I fully support the Neighbourhood Plan

I have inputted to this NP during the process, and am pleased with the result - my points have been addressed.

I am writing to provide observations on four critical areas addressed in the Neighbourhood Plan: provisions for children and young people, the retail mix, the quality of local walks, and expansion of medical centre facilities. These elements are pivotal to realising the long-term vision of Stapleford and Great Shelford as thriving, sustainable, and inclusive communities.

Children and Young People

The Plan highlights deficiencies in outdoor play spaces, particularly in the northern part of the area, as well as limited facilities for older children and young adults. While recent upgrades to play areas at the Great Shelford and Stapleford recreation grounds are commendable, these efforts fall short of addressing the broader recreational needs. Accessible, age-appropriate spaces available at little or no cost are essential to fostering community cohesion and promoting the physical and mental well-being of younger residents.

Expanding access to natural spaces offers an additional opportunity to encourage informal play and connection with the local landscape. These priorities should be integrated into development proposals through mechanisms such as Policy S&GS 20 (Protecting and improving routes into the countryside), ensuring that young people can actively engage with the area’s rich natural environment.

Moreover, the Plan must address the increasingly pressing demand for affordable family housing and childcare to support younger families. The current scarcity of small and mid-sized affordable homes is driving younger residents to leave, undermining the area’s intergenerational community structure. Policies S&GS 1 (Housing mix) and S&GS 2 (Prioritising local needs in the allocation of affordable housing) should be leveraged to deliver suitable housing options. Enhancing childcare provision more proactively, including a mixed economy of childminders, nurseries and pre/after school care, will further enable families to thrive locally, contributing to a balanced and sustainable demographic profile.

Additionally, exploring opportunities for free or affordable informal sporting activities, such as trim trails and multipurpose spaces for casual sports, could cater to diverse age groups. These initiatives would promote healthier lifestyles and encourage outdoor engagement across the community.

Retail Mix

The Plan rightly acknowledges the limited range of shopping options within the villages, including the absence of essential amenities such as a bank. Broadening the variety of shops and services would not only enhance economic resilience but also reduce reliance on external retail hubs. This is particularly important for carless younger families and older residents who may find frequent travel challenging.

To align with the vision of sustainable communities, the Plan should prioritise developments that support local commerce. Repurposing underutilised spaces for retail or community-focused businesses could create a more dynamic and accessible commercial environment. Introducing innovative spaces, such as a Maker Space for collaborative crafting and repair activities with shared equipment, would further strengthen economic sustainability, foster creativity, and reduce waste, while cultivating a stronger sense of community identity.

Quality of Local Walks

The countryside surrounding Stapleford and Great Shelford is a defining feature of the area. However, as the SWOT analysis reveals, access to these green spaces remains limited. Policy S&GS 20, which seeks to protect and improve countryside routes, is particularly valuable in this regard. Expanding off-road walking paths and connecting existing trails would significantly enhance residents’ ability to access and enjoy the natural environment, promoting healthier, more active lifestyles.

Any improvements to local walking infrastructure should also incorporate biodiversity enhancements, as outlined in Policy S&GS 10 (Biodiversity net gain). This integrated approach ensures that interventions respect and enhance the area’s ecological and landscape character while increasing accessibility and recreational value.

Medical Centre Improvements

The Neighbourhood Plan should address the critical need to upgrade local healthcare facilities. With a growing and evolving population, the current medical centre risks becoming overstretched. Expanding and modernising the centre would be vital to ensuring that all residents, particularly older adults and young families, have access to the necessary healthcare services without having to travel increasing distances, as at present. Proactively addressing this issue will support the overall well-being and resilience of the community.

The Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan lays a solid foundation for future development. However, targeted enhancements in key areas—recreational spaces for young people, the retail mix, local walking routes, housing, childcare, informal sports facilities, creative community spaces, and more comprehensive and accessible healthcare services—could greatly enhance its effectiveness. I urge the Steering Group to incorporate these recommendations to better meet the evolving needs of the community.

the neighbourhood plan accurately supports the views of residents and the needs of the villages and will provide protection of village status as well as providing for sympathetic planning for new building and renovations

Footpath across Stapleford Allotments noted as important but often muddy, unsuitable for prams, not featured in aspirational items. It needs to be hard paved.
I believe most people in Stapleford are not concerned with Cambridge South Station but think it a brilliant proposal.
Views across fields between Gog Magog Way and Hinton Way feature large in NP but this is ideal location for extra houses and local facilities such as new shared Junior School and Medical Centre which are noted in NP as potential future problem. Proximity to transport infrastructure from this site is excellent - solves other problems

Thank you for consulting Transport for London (TfL). I can confirm that we do not wish to comment on the Neighbourhood Plan and that there is no need to consult TfL on any future neighbourhood plan or other planning policy consultations in the Greater Cambridge area

Best wishes
Richard Carr

Richard Carr I Principal Planner - Spatial Planning (He/Him/His)
TfL Planning, Transport for London

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above neighbourhood plan.

Government planning policy, within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), identifies how the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Encouraging communities to become more physically active through walking, cycling, informal recreation and formal sport plays an important part in this process. Providing enough sports facilities of the right quality and type in the right places is vital to achieving this aim. This means that positive planning for sport, protection from the unnecessary loss of sports facilities, along with an integrated approach to providing new housing and employment land with community facilities is important.

Therefore, it is essential that the neighbourhood plan reflects and complies with national planning policy for sport as set out in the NPPF with particular reference to Pars 103 and 104. It is also important to be aware of Sport England’s statutory consultee role in protecting playing fields and the presumption against the loss of playing field land. Sport England’s playing fields policy is set out in our Playing Fields Policy and Guidance document.
https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#playing_fields_policy

Sport England provides guidance on developing planning policy for sport and further information can be found via the link below. Vital to the development and implementation of planning policy is the evidence base on which it is founded.
https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#planning_applications

Sport England works with local authorities to ensure their Local Plan is underpinned by robust and up to date evidence. In line with Par 104 of the NPPF, this takes the form of assessments of need and strategies for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. A neighbourhood planning body should look to see if the relevant local authority has prepared a playing pitch strategy or other indoor/outdoor sports facility strategy. If it has then this could provide useful evidence for the neighbourhood plan and save the neighbourhood planning body time and resources gathering their own evidence. It is important that a neighbourhood plan reflects the recommendations and actions set out in any such strategies, including those which may specifically relate to the neighbourhood area, and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to support their delivery.

Where such evidence does not already exist then relevant planning policies in a neighbourhood plan should be based on a proportionate assessment of the need for sporting provision in its area. Developed in consultation with the local sporting and wider community any assessment should be used to provide key recommendations and deliverable actions. These should set out what provision is required to ensure the current and future needs of the community for sport can be met and, in turn, be able to support the development and implementation of planning policies. Sport England’s guidance on assessing needs may help with such work.
http://www.sportengland.org/planningtoolsandguidance

If new or improved sports facilities are proposed Sport England recommend you ensure they are fit for purpose and designed in accordance with our design guidance notes.
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/

Any new housing developments will generate additional demand for sport. If existing sports facilities do not have the capacity to absorb the additional demand, then planning policies should look to ensure that new sports facilities, or improvements to existing sports facilities, are secured and delivered. Proposed actions to meet the demand should accord with any approved local plan or neighbourhood plan policy for social infrastructure, along with priorities resulting from any assessment of need, or set out in any playing pitch or other indoor and/or outdoor sports facility strategy that the local authority has in place.

In line with the Government’s NPPF (including Section 8) and its Planning Practice Guidance (Health and wellbeing section), links below, consideration should also be given to how any new development, especially for new housing, will provide opportunities for people to lead healthy lifestyles and create healthy communities. Sport England’s Active Design guidance can be used to help with this when developing planning policies and developing or assessing individual proposals.

Active Design, which includes a model planning policy, provides ten principles to help ensure the design and layout of development encourages and promotes participation in sport and physical activity. The guidance, and its accompanying checklist, could also be used at the evidence gathering stage of developing a neighbourhood plan to help undertake an assessment of how the design and layout of the area currently enables people to lead active lifestyles and what could be improved.

NPPF Section 8: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/8-promoting-healthy-communities

PPG Health and wellbeing section: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/health-and-wellbeing

Sport England’s Active Design Guidance: https://www.sportengland.org/activedesign

(Please note: this response relates to Sport England’s planning function only. It is not associated with our funding role or any grant application/award that may relate to the site.)

If you need any further advice, please do not hesitate to contact Sport England using the contact details below.

Yours sincerely,

Planning Technical Team

Dear Sir/Madam

I am contacting you in my capacity as Group Chair of the Cambridge Group of the Ramblers, a statutory consultee for developments affecting public rights of way. I am responding to your consultation on the Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan 2024-2041.

The Cambridge Group of the Ramblers is very supportive of the proposals to develop and enhance the network of Public Rights of Way and permissive paths mentioned in Sections 10 and 11 of you Neighbourhood Plan. There are many people using these footpaths for primarily recreational purposes, good mental and physical health and enjoyment of being in a rural and picturesque environment. There are a number of organisations who organise group led walks several days each week including the Cambridge Ramblers Group, U3A, the Cambridge Rambling Club, as well as local groups and dog walkers. Your proposals are appreciated by a wide network of people outside of your parishes. We particularly endorse the creation of paths beside Haverhill Road and Granhams Road to the Clay Pit Nature Reserve and the permissive path near White Hill Farm and the permissive paths connecting to Jenny’s Path. In the plan could Jenny’s path be enhanced to a Public Right of Way (bridleway status)?

The area that I, and my Committee, are greatly concerned about are the proposals for the Cambridge South East Transport Busway (CSET Busway), the plans as they relate to public rights of way and long-used permissive paths in the vicinity of Nine Wells, a small historic woodland area which is the source of the Hobson’s Conduit.

At present there are a number of footpaths which are very well used for recreation; Nine Wells wood is accessed partly by Great Shelford Public Footpath 2, but also by permissive paths running from both the Addenbrookes complex and Urwin Gardens. A footpath also runs alongside the western edge of Nine Wells, linking up with the Great Shelford to Addenbrookes DNA cycle path. These paths mean that is possible to access Nine Wells directly from Great Shelford Village and also provide circular walks from Addenbrookes itself.

The CSET busway plans as they are now formulated indicate that the permissive path network is to be extinguished, breaking direct links from both Great Shelford and Addenbrookes. The plans show the maintenance track and cycleway along the west side of the new busway, with no access from Nine Wells, on the east.

The permissive path network, established many years ago, recognised the substantial growth of employment on the Addenbrookes campus; every day many people are able to make use of these paths for recreation. With the huge increase in jobs envisaged now for future years it is vital that provision is made for outdoor recreation, which the Nine Wells area can provide. Yet now this is threatened to be lost! It is imperative that this valuable footpath network is retained, together with a link to the cycleway alongside the busway.

It is also of concern that there appear to be no improvements to the public rights of way network along other sections of the busway. During earlier consultations, it was stressed that the new cycleway would provide opportunities for new links and circular routes for recreation. In particular, the opportunity should be taken to provide a link north to the Magog Trust reserve.

The Cambridge Ramblers Group has made representation on the CSET Busway proposals. We wanted to alert your planners to the possible impact of the busway on your neighbourhood plan and in the hope that there may be some development opportunities in common.
With kind regards

Jane Crawford-White
Chair Cambridge Ramblers Group

Dear Sir
Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan (Regulation 16) – Consultation Response
Thank you for your email, dated 18 December 2024 about the Stapleford and Great Shelford
Neighbourhood Plan (Regulation 16 version).
We have reviewed the content of the Neighbourhood Plan and can confirm that North Herts Council has
no formal comments to make in respect of the proposed policies or the supporting text in the plan.
Yours faithfully
Clare Skeels
Senior Planning Officer

Good morning

Thank you for consulting the LLFA on the Stapleford & Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan.

The LLFA have reviewed the Stapleford & Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan and are pleased to see that the updates reflect our previous comments. The plan comprehensively addresses flood risk and the incorporation of SuDS in new development. The relevant policies have been referenced and surface water flood risk maps provided. The plan highlights the importance of mitigating flood risk in relation to climate change and promotes the use of SuDS - the inclusion of Figure 93 is particularly useful.

Kind regards

Jessica Gething

Good morning,


Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Stapleford and Gt Shelford Neighbourhood plan”.


Regarding Policy - we would like to refer you to the following and recommend these are included within the revised “The Stapleford and Gt Shelford” neighbourhood plan:


National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Section 12 Paragraph 135 (f) which states: -

Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places that are safe, inclusive, and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

In relation to the design and layout of new developments including homes, commercial space, schools, hospitals, and sheltered accommodation we make the following comment:

Security and Crime prevention measures should be considered at the earliest opportunity as an integral part of any initial design for a proposed development. It should incorporate the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ (SBD) and demonstrate how the development proposals address the following issues, to design out and reduce the incidence and fear of crime:

• Physical protection: Places that include necessary, well-designed security features.
• Access and movement: Places with well-defined routes, spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security.
• Safe routes: Creating safe routes that are as straight as possible, wide, well lit, without hiding places and well-maintained and overlooked for security and provide a sense of security for all users.
• Structure: Places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict.
• Lighting: Ensuring appropriate and non-obtrusive lighting levels are achieved.
• Private space: Creating a clear separation between public and private spaces, avoiding public routes next to back gardens.
• Surveillance: Places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked.
• Ownership: Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility, and community.
• Activity: Places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location reduces the risk of crime and always creates a sense of safety and territoriality.
• Management and maintenance: Places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind, to discourage crime in the present and the future.

In practice this means that Secured by Design status for new developments can be achieved through careful design. Developers should, at an early stage, seek consultation and advice from the Police Designing out Crime Officers at Cambridgeshire Police Headquarters.

It is recommended that “Secured by Design” forms part of the conditions of any proposed planning application or re-development.

We would appreciate if the above could be taken into consideration.


Kind regards


Jules Hanrahan and Clare Darbyshire


Jules Hanrahan & Clare Darbyshire


Designing Out Crime Officers
Designing Out Crime Team (Estates)

Good morning Jonathan

Sawston Parish Council support this application with no comments.

Kind regards
Jo
Mrs Jo Keeler
Sawston Parish Clerk

Anglian Water has previously submitted comments on the pre-submission version (Reg 14) of the neighbourhood plan. We welcome the amendments in the submission version of the neighbourhood plan, following our comments and recommended changes. I can confirm, Anglian Water has no further comments to make on the document.

I support the proposed Stapleford & Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan.

We support the proposals for environment/habitat protection, landscape enhancement, public access and amenity contained in the Plan. While we are generally in support of enhanced public travel connections, we deplore any plan which would lead to prime agricultural land being utilised for transport services when other options exist.

Please act upon this, particularly by preserving the villages as such rather then permitting increasing city encroachment. Please also properly fund and support resistance to developers' planning appeals to achieve this result.

Thank you for inviting the Forestry Commission to respond to the consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan, Unfortunately we do not have the resources to respond to individual plans but we have some key points to make relevant to all neighbourhood plans.
Forestry Commission and Neighbourhood Planning
Existing trees in your community
The Forestry Commission would like to encourage communities to review the trees and woodlands in their neighbourhood and consider whether they are sufficiently diverse in age and species to prove resilient in the face of tree pests and diseases or climate change. For example, if you have a high proportion of Ash, you are likely to see the majority suffering from Ash Dieback. Some communities are proactively planting different species straight away, to mitigate the effect of losing the Ash; you can find out more here. Alternatively, if you have a high proportion of Beech, you may find they suffer particularly from drought or flood stress as the climate becomes more extreme. There are resources available to help you get ideas for other species you can plant to diversify your tree stock and make it more resilient.
Ancient Woodland
If you have ancient woodland within or adjacent to your boundary it is important that it is considered within your plan. Ancient woodlands are irreplaceable, they have great value because they have a long history of woodland cover, with many features remaining undisturbed. This applies equally to Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW) and Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS). It is Government policy to refuse development that will result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland, unless “there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists” (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 180).
The Forestry Commission has prepared joint Standing Advice for the treatment of Ancient Woodland
If you have ancient woodland within or adjacent to your boundary it is important that it is considered within your plan. Ancient woodlands are irreplaceable, they have great value because they have a long history of woodland cover, with many features remaining undisturbed. This applies equally to Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW) and Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS). It is Government policy to refuse development that will result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland, unless “there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists” (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 180).
The Forestry Commission has prepared joint Standing Advice with Natural England on ancient woodland and veteran trees. This advice is a material consideration for planning decisions across England and can also be a useful starting point for policy considerations.
The Standing Advice explains the definition of ancient woodland, its importance, ways to identify it and the policies that relevant to it. It provides advice on how to protect ancient woodland when dealing with planning applications that may affect ancient woodland. It also considers ancient wood-pasture and veteran trees. It will provides links to Natural England’s Ancient Woodland Inventory and assessment guides as well as other tools to assist you in assessing potential impacts.

Deforestation

The overarching policy for the sustainable management of forests, woodland and trees in England is a presumption against deforestation.

Woodland Creation

The UK is committed in law to net zero emissions by 2050. Tree planting is recognised as contributing to efforts to tackle the biodiversity and climate emergencies we are currently facing. Neighbourhood plans are a useful mechanism for promoting tree planting close to people so that the cultural and health benefits of trees can be enjoyed alongside their broader environmental benefits. Any planting considered by the plan should require healthy resilient tree stock to minimise the risk of pests and diseases and maximise its climate change resilience, a robust management plan should also be put in place.
with Natural England on ancient woodland and veteran trees. This advice is a material consideration for planning decisions across England and can also be a useful starting point for policy considerations.
The Standing Advice explains the definition of ancient woodland, its importance, ways to identify it and the policies that relevant to it. It provides advice on how to protect ancient woodland when dealing with planning applications that may affect ancient woodland. It also considers ancient wood-pasture and veteran trees. It will provides links to Natural England’s Ancient Woodland Inventory and assessment guides as well as other tools to assist you in assessing potential impacts.

Deforestation

The overarching policy for the sustainable management of forests, woodland and trees in England is a presumption against deforestation.

Woodland Creation

The UK is committed in law to net zero emissions by 2050. Tree planting is recognised as contributing to efforts to tackle the biodiversity and climate emergencies we are currently facing. Neighbourhood plans are a useful mechanism for promoting tree planting close to people so that the cultural and health benefits of trees can be enjoyed alongside their broader environmental benefits. Any planting considered by the plan should require healthy resilient tree stock to minimise the risk of pests and diseases and maximise its climate change resilience, a robust management plan should also be put in place.


Kind Regards

Forestry Commission | Santon Downham | Brandon | Suffolk | IP27 0TJ

I am very impressed by the amount of work that has gone into this comprehensive neighbourhood plan and I fully support it. I hope that it will be used to provide a genuine input to future proposed developments in Stapleford and Great Shelford.

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for consulting National Highways on the abovementioned Neighbourhood Plan.

National Highways is a strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN).

It has been noted that once adopted, the Neighbourhood Plan will become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Where relevant, National Highways will be a statutory consultee on future planning applications within the area and will assess the impact on the SRN of a planning application accordingly.

Notwithstanding the above comments, we have reviewed the document and note that the details set out within the document are unlikely to have an severe impact on the operation of the trunk road and we offer No Comment.

Kind regards,

Philip Porter

Assistant Spatial Planner
Operations (East) | National Highways

I have noticed a discrepancy which needs to be reviewed by the Steering Group.

Paragraph 7.52 (page 69) lists (1) two Local Nature Reserves within the NP area - Beechwoods and Nine Wells, and (2) four County Wildlife Sites - Wandlebury Country Park, River Cam/Granta, Magog Down and Stapleford Pit.

However, the actual policy S&GS 9 (page 70) shows three Local Nature Reserves - Beechwoods, Nine Wells and Stapleford Pit. Only two County Wildlife Sites are listed - Wandlebury Country Park, River Cam/Granta,

I believe the details in 7.52 are correct and hence a small modification is required.

Dear Planning Policy Team
STAPLEFORD & GREAT SHELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SUBMISSION
VERSION CONSULTATION
Thank you for consulting us on the Submission Publication for the Stapleford and Great
Shelford Neighbourhood Plan.
We aim to reduce flood risk, while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.
Having previously commented on this plan we are pleased to see that our previous
comments have largely been taken on board. We would encourage the Stapleford and
Great Shelford Parish Councils to include consideration of waste water capacity within
the plan for possible windfall development. We have no further detailed comments to
make on this plan.
We hope this information is of assistance. If you have any queries, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully
Ms Alison Craggs
Sustainable Places Planning Advisor

Stapleford & Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan – Comments on behalf of the Cambridge Group
of the Ramblers, January 2025
Introduction
The Cambridge Group of the Ramblers welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Stapleford &
Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan. We have focused on Chapter 10, concerning ‘Active Travel’ and
particularly Chapter 11 ‘Countryside Access and Countryside Enhancements’.
Chapter 10 ‘Active Travel’
The Ramblers support the stated priorities for improvements to the active travel network, especially
the installation of a bridge across the River Cam at Great Shelford Recreation Ground and
improvements to thChae path alongside Haverhill Road between the A1307 and Stapleford Village.
We would like to see priority also given to secure the future availability of ‘Jenny’s Path’ as an
offroad bridleway linking Great Shelford to the A11 at Hauxton Mill. This route has the potential for
much greater use, providing access not only to Trumpington Country Park, but also to the planned
South West Cambridge travel hub/Park & Ride site. However, it is a permissive path and in recent
years has been unusable by walkers and cyclists for several weeks each year due to flooding of the
railway underpass. Whilst we would ideally see the route adopted as a Public Bridleway, we
appreciate that this may not be immediately possible. Consequently we recommend the negotiation
of a ‘permissive path agreement’ between the landowner and Cambridgeshire County Council for a
specified period of time. It is also important that works are undertaken to keep the railway
underpass open all year for walkers, cyclists and equestrians.
Chapter 11 ‘Countryside access and countryside enhancements’
The Ramblers fully concur with Planning policy S&GS 20: ‘Protecting and improving routes into our
countryside’. As the Plan says, there is a paucity of public access to the countryside in both Parishes.
Even the permissive path network is poor and fragmented. Some of the permissive paths were
initiated as ‘Stewardship Scheme’ routes, with EU funding. These agreements were time-limited and
the continued availability of the paths to the public is uncertain.
Consequently, the Ramblers would like to see a reference in the Plan to securing agreements for
long-term public access to both existing and new ‘permissive’ paths. Whilst it may be difficult to
upgrade the routes to Public Rights of Way it is important to consider establishing ‘permissive path
agreements’ between the landowners and Cambridgeshire County Council for specified periods.
One further issue relating to permissive paths concerns signage. When established as Stewardship
scheme paths there were signs installed at road ends and along the route, because there was no
requirement to depict the paths on Ordnance Survey Maps. However, much of that signage has now
disappeared – for example along the permissive footpath at White Hill Farm. This makes it very
difficult to follow them or include such paths in published walking routes.
Paragraph 11.13 is particularly important in providing a suitable vehicle for creating new paths
through the planning process. The ‘goal’ could be creating routes with ‘Public Right of Way’ status.
With respect to the Plan’s aspirations for new routes, the Ramblers are fully supportive. As already
stated, we would like to see Jenny’s Path, as it runs through to the A11 at Hauxton Mill, given a more
certain future and attention given to sorting out the frequent flooding issue at the railway
underpass. We support the proposals for two offshoots – which are already in informal use.
We have already indicated our support for improvements listed in Chapter 10 on Active Travel: (i)
the path alongside Haverhill Road, leading from Stapleford to Magog Down and on to Wandlebury,
and (ii) a bridge over the River Cam.
The Ramblers support the aspiration for an off-road footpath along Granhams Road between the
permissive path at White Hill Farm and the houses in Great Shelford village. This would greatly
improve safety for visitors to the Pocket Path and the public footpath which links with the DNA path
and the overbridge of the railway.
The Plan includes a further six aspirational routes which have community support, but have yet to be
agreed with landowners. The Ramblers are fully in support of these proposals. In all cases, we
recommend aiming to establish ‘permissive path agreements’ between the landowner and
Cambridgeshire County Council for a specified period, together with en-route signage.
Finally, we would like to raise a specific issue which is not discussed in detail in this Chapter. It
concerns public access to/from Nine Wells, currently served by a dead-end Public Footpath in Great
Shelford. At present there is an informal permissive path linking to the well-used DNA cycle/footpath
and another permissive path across to both the Addenbrookes site and adjacent new housing
development. These paths are extremely well used, especially by people working on the huge
Addenbrookes/bio-park campus. The Ramblers consider that it is imperative that these ‘permissive’
paths are upgraded to Public Right of Way status. At present, the plans proposed by the Cambridge
South East Transport (CSET) busway and the emerging plans for the East West Rail (EWR) line appear
to cut the link to the DNA path. The area involves paths in both South Cambridgeshire and
Cambridge City, but a statement of principle in the S&GS NP would be very welcome.
We support the recommendation in 11.32 (8) to develop new open space close to Nine Wells.
Jill Tuffnell
Secretary, Cambridge Group of the Ramblers

Dear Madam/Sir
Response on behalf of Lands Improvement Holdings Limited and Pigeon Land to
Regulation 16 consultation on the draft Stapleford and Great Shelford
Neighbourhood Plan
I write on behalf of Pigeon Land (‘Pigeon’) and Lands Improvement Holdings Ltd (‘LIH’) in response
to the consultation on the Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan (‘the S&GS NP’)
Submission (Regulation 15 version), November 2024.
LIH and Pigeon are jointly promoting 190 hectares of land for development, known as Cambridge
South, located between Cambridge Road and the M1 and south of Addenbrookes Road, immediately
south of Trumpington (‘the Site’). A Site Location Plan is enclosed. The vision for Cambridge South is
to deliver an exemplary new residential community comprising circa 4,500 new homes – of which 50%
would be affordable – plus ancillary commercial uses and amenities alongside supporting social,
transport, green and blue infrastructure. Much of the housing would be dedicated to meeting the
documented need for homes to support existing needs and planned growth at the Cambridge
Biomedical Campus. The majority of that land falls within the S&GS NP area and LIH and Pigeon
therefore have a keen and valid interest in the Neighbourhood Plan.
The opportunity that Cambridge South provides is being put to GCSP and the Cambridge Growth
Group (‘CGG’) so that it may form part of their emerging plans.
We recognise that it is not for the Neighbourhood Plan to confirm such an allocation given that the
land is currently designated as Green Belt. The purpose of this letter is to make sure that the authors
of the NP are aware of the Cambridge South development and that any restrictive allocation of the
land set out in this NP may need to be reviewed at a relatively early stage, given the national
importance of meeting the identified need for supporting CBC’s expansion and tackling Greater
Cambridge’s housing issues.
Quod | 21 Soho Square London W1D 3QP | 020 3597 1000 | quod.com
Quod Limited. Registered England at above No. 7170188
1
Background
LIH and Pigeon have promoted Cambridge South for a number of years and have engaged at each
stage of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (‘GCLP’) currently being prepared by the Greater
Cambridge Shared Planning Service (‘GCSP’).
Most recently, LIH and Pigeon made a joint submission to the GCLP First Proposals consultation held
in Spring 2021 alongside a consortium of landowners of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (‘CBC’).
The submission set out the needs case for growing CBC and a holistic vision for achieving this
alongside delivering much needed housing on Cambridge South to support the Campus’ expansion
and address the wider chronic issues facing the Cambridge housing market.
That submission comprised the following reports and studies (all of which are available to view via the
GCSP Local Plan consultation webpage):







CBC Vision 2050
Planning Report, prepared by Quod
Building a World Leading Innovation District for the Life Sciences, prepared by Creative
Places
Spatial Masterplan Report, prepared by Allies and Morrison
Environmental Appraisal, prepared by Quod
Transport Strategy, prepared by Vectos
Utilities Appraisal, prepared by Buro Happold
The very serious issues facing the Cambridgeshire housing market are well known. The S&GS
Housing Needs Assessment (2024 amendment) sets things out in stark terms:
“Local households on average incomes are unable to access even entry-level homes unless
they have the advantage of a very large deposit. Market housing, even with the benefit of a
higher than average income, is likely to remain out of reach to most. Private renting is generally
only affordable to higher earners, with average earners able to afford entry-level market rents.
Households made up of one or two lower quartile earners cannot afford the given rental
thresholds.” (paragraph 10)
S&GS are by no means alone in recognising the severity of these issues. A Housing Study
commissioned by CBC Ltd based on a broad survey of people who work on the Campus (i.e., doctors,
nurses, lab technicians, researchers, estate management staff) sets out the housing challenges they
face, with many struggling to meet their housing needs. 30% of CBC workers are currently unable to
afford rents on the open market; healthcare workers – who account for 70% of the total workforce
within CBC – face having to pay 13-15 times their earnings to afford a property, which is twice the
2
national average.
0F
1The effects of this are substantial and pervasive. High demand and low supply of
affordable housing forces many to live in unsatisfactory conditions or to look for housing further field,
leading to longer commute times which has effects on congestion, air pollution, climate change and
quality of life. This imperils Cambridge’s ability to attract workers, threatening its economy and long
term prosperity.
The draft Neighbourhood Plan acknowledges and understands these issues and neatly summarises
the problems they cause:
“It is very difficult for younger generations and even middle to high income earners to put down
roots in Stapleford and Great Shelford. Property prices are high and trending upwards and there
is a limited supply of suitable housing, affordable or otherwise, relative to demand. Without a
better balance, Stapleford and Great Shelford could become ageing dormitory villages rather
than the thriving multi-generational communities which they aspire to be.” (paragraph 4.13)
Cambridge South provides an opportunity to address the housing needs of Stapleford and Great
Shelford, of CBC and of the wider City. It can accommodate circa 4,500 new homes, half of which
would be affordable. There is a real prospect of making a meaningful difference and addressing the
very serious challenges that people face in finding well connected, affordable, high quality housing in
the local area. LIH and Pigeon are continuing to engage with GCSP and CGG to make them aware
of this and to seek its incorporation into their plans for the area. LIH and Pigeon would welcome
engagement with the Parish Councils on their plans for Cambridge South, should either Council wish
to.
2
Government support for growth in Cambridge
Successive governments have been clear in their support for growth in Cambridge and specifically in
southern Cambridge as expressed across budget announcements, Written Ministerial Statements
(‘WMS’) and Government publications. The consistent message is that there is a strong backing for
realising the true potential of Greater Cambridge, which the Government sees as a national priority.
For instance:

In September 2023, Michael Gove MP issued a WMS declaring the Government’s support
for “transformational change” to address barriers caused by “lack of new space for
laboratories and the new housing necessary to attract and retain talent.”
1Cambridge Biomedical Campus Housing Study: Establishing the housing needs of the CBC workforce (April
2024). Available here: https://cambridge-biomedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CBC-Housing-Study
Report-Final-May24.pdf
3


In March 2024 Government published The Case for Cambridge, which recognises the
city’s incredible history, built environment and institutions and seeks to “give new life to
the spirit of innovation and endeavour which has been the cornerstone of Cambridge’s
success.”
Following that, a further WMS was published in May 2024, setting out unusually location
specific policy. It directly acknowledged the critical role that the Cambridge Biomedical
Campus plays in the regional and national economy and invited proposals for its
expansion. That WMS also set out the Government’s ambitions to:
2
“address any barriers to the early expansion and coherent enhancement of the campus,
including through the accelerated delivery of any associated housing development and the
provision of appropriate levels of affordable housing to meet the housing needs of those working
at the campus.”
1F

Matthew Pennycook MP wrote an open letter to leaders and executives within GCSP in
August 2024 to make clear that the current Government thinks the “recent focus on
Cambridge and its untapped economic potential are entirely warranted.”
3
2F
Ambitions for growth are being matched by investment in the infrastructure to support it. The Minister
for Housing and Planning set out plans to invest £7.9 billion investment in the next 5 years for water
companies across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, including to delivering the new Fens Reservoir
serving Cambridge.
3F
5
4This follows Government funding for the Cambridge South Train station in 2019,
due for completion in 2025.
4F
The above WMSs are not referenced in the as being relevant ministerial statements in paragraph 3.2
of the Basic Conditions Statement (2024) despite them clearly being so.
3
Relationship between the Neighbourhood Plan, the emerging GCLP and national
policy
Cambridge South is the only site of scale within active travel distance of CBC that could sustainably
meet the need identified in the WMS. It is apparent, therefore, that these national priorities could have
2
Available
online
here:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-05
08/debates/24050858000017/CambridgeDeliveryGroupUpdate
3
Letter
from
Matthew
Pennycook
MP,
23rd
August
2024.
Available here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66cdf3f68e33f28aae7e1f67/housing-minister-letter-to-greater
cambridge-leaders.pdf
4MHCLG Growth Corridor Strategy Statement made, 29 January 2025
5Cambridge South infrastructure enhancement: Transport and Works Order, 18 June 2021
4
implications for the local area and the Neighbourhood Plan needs to be careful not to set itself in
conflict with national policies.
6
The most effective way of doing this may be to recognise in the Plan itself that it would need to be
reviewed in the event that the Greater Cambridge Local Plan or the Spatial Plan proposed to be
produced by the Cambridge Growth company confirms plans for strategic scale growth within the
Neighbourhood Plan Area. Without this, several policies will likely become out of date and carry limited
weight.
5F
It is also important in any event to be sure that the Neighbourhood Plan policies are consistent with
other current national planning policies.
LIH and Pigeon would welcome the opportunity to engage with the Parish Councils if and when a
review of the Neighbourhood Plan is carried out.
Summary
Pigeon and LIH are seeking to have Cambridge South allocated in the emerging Greater Cambridge
Local Plan to deliver approximately 4,500 new homes to help meet Greater Cambridge’s acute need
for housing. LIH and Pigeon recognise that it is not for this version of the Neighbourhood Plan to
allocate Cambridge South for this purpose. Should GSCP remove Cambridge South from the Green
Belt and allocate it for development, however, the Neighbourhood Plan would require an early review
to ensure that it does not undermine or constrain strategic policies in the newly adopted GCLP or
conflict with national policy. LIH and Pigeon would be pleased to engage with the Parish Councils on
any such review of the Neighbourhood Plan that may happen in the future.
We request pursuant to Regulation 19(b)(ii) to be notified of any decision made by the local planning
authority under section 38(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).
Yours sincerely
Gregory Blaxland
Associate Director

We welcome the recognition which the Plan gives Wandlebury Country Park and the contribution the Park makes to the landscape, biodiversity, and accessible natural green space of the Neighbourhood Plan Area.

Policy S&GS 9: Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and nature networks in Stapleford and Great Shelford
We support the reference to the Cambridge Nature Network and the inclusion of Appendix 5.

S&GS 12 on protecting landscape character and S&GS 13 on Important Views
The work of Cambridge PPF includes protecting and enhancing the green setting of Cambridge and we therefore support these policies.

Policy S&GS 17 on delivering community infrastructure alongside new development.
The only reference in this policy to natural green space is to improve access to areas such as Magog Down and Wandlebury Country Park.
It can be expected that residents of any new development will look to the Gog Magog hills (Wandlebury Country Park and Magog Down) to access nature for recreational and health and wellbeing purposes. Development should therefore be required to contribute towards the enhancement of existing, and provision of new green infrastructure on the Gog Magog Hills. This is not unprecedented as S106 monies have successfully been secured from developments in Queen Ediths Ward and Sawston.
We therefore request that the supporting text to Policy S&GS17 refers to developers making a financial contribution through a S106 Agreement, towards the improvement and expansion of natural green space on the Gog Magog Hills, and for the policy to refer, not only to informal open space, but natural green space, as a local priority.
It would be helpful if the Neighbourhood Plan made reference to the Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document

We are writing to provide feedback on the Great Shelford & Stapleford Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and to highlight key strategic considerations that we believe should be addressed within the Plan.
East-West Rail
East-West Rail and the CSET busway are both identified as strategic planning issues beyond the scope of the GS&S Neighbourhood Plan. While the Plan clearly states the parishes' position on CSET, there is no equivalent stance regarding East-West Rail. To ensure consistency in addressing significant transport infrastructure projects impacting the area, we suggest that the GS&S NP explicitly outlines its position on East-West Rail.
Primary Healthcare Provision
The GS&S NP acknowledges the aging demographic within the Plan area and notes that, while current primary healthcare provision is adequate, there is a potential capacity risk in the future. This risk applies to both general practice healthcare and NHS dentistry. Given the increasing number of care homes being developed in the area, we recommend that the GS&S NP includes a policy proposal to address this anticipated imbalance in healthcare provision.
Character of the Plan Area (Employment)
The GS&S NP highlights that many residents work primarily in the Greater Cambridge area or the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, rather than within the Plan area itself. Additionally, it notes that those employed locally often do not reside within the area. We suggest that the GS&S NP clearly states its position on employment growth within the Plan area, as the current assumption appears to be that employment opportunities will largely develop outside of it.
Congestion and Traffic Management (East-West Ring Road)
The GS&S NP recognises the forecasted increase in road traffic congestion and includes a policy proposal for a ring road to manage East-West traffic. We believe this policy would have a greater chance of successful implementation if the proposed ring road were integrated into a broader strategic initiative across South Cambridgeshire, involving other villages that would also be impacted by the proposed route.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the GS&S Neighbourhood Plan and trust that these suggestions will be considered in the final drafting. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further clarification or discussion on these points.
Kind Regards
Paul Holdom
Harston Parish Council - Vice Chair

This all looks very good so well done to those who have clearly put a lot of time into it. As a long time Camcycle campaigner, I would suggest adding an explicit expectation that, in the plan area, all highway safety related planning conditions are enforced, especially in the vicinity of schools. The LPA are amazingly reluctant to enforce safety conditions and very quickly roll out the 'enforcement is discretionary' line. It's great to see mention of LTN 1/20 but perhaps 10.14 could be modified along the lines of 'To incentivise active travel, it is important that high quality infrastructure is in place to support users of the active travel network. This includes insisting on the latest design standards, such as LTN 1/20, and ensuring that the condition of roads, pavement surfaces and designated cycle routes is maintained to a high standard'? Thanks

On behalf of our clients, Great Shelford Ten Acres Ltd (GSTA), we welcome this opportunity to comment on the Nov 2024 submission Reg 15 version of Stapleford and Great Shelford Neighbourhood Plan (S&GS NP).
In its current form, we believe that it fails to meet the basic conditions as required by Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Those we consider are not met include a and d.

Please see attached document by policy with specific changes recommended.

Objection to the designation of ‘LGS 3. Horse pasture bounded by Granhams Road, the DNA path and Macaulay Avenue housing, Great Shelford’ as a Local Green Space. See letter for full details.

Paragraph 7.61, and Policy S&GS 10 item 5, reference swift bricks which is welcome but I find them unclear at present.

Currently: Item 5 clearly refers to all developments; however, 7.61 refers to "development types otherwise exempt from BNG" which I find unclear.

Amendment requested to 7.61: To match item 5, please amend 7.61 to "...development types including those exempt from BNG."

Currently: Item 5 states "...through the provision of integrated bird boxes, swift bricks, bat boxes..."
This is unclear because swift bricks ARE integrated bird boxes, and as universal nest bricks they are the only type compliant with BS 42021 Integral Bird Boxes, and the only type in national planning guidance (NPPG 2019 Natural Environment paragraph 023), and also swifts are the only bird mentioned in NPPF December 2024, so swift bricks should be prioritised.

Amendment requested to item 5: For clarity, please amend item 5 to "...integrated bird boxes such as swift bricks, bat boxes, ..."

Currently: Given swift bricks priority status in planning guidance as set out above, we would also like 7.61 to be more strongly worded, amended from "Where swift bricks are installed, this should be...".

Amendment requested to 7.61: "Swift bricks should be...".

Many thanks.