Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Remove points 1 and 2 as they unnecessarily duplicate part 15 of the policy.
Amend point 5. to state: Development involving the provision of housing will be required to meet the National Planning Policy Framework Golden Rules for land released from Green Belt' and remove all sub points.
Change wording to: The development of Babraham Research Campus must do the following (in accordance with the Indicative Spatial Framework):
Point 6 should be amended to state: Through the preparation of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and more detailed Heritage Impact Assessment, inform specific mitigations and protect, and where appropriate, enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting, including the Grade I Listed St Peter’s Church, Grade II* Listed Babraham Hall, Babraham Conservation Area and nearby heritage assets.
Point 7 should be deleted.
Point 8 should be amended to state: Limit development of new buildings to areas of existing development, undeveloped areas of land in the far north of the site, and The Close residential area. Gardens surrounding the Grade I Church and Grade II* Babraham Hall should be retained as open space, as indicated on the Spatial Framework
Point 9 should be amended to state: Retain, preserve and enhance key short and long-range views from, into and within the site as indicated on the Indicative Spatial Framework, by:
a. Ensuring buildings sits below the tree canopy; and,
b. Responding sensitively to the setting of heritage assets within the site when redeveloping existing buildings
Sub points 9 b and d should be removed.
Point 11 should be removed in it's entirety.
Point 14. should have a capital 'C' for Campus
Add new point 16. under 'Context' which should state: Beyond the Site Allocation Boundary, other associated uses and mitigation may be provided in the Strategic Enhancement Area (S/SEA/BRC), including drainage, habitat compensation, sustainable and active travel infrastructure and green space.
Point 17 should be amended to state: Proposals must:
a. Provide new green space or improvements to existing green space, which is accessible to the public, including measures such as walking loops, new wetlands, restoration of ponds, and other associated green infrastructure projects
b. Enhance existing hedgerows, woodland and habitat particularly those forming the eastern and western boundaries of the site including new habitats, where appropriate,
c. Contribute to mitigating any adverse effects of the development on the setting of the wider Cambridge Green Belt and landscape;
d. Include sustainable drainage features, such as swales, wetlands and reed beds; and
e. Integrate with the green and blue infrastructure network across the site and in the wider area.
Amend point 18c. to state: Contributing to and securing high-quality local public transport routes to and from the Site, including the Cambridge South East Transport schemes (CSET).
Amend point 21 to state: To support delivery of the agreed campus-wide masterplan, a strategic and local transport mitigation plan must be prepared by the Campus stakeholders in consultation with the Local Highways Authority and Local Planning Authority.
Amend wording to state: The employment-led development must, additionally, do the following (in accordance with the indicative Spatial Framework):
Amend point 24 to: Encourage opportunities for collaboration between future occupants including communal space within the centre of the Campus designed for meeting, socialising and holding events
Remove points 26 and 27 in their entirety.
Add wording: The residential-led development must, additionally, do the following (in accordance with the indicative Spatial Framework)
Change point 30 wording to: Provide ancillary uses to meet the daily needs of residents, including a new, expanded Nursery and a new amenity building capable of accommodating flexible space to address Campus and local needs, e.g. small shop and gym, both of which must be open to the wider public and not undermine the viability of existing services in the village.
Remove point 32 in it's entirety.
Remove points 34 d, e and f.
Indicative Spatial Framework (Figure 75)
● Amend the title, as follows - ‘Figure 75: Indicative Spatial Framework for Policy S/RSC/BRC: Babraham Research Campus’
● Remove green block of colour in north-west of the site, within the Site Allocation boundary. The ‘landscape buffer’ hatching has been removed as per representations made at Regulation 18 stage for this area but the green colour is still showing on the plan
● Remove ‘Commercial Led Development’ blocks and simply refer to whole of this part of the Campus as ‘Employment-Led Development’ – as per the wording within Policy S/BRC
● Remove ‘local nature reserve’ labelling. This remains incorrect and there is existing built development in these locations which should be acknowledged and shown on the plan and legend
● Correctly show the alignment of the CSET Route. This is still not correct as it is much further south than currently shown
Show the entirety of the Strategic Enhancement Area on the Plan for clarity

Please refer to supporting representations.
BRC Ltd object to Policy S/BRC. The Policy is unsound as it is not effective.
Whilst BRC Ltd support the principle of the allocation of Babraham Research Campus for mixed-use development to support the future needs of the campus, they wish to make changes to the policy wording, as detailed below. There are still large sections of the policy that include unnecessary duplication together with areas that require more precise wording that is consistent with national policy. These include:
Remove points 1 and 2 as they unnecessarily duplicate part 15 of the policy.
Amend point 5. to state: Development involving the provision of housing will be required to meet the National Planning Policy Framework Golden Rules for land released from Green Belt' and remove all sub points.
The changes to the wording at part 5 are to ensure the policy is consistent with national policy in terms of the Golden Rules applying only to major development involving the provision of housing on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review (GB8 of NPPF (2026)) and so that it simply refers to the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements (which expands beyond affordable housing). The deletion of part (a) is also required as this duplicates part 17 of the policy.
Change wording to: The development of Babraham Research Campus must do the following (in accordance with the Indicative Spatial Framework):
Point 6 should be amended to state: Through the preparation of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and more detailed Heritage Impact Assessment, inform specific mitigations and protect, and where appropriate, enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting, including the Grade I Listed St Peter’s Church, Grade II* Listed Babraham Hall, Babraham Conservation Area and nearby heritage assets.
Point 7 should be deleted.
Point 8 should be amended to state: Limit development of new buildings to areas of existing development, undeveloped areas of land in the far north of the site, and The Close residential area. Gardens surrounding the Grade I Church and Grade II* Babraham Hall should be retained as open space, as indicated on the Spatial Framework
Point 9 should be amended to state: Retain, preserve and enhance key short and long-range views from, into and within the site as indicated on the Indicative Spatial Framework, by:
a. Ensuring buildings sits below the tree canopy; and,
b. Responding sensitively to the setting of heritage assets within the site when redeveloping existing buildings
Sub points 9 b and d should be removed.
Point 11 should be removed in it's entirety.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous and has a clear purpose, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
There are many instances where there is unnecessary duplication and where parts of the policy could be consolidated. In particular, in terms of assessment and mitigation of impacts upon the significance of heritage assets. This is especially important given that the policy currently extends to 34 parts. There is also reference to the ‘Lodge Building’ but it is not clear which Lodge (there are two – Babraham Lodge and Linton Lodge). The suggested wording seeks to provide clearer wording and avoid duplication.
The reference, at part 11, to a requirement for a ‘…wide landscape buffer (minimum 20 metres) in/adjacent to any development in the north-west of site…’ is not considered to be justified or based on evidence. Indeed, the Cambridge Green Belt Study (2021) identifies that the Campus makes a relatively limited contribution to Green Belt purposes, and the harm of its release would be low. The policy also does not acknowledge the existing, established perimeter woodland belt that runs to the west and north of the proposed employment-led development in the north of the Campus. This woodland belt is within the wider Campus estate and therefore within the ownership of the Campus and is proposed to be retained. Ultimately, this is a matter to be dealt with via detailed assessment (including a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) relating to a site-specific proposal as part of any planning application process.
Point 14. should have a capital 'C' for Campus
Add new point 16. under 'Context' which should state: Beyond the Site Allocation Boundary, other associated uses and mitigation may be provided in the Strategic Enhancement Area (S/SEA/BRC), including drainage, habitat compensation, sustainable and active travel infrastructure and green space.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
With reference to part 15 (b) of the Policy, reference should be made to a Site-Wide Design Code as opposed to Design Codes for each phase of development. This is to ensure the Policy is not overly prescriptive and reflects the approach agreed with officers at Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (GCSP) service in respect of application 25/04634/OUT. The approach was to prepare a Site-Wide Design Code but which includes for site-wide coding as well as coding for the three character areas (residential, central and expansion area within north-west of campus). The Code also includes a section on phasing.
It is also noted that the requirement for a Design Code for each phase is directly contradictory to the requirements for a site-wide design code set out in paragraph 2 of the policy which is proposed to be consolidated with point 15 to avoid duplication.
The additional text at part 16 is proposed for clarity and to be consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the Plan as it relates to Strategic Enhancement Areas.
Point 17 should be amended to state: Proposals must:
a. Provide new green space or improvements to existing green space, which is accessible to the public, including measures such as walking loops, new wetlands, restoration of ponds, and other associated green infrastructure projects
b. Enhance existing hedgerows, woodland and habitat particularly those forming the eastern and western boundaries of the site including new habitats, where appropriate,
c. Contribute to mitigating any adverse effects of the development on the setting of the wider Cambridge Green Belt and landscape;
d. Include sustainable drainage features, such as swales, wetlands and reed beds; and
e. Integrate with the green and blue infrastructure network across the site and in the wider area.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous and avoids duplication, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) and (f)of the NPPF (2024).
The proposed text at point 17 has been updated to combine with the text removed from point 5a and added at new point 16, to ensure it is consistent with national policy and the application of Strategic Enhancement Areas elsewhere within the Plan and to consolidate the requirements for the SEA within the policy.
Amend point 18c. to state: Contributing to and securing high-quality local public transport routes to and from the Site, including the Cambridge South East Transport schemes (CSET).
Amend point 21 to state: To support delivery of the agreed campus-wide masterplan, a strategic and local transport mitigation plan must be prepared by the Campus stakeholders in consultation with the Local Highways Authority and Local Planning Authority.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
Amend wording to state: The employment-led development must, additionally, do the following (in accordance with the indicative Spatial Framework):
Amend point 24 to: Encourage opportunities for collaboration between future occupants including communal space within the centre of the Campus designed for meeting, socialising and holding events
Remove points 26 and 27 in their entirety.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous, as per the requirements in Paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
The suggested wording above more clearly and accurately reflect up to date assessment work undertaken by the Campus to inform their future masterplan. This has been subject to discussion with officers at Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and has formed part of the proposals of application 25/04634/OUT. The suggested changes also avoid unnecessary duplication within the policy wording.
The requirement under part 26 to deliver active ground floor uses and frontages wherever possible is overly prescriptive. Ultimately, this is a matter to be dealt with via detailed assessment relating to a site-specific proposal as part of any planning application process. Furthermore, R&D buildings at the Campus cannot have an open door policy
Add wording: The residential-led development must, additionally, do the following (in accordance with the indicative Spatial Framework)
Change point 30 wording to: Provide ancillary uses to meet the daily needs of residents, including a new, expanded Nursery and a new amenity building capable of accommodating flexible space to address Campus and local needs, e.g. small shop and gym, both of which must be open to the wider public and not undermine the viability of existing services in the village.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
The suggested wording more clearly and accurately reflects up to date assessment work undertaken by the Campus to inform their future masterplan. This has been subject to discussion with officers at Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and has formed part of the proposals of application 25/04634/OUT
Remove point 32 in it's entirety.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous and has a clear purpose, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) and (f) of the NPPF (2024).
The requirement under part 32 to deliver active ground floor uses and frontages wherever possible is overly prescriptive. Ultimately, this is a matter to be dealt with via detailed assessment relating to a site-specific proposal as part of any planning application process. Furthermore, R&D buildings at the Campus cannot have an open door policy
Remove points 34 d, e and f. The changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan avoids unnecessary duplications of policies, per requirements in paragraph 16 (f) of the NPPF (2024). The requirements such as a Flood Risk Assessment and Waste Management Plan are already included within the validation criteria, as well as Development Management Policies and therefore do not need to be duplicated under the policy. The requirement for a strategic and local transport mitigation plan is also already provided at part 21 of the policy.
BRC Ltd objects to the Indicative Spatial Framework (Figure 75) as currently drafted. The following changes are requested to be made:
● Amend the title, as follows - ‘Figure 75: Indicative Spatial Framework for Policy S/RSC/BRC: Babraham Research Campus’
● Remove green block of colour in north-west of the site, within the Site Allocation boundary. The ‘landscape buffer’ hatching has been removed as per representations made at Regulation 18 stage for this area but the green colour is still showing on the plan
● Remove ‘Commercial Led Development’ blocks and simply refer to whole of this part of the Campus as ‘Employment-Led Development’ – as per the wording within Policy S/BRC
● Remove ‘local nature reserve’ labelling. This remains incorrect and there is existing built development in these locations which should be acknowledged and shown on the plan and legend
● Correctly show the alignment of the CSET Route. This is still not correct as it is much further south than currently shown
Show the entirety of the Strategic Enhancement Area on the Plan for clarity

Remove points 1 and 2 as they unnecessarily duplicate part 15 of the policy.
Amend point 5. to state: Development involving the provision of housing will be required to meet the National Planning Policy Framework Golden Rules for land released from Green Belt' and remove all sub points.
Change wording to: The development of Babraham Research Campus must do the following (in accordance with the Indicative Spatial Framework):
Point 6 should be amended to state: Through the preparation of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and more detailed Heritage Impact Assessment, inform specific mitigations and protect, and where appropriate, enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting, including the Grade I Listed St Peter’s Church, Grade II* Listed Babraham Hall, Babraham Conservation Area and nearby heritage assets.
Point 7 should be deleted.
Point 8 should be amended to state: Limit development of new buildings to areas of existing development, undeveloped areas of land in the far north of the site, and The Close residential area. Gardens surrounding the Grade I Church and Grade II* Babraham Hall should be retained as open space, as indicated on the Spatial Framework
Point 9 should be amended to state: Retain, preserve and enhance key short and long-range views from, into and within the site as indicated on the Indicative Spatial Framework, by:
a. Ensuring buildings sits below the tree canopy; and,
b. Responding sensitively to the setting of heritage assets within the site when redeveloping existing buildings
Sub points 9 b and d should be removed.
Point 11 should be removed in it's entirety.
Point 14. should have a capital 'C' for Campus
Add new point 16. under 'Context' which should state: Beyond the Site Allocation Boundary, other associated uses and mitigation may be provided in the Strategic Enhancement Area (S/SEA/BRC), including drainage, habitat compensation, sustainable and active travel infrastructure and green space.
Point 17 should be amended to state: Proposals must:
a. Provide new green space or improvements to existing green space, which is accessible to the public, including measures such as walking loops, new wetlands, restoration of ponds, and other associated green infrastructure projects
b. Enhance existing hedgerows, woodland and habitat particularly those forming the eastern and western boundaries of the site including new habitats, where appropriate,
c. Contribute to mitigating any adverse effects of the development on the setting of the wider Cambridge Green Belt and landscape;
d. Include sustainable drainage features, such as swales, wetlands and reed beds; and
e. Integrate with the green and blue infrastructure network across the site and in the wider area.
Amend point 18c. to state: Contributing to and securing high-quality local public transport routes to and from the Site, including the Cambridge South East Transport schemes (CSET).
Amend point 21 to state: To support delivery of the agreed campus-wide masterplan, a strategic and local transport mitigation plan must be prepared by the Campus stakeholders in consultation with the Local Highways Authority and Local Planning Authority.
Amend wording to state: The employment-led development must, additionally, do the following (in accordance with the indicative Spatial Framework):
Amend point 24 to: Encourage opportunities for collaboration between future occupants including communal space within the centre of the Campus designed for meeting, socialising and holding events
Remove points 26 and 27 in their entirety.
Add wording: The residential-led development must, additionally, do the following (in accordance with the indicative Spatial Framework)
Change point 30 wording to: Provide ancillary uses to meet the daily needs of residents, including a new, expanded Nursery and a new amenity building capable of accommodating flexible space to address Campus and local needs, e.g. small shop and gym, both of which must be open to the wider public and not undermine the viability of existing services in the village.
Remove point 32 in it's entirety.
Remove points 34 d, e and f.
Indicative Spatial Framework (Figure 75)
● Amend the title, as follows - ‘Figure 75: Indicative Spatial Framework for Policy S/RSC/BRC: Babraham Research Campus’
● Remove green block of colour in north-west of the site, within the Site Allocation boundary. The ‘landscape buffer’ hatching has been removed as per representations made at Regulation 18 stage for this area but the green colour is still showing on the plan
● Remove ‘Commercial Led Development’ blocks and simply refer to whole of this part of the Campus as ‘Employment-Led Development’ – as per the wording within Policy S/BRC
● Remove ‘local nature reserve’ labelling. This remains incorrect and there is existing built development in these locations which should be acknowledged and shown on the plan and legend
● Correctly show the alignment of the CSET Route. This is still not correct as it is much further south than currently shown
Show the entirety of the Strategic Enhancement Area on the Plan for clarity

Please refer to supporting representations.
BRC Ltd object to Policy S/BRC. The Policy is unsound as it is not effective.
Whilst BRC Ltd support the principle of the allocation of Babraham Research Campus for mixed-use development to support the future needs of the campus, they wish to make changes to the policy wording, as detailed below. There are still large sections of the policy that include unnecessary duplication together with areas that require more precise wording that is consistent with national policy. These include:
Remove points 1 and 2 as they unnecessarily duplicate part 15 of the policy.
Amend point 5. to state: Development involving the provision of housing will be required to meet the National Planning Policy Framework Golden Rules for land released from Green Belt' and remove all sub points.
The changes to the wording at part 5 are to ensure the policy is consistent with national policy in terms of the Golden Rules applying only to major development involving the provision of housing on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review (GB8 of NPPF (2026)) and so that it simply refers to the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements (which expands beyond affordable housing). The deletion of part (a) is also required as this duplicates part 17 of the policy.
Change wording to: The development of Babraham Research Campus must do the following (in accordance with the Indicative Spatial Framework):
Point 6 should be amended to state: Through the preparation of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and more detailed Heritage Impact Assessment, inform specific mitigations and protect, and where appropriate, enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting, including the Grade I Listed St Peter’s Church, Grade II* Listed Babraham Hall, Babraham Conservation Area and nearby heritage assets.
Point 7 should be deleted.
Point 8 should be amended to state: Limit development of new buildings to areas of existing development, undeveloped areas of land in the far north of the site, and The Close residential area. Gardens surrounding the Grade I Church and Grade II* Babraham Hall should be retained as open space, as indicated on the Spatial Framework
Point 9 should be amended to state: Retain, preserve and enhance key short and long-range views from, into and within the site as indicated on the Indicative Spatial Framework, by:
a. Ensuring buildings sits below the tree canopy; and,
b. Responding sensitively to the setting of heritage assets within the site when redeveloping existing buildings
Sub points 9 b and d should be removed.
Point 11 should be removed in it's entirety.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous and has a clear purpose, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
There are many instances where there is unnecessary duplication and where parts of the policy could be consolidated. In particular, in terms of assessment and mitigation of impacts upon the significance of heritage assets. This is especially important given that the policy currently extends to 34 parts. There is also reference to the ‘Lodge Building’ but it is not clear which Lodge (there are two – Babraham Lodge and Linton Lodge). The suggested wording seeks to provide clearer wording and avoid duplication.
The reference, at part 11, to a requirement for a ‘…wide landscape buffer (minimum 20 metres) in/adjacent to any development in the north-west of site…’ is not considered to be justified or based on evidence. Indeed, the Cambridge Green Belt Study (2021) identifies that the Campus makes a relatively limited contribution to Green Belt purposes, and the harm of its release would be low. The policy also does not acknowledge the existing, established perimeter woodland belt that runs to the west and north of the proposed employment-led development in the north of the Campus. This woodland belt is within the wider Campus estate and therefore within the ownership of the Campus and is proposed to be retained. Ultimately, this is a matter to be dealt with via detailed assessment (including a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) relating to a site-specific proposal as part of any planning application process.
Point 14. should have a capital 'C' for Campus
Add new point 16. under 'Context' which should state: Beyond the Site Allocation Boundary, other associated uses and mitigation may be provided in the Strategic Enhancement Area (S/SEA/BRC), including drainage, habitat compensation, sustainable and active travel infrastructure and green space.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
With reference to part 15 (b) of the Policy, reference should be made to a Site-Wide Design Code as opposed to Design Codes for each phase of development. This is to ensure the Policy is not overly prescriptive and reflects the approach agreed with officers at Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (GCSP) service in respect of application 25/04634/OUT. The approach was to prepare a Site-Wide Design Code but which includes for site-wide coding as well as coding for the three character areas (residential, central and expansion area within north-west of campus). The Code also includes a section on phasing.
It is also noted that the requirement for a Design Code for each phase is directly contradictory to the requirements for a site-wide design code set out in paragraph 2 of the policy which is proposed to be consolidated with point 15 to avoid duplication.
The additional text at part 16 is proposed for clarity and to be consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the Plan as it relates to Strategic Enhancement Areas.
Point 17 should be amended to state: Proposals must:
a. Provide new green space or improvements to existing green space, which is accessible to the public, including measures such as walking loops, new wetlands, restoration of ponds, and other associated green infrastructure projects
b. Enhance existing hedgerows, woodland and habitat particularly those forming the eastern and western boundaries of the site including new habitats, where appropriate,
c. Contribute to mitigating any adverse effects of the development on the setting of the wider Cambridge Green Belt and landscape;
d. Include sustainable drainage features, such as swales, wetlands and reed beds; and
e. Integrate with the green and blue infrastructure network across the site and in the wider area.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous and avoids duplication, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) and (f)of the NPPF (2024).
The proposed text at point 17 has been updated to combine with the text removed from point 5a and added at new point 16, to ensure it is consistent with national policy and the application of Strategic Enhancement Areas elsewhere within the Plan and to consolidate the requirements for the SEA within the policy.
Amend point 18c. to state: Contributing to and securing high-quality local public transport routes to and from the Site, including the Cambridge South East Transport schemes (CSET).
Amend point 21 to state: To support delivery of the agreed campus-wide masterplan, a strategic and local transport mitigation plan must be prepared by the Campus stakeholders in consultation with the Local Highways Authority and Local Planning Authority.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
Amend wording to state: The employment-led development must, additionally, do the following (in accordance with the indicative Spatial Framework):
Amend point 24 to: Encourage opportunities for collaboration between future occupants including communal space within the centre of the Campus designed for meeting, socialising and holding events
Remove points 26 and 27 in their entirety.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous, as per the requirements in Paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
The suggested wording above more clearly and accurately reflect up to date assessment work undertaken by the Campus to inform their future masterplan. This has been subject to discussion with officers at Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and has formed part of the proposals of application 25/04634/OUT. The suggested changes also avoid unnecessary duplication within the policy wording.
The requirement under part 26 to deliver active ground floor uses and frontages wherever possible is overly prescriptive. Ultimately, this is a matter to be dealt with via detailed assessment relating to a site-specific proposal as part of any planning application process. Furthermore, R&D buildings at the Campus cannot have an open door policy
Add wording: The residential-led development must, additionally, do the following (in accordance with the indicative Spatial Framework)
Change point 30 wording to: Provide ancillary uses to meet the daily needs of residents, including a new, expanded Nursery and a new amenity building capable of accommodating flexible space to address Campus and local needs, e.g. small shop and gym, both of which must be open to the wider public and not undermine the viability of existing services in the village.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF (2024).
The suggested wording more clearly and accurately reflects up to date assessment work undertaken by the Campus to inform their future masterplan. This has been subject to discussion with officers at Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and has formed part of the proposals of application 25/04634/OUT
Remove point 32 in it's entirety.
The above changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan is clearly written and unambiguous and has a clear purpose, as per requirements in paragraph 16 (d) and (f) of the NPPF (2024).
The requirement under part 32 to deliver active ground floor uses and frontages wherever possible is overly prescriptive. Ultimately, this is a matter to be dealt with via detailed assessment relating to a site-specific proposal as part of any planning application process. Furthermore, R&D buildings at the Campus cannot have an open door policy
Remove points 34 d, e and f. The changes to the wording of the policy are proposed in order to ensure the Plan avoids unnecessary duplications of policies, per requirements in paragraph 16 (f) of the NPPF (2024). The requirements such as a Flood Risk Assessment and Waste Management Plan are already included within the validation criteria, as well as Development Management Policies and therefore do not need to be duplicated under the policy. The requirement for a strategic and local transport mitigation plan is also already provided at part 21 of the policy.
BRC Ltd objects to the Indicative Spatial Framework (Figure 75) as currently drafted. The following changes are requested to be made:
● Amend the title, as follows - ‘Figure 75: Indicative Spatial Framework for Policy S/RSC/BRC: Babraham Research Campus’
● Remove green block of colour in north-west of the site, within the Site Allocation boundary. The ‘landscape buffer’ hatching has been removed as per representations made at Regulation 18 stage for this area but the green colour is still showing on the plan
● Remove ‘Commercial Led Development’ blocks and simply refer to whole of this part of the Campus as ‘Employment-Led Development’ – as per the wording within Policy S/BRC
● Remove ‘local nature reserve’ labelling. This remains incorrect and there is existing built development in these locations which should be acknowledged and shown on the plan and legend
● Correctly show the alignment of the CSET Route. This is still not correct as it is much further south than currently shown
Show the entirety of the Strategic Enhancement Area on the Plan for clarity