing delivery rates overall because it would reduce the mix of available housing. In contrast, the promoted developments by Hill at Sawston and Great Abington would provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and the promoted development at Fulbourn would provide 50% affordable housing as a Green Belt release site.

The development strategy is reliant on the delivery of windfall sites to meet the housing target for the draft GCLP. It is anticipated that approximately 6,660 dwellings would be delivered from windfall sites. It is not certain that past windfall delivery rates will be achieved in the future, particularly when some of those previous windfall sites were approved when there was a housing land supply shortfall in South Cambridgeshire. It is not clear where windfall sites will be delivered, particularly when the draft GCLP already allocates land for redevelopment within the urban area of Cambridge and the development framework boundaries around villages have not been amended. It is considered that there would be greater certainty about housing delivery if additional sites were allocated in the draft GCLP, including at the more sustainable villages, rather than from unknown and uncertain windfall sites. This approach would provide more control to the Councils. The promoted developments by Hill at Fulbourn, Sawston and Great Abington are controlled by a housebuilder, located on the edge of those villages, require limited infrastructure, and can be delivered quickly.

Paragraph 145 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge, the need to support economic growth, and to direct development to sustainable locations. It is requested that land is released from the Green Belt at the more sustainable villages, including Fulbourn to meet a higher housing target and amended development strategy. It is concluded in the ‘Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment Review following changes to National Policy and Guidance’ Report (July 2026) that the land east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn, as promoted by Hill, is potential grey belt land.

The Rural Centres (including Sawston) and the Minor Rural Centres (including Fulbourn) are referred to as part of the development strategy but there are limited allocations in these categories of settlement. The Group Villages (including Great Abington) are not part of the development strategy regardless of their sustainability credentials. It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages should be part of the development strategy for the draft GCLP, and particularly those villages that contain a very good range of services and facilities, are well related to key employment sites in Greater Cambridge, are accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village.

Requested Change

The requested changes to the development strategy in Policy S/DS are as follows.

It is requested that the housing delivery assumptions for all the strategic sites are reassessed, taking into account realistic annual housing delivery rates and the delivery of critical infrastructure required for those sites.

It is requested that land is released from the Green Belt to meet development needs.

It is requested that additional allocations are made in the more sustainable villages, including Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston.

Requested Change

It is requested that a review is undertaken of the capacity of the more sustainable settlements in South Cambridgeshire to determine whether additional development can be accommodated within the existing development framework boundary, and whether the development threshold limits remain relevant if no sites are available. If the indicative maximum scheme size limits are no longer relevant, they should be deleted.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs, then additional allocations should be made on the edge of those villages.

Policy S/SH: Settlement Hierarchy

NOT SOUND – NOT JUSTIFIED

OBJECT

Policy S/SH of the draft GCLP defines the settlement hierarchy. Sawston is defined as a Rural Centre. Fulbourn is defined as a Minor Rural Centre, which have an indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings within the defined development extents of those villages. Great Abington is defined as a Group Village, which have an indicative maximum scheme size of 8 dwellings within the defined development extents of those villages or 15 dwellings on previously developed land.

Sawston is one of the largest settlements in the District and contains a good range of services and facilities, including a variety of foodstores and other convenience stores, a post office, library, village college, primary schools, community centres, health services including doctors’ surgery and pharmacy, dentists, public houses, restaurants, and indoor and outdoor leisure and recreation facilities. There are regular bus services to Cambridge and Saffron Walden from Sawston. The Greater Cambridge Partnership is delivering a greenway (walking and cycling route) between Sawston and Cambridge via Stapleford and Great Shelford. It is appropriate for Sawston to be defined as a Rural Centre.

Similarly, Fulbourn also contains a good range of services and facilities, including a primary school, doctor’s surgery, pharmacy, library, post office, supermarket and other small convenience stores, village hall, and outdoor recreation and play facilities. There are regular bus services to Cambridge, Haverhill, and Newmarket from Fulbourn, and there is a cycle route between Fulbourn and Cambridge. The Greater Cambridge Partnership is delivering a greenway (walking and cycling route) between Fulbourn and Cambridge. It is appropriate for Fulbourn to be defined as a Minor Rural Centre.

Meanwhile, Great Abington contains a range of services and facilities including a primary school, small convenience store with a post office, a village hall, public houses and restaurants, and a recreation ground. Great Abington is located adjacent to Granta Park and is well related to Babraham Research Campus and the Wellcome Genome Campus. There are bus services from Great Abington to Cambridge and Haverhill. Greater Cambridge Partnership is bringing forward the Linton Greenway (a walking and cycling route) and the Cambridge South East Transport project (a busway), both of which would be accessible from Great Abington. The Linton Greenway route would pass through Great Abington and provide connections to a proposed travel hub on the Cambridge South East Transport route and to Babraham Research Campus. It is appropriate for Great Abington to be defined as a Group Village.

However, there has been no review of the capacity of any of the villages, including Fulbourn, Great Abington, and Sawston, to accommodate additional development for the draft GCLP, or whether the development threshold limits remain relevant if no sites are available. Hill raised this same concern at Reg.18 stage.

The development strategy and settlement hierarchy in draft GCLP ignores the fact that some villages in Greater Cambridge, such as Fulbourn, Sawston and Great Abington are well-related to the employment and services on the edge of Cambridge and are accessible by planned transport projects. A more flexible approach would have allocated sites in these more sustainable villages.

As set out in these representations, amendments should be made to the development strategy for the draft GCLP, which directs development to the more sustainable villages including Fulbourn, Great Abington, and Sawston, to support existing services and facilities, deliver additional facilities, and meets identified affordable needs of those villages.

Requested Change

It is requested that a review is undertaken of the capacity of the more sustainable settlements in South Cambridgeshire to determine whether additional development can be accommodated within the existing development framework boundary, and whether the development threshold limits remain relevant if no sites are available. If the indicative maximum scheme size limits are no longer relevant, they should be deleted.

If the capacity assessment identifies no suitable sites to meet identified affordable housing needs, then additional allocations should be made on the edge of those villages.

Policy S/DE: Defined Development Extents

COMMENT

Policy S/DE of the draft GCLP set out the approach to development within and outside the defined development extents of villages. Hill do not object to the principle of settlement boundaries being defined around villages. However, the existing defined settlement boundaries for most villages in South Cambridgeshire, including Fulbourn, Sawston and Great Abington, have remained largely unchanged since the Local Plan 2004. The settlement boundaries were adjusted in some cases to consider allocations at some villages through the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2010 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In Fulbourn, heritage assets, protected village amenity areas, local green space and important countryside frontage designations restrict development opportunities within the settlement boundary, and the Green Belt restricts development outside the settlement boundary. The made Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan (March 2023), for example, does not allocate any land for development, and could not allocate land on the edge of the village because the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 did not support the release of land from the Green Belt through the neighbourhood plan process.

The currently defined development framework boundaries for Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston means that limited development would take place in these villages. The housing and affordable housing needs would not be met. There would be no support for existing services and facilities, or the delivery of additional facilities. The community aspirations (in the made Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan) for open space, improvements to health facilities, and for additional green infrastructure would not be met. It is anticipated that there will be community aspirations for Sawston and Great Abington too, but they are not yet defined in any neighbourhood plan for those villages. Hill made the same comments at Reg.18 stage.

No changes are requested to Policy S/DE. However, as set out elsewhere in these representations, amendments should be made to the development strategy for the draft GCLP, which allocates land for development at the more sustainable villages to support existing services and facilities, deliver additional facilities, and to meet identified affordable needs of villages.

Requested Change

It is requested that Purpose 1c in Policy S/GB is amended to refer to towns and not communities. The amended text should be as follows: prevent towns in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city.

Policy S/GB: The Cambridge Green Belt

NOT SOUND – NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

OBJECT

Policy S/GB of the draft GCLP sets out the Green Belt policy for Cambridge. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF sets out the five national purposes for Green Belts. The second purpose listed in Paragraph 143 states “b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;”. The third purpose for the Cambridge Green Belt in Policy S/GB states “1c. prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. Purpose 1c in Policy S/GB is inconsistent with the second purpose in NPPF Paragraph 143 i.e. it refers to communities and not towns. Consistency with national policy is one of the soundness tests for local plan policies. The reference to communities rather than towns could have implications for how inappropriate development in the Green Belt is assessed and the implementation of grey belt policy at planning application stage. It is considered that Policy S/GB is ambiguous because it is inconsistent with Paragraphs 143 and 155 of the NPPF, which is likely to lead to confusion for decision-makers when applying national grey belt policy. Hill raised the same concern at Reg.18 stage, but Policy S/GB has not been changed in draft GCLP.

In addition, as outlined in the March 2025 update to the call for sites submission, it is considered that the land east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn (Site Ref. 40271) would meet the definition for grey belt land, as set out in Chapter 13 and Annex 2 of the NPPF and in Section Id.64: Green Belts of the Planning Practice Guidance. The ‘Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment Review following changes to National Policy and Guidance’ Report (July 2026) reached the same conclusion that the site is potential grey belt land. The site does not strongly contribute towards Green Belt purposes (a), (b), or (d). The promoted development would not lead to the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area, it would not result in the coalescence of neighbouring towns, and it would not affect the setting and special character of a historic town. The site is not designated as a protected area, other than being within the Green Belt. Fulbourn provides a range of services and facilities and employment opportunities and is accessible by sustainable modes of transport. A Landscape Capacity and Grey Belt Assessment (tor & co, February 2025) was included with the updated Call for Sites submission in March 2025. It is considered that this site would fall within the definition of grey belt land and should be released from the Green Belt to meet development needs. As set out in these representations, the development strategy and housing target in draft GCLP are unsound, and additional allocations are required in the more sustainable villages including grey belt land at Fulbourn.

Requested Change

It is requested that Purpose 1c in Policy S/GB is amended to refer to towns and not communities. The amended text should be as follows: prevent towns in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city.

Requested Change

It is requested that the land at Mill Lane in Sawston (Site Ref. 40052) is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 1.48 Ha
• Capacity for up to 40 dwellings, including affordable dwellings
• Retain and enhance trees and hedgerows at site boundary
• Retain landscaping at western and southern boundaries

Policy S/RSC Additional Allocation - Land at Mill Lane, Sawston (Site Ref. 40052)

NOT SOUND – NOT JUSTIFIED AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

OBJECT

Hill has promoted land at Mill Lane in Sawston (Site Ref. 40052) for residential development since 2019. Hill have engaged in all previous stages of the emerging GCLP process and has discussed the site with the Parish Council.

A Housing Needs Survey for Sawston Parish was undertaken by Cambridgeshire ACRE in March 2026. The Survey identified 48 households with a need to move to more suitable housing within Sawston over the next five years, comprising 33 existing households and 15 newly forming households with a local connection. Affordability testing indicates that 20 of these households are unable to afford entry‑level market housing and are therefore in affordable housing need. Those identified housing needs would not be met without additional allocations being identified for Sawston in draft GCLP

The site is not in the Green Belt. The previous and updated assessments of the site in the HELAA refer to landscape and flood risk as constraints to development at the site. The updated call for sites submission in March 2025 included assessments of both these matters. The landscape assessment demonstrated that the site is less visible from the surrounding area than assumed in previous assessments and the earlier appeal decision. The existing trees, hedgerows and other vegetation at the site boundaries would be retained and enhanced, and a landscape strategy would be prepared for the promoted development, to address potential landscape impacts.

A flood risk assessment and drainage strategy, landscape and visual impact assessment and landscape strategy, ecological assessment, transport assessment, and archaeological assessment would be prepared for the promoted development at planning application stage.

The site is in a single ownership and land assembly is not required in advance of development. A housebuilder, Hill, is already involved in the site. There is limited land remediation required at the site. There is limited upfront infrastructure required for the promoted development. The promoted development would deliver affordable housing, which means a substantial need identified through up to date local needs survey and review of the housing waiting list. All these factors mean that the promoted development could be delivered quickly, and in the short to medium term. The delivery of sites, such as the land at Mill Lane in Sawston (Site Ref. 40052), would help to maintain a sufficient housing land supply in Greater Cambridge until the larger strategic sites start to deliver.

It is requested that land at Mill Lane in Sawston (Site Ref. 40052) is identified as an additional allocation in Policy S/RSC: Rural Southern Cluster. Hill made this same request at Reg.18 stage.

Requested Change

It is requested that the land at Mill Lane in Sawston (Site Ref. 40052) is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 1.48 Ha
• Capacity for up to 40 dwellings, including affordable dwellings
• Retain and enhance trees and hedgerows at site boundary
• Retain landscaping at western and southern boundaries