Phil Rodgers: How the planning system shapes Cambridge - and analysis of Romsey by-election result

Our political columnist, Phil Rodgers, looks at the role of councillors in planning, and assesses the latest city council by-election.

One of the most important influences on Cambridge is the planning system, which affects everything from huge strategic decisions about where to build thousands of new homes, down to the detail of whether it’s acceptable to install a particular three-tonne sculpture in Hills Road.

While our elected representatives are closely involved with both the big picture and the detail, there are many constraints on how the system works, which can be frustrating for councillors and residents alike. Here’s a look at how planning shapes our city.

If you are elected to Cambridge City Council, one of the first things that happens is that you are assigned to a committee dealing with some aspect of the council's work. Some committees have bigger workloads than others, but the planning committee has one of the heaviest. There are hundreds of pages of documents to read, a huge amount of detail to get to grips with, long hours of meetings to sit through, and finely-balanced and difficult decisions to make, some with consequences that can last for decades.

On other committees, and in full council meetings, most decisions are political - each party's group of councillors will decide a collective position on each issue, and will usually vote as a block. This means that the real decisions are usually taken in private meetings beforehand.

However, planning is an exception. It is "quasi-judicial" - which means that rather than voting on party lines, councillors must use their judgment to decide whether there are proper grounds to accept or reject each application.

They must also be careful not to “fetter their discretion” by making up their minds beforehand, no matter how intensively they are lobbied. As a result, planning decisions can be unpredictable, sometimes passing or failing by a single vote.

When councillors reject a planning application, there is a risk that their decision can be overturned on appeal. An example of this was the bitter battle a decade ago over Wilton Terrace, a row of historic Victorian houses which used to stand in Station Road. The planning committee repeatedly rejected plans to demolish them and build office blocks, but the developers won an appeal, with substantial costs awarded against the council.

There are also many “big picture” constraints on planning decisions. One of the most obvious of these is the green belt that surrounds the city, shown in the diagram.

Other constraints include the city’s conservation areas, as well as its listed buildings, of which there are more than 800. But the most important constraint on Cambridge planning is the city’s Local Plan, which is prepared jointly with South Cambridgeshire.

This sets out the overall strategy for where development will take place. It is produced by a vitally important but also extremely lengthy and technical process. The last Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State in March 2014, and then went through an examination which took more than four years before it was finally adopted in October 2018. Work on the next one is already under way.

However, there is one thing that can trump even the Local Plan, and that is central government policy.

The dramatic announcement of Michael Gove’s Cambridge 2040 plans last year seemed set to do just that, potentially bringing massively more development to the greater Cambridge area than the local plan envisaged. It seems that the new government is likely to continue with some sort of Cambridge development plan, though its outlines are rather shadowy at the moment.

However, it is certainly a positive sign that the new Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook, came to meet with the area’s local government leaders last week. Whatever development plans for Cambridge eventually emerge, they need to be done with the city, not just done to it.

What the Romsey by-election result means for Cambridge politics

Cambridge Labour were breathing a sigh of relief last week as they won the Romsey by-election despite a big fall in their vote.

The graph shows the results this time compared to the local elections in May, with Labour’s majority reduced from a very solid 909 to a rather less comfortable 187. Nevertheless, a win is a win, and the red team will be pleased to have a full set of Romsey councillors once again. The city council's newest member is Beth Gardiner-Smith, following in the footsteps of her father Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent West, who was first elected for Romsey in 1988.

Her win means Labour now have 26 of the 42 Cambridge city councillors, increasing their already solid majority to ten. Green candidate Zak Karimjee was runner-up, and his party will be pleased to have made such a big dent in Labour’s lead.

The Lib Dems will be reasonably satisfied with their candidate John Walmsley’s increased share of the vote, but their glory days in Romsey when they held all of the ward’s seats are now a distant memory. Conservative Rob Nelson will not have been surprised to find himself in last place once again.

Supporters of the campaign to close Mill Road bridge to most private cars will see this election result as further evidence of support for their cause, with pro-closure candidates getting 90 per cent of the vote.

The election winner Beth Gardiner-Smith strongly supported the closure, despite a more nuanced approach from some of her Labour colleagues. However, opponents of the plans will point to the low turnout in the election - 80 per cent of Romsey’s electorate didn’t bother voting - and the more than 1,500 signatures on their latest petition opposing the plans.

The consultation on the closure finished last week, and the county council’s highways and transport committee will consider its results in the first week of October. My expectation is that councillors will press ahead with the closure plans, but given the number of twists and turns in the story so far, I certainly wouldn’t rule out some unforeseen development.

Overall, the Romsey by-election result is an early sign of a distinctly chillier political environment for Labour. Now that they are in government nationally, and making unpopular decisions like the cuts to winter fuel payments, locally they can expect to find the mood on the doorstep rather more difficult.

Where once Labour could rely on racking up towering majorities in wards like Romsey, they will now have to fight a lot harder to fend off the challenge from opposition parties.

The Greens in particular will see Romsey as a battleground seat, with next year’s county council election using different boundaries including some of Coleridge, which was also a red/green battleground this year.

Cambridge politics just got a lot more challenging for Labour.