Homes or jobs? That’s the problem facing Cambridge as the local councils look outside the city’s boundaries to match business demand with a reduction in road congestion. By Stacey Meadwell
Cambridge is bursting at the seams. The city is the darling of the government; identified as an area of future growth, it has an internationally renowned university, is a magnet for hi-tech industries, competes on an international stage and has an affluent population.
However, the resultant problem is not just one of accommodating new businesses attracted to the city and those wishing to expand but more importantly housing the labour force that works for those businesses and services the community.
“There are far more jobs than houses. If you don’t produce the houses, people will continue to commute and congestion will get worse,” comments Alan Paterson of developer Stannifer. “Future inward investors will look to where they can get their labour supply from.”
The idea that potential investors could set their sights elsewhere in the face of tight planning on new development, a limited supply of labour and high housing prices may shock those used to relying on the draw of the university.
“It will continue to be important, but there are very few industries that need to be tied to a university,” says Paterson.
If planning and transport issues are not addressed, “it will be the economies of France, Germany and California that will be the winners”, says David Henry of FPDSavills.
In the ensuing debates, most have accepted that for Cambridge to continue to grow economically it must grow physically – changing its boundaries and satellite communities. But there are still many hurdles to jump and debates to win and the time-scale of change is giving some in the market a major headache.
The two areas of contention are where the green belt should be breached and where to put a second new settlement – Cambourne to the west being the first.
The local structure plan, shortly to go to consultation, is addressing the green belt question. Steve Sillory of Bidwells describes the plan as “fairly radical” because it could see the release of what he calls a “considerable amount of green belt land”.
Michael Sumpster of Barker Storey Matthews would like to see green belt in strategic places and the city extended in others “so that you end up with green wedges rather than a green belt”.
However, it won’t be until the middle of next year when the structure plan is adopted and the situation becomes clearer for developers.
And Cambridge has an additional problem in that more than one local authority is involved: Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council as well as the county council.
Agents report that, together, the local authorities have been trying hard to come up with a satisfactory solution for all parties. The bone of contention seems to be the future expansion of the city eastwards.
“The favoured site [for a new settlement] is Oakington Longstanton, to the north. The only disagreement is after 2016,” says Sillory. After this date the county and city councils want to turn their attention to the east – an area under the jurisdiction of South Cambridgeshire council and which has two villages and an SSSI.
The year 2016 may seem a long way off but the scale of expansion needed – some 47,000 homes encompassing £2bn worth of infrastructure, according to research by Roger Tym & Partners – will obviously take time.
The choice of Oakington has not yet been finalised, although a definitive decision is expected later this year. Infrastructure seems to be the biggest stumbling block.
Major commuter route
The Highways Agency sees the A14, which runs to the south of the proposed settlement, as a major east-west trunk route. It is also a major commuter route to and from Cambridge and already suffers from congestion at peak times. It has long been in need of upgrading but, as a trunk road, it falls under the government’s remit and this is why some are concerned.
Stannifer’s Paterson is one. He believes that, should Oakington get the final go-ahead, the houses will be built before the A14 is improved, thus adding to the volume of traffic already on it.
“You can’t plan a subregional economy on the basis of the A14 being improved by government,” he says. “The A14 is out of everybody’s hands except the government’s.”
Stannifer may have an ulterior motive in criticising the Oakington plans because it has its own proposal for a scheme by the A10, but the criticism is one backed by others in the market.
“If you did Oakington without even starting the A14 it would be a nightmare – it’s a nightmare already,” comments Sumpster.
There are proposals to open up an old railway line from St Ives to Cambridge for a guided bus system but, again, Patterson believes that this sort of project would not necessarily solve the congestion along the A14, even if the money for it were found.
Paterson believes that the council should concentrate on sites that do not need such major infrastructure work. Of course, he numbers his own among them, but points out that a guided bus systems forms part of Stannifer’s proposal.
But not all agree that it is a problem. “People will always throw tin tacks down in front of new ideas. Whenever there is new housing there is always an infrastructure lag,” says David Brock, joint head of planning at solicitor Mills & Reeve.
Central government seems to hold a lot of the cards in this argument. It is a big year for the future of Cambridge and one that is not going to pass without comment.
Planning green paper
Community involvement
At the end of last year, the government revealed its planning green paper, but will it help to make the system more efficient and effective in a historic city such as Cambridge?
One area highlighted is community involvement in planning decisions. But, as David Brock, joint head of planning at solicitor Mills & Reeve, points out, Cambridge has “vociferous and articulate people who are not backwards in coming forward”.
Indeed, some might suggest that it is just this nature of Cambridge’s residents that is already slowing up the planning process.
FPDSavills’ head of planning, David Henry, believes there is further potential conflict with the public and the idea of business planning zones (BPZs).
He explains: “The recent green paper suggests that BPZs will allow business – mainly hi-tech companies – to bring forward high-quality development within tightly defined parameters without the need for planning permission. It also advocates greater community involvement in shaping vision, objectives and planning strategy.
“The risk is that these forces will act against each other, delaying and diluting delivery.”
Philip Robin, head of planning at King Sturge, agrees: “I’m not sure how BPZs are going to work in places like Cambridge where the greatest conflict is between preservation and the need to develop.”
However, Henry still believes that BPZs have potential: “Cambridge is already reviewing its green belt boundaries as a result of recent regional planning guidance [RPG 6]. BPZs could and should be part of this work, so long as they don’t get hung up in the lengthy plan-making process.”
He believes that if a site such as Cambridge Airport became available it could be an ideal and sustainable BPZ, as could the University’s North West Development Area and Addenbrookes Medi-Park proposals.
