Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

GCDC supports this policy.

• GCDC support the redevelopment of this area and want to participate in ongoing conversations about how this site can be developed with densities that take advantage of its highly sustainable location.
• The government’s response to the consultation ‘Establishing a Development Corporation in Greater Cambridge’ noted that ‘’the Development Corporation will unlock investment into social infrastructure and public spaces through a variety of routes’’. GCDC share the Plan’s aspiration to secure the long-term enhancement of the Cambridge Junction, which is a vital regional cultural venue.
• The delivery of a future eastern entrance to the Cambridge railway station offers an excellent opportunity to capitalise upon the opportunity of East-West Rail to regenerate this area. We recognise that there is an important task for the developer and public sector bodies to align timelines for the planning application to regenerate the area and the application for the new entrance. We are keen to work with GCSP and the developer on this task.

We recommend that in relation to 1.17 adding - '' We will collaborate with the CPCA on their emerging Spatial Development Strategy which does not influence this Plan but will be integral to local plan reviews and successor local plans. '' The reason for this is that In paragraph 1.17 – ‘regional context’ - there is no mention of the emerging Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) that is being produced by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. The SDS will not influence GCSP’s Plan, but future local plan reviews and successor local plans must be in general conformity with the SDS. Therefore, GCDC think a reference should be made to the CPCA’s emerging SDS.

For 1.21, GCDC has included a minor comment to improve this section. It is amended to reflect recent governance changes: '' On 23 July 2026, the government established the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation '' - See attached document for wording we propose removing

We recommend that in relation to 1.17 adding - '' We will collaborate with the CPCA on their emerging Spatial Development Strategy which does not influence this Plan but will be integral to local plan reviews and successor local plans. '' The reason for this is that In paragraph 1.17 – ‘regional context’ - there is no mention of the emerging Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) that is being produced by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. The SDS will not influence GCSP’s Plan, but future local plan reviews and successor local plans must be in general conformity with the SDS. Therefore, GCDC think a reference should be made to the CPCA’s emerging SDS.

For 1.21, GCDC has included a minor comment to improve this section. It is amended to reflect recent governance changes: '' On 23 July 2026, the government established the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation '' - See attached document for wording we propose removing

In relation to 2.8 GCDC has included a minor suggestion to improve the policy: '' The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation’s core function is to secure the regeneration of its area which includes ensuring that housing and social facilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area. ''
• This section does not make any reference to the potentially transformative role that GCDC could play in infrastructure delivery. The government’s response to the development corporation consultation (3 June 2026) set GCDC’s second objective as facilitating ‘infrastructure-led development’ involving ‘‘the delivery of a radical upgrade to infrastructure in Greater Cambridge’’. Achieving this will enable nationally significant levels of growth to be delivered in Greater Cambridge. It could also mean that key infrastructure constraints are removed so that delivery can occur at an earlier date. GCDC and local partners will work together to plan infrastructure interventions which require a significant level of organisation and funding. We recognise that these interventions will take time to realise, but the Plan should explain that the establishment of GCDC could transform infrastructure delivery in Greater Cambridge and accelerate housing delivery beyond the rates included within the draft plan housing trajectory.

GCDC supports this policy and has no suggested amendments.
In relation to paragraph 1
• GCDC is of the view that the Plan uses up-to-date, proportionate and objective evidence, including the Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Evidence Update 2025, CPCA Local Growth Plan (2025), Government’s Standard Method (2026) and Review of Economic Data, Context and Representations Report (2026) to inform its strategy. We view the Plan as being positively prepared and it will meet the area’s objectively assessed needs.
• Through its use of the CPCA’s Local Growth Plan (2025), GCSP also demonstrate that their Plan is informed by collaboration with other authorities.
• In relation to question of whether the Plan is ‘effective’ and whether it deliverable by 2045 (the end of the Plan period), on page 46 the Plan states that: ‘’a sustained increased level of annual completions at or above the annual housing requirement is not anticipated until the second half of the plan period due to the sustainable development strategy set out in this plan and the infrastructure constraints relating to water and transport (for which improvements are not anticipated to be delivered until later in the plan period)’’. We recognise that GCSP has made considered spatial choices that deliver their objectively assessed jobs and housing needs. We therefore view the Plan as taking a justified and effective strategy, consistent with national policy.

In relation to paragraph 2:
• In GCDC’s view, the Plan takes a positive approach to delivering sustainable development by ensuring new housing and employment delivery connects to existing and planned-for infrastructure and takes advantage of committed-to public investment. Schemes such as Cambridge South East Transport (CSET) Phase 1 and Phase 2, the relocation of Waterbeach railway station, the Cambourne to Cambridge guided busway, and East West Rail offer significant opportunities to deliver new development in highly sustainable locations. Furthermore, significant public investment has already been committed to sites such as Northstowe, Bourn Airfield and Waterbeach. From GCDC’s perspective, it is right that the Plan seeks to utilise these opportunities because this this approach will maximise value for money to taxpayers. It is also the correct approach, because it builds upon significant work which has already occurred and therefore offers a quicker route to delivery.
• GCDC will continue to collaborate with GCSP and other local partners to ensure that, collectively, we utilise existing infrastructure and new infrastructure interventions to deliver sustainable growth.

In relation to 2.62:
• In the Cambridge Growth Company’s representation to the Regulation 18 version of the Plan, CGC stated that: ‘’the confirmation of green belt release for strategic site allocations is welcomed, but CGC considers that it would be beneficial to further review whether grey belt opportunities in sustainable locations may provide opportunities for additional site allocations which could accommodate future growth’’.
• GCDC is the organisation now established with a formal regeneration role; GCDC is satisfied that GCSP has assessed additional grey belt opportunities for this Plan.

In relation to 2.8 GCDC has included a minor suggestion to improve the policy: '' The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation’s core function is to secure the regeneration of its area which includes ensuring that housing and social facilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area. ''
• This section does not make any reference to the potentially transformative role that GCDC could play in infrastructure delivery. The government’s response to the development corporation consultation (3 June 2026) set GCDC’s second objective as facilitating ‘infrastructure-led development’ involving ‘‘the delivery of a radical upgrade to infrastructure in Greater Cambridge’’. Achieving this will enable nationally significant levels of growth to be delivered in Greater Cambridge. It could also mean that key infrastructure constraints are removed so that delivery can occur at an earlier date. GCDC and local partners will work together to plan infrastructure interventions which require a significant level of organisation and funding. We recognise that these interventions will take time to realise, but the Plan should explain that the establishment of GCDC could transform infrastructure delivery in Greater Cambridge and accelerate housing delivery beyond the rates included within the draft plan housing trajectory.

Please note, these changes are presented more clearly in our attachment.

In relation to paragraph 10
In order to achieve this, a whole Campus Masterplan developed with demonstrable collaboration between existing landowners and major occupiers across the Campus, will be required

In relation to paragraph 22, GCDC requests that GCSP make a minor amendment to the Green Belt boundary to remove the land that would be required for the delivery of a new junction that would be essential to enable delivery of a viable site access to development land on the Biomedical Campus. A more specific map of the land that would be required will be provided at the time of completing the intended Statement of Common Ground.

In relation to paragraph 31b, GCDC propose this amendment:
b. Set out the layout, mix and scale of uses, including the relationship with the existing Campus composition, ensuring there is a balance of uses across the existing and expanded Campus;

We recommend reading the attached representation where the comments relating to soundness are clearly presented.

In relation to paragraph 2, GCDC support this section of the policy.
• The section under ‘objectives and place identity’ captures the unique nature of the Campus and why its continued success is so important to Greater Cambridge and our national economy.

In relation to paragraph 10, GCDC propose a minor tweak, but still supports this section of the policy.
• The landowner and tenant organisations play an integral role in the functioning of CBC. Research from Cambridge Ahead has shown that proximity to other similar organisations is a key motivating factor for retaining and attracting organisations to CBC. It is therefore right that landowners and tenant organisations play an important role in discussions about how CBC can be improved and expanded.

In relation to paragraph 22, GCDC request that GCSP amend the map. Unless the suggested amendment is included within the Plan and on the policies map, GCDC do not think the policy is sound.
• In the previous representation to GCSP’s Regulation 18 version of the Plan, CGC submitted this representation to the CBC policy: ''CGC supports this policy and the allocation for expansion through release of land from the Green Belt for future phases to support the future development of the Biomedical Campus. CGC recommends that further consideration is given to the boundary of this allocation in relation to the proposed access. The access as shown on the Spatial Framework plan figure 63 appears not to be deliverable due to the consented scheme to the north of Babraham Road. Therefore an alternative redline for the proposal allocation should be considered to allow for alternative access arrangements.''

GCDC is the organisation now established with a formal regeneration role. GCDC note that the maps haven't substantially changed from Regulation 18 to Regulation 19 and that access remains an issue. We therefore think that CGC’s comment remains relevant. Addressing the issue of access arrangements to CBC from Babraham at this stage will support the overarching delivery of the site and avoid delaying the submission of the planning application. GCDC are willing to undertake some work detailing how much Green Belt release would be required. This could be agreed through the Statement of Common Ground.

In relation to part 22c, GCDC supports this part of the policy.
• GCDC notes that Policy S/CBC: Cambridge Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’s Hospital) has been written to capitalise on the opportunity that Cambridge South East Transport Phase 2 offers. GCDC support this approach, which will help achieve the aim of delivering new development in sustainable locations. We agree that CSET2 is required to ensure that existing and new workers can travel to this world-class Campus via sustainable more sustainable methods of transport.

In relation to 31b, GCDC supports this part of the policy, but has included a minor suggestion to improve the policy.
• Through the new masterplan, GCDC are keen to see a fair balance of uses across the site and are keen to help facilitate discussions between occupiers, GCSP and landowners to achieve this outcome.
• GCDC notes that the expansion of the Campus will require a substantial amount of a wide range of new infrastructure. GCDC would like to note that we are committed to working with the landowners, CBC Ltd, GCSP and other local partners on the emerging masterplan and infrastructure delivery plan.

The attachment has a clearer presentation of the changes we request, so we recommend referring to this.

For paragraph 1, GCDC propose changing it to:
A new city district of a minimum of 8,000 homes delivered from 2032, or earlier, subject to the necessary water infrastructure being available, significant employment floorspace in use classes E(g) and approximately 20,000 square metres gross internal area (GIA) of B2/B8 employment floorspace, with a range of supporting services and facilities, including retail, community, cultural, faith, leisure, education and sports and open space uses. The built area of the expansion will be contained within the Site Allocation boundary identified on the Policies Map.

For paragraph 4:
Cambridge East will be a vibrant, inclusive new city district that reflects the spirit of Cambridge while helping to shape its future. Through the new railway station being delivered by the East West Rail project, the city district will become a highly accessible destination. Rooted in a unique setting, Cambridge East will offer welcoming, walkable neighbourhoods which support an intergenerational community to live well, work purposefully, learn, and thrive.

For paragraph 7
A minimum of 8,000 homes (to deliver 3,950 dwellings to 2045 subject to the necessary water infrastructure being available) of a range of sizes, types and tenures to meet the identified diverse housing needs and to support a mixed and balanced intergenerational community, specifically, including:

For paragraph 9, GCDC propose adding part c:
c. Consider how the site can integrate with the nearby site allocation - Land South of Coldham’s Lane (Policy S/C/SCL) to create an innovation cluster.

For paragraph 17, GCDC propose amending to:
Ensure an exemplar approach to movement and transport within and through the site, transforming the wider connectivity of the eastern edge of Cambridge capitalising on the new East West Rail station to promote a low car living approach where ‘walking and wheeling’ are the first choice for most residents, workers and visitors from the outset,

As the policy is currently written, GCDC do not currently think this policy is sound.

In relation to paragraph 1:
• In the Cambridge Growth Company’s representation to the Regulation 18 version of the Plan, it was previously stated that a ‘’degree of flexibility’’ should be encouraged ‘‘within both policy and allocations to allow for housing growth beyond the current levels currently identified in the draft Plan and encourage the acceleration of delivery where the identified infrastructure constraints on growth can be alleviated’’.
• Noting that GCDC is the organisation now established with a formal regeneration role, we think that this comment is still relevant. We understand that Hill and Homes England – who are now joint owners of the site- are undertaking substantial evidence gathering to explore issues such as transport, housing density and social infrastructure in greater detail. After speaking to GCSP, we recognise there has been a sequencing issue in terms of this evidence gathering occurring in parallel to the Regulation 19 consultation, when ideally this evidence would have been completed before the Regulation 19 consultation to inform any relevant representations. It is possible that this evidence could conclude that higher densities are achievable on the site above 8,000 homes, especially once the positive impact of the new East West railway station is accounted for on the site. We would ask that GCSP change the word ‘approximately’ to ‘minimum’ to provide a pragmatic solution to addressing this sequencing issue, which would help the site to achieve its potential.
• GCDC would like GCSP to caveat the ‘from 2032.’ It is appropriate for GCSP to consider water constraints across the Plan, including through its site allocations. However, GCSP, GCDC and the wider Water Scarcity Group are collaborating to deliver water interventions which will address water constraints. We want the policy to be more flexible to consider the possibility that this work might address infrastructure constraints and allow for earlier delivery.
• GCDC are keen to speak at the Examination to discuss this policy.

In relation to paragraph 4 GCDC has included a minor comment to improve this section of the policy.
• GCDC think that the new East West Rail station offers a great opportunity to maximise sustainable travel at Cambridge East and it should have a central role in the ‘objectives and place identity’ section of the policy. In the Policy S/CBN: Cambourne North within the ‘objectives and place identity’, the new East West Rail station plays a central role in the policy, and GCDC thinks there should be consistency across the Plan’s policies, i.e. it should also be prominent in the Cambridge East policy.

For paragraph 7, see points made to paragraph 1:
• GCDC think that ‘minimum’ provides more flexibility and would provide a pragmatic solution to the sequencing issue.
• GCDC is keen to register to speak at the Examination to discuss this policy.

For paragraph 9, GCDC has included a minor comment to improve this section of the policy.
• The Cambridge Growth Company submitted a representation to GCSP’s Regulation 18 version of the Plan. In this representation, CGC stated that they would like to see the Plan ‘’more explicitly recognise the value of intensifying and expanding the identified innovation clusters to fully realise growth potential and agglomeration benefits’’. GCDC is the organisation now established with a formal regeneration role. GCDC notes there is no reference to the adjacent allocation - ‘Land South of Coldham’s Lane, Cambridge’. The two sites have the potential to create an innovation cluster. This should be referred to in the site allocation.

For paragraph 17, GCDC has included a minor comment to improve this policy.
• GCDC think that the new East West Rail station offers a great opportunity to maximise sustainable travel at Cambridge East and it should have more prominence in the policy.