Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Proposed Submission

Comment

Representation ID: 213189

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

The Green Infrastructure definition should include Public Rights of Way (PROWs), urban alleyways and footpaths, highways, waterways and railways whose margins can provide habitats and can become better wildlife corridors between feeding and shelter sites. Existing PROWs should be identified at the earliest stage of development of GIPlans. There is no policy within the Plan which requires developers of major sites to involve user groups of PROWs at the master planning stage which must be considered essential. Without a policy of this type there is no guarantee that there will be any improvement to recreational routes and networks of paths.

Comment

Representation ID: 213193

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

To avoid "template" designs out of keeping with the locality the policy should include a requirement for consultation with those with local knowledge of the native vegetation and wildlife and of the potential for linking in with existing habitats and green infrastructure that will facilitate people coming to enjoy the green space. Plans for financing independent between-phase and post-completion monitoring and maintenance should be a policy requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 213221

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

1. Alongside waterway access should not be limited in paragraph 1e to walking and cycling, but should specify non-motorised users.
In addition to the Cam Trail, there should be plans for linking this with projects proposed by the Great Ouse Rivers Trust. Longer distance trails with consistent standards of signage and surface should encourage additional usage.
2. A 10m riparian boundary seems narrow when buildings or fencing will reduce view enjoyment from the river. For the buffer zone left, the policy should stipulate that this is to be maintained so that it does not encroach on the route.

Comment

Representation ID: 213284

Received: 25/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

Note 7 reflects the increasing visitor number pressure at, in particular, National Trust properties surrounding Cambridge. However, statement b unrealistically suggests off-site green space provision for extra visitors will be somewhere already. Extra visitors will precede implementation of financed measures to cope with them. Given all the current and planned developments, a very early stage funding pot contribution from developers should be compulsory to allow both green space, and green network access for recreation and active travel to be established or improved from that point, with essential early stage funded collaboration with local authorities, relevant landowners and interest groups.

Support

Representation ID: 213304

Received: 25/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

2c nature and greenspace access is essential and the needs of new residents must not be planned without full regard to the existing users of the landscape. New developments must connect effectively with existing Rights of Way and other historically used routes, settlements, neighbouring developments and the wider countryside, including safe and convenient crossings of major roads, railways and waterways.
2e walking, wheeling and cycling may be the most usual modes of non-motorised movement within housing centres, but horse-riding routes should be required to be established where possible. Mobility scooter, wheelchair and push-chair suitable routes are also essential.

Comment

Representation ID: 213332

Received: 25/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

7. The policy concentrates on the physical provision of community facilities but ignores the fact that they will only function using the activities of people. There will be no sports teams, uniformed groups or community hubs without volunteers and trained leaders. It should be policy that developers provide a significant sum for a locally managed funding pot that can be drawn on to enable groups to become established with leaders and equipment.
9. On and off-site leisure route funding is welcomed, but the resulting increased work load of County Council Rights of Way officers needs financial consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 213416

Received: 25/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

1b Mention is needed of the County Rights of Way Improvement Plan to ensure network changes align with it. It needs to be clear that Active Travel and the Rights of Way network are, respectively, primarily for utility and for recreational / countryside access benefits. They should remain distinct but be planned and developed alongside each other, with appropriate connections between the networks for all relevant users.
The Plan should state that to ensure delivery and effectiveness of the public access network, including missing links and development-related infrastructure, there should be an agreed form of monitoring throughout the Plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 213448

Received: 25/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

2b allowing high density housing because Active Travel routes are within 800 m should be stated to have to be achieved without loss / surface conversion of existing green recreational routes. Active Travel routes must aim to link in to Public Rights of Way (PROW) for leisure use beyond the development.
A permanent legal status such as PROW should be attached to all new routes, with detailed long-term maintenance plans and associated funding set down.
Statutory consultees including the Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum, must be able to input at an early stage for all access provision within and around developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 213477

Received: 25/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

1aii routes should allow horse rider usage unless sound reasons can be set down for their exclusion.
1f mentions encouraging access to public bridleways but does not stipulate that routes / facilities should be provided to allow access to and from them.
7.44 supports wildlife corridors. Ribbons of verges and shrub / trees, not patchworks, through and connecting out of developments should be required (not just considered) for movement of creatures such as insects, amphibians, mammals and birds. Funded planting for wildlife, with local consultation, beyond the development boundary is needed on green recreational routes for non-motorised users.

Comment

Representation ID: 213515

Received: 25/09/2026

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (CLAF)

2bc correctly seeks new route establishments and that existing routes are protected, connected and improved for a range of users. Consultation locally on these must be a condition at an early stage. The use of all-weather surfacing, widening and lighting “where appropriate” needs to be with the agreement of user groups especially on existing PROW.
Both well-maintained Active Travel and green routes, preferably with circular options and pleasant resting place destinations, should be sought. The Plan should consider not simply the quantity of new routes but their quality, usability, landscape setting, recreational value and suitability for their intended users.