Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Relevant legislation has been addressed (Section 18, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Regulations 18 and 19 in the Town and Country Regulations 2012) and the Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the Plan appears to be legally compliant.

As to the “soundness” of the Plan:
Positively prepared: A 5 year housing land supply up to 2034 has been identified (S/SD Appendix D) and the Plan provides for a greater amount of employment floorspace than that associated with the identified need. However, it is reasonable to query whether infrastructure needs will be met in practice (see below).
Justified: Although the Sustainability Appraisal Non-Technical Summary (July 2026) recognises that the Plan will have adverse effects (for example through the loss of agricultural land), there is much in the Plan to be commended (improved public transport, affordable housing, etc). However, we do not believe that the traffic data and modelling as presented thus far withstands scrutiny and that therefore the proposed mitigations based on it will be appropriate and effective.
Effective: As recognised in Policy S/SD para 2.76, delivery of the Plan is constrained (only 2,550k houses by 2045 at Cambourne North) by dependency on other critical infrastructure projects not within LPA’s control. These include:
- completion of the Grafham Water pipeline (projected for 2031) and the Fen Reservoir (Anglia Water estimate 2036 is the earliest date for water into the supply) to deal with the well-known water issues in South Cambridgeshire
- the EWR station, multi-storey car park and line; in its 2026 consultation EWR reckoned “the full end to end service...will be operational by the mid to late 2030s”
- the Cambridge to Cambourne (CtC) High Quality Transport Corridor (HGTC) busway and, critically, its subsequent extension north of the A428 to Papworth Everard through Cambourne North
- responsibility for regional transport planning, funding allocation and franchising local bus services which rests with the Mayor/the Combined Authority
- the adequacy of energy supplies to meet demand across Greater Cambridge; this is expected to triple by 2050 (Cambridgeshire County Council, Local Area Energy Planning), but may be significantly higher given the Government’s ambitions for growth in this region
- the provision of adequate central government funding such as the £500m City Deal which is managed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership
- capacity to undertake the developments proposed in the Plan given all the planned major construction work in Greater Cambridge (such as Bourne Airfield) and in the wider region (Tempsford, A14 logistics sites, etc.) which is not assessed in the Plan
- the provision of health, education and other community infrastructure required for successful place making which rests in large part with developers to fund/provide and which will be affected by the slow rate of build out (see below).

Consistent with national policy: The submission is planned to be made by 31 December 2026 and under transitional arrangements will therefore be assessed in accordance with the December 2024 NPPF. The submission date may account in part for why some work is still to be completed and even appears to have been rushed (e.g. the traffic data mentioned below). We have also commented later on about where it seems to us there are proposals in the Plan where the intent is ambiguous and/or possibly inconsistent with Plan policies.

Subject to comments elsewhere in our representations, in our experience two way engagement with DC members and GCSP officers has generally proved fruitful and shaped some policy areas in the Plan. One matter which the Plan does not address (perhaps for obvious reasons) is the impact the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (July 2026) will have on the implementation of the Plan after its adoption and planning matters more generally. According to the Government’s consultation it “will exercise plan-making powers once the Local Plan has been adopted and support development outside the plan”. The Development Corporation is an unelected body, accountable to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and as such it is not clear that small local communities like Elsworth will continue to have any meaningful involvement after adoption of the Plan beyond commenting on development applications.

Regarding jobs, see our earlier comments on Policy S/DS.
With respect to homes, we appreciate there is a need to increase the supply, to account for particular needs (affordable housing, disability, etc) and to underpin economic development.
Infrastructure issues have already been commented upon in ‘About the Plan’ and further comments are made elsewhere.
With regard to Gypsy and Traveller sites see our comments in S/CBN.

Among the strategic scale allocations proposed to meet the majority of the development needs of GC to 2045 and beyond Cambourne and Cambourne North loom large (“an allocation to steer the continual expansion of and renewal of the existing town in line with the wider vision...”). The arguments to extend the town by a new settlement north of the A428 (Cambourne North) gives rise to some concerns that beyond 2045 or even earlier further expansion north of the A428 will be considered.

Elsworth retains its designation as a ‘group’ village with an indicative maximum scheme size of 8 dwellings within its development boundary.

The expansion of Cambourne north of the A428 is defined by the development site allocation boundary. We note elsewhere that this has been moved further away from Elsworth. We remain concerned that over time ‘development creep’ may occur. See our further comments on the Cambridge Green Belt and the viability of farmland in the Strategic Enhancement Area.

Policy S/GB seeks to preserve the unique character of Cambridge and to prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city. Similarly, the Plan recognises and wishes to preserve the unique character of villages like Elsworth and prevent coalescence with Cambourne North.
Some comfort can be derived from the policy proposals in S/SEA/CBN, which would require any planning applications that seek to do something that is contrary to the policy to be justified by an applicant, and also from the ‘forest’ element in the SEA being part of the Ox-Cam Corridor new national forest initiative (although our understanding is that the boundaries of this are a long way from being determined). However, unlike the Cambridge green belt, there is no legal protection for the SEA.
We would like to see the possibility explored that some measure of protection could be provided so that an area is maintained where local food growing continues, tree canopy cover can be improved and land kept open.

The Parish Council supports the intention to carry out monitoring and review of policies in the Local Plan. We imagine that the Development Corporation will play a leading role in this; nonetheless, we would hope that local communities might have some real involvement in the process.
Therefore we would like to see an addition made to S/MO e. to read “Review of all, or relevant parts of, the Local Plan, local communities (including the villages of Elsworth, Knapwell and Papworth Everard) to be consulted in the undertaking of such reviews” .

Para 2 to read “a site-wide masterplan will will be prepared….in consultation with local communities (including the villages of Elsworth, Knapwell and Papworth Everard)”.
12 ii to read “A total of 24 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches….located within but on the edge of the development, or outside but in close proximity to the site though not within the Strategic Enhancement Area thereby meeting requirements of Policies H/GT and S/SEA/CBN“.
13 e to read “….sports facilities, where this does not include floodlighting or involve the construction of buildings, a car park or any structures in excess of (say) 3 metres in height”.
14 b i to read "Include the Elsworth and Knapwell Forest, a new accessible, regionally significant woodland..."

Our principal concerns about the the expansion of Cambourne - traffic, water supply and waste, identity and character of the villages, coalescence, mitigation measures, governance - were raised in two papers submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council/GCSP (‘Input to the Draft Local Plan – A Joint Submission by Boxworth, Elsworth and Knapwell Parishes’ and ‘Comments on the Landscape Buffer and Coalescence between Elsworth, Knapwell and Cambourne North’ 2025) which are appended. Many of these concerns have been recognised (see Cambourne North Addendum Transport Strategy Report) and some have been addressed in the Plan.

STRATEGIC ENHANCEMENT AREA (SEA)

S/CBN para 4 says “Cambourne North will be planned comprehensively with the Cambourne North Strategic Enhancement Area (S/SEA/CBN) Policy Area. This area will ensure that there is sufficient physical and visual separation between the development and neighbouring settlements and maintains a soft, green landscape to enhance the wider rural setting and relevant Conservation Areas. Where appropriate the SEA could also deliver other appropriate associated uses including drainage, habitat compensation and public open space”. While we had previously welcomed the intention to create a landscape buffer and the vision envisaged for it, we found that the development site allocation boundary came unacceptably close to Elsworth and that the buffer was not of sufficient depth to achieve its aims.

It is particularly welcome therefore that there are specific policy proposals for the SEA and that now the development boundary has been moved away from the village and the depth of the buffer increased which is vital to prevent coalescence geographically with Cambourne North. Although it is appreciated that this may be outwith the scope of the Plan, a major concern remains that in the course of time the extension of Cambourne will trigger a community governance review which may recommend the administrative absorption of parishes by Cambourne Town Council. We are concerned that, potentially, this may have consequences for the protections in the Plan.

With respect to the wording of the SEA Policy, the Parish Council would like to see several textual changes to remove ambiguities and inconsistencies in its drafting:

1. Whilst the use of phrases such as “neighbouring villages” is understandable in some contexts, the terminology used in the policies is not consistent and is non-specific in many instances (for example, “local community”, “stakeholders”, etc), making it uncertain what is being referred to and allowing of misinterpretation.

For the avoidance of doubt it would be preferable to replace such phrases with the names of the settlements or organisations being referred to.

There also appears to be an anomaly at 14b ii with the inclusion of Bourn Airfield New Village and Childerley in a remark about what the development of Cambourne North must do.

2. The Plan proposes that “a site wide masterplan will will be prepared….in consultation with the local community”. What is meant by ‘the local community’ is not defined but could be taken to refer only to Cambourne residents; while S/CBN 36c makes clear that “The Biodiversity Enhancement, Implementation and Management Plan, alongside the site-wide Masterplan, will need to consider all aspects of the SEA area….”.

Given that the SEA is in the parishes of Elsworth and Knapwell and is of vital importance to the villages and also for the avoidance of doubt, we would like the statement in SEA, para 2 to read “a site-wide masterplan will will be prepared….in consultation with local communities (including the villages of Elsworth, Knapwell and Papworth Everard)”.

3. Policy S/CBN 12 ii proposes for “A total of 24 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches (within two sites of 12 pitches, each on approximately 1 hectare of land) located within but on the edge of the development, or outside but in close proximity to the site, meeting requirements of Policy H/GT“. While it is perfectly proper that provision for such sites should be made, the phrase “outside but in close proximity to the site” would suggest allocating land within the SEA which would be contrary to the policy purposes of this non-development area.

If the phrase is not simply deleted, we would propose qualifyinging 12 ii to read “A total of 24 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches….located within but on the edge of the development, or outside but in close proximity to the site though not within the Strategic Enhancement Area thereby meeting requirements of Policies H/GT and S/SEA/CBN“.

4. The vision for the SEA seems to be doing some heavy lifting: S/CBN 13e envisages it comprising a forest, open agricultural fields, active travel routes, green corridors for wildlife and sports facilities. However, there is an inconsistency: sports facilities did not feature in the previous consultation on the Plan and no mention is made of them at para 14b of the Policy which refers to its possible uses. Nor is there any indication of what sports facilities might be; certainly were construction to be involved this would seem at odds with S/CBN 4 (see above). Moreover, S/CBN 12c, vi already includes provision for “Open space, sports and leisure facilities, including a new regionally significant leisure, recreation and events centre and associated playing fields”, while Elsworth and Papworth Everard already have large playing fields and facilities for sports, so possibly the inclusion of sports facilities at 13e is an error.

If the inclusion of sports facilities at 13e is not in error and in the absence of clarity about what is meant, we propose that the text be amended to read: “….sports facilities, where this does not include floodlighting or involve the construction of buildings, a car park or any structures in excess of (say) 3 metres in height”.

5. S/CBN 36e says “The Biodiversity Enhancement, Implementation and Management Plan, alongside the site-wide Masterplan, will need to consider all aspects of the SEA area, including appropriate and proportionate visitor facilities and signage”. Visitor facilities did not feature in the previous draft of the Plan and we are now presented with a clash of ambitions for the SEA. Intended primarily for residents of Cambourne North, it is also envisaged as a destination for people from a wider area. However, in the absence of improved bus services or the ability to cycle/walk/wheel, people from further afield are going to visit by private transport, so this appears to suggest provision would be made for car parking and toilet facilities at the very least. Again this seems at odds with the vision for the SEA.

If the phrase about visitor facilities and signage is to remain, there must be clarity about exactly what is envisaged at the outset rather than matters being left until developers come forward with applications.

6. The proposed forest element in the SEA would form part of a new national forest the for the Oxford-Cambridge Corridor for which Forest of Marston Vale trust and the National Forest Company are development partners, whereas the Plan proposes that the developers of Cambourne North must identify “the long-term management, maintenance and stewardship of the expansion of Cambourne….including the Strategic Enhancement Area” (S/CBN 45).

Greater clarity is required about where responsibility for stewardship of the SEA and the forest component within it would lie and the role that local communities would play in this (outside of commenting on development applications). We would also like to see a programme of tree planting implemented at an early stage so that the contribution they would make to screening the villages can be realised as soon as possible. We also believe that calling it ‘Cambourne Forest’ is a misnomer: it will be located in the parishes of Elsworth and Knapwell and north of the existing Elsworth Wood and so would be designated more appropriately the ‘Elsworth and Knapwell Forest’; it would serve to avoid the readily made assumption that it ‘belongs’ to Cambourne; and it would better reflect its role in mitigating coalescence and screening Elsworth, Knapwell and Papworth Everard from Cambourne North.

7. Both the SEA and the development site allocation area is currently farmland, yet to our knowledge no feasibility study has been done to determine whether it is practicable to continue farming on what land will be available after the other uses envisaged for the SEA are accommodated. It would seem all too possible in the future for developers with options on the land to make the case that it is not practicable and that the land should therefore be re-purposed.

Matters should not be left until development applications are made and we believe a viability study should be undertaken to determine that the vision for the SEA in terms of maintaining “open agricultural fields” is realisable.

TRAFFIC

The issue of the impact of traffic on Elsworth and other villages has been an ever present theme in discussions with GCSP and it is recognised that measures of mitigation need to be put in place.

By way of area highway improvements and mitigation, S/SCN 37e makes reference to “(ii) Capacity enhancements at the junctions and local roads where demonstrated through transport modelling and (iii) Traffic calming measures in surrounding villages ….. relating to both highways mitigation and addressing safety issues generated or exasperated by the development”. While addressing safety issues is mentioned, it is disappointing then that there are no references to improving the state of the roads and footpaths in and around the villages. As is suggested in the Cambourne North Addendum Transport Strategy Report, not all impacts can be attributed to Cambourne North. Wider regional developments (A14 logistics parks, Lattenburys, etc) will produce cumulative impacts and it is not clear to us that sufficient account has been taken of these. In respect of the logistics parks, it is worth noting that Elsworth is a signatory to ‘The Representation on the Draft Local Plan and A14 Corridor Logistics Proposals’ submitted by the A14 Logistics Forum.

Traffic modelling
The traffic modelling done for the Plan in the Trip Flow Budget uses data generated by CaPCAM, a desk top strategic transport modelling tool developed by Cambridge County Council from a variety of sources to produce “forecasts of travel demand and traffic flows across the region's road and public transport networks” with “particular detail for Cambridge, Peterborough and key strategic corridors” (Cambourne North Addendum Transport Strategy Report, p. 69). While this may provide a reasonable representation of strategic roads at a regional level, it appears to be poor at representing minor village roads. Indeed, it is acknowledged that there are “ongoing concerns about understanding and trust in the transport modelling” and that much work still needs to be undertaken on establishing the evidence base.

As it is, the Trip Flow Budget data predicts a 2 way flow at (an unspecified) peak hour morning in 2023 at 49 for Elsworth, rising to 218 in a ‘Do Nothing’ scenario by 2046. This does not accord with data from our two MVAs which only measure traffic coming into the village one way via Smith Street and Boxworth Road: midweek peak hour 2023 we were seeing over five times as many vehicles. For 2046, with a modal filter applied on Brockley Road, in a ‘Do Something’ scenario (DS3a) the peak figure is predicted to be zero; this compares with a figure of 886 for Knapwell with a similar filter applied and while this might reflect the situation on Brockley Road, it does not take cognizance of the fact that there would still be traffic on Smith Street and Boxworth Road, including traffic displaced by the modal filters.

The data is said to be “calibrated against real world data”. If any observed evidence has been used in the modelling, so far we have not been party to it, nor would it appear that village specific sensitivity testing has been carried out. As indicated elsewhere, engagement with GCSP has been a positive experience and we would like to see this continue. However, having suffered the effects of rat running for so many years, traffic flows are of prime importance to Elsworth residents and we are concerned that pressure to complete and submit the Plan by by 31 December 2026 may inhibit this happening when it comes to further traffic modelling.

In the circumstances and if any confidence is to be placed in the data produced, we believe that further engagement with the Parish Council over traffic modelling is essential before the Plan is submitted.
Mitigation
The Trip Budget data in the Report serves to “inform the development of a package of mitigation” (p.65). However, currently the modelling does not provide any confidence that Elsworth’s present and future traffic environment has been robustly assessed and therefore fails to demonstrate that the mitigation measures proposed can offer effective amelioration of the impact on the village. This is unacceptable. Presently by way of mitigation the Plan only offers traffic calming and the encouragement of active travel to deter car usage and, for the distant future, assessments of mitigation need and the uncertain prospect of further action as developers come forward with applications. By the time EWR is operational from Cambourne to Cambridge few homes will have been built at Cambourne North and relevant bus services will not be in operation. Once the railway is in use people will start accessing the station and, unless they can walk or cycle, they will have to arrive by car as happens now with traffic trying to access the A428 to reach Cambridge and other destinations. Those coming from the north will come into Elsworth via Rogues/Smith Street or Boxworth Road and then travel to and from the station via Brockley Road.

Again given the importance to the villages of traffic flows, there should be further engagement with the Parish Council over mitigation measures before the Plan is submitted with a view to putting effective measures (for example, such as a modal filter in place on Brockley Road) before development starts and a trigger identified for when such measures are activated.

Flooding
Elsworth suffers periodically from flooding with the Brook overflowing its banks and the primary school experiencing inundations from run off from the fields behind. We welcome the intentions (S/CBN 40 et seq) and would like to see a specific commitment to extend flood risk assessment and the implementation of flood risk measures to the village. We have an active Community Flood Group with local knowledge which could contribute to and should be involved in such work.

Section 106/CIL funding

The point has been made earlier that Elsworth stands to lose 50% of the land in the parish. With minimal benefit likely to accrue to the parish from the development of Cambourne North, it would seem only appropriate that Elsworth should benefit from some of the s106/CIL funding that will generated from it which could be used to improve footpaths and other infrastructure in the village and that an appropriate provision should be included in the Plan.

The Local Plan is aspirational in its vision for Greater Cambridge and in its ambitions for Cambourne North. It proposes a northward extension of Cambourne (Cambourne North) across the A428 and into the parishes of Elsworth and Knapwell of eventually c.13k homes and 108,000m2 employment floorspace. Elsworth parish has a population of 777 (2021 census) and its 1550 hectares is predominantly rural in nature. The village of Elsworth is classified as a ‘group village’ and most properties fall within its conservation area. The village has a primary school which draws a large proportion of its pupils from neighbouring villages. The three entrance/exit roads in the village (Rogues Lane/Smith Street, Boxworth Road and Brockley Road) only have a footpath on one side of the roadway and the roads are often in a poor state of repair.

The principal focus of the Parish Council’s representations are S/CBN Cambourne North concerning the area for development and the policy proposals in S/SEA/CBN Cambourne North Strategic Enhancement Area concerning the non-development area adjacent to it; taken together the two areas would require approximately 50% of the land in Elsworth parish. The Parish Council’s representations are informed not only by the documentation in the Plan submission, papers in the Document Library and the recently available new Cambourne North Addendum Transport Strategy Report (2026), but also by engagement in meetings / workshops with Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (GCSP), their consultants, District Council members, EWR staff, neighbouring parishes and consultation with residents (including two public meetings, from the most recent of which a separate consolidated set of representations will be forthcoming).

With respect to the themes in S/DS:

(a) Climate change – We welcome the Plan being responsive to the impacts of climate change. In order to meet net zero carbon emissions by 2050 the Plan gives a lot of encouragement to active travel modes. The health benefits are not to be denied, but it ignores the fact that will not meet the needs of many people (who, for example, have to transport equipment for work or going to destinations not served by other modes of transport).
(b) Biodiversity and Green Spaces – We welcome serious attention being paid to this, particularly as so much greenfield land will be lost to the development of Cambourne North and because Cambridgeshire is one of the most tree-depleted counties in England.
(c) Great places – The Plan makes much of the unique character of South Cambridgeshire but, inevitably, the proposals for the expansion of Cambourne are a further step towards the urbanisation of much of the area.
(d) Well being and social inclusion – We welcome the recognition that residents have diverse needs that need to be addressed.
(e) Jobs – Cambourne has aspired to be more than a dormitory town for people working in Cambridge and London yet building out the existing Cambourne Business Park to its full capacity has proven challenging. S/CBN para 9 envisages Cambourne North being a location for a mix of new jobs. Ideally, many of these would be high skill jobs, however, growth in such roles continues to occur in knowledge intensive sectors which on the whole are based in and immediately around Cambridge itself. So while people doing such jobs may live in Cambourne, they will probably take advantage of improvements in transport to commute to Cambridge and elswhere.
(f) Infrastructure - Policy I/ID, para 2 says “The provision of necessary infrastructure must be co-ordinated, phased and secured in tandem with the build-out and occupation of the development.” The speed of build out within the period of the Plan is slow (c.350 homes p.a.) so it will take time to achieve a critical mass of residents sufficient to warrant the provision of community services (shops, surgeries, schools, buses, etc.). In the meantime few of the benefits expected to be realised from the development at Cambourne North will be enjoyed, while some of the social and behavioural problems arising from their lack may be experienced (as has happened in existing Cambourne) and traffic problems in the villages will be worsened as a result of traffic seeking to access Cambourne station once it is operational.