Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

The Local Plan housing requirement should be increased to 59,409 dwellings across the plan
period; and A sufficient amount of additional allocations should be identified and allocated to meet the need
for 59,409 dwellings.

Christ’s College objects to draft policy S/JH.
Paragraph 69 of the NPPF (2024) is clear that Authorities need to plan for higher levels of growth than
the Standard Method requirement to reflect growth ambitions linked to economic development and
infrastructure investment. The draft plan does not do this. Cambridge and the surrounding region are
central to the government’s ambition to ‘supercharge’ growth. The draft plan does not reflect this
ambition and will not meet the government’s expectations.
This is backed by national, regional and authority level investment in infrastructure including the new
Cambridge South Train Station providing direct connectivity between Cambridge Biomedical Campus
and London, the granting of the Cambourne to Cambridge busway and progression of Cambridge South
East Transport to inquiry later this year. In a national context the commitment to East West Rail
establishes the area as one benefiting from continued investment in major transport infrastructure.
Growth for Greater Cambridge is also set to be delivered by the Greater Cambridge Development
Corporation (GCDC). A body that is now legally formed.
The approach of the LPA may be that the GCDC will deliver the growth over-and-above the minimum
provision in the Draft Local Plan, but; the GCDC is yet to receive plan-making powers; it will prepare a
Plan after the adoption of the Draft GCLP; it will need to undertake formal consultation and examination
in public in the normal way to lead to a formally adopted “successor” Plan. Such a successor Plan will be
many years away, while the growth ambition is now. The GCLP needs to address growth now and not
rely on a possible GCDC Plan.
The Housing Needs and Supply Matters Report, prepared by Bidwells and submitted in support of these
representations, identifies that the Authority’s current housing need figure of 48,069 homes is too low.
Although this figure aligns with the central growth scenario set out in the Employment and Housing
Evidence Update (2026), it does not give sufficient weight to the national importance of the Cambridge
economy, to its continued growth or ambitions set out within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Combined Authority (CPCA) Local Growth Plan (2025). The Report therefore concludes that the
Authority should plan for a higher-growth scenario and identifies a range of alternative housing need
figures, each significantly above the Authority’s current identified need:
I.
II.
III.
67,244 homes on the assumption that the relationship between the need to support the Local
Growth Plan and the minimum local housing need of the standard method is consistent across
the CPCA area,
80,769 to 121,514 homes on the basis of the analysis in the Case for Cambridge, or
59,409 homes according to the CPCA’s Local Growth Plan ambitions to triple the size of the
economy by 2050.
We contend that, in order to ensure the plan is found sound the unique nature of Cambridge and its
projected capacity for growth must be supported and planned for by the emerging Local Plan.
Specifically, this should be met through increased housing delivery across the Plan period. The Greater
Cambridge Housing Need and Supply Matters Report, prepared by Bidwells and submitted in support of these Representations (located at Appendix A) concludes with the recommendation that the Authority
should plan for at least 59,409 homes over the plan period to support the local and national economy.

• Reassess the plan period supply and the deliverable supply to account for the fact that only
specific sites rather than a windfall allowance can be included in years 1-5 as set out in
paragraph 72a of the NPPF.
• Remove sites from the plan period supply where the evidence demonstrates that there is no
intention to bring these forward for residential uses.
• Reassess the plan period supply and the deliverable supply to reflect realistic delivery rates at
Northstowe, Cambridge East (airport) and Waterbeach New Town.
• Additional allocations on small and medium sites should be provided in the Rest of the Rural
Area;
• Complete the Housing Land Supply Evidence templates of the Planning Inspectorate for each of
these sites included in the deliverable supply, and if necessary, adjust the supply accordingly
including for example where there is no evidence that completions will be achieved.
• Allocations should be directed to sustainable settlements and immediately adjacent to them
within the Rural Area such as Cottenham to ensure the Plan provides for sufficient choice and
flexibility for residents when choosing where to live.

Christ’s College objects to draft policy S/DS.
With regards to the appropriate delivery of growth, we note Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres serve
a very limited role in the spatial strategy for this local plan. Figure 9 in the Local Plan highlights this fact
with only 15% of the planned distribution of growth in the rural area, set in the context that the larger
extent of Greater Cambridge is a rural area. There is a serious risk the large allocations will not deliver
homes in the first 10 years of the plan due to the significant infrastructure required to service the very
large allocations. We consider this approach flawed as it resultantly relies on two very large allocations
set out under 2(c) i Cambourne North (2550 dwellings in plan period) and 2(c) ii Grange Farm (2550
dwellings in the plan period). Senior Councillors at Cabinet have expressed their concerns to officers that
the strategy is a risky one to adopt. The problem is highlighted in paragraph 2.76 of the Regulation 19
Local Plan where the text acknowledges that it must ‘ensure a deliverable plan but which is reliant on a
significant level of infrastructure’. Further ambiguity is compounded at paragraph 2.80 to the strategy as
the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Works still makes an appearance as a potential development site
even though Government funding for the project has been cancelled by Government and there is no
current prospect of this site being developed.
Windfall Allowance
As noted in the Housing Needs and Supply Report the PPG (3-023) makes it clear that windfall
allowance can be relied upon for years 6-15 of a plan period and within years 1-5 a supply of specific
deliverable sites must be identified to form the Authority’s housing land supply in accordance with
paragraph 72a of the NPPF (2024).
Notwithstanding the Housing Delivery Study Addendum Update (2026) includes a windfall allowance of
1,562 new homes within the first five years of the plan period (2028 – 33); contrary to national policy and
guidance.
Delivery Trajectory
The Regulation 19 plan is fundamentally flawed in its chosen delivery strategy. The chosen strategy
notably rests on two new main allocations, namely the 13,000 dwellings at Cambourne North and 4,500
dwellings at Grange Farm and the continued allocation of Northstowe, Cambridge East and Waterbeach.
This approach is very risky as the local plan relies on significant infrastructure (namely Cambourne Train
Station to be delivered as part of East West Rail and CSET respectively) coming forward in a timely
manner to service these two large strategic sites. Our view is that the local plan relies too heavily upon
these sites, which will not commence delivery until the latter half of the plan, after 2035. The plan period
is 2024-2045. Our view is that smaller sites in sustainable settlement locations must be allocated for
housing delivery in the first 10 years of the plan to ensure that identified housing needs are met. The Housing Need and Supply Matters Report addresses the flaws in the Development Strategy, noting
at present the Authority rely on overly ambitious delivery targets. Specifically, the trajectories for
Northstowe, Cambridge East and Waterbeach New Town are identified to achieve cumulative rates of
development which are unprecedented on any of the significant number of sites considered in Lichfields’
Start to Finish Report (2024). It’s further noted that even if Northstowe, Cambridge East and Waterbeach
adopted the most ambitious delivery rates found in Start to Finish (The Hamptons, Peterborough) across
the three sites there would still be a reduced supply of 3,581 homes across the plan period.
To address the trajectory issues outlined above the Authority needs to consider and adopt more realistic
delivery rates for the sites outlined above which will in turn necessitate the additional allocation of sites
capable of delivery earlier in the plan period. Such sites are likely to be those well related to existing
settlements and be of a scale that will not require the delivery of significant infrastructure before housing
delivery commences.
The Regulation 19 Plan contains very few small and medium-size housing sites allocated in the Rural
Area; which the NPPF (2024 & 2026) recognises the important contribution such sites can make to an
Authority’s housing supply, bring variety (location and typologies) and resilience (more housebuilders
wanting to develop).
Variety of Supply and Supporting the Vitality of Settlements   
In addition, we consider the proposed approach would form a constraint on the sustainable development
of many settlements and their communities. In particular, the lack of housing allocations in the villages
fails to support the delivery of homes to meet the local housing needs of the next generation during the
plan period. Instead of being able to live locally, this forces newly forming households to relocate to the
main settlements, new settlements, or elsewhere – often away from their existing family, community and
support network. This leads to an increased need for travel within Greater Cambridge, often via private
cars rather than public transport. It also results in population imbalance, with ageing populations in
villages and a falling roll in primary schools – whilst the new settlements have predominantly young
populations and significant pressure on services.
To ensure the continued vitality of historic settlements across Greater Cambridge in the rural area an
appropriate degree of housing and employment growth is required to ensure economic footfall is placed
into such settlements and their respective highstreets, services and facilities.
Furthermore, at present the strategy proposes to deliver the majority of development at new towns and
settlements within the Authority (Northstowe, Cambourne, Waterbeach and Grange Farm). Whilst the
approach to deliver housing at scale is commended, the NPPF (2024) explicitly requires Authorities to
enable a sufficient amount of land to come forward for residential development to meet the housing
needs of the whole community taking into account need, size, type and tenure (NPPF paragraphs 61 –
63). To meet the needs of the whole Authority we contend a variety of land across the Authority needs to
be identified for development. In allocating the majority of proposed housing at new settlements and new
towns ignores the desire many people have within the Authority to live in existing settlements and
villages located across the rural area. This both reduces market competition and choice which is likely to
have a detrimental impact on house prices and market availability.
A more balanced approach is required in respect to the Rural Area, including a wider range of housing
sites being allocated – in terms of both site sizes and locations. This is necessary to ensure that the
Local Plan supports sustainable communities and sustainable patterns of growth. In addition to providing
housing to support new jobs in Cambridge and the key employment growth sectors, the development
strategy should take account of the needs and vitality of existing villages and the wider rural economy
and make planned provision for them.  In many villages, there is a lack of brownfield land available within the ‘defined development extents’ to
facilitate housing delivery in accordance with the approach set out in Draft Policy S/SH (Settlement
hierarchy). Also, small windfall sites provide limited affordable housing to meet local needs. Hence, there
should be specific land allocations for housing development in some of the rural villages, to promote
genuinely sustainable growth and development – supporting the rural economy, promoting mixed and
inclusive communities and ensuring the vitality and viability of local services. 
The Authority needs to consider the additional allocation of smaller sites in the rural area that can both
supplement the housing land supply of the Authority in the early years of the plan to account for the
highly likely scenario that the strategic sites stall. This is identified within the Housing Needs and Supply
Report which accounts for the Council’s historic overly optimistic delivery rates, a trend which is set to
continue as identified by the optimistic delivery rates envisioned by the Council within the forthcoming
plan period. The allocation of additional smaller sites offer sufficient variety and choice to residents of
the Authority so that housing continues to be made available in a range of locations across Greater
Cambridge providing sufficient choice and competition.

• We therefore contend that to ensure the Local Plan is justified in accordance with paragraph
36(b) of the NPPF (2024) Cottenham should be placed as a Rural Centre within the emerging
Settlement Hierarchy.

Christ’s College object to draft policy S/SH.
The adopted Development Plan (South Cambridgeshire District Local Plan, 2018) identifies Cottenham
as a Rural Centre. The Regulation 19 draft proposes to relegate Cottenham from Rural Centre to a Minor
Rural Centre. The Development Strategy Topic Paper (2026) rationalises this by stating that Cottenham
does not have a segregated public transport route and is hence proposed to be moved down the
hierarchy.
We contend Cottenham remains a highly sustainable settlement which is well served by a wealth of
services and facilities including:
Village College;
Primary School;
Pharmacy;
Library;
Post office;
Dentist;
Community facilities;
Public House; and
28 shops.

The absence of a segregated transport route is alone not considered sufficient to justify Cottenham’s
degrading within the settlement hierarchy – particularly when Cottenham by virtue of its location is
located in close proximity to Cambridge, Northstowe and Waterbeach, key settlements and growth
locations within the Authority. The village is well served by public transport, with broadly a bus service to
Cambridge every 20 minutes. The Council’s approach to village classification is too narrow and lacks
opportunity for appropriate assessment, it is merely the output of a spreadsheet approach. Clearly
Cottenham is a well-serviced large village that performs a role within the area beyond its village
boundaries.
Cottenham remains a highly sustainable and well connected settlement which should be reflected within
Settlement Hierarchy.

• Update Policy S/GB to align fully with the NPPF 2026 and Green Belt NDMPs (NPPF, 2026),
including revising Green Belt policies and incorporating explicit recognition of grey belt land to
ensure consistency with national decision-making policy.
• Review housing growth requirements and consider additional Green Belt/grey belt releases, on
the basis that current housing targets may be too conservative and the delivery strategy risks
under-supplying housing due to reliance on large strategic sites and the Liverpool Method.
• Identify and map grey belt land on the Policies Map, and amend the Green Belt Assessment
methodology to reflect NPPF 2026 by removing distinctions between “moderate” and “weak”
grey belt and deleting references to former Footnote 7.
• Allocate suitable grey belt sites adjacent to sustainable settlements, including sites such as Land
South of Oakington Road, Cottenham, to create a more sustainable and diverse spatial strategy
that supports housing delivery throughout the plan period.

Christ’s College objects to draft policy S/GB
Whilst the GCLP will be examined against the NPPF (2024) it should be noted that the relevant material
consideration for the determination of applications in terms of national policy will be the NPPF (2026).
Annex A (Paragraph 2) of the NPPF (2026) states that Development Plan policies which are materially
inconsistent with the national decision-making policies in the NPPF should be given very limited weight
for the purposes of decision-making. To ensure the GCLP is an effective mechanism for decision
making, particularly with regards to the Green Belt it is considered that GCSP should review the NDMPs
relevant to development in the Green Belt and update S/GB in full to reflect such position. Such policies
that are:
• GB6 (Control of development in the Green Belt)
• GB7 (Development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt)
• GB8 (Golden rules)
As outlined above it is considered the identified housing needs outlined above are too conservative and
do not reflect the growth agenda in national, regional and local contexts mandated by the incumbent
Labour government, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority
Paragraph 146 (NPPF, 2024) (now Policy GB3[2]) identifies that one of the exceptional circumstances in
which Green Belt boundaries can be altered is where an authority cannot meet its identified need for
development in full, having examined other reasonable options. It is noted the Response to Development
Representations – Development Strategy Topic Paper (2026) and the Development Strategy Topic
Paper Appendix 5: Revised Greater Cambridge Local Plan Green Belt Review (2026) that the Authority
do not consider exceptional circumstances for a review of Green Belt boundaries to exist other than the
release of additional land at Cambridge Biomedical Campus (Phase 3) and at Babraham Research
Centre. Notwithstanding the national context for growth, whilst it is acknowledged the growth scenariostested within the Sustainability Appraisal identify that the chosen Development Strategy is capable of
meeting the objectively assessed needs of the Authority without requiring Green Belt release.
However, we consider Greater Cambridge’s reliance on the Liverpool Method in calculating their Housing
Land Supply runs a significant risk of under delivery in the early years of the Plan, this is compounded by
the Development Strategy’s reliance on large strategic sites which, given the extensive infrastructure
requirements for such sites, may face delays to delivery. We raise concern that the reliance will lead to
unsustainable development patterns and will not ensure a consistent, diverse and appropriate level of
housing stock across the plan period.
The NPPF (2024) is clear at Paragraph 146 that exceptional circumstances are not just limited to where
an Authority cannot meet its identified needs in terms of quantum. As noted within our comments on the
Development Strategy, we consider that to ensure a consistent supply that meets the needs of the
Authority across the plan period, Greater Cambridge need to consider the allocation of a diverse range of
sites well located to existing settlements to ensure both the longevity of existing settlements and that
growth is delivered and experienced across the Authority area.
Paragraph 148 (NPPF 2024) notes that strategic policy-making authorities should consider the
consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the
Green Belt boundary and towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt boundary. We advocate
sites adjacent to sustainable settlements within the Green Belt, such as Cottenham should be considered
for allocation to ensure the Development Strategy is sustainable and provides a robust, diverse supply of
housing across the Authority throughout the plan period.. We suggest allocating sustainable grey belt
sites is considered preferable to other greenfield sites within the Authority which may hold higher
landscape value.
Grey Belt
Christ’s College support the Site’s identification and designation of the Site (CH10) as ‘provisional grey
belt’ within the Green Belt Assessment (2026). However, given the significant importance placed on grey
belt within national policy (notably the NPPF 2024 and 2026) we advocate the Authority should identify
grey belt land on the Policies Map in the same way in which Green Belt is identified on the Policies Map.
This would ensure a consistent reference point for the Authority, developers and the public in referring to
land designations. The omission of any reference to ‘grey belt’ within the Draft Policy S/GB is challenged. The NPPF (2024)
introduced a clear duty for grey belt land to be identified when undertaking Green Belt Assessments for
the purposes of determining applications; reinforced within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Para
001 ref.001 64-001-20250225). The direction of travel towards authorities being required to identify grey
belt land within local plans is confirmed within the forthcoming NPPF (2026) (GB2[3]) and at Appendix E
where the criteria for undertaking Green Belt Assessments is outlined. Hence, regardless of whether the
Draft Local Plan can meet the identified needs for growth without Green Belt release, the relevant Plan
Policy (S/GB) should include explicit reference to grey belt (consistent with the NPPF) and the
identification of grey belt land within Greater Cambridge. To ensure the longevity of the Local Plan, it is
recommended the revised Green Belt Assessment is undertaken with regard to Appendix E of the NPPF
2026. 
The identification of the Cambridge grey belt within the Green Belt Assessment (2026) is welcomed,
however we object to aspects of the methodology used in its identification which we set out below:
Moderate / Weak Contribution – differing identification of grey belt The definition of grey belt as found within the NPPF (2026) does not set out a distinction between grey
belt that makes a ‘moderate’ or ‘weak’ contribution to purposes a.), b.) and d.) of the Green Belt as found
within Policy GB2 (Assessing existing Green Belt land) (NPPF, 2026). Rather the glossary of the NPPF
confirms grey belt is solely land in the Green Belt that ‘does not strongly contribute to any of purposes
a.), b.) and d.) in policy GB2’. As such it is considered unnecessary for the Authority to distinguish
between ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’ in relation to identifying grey belt and instead should remove such
distinction to identify one consistent grey belt for Greater Cambridge. This would ensure the Evidence
Base on which the GCLP is built upon would be consistent with national policy.
Footnote 7
Whilst it is acknowledged the GCLP will be examined against the NPPF (2024) the relevant material
consideration in terms of national policy for the determination of applications will be the NPPF (2026)
which indicates both the adopted and future direction of national policy. Specifically Footnote 7 has been
removed from the NPPF (2026) and in turn the definition of grey belt has been updated to remove
reference to the footnote 7 within the NPPF (2026). It is therefore considered ‘footnote 7’ is no longer
relevant to the decision-making process and therefore all reference and identification of it should be
removed from the grey belt maps within the Green Belt Assessment (2026) to ensure the Local Plan is
consistent with national policy, namely the NPPF (2026) and the application of its Development
Management policies.
Overall, it is considered that Draft Policy S/GB is not consistent with national policy, does not reflect a
positively prepared plan and is not justified. Pertinent to ensuring the Plan is sound will require: 
• The identification of the Cambridge grey belt on the Policies Map;
• A consideration of higher growth targets and subsequent review of the Green Belt / Grey belt
where necessary and subsequent allocation of suitable Grey belt sites.
The Council must take a positive approach to the preparation of the Plan. Its failure to engage properly
with the Green Belt has not led the plan to an effective spatial strategy. There is a superior sustainable
plan to be formed by properly considering Green Belt (Grey belt) sites that can better underpin
sustainable development.
The NPPF (2024) is clear at paragraph 148 that authorities should consider the consequences for
sustainable development of channelling development towards villages inset within the Green Belt The Council needs to properly consider the inclusion of well-performing sites in the grey belt. For
example, the land South of Oakington Road, Cottenham (ref: 115443) Site was assessed within the
Council’s Green Belt Assessment (2021) which supported First Proposals (2021) Draft Local Plan (parcel
CH10). We support the appropriate and continued ‘low’ harm assessment of the Site within the Green
Belt Assessment (2026). The Site is the only parcel of Green Belt land bordering Cottenham where the
harm from a release is assessed as ‘low’ when assessed against the three purposes of the Cambridge
Green Belt and is the only parcel assessed as making a ‘weak’ contribution to Purpose D of the Green
Belt in Cottenham. The Council needs to release additional Green Belt sites in line with the hierarchy set
out in paragraph 148 of the NPPF (2024) to lead to a sustainable spatial strategy.

Allocate HELAA Site ID Ref 115443 for residential development

These representations have been prepared by Bidwells on behalf of Christ’s College, Cambridge in
response to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation (2026). The representations
relate to Land south of Oakington Road, Cottenham (‘the Site’) which is entirely within Christ’s College
ownership.
The Site was originally submitted in the Call for Sites exercise held in 2019 with subsequent
representations submitted pursuant to the Regulation Issues and Options Consultation (2020) and the
Regulation 19 Preferred Options Consultation (2021) and through the Council’s Housing and Economic
Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) was given the site reference 115443. Most recently
representations relating to the Site were submitted pursuant to the Regulation 18 Consultation of the
Greater Cambridge Local Plan which concluded in January 2026. The Site was referenced as CH10
within the Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment – Review following changes to National Policy and
Guidance (2026). Documents submitted in support of previous submissions were:
• Vision Document (Bidwells UDS);
• Drainage Assessment (EAS);
• Highway Appraisal (EAS);
• Heritage Appraisal (Bidwells Heritage);
• Ecology Appraisal (Ecology Solutions).
The earlier submissions outlined above made by Christ’s College in support of the Site remain up to date
and relevant. The suite of technical documents set out above evidence the Site has been appropriately
assessed and collectively demonstrate a deliverable site. This representation adds to the suite of
submission material previously submitted and addresses any changes to the context of the Site, the
emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan and updates to national policy, notably the National Planning
Policy Framework (noting the Plan will be examined against NPPF (2024)).
The remainder of this representation is set out as follows:
• Site Description
• Cottenham
• Development Proposals
• Response to the Draft Local Plan
Submitted in support of these representations is a Housing Needs and Supply Matters Report prepared
by Bidwells and is located in Appendix A.
Site Description
The Site is located to the immediate west of the built-up edge of Cottenham, measures 4.2ha and lies
entirely within South Cambridgeshire District Council. The Site is currently in agricultural use. To the
northwest the Site is bound by Oakington Road, beyond which lies residential development. Elis Close
and Moreton Close are two residential cul-de-sacs which lie to the northeast of the site. To the south, the
Site is bound by agricultural fields. The Site is characterised by residential development located along
Oakington Road with a number of recently constructed dwellings to the north extending the built form of
Cottenham further north along Oakington Road and Rampton Road. Development of the Site would be
situated within that largely built-up context.
The Site lies approximately 500m from the centre of Cottenham and hosts a strong range of services,
shops and facilities; such facilities throughout the village are two doctor’s surgeries, dentist, library, two
convenience shops, three public houses, village college, primary school, grocers, butchers. There are
pavements connecting the site to the village centre, the development would have the opportunity to
provide and enhance pedestrian and cycle routes.
The Site is located entirely within the Cambridge Green Belt with the northeastern edge of the Site
forming the boundary of the Green Belt. The Site forms parcel ‘CH10’ as defined within Green Belt
Assessment (2026) and is marked as ‘provisional grey belt’ attracting a ‘low harm’ in terms of release of
the parcel from the Green Belt. The Revised Parcel Assessment (Appendix A of the Green Belt
Assessment) confirms that the parcel assessment has not changed since the 2021 iteration of the Green
Belt Assessment which identified the following contributions and assessment to the Cambridge Green
Belt:
• Cambridge Purpose 1 – Limited/no contribution
• Cambridge Purpose 2 – Relatively limited
• Cambridge Purpose 3 – Limited/no contribution
We support the Authority’s identification of the Site as grey belt within the Green Belt Assessment 2026.
While the Plan will be examined against the NPPF (2024), the Development Management Policies of the
NPPF (2026) will be immediately materially relevant once the emerging Local Plan is adopted. In that
context the NPPF (2026) version is relevant and should the Site be allocated for residential development
it would meet the Golden Rules set out in policy GB8 which would achieve:
• 50% affordable housing;
• Necessary improvements to local infrastructure; and
• Provision of new green space, accessible to the public.
Through the identification and allocation of grey belt sites across Greater Cambridge, such as the Site,
pressures on green space within villages can be alleviated and whilst ensuring the purposes of the
Green Belt as set out within the NPPF (2024) and the Draft Local Plan are not compromised. The allocation of grey belt sites can ensure a spatial strategy with the most sustainable locations developed
first and where the local need can be met in those villages where it has been identified that existing
services and facilities provide a sustainable opportunity for further development, such as at Cottenham.
The area of grey belt identified as CH10 would lead to only a modest rollback of the Green Belt in a
manner to better reflect the contemporary shape and form of Cottenham.
The Site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1 according to Environment Agency mapping and as such is not
at risk of flooding from river and sea sources. In terms of surface water flooding small pockets of the site
are assessed as being at ‘high’ (1 in 30) and ‘medium’ (1 in 100) risk of surface water flooding which can
be adequately mitigated through layout and drainage strategy.
The centre of Cottenham is designated as a Conservation Area which contains numerous Grade II Listed
Buildings, the nearest of which is Moretons Charity Almshouses located approximately 100m to the north
of the Site. Development of the Site could be accommodated through an effective layout to ensure no
harm to designated heritage assets in Cottenham including the Conservation Area.
Cottenham
The adopted Local Plan - South Cambridgeshire District Local Plan (SCDLP) (2018) identifies
Cottenham as a Rural Centre in the Settlement Hierarchy and is one of the most sustainable villages in
the district, recognising the wide variety of services.
Cottenham lies to the west of the A10, with Histon Road/Cottenham Road (B1049) providing a direct
route through Histon and Impington into Cambridge.
The Village Classification Report (2012) prepared by SCDC reaffirms the large range of facilities and
services and ranks Cottenham as the fifth most sustainable village in South Cambridgeshire, a district
which comprises over 100 villages. This is informed by the provision of transport connections, services,
facilities and shops. The report found that Cottenham, at the time, had 30 shops and services and was
one of the best performing villages. While the report was prepared in 2012, it still demonstrates the
general range of facilities and services in Cottenham and that it is one of the better served, and therefore
more sustainable villages in the district. More recently the Development Strategy Topic Paper (2026)
identifies the sustainability credentials of Cottenham accounting for the wide range of facilities and
services offered including a pharmacy, library, post office, dentist, community facilities, a public house
and 28 shops.
In terms of sustainable transport Cottenham is well served by the Citi 8 bus route which runs a regular
service (approximately every 40 minutes) into Histon and Cambridge. Histon provides a link onto the
Cambridgeshire Guided Busway which in turn links to Cambridge North Station. A dedicated cycle
way/footpath runs the length of the B1049 between Cottenham and Histon and Impington, where this
route connects into the strategic cycle network on Histon Road to the south of the A14.
Cottenham’s proposed reclassification from Rural Centre to Minor Rural Centre is objected to and
discussed in detail below.
Development Proposals
Christ’s College has explored the opportunity to promote the Site through the Local Plan process to
accommodate approximately 75 dwellings at the Site. Christ’s College is keen to work with the local
community to provide a development that will make a positive contribution to Cottenham and wish to
provide a housing mix that caters to local needs and complements the existing residential settlements. The Site represents a logical extension to Cottenham to round off the existing settlement and contribute
to Greater Cambridge meeting its housing needs across the emerging Local Plan period (2024 – 2045).

Allocation, and in turn development of the Site, would bring numerous social, economic and
environmental benefits including:
• Effective use of sustainable grey belt land;
• The opportunity to deliver a substantial amount of affordable housing to address the acute need
for affordable housing within Cottenham and Greater Cambridge;
• Locating residential development within one of the most sustainable villages within South
Cambridgeshire;
• Opportunity to enhance the biodiversity of the site retaining existing hedgerow and increasing the
natural capital of the Site;
• Support existing facilities, services and business ensuring the continued and enhanced vitality of
Cottenham;
• Delivering development on grey belt land to provide a natural extension to the existing settlement
which will sit in a context defined by residential development at Oakington Road, Rampton Road
and Elis Close, Moreton Close and Histon Road, representing an organic addition to the existing
urban grain.
These Representations have been submitted to supplement previous representations in support of the
Site (ref: 115443) through previous Call for Sites and consultation submissions. This submission has
addressed and responded to the transformed policy context of the Site both in terms of the emerging
Draft Local Plan and reforms to the NPPF within the 2024 revision and the full update in 2026. Bidwells
have identified the Draft Local Plan over relies on large strategic sites which have historically time-and
time-again failed to deliver to the timetable first assumed by the Council, both the start date and the
delivery rates. The absence of allocated smaller sites in sustainable locations that can deliver early in the
Plan Period to meet the acute housing needs of Greater Cambridge is a serious flaw of the Draft Local
Plan to achieve a sustainable, sound and deliverable spatial strategy.
The Site (ref: 115443) is highly sustainable and remains suitable, available and achievable for residential
development to meet the growing housing needs of Cottenham and Greater Cambridge and represents a
grey belt site which should be prioritised for allocation. In any case the Site should be identified as grey
belt within the Local Plan.