Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Unless it is withdrawn, to proceed the plan must:

* Not convolve intended actions within the planning period (to 2045) with vaguer aspirations for the many decades thereafter (2045-2070+)

* Focus on scope for which there is a high confidence of delivering by 2045 after adjusting for realistic risk-based estimates of the completion schedules of the many infrastructure projects Cambourne North is dependent on including CtoC, EWR, Grafam Transfer and GUCT.

* Consider electricity grid capacity provision (and other electrical grid demands) as an infrastructure prerequisite similar to provision of transport and water suitable for modern heat pump and EV charger equipped homes on winter evenings.

* Avoid the permanent and irrevocable loss of so much BMV land by focussing on what is deliverable by 2045

* Avoid apparently intentional ambiguity and use of jargon to obfuscate intent to ensure the plan is accessible to all stakeholders.

* Provide clear, high resolution maps that show the full context of the surrounding villages, include a scale and avoid using confusing colour palettes.

* Provide abundant, easily accessible parking at the stations for EWR and CtoC to avoid over reliance on economically unsustainable short bus routes and maximise taxpayer return on investment for these schemes.

* Be significantly more specific, open and transparent about:
- modelling assumptions - including transport and utility provision modelling - so that stakeholders can ensure that impossible assumptions (100% EV by the mid 2030s is impossible) or the temptation to extrapolate models so far into the future that they have no value (modelling post 2045)

- the timelines and requirements for building public services and community facilities.

- the location of the Gypsy / Traveller pitches, how these will be contained and who will prevent them from spreading across the SEA.

- Definitions of key plan features including:
+ The nature, purpose, governance and funding for the “Strategic Enhancement Area”
+ The nature, target user group and intended use case of the “Mobility Hub” which if it is intended to be a bus stop for residents of Papworth Everard should be in the centre of Papworth Everard.
+ The nature and intent of the “Traffic Management”
+ The precise location (and timing) of the “main site access” from the A1198

S/CBN fails the four NPPF soundness tests.

It is not Positively Prepared.
Fewer than 2550 dwellings are deliverable before plan-end, none before the mid-2030s.


It is unjustified.
The primary site justification seems to be CtoC/EWR co-location.
Other site-specific infrastructure risks are ignored.

It is ineffective. >80% of dwellings are not deliverable within the plan even with unrealistic assumptions around the multi-decade infrastructure project dependencies (CtoC/EWR/Grafam-Transfer /GUCT)

It is inconsistent with National Policy. The development is in a region of severe water stress and would result in the irrevocable loss of 100s of hectares of BMV agricultural land.