(or ‘you can’t discharge your own statutory duty by outsourcing it to someone else’s future document’).
Background
- Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (GCSP) are seeking an iteration of their Local Plan to be approved by the end of 2026 and before their handover of the responsibility for planning to the new Cambridge Development Corporation.[1] [2] The plan includes housing development requirements north of Cambourne which are predicated on the approval of East West Rail’s proposed connection to Cambridge, and this is stated in the several ways in their current consultation.[3] The consultation guidance states ‘Your comments should focus on whether the Local Plan complies with relevant legislation’. Well, I am sorry, but it doesn’t and here’s why.
The Problem
- The Eversden and Wimpole Woods Special Area of Conservation (E&WW SAC / European Site) designated for its maternity roost of the rare Barbastelle Bat is protected by the Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 .[4] Regulation 105(1) of the H&SR reads as follows: ‘Assessment of implications for European sites 105.—(1) Where a land use plan— (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, the plan-making authority for that plan must, before the plan is given effect, make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.’
- The relevant standards for Appropriate Assessments (AAs) are defined in H&SR Regulation 105(4) of the same legislation as follows: ‘In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 107, the plan-making authority must give effect to the land use plan only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site or the European offshore marine site (as the case may be).’[5]
- In order to meet their obligation under H&SR §105, GCSP circulated a draft Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for consultation in January 2026. But it made no reference to the effects of EWR on this European Site. Several responses to their January consultation pointed out their obligation to address this.[6] In July 2026 they circulated an updated version of their HRA. It now names EWR several times, but the Appropriate Assessment itself – the part of the document that actually reaches conclusions – still does not address the in combination issue at all. See below.[7]
- ‘In combination’ in the context of this Local Plan means the effect of the housing and the effect of the railway together on the European Site (Figure 1). It should also include other projects such as the C2C busway so that the cumulative effect on the European Site is assessed.
- EWRCo have a separate obligation to demonstrate no adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site and, despite working on it for six years, have yet to publish their own AA either directly or via the Local Plan consultation. At this stage there is reasonable scientific doubt that they will be able to do so (to put it mildly). See here.[8]
- This disconnect means that the ‘in combination’ AA cannot lawfully be concluded in the GCSP’s current HRA, and that as such the Local Plan cannot lawfully be adopted in its current form.
- GSCP can’t discharge its statutory duty under the H&SR by reference to EWRCo. future HRA. They need to encourage EWRCo. publish their AA, because approval of the Local Plan depends on it. Approval of that EWR AA is currently scheduled for early 2029.
Some Specific Comments on the Revised HRA
- The above interpretation of a fundamental flaw in the Local Plan draws on the following key numbered statements in the GCSP’s Revised HRA. A revised HRA from July 2026 is available from GCSP.[9] Para. F.11 summarizes the comments from Cambridge Approaches and other respondents to their January Local Plan Consultation. The respondents flag the need to consider in combination effects with EWR. Para. F.13 is the GCSP response which says that the local plan alone is enough to trigger an AA. Then (encouragingly) it points to para. 4.16 in the screening chapter: ‘The likely significant effect, if it occurs, would be significant due to the Local Plan alone (although there could be additional impacts in-combination, for example with East-West Rail…. Therefore, this effect is considered further at the Appropriate Assessment stage to determine the potential impacts of these site allocations in relation to offsite functional habitat damage or loss, and whether mitigation measures are required.’
- The AA for the E&WW SAC is in §§ 5.11-5.23 of the update HRA and it makes no mention of the in combination effects with EWR.
- This is a misreading of H&SR §105(1). The trigger clause for the AA (a) is either alone or in combination, but the scope of the AA is ‘the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives’. The scope of the AA is the plan and the in combination effects with other plans or projects not just the plan itself. If this were not the case the H&SR could easily be made meaningless through the division of the plan into tiny parts with negligible impact alone. The SAC does not ‘know’ about the internal structure of all the plans and projects, it just gets their cumulative impact. There is plenty of case law and common sense to support this interpretation.
Call To Action
- Please respond to the Local Plan pointing out this error and the disastrous impact on our only local European Site – the E&WW SAC. You can do so here.[10]
Figure 1 Illustration of In Combination Effects
[1] https://thecgc.org.uk/index.php?contentid=180
[2] https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/proposed-submission-greater-cambridge-local-plan
[3] https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/proposed-submission-greater-cambridge-local-plan
[4] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/regulation/105
[5] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/regulation/105
[6] https://www.greatercambridgeplanning.org/media/3zdjqdus/habitats-regulations-assessment-of-greater-cambridge-local-plan.pdf Appendix F11 (around p.223 of the PDF)
[7] https://www.greatercambridgeplanning.org/media/3zdjqdus/habitats-regulations-assessment-of-greater-cambridge-local-plan.pdf – see paragraph 4.16 (around p.43) and the Appropriate Assessment for Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC at paragraphs 5.11–5.23 (around pp.84–88)
[8] https://cambridgeapproaches.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Cambridge-Approaches-Consultation-2026-Response-Bourn-Airfield-To-Harston-Environmental-Issues-3-of-7.pdf
[9] https://www.greatercambridgeplanning.org/media/3zdjqdus/habitats-regulations-assessment-of-greater-cambridge-local-plan.pdf
[10] https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/proposed-submission-greater-cambridge-local-plan/habitats-regulations-assessment