Politicians warn government that Cambridge does not need ‘another layer of bureaucracy’
Politicians have warned the government that it should not set up another layer of bureaucracy in Cambridge to “impose top-down decision making from Whitehall”.
They say their message remains unchanged and the government should not establish a development corporation to deliver its aims in the city.
A joint statement released by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority and Cambridgeshire County Council said: “Cambridgeshire remains one of the fastest growing areas in the UK. As a net contributor to the Exchequer, if our region thrives, the whole country benefits. But we are not complacent, we support the government’s ambition to solidify Cambridge as a global life sciences superpower.”
“As the strategic and democratic authorities representing the region, with deep knowledge of our communities’ needs, we call upon [the] government for active, ongoing and full engagement with us to shape these plans and, specifically, to listen to the views of the communities we represent.”
Meanwhile, councillors have accused the government of not listening over its plans for 150,000 homes in Cambridge.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt confirmed in his Budget speech on Wednesday (6 March) that a “long-term settlement” for a future Cambridge development corporation would be revealed at the next Spending Review Budget.
Mr Hunt said: “I am pleased to announce the next steps for Cambridge to reach its potential to be the world’s leading scientific powerhouse.
“I confirm there will be a long term funding settlement for the future development corporation in Cambridge at the next spending review, with over £10million invested in the coming year to unlock delivery of crucial local transport and health infrastructure.”
The same day the government released its ‘Case for Cambridge’, a 38-page document that sets out its ambitions to help the city reach its “full economic potential”.
The document comes after Housing Secretary Michael Gove announced in December that a development corporation would deliver upwards of 150,000 homes around the city over the next 20 years under its Cambridge 2040 plans.
Responding to Mr Hunt’s announcement, Cambridgeshire County Council leader, Cllr Lucy Nethsingha said: “Whilst we welcome the attention from government on the potential of the Cambridge area, and in particular help with resolving the issues with water scarcity and the new transport funding, I have major reservations on their proposals for a new development corporation.
“The decision making landscape is already extremely complex in the Greater Cambridge area, leaving residents unsure of who is responsible for making decisions about their place. As local leaders we are ready to work in partnership with government to support the growth potential from our world leading life science and tech sectors, but we do not believe yet another layer of government is the right way to help with that vision.”
Cambridgeshire’s Labour mayor Dr Nik Johnson said the Combined Authority will “continue to press for local leadership in all aspects of this work”.
“The city draws its enviable strength from the whole of the region, so any sustainable solution needs to be regionally owned and regionally managed,” he said, adding: “Transport-wise, I was pleased to see the GCP receive additional funds to unlock vital infrastructure, and hope to see [something] similar in the near future for Ely junction.”
Cambridge City Council leader Cllr Mike Davey (Lab, Petersfield) said the government was still “not listening” to people in the area, stating there had been no public or council involvement in the creation of the ‘Case for Cambridge’.
He said: “As elected members, we are custodians of this wonderful city and therefore we have a duty to ensure it is protected and enhanced for future generations. We welcome the initial progress to address water scarcity and help address housing affordability, sustainable transport, and lab space.
“However, despite eight months of discussion on this project, we have yet to see any credible plan or evidence of the significant finance required to deliver it.
“The £7.2million to enhance connectivity to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus is welcome, but we believe that significant further funding is required.
“The public will be rightly sceptical about the pace of growth the government wants and they need to acknowledge this.
“Any development body that fails to do that risks a democratic deficit, so we need more information about how local voices will be heard and involved in decisions that could have a massive impact on their everyday lives.”
Cllr Cheney Payne (Lib Dem, Castle) said the city “badly needed” new homes, but argued this was not an “excuse to take more power for Whitehall”.
The Liberal Democrat Parliamentary candidate for Cambridge said the government should fund the infrastructure needed in the area to support its growing population, but said decisions on planning should continue to be made by representatives in the area.
Cllr Elliot Tong (Green, Abbey) said the ‘Case for Cambridge’ proposals did not put forward the “brave solutions” he said are necessary to address the city’s problems.
He said: “When I think of Cambridge, I don’t think of the university, the scientific research, or the historic architecture.
“I think of the regular people trying to make ends meet, the family-run shops that work hard to support residents, and the local groups that empower the community.
“Michael Gove doesn’t know a thing about Cambridge, his understanding of the city seems like it’s from a brief flip through a brochure.
“Local residents aren’t a tool for economic growth, they’re real people, who deserve the support that a decade of austerity has denied them.”
While the government focuses on talking about Cambridge, its plans to grow the city – including building a “major new urban quarter” – will impact the wider Greater Cambridge area.
Cllr Bridget Smith (Lib Dem, Gamlingay), leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council, said while there were things to be welcomed in the government’s announcement, she had concerns about the proposals to “quadruple” the size of the city.
She said: “There are parts of the update we can welcome, including the focus on resolving the crucial water supply issues which we have been pushing hard on for several years.
“It is also useful that there is an acceptance of the unaffordability of Greater Cambridge and the inequalities that skyrocketing house prices, rents, and lack of public transport causes.
“It’s good there has also been recognition from government about the quality of local leadership and collaboration and shared civic pride within our area.
“However, we still need to understand what these tens of thousands of new homes and jobs would look like and where they would all go.
“Residents and locally elected representatives also need assurance that they will be able to have their say on all such major proposals, even those from central government.
“There is so much that is special about Greater Cambridge and what residents value so much must be protected.
“This is why we do remain concerned about a ‘case’ that has the potential to quadruple the size of the city, especially when the government is signalling cuts to the very services that are needed to support our existing ambitious plans, let alone this unprecedented scale of growth.”
Cllr Smith also said she remained “unconvinced” that a development corporation was the “most appropriate means” to implement the government’s plans.
Opposition leader Cllr Heather Williams (Con, The Mordens) said more information was needed.
“The ‘Case for Cambridge’ report talks of increasing quality of life for residents and collaborative engagement with local stakeholders. If achieved these are positive things. However, the current information available is simply not enough for us to be able to draw any conclusion that this could be achieved. We really do need more detail of the practicalities of how this would be fulfilled,” she said.
Cllr Williams continued: “I understand why Cambridge is such a draw for investment. We are so lucky to have such an amazing, world-class phenomenon on our doorstep, but, like all decisions in life, there are always positive and negative consequences.
“Residents are understandably concerned about what this may hold for the future.
“I am encouraged to see reference in the document to local and national government decisions.
“Like everybody else, I want to see investment into water issues, affordable housing and transport, but I am a long way off being convinced that this can be achieved with the levels of housing that are referenced in the report.
“The house target itself seems to be a moving beast, it started at 250,000, then 150,000, and now there is reference to 100,000.
“Bearing in mind the emerging Local Plan suggests over 50,000, the gap between national and local targets seems to be closing.
“Whatever happens next, we will do what we believe is right for residents.
“We will take sensible solutions to our water problems and suitable proposals for transport will be welcomed.
“We say yes to affordable homes, but only if they are truly affordable, and the right homes being built in the right way, in the right places, that do not have a detrimental impact on existing residents and our environment.”
Additional reporting by Hannah Brown, Local Democracy Reporter
To see more planning applications and other public notices for your area, visit publicnoticeportal.uk
