Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

To fully deliver the Vision for Greater Cambridge, a higher housing requirement, a revised development strategy, and additional allocations in sustainable villages are needed.

Redrow is promoting Land south of High Street, Hauxton, for a development of up to 150 homes. This was given the site reference 40283 in the Greater Cambridge Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) 2026.

The Strategic Vision for Greater Cambridge is broadly aligned with the economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development set out in Paragraph 8 of the NPPF. The seven strategic priorities identified at section 2.4 are supported. However, it is essential that the policies and site allocations in the emerging Plan translate these aspirations into practical, deliverable outcomes.
In particular, the current development allocation policy:

• does not support equality of access and opportunities or ensure everyone can benefit from development of new homes and jobs. The current strategy seeks to concentrate development in large strategic sites, which does not account for rural housing and employment needs and are likely to take significantly longer time to deliver.

• does not make provision for sufficient housing. In particular, government targets should be treated as a minimum, not a maximum. Delivery of homes in rural locations and sustainable villages will provide a pipeline of small and medium sized sites, which can be quicker to deliver, support smaller housebuilders, and ensure provision of affordable housing in rural locations. The lack of allocations in villages means that any new development will inevitably be smaller sale and ad-hoc, will not provide affordable housing, and will not allow for transport and community facility upgrades that would make rural communities more sustainable.

Redrow are concerned that aspects of the Vision are unlikely to be fully delivered by the preferred housing requirement and development strategy, including quality of life for communities, minimising carbon emissions, reducing car use, providing housing, supporting infrastructure and increasing green spaces. In particular, there is a failure in the Plan to adequately consider the needs of how the Vision will be applied to villages within Greater Cambridge. Promoted developments could deliver affordable housing in villages, support existing services and facilities, deliver additional facilities, and be accessible by sustainable modes of transport.

As set out in these representations from Redrow, the preferred housing target, development strategy and proposed allocations in the draft GCLP are unlikely to deliver the Vision for Greater Cambridge. The housing requirement is not aligned with forecast jobs growth, which is likely to increase in-commuting, predominantly by car.

The strategy is overly reliant on large strategic sites, including an expanded Cambourne, existing new settlements at Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield, and a proposed new settlement at Grange Farm with 44% reliance on new settlements. The timing of necessary infrastructure to support growth at Cambourne and Grange Farm is uncertain. Predicted delivery rates across these sites are unrealistically high, and many are struggling to provide policy-compliant levels of affordable housing.
The strategy also actively avoids directing development towards the more sustainable villages – such as Hauxton, which is a designated Group Village – regardless of their strong sustainability credentials, existing services and facilities, good accessibility by sustainable transport, and clear affordable housing needs.

To fully deliver the Vision for Greater Cambridge, a higher housing requirement, a revised development strategy, and additional allocations in sustainable villages are needed.

Redrow is promoting Land south of High Street, Hauxton, for a development of up to 150 homes. This was given the site reference 40283 in the Greater Cambridge Housing and Economic Land
Availability Assessment (HELAA) 2026.

A scheme of this scale would meet Hauxton’s affordable housing needs, deliver new public open space, and provide appropriate contributions towards local infrastructure including transport, education and cultural facilities. It will also be deliverable in the very short-term helping to meet the housing needs.

The strategic priorities of the draft GCLP can only be fully achieved through a higher housing requirement, a revised development strategy, and additional allocations in the most sustainable villages, including Hauxton, which has excellent links into Cambridge city and the train station at Great Shelford.

Redrow is broadly supportive of the Strategic Priorities of the Local Plan. However, these priorities are unlikely to be addressed unless the allocation strategy is more dispersed across the plan area.

It is promoting a site on the edge of Hauxton for up to 150 dwellings at Land south of High Street, Hauxton (HELAA reference 40283). The site is located east of Hauxton Primary School, west of the M11 and south of High Street.

The draft GCLP contains seven strategic priorities covering climate change, biodiversity and green spaces, wellbeing and social inclusion, great places, jobs, homes, and connectivity and infrastructure. However, as outlined in these representations, the preferred housing target, development strategy, and selected site allocations are unlikely to deliver these priorities in full.

The proposed housing requirement is not aligned with anticipated jobs growth, which risks increasing in-commuting to Cambridge, predominantly by car, directly conflicting with the climate change priority. The development strategy is overly reliant on large strategic sites, many of which face uncertain infrastructure delivery timetables, unrealistic housing build-out rates, and challenges in achieving policy-compliant levels of affordable housing. As a result, both housing and affordable housing needs are unlikely to be met, undermining the strategic priority for homes.

Furthermore, the strategy avoids directing development to accessible villages, such as Hauxton, despite their strong sustainability credentials, existing facilities, public transport accessibility, proximity to jobs and clear affordable housing needs.

This approach does not support village communities or sustain local services and fails to meet the strategic priorities related to great places, homes, connectivity and infrastructure.

Overall, it is considered that the strategic priorities of the draft GCLP can only be fully achieved through a higher housing requirement, a revised development strategy, and additional allocations in the most sustainable villages, including Hauxton, which has excellent links into Cambridge city and the train station at Great Shelford.

Proposed Amendments:

The following changes should be made to Policy S/JH.

1. The housing requirement in Policy S/JH be reassessed to include a commuting adjustment.
2. An economic uplift be applied to reflect growth ambitions and infrastructure investment.
3. The housing target be increased to help address affordable housing need.
4. Additional deliverable sites, including land east of Hauxton (HELAA reference 40283), be allocated to support housing delivery and plan flexibility.

These representations are submitted by Redrow in its capacity as a site promoter with regards to Land south of Hauxton (HELAA reference 40283), whereby they are seeking an allocation. The site is located east of Hauxton Primary School, west of the M11 and south of High Street.

Policy S/JH of the draft GCLP sets out the jobs and housing targets for the plan period 2024–2045. The plan identifies a jobs target of 73,300 additional jobs and a minimum housing requirement of 48,069 dwellings.

The proposed housing requirement is based on the national standard method for calculating local housing need, which for Greater Cambridge equates to 2,289 dwellings per annum (based upon the identified annual need for 1,085 dwellings in Cambridge and 1,204 dwellings in South Cambridgeshire).

We believe that the job target is not aligned with the housing target. It is considered that 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. 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.

Redrow strongly objects to the overall housing numbers proposed within the plan and believes that these require an upwards revision. The jobs and housing targets in the draft Plan are not aligned. A higher jobs target relative to housing provision will necessitate increased in-commuting to meet labour demands. Earlier evidence, specifically the 2023 Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Evidence Update, derived its housing target using a Central Growth Scenario, preferred 2011 Census commuting data, and a 1:1 commuting adjustment to ensure closer alignment between job growth and housing need. However, the 2025 Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Needs Update did not apply any equivalent adjustment. Nor is any reference to this contained within the 2026 Jobs Topic Paper.

While the 2025 Strategy Topic Paper acknowledged the importance of commuting patterns in understanding the jobs–housing relationship, it similarly failed to apply a commuting adjustment to the housing requirement. Consequently, despite recognising commuter dynamics, the Topic Paper and the updated evidence base did not translate this into the housing target. The same deficiency applies to the content of the 2026 Development Strategy Topic Paper.

This omission results in a housing requirement that remains too low to support the proposed jobs growth, exacerbates the risk of increased in-commuting, and undermines the effectiveness and soundness of Policy S/JH.

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”. 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. Given Greater Cambridge’s national economic role, we consider this to be a significant mistake.

For jobs, the Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Evidence Update 2025 (EHNU 2025) draws on the latest available data to identify the “central” most likely future jobs forecast taking account of what is unique about the Greater Cambridge economy, including life science and ICT sectors – priority sectors identified in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Growth Plan. The Draft Plan specifies that this position was reconfirmed by the Review of economic data, context and representations 2026. The central forecast assumes strong growth of around 3,500 additional jobs per annum or more through to 2045 – continuing the recent period of rapid growth seen in Greater Cambridge’s Knowledge Intensive sectors, but also building in an assumption that there will be slower or contracting periods and unforeseen shocks, which are likely in most economies. We consider that we should plan for this forecast of the most likely level of new jobs.

As a result of the Government’s establishment of the Cambridge Growth Company, and significant infrastructure investment (including East West Rail, Cambridge South Station and the Greenways network), we believe that the Greater Cambridge Authorities are taking an overly pessimistic approach to the anticipated level of job creation, and that an economic uplift should be applied to the housing target.

The accompanying Jobs Topic Paper references the Get Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Growing, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Local Growth Plan, approved in October 2025, identifies Greater Cambridge as Global City Cambridge Opportunity Zone.

“This Opportunity Zone is focused on turbocharging an already globally recognised industry. It will continue to concentrate priority sectors in Cambridge while unblocking key infrastructure gaps with a focus on our shared priorities with Government. Comprised of nine key projects, and interventions focused on making Cambridge as globally competitive as possible, this Opportunity Zone is of the utmost strategic importance, not only for the area, but for the nation.”

The sector focus in the area will be Life Sciences, Advanced Manufacturing & Materials; Digital Technologies; Defence; Agri-Food & Tech and Energy & Clean-Tech. The key projects within Greater Cambridge area are A10 improvements, Cambourne, Cambridge East, North East Cambridge and Mass Rapid Transit. The interventions are securing global industries into Cambridge; establishing an Ox-Cam Institute for innovation led growth and exploring venture capital.

The Growth Plan states that with National Reach and Global Impact very large numbers of new jobs are anticipated to be delivered at the following two locations within Greater Cambridge:

• There is scope for significant expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The 2024 Spatial Framework for the site sets out how this can become 1,600,000sqm by 2050, driving job creation by attracting and growing new life science business, capturing internationally mobile investment, including multinational R&D headquarters and building the world’s most research activated healthcare infrastructure. The projected Growth in jobs is an additional 23,000 jobs by 2050.

• Cambridge Business Park: The Crown Estate have unveiled bold proposals to regenerate Cambridge Business Park and create a new innovation ecosystem in Northeast Cambridge. The £1.5bn project will create over 8,000 jobs

These are just two examples that demonstrate the mismatch between the numbers of job needed and the number of homes that will actually be provided within Greater Cambridge over the course of the plan period.

The Greater Cambridge City Deal recognised the strong relationship between housing supply and economic performance, noting that constrained housing availability and affordability have influenced house prices, commuting patterns, and employers’ ability to attract and retain staff. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal similarly committed to substantial economic growth, including a target to double economic output over 25 years.

In 2024, Government established the Cambridge Growth Company to help maximise Cambridge’s economic potential and deliver nationally significant growth. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation was established by the government on 23 July 2026. It is a statutory delivery body set up as a new local-national partnership, to unlock the long-term sustainable economic future of Greater Cambridge.

Building on the foundations laid by the Cambridge Growth Company, the Development Corporation marks the next phase of the government's commitment to achieving nationally significant economic growth through infrastructure-led development.

In addition, there are also several planned and proposed infrastructure projects that should inform how the housing target should be adjusted. These include East West Rail, the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway, the Cambridge South East Transport project, the Waterbeach to Cambridge Busway, Cambridge Eastern Access, and Cambridge South Station. In addition, the Greater Cambridge Partnership is progressing a network of greenways to improve active travel connections between surrounding villages and Cambridge. There is also a need to take on board the development pressures generated by recently provided major infrastructure, in particular, the recent opening of the Cambridge South Railway Station.

Finally, the Iceni Housing Needs of Specific Groups in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Report August 2025) provides an assessment of the housing requirements of various groups, including the need for affordable housing. Chapter 7 focuses specifically on affordable housing need and identifies a significant shortfall across Greater Cambridge.

The Report estimates that 1,083 affordable homes are needed each year for households unable to buy or rent on the open market across Greater Cambridge, excluding those who can afford to rent but not buy (Paragraph 7.62). It also presents an alternative scenario that removes households who are already housed from the calculation. Under this approach, the annual requirement would be 425 affordable homes in Cambridge and 318 in South Cambridgeshire (Paragraph 7.63), giving a combined figure of 743 affordable homes per year.

The Report acknowledges the complexity of assessing affordable housing needs, including the fact that needs change over time, and therefore advises that these annual figures should not be multiplied to produce a total for the entire plan period. Nevertheless, the Report concludes that no adjustment to the draft GCLP housing target is required to address affordable housing need. This conclusion is not justified in our opinion, particularly given that affordable housing delivery within Greater Cambridge is likely to be adversely impacted by the likely lower percentage of affordable housing provision likely to be achievable at many of its major allocation sites due to the high cost of necessary infrastructure provision needed, which will adversely affect viability.

Annual monitoring data shows that affordable housing delivery in Greater Cambridge fluctuates but averages around 500 affordable homes per year—below both of the identified needs (743 and 1,083 homes respectively). Furthermore, several existing strategic sites have been unable to deliver policy-compliant levels of affordable housing due to the substantial infrastructure costs they must accommodate. This includes Northstowe and Waterbeach new settlements. It is likely that the same viability challenges will arise at the proposed strategic sites at North Cambourne and Grange Farm.
If Greater Cambridge is to meet its affordable housing needs, the draft GCLP must include a higher overall housing requirement and identify additional allocations to compensate for the affordable housing shortfall from both existing and proposed strategic sites. It is therefore considered that the housing requirement in Policy S/JH should be increased to include an upward adjustment specifically to address affordable housing needs and additional allocation on the edge of Hauxton be provided.

The 2025 Strategy Topic Paper highlights the importance of flexibility and reducing reliance on large strategic sites. Deliverable, sustainable village-edge sites such as land east of Hauxton can support early housing delivery and help meet the revised requirement.

Proposed Amendments

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

1. Housing delivery assumptions for all of the strategic sites be reassessed, taking into account realistic annual housing delivery rates and the delivery of critical infrastructure required for those sites (also considering the need to increase the overall housing target).

2. Land be released from the Green Belt to meet development needs.

3. Additional allocations be made in sustainable villages to improve delivery lead in times with specific regard to the Redrow site at Hauxton (HELAA reference 40283).

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 draft GCLP.

It is considered that there are a number of 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, but there is no evidence that delivery at these sites will increase above current rates. It is assumed 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. 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, 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. It is anticipated that affordable housing delivery at Cambourne North and at Grange Farm would also be reduced for the same reasons.

Redrow objects to the preferred development strategy set out in Policy S/DS on the basis that it places disproportionate reliance on an expanded Cambourne and a series of new settlements, despite significant uncertainty about the delivery timetable for the infrastructure required to support them, the unrealistic nature of the assumed housing delivery rates, and repeated evidence that these locations are unable to achieve policy-compliant levels of affordable housing.

Whilst the development strategy includes Rural Centres, Minor Rural Centres and Group Villages, such as Hauxton, it does not allocate any additional housing to these sustainable settlements. A more balanced and resilient development strategy is needed, which requires additional allocations in these locations. Furthermore, exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of certain land from the Green Belt, including acute market and affordable housing needs, employment growth pressures, and the requirement to direct development to the most sustainable and well-connected areas.

Redrow is particularly concerned that the draft Local Plan relies heavily on both existing and newly proposed large strategic allocations, while ruling out Green Belt release in sustainable locations and failing to allocate sites within the most accessible village settlements. Although strategic sites such as Eddington, Cambourne West, Northstowe, Waterbeach, Bourn Airfield and Cambridge East benefit from an established planning position, the draft GCLP also introduces new strategic proposals at Cambourne North and Grange Farm. Cambourne North is dependent on the emerging East West Rail scheme, and Grange Farm is tied to a potential stop on the Cambridge South East Transport route, yet both schemes lack confirmed approvals and secured funding.

The draft Plan’s housing delivery assumptions across these strategic locations are overly ambitious and are not supported by historic build-out rates in Greater Cambridge or comparable large-scale developments nationally. Policy S/DS assumes that approximately 44% of the housing requirement will be delivered at new settlements and anticipates delivery rates of up to 300 dwellings per annum on some sites—figures that have not been achieved or sustained locally or in comparable national contexts. This is particularly concerning given that existing new settlements have consistently delivered below the policy-required 40% affordable housing due to the substantial infrastructure liabilities they must absorb early in the development process, making it extremely likely that Cambourne North and Grange Farm will face similar viability constraints.

Paragraph 3.18 in the 2024/2025 Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge (February 2026), 424 affordable dwellings (net) were completed in South Cambridgeshire, and this is 24% of all dwellings (net) completed. Half of all affordable housing completions in 2024-2025 were delivered across three sites: Northstowe (87 dwellings), Marleigh (78 dwellings) and Cambourne West (50 dwellings). There were 263 affordable dwellings (net) completed in Cambridge, a significant increase on the 20 dwellings completed in the previous year. Given that net completions in 2024-2025 across Greater Cambridge was 2,264 dwellings, the 687 affordable dwellings delivered across the two districts represented 30% of all completions. This being significantly lower than the 40% target figure for major development sites.

Redrow believes that the delivery assumptions for all strategic sites must be heavily scrutinised in order to ensure they are credible and evidence based. In addition, the draft strategy contradicts its own settlement hierarchy by acknowledging the role of Rural Centres, Minor Rural Centres and Group Villages while failing to allocate any new housing to them. Sustainable villages such as Hauxton, where good local services, strong transport accessibility and clear local affordable housing needs are present should play a meaningful role in accommodating growth. The policy as worded clearly fails to meet local need across the plan area and does not allow for the homes required in rural areas.

Proposed Amendments:

The proposed changes to the Settlement Hierarchy set out in Policy S/SH are as follows.:

1. The Settlement Hierarchy be reviewed following an assessment of the sustainability credentials of each settlement in the district.

2. The GCLP undertake a review of the capacity of the most sustainable villages in South Cambridgeshire, including Group Villages located close to Cambridge with strong transport links, to determine whether additional development can be accommodated within existing development framework boundaries. Where the assessment identifies no suitable internal sites to meet identified housing and affordable housing needs, the Local Plan should allocate additional land at the edges of these settlements to ensure that growth is appropriately directed, sustainably delivered, and consistent with the Plan’s stated objectives.

Redrow objects to the approach taken in Policy S/SH: Settlement Hierarchy on the grounds that the draft Local Plan has not assessed the capacity of individual settlements—including Hauxton—to accommodate additional growth, nor has it reviewed whether the existing development threshold limits remain appropriate in circumstances where no suitable sites exist within the defined development frameworks.

While the policy identifies Rural Centres, Minor Rural Centres and Group Villages as part of the development strategy, it does not allocate any new development in these settlements, including those—such as Hauxton—that are demonstrably highly sustainable. The absence of such an assessment means the settlement hierarchy is applied rigidly rather than being evidence-led, with no consideration given to whether directing growth to sustainable villages could support the Local Plan’s wider objectives relating to housing delivery, affordable housing provision, service retention, and reduced commuting distances.

In Hauxton’s case, there has been no evaluation of whether land within its existing development framework could reasonably accommodate additional development. Based on local analysis, there appear to be no significant opportunities for major residential development within the current boundary; most land is already developed, protected, or too limited in scale to offer any meaningful contribution to housing supply. Any future development that might come forward within the village boundary would likely consist of small, infill schemes incapable of delivering affordable housing or generating the investment required to support local services, facilities or infrastructure.

Despite being classed as a Group Village, Hauxton is, in reality, a demonstrably sustainable settlement whose context has changed substantially since the existing hierarchy was first established. The village benefits from excellent access to a full range of services and facilities, including schools, employment opportunities, convenience and non-food retail, leisure uses and healthcare. These are all accessible on foot (within 2km), by cycle (within 8km), and by public transport. The village has established pavements and safe pedestrian routes connecting into Hauxton and towards Great and Little Shelford. Street-lit cycle routes, including a 3m shared pedestrian–cycle path along the A10, connect the site to the wider active travel network. Frequent bus services operate from stops just 75m away at Jackson Close, providing connections to Cambridge, Royston, Trumpington and the Shelfords. The Trumpington Park & Ride lies within 4km, offering frequent 10-minute services into Cambridge and future enhanced access through the South West Travel Hub. Rail connectivity is strong: Shelford Station is reachable within a 9-minute cycle and provides services to Cambridge, London Liverpool Street and Ely, while Foxton Station is accessible in around 30 minutes by bike.

These factors demonstrate that Hauxton is a highly sustainable settlement capable of supporting further planned growth. The failure of the draft GCLP to revisit settlement capacities, update the settlement hierarchy, or allocate new development in such well-connected villages means that Policy S/SH does not reflect the current sustainability profile of these locations and risks directing disproportionate growth to less deliverable strategic sites. It also fails to deliver homes, particularly affordable homes, across the district in places where there is identified need, such as Hauxton.

Proposed Amendments

The proposed changes to Policy S/DE: Defined Development Extents are as follows:

1. the Council undertake a review of the capacity of the more sustainable settlements, including Group Villages close to Cambridge with strong transport accessibility, to determine whether additional development can be accommodated within the current development framework boundaries. Where no suitable capacity exists, the Local Plan should allocate appropriate village-edge sites to ensure future housing and affordable housing needs can be met in sustainable locations such as Hauxton.

2. Redrow have produced a vision statement for their site located on the edge (east) of Hauxton, with a scheme suitable for development for up to 150 dwellings. This is submitted alongside these representations, and demonstrates that the site is suitable, available and achievable.

Redrow notes that Policy S/DE relies heavily on long-established defined development extents, yet no review has been undertaken to consider whether these boundaries remain appropriate or capable of accommodating the future development needs of individual settlements. This is particularly relevant to Group Villages such as Hauxton. The defined development limits across much of South Cambridgeshire have remained largely unchanged since the 2004 Local Plan, with only minor adjustments in 2010 and 2018 to allow for specific allocations. As a result, the boundaries do not reflect updated evidence on settlement sustainability, changes in service provision, or the increased urgency of meeting both market and affordable housing needs. Because areas immediately beyond these boundaries are also constrained by the Green Belt, the current approach effectively prevents any meaningful outward expansion, even in highly sustainable locations.

In Hauxton, this means that almost no opportunities exist within the existing development framework to deliver new housing at a scale capable of supporting the village’s identified needs. Remaining land within the boundary is either already developed, constrained by existing uses, or too small to make a meaningful contribution to housing supply, particularly affordable housing. Any development that might come forward would likely be limited to minor infill plots, which would not deliver affordable housing, assist in providing new community facilities, or secure meaningful investment in local services. This is despite Hauxton being a demonstrably sustainable village with strong accessibility credentials. The settlement benefits from proximity to local employment, retail, leisure, healthcare and education, all accessible on foot or by cycle. The promoted site east of Hauxton sits immediately adjacent to the High Street and is linked via safe pedestrian and cycle routes to local schools—including Hauxton Primary School, which currently operates below capacity and would directly benefit from new pupils living within walking distance. Public transport access is excellent, with bus stops 75m away and easy cycling links to Shelford and Foxton railway stations, as well as the Trumpington Park & Ride and the future South West Travel Hub.

Given these characteristics, it is clear that retaining Hauxton’s development extent in its current form severely limits the ability of the village to meet housing and affordable housing needs, to support local services, and to deliver wider community benefits. While Redrow does not seek a direct amendment to the wording of Policy S/DE itself, these representations emphasise that defined development extents should be subject to a full review to ensure they accurately reflect the development potential and sustainability of individual settlements. Where that review concludes—as in Hauxton—that there is no capacity within existing boundaries, the Local Plan should allocate appropriate village-edge sites in the most sustainable locations in accordance with the Settlement Hierarchy. Doing so would enable planned growth to be directed where it can be sustainably accommodated, support the vitality of rural communities, and help deliver the affordable housing that smaller infill schemes cannot provide.

Proposed Amendments:

The proposed changes to Policy S/GB: The Cambridge Green Belt are as follows:

1. Purpose 1c in Policy S/GB be amended to read:

“Prevent towns in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”

This revised wording aligns directly with the NPPF, ensures consistency with national policy, removes ambiguity arising from the current term “communities,” and provides a clearer basis for assessing potential Green Belt release where justified.

2. The Green Belt and its purposes should be subject to review around Hauxton.

Policy S/GB of 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 NPPG 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.

Consequently, Redrow objects to Policy S/GB on the basis that its wording is inconsistent with national Green Belt policy and risks misapplication of Green Belt purposes at both plan-making and decision-making stages.

Given that alignment with national policy is central to the soundness tests for Local Plans, this inconsistency is of great concern and the policy is unsound. The use of “communities” unacceptably broadens the interpretation of Green Belt purposes beyond national policy, making it more difficult to assess proposals appropriately and potentially constraining opportunities for sustainable development in locations that do not materially contribute to the core Green Belt function of preventing the merging of towns. To ensure clarity and compliance with the NPPF, Criterion 1c should be amended to replace “communities” with “towns.”

Redrow is promoting land east of Hauxton, which lies just outside the village framework and within the Green Belt. The site is not allocated in the draft GCLP; however, as set out elsewhere in these representations, Redrow is seeking the allocation of this land supported by necessary changes to relevant policies. The land east of Hauxton falls within “grey belt,” as recognised in Chapter 13 and Annex 2 of the NPPF and Section ID:64 of the Planning Practice Guidance. Further detail on the site’s accordance with grey belt legislation was submitted as part of the Call for Sites in March 2025 (“Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Green Belt Review”, The Landscape Partnership).

Redrow considers that the land east of Hauxton should be released from the Green Belt to support the deliverability, flexibility and soundness of the emerging GCLP. The site lies immediately beyond the Hauxton village framework and is correctly categorised as “grey belt” in accordance with paragraph 143 of the NPPF and supporting PPG, as it makes only a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes. The land does not contribute to preventing the sprawl of a town, does not play a role in maintaining the separation of towns, and does not form part of the setting of a historic town. Its weak functional performance, combined with the absence of other environmental constraints, places it clearly within the category of land that national policy expects to be prioritised for release where justified.

Releasing this site accords with the NPPF’s “Golden Rules” for Green Belt development (paragraphs 155–157). The allocation would focus growth on grey belt land, address the significant unmet market and affordable housing needs across Greater Cambridge, and enable a sustainable, well-connected extension to an existing village. The site benefits from strong active travel connections, proximity to services and schools, and access to strategic transport corridors. It is also capable of delivering the level of affordable housing, green infrastructure, biodiversity enhancements and open space sought by national and local policy. These attributes mean the site satisfies the criteria to which paragraph 158 directs significant weight.

Landscape evidence confirms that the land performs very weakly against Green Belt purposes and that its development would not harm the countryside setting or long-term settlement separation. Redrow’s emerging masterplan proposes a landscape-led scheme with more than 60% of the land retained as open space, strengthened field patterns, enhanced green infrastructure and a softened settlement edge. The allocation would therefore improve, rather than erode, the transition between Hauxton and the surrounding countryside.

The site is also deliverable early in the plan period and provides a medium-scale development opportunity that can support local facilities, including Hauxton Primary School, which is operating below capacity and would benefit from a modest uplift in local pupil numbers. The site offers a realistic opportunity to meet local affordable housing needs that cannot be met within the existing village boundary.

A robust evidence base can underpin the allocation, supported at planning application stage by detailed assessments of flood risk, drainage, landscape, ecology, heritage, transport and other technical matters. The site can therefore be brought forward responsibly and in full accordance with Policy S/RRA and wider GCLP requirements.

For these reasons, Redrow considers that releasing land east of Hauxton from the Green Belt and allocating it within Policy S/RRA is essential to secure a sound Local Plan—one that is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

The present wording of Policy S/GB risks preventing consideration of sustainable opportunities such as this, even where the site does not undermine Green Belt purposes as set out in national policy. Ensuring clarity in the definition of Green Belt purposes is therefore essential to enable the Local Plan to respond appropriately to development pressures while maintaining the integrity of the Cambridge Green Belt.

Redrow is promoting this site, located immediately beyond the Hauxton village framework and within the Green Belt, as an additional allocation necessary to support the deliverability, flexibility and soundness of the emerging GCLP. As demonstrated throughout these representations, the overall housing requirement should be increased, greater emphasis should be placed on distributing growth to the most sustainable villages, and the Plan should release appropriate areas of Green Belt, including “grey belt” land, to address significant housing and affordable housing needs.

Furthermore, the Development Strategy Topic Paper - Appendix 4: Revised Greater Cambridge Local Plan Green Belt considerations review (2026) acknowledges that Redrow’s Hauxton site includes “Grey Belt” land.

“200768: Land south of High Street, Hauxton
Partially Grey Belt. Overlaps with the following grey belt parcel(s) identified by the Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment Review: HX7”.

The LUC Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment Response to comments from Site
Submissions Update and Draft Local Plan Consultation (2026) states that in respect of 40283: Land south of High Street, Hauxton:

“2.57 As set-out in the GCGBA Review, all three Cambridge Green Belt purposes form elements of NPPF Purpose D, so contribution to Purpose A has not been assessed. Land considered to play a role in limiting the expansion of Cambridge is contributing to preserving “the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city” (Cambridge Purpose 1), but Hauxton is too far removed from the city to make any contribution in this regard.

2.58 Likewise, NPPF Purpose B has not been assessed and we would agree that Hauxton should not be considered a town, but preventing “communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city” is one of the purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt contributing to protecting the city’s special character and historic setting. This mean that it forms an aspect of the assessment of NPPF Purpose D…

2.60 As indicated above, all three Cambridge Purposes form elements of NPPF
Purpose D. The most significant with regard to this site is Cambridge Purpose 3, because there is a very narrow gap between Hauxton and Little Shelford, but development within HX7 would not reduce the gap by much. As noted in the GCGBA Review, the harm rating originally stated for HX7 was incorrect and should have been ‘moderate’. A ‘moderate’ harm rating equates to a ‘moderate’ contribution to NPPF Purpose D, on which basis the part of the Site lying within HX7 is provisionally identified as grey belt.

2.61 It is noted the Site also covers the northern part of parcel HX6 which occupies the narrowest part of the gap and which was assessed as making a ‘significant’ contribution to Purpose 3 and assigned a ‘very high’ harm rating. This area is not considered to be grey belt….

2.63 The GCGBA did not assess the potential level of mitigation that could be achieved by specific development proposals – this is not a straightforward judgement given the timescale required for landscaping measures to take effect, and the varying degrees of certainty surrounding different development proposals. The methodology recognises (at para 3.113) that “…there is potential for mitigation measures such as boundary strengthening and density of development within an inset area to influence [the level of adverse impact on
retained Green Belt land.]”

Given the above, we consider that it is evident that Land south of High Street, Hauxton constitutes ‘Grey Belt’. We do not agree that the Site would adversely affect NPPF criterion d) ‘to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns’ in any way given its location to the immediate east of Hauxton between existing built development and the M11 motorway, and the fact that its development would not result in any reduction of the existing physical gap between the village and Cambridge.

Proposed Amendments

The proposed changes to Policy S/RRA: Additional Allocation - Land South of High Street, Hauxton (Site Ref. 40283) are as follows:

1. Land east of Hauxton (HELAA reference 40283) be allocated in the Local Plan with the following requirements:

• Site area: 12.44 hectares

• Indicative capacity: up to approximately 150 dwellings, including a policy-compliant proportion of affordable housing and provision for self/custom build plots

2. The Green Belt boundaries be amended accordingly to reflect the Site’s removal.

As set out elsewhere in our representations, it is considered that upward adjustments are required to the housing target, the development strategy should direct development to the more sustainable villages, and there are exceptional circumstances to release land from the Green Belt. All these factors indicate that additional allocations should be made in draft GCLP to meet development needs and to ensure that Greater Cambridge is able to maintain a 5-Year Housing land supply in the early years of the Plan period, when many of its larger strategic housing allocations will be awaiting key infrastructure provision prior to their future delivery.

Further allocations need to be made within villages in order to meet their affordable housing needs and to ensure that there is not an over-reliance on a small number of major housing allocation sites that will require extensive new infrastructure provision prior to their delivery. These need to reflect the findings of the site assessments, services and facilities in villages, access to employment opportunities, access by sustainable modes of transport, proximity to future transport projects, and affordable housing needs.

Redrow is advancing proposals for land to the east of Hauxton, situated immediately beyond the defined village framework. Although the site lies within the Green Belt and is not identified for development in the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan (GCLP), its promotion highlights important strategic considerations.

Redrow objects to Policy S/RRA on the basis that the draft Local Plan fails to allocate sufficient land within the rural area to meet the uplifted housing needs identified elsewhere in these representations, and that the policy does not provide a mechanism for including additional sustainable village-edge sites such as land east of Hauxton.

Redrow is promoting this site (HELAA reference 40283) located immediately beyond the Hauxton village framework and within the Green Belt, as an additional allocation necessary to support the deliverability, flexibility and soundness of the emerging GCLP. As demonstrated throughout these representations, the overall housing requirement should be increased, greater emphasis should be placed on distributing growth to the most sustainable villages, and the Plan should release appropriate areas of Green Belt, including “grey belt” land, to address significant housing and affordable housing needs. Reflecting these overarching principles, Policy S/RRA should be amended to include the land east of Hauxton as an additional allocation in the rest of the rural area.

The promoted site is appropriately categorised as grey belt, in accordance with paragraph 143 of the NPPF and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance, which define grey belt as Green Belt land that does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) and (d).

The Hauxton site makes only a very limited contribution to these purposes. It does not facilitate unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area (purpose a); it plays no role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging (purpose b), as it is physically and visually separated from Cambridge by significant landscape buffers, strategic infrastructure and established field patterns; and it does not contribute to the setting of a historic town (purpose d). In addition, the site carries no other designations that would inhibit its development. Its classification as grey belt therefore aligns directly with national policy, including the NPPF’s requirement (paragraph 148) that, where Green Belt release is necessary, previously developed land and grey belt should be prioritised.

The development of the Hauxton site also satisfies the “Golden Rules” for Green Belt development set out in paragraphs 155–157 of the NPPF.

First, it proposes development on grey belt, rather than land performing essential Green Belt functions. Second, there is clear unmet need for both market and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge, including the significant shortfall identified in the 2025 Housing Needs Report. Third, the site is demonstrably sustainable: it benefits from excellent walking, cycling and public transport links, offers direct and safe access to schools, services and employment, and sits in close proximity to major transport corridors and rail connections.

Fourth, the scheme is capable of delivering the high levels of affordable housing and green infrastructure expected under paragraph 157, including extensive new public open space, landscape restoration, biodiversity enhancements and active travel routes. In line with paragraph 158, developments that satisfy these criteria should be given significant weight.

In landscape terms, the site performs extremely weakly against the Green Belt purposes, and its development would not harm the open countryside setting or long-term settlement separation. On the contrary, Redrow’s emerging framework masterplan proposes strengthening local landscape character, restoring field patterns, integrating substantial green infrastructure and retaining more than 60% of the land as open space. Far from weakening the edge of Hauxton, the scheme would provide a managed and softened settlement boundary that enhances the transition between the village and open countryside.

Importantly, land east of Hauxton also represents an early-delivery, medium-sized site capable of supporting local services, schools and community facilities at a time when the Plan relies heavily—and precariously—on large, infrastructure-dependent strategic sites to deliver its housing trajectory. Hauxton Primary School, for example, is operating significantly under capacity, with 30 spare places, and would benefit from nearby pupil growth that can be safely accessed on foot. The site is well located to contribute to local vitality and to meet specific local affordable housing needs that cannot realistically be met through small infill plots within the existing settlement boundary.

In addition to its physical suitability, the site is fully capable of being supported by a robust evidence base. At the planning application stage, comprehensive assessments—including Flood Risk, Drainage, Landscape & Visual Impact, Ecology, Archaeology, Heritage, Contamination and Transport—would be provided to demonstrate that development can be delivered responsibly, sustainably and in accordance with both national and local planning requirements, as expected by Policy S/RRA’s clauses on mitigation, infrastructure contributions and site-specific design.

For these reasons, Redrow considers that the allocation of the land east of Hauxton is necessary to secure a sound Local Plan, one that is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. The site represents an opportunity to deliver sustainable, landscape-led development in a location that aligns with the NPPF, contributes to identified housing and affordable housing needs, and strengthens the resilience of the Plan’s housing trajectory. The site should therefore be identified within Policy S/RRA as an allocation in the rest of the rural area.

Furthermore, the Development Strategy Topic Paper - Appendix 4: Revised Greater Cambridge Local Plan Green Belt considerations review (2026) acknowledges that Redrow’s Hauxton site includes “Grey Belt” land.

“200768: Land south of High Street, Hauxton
Partially Grey Belt. Overlaps with the following grey belt parcel(s) identified by the Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment Review: HX7”.

The LUC Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment Response to comments from Site
Submissions Update and Draft Local Plan Consultation (2026) states that in respect of 40283: Land south of High Street, Hauxton:

“2.57 As set-out in the GCGBA Review, all three Cambridge Green Belt purposes form elements of NPPF Purpose D, so contribution to Purpose A has not been assessed. Land considered to play a role in limiting the expansion of Cambridge is contributing to preserving “the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city” (Cambridge Purpose 1), but Hauxton is too far removed from the city to make any contribution in this regard.

2.58 Likewise, NPPF Purpose B has not been assessed and we would agree that Hauxton should not be considered a town, but preventing “communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city” is one of the purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt contributing to protecting the city’s special character and historic setting. This mean that it forms an aspect of the assessment of NPPF Purpose D…

2.60 As indicated above, all three Cambridge Purposes form elements of NPPF
Purpose D. The most significant with regard to this site is Cambridge Purpose 3, because there is a very narrow gap between Hauxton and Little Shelford, but development within HX7 would not reduce the gap by much. As noted in the GCGBA Review, the harm rating originally stated for HX7 was incorrect and should have been ‘moderate’. A ‘moderate’ harm rating equates to a ‘moderate’ contribution to NPPF Purpose D, on which basis the part of the Site lying within HX7 is provisionally identified as grey belt.

2.61 It is noted the Site also covers the northern part of parcel HX6 which occupies the narrowest part of the gap and which was assessed as making a ‘significant’ contribution to Purpose 3 and assigned a ‘very high’ harm rating. This area is not considered to be grey belt….

2.63 The GCGBA did not assess the potential level of mitigation that could be achieved by specific development proposals – this is not a straightforward judgement given the timescale required for landscaping measures to take effect, and the varying degrees of certainty surrounding different development proposals. The methodology recognises (at para 3.113) that “…there is potential for mitigation measures such as boundary strengthening and density
of development within an inset area to influence [the level of adverse impact on
retained Green Belt land.]”

Given the above, we consider that it is evident that Land south of High Street, Hauxton constitutes ‘Grey Belt’. We do not agree that the Site would adversely affect NPPF criterion d) ‘to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns’ in any way given its location to the immediate east of Hauxton between existing built development and the M11 motorway, and the fact that its development would not result in any reduction of the existing physical gap between the village and Cambridge.

This submission is supported by a Vision Document. The Connectivity/Transport and Framework Masterplan diagrams demonstrate that land east of Hauxton is physically contained by durable features, benefits from direct and safe pedestrian, cycle and public transport links to local services, and can be delivered through a landscape-led masterplan that retains and strengthens green corridors, integrates SuDS, and provides extensive public open space. These attributes confirm a “grey belt” context with very limited contribution to Green Belt purposes (sprawl, coalescence, or historic setting), and show that harm can be avoided and, in places, positively remedied by creating a permanent, defensible and greener settlement edge. The scheme is immediately deliverable, supports early housing and affordable housing supply, and improves access to local facilities, thereby satisfying the NPPF’s “golden rules” for Green Belt release. On this basis, the site should be released from the Green Belt and allocated in Policy S/RRA.