From: Trumpington Residents' Association

Good evening

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Our response is attached. We will be grateful for your acknowledgement of receipt.

Best wishes
David Plank
For Trumpington Residents' Association

Para 2.4. Addenbrooke’s Hospital is ranked 80th out of 250 in the 2023 Newsweek hospitals global league table. World's Best Hospitals 2023 - Top 250 - Newsweek Rankings. Some of the hospitals placed above Addenbrooke’s occupy a single, shared campus that are home to a mixed economy of academic; healthcare, and commercial research interests. Others, such as the Boston complex of Harvard-MGH-Brigham–Kendall Square are located on different sites across a sizeable urban area. The evidence does not support any of the following claims made in the SPD: a) that Addenbrooke’s is a world leading hospital; b) that the co-location enjoyed on the CBC is unique; or c) that co-location on a single site offers a competitive advantage. GCSP should avoid making such sweeping and unevidenced claims.
Para. 2.6. Cambridge Biomedical Campus Ltd (CBCL) has repeatedly referred to the existence of a ‘holistic spatial framework’ over the past two years. What has happened to this output? Does it, in effect, update the 2010 Masterplan insofar as it relates to the original Addenbrooke’s site plus phases 1 to 3 (hereafter ‘the campus’ as per paragraph 1.4)? Or is it of no value as an update to the 2020 masterplan?
Para 2.8. This is factually incorrect. Neither of the two hospitals referred to has received final approval and construction work has not commenced beyond initial site clearance. Prospects for the Cancer Hospital now look good, following the statement on the New Hospital Programme made by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 20 January. Prospects for the Children’s Hospital remain uncertain as this scheme is not part of the New Hospital Programme and a substantial funding gap remains. GCSP should be more careful not to overstate the certainty of proposed NHS developments.
Para 2.9 The ambition statement is ill-informed and insufficient for this context. The notion that the campus is, or should be expected to be, solely about the rapid and effective translation of research and innovation into clinical practice is too simplistic. The campus is also about 1) providing safe, accessible and effective care for the local and sub-regional population based on the knowledge and technologies already available; 2) educating and training the clinical workforce of today and tomorrow; 3) discovery research in the biomedical sciences, which may not have any immediate or direct healthcare application; and 4) clinical research which is closer to healthcare application but may not be primarily directed towards rapid and effective translation.
In the internationally accepted model of the ‘Academic Health Centre; medical school and health provider partnerships have pursued a shared ‘tripartite mission’ of care, teaching, and research. Cambridge Biomedical Campus has the potential to demonstrate a new model, which adds a fourth strand of mission: innovation and wealth creation. We might refer to this as an ‘Academic Health Science Complex’. The proper articulation of this model is needed to inform the future development of the campus. The ambition statement in the SPD, as drafted, is not fit for purpose and I offer the following alternative.
“The occupiers of Cambridge Biomedical Campus will collectively pursue a shared mission of excellence across four strands of mission.
• advancement in healthcare.
• discovery and applied research related to human health.
• the education and training of the healthcare workforce
• health technology and healthcare process innovation.
Individual organisations will focus on a different aspect, or aspects, of this shared mission, with overlaps between them. The campus is also home to a mixed economy of public, private and third sector organisations. Balanced development between the four strands of the shared mission, and between sectors, will be critical for the maximum achievement of the vision. So too will the fostering of productive connections between organisations and sectors.
The Campus already amounts to a significant urban quarter. The principles of placemaking, including but not limited to the promotion of health and well-being, will be pivotal to its future sustainability and success.”
Para 2.11 The source of the data in the infographic should be given so that the validity of the claims made can be appraised. If the sources are not already in the public domain, then they should be placed in the public domain, either by CBCL or by GCSP itself.

The third sentence of paragraph 2.8 should be reworded as follows: “This means that alongside Addenbrooke’s Hospital, the Rosie Hospital and the Royal Papworth Hospital (which moved to the Biomedical Campus in 2019), there will be five hospitals within the campus, consolidating it as a regional centre for healthcare.”

Paragraph 2.2, line 1 – suggests Addenbrooke’s Hospital opened on its current site in 1967; however, paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 suggests a date of 1962. The latter is correct.

2.8 Is the childrens Hospital actually u/c or were the works enabling works?

Crucially, the ambition set out in paragraph 2.9 should be redrafted as follows (I agree with the comments of Dr Stephen Davies):

“The Cambridge Biomedical Campus will be a world-leading location for excellence in healthcare, education, medical innovation and life science research integrated with surrounding communities as well as the wider landscape beyond the city.

Campus occupiers will collectively pursue a shared mission of excellence across four strands:
- advancement in healthcare
- discovery and applied research related to human health
- the education and training of the healthcare workforce
- health technology and healthcare process innovation.
Individual organisations will focus on a different aspect, or aspects, of this shared mission, with overlaps between them. The campus is also home to a mixed economy of public, private and third sector organisations. Balanced development between the four strands of the shared mission, and between sectors, will be critical to the achievement of the vision. So too will be the fostering of productive connections between organisations and sectors.
The Campus already amounts to a significant and separately identifiable district of the City. The principles of placemaking, including but not limited to, the promotion of health and well-being, will be pivotal to its future sustainability and success.”

This more accurately describes the complex four-stranded mission at CBC and the need for a balance between those strands than the wording included in the draft SPD. At the heart of CBC is Addenbrookes, which is described in accurate, but less than flattering, terms in paragraph 3.27 and which has a maintenance backlog in excess of £200 million. Land for the redevelopment of the acute hospital is reserved in the 2010 Strategic Masterplan.

GCSP should look for other opportunities in the SPD to emphasise the importance to CBC of sufficient and properly maintained healthcare provision at CBC for the population the hospitals need to serve and which includes enough space, equipment and staff to undertake clinical research and innovation. How else can it play its part in the continuing success of CBC? It is true as page 1 says that ‘the quality of new development has improved the look and feel of [parts of] the Campus”. However, significant parts of the Campus (in particular, Addenbrookes) have been left behind. So far as possible, this should not be allowed to continue and new development should be encouraged by the SPD to make, and should actually make, appropriate contributions (including financial ones) to improvements to the existing parts of CBC (including the hospitals), to the infrastructure that is needed to service it or to enhancement of the Green Belt.

More detailed comments:

(a) There are some inconsistencies between paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3 and they need to be conformed, otherwise the drafting implies (for example) that the three NHS trusts are not members of Cambridge Biomedical Campus Limited.
(b) Paragraph 2.4 claims that CBC is “unique globally”, which is a claim that is not even made in CBC’s own Vision 2050. I suggest it is deleted. I am also not clear about “creating the optimum environment for the rapid and effective translation of research into routine clinical practice”. Equally, this is not a claim made in Vision 2050 , its meaning is not clear and nor does it necessarily apply to all organisations at CBC – the focus of their research will not always be clinical improvements (eg the MRC LMB is not motivated by the desire to improve healthcare outcomes for patients. It is motivated by the desire to further the frontiers of understanding about underpinning mechanisms in human biology.)
(c) In paragraph 2.5, it would be helpful to include the size of each phase in hectares.
(d) In paragraph 2.6, Cambridge South station is now due to open in early 2026. Its opening is dependent on agreement to, and implementation of, the new timetable for the East Coast Mainline, according to a representative of Govia Thameslink who spoke at the Railfuture meeting in Cambridge in December. Given that the draft SPD is likely to be in force for a few years at least, we suggest target dates are avoided, as they will inevitably go out of date.
(e) As regards paragraph 2.8, neither the Cancer Research nor the Children’s hospitals have full business case approval. The central government funding each is expecting will not be released unless and until that approval has been obtained. We are aware that the Children’s hospital has made a sufficient start on works to ensure that its 2022 planning permission did not lapse, but the fact that the site has been cleared and secured and has a short access road is not sufficient to support the statement that it is “under construction”. The Children’s hospital has a significant funding gap and it would be reasonable to conclude that its timing is uncertain. It would also be more accurate to say that the Cancer Research hospital was given planning permission in 2024. Its prospects have markedly improved with its inclusion in Wave 1 of the revised New Hospitals Programme earlier this week and CUH and the University have said they expect construction to start in 2026 and be completed in 2029. On a very minor point, sometimes the Rosie is a separate hospital and sometimes it is not. Given that it is shown and expressly marked on the map on page 18, it would be more consistent to say here that there will be five hospitals. As regards the last sentence of this paragraph, one of the two tenants in 1000 Discovery Drive is CUH’s histopathology department. It may therefore be premature to assume that the tenants will necessarily be commercial.
(f) Paragraph 2.9 says that CBC’s Vision 2050 (as recently updated) is under consideration by GCSP. Despite the recent updates, Vision 2050 remains not fit for purpose (as concluded in the joint Assessment by Great Shelford Parish Council and Trumpington Residents' Association.
(g) The draft SPD includes a number of statements such as that in paragraph 2.11 “The Cambridge Biomedical Campus is an international centre of excellence for patient care and healthcare education, providing world class medical facilities and research.” There is a similar statement on page 2. The likely source of these is CBC Ltd, so they are, in effect, developer statements. Are they appropriate, unless independently verified by GCSP? For example, I would not dispute that some medical facilities at the Campus are world class, but, as noted elsewhere, Addenbrookes has a really significant maintenance backlog and is ranked 91 in Newsweek's rankings of the world's best hospitals 2024. We are also not clear what is meant by “life sciences services” in paragraph 2.11. Paragraph 3.16 includes some similar claims, but also refers to “biotechnology services”. What are these?
(h) I do not think that it is appropriate for the draft SPD to repeat as “key statistics of the Campus” information provided by CBC Ltd unless it has been verified by GCSP and the factual basis for these claims is expressly set out. This applies most particularly to the number of lives saved each year and the contribution of £4.2 billion to the economy.

Hi,

Please find attached response from Great Shelford Parish Council to the consultation regarding the Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document. Can you please confirm receipt?


Kind regards
Nicola

Nicola Webster CertHE PSLCC
Clerk to Great Shelford Parish Council

Dear Terry,

With thanks to Ed, please find attached the CBC Ltd response to the SPD consultation. This has been reviewed by CBC Ltd directors and reflects input received by members.

Let me know if you would like to discuss anything further.

Best wishes,

Nick


Nick Kirby
Managing Director
CBC Ltd

Draft SPD Consultation CBC Site- Comments Cllr Immy B-H

From: Trumpington Residents' Association

Good evening

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Our response is attached. We will be grateful for your acknowledgement of receipt.

Best wishes
David Plank
For Trumpington Residents' Association

From: Trumpington Residents' Association

Good evening

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Our response is attached. We will be grateful for your acknowledgement of receipt.

Best wishes
David Plank
For Trumpington Residents' Association

From: Trumpington Residents' Association

Good evening

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Our response is attached. We will be grateful for your acknowledgement of receipt.

Best wishes
David Plank
For Trumpington Residents' Association

From: Trumpington Residents' Association

Good evening

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Our response is attached. We will be grateful for your acknowledgement of receipt.

Best wishes
David Plank
For Trumpington Residents' Association

Please confirm submission received and included for GCSP CBC SPD Consultation

Firstly the Ambition Statement for CBC does not address it is not a Campus it is a site
"A campus university is a British term for one organisation namely a university situated on one site, with student accommodation, teaching and research facilities, and leisure activities all together belonging to the one organisation namely a university."
• Cambridge Biomedical Campus Site - it is clearly a site not a Campus as it is made up of different elements with no one organisations having financial management or accountability - one of the weaknesses of the site;
• It also contains commercial organisations/ventures so this needs to be recognised and acknowledged;
• It has UC education/reseach/charitable elements so these too need to be included.
In line with the Cambridge Local Plan Strategic Objectives around promoting and supporting economic growth there should be consideration given how to make this vision a concrete outcome within the local context of Queen Edith’s Ward which the Cambridge Biomedical corporate/commercial/research/UC and NHS hospitals development site sits alongside. "Planning Gain" and financial contributions from the development of the site by each organisation needs to be fed back into the local economy to build infrastructure/civic enforcement/skills and employment plans etc. that mitigate for the unintended negative impacts of this size of CBC site growth within small residential areas by fitting the population of an Urban Town next to what would be considered 2 small village populations.

All development past, present and future need to be assessed as one joining the dots on all developments, if the Vision Statement 2050 is purporting it is one site - not piecemeal as if each is a single planning application. If it continues in this way Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 then if a site wide development then more emphasis needs to be put on the water issues of the whole site and how these impact on Cambridge and the UK. One cannot have it both ways stating it is one site, one development, has global significance then not address water in this same context of whole site development. Likewise the green belt and the land taken by the site need to be seen as one so all can identify what and how much green belt land is being used to build more on the site.
Some elements of good practice can be seen at the Railpen Beehive development in Cambridge one example would be a single accountable developer another being a community skills hub embedded alongside local community/organisations. The CBC site is not a Campus it does not have 1 overarching developer accountable for the whole site, it is a piecemeal site with many different organisations engaged in development for their own needs
With the NHS being an anchor institution, it must be recognised that it is a NHS Hospital site, and within the larger site is the UC, research/commercial and corporate organisations. They are not a single entity nor do they have a singular focus, no one organisation taking responsibility for the unintended negative impacts the site has on its near neighbours.
My particular focus as a resident is around youth employment opportunities. I would l like to see major commercial developers making provision for community facilities either through pump priming contributions or facilitation of community support and education workers. Building local skill levels is in line with the City Councils Community Wealth Building Strategy 2024 which encourages employers to contribute to provide local employment, apprenticeships and skills training programmes.
With reference to the next stages of development of the site I would like to see preference given to the local young people of Queen Edith’s in the provision of training and skills opportunities during both construction both by commercial developers and the NHS in development of the new Children’ Hospital and the Cancer hospital.
A further way for developers both commercial, research via the UC and the NHS to support the Community Wealth Building Strategy with a particular local focus on Queen Edith’s is the implementation by developers of an Employment and Skills Plan. This should be based on a recognition developments on the site will have over spill impacts beyond the proposal’s boundaries.
An Employment and Skills Plan should be in place at the pre planning stage and should allow for local Queen Edith’s school, college and community engagement beyond websites and job fairs. With a focus on promoting programmes of skills, training and employment opportunities on the site with particular reference to local young people.
These mitigation's will help support the Council’s ambition for the site i.e. for it to be a world leading location for health care that is well integrated with its surrounding communities. Whilst acknowledging the site plays an important role locally particularly in its ability to provide employment and skills opportunities for local young people starting out on their career, by opportunities both at constructions and when the site builds become operational.
The further element required of developers both commercial/research, UC/NHS is a recognition that the sites development needs to recognise and facilitate community cohesion. With 37,000 (over 50,000 when you include construction staff, visitor, patients, deliveries) visits daily many by car over the years considerable parking stress has been caused to the areas the site sits within. Queen Edith's has negative impacts coming in via Babraham Road and over spilling out of the site with many anti-social behaviours which have been exacerbated by staff/ patients/visitors seeking to smoke and undertake other activities which could bring the NHS and companies into disrepute due to these happening in local streets. One example is the removal of a fenced entrance from a residential street to Addenbrooke's on Red Cross Lane. Now 7% of CBC site movements use this and it has become a rat run for illegal dangerously ridden motorbikes and a whole range of criminal activity from movement of stolen CBC site bikes/packages and county line activity, lower level parking stress which blights locals lives daily. These issues are occurring around all roads abutting the site from Queen Edith's to Trumpington Wards. This over spill sometimes leads to an intimidating atmosphere for locals due to excessive numbers entering and exiting the CBC site into small residential areas. These behaviours have had an adverse effect on community cohesion and require mitigation's through strategies to address onsite parking issues, taxi use/PHVs and mitigation's to prevent the negative cumulative impacts of anti-social and other illegal concerning behaviours.
With particular regard to the building of the Cambridge South Station, believed by who to be built as a destination not a suburban station, already the villages are saying they will find it helpful to use and family can pick them up easily on local Queen Edith's streets saving them having to go into Cambridge station. Through to the Children then the Cancer Hospitals from 2025 onward, plus redevelopment of Addenbrooke's hospital I would refer the NHS and developers to the Get Britain Working White Paper where the NHS role as an employer is part of the focus in offering people work experience and employment opportunities. These initiatives should be adopted at the earliest stage of the pre application process to inform a development that both promotes local economic growth and maintains the quality of life of local Queen Edith’s residents through the health benefits of work and an effectively well managed site can bring.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Blackburn
1 Greenlands
Cambridge CB2 0QY

Please confirm submission received and included for GCSP CBC SPD Consultation

Firstly the Ambition Statement for CBC does not address it is not a Campus it is a site
"A campus university is a British term for one organisation namely a university situated on one site, with student accommodation, teaching and research facilities, and leisure activities all together belonging to the one organisation namely a university."
• Cambridge Biomedical Campus Site - it is clearly a site not a Campus as it is made up of different elements with no one organisations having financial management or accountability - one of the weaknesses of the site;
• It also contains commercial organisations/ventures so this needs to be recognised and acknowledged;
• It has UC education/reseach/charitable elements so these too need to be included.
In line with the Cambridge Local Plan Strategic Objectives around promoting and supporting economic growth there should be consideration given how to make this vision a concrete outcome within the local context of Queen Edith’s Ward which the Cambridge Biomedical corporate/commercial/research/UC and NHS hospitals development site sits alongside. "Planning Gain" and financial contributions from the development of the site by each organisation needs to be fed back into the local economy to build infrastructure/civic enforcement/skills and employment plans etc. that mitigate for the unintended negative impacts of this size of CBC site growth within small residential areas by fitting the population of an Urban Town next to what would be considered 2 small village populations.

All development past, present and future need to be assessed as one joining the dots on all developments, if the Vision Statement 2050 is purporting it is one site - not piecemeal as if each is a single planning application. If it continues in this way Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 then if a site wide development then more emphasis needs to be put on the water issues of the whole site and how these impact on Cambridge and the UK. One cannot have it both ways stating it is one site, one development, has global significance then not address water in this same context of whole site development. Likewise the green belt and the land taken by the site need to be seen as one so all can identify what and how much green belt land is being used to build more on the site.
Some elements of good practice can be seen at the Railpen Beehive development in Cambridge one example would be a single accountable developer another being a community skills hub embedded alongside local community/organisations. The CBC site is not a Campus it does not have 1 overarching developer accountable for the whole site, it is a piecemeal site with many different organisations engaged in development for their own needs
With the NHS being an anchor institution, it must be recognised that it is a NHS Hospital site, and within the larger site is the UC, research/commercial and corporate organisations. They are not a single entity nor do they have a singular focus, no one organisation taking responsibility for the unintended negative impacts the site has on its near neighbours.
My particular focus as a resident is around youth employment opportunities. I would l like to see major commercial developers making provision for community facilities either through pump priming contributions or facilitation of community support and education workers. Building local skill levels is in line with the City Councils Community Wealth Building Strategy 2024 which encourages employers to contribute to provide local employment, apprenticeships and skills training programmes.
With reference to the next stages of development of the site I would like to see preference given to the local young people of Queen Edith’s in the provision of training and skills opportunities during both construction both by commercial developers and the NHS in development of the new Children’ Hospital and the Cancer hospital.
A further way for developers both commercial, research via the UC and the NHS to support the Community Wealth Building Strategy with a particular local focus on Queen Edith’s is the implementation by developers of an Employment and Skills Plan. This should be based on a recognition developments on the site will have over spill impacts beyond the proposal’s boundaries.
An Employment and Skills Plan should be in place at the pre planning stage and should allow for local Queen Edith’s school, college and community engagement beyond websites and job fairs. With a focus on promoting programmes of skills, training and employment opportunities on the site with particular reference to local young people.
These mitigation's will help support the Council’s ambition for the site i.e. for it to be a world leading location for health care that is well integrated with its surrounding communities. Whilst acknowledging the site plays an important role locally particularly in its ability to provide employment and skills opportunities for local young people starting out on their career, by opportunities both at constructions and when the site builds become operational.
The further element required of developers both commercial/research, UC/NHS is a recognition that the sites development needs to recognise and facilitate community cohesion. With 37,000 (over 50,000 when you include construction staff, visitor, patients, deliveries) visits daily many by car over the years considerable parking stress has been caused to the areas the site sits within. Queen Edith's has negative impacts coming in via Babraham Road and over spilling out of the site with many anti-social behaviours which have been exacerbated by staff/ patients/visitors seeking to smoke and undertake other activities which could bring the NHS and companies into disrepute due to these happening in local streets. One example is the removal of a fenced entrance from a residential street to Addenbrooke's on Red Cross Lane. Now 7% of CBC site movements use this and it has become a rat run for illegal dangerously ridden motorbikes and a whole range of criminal activity from movement of stolen CBC site bikes/packages and county line activity, lower level parking stress which blights locals lives daily. These issues are occurring around all roads abutting the site from Queen Edith's to Trumpington Wards. This over spill sometimes leads to an intimidating atmosphere for locals due to excessive numbers entering and exiting the CBC site into small residential areas. These behaviours have had an adverse effect on community cohesion and require mitigation's through strategies to address onsite parking issues, taxi use/PHVs and mitigation's to prevent the negative cumulative impacts of anti-social and other illegal concerning behaviours.
With particular regard to the building of the Cambridge South Station, believed by who to be built as a destination not a suburban station, already the villages are saying they will find it helpful to use and family can pick them up easily on local Queen Edith's streets saving them having to go into Cambridge station. Through to the Children then the Cancer Hospitals from 2025 onward, plus redevelopment of Addenbrooke's hospital I would refer the NHS and developers to the Get Britain Working White Paper where the NHS role as an employer is part of the focus in offering people work experience and employment opportunities. These initiatives should be adopted at the earliest stage of the pre application process to inform a development that both promotes local economic growth and maintains the quality of life of local Queen Edith’s residents through the health benefits of work and an effectively well managed site can bring.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Blackburn
1 Greenlands
Cambridge CB2 0QY

Hi,

Please find attached response from Great Shelford Parish Council to the consultation regarding the Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document. Can you please confirm receipt?


Kind regards
Nicola

Nicola Webster CertHE PSLCC
Clerk to Great Shelford Parish Council

Draft SPD Consultation CBC Site- Comments Cllr Immy B-H

Draft SPD Consultation CBC Site- Comments Cllr Immy B-H

Draft SPD Consultation CBC Site- Comments Cllr Immy B-H

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a letter submission from Hobson's Conduit Trust in response to the consultation on the CBC SPD which closes later today.

Many thanks

Kind regards

John Latham

Chairman
Hobson's Conduit Trust

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above document. The following comments are submitted
by NHS Property Services (NHSPS) for and on behalf of NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB (C&P
ICB). C&P ICB has delegated authority from NHS England for the commissioning of most NHS health
services in the Greater Cambridgeshire area.

We note that whilst the SPD is principally design focussed, the area is globally significant in terms of its
clinical and research status and its growth is underpinned by both public and private sector investment.

The campus is identified at paragraph 2.3 as being the largest employment site in Cambridge and the NHS
is a key landowner and employer in the area with Addenbrooke’s Hospital, the Rosie Maternity Hospital, the
Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation
Trust on site. To support the level of growth already achieved as well as expected in the future, it is of
paramount importance that the interconnected nature of supporting land uses, including suitable and
affordable accommodation for staff, to support the levels of employment in the area is fully considered.

As acknowledged at page 17 of the consultation document, there is existing worker accommodation on the
northern part of the campus, which is managed by Sanctuary Housing Association. This provides a valuable
resource of short- and longer-term accommodation but further accommodation across the local authority
area will be required to support the level of growth envisaged.

One of the greatest challenges facing the NHS in this location is the recruitment and retention of staff, which
is exacerbated by high housing costs in the area. Several studies have been undertaken examining this
issue including, but not limited to, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus Housing Study (Lichfields, 2024) and
Assessing the Housing Need of Hospital Workers (Savills, 2020). The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
ICS have also undertaken a survey of staff accommodation needs and have published a subsequent
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Housing Need Evaluation Report (2024), which highlights the acute need
for high quality and affordable housing across a range of tenures.

It is acknowledged that a key driver of the SPD is the “collective desire to improve health outcomes for
patients” (p.11). Without ensuring that the emerging Local Plan and other planning policy documents
acknowledge and address the need for suitable and affordable housing for NHS staff this objective would
be difficult to accomplish.

A further aspiration of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD is to adapt to climate change and reduce
carbon emissions. Ensuring that campus employees are accommodated within a reasonable commuting
distance of their place of work not only supports this objective but encourages future modal shift.

We therefore encourage any suitable housing sites in the emerging Local Plan to consider its suitability to
provide affordable housing options for health/campus staff, which could encompass a range of housing
tenures. Any relevant evidence base documents, including housing needs studies should also examine the
requirement for affordable homes for NHS staff given its importance to the local and national economy.

We also welcome future discussions at the site-specific level to identify and progress sites that may be
appropriate for accommodation for NHS staff working at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB and NHSPS thank the Council for the opportunity to comment on
the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD consultation. Should you have any queries or require any further
information, please don’t hesitate to contact us. NHSPS would be grateful to be kept informed of the
progression of the SPD via our dedicated email address, town.planning@property.nhs.uk.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above document. The following comments are submitted
by NHS Property Services (NHSPS) for and on behalf of NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB (C&P
ICB). C&P ICB has delegated authority from NHS England for the commissioning of most NHS health
services in the Greater Cambridgeshire area.

We note that whilst the SPD is principally design focussed, the area is globally significant in terms of its
clinical and research status and its growth is underpinned by both public and private sector investment.

The campus is identified at paragraph 2.3 as being the largest employment site in Cambridge and the NHS
is a key landowner and employer in the area with Addenbrooke’s Hospital, the Rosie Maternity Hospital, the
Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation
Trust on site. To support the level of growth already achieved as well as expected in the future, it is of
paramount importance that the interconnected nature of supporting land uses, including suitable and
affordable accommodation for staff, to support the levels of employment in the area is fully considered.

As acknowledged at page 17 of the consultation document, there is existing worker accommodation on the
northern part of the campus, which is managed by Sanctuary Housing Association. This provides a valuable
resource of short- and longer-term accommodation but further accommodation across the local authority
area will be required to support the level of growth envisaged.

One of the greatest challenges facing the NHS in this location is the recruitment and retention of staff, which
is exacerbated by high housing costs in the area. Several studies have been undertaken examining this
issue including, but not limited to, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus Housing Study (Lichfields, 2024) and
Assessing the Housing Need of Hospital Workers (Savills, 2020). The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
ICS have also undertaken a survey of staff accommodation needs and have published a subsequent
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Housing Need Evaluation Report (2024), which highlights the acute need
for high quality and affordable housing across a range of tenures.

It is acknowledged that a key driver of the SPD is the “collective desire to improve health outcomes for
patients” (p.11). Without ensuring that the emerging Local Plan and other planning policy documents
acknowledge and address the need for suitable and affordable housing for NHS staff this objective would
be difficult to accomplish.

A further aspiration of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD is to adapt to climate change and reduce
carbon emissions. Ensuring that campus employees are accommodated within a reasonable commuting
distance of their place of work not only supports this objective but encourages future modal shift.

We therefore encourage any suitable housing sites in the emerging Local Plan to consider its suitability to
provide affordable housing options for health/campus staff, which could encompass a range of housing
tenures. Any relevant evidence base documents, including housing needs studies should also examine the
requirement for affordable homes for NHS staff given its importance to the local and national economy.

We also welcome future discussions at the site-specific level to identify and progress sites that may be
appropriate for accommodation for NHS staff working at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB and NHSPS thank the Council for the opportunity to comment on
the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD consultation. Should you have any queries or require any further
information, please don’t hesitate to contact us. NHSPS would be grateful to be kept informed of the
progression of the SPD via our dedicated email address, town.planning@property.nhs.uk.