Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Confirm whether the buffer reduction from 15m/10m to 10m/5m was a deliberate decision. If so, set out the specific evidence justifying this reduction, especially since the Councils' own response does not acknowledge the change occurred. Reconsider the buffer width standards entirely in light of the LNRS recommendation for 50m chalk stream buffers.

This policy is not justified because the reduction of riparian buffers (from 15m to 10m for watercourses, and 10m to 5m for ditches) contradicts LNRS recommendations for 50m chalk stream buffers. The Councils' response justifies narrower buffers by citing historic development encroachment. Historic encroachment does not provide a robust or logical evidence base for applying a narrower standard to new development, which is all this policy actually controls.

Amend paragraph 5 to explicitly reflect the "very special circumstances" test set out in NPPF paragraph 108. Remove the lower "adverse impact" threshold currently drafted so the policy strictly aligns with national protections for Local Green Spaces.

SEE DOCUMENT ACCOMPANYING THIS SUBMISSION.

Paragraph 5 is not consistent with national policy regarding Local Green Space. NPPF paragraph 108 explicitly states that development affecting designated Local Green Space requires a presumption against development subject to a "very special circumstances" test. Instead, paragraph 5 applies a much weaker "adverse impact" threshold. This loophole allows development causing no demonstrable adverse impact to proceed without ever engaging the strict Green Belt-equivalent standard that national policy mandates.

In the absence of a Delivery and Stewardship Strategy, Policy BG/EO must be amended directly to require food-growing provision to be assessed against practical usage standards. This must mandate accessibility for both car owners and non-vehicle households, whether through required plot sharing, on-site secure storage for tools and compost, or other practical means.

The policy is not effective because it defers food-growing accessibility to an incomplete Food Growing Study. Paragraphs 11-13 rely on a quantity metric (0.4ha/1,000 population) but lack a distinct accessibility standard. Using an allotment involves transporting heavy tools, compost, and produce, making it materially harder for non-driving households than covering standard walking distances. Haslingfield's own allotments illustrate that without specific accessibility standards, provision fails those without vehicles.

Require a comprehensive, plan-level Landscape Impact Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal evaluating the cumulative landscape and visual impacts of East West Rail infrastructure between Cambourne and Harston. Policy GP/LC should be amended to explicitly encompass major strategic infrastructure, requiring EWR and associated development to demonstrate compatibility with landscape protection criteria, minimise landform alteration, and deliver binding, long-term landscape mitigation and restoration frameworks before dependent strategic growth is progressed.

The policy is not sound (unjustified and ineffective). The plan's spatial strategy relies on East West Rail (EWR) to unlock strategic growth at Cambourne, yet fails to assess EWR’s severe landscape impacts between Cambourne and Harston. EWR’s deep cuttings, high embankments and viaducts permanently alter natural topography, fragment field patterns and destroy tranquil, long-distance rural views. The plan lacks a plan-level evidence base or Sustainability Appraisal evaluating these harms or testing alternative alignments. Consequently, the growth framework actively undermines Policy GP/LC’s own mandate to protect landscape character and avoid significant harm.

To meet the NPPF guidelines on appropriate housing density we suggest an additional paragraph to state:
7.7 In rural areas where smaller infill developments take place (typically <10 houses), housing density may be reduced slightly within the infill zone to allow for additional car parking bays on the road.

Haslingfield Parish Council objects to the Great Places chapter's housing density policy as unsound, failing the justified, effective and consistent-with-national-policy tests at NPPF paragraph 36. The policy applies a single density standard without differentiating rural infill sites, where limited public transport increases car dependency (NPPF paragraph 112). Consequently, small infill developments provide parking for only two cars per household, causing overflow parking onto roads and, near junctions, compromised sightlines and a highway safety concern. HPC proposes amending paragraph 7.7 and adding criterion 1g to Policy GP/HD, permitting reduced density in small rural infill sites to accommodate additional parking.

Under Paragraph 1, add in a section:
1g Special consideration will be given to smaller (< 10 houses) developments in rural areas where housing density may be reduced to allow additional bespoke parking bays and turning space within the development.

Haslingfield Parish Council objects to the Great Places chapter's housing density policy as unsound, failing the justified, effective and consistent-with-national-policy tests at NPPF paragraph 36. The policy applies a single density standard without differentiating rural infill sites, where limited public transport increases car dependency (NPPF paragraph 112). Consequently, small infill developments provide parking for only two cars per household, causing overflow parking onto roads and, near junctions, compromised sightlines and a highway safety concern. HPC proposes amending paragraph 7.7 and adding criterion 1g to Policy GP/HD, permitting reduced density in small rural infill sites to accommodate additional parking.