Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Requested Change

It is requested that land south of Pampisford Road in Great Abington (Site Ref. 200808) is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 3.34 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 70 dwellings, including affordable housing
• Provide open space in north western part of site
• Retain trees and hedgerows at the southern site boundary
• Retain vegetation at the northern site boundary except where removal required for highway access.
• Design and layout to protect and enhance heritage assets
• Access from Pampisford Road only

Policy S/RSC: Additional Allocation – Land south of Pampisford Road, Great Abington (Site Ref. 200808)

NOT SOUND – NOT JUSTIFIED AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

OBJECT

Hill has promoted the land south of Pampisford Road in Great Abington for residential development of approximately up to 70 dwellings including affordable housing and a large area open space. Hill promoted the site to the call for sites in 2025 and submitted representations at Reg.18 stage.

The site falls within the designated area of the made Great Abington Former Land Settlement Association Estate Neighbourhood Plan (made February 2019). The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to retain the character of the area, which relates to the historic use for smallholdings. The Neighbourhood Plan contains three policies, which relate to the replacement of existing dwellings, new single dwellings, and limiting traffic impacts on the internal road network. The land promoted by Hill does not contain a smallholding or dwelling associated with the former Land Settlement Association Estate. The promoted development at land south of Pampisford Road (Site Ref. 200808) would not affect the aims of the Neighbourhood Plan or the character of the former Land Settlement Association Estate as an area for smallholdings. The purpose of the promoted development is to meet the development needs of Great Abington.

There are no significant constraints to development at the site. The assessment of the site in the updated HELAA identified ‘green’ or ‘amber’ scores for all topics, and no ‘red’ scores. As set out above, the site has limited relationship with the uses within the former Land Settlement Association Estate and does not contain a smallholding or dwelling associated with the historic use of this area. The existing trees and hedgerows at the southern boundary of the site would be retained to avoid impacts on the character of the former Land Settlement Association Estate. The existing vegetation on the northern boundary of the site would mostly be retained, except to provide a vehicular access on to Pampisford Road. The design and layout of the promoted development would be in line with the recent adjacent developments at Morefield Close (to the north) and Maple Close (to the east), which are both Hill schemes.

A review of the archaeology potential of the site has been undertaken by GHC Archaeology and Heritage. A full Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment is being prepared for the site to identify the archaeological potential of the site. The consultation undertaken with Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record (HER) has shown that there are no recorded archaeological sites or finds within the site itself. There are archaeological remains dating from the Mesolithic through to the post-medieval periods are recorded across the surrounding 1km. The site is considered to have a moderate potential to contain archaeological remains of prehistoric and/or Roman date. The available evidence would suggest relatively low intensity activity, and no evidence to suggest that the site contains archaeological remains of sufficient importance to prevent the promoted development. The score for archaeology has been amended the updated HELAA to ‘green’ i.e. impact is acceptable, which is agreed.

A Landscape Capacity Assessment (tor&co) has been prepared for the site to assess the landscape sensitivity and residential capacity of the site. The site is not located within the Green Belt and is not subject to any national or local landscape, ecological or heritage designations. The site is very well contained on all boundaries, particularly to the south by the dismantled railway line and the dense vegetation along its length. The wider pattern of landscape structure (including substantial parkland and hedgerow trees, hedgerows as well as the scattered distribution of built development) further reduces inter-visibility with the surrounding landscape. In summary, it is concluded in the Assessment that the site has a strong association with the existing settlement of Great Abington, and a weak association with the wider open landscape. The promoted development would have minimal impact on this existing vegetation at the site boundary. The visual effects of the promoted development would be limited to the site and its immediate surroundings. Any negative effects could be further mitigated by a sensitive masterplan, architectural detailing and materials as well as supplementary structural vegetation on site. The promoted development would not impact the former Land Settlement Association’s Estate at Great Abington. The score for landscape has been amended in the updated HELAA to ‘amber’ i.e. impact can be mitigated, which is agreed.

A heritage statement, archaeological assessment, landscape and visual impact assessment and landscape strategy, ecological assessment, and transport statement 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. 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 south of Pampisford Road in Great Abington (Site Ref. 200808), would help to maintain a sufficient housing land supply in Greater Cambridge until the larger strategic sites start to deliver.

It is requested that the land south of Pampisford Road in Great Abington (Site Ref. 200808) 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 land south of Pampisford Road in Great Abington (Site Ref. 200808) is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 3.34 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 70 dwellings, including affordable housing
• Provide open space in north western part of site
• Retain trees and hedgerows at the southern site boundary
• Retain vegetation at the northern site boundary except where removal required for highway access.
• Design and layout to protect and enhance heritage assets
• Access from Pampisford Road only

Requested Change

It is requested that land at east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 2.77 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 30 dwellings, including affordable housing
• The eastern part of the site to be used for an extension to the existing recreation ground or allotments
• Retain protected and other trees at site boundary
• Provide green infrastructure

Policy S/RRA: Additional Allocation - Land east of Balsham Road, Fulbourn (Site Ref. 40271)

NOT SOUND – NOT JUSTIFIED AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

OBJECT

Hill has promoted land east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn (Site Ref. 40271) for residential development since 2019. Hill have engaged with all stages of the emerging GCLP process, have discussed the site with the Parish Council, and undertaken public consultation events.

There are no significant constraints to development at the site. The assessment of the site in the updated HELAA also identified no significant constraints to development, with ‘green’ and ‘amber’ scores for all topics and no ‘red’ scores. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 which means it has a low probability of flooding. The protected TPO trees on the northern boundary of the site would be retained within the promoted development. The site makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt and could be released to meet the needs for housing and affordable housing. It is considered that the site would fall within the definition of grey belt land. 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 promoted development would include landscaping to avoid impacts on landscape character and important views, and to enhance the setting of the village.

The promoted development would facilitate the delivery of an extension to the existing recreation area in the village or provide allotments, which means that parts of the land would remain open. An extension to the existing recreation ground is identified as an aspiration of the community in the made Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan. Hill made the same concern at Reg.18 stage, and it remains unclear how the extension to the existing recreation ground would be delivered.

As required by Paragraph 156 of the NPPF, land released from the Cambridge Green Belt would be required to provide 50% affordable housing. The promoted development can deliver the required amount of affordable housing.

A flood risk assessment and drainage strategy, transport assessment, landscape and visual impact assessment and landscape strategy, ecological 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. 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 east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn (Site Ref. 40271), would help to maintain a sufficient housing land supply in Greater Cambridge until the larger strategic sites start to deliver.

It is requested that the land east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn (Site Ref. 40271) is identified as an additional allocation in Policy S/RRA: Rest of Rural Area.

Requested Change

It is requested that land at east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn is allocated with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 2.77 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 30 dwellings, including affordable housing
• The eastern part of the site to be used for an extension to the existing recreation ground or allotments
• Retain protected and other trees at site boundary
• Provide green infrastructure

Policy BG/GI: Green and Blue Infrastructure

COMMENT

Policy BG/GI of the draft GCLP seeks to protect and enhance green and blue infrastructure, and identifies several strategic green infrastructure initiatives. It is anticipated in Policy BG/GI that major development should provide financial contributions towards projects related to one of those green infrastructure strategic initiatives. Hill have promoted a site in Fulbourn for residential development. Policy BG/GI identifies a green infrastructure strategic initiative at No.4 Enhancement of Eastern Fens, which is located to the east of Fulbourn. It is noted that the made Fulbourn Neighbourhood has a policy and community aspirations to increase the green infrastructure network.

Hill supports in principle initiatives to improve the green infrastructure network around Fulbourn. The promoted development by Hill in Fulbourn would include green infrastructure if this site was allocated in the draft GCLP.

There are no allocations identified in the draft GCLP for Fulbourn that could make financial contributions towards the proposed green infrastructure strategic initiative at No.4 Enhancement of Eastern Fens. It is not clear how this initiative would be delivered effectively in the absence of related development. It is considered that the draft GCLP needs to better align the development strategy and site allocations with the proposed strategic green infrastructure initiatives to ensure that the initiatives are implemented. Hill raised the same concern at Reg.18 stage, but no changes have been made in draft GCLP.

No changes are requested to Policy BG/GI. However, as set out elsewhere 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. This approach could support the delivery of green infrastructure at Fulbourn and contribute towards the green infrastructure strategic initiative at No.4 Enhancement of Eastern Fens.

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

COMMENT

Policy WS/NC of the draft GCLP seeks to ensure that new development contributes towards the delivery of new services and facilities to meet the needs of residents. The supporting text to Policy WS/NC identifies the types of services and facilities that the policy applies to, including education, libraries, health, indoor and outdoor sports facilities, and community development.

Hill have promoted sites in Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston for residential development, and support in principle efforts to improve the services and facilities in those villages. It should be noted that there are no additional allocations identified in the draft GCLP in these villages that could make financial contributions or provide land for new or additional services and facilities. Hill made the same comment at Reg.18 stage. The promoted developments could make those contributions if they were allocated in the draft GCLP.

For example, the made Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan refers to community aspirations for an extension to the existing recreation ground on part of the land promoted by Hill. The promoted development (Site Ref. 40271) could provide land for an extension to the recreation ground or for allotments if it was allocated in the draft GCLP. The community aspirations for Sawston and Great Abington would be set out in neighbourhood plans for these villages once published. Hill made the same comment at Reg.18 stage.

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. This approach could support the delivery of additional services and facilities for Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston.

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 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. 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 villages including Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston to implement this approach.

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. Fulbourn is accessible by sustainable modes of transport to the services and facilities and employment opportunities in and on the edge of Cambridge.

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.

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. Sawston falls within the rural southern cluster and is well related to the employment sites at Babraham Research Campus, Granta Park, and the Wellcome Genome Campus.

Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston are sustainable locations in transport terms, and additional development in these locations would be consistent with Policy I/ST of draft GCLP and with national policy. Hill highlighted the transport related sustainability credentials of Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston 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 Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston.

Requested Change

The following changes are requested.

The principle of identifying a housing requirement for neighbourhood plan areas should be retained in draft GCLP.

The delivery mechanism for identified housing requirements for neighbourhood plan areas should be clearly explained in Policy S/JH and Appendix C.

It is requested that draft GCLP includes a new policy to deal with the potential scenario where a neighbourhood plan is not updated or does not allocate land to meet the identified housing requirement identified in Appendix C. The new policy should support additional housing in circumstances where a neighbourhood plan is not updated or does not allocate land for housing. This requested change would ensure that the identified housing requirement for villages are met during the plan period.

It is requested that the draft GCLP includes a policy requirement that allows relevant neighbourhood plans to release land from the Green Belt to meet the identified housing requirement for villages.

It is requested that the identified housing requirements in Appendix C include an upward adjustment so that affordable housing needs of villages are met during the plan period, including for Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston.

Appendix C - Housing Requirements for Neighbourhood Areas within Greater Cambridge

NOT SOUND – NOT JUSTIFIED AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

OBJECT

Appendix C of the draft GCLP identifies a housing requirement for the period 2025 to 2045 for those designated neighbourhood plan areas. Hill have promoted sites in Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston which are referred to in the list of neighbourhood plan areas with a housing requirement. The Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan was made in March 2023, makes no allocations for housing, and could not release land from the Green Belt for development because there is no development plan policy to allow it to happen. The Great Abington Former Land Settlement Association Estate Neighbourhood Plan was made in February 2019 but only covers land within the former Estate and not the wider settlement of Great Abington. A neighbourhood plan area was designated for Sawston in 2018, but there has been no progress towards preparing a neighbourhood plan since then.

Appendix C is related to Policy S/JH, but there is no clear mechanism as to how those identified housing requirements for neighbourhood plan areas would be delivered. Hill raised concerns about the delivery of the housing requirements for neighbourhood plan areas at Reg.18 stage, but no amendments to the approach have been made in draft GCLP.

The housing requirement for Fulbourn is 101 dwellings, for the Great Abington Former Land Settlement Association Estate is 5 dwellings, and for Sawston is 146 dwellings. It is positive that housing requirements are identified for these neighbourhood plan areas, but it is considered that additional policy support is required in the draft GCLP to ensure that the additional housing is delivered during the plan period. It is suggested that the housing requirement for neighbourhood plan areas should also consider the affordable housing needs of a village.

Paragraph 104 (Id.41: Neighbourhood Planning) of the Planning Practice Guidance indicates that any housing requirement provided for a neighbourhood plan is not binding, and it is for the neighbourhood plan group to decide the scope of the document and whether to allocate land for development. There is no mechanism in Policy S/JH or Appendix C to deal with the potential scenario where a neighbourhood plan group decides not to meet its identified housing requirement. Hill raised this same concern at Reg.18 stage, but it has not been taken into account.

Paragraph 145 of the NPPF states in part that “Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non-strategic policies, including neighbourhood plans”. There is no policy in the draft GCLP that would allow a new or updated neighbourhood plan to release land from the Green Belt to meet the identified housing requirement, which is a scenario that is relevant for Fulbourn and Sawston. Hill raised this same concern at Reg.18 stage, but it has not been taken into account.

The Government is no longer providing funding support for neighbourhood plans. In these circumstances, it is very unlikely that the Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan or the Great Abington Former Land Settlement Association Estate Neighbourhood Plan will be updated. It is very unlikely that a neighbourhood plan will be prepared for Sawston despite a neighbourhood plan area being designated. It is very unlikely that Great Abington Parish Council would decide to start preparing a neighbourhood plan for that settlement. A new policy is requested to deal with the likely scenario where a made neighbourhood plan is not updated or a plan is never progressed. Hill made the same comments at Refg.18 stage.

Appendix C explains how the housing requirement for neighbourhood plan areas has been calculated. In summary the housing requirement is based on the overall housing target for draft GCLP divided proportionately to each neighbourhood plan area according to the size of their population. It is considered that an adjustment should be made to the housing requirement to reflect the affordable housing needs of villages. For example, South Cambridgeshire District Council’s ‘Housing Statistical Information Sheet for 2022 (published September 2022) identified the affordable housing needs for those with a local connection to the following villages: 91 dwellings for Fulbourn; 10 dwellings for Great Abington and 10 dwellings for Little Abington; 11 dwellings for Sawston. A Housing Needs Survey for Sawston Parish was undertaken by Cambridgeshire ACRE in March 2026, which identified 48 households with a need to move to more suitable housing within Sawston over the next five years, and a need from 20 households for affordable housing. It is requested that the housing requirements for neighbourhood plan areas also seeks to meet the identified affordable housing needs of Fulbourn, Great Abington and Little Abington, and Sawston. Hill made the same request at Reg.18 stage, so that the affordable housing needs of villages could be met.

It is considered that the housing requirement figures for neighbourhood plan areas in Appendix C is not sound, in that the proposed approach is not justified as an appropriate strategy, and is not consistent with national policy in terms of not being deliverable (NPPF Paragraph 16b) and not meeting local housing needs (NPPF Paragraphs 61 and 82).

Requested Change

The following changes are requested.

The principle of identifying a housing requirement for neighbourhood plan areas should be retained in draft GCLP.

The delivery mechanism for identified housing requirements for neighbourhood plan areas should be clearly explained in Policy S/JH and Appendix C.

It is requested that draft GCLP includes a new policy to deal with the potential scenario where a neighbourhood plan is not updated or does not allocate land to meet the identified housing requirement identified in Appendix C. The new policy should support additional housing in circumstances where a neighbourhood plan is not updated or does not allocate land for housing. This requested change would ensure that the identified housing requirement for villages are met during the plan period.

It is requested that the draft GCLP includes a policy requirement that allows relevant neighbourhood plans to release land from the Green Belt to meet the identified housing requirement for villages.

It is requested that the identified housing requirements in Appendix C include an upward adjustment so that affordable housing needs of villages are met during the plan period, including for Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston

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.
Purpose 1c in Policy S/GB is inconsistent with the second purpose in NPPF Paragraph 143 in that 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 Green Belt and grey belt policy is applied for applications in the future. Hill raised the same concern at Reg.18 stage, but Policy S/GB has not been changed in the 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 Cambridge Road in Hardwick (Site Ref. 40414) 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. Hill notes the findings at paragraphs 2.85 to 2.91 of the ‘Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment - Response to comments from Site Submissions Update and Draft Local Plan Consultation prepared by LUC, June 2026’ but disagrees with the assessment. For the reasons set out in the Green Belt Review prepared on behalf of Hill by Tor & Co, March 2025, the site does not strongly contribute towards Green Belt purposes (a), (b), or (d). Given the nature of the promoted site, its relationship with the existing village and degree of physical separation from Cambridge, 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 (which seems to be the main area of reliance for rejecting the site in the LUC report). Hill respectfully disagree with the findings of the LUC report for the reasons set out in the earlier Tor report. The site is not designated as a protected area, other than being within the Green Belt.
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 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.

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 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. 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 villages including Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston to implement this approach.

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. Fulbourn is accessible by sustainable modes of transport to the services and facilities and employment opportunities in and on the edge of Cambridge.

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.

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. Sawston falls within the rural southern cluster and is well related to the employment sites at Babraham Research Campus, Granta Park, and the Wellcome Genome Campus.

Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston are sustainable locations in transport terms, and additional development in these locations would be consistent with Policy I/ST of draft GCLP and with national policy. Hill highlighted the transport related sustainability credentials of Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston 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 Fulbourn, Great Abington and Sawston.