I am not convinced that a case has been made for a further allocation of Green Belt land to allow for Biomedical Campus expansion, given that, as GCSP itself acknowledges in this policy, this allocation will cause “a high level of harm”. It will also remove high quality agricultural land from use, which is arguably contrary to proposed policy J/AL “protecting the best quality agricultural land”. This is even more so for any re-routing of Granham’s Road as contemplated in this policy. Given that further land for expansion was allocated in South Cambridgeshire District Council’s 2018 Local Plan (“SCDC’s Local Plan”), another allocation only three years later feels very much like an unwelcome progression down a slippery slope from the perspective of neighbouring communities, especially with the possible re-routing of Granham’s Road, which would bring the city edge very close to Shelford Bottom. Proposed policy GP/GB: Protection and enhancement of the Cambridge Green Belt correctly places emphasis on the established local purposes of the Green Belt “which are to:

Preserve the unique character of Cambridge as a compact....city...
maintain and enhance the quality of its setting
prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the city.”

I wonder whether “high level of harm”, as regards the further proposed expansion, an understatement, when examined against these purposes. The narrow, but critically important, area of Green Belt between the Biomedical Campus and Trumpington, the Shelfords and Stapleford is already at risk of death by infrastructure, due to possible combined impact of East West Rail, if a southern approach is taken (and most especially if grade separation is required near Shepreth Branch Junction), and CSET.

Stronger reasons than any as yet put forward seem to me to be needed for further incursion into the Green Belt. Vision 2050 is essentially a marketing document and does not establish a strategic case for further expansion (in contrast to its predecessor “the 2020 Vision at Addenbrookes - the future of the hospital campus”(“2020 Vision”)). Page 7 of the 2004 version of the 2020 Vision is instructive in this respect; it identifies what is the beating heart of the Biomedical Campus - joined now, I would suggest, by Royal Papworth. The success of the Biomedical Campus is dependent upon the continuing success of the hospitals and on the hospitals having sufficient physical and staff capacity and in the right areas to support clinical research. This is recognised in GCSP’s policy which highlights first that GCSP “will support development on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to meet local, regional or national health care needs”, but needs to carried through into the conditions GCSP imposes in the policy. It is also implicitly acknowledged in the fact that the 2050 Vision says in its Foreword “Today we look again to the future as both a centre of excellence for healthcare provision in Cambridge and global innovation hub...”. However, the foundational importance of the hospitals to the success of the Biomedical Campus is not explained in the 2050 Vision.

A revised master plan for the site and all the other conditions GCSP is proposing in its policy are needed whether or not further expansion land is allocated in this update to the Local Plan. The ambition for the revised master plan expressed in the policy (“to improve the overall experience of the site for workers and visitors”) appears too narrow. I would also suggest that a revised version of the 2050 Vision is needed, which begins with the hospitals and sets out their renovation and expansion plans, and explaining expected timing and funding. This is likely to highlight that, among other things, s106 funding will be needed to make them achievable.

The hospitals should, in this suggested revised 2050 Vision, along with their partners on the biomedical campus, identify what the clinical areas which support further expansion are.

The 2020 Vision was led by Addenbrookes and developed with the University and the Medical Research Council. The 2050 Vision says very little about the hospitals and it is unclear who is leading it. I would suggest that it must be led by the hospitals (as first among equals) supported by the other institutions.

The revised 2050 Vision needs to review other employment sites identified in Appendix H of the Greater Cambridge Economic Development and Employment Land Evidence Study close to the Biomedical Campus and, if appropriate, explain why they cannot be used for its proposed expansion. It should also be scaled back to address the more limited allocations already in SCDC’s Local Plan and, if appropriate, the additional allocation in the First Proposals, including that at the Babraham Research Campus (policy S/BRC), given that the CEO is a signatory to the 2050 Vision. The 2050 Vision will be a different one without co-located housing.

GCSP should also ask for a review of the 2020 Vision, the existing master plan, outline planning permission for the Biomedical Campus and the major more detailed subsequent applications to pull together things proposed or conditions imposed which have not yet been fulfilled.
Nine Wells requires particular attention and, I would suggest, a comprehensive plan for restoration. Great Shelford is not well-endowed with footpaths and this is one of them.

From personal experience on a bike and on foot, I note that I had difficulty finding the cycle path around the back of the Biomedical Campus which links to the Genome Path from Babraham Road (an unfamiliar direction for me) and that when I walked from Cambridge Station recently along the guided busway to get to a routine appointment, the Breast Unit (the entrance to which is obscurely located) was poorly signposted.

Finally, and I am sure that GCSP has already identified this, one of the transport proposals made in the context of the more extensive Cambridge South proposals for Biomedical Campus expansion was to close Granham’s Road to through traffic. This would be very damaging to Great Shelford and Stapleford as it would likely drive traffic onto Hinton Way and lacks rationality, given that the Genome Path already provides a cycling and walking route to broadly the same destinations. This proposal should not be taken forward.