Paragraph 3.8 on Page 15
Paragraph 3.8 reads ‘The Local Plan identifies a site allocation M15 set out in the Map below, alongside the Area of Major Change allocation of Policy 17’. This needs clarification – in the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 M15 is defined as ‘Cambridge Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’ s Hospital)’ and appears to cover the area of Policy 17, rather than being ‘alongside’ it.
Paragraph 3.8 could be reworded as follows: ‘The Cambridge Local Plan identifies a site allocation M15 (the area covered by Policy 17) set out in the Map below.’
Map 2 on page 16
On page 16 Map 2 ('Map of South Cambridgeshire Local Plan E/2 land’) is presented as if it were taken from the South Cambridgeshire local plan 2018. I have not, though, been able to find it in the local plan document itself – the closest is part of Figure 5 on page 61 which includes E/2.
However I did I track down a very similar map, including CSF/5 (2f-m) but with no reference to E/2, on the final page of the 2008 Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan which was later ‘comprised within' the 2018 South Cambridgeshire local plan. However, it here served a very different purpose, as CSF/5 (2f-m) was identified as a 'Countryside Enhancement Strategy’. This is described as follows:
‘A Countryside Enhancement Strategy will be prepared for the area bounded by the Cambridge City boundary, Babraham Road, Haverhill Road, and the edge of the built up area of Great Shelford and Stapleford. The Strategy will comprise:
• New copses on suitable knolls, hilltops and scarp tops.
• Management and creation of chalk grassland.
• Management of existing shelter belts.
• New mixed woodland and shelter belts.
• Creation of a landscape corridor along Hobson’s Brook.
• Reinforcement and planting of new hedgerows.
• Roadside planting.’
• New footpaths, cycle paths and bridleways creating routes through the area and linking to Wandlebury Country Park / The Magog Down.’
A more detailed and useful map of the area is the ‘South of Addenbrookes: Concept Diagram’ on Page 13 of the Action Plan.
It is worth noting that, the Action Plan stresses that: ‘The scale of development in the Cambridge Southern Fringe both within Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire will require substantial mitigation measures over a wide area of countryside to the south of the built-up area to mitigate the impact of development.’
I can trace no further reference to the Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan in the CBC Supplementary Planning Document. I was therefore surprised to see the map appear with no clear statement of its original purpose as an area for Countryside Enhancement and Ecological Study rather than for possible development.
Map 2 should be replaced by Figure 5 on page 61 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (or if retained, sourced correctly with full reference to its original purpose).
Paragraph 3.11 on page 16
This paragraph would appear to say the same thing as Paragraph 3.13 but less clearly and with greater scope for misinterpretation. In particular the phrase ‘this SPD has been prepared to guide development until the adoption of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan and the subsequent masterplan update from CBC has been approved through the planning process’ suggests that approval of the masterplan update will be a rubber stamping exercise.
I recommend deleting Paragraph 3.11.

Discovery Drive runs between ABCAM and Discovery 1000. Please can a bridge be placed over the ditch at the end of Discovery drive to enable cyclists and pedestrians to reach the cycle way running along the "bottom" of the map on p.18.

Para 3.2 and 3.3. The draft SPD needs to be updated throughout to reflect the revision of NPPF in December 2024.
Para 3.19. This categorisation is crude and simplistic because it gives the impression that the various individual organisations only pursue one strand of mission. This is emphatically not the case. For example, the NHS delivers education and research as well as healthcare. So too does the University of Cambridge.
Para 3.22 and 3.23. The poor state of the existing Addenbrooke’s buildings is viewed here solely through a design lens. The SPD should also attend to the increasingly poor physical condition, overcrowding and functional obsolescence exhibited by the pre 1980 estate, which was mostly developed before Crown Immunity on planning permissions was lifted from the NHS in 1986. Addenbrooke’s Hospitals displays the incremental, short-term development the characterises most NHS hospitals, for example in the proliferation of short-life modular buildings. It also demonstrates the neglect of maintenance typical of the NHS Estate. It should be stressed that these problems are not unique to Addenbrooke’s and are the result of sustained capital starvation in the NHS. If Cambridge aspires to an exceptional hospital, then the discussion needs to start with recognition of this harsh reality.

The campus is first and foremost concerned with the quality of the healthcare outcomes for its patients and greater emphasis should be given to this within the SPD. Paragraph 3.3 should be reworded to read: “This SPD meets the aims of the NPPF by promoting sustainable development that responds appropriately to the surrounding context of the site through high quality design, within the context of the need to deliver high quality healthcare outcomes.”

Paragraph 3.31 refers to the accessibility of the campus by public transport and the connectivity of the campus with the transport hubs; however, it neglects to mention the internal shuttle bus service that operates at the campus, linking the transport hubs to the rest of the site. In order to address the omission, it is proposed that the following sentence is added to paragraph 3.31: “The campus does benefit from an internal shuttle bus service for patients and visitors which looks to improve connectivity and accessibly across the campus.”

Paragraph 3.2 need updating to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework 2024

Paragraph 3.7 – the reference to B1(b) uses in Policy 17 need to be clarified within the context of the amendments to the Use Classes Order (Class E(g)(ii))

Paragraph 3.10 – the reference to B1(b) uses in Policy E/2 need to be clarified within the context of the amendments to the Use Classes Order (Class E(g)(ii))

Paragraph 3.31, line 3 delete the word “to”

3.7 isnt it wider than this to include clinical expansion as well eg phase 2 land share for NHS.
3.18 Is "Expansion" an occupier?
3.20 cafe operator is Stir.
3.23 reads as though AZ and RPH are on Phase 2. they are Phase 1.
3.27 Piecemeal is unfair - it is "Phased."

The Green Belt

The draft SPD explains the history of land release from the Green Belt for CBC (paragraphs 2.5 and 3.10), but otherwise leaves references to the Green Belt to existing Local Plan policies in Appendix 1. This is not satisfactory. The open spaces and landscape aspects of the draft SPD focus on recreation and biodiversity. Both are important, but the relevant purposes of the Green Belt (as recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework (updated in December 2024) (“NPPF2024”) should also be repeated, namely:

“b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;”.

These requirements should be included in the draft SPD as matters to which an applicant should have express regard and explain how they have done so, especially for developments on Phases 2 and 3 of CBC which neighbour, or are close to, the Green Belt. Your own First Proposals mention in draft Policy S/CBC the need to “create a soft green edge of the city, to minimise the urbanising effects of the development and help compensate for harm to the Green Belt”. It would be helpful also to include something along these lines in the draft SPD.

Nine Wells Local Nature Reserve and the Hobson’s catchment area

The edges of Phase 3 are in very close proximity to fragile and historically important Nine Wells. It requires protection and enhancement. This may, in part, be what the final sentence of paragraph 4.10 is trying to say, but it should do so more clearly.


It is understood that any discharge of water into the Hobson’s catchment area requires a written agreement with Hobson’s Conduit Trust. It would be helpful for this to be mentioned, including the significance of the frequency at which it is discharged (which can impact the levels of oxygenation) and its temperature.

Use of salt for de-icing can also have a deleterious effect on the catchment.

In this context, we wonder whether the draft SPD could drawing developers’ attention to both the Hobson’s Conduit Trust website (and especially its annual bioblitz information) and to the relevant parts of the 2020 Greater Cambridge Chalk Streams Project Report in which Cambridge City Council was involved.

The Red Cross Lane Drain City Wildlife Site is also potentially relevant.

Connectivity and movement

I agree with the section of the Trumpington Residents’ Association response to your consultation on the subject of rat-running through CBC and the need for a collective approach to the Prohibition of Driving Order made by Cambridgeshire County Council and for express references in the draft SPD. This is especially so with the advent of Cambridge South station; appropriate enforcement will be important to discourage those who seek to be “dropped off” at the station.

CBC’s recently released Travel and Transport Plan 2024 to 2029 has identified that there is “no clear east-west active travel or public transport links at [CBC]”. This, plus poor wayfinding signage, significantly contributes to CBC’s lack of legibility. I suggest that this is also referred to in the draft SPD.

I agree with what is said in paragraph 2.7 about the opening of Cambridge South station being likely to lead to an increase in what is essentially non-motorised user through traffic. There is already a great deal of this, in the form of people travelling to work and children travelling to the sixth form colleges and other schools. They are not currently well catered for as they pass through CBC, although the Sawston Greenway proposals of the Greater Cambridge Partnership should significantly improve the position.

Detailed comments:

(a) In paragraph 3.2, the NPPF2024 has recently been published. Its paragraph 7 now says “the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”. Paragraph 3.2 should more accurately reflect this.
(b) The map in paragraph 3.17 is useful, but should also show (i) the site reserved for the new acute hospital, (ii) the sites of Cambridge Surgical Hospital, the East of England Ambulance Service, the Addenbrooke’s Centre for Clinical Investigation, GSK’s Experimental Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology Unit and IdeaSpace, (iii) use 2000 and 3000 Discovery Drive for “Discovery Drive development”. The “Plot 9” description is not particularly meaningful. Labels such as “due 2025”, “due 2028” and “in development” should be avoided and, in any event, are already not accurate. In addition, the occupiers listed in paragraph 3.19 should be the same as those shown on the map and names should be used consistently throughout the draft SPD (eg Victor Dadaleh is not).
(c) In paragraph 3.19, some places shown on the map (eg the NHS Blood and Transplant Cambridge Donor Centre) are not listed. Internet research suggests that Iota Pharmaceuticals is at the St John’s Innovation Centre.
(d) Are all the “outposts with catering facilities” open to the public (paragraph 3.20)? There will be more retail in the Cambridge South station.
(e) Which employees is the Frank Lee Centre open to (paragraph 3.21)?
(f) As regards paragraph 3.24, the extent to which urban Cambridge wraps round to the east of CBC is limited (the Nine Wells development only) and this paragraph does not mention White Hill and the Gog Magog Hills, which are important landscape features.
(g) As regards paragraph 3.28, the incinerator chimney is also very distinctive when approaching CBC along the A1307. The “northwest” and “northeast” in the final sentence are confusing, especially when taken in the context of the second sentence in this paragraph.
(h) In paragraph 3.29, the railway is now called the West Anglia Main Line, rather than the London to Kings Lynn railway. The description of where the existing MSCPs is appears inaccurate. Surely one of them is to the south of the CBC close to the Cambridge Movement Surgical Hub. Of the three with planning approval, isn’t the one for Astra Zeneca already built? Are the ones with planning approval for specific employers? One of the surface level car parks is the proposed site for the Cancer Research hospital and at least one of the temporary ones is on the reserved site for the new acute hospital (along with the helipad).
(i) Paragraph 3.30 could also include the updated figures from the recently released CBC Travel and Transport Plan (2024-2029). It may be worth noting that the vehicles figures should be significantly different if there was proper enforcement of the planning requirements designed to prevent rat-running (see above).
(j) As regards paragraph 3.31, the current relationship between the guided buses and the bus station (if any) is unclear to those of us who have never caught a guided bus. See also the point above about poor east-west connectivity. Further, the walk from Cambridge South station to more eastern parts of the Campus and indeed to the bus station will be significant in length (around 20 minutes).

The County Council submission on East West Rail notes that there is a Hobsons Conduit Trust’s proposal to divert the main Addenbrookes Drain to flow though the attenuation pond reedbed by Long Road before it enters Hobson’s Brook. Please mention this in the context of water discharges.
The Trust is understood to have an ambition for a non-motorised user path towards the Nine Wells Local Reserve (the East West Rail area manager mentioned it at the Cherry Hinton drop-in on Tuesday). Again, perhaps this could be mentioned in the context of greater protection and improvement for the reserve.

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 Lizzie,

Please find attached a response from the University of Cambridge to the CBC SPD consultation.

Best wishes,

Paul
Paul Milliner MRTPI I Head of Planning

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

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

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

Dear Sirs

Please find attached comment made on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council in response to the consultation on the draft Planning Obligations SPD, Heath Impact Assessment SPD and Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD.

Regards
Colum

Colum Fitzsimons
Development and Policy Manager
Tel: 01223 728175

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

Attached please find the response on behalf of the British Horse Society to the above consultation.


Lynda Warth
County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire
British Horse Society

Attached please find the response on behalf of the British Horse Society to the above consultation.


Lynda Warth
County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire
British Horse Society

Attached please find the response on behalf of the British Horse Society to the above consultation.


Lynda Warth
County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire
British Horse Society

Attached please find the response on behalf of the British Horse Society to the above consultation.


Lynda Warth
County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire
British Horse Society

Attached please find the response on behalf of the British Horse Society to the above consultation.


Lynda Warth
County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire
British Horse Society

Attached please find the response on behalf of the British Horse Society to the above consultation.


Lynda Warth
County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire
British Horse Society

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a consultation response on the draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on behalf of my client, East West Railway Company Limited (EWR Co).

If you have any questions or require any clarification on this representation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Matthew


Matthew Barron
Principal Planner

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a consultation response on the draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on behalf of my client, East West Railway Company Limited (EWR Co).

If you have any questions or require any clarification on this representation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Matthew


Matthew Barron
Principal Planner