Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

The Green Belt should be further reviewed to identify suitable Grey Belt and other suitable sustainable Green Belt sites on the Edge of Cambridge which can be allocated for new housing to meet the areas housing needs as the next most sustainable location for growth after the Cambridge Uran Area. This should include the allocation of Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222; HELAA ID 40250) for a residential-led development of circa 1,500 new homes.

In any event, The Policy should be amended to reflect the requirements of the Green Belt policies in the NPPF in order to ensure consistency with National Policy.

Endurance Estates object to draft Policy S/DS as it is considered that the Policy is unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared, justified or effective when considered against the reasonable alternatives and evidence available.

Draft Policy S/DS states that, as far as possible, housing and jobs needs will be met in order of preference as follows: (a) within the Cambridge Urban Area, (b) on the edge of Cambridge, (c) at an expanded Cambourne, (d) at other new settlements; and finally (e) in the rural southern cluster and wider rural area at Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres. The order of preference has been determined in recognition of the sustainability of these locations and is considered to be broadly logical and justified.

In accordance with paragraphs 145-147 of the NPPF 2024 (Policy GB2 and GB3 of the NPPF 2026) and following the updated Planning Practice Guidance issued in February 2025, the Councils are required to review Green Belt boundaries to support the emerging Local Plan. To this end, on 27th February 2025, it was announced that Greater Cambridge Planning had received £140,000 to facilitate a comprehensive review of the Green Belt to support the emerging Local Plan. It is not clear how this has been spent, other than a light-touch update to the previous Assessment.
Endurance Estates are concerned that the further evidence provided within the Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment – Review Following Changes to National Policy and Guidance (July 2026) prepared by LUC represents only a minor update to the 2021 Green Belt Assessment, and accordingly, the Plan is still largely based on evidence which is now over 5 years old. LUC’s July 2026 Update makes only minor updates and concludes that there is very little Grey Belt land or other land suitable for release from the Green Belt. The document, having prepared late in the preparation of the Local Plan effectively seeks to retrospectively justify a Development Strategy that has already been determined by suggesting that the changes in Green Belt policy in the NNPF and PPG make no material difference to the previous conclusions despite these representing the biggest change in Green Belt policy since its inception in the 1950s.
Notwithstanding the above, the Draft Policy S/GB maintains the additional ‘Cambridge Green Belt Purposes’, which effectively grant greater protection to Green Belt within Greater Cambridge than National Policy affords.
Indeed, Cambridge Green Belt Purpose C prevents “communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city”. This is not consistent with National Policy, and Endurance Estates contend that it is a much higher bar than afforded by the NPPF, which references “neighbouring towns” only and confirms that this protection is not intended to cover villages. The NPPF therefore deliberately limits the Green Belt purpose to the prevention of coalescence between towns and cities, rather than all Green Belt settlements.
Not only is Cambridge Purpose C a duplication of NPPF Green Belt Purpose B, it goes significantly further. The justification for this is not clear form the evidence base. The 2026 NPPF instead outlines, in Policy S2(c), that designations should be made to safeguard gaps between settlements where necessary to maintain and separate identities of the settlements. Clearly, the intent is for this to be a site and settlement specific measure, rather than a blanket application.
A less restrictive approach would help to accommodate growth in the most sustainable locations of Greater Cambridge, helping to accommodate a portion of the Government’s aspiration for the growth of the City.
As with previous representations, Endurance Estates remain concerned that the draft Green Belt policy will be fundamentally flawed and risk being unsound, ineffective and inconsistent with national policy.
Endurance Estates propose the following revisions to the S/GB Policy:
1. A Green Belt will be maintained around Cambridge in accordance with national Green Belt policy.
2. The detailed boundaries of the Green Belt are defined on the Policies Map.
3. In considering the future role and function of Green Belt land around Cambridge, regard will be had to:
a. The nationally defined Green Belt purposes set out in Policy GB2 of the National Planning Policy Framework;
b. The contribution of Green Belt land to the setting and special character of the historic city of Cambridge; and
c. The need to support a sustainable pattern of development consistent with the spatial strategy of the Local Plan.
4. Development proposals within the Green Belt will be determined in accordance with the Green Belt policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.
As highlighted in our representations to Policies S/DS and S/GB, it is considered that the Development Strategy should be supplemented by the provision of additional allocations on the Edge of Cambridge to support additional housing growth beyond the minimum currently identified and achieve a more balanced and sustainable housing land supply which locates growth in the second most sustainable location, helps to address unmet market and affordable housing needs in Cambridge and mitigates the risk of delayed delivery from the New Settlements. This would meet a wider range of housing needs (including affordable housing needs) across the whole area whilst also addressing the inadequate housing supply buffer previously referred to.
The concentration of further growth on the edge of Cambridge would result in development being located in the next most sustainable location after the urban area (as acknowledged in the Plan) where development for new housing can come forward quickly, benefiting from the existing infrastructure and proximity to jobs, services and facilities.
Notwithstanding the conclusions in the LUC Green Belt Study, Endurance Estates consider their land at East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250) to be Grey Belt land having regard to the definition in the Annex B of the NPPF 2026, in that it does not contribute strongly to Green Belt Purposes (a), (b) or (d). Below is a brief assessment of Land East of Gazelle Way which demonstrates that the Site can be considered Grey Belt.
In terms of Purpose A (to check the unrestricted sprawl), while it is accepted that the proposed site would encroach into the countryside, it is our view that the site performs weakly against Purpose A. The site is largely enclosed by Cherry Hinton to the west, Springstead Village to the north, the former Ida Darwin Hospital development to the south-east and Capital Park/CamLife Campus which sits the south. The southern boundary is comprised of the Cambridge to Newmarket railway line. There are also other existing urban influences to the south in the form of the National Grid/UKPN Grid Substation, and a mobile home park with the Yarrow Road Tesco beyond. The site is therefore considered to be well contained and would be a logical extension to Cambridge. Once developed, the site would represent a logical limit to Cambridge, whilst preserving a landscaped buffer between the scheme, Teversham and Fulbourn providing separation and protecting their individual identity. This buffer would be similar in scale to that provided between Darwin Green and Girton.
In conclusion, the site makes a moderate contribution to Purpose A and does not therefore contribute strongly to Purpose A.
In terms of Purpose B (Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another) the revised PPG confirms that this relates solely to the merging of towns, and not villages. Given the nearest town to the east of the site is Newmarket, approximately 10km away it is considered that the site makes no meaningful contribution to fulfilling this purpose.
Nevertheless, the proposals submitted include a substantial open landscape buffer which would preserve the setting of both Teversham and Fulbourn maintaining separation and preserving their individual identity. Once provided, the landscaped buffer would retain a visual separation between the proposals and both villages, which could be incorporated into open space, biodiversity enhancement areas or a country park – subject to further technical work and discussions with Greater Cambridge. This would effectively secure this buffer in perpetuity, rounding off development to the East of Cambridge.
In conclusion, the Site makes only a weak/no contribution to Green Belt Purpose B and does not therefore contribute strongly to Purpose B.
For Purpose D (to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns), again, the revised PPG confirms that this relates solely to towns (and not villages). Accordingly, the only historic town relevant to the site is Cambridge. The last Green Belt Assessment (LDA, August 2021) published by the Council confirmed the promotion site contributed only moderately to purpose 2 (maintaining and enhancing the quality of Cambridge’s setting), reflecting the presence of relatively modern developments in and around Cherry Hinton, which do not contribute to the historic character or setting of the City.
In conclusion, the Site only makes a weak to moderate contribution to this purpose and does not therefore contribute strongly to Purpose D.
Further, in terms of the Golden Rules for Green Belt Release, the site is fully capable of meeting the requirements as outlined in Paragraph 156 of the NPPF (Policy GB8 of the NPPF 2026).
Initial technical investigations on the indicative design confirm that East of Gazelle Way can viably deliver 50% affordable housing, which would significantly help meet the pressing need for affordable housing in the City.
Alongside this, the proposed scheme is capable of contributing towards necessary infrastructure, including provision of a new primary school and contributions to required sustainable transport infrastructure. The site design is capable of incorporating safe active travel routes throughout, and the Site will be easily accessible and will provide enhanced linkages to the Fulbourn Greenway, relocated Teversham Travel Hub and the potential future Cambridge East Station at Coldham’s Lane. Endurance Estates would welcome discussions with Greater Cambridge relating to required infrastructure contributions.
As such, it is concluded that the site is likely to constitute Grey Belt and is capable of complying with the Golden Rules of Green Belt release outlined in Policy GB8 of the NPPF. As stated in Policies GB6 and GB7 of the NPPF, development which is Grey Belt and which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of granting permission.
It is considered that the housing and employment needs of the nationally significant Greater Cambridge economy represent exceptional circumstances that justify the release of land from the Green Belt.
Endurance Estates object to the draft Policy S/GB as it is considered that the Policy is unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy when considered against the reasonable alternatives and evidence available.

The proposed housing in the ‘Rest of the Rural Area’ should be increased to meet the National Requirements as set out in HO6 – namely, to allocate specific sites to meet at least 10% of the housing requirement; a further 10% for medium sites (up to 2.5ha) along with other proportionate allocations to meet local needs with sufficient sites to support the village economies, local services and facilities.

Endurance Estates’ Sites should be allocated for residential development as follows:

• Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554)
• Land to the rear of Old House Road, Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438)
• Land off the Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228)
• Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227)
• Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496)

Draft Policy S/RRA allocates specific sites within the rest of the Rural Area to help meet the development needs across Greater Cambridge. Endurance Estates, objects to the draft Policy on the basis that the housing allocations identified within the Rest of the Rural Area are insufficient to meet local housing needs in villages, and further, that it omits Endurances sites for residential development. The Policy is therefore not considered to be positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy and is unsound.

Endurance Estates consider that the housing allocations proposed in the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission Local Plan across the rural area are insufficient to meet local housing needs in the villages of the District The lack of new housing site allocations in the villages within the Rural Area reflect wider concerns set out in our responses to other Policies (S/JH and S/DS) that confirm the Plan is not providing for sufficient number of new homes in the right places.

In addition to the inherent spatial imbalance which exists due to the lack of significant allocations south and east of the City, the Development Strategy being pursued, has resulted in very few new housing allocations in the ‘Rest of the Rural Area’, which are largely overlooked in favour of significant New-Settlement allocations.

Endurance Estates are also concerned that the Plan does not appear to meet the requirements of Part (a) of Policy HO6 of the NPPF 2026 which requires the Council to allocate 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than 1 hectare, and a further 10% between 1-and-2.5 hectares.

Further, the Part (b) of Policy HO6 requires the Councils to allocate “sites which will support and enhance the vitality of rural communities and enable villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services”. The Government’s intention is therefore clear - growth within villages is essential to ensure they continue to be vibrant, inclusive communities with new opportunities for residents to stay in those communities. Such sites are necessary as part of a blended, robust housing land supply to meet needs across the whole of Greater Cambridge, and to deliver a spatial development strategy that is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

The Regulation 19 Plan makes only a handful of allocations within the ‘Rest of the Rural Area’.

• S/RRA/ML (Moor Lane) – 20 dwellings
• S/RRA/H (Highfields Phase 2) – 65 dwellings
• S/RRA/ (Cambridge Road, Melbourn) – 125 dwellings
• S/AMC/FD (Land Settlement Association Estate Area of Major Change) – No clear use
• S/AMC/HIS (Histon and Impington Station) – Mixed use – no quantum confirmed
As set out above, across the S/RRA Policies, there are only very limited allocations for residential development, with most being for employment, or unspecified mixed uses. The residential allocations are confined to Moor Lane, Highfields and Melbourn, totalling just 210 homes across the District - equal less than 0.5% of the identified housing requirement. Endurance considers this to be woefully insufficient to meet the needs of the villages of the district and does nothing to support the local economies and services within these settlements.

It is considered that the housing allocations identified within the Rest of the Rural Area are not aligned with the settlement hierarchy in terms of distribution and scale of development.

As mentioned within our representations to Policy S/DS, there is a strong focus within the Draft Local Plan on the delivery of strategic sites, particularly New Settlements. Whilst it is recognised that strategic sites are capable of delivering large numbers of homes and making a meaningful contribution to meeting identified development needs, the proposed New Settlements make up almost half of the planned housing supply. This reliance on large strategic sites places an undue reliance and significant dependence on such sites and risks under delivery in the face of any delays to their delivery, particularly as many of these sites are subject to significant infrastructure delivery requirements.

Over-reliance on Windfall

Paragraph 2.41 of the Regulation 19 Plan confirms that the Councils intend to rely heavily upon windfall to meet the small-sites requirement. The Councils contend that allocating the full amount on specific identified sites would be “extremely challenging”. Endurance Estates contend that this is not a sound strategy and Policy HO6 is clear that the Councils should be allocating specific sites to meet this need. Allocation of a small number of additional sites in the Rest of the Rural Area, such as Endurance Estates’ sites below, would go some way to meeting this need.

The arguments for not allocating specific sites, such as the highly-sustainable Endurance Estates sites outlined below, in is not justified. The Councils state that allocation of the full small-sites requirement would direct “a significant portion of growth to less sustainable locations where levels of car use would be higher, negatively impacting our response to the challenges of net zero carbon and Climate Act obligations and undermining our vision and strategic priorities”. Notwithstanding this, the reliance upon windfall to meet this need appears to be in conflict with this statement.

The Policy as currently drafted risks artificially constraining housing provision outside of Cambridge and the New Settlement allocations. In doing so, the Plan risks worsening affordability pressures, already present within the District, whilst increasing the need to commute and restricting labour supply. Ultimately, in failing to deliver sufficient new homes in the villages of the District – in addition to those in Cambridge and the new settlements – the Council are constraining business and economic growth. This is at odds with the stated ambitions of the Government, and the Councils’ own evidence and as such will fail to support the planned economic growth of the City region.

In relying upon windfall developments to exclusively meet the housing needs of the majority of the villages of the District, and when considered in combination with S/SH - which Endurance have also made representations on within this submission – the Council are restricting the ability of developments to meet the affordable needs of the villages. Policy S/SH currently restricts Local Service Centres to “an indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings” and Group Villages to “an indicative maximum scheme size of 8 dwellings” with up to 15 in ‘exceptional’ circumstances. As mandatory Affordable Housing provision is only triggered on Major sites, the Council are relying exclusively on goodwill and rural exceptions sites. This is not considered a robust approach to meeting the affordable housing needs of the District’s villages.

Meeting Local Housing Needs

The evidence base does not assess affordable housing need within the District's villages, which raises the question of whether the Plan and Policies can be said to address local housing needs and whether they have been properly planned for.
The Plan itself acknowledges that locating homes closer to employment can reduce commuting. Sustainable villages, including those benefiting from committed transport improvements, can make a meaningful contribution to this objective. The absence of significant housing allocations in such locations therefore represents a missed opportunity to support sustainable travel patterns.
The proposed housing strategy also lacks sufficient diversity. Only a small proportion of housing need is expected to be delivered through specific small and medium-sized allocations, with significant reliance on windfalls and large strategic sites. This approach is inconsistent with the Government's increasing emphasis on the role of small and medium-sized sites in boosting housing delivery and market diversity. Evidence consistently shows that smaller sites are delivered more quickly and can improve resilience within the housing trajectory.
The Plan should therefore identify additional small and medium-sized allocations in suitable village locations and ensure new settlements are supported by sufficient employment opportunities to create balanced and sustainable communities.

In particular, Endurance Estates strongly objects to Draft Policy S/RRA on the basis that it omits the following proposed site allocations:

• Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554)
• Land to the rear of Old House Road, Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438)
• Land off the Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228)
• Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227)
• Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496)
These sites are considered in turn below.
Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554)
Endurance Estates have consistently promoted Land South of Horseheath Road and sought to provide updated technical information at every given opportunity. The 2025 HELAA relating to the landscape impact states that the “Site is highly sensitive in landscape terms and development in this location would be highly visible, creating adverse impacts on landscape character and local views. These impacts are significant when considered cumulatively alongside other development on adjacent land”. It is not clear on what basis this conclusion was reached, as detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments have concluded that development of the site can be sufficiently mitigated through a considerate, landscape-led design and planting scheme.

The July 2026 Sustainability Appraisal Appendix E (Justification for selecting the spatial strategy and site allocations for the plan) states the reason for not proposing the site for allocation as follows:
“The landscape assessment has been changed from Red to Amber. However, the site sits on a slightly more elevated parcel of land compared to its surroundings, which will result in development being more visible. The required landscape mitigation would reduce the capacity of the site. There are a number of sites recently developed or committed on the edge of Linton. There are other sites considered more appropriate for allocation.”

It is considered to be significant that this response does not challenge the sustainability of the site. Further, Endurance Estates contend that the capacity of the site is demonstrated through the supporting plans and application materials which were submitted to Greater Cambridge Planning in support of the Outline Planning Application (Ref: 26/00415/OUT) for the Site in February 2026. Following submission of the Outline Planning Application, it is demonstrated that there are no significant or insurmountable constraints which should preclude development of the site.

As a Minor Rural Centre, Linton is demonstrably a sustainable settlement. Linton benefits from an Infant, Junior and Secondary Schools, a Library, several shops and cafes, public houses, a GP Surgery, dental practice, and an excellent range of sports and recreation facilities, including a skate park, swimming pool and sports pavilion. It is therefore considered that the site, and by extension the village of Linton, benefits from sufficient accessibility to essential shops and services, alongside the ability to travel sustainably further afield for a full array of services in both the surrounding villages and Cambridge.

Linton also now benefits from The Linton Greenway, which is now significantly advanced, providing a quality active travel route between Linton and the Abingtons (including Granta Park) and the planned CSET2 Busway scheme, which will provide fast and direct public transport connections into Cambridge and the Biomedical Campus from a new Travel Hub on the A11 Junction at Fourwentways. The Secretary of State has confirmed the CSET Busway is expected to commence Inquiry in October 2026. Both schemes will materially improve the sustainability of the settlement in a way which we consider has not been reflected in the assessment of the village’s potential to accommodate growth sustainably.
It is expected that subject to approval, the CSET scheme will come forward as envisaged prior to or in a similar timeframe to the development of the site.

The supporting text to Policy S/DS: Development Strategy outlines that “We [Greater Cambridge] also have evidence that locating homes close to existing and proposed jobs at the cluster of research parks to the south of Cambridge would help reduce commuting and associated carbon emissions and congestion”. This acknowledgement is endorsed by Endurance Estates as recognition of the sustainability of villages in the Southern Cluster, which includes Linton. Despite this sensible admission, it makes the lack of any residential allocations within Linton difficult to understand, particularly with the transport enhancement schemes being brought forward by GCP with the express purpose of improving the accessibility of the Village to employment sites.

Endurance Estates contend that the omission of Land South of Horseheath Road fails to recognise Linton’s accessible location and the likelihood that this will shortly be enhanced through planned public transport improvements, along with the good level of existing service provision. The site and village as a whole is outside of the Green Belt and the identified landscape constraints are capable of being overcome through a landscape-led design approach

Linton is therefore demonstrably a sustainable location capable for accommodating further housing growth to meet the identified local need and its allocation would be consistent with the strategy of focussing growth in the Rural Southern Cluster, close to existing employment sites. In this regard, Greater Cambridge should allocate Land South of Horseheath Road for a sustainable development of approximately 100 market and affordable homes within the village.

The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

Land to the rear of Old House Road, Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438)

Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Balsham on the grounds that it does not propose allocation of Land at Old House Road for residential development. The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village, Endurance Estates are promoting Land to the Rear of Old House Road, Balsham which is considered capable of accommodating a scheme of approximately 25 new dwellings.

Crucially, draft Policy S/SH states that “limited development will help maintain remaining services and facilities and provide for affordable housing to meet local needs”. This acknowledgement is strongly supported by Endurance Estates, however the lack of any allocated development to ensure the long-term vitality of the village’s facilities is disappointing.

Balsham had a population of 1,623 as of the 2021 Census, which represents an approximate 1% decrease on the 1,641 residents recorded at the 2001 Census. This contrasts starkly with the wider South Cambridgeshire district, which grew by just under 25% in the same time period. This stagnation places the village’s existing services at risk of further decline. As correctly identified by the supporting text to Policy S/SH, additional growth in villages such as Balsham is key to maintaining their vitality. Simply, without growth, the range of shops and essential services is likely to continue to deteriorate.

In terms Land to the Rear of Old House Road, there were no significant issues which cannot be mitigated through the scheme design which were raised in the 2021, 2023 or 2025 HELAA documents.
Endurance Estates contend that the Inset Map for Balsham should be urgently updated to ensure that controlled growth can come forward, in support of essential services through the allocation of sites such as Land to the Rear of Old House Road.

The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.





Land off the Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228)
Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227).
Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Bassingbourn on the grounds that it does not propose allocation of either Land off the Causeway, or Land off Elbourn Way for residential development. The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village, despite it being a sustainable Minor Rural Centre. Greater Cambridge recognises that the village plays a role in providing services and facilities for a rural hinterland; however, the lack of allocations to secure controlled growth moving forward puts existing services at risk of decline.

Bassingbourn had a population of 2,351 at the 2021 Census which represents a marked decrease on the 3,090 residents that lived in the village at the time of the 2001 Census. This decline is in stark contrast with South Cambridgeshire, which grew by just under 25% in the same time period. There is therefore an urgent need to protect the vitality of the village to secure the ongoing provision of shops, services and community facilities. The Village currently hosts a good range of shops and services including a Spar Convenience Store, Public Houses and a community centre. The Village also benefits from Bassingbourn Primary and Bassingbourn Village College. Without additional growth in villages such as Bassingbourn, which play key roles in the delivery of shops and services for rural areas of South Cambridgeshire, the breadth and quality of key shops and services is likely to deteriorate, ultimately harming the sustainability of the settlement in the long term.

The Inset Map for Bassingbourn should be updated to reflect the role of the village as a Minor Rural Centre. Proportional and sympathetic extensions to the village, such as those proposed at Land off the Causeway and Land off Elbourn Way, are the best and most effective way to securing the continued viability of essential services and facilities and maintaining the vitality of the village in accordance with paragraph 83 of the NPPF.

The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.

Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496)
Endurance Estates objects strongly to the proposed Inset Map for Orwell on the basis of the omission of a site specific policy allocating Land at Hillside, Orwell for a residential development.

Orwell is categorised as a Group Village under draft Policy S/SH. The village has experienced moderate growth since the 2001 Census, increasing by approximately 6%. However, this is significantly below the growth rate of South Cambridgeshire, which saw population growth of just under 25% during the same period. As of the 2025 Regulation 18 Consultation, there are no residential allocations proposed within the village.

Orwell benefits from a Primary School, Public House, Post Office, Convenience Store and a Village Hall. The Village also has a good bus connection to Cambridge for a wider range of services.

Land at Hillside, Orwell, is promoted by Endurance Estates for a landscape-led development of approximately 26 dwellings. The 2025 HELAA did not assess the site as it was deemed to “not align with the wider Local Plan Strategy”. Endurance Estates consider that this fails to consider the contribution that the Site could make towards a controlled and proportionate growth of the Village in order to support essential services and facilities to maintain the vitality of the village in accordance with paragraph 85 of the NPPF.

Since the development at Hurdleditch Road was approved in 2016 (S/3190/15/OL), no further major schemes have been approved in the village. Partly as a result of the lack of site allocations there within the Adopted Local Plan.

Department of Education records indicate that the Petersfield C of E Primary School has 134 pupils on roll and a capacity of 210, indicating that the school is currently operating at around 64% capacity. This suggests there is capacity for growth within the village, which would help safeguard existing services for the benefit of current and future residents.
The Inset Map for Orwell should be updated to reflect the capacity of the village for a controlled and proportionate level of growth to support the Village’s services. This should include, as a minimum, Land at Hillside, Orwell for a residential development of circa 26 dwellings.
The Site remains Available, Achievable and Suitable for residential development.
Conclusions

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, Endurance Estates contends that Policy S/RRA is unsound. By focusing growth almost exclusively on strategic sites and constraining the range and distribution of housing growth by largely excluding growth at sustainable villages, the Plan risks:
• Failing to meet local market and affordable housing needs.
• Increasing commuting and associated congestion and emissions.
• Undermining the vitality and viability of village services and facilities.
• Over-reliance on a small number of large allocations, reducing delivery resilience.
• Failing to capitalise on committed transport investments, including: GCP Greenways and the CSET Busway Mass-rapid transit scheme;.
• Exacerbating affordability pressures and undermining the labour supply and economic growth ambitions of Greater Cambridge.

Accordingly, the policy is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

The allocation of a small number of additional, smaller and more easily deliverable sites in the Rest of the Rural Area, such as Endurance Estates sites listed above, would go some way to meeting this need, whilst also strengthening the Council’s slim 5-year housing land housing supply buffer, which by the Council’s own admission, is marginal upon adoption of the Plan.

The proposed housing target should be increased to a minimum of 56,000 new homes over the Plan period (2,667 dwellings per a annum) in accordance with the higher levels of housing growth considered within the Sustainability Appraisal to more fully support the local economy and supporting planned jobs growth.

Moreover, based on our supporting evidence within the Greater Cambridge Economic Needs Assessment, the Plan should seek to aim for an aspirational housing supply target of 66,000 new homes to help address the imbalance between homes and jobs, reduce in-commuting and enable Greater Cambridge to fulfil its full potential in accordance with Government objectives.

Endurance Estates object to Draft Policy S/JH on the basis that the proposed requirement for both jobs and homes is insufficient to meet the real-world need in Greater Cambridge. In particular, it is Endurance Estates’ view that the proposed housing requirement in the Proposed Submission Local Plan is insufficient to meet the area’s housing needs given the level of planned jobs growth and the existing imbalance between homes and jobs. Accordingly, Endurance considers that the Policy is unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared, justified, effective nor consistent with national policy.

For many years, Cambridge has proved a nationally and internationally significant knowledge-intensive employment hub. The UK Government, of both Conservative and Labour administrations, has consistently emphasised its strong ambitions for Cambridge, both in terms of housing delivery and economic growth. The Case for Cambridge (March 2024) sets out that the life sciences and healthcare industry in Cambridge alone employs nearly 23,000 people with a turnover of £9 billion, and that building 150,000 new homes by 2050 could add £6.4 billion to the economy.

The Proposed Submission Local Plan aims only to meet the minimum housing need between 2024-2045 of 48,069 new homes but is seeking to meet a more aspirational job target of a minimum of 73,300 jobs. Endurance supports the increase in jobs being planned for in the Proposed Submission Local Plan to around 73,300 additional jobs, up from the 66,600 jobs referenced in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Development Strategy Update (Regulation 18 Preferred Options) January 2023 and the 58,500 included in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (Regulation 18: Preferred Options 2021). Whilst the planned jobs growth is therefore heading in the right direction to meet the economic potential of the Greater Cambridge economy and is supported, Endurance considers that the same is not true of the planed housing growth and that the housing requirement is insufficient.

The Proposed Submission Local Plan proposes around 25% more jobs across the plan period than the First Proposals version of the Plan. Endurance Estates welcome the increase in the proposed jobs growth from earlier versions of the Plan. However, the significant increase in planned jobs growth has not been met by a corresponding increase in planned housing requirement, which has increased by only 8.5% more compared to the First Proposals Draft, against an increase of around 30% in the Standard Method figure since then. Endurance is concerned that this will result in an increasing disparity between the proposed jobs target and the housing target.

Endurance considers that Greater Cambridge needs to plan for a higher level of housing delivery to support planned jobs growth and begin to redress the imbalance between homes and jobs that has been holding back the local economy, as any other strategy jeopardises the continued economic success of Greater Cambridge.

The current Government is clear that they intend to capitalise upon the previous success of the region with Matthew Pennycook confirming in August 2024 that “We believe that the recent focus on Cambridge and its untapped economic potential are entirely warranted” but that “there remain significant barriers to realising the area’s full potential”.


The UK Government regard the Growth of Greater Cambridge as nationally important. The Government has issued statements outlining wide-ranging support for housing growth across the country. A July 2024 Ministerial Statement on ‘Building the Homes We Need’ noted the following: “Nowhere is decisive reform needed more urgently than in housing. We are in the middle of the most acute housing crisis in living memory. Home ownership is out of reach for too many; the shortage of houses drives high rents; and too many are left without access to a safe and secure home.”

Further, on the 23rd of August 2024, Matthew Pennycook (Minister of State for Housing and Planning) sent a letter to local leaders to reiterate that Cambridge is central to the Government’s priorities. The letter states: “We believe that the recent focus on Cambridge and its untapped economic potential are entirely warranted…”, “While I recognise that in recent years much has been delivered, there remain significant barriers to realising the area’s full potential. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are determined to help remove them and overcome the issues that have held up planned development for essential housing and laboratory space.”
It is therefore clearly the intention of the UK Government to support significant economic growth in the Greater Cambridge area, and to facilitate this through the delivery of housing to tackle existing housing shortages and affordability constraints that have proved a barrier to the growth of the Greater Cambridge economy to enable the area to fulfil its full economic potential.
In this vein, the Government have established the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation which is tasked with delivering “transformational economic growth”. Notwithstanding the emerging structure, it remains the view of Endurance Estates that Greater Cambridge Planning should not be relying upon the Development Corporation to deliver this step-change in growth which is envisaged by the Plan and should instead plan to meet this step-change in growth in the next Plan period.
Endurance consider that the Local Plan has failed to acknowledge or seek to begin to address the significant imbalance between the number of jobs and the number of homes within Greater Cambridge which is resulting in a growing reliance on in-commuting to service the growing number of jobs, leading to both unsustainable travel patterns and placing further strain on housing affordability. This is evidenced in the attached Greater Cambridge Economic Needs Assessment prepared by Savills.
The Councils’ evidence confirms that “a critical assumption informing the relationship between the number of jobs and homes - is imperfect.” The reliance upon the 2011 Census data is understood, given the impact of Covid-19 on the 2021 data, however Endurance Estates contend that it is not robust to use “Census 2011 commuting assumptions applied up to the population supported by the standard method, and 1:1 commuting assumptions above this” as the basis for justifying the housing requirement. These previous commuting patterns are as a result of historic under-delivery of housing relative to jobs growth, rather than a coherent justification for this approach moving forward. This under-delivery versus employment growth is evidenced in the relatively low housing-to-jobs ratio of 0.63 – significantly below both the regional and national averages.

This approach risks entrenching this historic, unsustainable position. We therefore consider it is therefore disappointing that Greater Cambridge are content to pursue only the minimum housing requirements, effectively shifting residual housing demands into neighbouring authorities and as a result, embedding the unsustainable commuting patterns which are straining the infrastructure of the region and holding the City back.

The Councils’ Development Strategy Topic Paper (August 2026 - September 2026) makes no reference to commuting, despite this clearly being a key assumption of the strategy pursued.

Moreover, the Councils’ Consultation Statement Appendix 6: Response to Representations - Development Strategy states “Regarding commuting assumptions, the 2011 Census is used in the EHNU 2025, considering the issues at the time of the 2021 Census (pandemic enforced work from home). As a result, this means the Greater Cambridge modelling assumes a greater draw from other areas than the 2021 Census implies. This is the same approach taken as in previous iterations of the work. The Plan’s Standard Method requirement already incorporates an uplift for affordability in its calculation; therefore, further uplifts are not considered suitable.” Those previous iterations of the work were not sound, and taking the same approach now remains unsound.
As evidenced within the Government’s Case for Cambridge report (March 2024), it is already the case that economic growth in the region is being held back by a lack of adequate housing supply relative to demand, which is evident when considering that South Cambridgeshire has one of the highest house price-to-earnings ratios in the Country.
The 2025 Affordability Ratio data from the ONS, published in March 2026, demonstrates that Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire remain unaffordable. Across England as a whole, median house prices equated to 7.6x median earnings. Across Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire this multiple was 10.82 and 9.31 respectively.
The attached Greater Cambridge Housing and Economic Assessment prepared by Savills’ Economics’ Team in support of these representations provides further detail and evidence on the growing disparity between homes and jobs within Greater Cambridge and the economic implications.
Endurance Estates therefore contend that the Policy is unsound as it is not positively prepared, justified, effective nor consistent with national policy. The Policy as currently drafted risks artificially constraining housing provision. In doing so, the Plan risks worsening affordability pressures, increasing in-commuting, restricting labour supply and constraining business growth. These potential pitfalls are at odds with the stated ambitions of the Government, and the Councils’ own evidence and as such will fail to support the planned economic growth of the City region.

The Policy Map for Cambridge should be amended to remove the Site at Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250) from the Green Belt and allocate it for a residential-led development to include the provision of approximately 1,500 new homes, employment development, neighbourhood centre and supporting uses along with a new country park.

East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250)

Endurance Estates strongly objects to the proposed Policy Inset Map for Cambridge on the basis that it fails to remove Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250) from the Green Belt and does not propose allocation of the site for development.
For the reasons outlined in our response to Policies S/JH, S/DS, S/GB and S/EOC, the Policies Map for Cambridge is considered to be not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy and is therefore unsound.
Endurance Estates contend that the Site should be allocated for a mixed-use, residential-led development capable of delivering approximately 1,500 new homes alongside extensive green space, employment land, a primary school and associated infrastructure.
The Policies Map proposes no new releases of land from the Green Belt around the edge of Cambridge for allocations for residential development. This is despite the Edge of Cambridge being acknowledged in the Settlement Hierarchy (Policy S/SE and the Sustainability Appraisal as the second most sustainable location for growth. The Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment Review Following Changs to National Policy and Guidance prepared by LUC in July 2026 provides a retrospective consideration of Grey Belt land that has been contrived to fit the Development Strategy already set out. The need for further development around the edge of the City is clear and is evident from the Cities increasing reliance on South Cambridgeshire’s New Settlements to meet its housing needs.
The omission of Land East of Gazelle Way is considered to be unjustified. The Site is in a highly sustainable location on the edge of the City, adjoining existing development on two sides and forms a logical location for significant sustainable growth to help meet the unmet market and affordable housing needs of Cambridge and Greater Cambridge more widely. This case is only strengthened by the continuing residential development which abuts the site to the north and north-west.
Land East of Gazelle Way is a well-contained parcel of Green Belt which is a logical extension to the City and is considered to be Grey Belt land, notwithstanding the conclusions of the LUC Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment Review Following Changs to National Policy and Guidance which are disputed. It is considered that there is ample land available to incorporate a green buffer to preserve separation of Cambridge, Fulbourn and Teversham which could provide an enduring and ecologically valuable Green Belt boundary.
The Policies Map should therefore be updated to remove Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250) from the Green Belt and to allocate it for a residential-led mixed-use urban extension to the City to provide approximately 1,500 new homes, local centre, employment space, new Country Park and associated community and other infrastructure.
Furthermore, the Policy Map currently excludes the Cambridge East allocation, including the Springstead Village development which is currently part-way through delivery. National Policy is clear with regards to settlement boundaries. The Definition at Appendix B of the NPPF 2026 states that a settlement “Includes cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas, including land which is allocated or has permission for development which will form part of the built-up area once the development is complete”. This creates a clear disconnect between the extent of existing and committed urban development on the ground and the Green Belt boundaries shown on the Policies Map.

The Policies Map should therefore be updated to allocate Land to the Rear of Old House Road, Balsham for a residential development of approximately 25 new homes.

Inset Map for Balsham. Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438)

Endurance Estates strongly objects to the proposed inset map for Balsham on the grounds that it does not allocate Land to the rear of Old House Road, Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438) for residential development. For the reasons outlined in our response to Policy S/RRA, the Policies Map for Balsham is considered to be not positively prepared or justified and is therefore unsound.

The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village. As a Group Village, with a reasonable level of service provision meeting daily needs, it is considered that the village is a suitable location for proportionate growth and that it could accommodate a medium sized new housing development. Based on their objections to Policy S/RRA, Endurance Estates contend that the Plan should be identifying suitable sites within the village to help meet local and wider housing needs for the Rural Area.

Land to the rear of Old House Road, Balsham (Site ID 115953, HELAA ID 40438) is located in a sustainable location on the edge of the village and is considered to be suitable, available and achievable. The Site is well related to the existing settlement, immediately adjoining the settlement boundary.

The Policies Map should therefore be updated to allocate Land to the Rear of Old House Road, Balsham for a residential development of approximately 25 new homes.

The Policies Map should therefore be amended to allocate Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton for a residential development of approximately 100 new homes.

Linton Inset Map. (Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554))
Endurance Estates objects to the proposed inset map for Linton on the grounds that it does not allocate Land South of Horseheath Road for residential development. Indeed, no residential allocations are proposed in Linton, despite the village being a demonstrably sustainable Minor Rural Centre. Accordingly, on this basis, and for the reasons explained within our response to Policy S/RRA the Policies Map is not positively prepared and is not justified and is therefore unsound.

The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village despite an identified need for a minimum of 99 new homes. As a Minor Rural Centre, and in accordance with Policy S/DS which identifies Minor Rural Centres as being a suitable location for new housing development, Endurance Estates contend that the Plan should be identifying suitable sites within the village to help meet local and wider housing needs for the Rural Area.

The Site at Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton (Site ID 115248, HELAA ID 40554) is located in a sustainable location on the edge of this sustainable village and is considered to be suitable, available and achievable. The Site is well related to the existing settlement, being immediately abutted by the Abbey Homes development to the south, which is included within the proposed settlement boundary.

The Policies Map should therefore be amended to allocate Land South of Horseheath Road, Linton for a residential development of approximately 100 new homes.

It is also noted that the proposed Policy Map does not include the allotments which were delivered through the Michaelotts (Croudace) scheme immediately to the west of the Site. The allotments form an integral component of the Michaelotts development and the settlement of Linton, serving the residents of the scheme and the village more widely rather than functioning as part of the countryside. The Policies Map should therefore also be updated to include the Allotments at Michaelotts.

The Policies Map should therefore be updated to include the allocation of Land off the Causeway, for residential developments of approximately 80 new homes.

Bassingbourn Inset Map.
Land off the Causeway Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228;
Land off Elbourn Way ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227).

Endurance Estates strongly objects to the proposed inset map for Bassingbourn on the grounds that it does not allocate either Land at The Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228) or Land at Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227) for residential development. For the reasons outlined in our response to Policy S/RRA, the Policies Map for Bassingbourn is considered to be not positively prepared or justified and is therefore unsound.

The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village. As a Minor Rural Centre, and in accordance with Policy S/DS which identifies Minor Rural Centres as being a suitable location for new housing development, Endurance Estates contend that the Plan should be identifying suitable sites within the village to help meet local and wider housing needs for the Rural Area.

Both the Land at The Causeway, Bassingbourn and Land at Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn are located in a sustainable location on the edge of this sustainable village and are considered to be suitable, available and achievable. The Sites are well related to the existing settlement, immediately adjoining the settlement boundary.
The Policies Map should therefore be updated to include the allocation of Land off the Causeway and/or Land off Elbourn Way, for residential developments of approximately 80 and 50 new homes respectively.

The Policy Map for Bassingbourn should be amended to include the allocation of Land off Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227) for residential development.

Bassingbourn Inset Map.
Land off the Causeway Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228;
Land off Elbourn Way ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227).

Endurance Estates strongly objects to the proposed inset map for Bassingbourn on the grounds that it does not allocate either Land at The Causeway, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116001, HELAA ID 40228) or Land at Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn (Site ID 116006, HELAA ID 40227) for residential development. For the reasons outlined in our response to Policy S/RRA, the Policies Map for Bassingbourn is considered to be not positively prepared or justified and is therefore unsound.

The Policies Map proposes no residential allocations within the village. As a Minor Rural Centre, and in accordance with Policy S/DS which identifies Minor Rural Centres as being a suitable location for new housing development, Endurance Estates contend that the Plan should be identifying suitable sites within the village to help meet local and wider housing needs for the Rural Area.

Both the Land at The Causeway, Bassingbourn and Land at Elbourn Way, Bassingbourn are located in a sustainable location on the edge of this sustainable village and are considered to be suitable, available and achievable. The Sites are well related to the existing settlement, immediately adjoining the settlement boundary.
The Policies Map should therefore be updated to include the allocation of Land off the Causeway and/or Land off Elbourn Way, for residential developments of approximately 80 and 50 new homes respectively.

The Policies Map should therefore be updated to allocate the site for a residential development of approximately 25 new homes.

Endurance Estates strongly objects to the proposed inset map for Orwell on the basis of the omission of a site-specific policy allocating Land at Hillside, Orwell, Land at Hillside, Orwell (Site ID 115802, HELAA ID 40496) for residential development. For the reasons outlined in our response to Policy S/RRA, the Policies Map for Orwell is considered to be not positively prepared or justified and is therefore unsound.

As a Group Village, Endurance Estates contend that a development such as Land at Hillside could contribute towards meeting the market and affordable housing needs of the Village through the development of approximately 25 new homes.

The Policies Map should therefore be updated to allocate Land at Hillside, Orwell, for a residential development of approximately 25 new homes.

The Policy Map should be amended to include the allocation of the Site at Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250) for a residential-led development to include the provision of approximately 1,500 new homes, employment development, neighbourhood centre and supporting uses along with a new country park.

Endurance Estates object to the draft Policy S/EOC as it is considered that the Policy is unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared, justified or effective when considered against the reasonable alternatives and evidence available.

Draft Policy S/DS states that, as far as possible, housing and jobs needs will be met in order of preference as follows: (a) within the Cambridge Urban Area, (b) on the edge of Cambridge, (c) at an expanded Cambourne, (d) at other new settlements; and finally (e) in the rural southern cluster and wider rural area at Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres. The order of preference has been determined in recognition of the sustainability of these locations and is considered to be broadly logical and justified.

However, despite the Edge of Cambridge being identified in the Settlement Hierarchy / Development Strategy as being the second most sustainable location for directing new housing and employment growth, the Councils have not identified any further sites on the edge of Cambridge in order help meet the areas needs.

As highlighted in our representations to Policies S/DS and S/GB, it is considered that the Development Strategy should be supplemented by the provision of additional allocations on the Edge of Cambridge, with land removed from the Green Belt, to create a more balanced housing land supply which mitigates the risk of delayed delivery from the New Settlements and enables a more balanced and sustainable pattern of growth which better supports the needs of the Greater Cambridge economy, as evidenced in the Greater Cambridge Economic Needs Assessment which supports these representations. This would meet a wider range of housing needs (including affordable housing needs) across the whole area whilst also addressing the inadequate housing supply buffer previously referred to.
The concentration of further growth on the edge of Cambridge would result in development being located in the next most sustainable location after the urban area (as acknowledged in the Plan) where development for new housing can come forward quickly, benefiting from the existing infrastructure and proximity to jobs, services and facilities. This is recognised by the Sustainability Appraisal as some of the most sustainable locations for growth in terms of access to services, facilities and healthcare, equal to options of densification of the city and new settlements.
By allocating new housing development on the edge of the City and close to existing and planned employment growth, the Development Strategy would both better meet and address Cambridge’s unmet need for market and affordable housing and would better support the growth of the economy given the ability for new residents to access jobs at the various business parks on the fringes of the City and within the City Centre by active travel and other sustainable modes.
In terms of Green Belt, the Council’s Development Strategy Topic Paper Appendix 4 (Cambridge Local Plan Green Belt Considerations) 2026, identifies that Land East of Gazelle Way (40250) partially comprises Grey Belt, by virtue of overlapping with Grey Belt Parcel TE9, which is a 2.29 hectare parcel on the edge of Teversham.

It is acknowledged that the ‘Review following changes to National Policy and Guidance’ document, prepared by LUC in July 2026, does not identify any of the other parcels comprising the promotion site (CHI1, CHI2, CHI3, CHI4, TE7 and TE8 and FU1) are identified as provisional green belt, and each is identified as having a ‘very high’ harm rating, with the exception of CHI3 which is given a ‘high’ harm rating. The Assessment concludes that the site has a ‘strong’ contribution to NPPF Purpose D. None of these assessments have changed since the LUC August 2021 Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment and Endurance disputes their findings and considers that the evidence has been prepared retrospectively to justify a strategy already determined rather than providing a fully objective assessment.

The constraint of the Green Belt is understood and acknowledged. However, the Green Belt evidence relied upon by the Council makes no attempt to identify Green Belt land which would represent some of the most highly sustainable locations for growth anywhere in the Greater Cambridge region. Paragraph 2.51 of the Proposed Submission which follows Policy S/DS states that “We made sure to consider the sustainability impacts of focusing growth outside the green belt in comparison with alternatives of releasing green belt land, as we are required to do by national planning policy”. Paragraph 2.50 then states that the Councils “also identified six development strategy choices which form geographically focused hybrids of the previously identified sources of supply” which included “A hybrid involving release of land from the Green Belt.” The Councils have not given sufficient weight to the climate crisis and housing crisis we now face (which were not material factors when the green belt policy was originally established), and these are exceptional circumstances which would justify a more flexible and permissive approach to the release of green belt and grey belt land.

The updates made to the Assessment are light-touch, and essentially boil down to corrections and updates, such as the amendments made in the Assessment for sites which have seen recent development, including for example Land South of Trumpington. Regrettably, the Council have not applied the same update to Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton, which is now similarly influenced by recent developments at the Land North of Cherry Hinton site, which continues to be built out at pace. The site is now effectively surrounded on all sides by built form: Cherry Hinton to the west; Capital Park to the south; Teversham to the north-east and Fulbourn to the south-east. Planned development, including supporting facilities for East West Rail to the south-east of the site will also continue to evolve the surroundings over the next Plan period.

Endurance Estates have undertaken significant technical work in support of their promotion of Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton in order to demonstrate that the proposed scheme can come forward in accordance with the revised Green Belt policies set out in the 2026 NPPF.

Despite the significant housing needs identified within Greater Cambridge and the lack of available brownfield sites within Cambridge to meet their own needs, the Plan makes only a single new allocation within the Green Belt at Cambridge Biomedical Campus. It is therefore considered that the Council should urgently undertake a full Green Belt Review in accordance with the NPPF and PPG to identify potential Grey Belt of other suitable sites on the edge of Cambridge which can sustainably contribute Greater Cambridge’s demonstrable housing and employment needs.
East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250)
Endurance Estates strongly objects to the omission of the proposed allocation site at Land East of Gazelle Way.
Endurance Estates has consistently promoted Land East of Gazelle Way for a mixed-use, landscape-led development of approximately 1,250 dwellings, employment space and extensive public open space. The site comprises 120 acres on the edge of Cambridge which is currently in agricultural use.
Land East of Gazelle Way is an unparalleled location for growth and can readily connect to the existing and committed infrastructure of Cambridge without the need for substantial additional costly infrastructure.
Land East of Gazelle Way is well located for access to key existing employment sites, including Capital Park (Cam Life) and Fulbourn Hospital, which sit immediately south of the railway line, and Peterhouse Technology Park, which lies to the southwest and can be reached within a six-minute cycle. These employment sites represent a growing cluster, which benefit from significant investments, including from occupiers such as ARM, which has its global HQ on the Peterhouse Technology Park and is expanding significantly.
In recognition of its highly accessible location, the east of Cambridge area is expected to become a focus of employment and infrastructure growth over the coming decade. As part of this, projects including the Cherry Hinton Innovation District development at Coldham’s Lane (circa 1.5km west of the site) and the Cambridge East development at Cambridge Airport (circa 1.6km north-west), will both come forward and transform this part of the City.
Significant infrastructure is already committed to accommodate this growth, including the Fulbourn Greenway, EWR’s proposed Cambridge East Station and the relocation of the Newmarket Road Travel Hub to Teversham, complementing the existing high quality public transport and cycle connectivity within this area.
To compliment this further, the proposed East of Gazelle Way scheme, would deliver new high-quality off-road cycle route connecting with the Fulbourn Greenway to the south and up to the Cambridge East to the north.
Attached to these representations is an extract from the 2025 HELAA site assessments, accompanied by comments from the Endurance Estates’ project team. This demonstrates that, based on the updated technical information available, the Site would score green against most criteria with amber in relation to the remaining criteria and no red scores.
In addition to the HELAA assessment, it is important to consider whether the site qualifies as Grey Belt land. According to the latest PPG, land which does not contribute strongly to Green Belt Purposes (a), (b) or (d), can be considered to comprise Grey Belt. Below is a brief assessment of Land East of Gazelle Way which demonstrates that the Site can be considered Grey Belt.
In terms of Purpose A (to check the unrestricted sprawl), while it is accepted that the proposed site would encroach into the countryside, it is our view that the site performs weakly against Purpose A. The site is largely enclosed by Cherry Hinton to the west, Springstead Village to the north, the former Ida Darwin Hospital development to the south-east and Capital Park/CamLife Campus which sits the south. The southern boundary is comprised of the Cambridge to Newmarket railway line. There are also other existing urban influences to the south in the form of the National Grid/UKPN Grid Substation, and a mobile home park with the Yarrow Road Tesco beyond. The site is therefore considered to be well contained and would be a logical extension to Cambridge. Once developed, the site would represent a logical limit to Cambridge, whilst preserving a landscaped buffer between the scheme, Teversham and Fulbourn providing separation and protecting their individual identity. This buffer would be similar in scale to that provided between Darwin Green and Girton.
In conclusion, it is considered that the site makes a moderate contribution to Purpose A and does not therefore contribute strongly to this purpose.
In terms of Purpose B (Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another) the revised PPG confirms that this relates solely to the merging of towns, and not villages. Given the nearest town to the east of the site is Newmarket, approximately 10km away it is considered that the site makes no meaningful contribution to fulfilling this purpose.
Nevertheless, the proposals submitted include a substantial open landscape buffer which would preserve the setting of both Teversham and Fulbourn maintaining separation and preserving their individual identity. Once provided, the landscaped buffer would retain a visual separation between the proposals and both villages, which could be incorporated into open space, biodiversity enhancement areas or a country park – subject to further technical work and discussions with Greater Cambridge. This would effectively secure this buffer in perpetuity, rounding off development to the East of Cambridge.
In conclusion, the Site makes only a weak/no contribution to Green Belt Purpose B and does not therefore contribute strongly to Purpose B.
For Purpose D (to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns), again, the revised PPG confirms that this relates solely to towns (and not villages). Accordingly, the only historic town relevant to the site is Cambridge. The last Green Belt Assessment (LDA, August 2021) published by the Council confirmed the promotion site contributed only moderately to purpose 2 (maintaining and enhancing the quality of Cambridge’s setting), reflecting the presence of relatively modern developments in and around Cherry Hinton, which do not contribute to the historic character or setting of the City.

In conclusion, the Site only makes a weak to moderate contribution to this purpose and does not therefore contribute strongly to Purpose D.
Further, in terms of the Golden Rules for Green Belt Release, the site is fully capable of meeting the requirements as outlined in Policy GB8 of the NPPF 2026.

Initial technical investigations on the indicative design confirm that Land East of Gazelle Way can viably deliver 50% affordable housing, which would significantly help meet the pressing need for affordable housing in the City.

Alongside this, the proposed scheme is capable of contributing towards necessary infrastructure, including provision of a new primary school and contributions to required sustainable transport infrastructure. The site design is capable of incorporating safe active travel routes throughout, and the Site will be easily accessible and will provide enhanced linkages to the Fulbourn Greenway, relocated Teversham Travel Hub and the potential future Cambridge East Station at Coldham’s Lane. Endurance Estates would welcome discussions with Greater Cambridge relating to required infrastructure contributions.

The proposed scheme will also include substantial public open space, providing enhanced public access to the countryside, linking with existing Public Rights of Way for existing and future residents. This will build-on the Cambridge Nature Network and the proposals at the nearby Springstead Village and Cambridge East Sites. The site is therefore capable of meeting the NPPF’s Golden Rules for Green Belt release. The Scheme is capable of providing connectivity through to the planned green infrastructure at the Cambridge East development, helping provide additional connectivity in line with the ambitions of the Cambridge Nature Network Local Nature Recovery Strategy, providing greater benefit to nature and contributing to the delivery of wider environmental outcomes.

As such, it is concluded that the site is likely to constitute Grey Belt and is capable of complying with the Golden Rules of Green Belt release outlined in Policy GB8 of the NPPF 2026. As stated in Policy GB8(2) of the NPPF 2026), development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of granting permission.

Endurance Estates contends that, subject to ongoing technical investigations, Land East of Gazelle Way is capable of contributing to the identified housing needs of Greater Cambridge. The site is Available for development within the first 5 years of the Local Plan Period and remains Achievable and Suitable for the development proposed.

Endurance Estates requests that Greater Cambridge urgently publish the updated Green Belt Assessment and remove Land East of Gazelle Way from the Green Belt, with a corresponding allocation for residential-led mixed-use development of the site.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the lack of any new housing allocations on the Edge of Cambridge identified within the Proposed Submission Local Plan despite the high levels of unmet market and affordable housing within the City and it representing the next most sustainable location in the Settlement Hierarchy for new development is considered to be unjustified and unsound. In particular, Endurance Estates objects to the omission of Land East of Gazelle Way, Cherry Hinton (Site ID 115222, HELAA ID 40250) as a new residential-led allocation and considers this to be unsound.

Endurance Estates object to the draft Policy S/EOC as it is considered that the Policy is unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared, justified or effective when considered against the reasonable alternatives and evidence available.