Every donation doubled until mid-August  ·  Help us raise £30,000 for specialist planning solicitors  ·  Donate today →
The Issue · Landscape

S.A.V.E our Landscape

The Grange Farm site sits on some of the most sensitive chalk landscape in South Cambridgeshire — a gently rolling, elevated landform defined by long views, open horizons and a rural character unchanged for centuries.

Red
the Council's own HELAA landscape rating: significant harm that cannot be mitigated
30–40m
the land rises above the Abingtons, visible for miles
2,883
homes the site can hold at prevailing density — vs 6,000–8,000 proposed
Dark skies
currently define this rural edge — night lighting would erase them

The chalk landscape around the Abingtons is irreplaceable. Once built over, it cannot be restored — and the Council's own evidence rates the harm here as significant and impossible to mitigate.

A ‘Red’ rating the Council can't explain away

The Council's own evidence (HELAA 2021) gives the site a ‘Red’ landscape rating — meaning development here would cause significant negative impacts that cannot be mitigated. In plain terms: the landscape would be irreversibly altered.

The Council's assessments acknowledge the development would “alter the existing landscape character irreversibly” and may cause “irreversible harm to the setting of Little Abington.” Yet Policy S/GF provides no credible explanation of how this harm could be avoided.

A continuous wall of development

Taken with other major projects along the A11/A1307 — including Kingsway Solar Farm and CSET — Grange Farm risks creating a continuous wall of development across South Cambridgeshire, urbanising the chalk hills and severing Cambridge from its rural hinterland.

Visible for miles

From the highest points of Grange Farm, the land rises 30–40 metres above the Abingtons. Any large-scale development — even at two or three storeys — would be visible across the chalk hills, the Roman Road, Babraham, the Gog Magogs and beyond.

Viewshed analysis confirms a new town of 6,000+ homes would dominate the skyline, creating a permanent urban presence in open countryside. Night-time lighting would spread across the landscape, erasing the dark skies that define this rural edge.

Too dense for the chalk to absorb

The mismatch between the site's assessed capacity (2,883 homes at prevailing density) and the 6,000–8,000 now proposed raises further concerns. To reach these numbers, development would need to be far denser and taller than the landscape can absorb — intensifying visual intrusion and undermining claims of a “soft rural transition.”

Mitigation is proposed only after the development is built — an approach that cannot protect a chalk landscape whose character depends on openness, subtlety and long-distance views.

What we're asking for

SAVE is not against new homes. We are asking that no decision is taken until the evidence proves this can be done safely. Specifically:

01

Take the ‘Red’ rating seriously

Explain how allocation can be justified against the Council's own evidence of significant, unmitigable landscape harm.

02

Binding height, massing and density limits

Fixed controls in policy, set before approval — not mitigation promised after the town is built.

03

Honest viewshed evidence

Independent visual assessment from the Roman Road, Babraham, the Gog Magogs and the wider chalk hills.

04

Protect dark skies

A demonstrated plan to prevent night-time lighting spreading across the rural landscape.

05

Assess the corridor as a whole

Test Grange Farm together with Kingsway Solar Farm and CSET for the risk of continuous urbanisation.

Explore the other concerns