Building a Greater Cambridge

TLDR

Cambridge has the potential to become the best small City in the world – the most liveable, most sustainable, most successful community where everyone benefits and where its outputs from knowledge based industry contributes significantly to the overall success of the UK. Be we’ll need to actively support growth – with more homes near Cambridge, transport and infrastructure, and to fix our current local government structures that aren’t up to the job. Who wants to help make this happen?

Cambridge – How we got here

I’m quite heavily invested in Cambridge - I have lived, worked and studied in and around the City for more than 30 years – and about 6 years of this time served as a City Councillor, at different times representing Cherry Hinton and Coleridge wards. For most of the last 1,000 years, Cambridge was a sleepy small settlement, attached to a world famous University. Old maps on the walls of various city pubs show a medieval City, where almost all of Cambridge was the University. I love reading about previous periods of expansion of the City – for example the late Alan Brigham’s work on the history of Mill Road, at a time of social change when workers were moving off the land and into towns and cities, or to Cambridge to work on the new railway. In the early 20th century, local entrepreneurs (from the Town part of Town and Gown) built family businesses that expanded the City, some of which like Marshalls of Cambridge continue to this day. Cambridge University has long been a pioneer in science research (insert you own favourite list of many of the most influential scientists in history here) – with centuries of globally significant discoveries of the most profound secrets of our universe. And in the town, companies such as Pye were founded to making scientific instruments, with natural synergies with the local laboratories. In the 1980s, Cambridge companies led the home computer revolution, with Sinclair Research and Acorn computers – driven to success by both the competition between these companies, synergies between them and links to the talent in the University, as well as the availability of new technologies globally.

It is hard to pinpoint exactly what combination of factors resulted in what happened next to the local economy, but around this time a process began where more of the people, like me, who graduated from Cambridge University remained in the city – attracted by the quality of life, and the employment opportunities in companies often heavily linked to the University and its research in areas such as biotechnology, genetics, semiconductors and software. Some of those companies had significant commercial success, bringing funding that was often recycled to other ventures in the new economy. People met, companies competed, and people collaborated and networked. And the effects of this snowballed. Described variously as ‘the Cambridge Phenomena’ or ‘Silicon Fen’, thousands of tech companies have been founded in and around the city, with profoundly globally significant organisations and projects starting here such as the Sanger Centre decoding the Human Genome and Arm designing the chips inside billions of mobile phones – among many others. Giant existing global companies wanted to be here – from Microsoft, Apple and Amazon setting up research centres, to AstraZenica relocating its HQ to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, that itself is a globally significant site of medical research. Cambridge today continues to lead the world with biotech companies developing new treatments for diseases both common and rare, and clusters working in areas such as robotics, ink jet printing, computer gaming, quantum computing, speech recognition and cybersecurity.

The Cambridge economy today is remarkable and special, because of the foundations it is built on, the people here and the work they do, with a unique opportunity to achieve much more. We have the opportunity to be like Florence at the time of the renaissance – so what is not to like?

Little to none of this growth was planned or controlled by government. Companies are founded, and put out job adverts, people respond to those adverts and the local economy grows, often with people moving from outside Cambridge. The growth has happened – and our local authorities haven’t caught up.

In fact, government bodies and planning policies, both nationally and locally have not only failed to plan for growth, they actively hinder it through current planning policies and worsen the outcomes for people, with results that are hugely damaging to local people desperate for affordable housing, to sustainability and to quality of life, particularly for those that don’t feel part of the University or the knowledge based industry. Failure to maximise the benefits of growth has implications beyond Cambridge, as it impacts the ability of the city to maximise its contribution to the UK economy, and to help solving the most pressing problems facing the world today, like climate change and expanding affordable healthcare provision.

How is this harming Cambridge?

A recent report shows that thanks to recent high levels of net immigration and very low supply of new homes for a generation, we have 4 million too few homes across the UK. The reality is that the UK population has grown by around 9 million in the last 20 years, and we haven’t built nearly enough new homes to cope with this. Compared to other countries in Europe, we have small properties, low numbers of empty and second homes, and high housing costs, and that is causing human misery – we can’t fix that without allowing many more homes to be built, including on green field sites.

The housing crisis is particularly acute in Cambridge that has seen some new homes, but not enough to support economic growth in that time. House prices here as a multiple of incomes are astronomical (average home price was 13x average earnings in 2019) – this is deterring people to come and work here, punishing those that grew up here, and hitting the less well-off hard. There is a massive unmet demand for new homes nationally, and Cambridge is at the top of the list of where more new homes are needed.

We don’t seem to be capable of building new sustainable transport infrastructure – that is new dedicated public transport corridors providing fast and frequent public transport that is a real alternative to car journeys. Despite high levels of cycling, there is relatively little of the high quality segregated provision for cycling and walking that would be completely standard in parts of Europe with similar levels of cycling – we fail even on green field new developments, causing unnecessary conflict between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Put together, our current approach of limiting housing near Cambridge and not building new public transport infrastructure, causes many people to live a significant distance from where they work, with car the only viable mode of transport (and plans to impose congestion charging and put on a few more buses doesn’t fundamentally change this equation). Failure to build homes where they are needed has resulted in lengthy commutes through the green belt that are now needed for ever larger numbers of people from (slightly) lower cost housing in surrounding towns and villages to the higher paid jobs in and around Cambridge. This is terrible for sustainability, quality of life and the ability to deliver sustainable transport infrastructure.

We also cannot take the advantages we currently have in the knowledge sector for granted. Cambridge University competes globally for academic talent – or at least tries to on salaries that don’t get you anywhere in the local housing market. There is only so long you can trade on your reputation when trying to attract the very best.

Similarly failure to allow local companies to physically grow into labs, offices and HQ buildings, to reach their full potential while still based in the Greater Cambridge area will risk the pre-eminent position of local companies, with a noticeable impact on the whole UK economy. If we cripple our industry in Cambridge, companies will not magically transport themselves to a ‘somewhere else’ in the UK, like the almost mythical ‘deprived North’, they will go to knowledge industry clusters globally that aren’t so short sighted.

But its not just what is at risk, its what we are missing out on – by embracing quality growth, and making sure we appropriately tax new developments and ongoing activity, we can create a better quality of life for everyone – with better more accessible green spaces and better sports, leisure, cultural and community facilities, as well as world class integrated sustainable transport infrastructure. Far too much of our built environment outside the University is the low quality uninspiring product of a failing planning system.

NIMBYs in the ascendancy

So what is stopping Cambridge reaching its potential? It seems like a system has evolved where every attempt at delivering new homes or infrastructure immediately gets bogged down with cost and delay. To avoid politicians actually being held responsible for any outcomes, we subject any significant decision to endless rounds of inconsequential consultation, and endless rights of activists and campaigners to complain – bats, newts, every existing view of fields, every grain of wheat, every blade of grass, every tree, overdevelopment, underdevelopment, parking, lack of parking, height, lack of water supply, being flooded with too much water, overlooking, appearance. That’s not to say that there aren’t a lot of valid concerns, but for those looking to block new development, anything and everything can be thrown at the problem, often making it hard to tell which complaints have any merit at all. If these rights don’t amount to an absolute veto in every case, what they do result in is decisions that are forever kicked down the road, at each juncture consuming more and more scarce taxpayers resources in studies and consultations, that may or may not result in delivery of new homes, facilities or infrastructure.

The slow and expensive planning system is a problem nationally – the UK Government has to date spent £800m and many years planning to build the lower Thames Crossing, including £267m and thousands of pages of documents asking and refusing to give itself for permission to build the crossing. An almost unlimited blank cheque book is available to ensure that nobody can be blamed when a minister finally makes a decision that in this example is fundamentally as simple as deciding if the transport benefits of the proposed scheme outweigh the expected financial and environmental costs.

Nationally, our planning system has evolved to require vast swathes of reports prior to obtaining permission, often a long time before it is clear if permission on a particular site will be possible. Due to the difficulty in obtaining permission, when it is granted there is often a large uplift in the value of the land. If permission is granted, there is then a negotiation with the Council as to how much of that uplift is given back as ‘affordable housing’ and various other payments for things like public art, contributions to transport schemes etc. This dynamic – a hugely uncertain planning system, with high application costs and an uncertain negotiation around ‘community contributions’ makes it very hard for individuals and smaller builders to navigate the system – and is a key part of the reason why ever more of our new homes are built by huge publicly traded housebuilding companies, who have the economies of scale to deal with the system, and who often end up with lottery jackpot style wins for their directors when they outwit government, such as in the ‘Help to Buy’ policy era. We enter a cycle of poor design:

In Cambridge, we have the Cambridge ‘Green Belt’. This was proposed in the 1930s, and implemented in the 1960s - it is a planning policy that essentially prohibits most new development in a ring around Cambridge defined at a time when it was just an old University attached to a small town. The consequences of retaining this policy as the City has grown into a globally significant cluster of knowledge based industry are the obvious problems of lack of homes, offices and laboratories where they are most needed near Cambridge. Parts of the Cambridge Green Belt are the most suitable and sustainable locations for new homes and laboratories on the planet, bar none.

But what our planning system doesn’t do is ensure that new developments produce high quality buildings, with great design and sustainability, nor does it provide significant funding for new transport infrastructure (of a type that actually increases capacity, rather than just reallocating existing already constrained transport corridors). It is crying out for a simpler system, with easier and cheaper planning permission, but with much clearer and larger community contributions to allow us to build the infrastructure we need to make developments work – be in transport, water supplies, parks and public open spaces or fantastic quality public and community buildings, as well as design standards commensurate with a successful small city.

Cambridge has not been immune to the catastrophic failure of government generally to deliver quality outcomes in a reasonable timeframe or at reasonable cost. Local infrastructure delivery is painfully slow and expensive, with incompetent and chaotic local delivery bodies.

The Chisholm Trail – one single off road cycle route - was proposed over 20 years ago, agreed in principle over 7 years ago, took another five years to get to on-site construction, of which phase 1 alone took a ludicrous 2 and a half years, went way over budget, with no end (or even beginning?) in sight for phase 2. The Greenways project (radial cycle routes into the city) has been in consultation since 2017, with no sign of when routes will be delivered or even ground broken. Can you imagine being appointed a project manager of a great new initiative to create some cycle routes, and 6 years later you are still stuck in endless rounds of consultation? 

Cambridge North Station took many years to delivery. The County Council finally obtained planning permission, handed the project over to Network Rail (one of the least accountable and uncooperative quangos in the Country), who proceeded to start again with a new planning application before starting the build phase, which inevitably overran.

On housing, the new town at Northstowe was in planning for 25 years. It is now being built out – few locally would argue that results on design, transport, community facilities or the water table are a positive reflection of literally decades of master-planning.

Campaigning for major infrastructure improvements for those in middle age looks a lot like old men planting acorns – you are very unlikely to see the results in your lifetime. It doesn’t have to be like this.

But we also have a unique problem in Cambridge with our current local government settlement. There are at least five local government bodies responsible for the Greater Cambridge area, including two district councils, a county council, a Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Mayor, and a Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership. All covering different areas, with different (but often related) responsibilities, different sets of elected or appointed representatives, who may lack democratic accountability, or who argue with each other and fail to get things done. It is pretty much impossible for most normal members of the public to understand which Council does what, or which elected politicians are responsible for which decisions.

And so it is we have a system that produces poor outputs, whilst giving NIMBYs the power to block and delay, and every excuse to do so with the quality of the end products that our planning system does manage to produce. Meanwhile, NIMBYs tend to be older and vote, and younger people crippled by high housing costs - who frankly should be rioting on the streets to demand that new homes be built - stay silent and don’t see the point in voting in local elections.

Local politicians only ever see the growth of Cambridge as a problem to be managed, never promoting growth, even the amazing high quality growth available in Cambridge, as a desirable outcome. NIMBYs are sided with, and housing is something that only counts if it is affordable (ie built in inconsequential quantities in absolute terms and available to tiny numbers of people). The last Conservative Mayor’s affordable housing offer - £100k flats – was literally going to deliver 2 flats in Cambridge, other schemes are measured in dozens of affordable homes, when what is needed is tens of thousands of homes available to all with lower market prices built around Cambridge.

Its Doesn’t have to be like this

Our current politicians all work within the existing structures. I have a lot of time and respect for people from all parties who serve as locally elected politicians, but they are far too unambitious.

We don’t have a lot of civic entrepreneurship – systems seem stuck in stone, immune to reform. Delivery is catastrophically slow and expensive.

I’ve heard all the NIMBY excuses – every tree or blade of grass is sacred, every wildlife habitat irreplaceable, we don’t need more of that here, what about empty homes, what about foreigners owning our homes, we should make the growth happen elsewhere. (At this point I imagine a local council leader or junior minister ringing up Microsoft and Amazon to explain that Cambridge doesn’t want them and we need them to relocate their research facilities to say Doncaster or Burnley, and picture the confusion of their reaction).

There will be other industries that can and should be incentivised in other parts of the country – many will be complementary to what is happening in Cambridge and use its outputs – sure, Government should help make that happen. But ultimately you are pushing water uphill if you are trying to reproduce the Cambridge effect elsewhere – and it is completely unnecessary if you embrace growth in and around Cambridge– it all comes back to NIMBYism for the sake of opposing growth – and those arguments play out the same everywhere –NIMBYs emerge everywhere and start trying to block growth as soon as some success gets started in an area and there is a vested interest of existing property owners to defend, and then we are back to a country that cannot house young families or deliver enough economic growth to pay its bills, heading for decline and doom.

Cambridge is incredible. But its Green Belt restrictions and its local authorities aren’t fit for purpose. It is too hard to grow, too hard to get planning permission, we don’t raise enough for public works from planning gains, we don’t have enough good mechanisms to raise taxes locally to pay for public transport and other services. The homes, buildings and infrastructure we deliver are too slow and too poor quality.

I don’t believe any of this is inevitable. I believe decisions should be made locally, but nobody is standing for election campaigning for growth and its benefits, and nobody is making the case for that growth.

So I would like to see launched a political campaign for a Greater Cambridge – and work to achieve these goals through bottom up support – active support from local people through the election of local representatives who will support these aims and actively work to take them forward.

A Campaign to embrace the growth of Cambridge into the best small City on the planet, that delivers for everyone, with more homes, support for knowledge based industries, world class sustainable transport, infrastructure and facilities.

This has several parts:

Better Local Government

The multiple local authorities (including the City Council, District Council(s), the County Council, the Cambs and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Partnership) serving Greater Cambridge are a confusing and contradictory mess that have failed Cambridge and its surrounding area - they should be replaced in southern Cambridgeshire by a single Greater Cambridge Unitary Authority to give the political leadership and high quality officials the area needs to thrive.

More Homes where they are needed near Cambridge

Cambridge has not built enough new homes in and physically close to the City, to give all residents and families a choice of housing they can afford, suitable to their needs and within easy and sustainable reach of their jobs, friends and family and social lives. There is now devastating intergenerational unfairness with the young being priced out of suitable homes to live in and bring up a family, caused by failure to increase housing supply to match demand. We must reform and remove where necessary the Cambridge Green Belt to allow and accelerate housing supply in and around Cambridge. Stop prohibiting new homes almost everywhere they are needed and actively facilitate more housing.

Transport Infrastructure funded by levies on new development

Delivery of transport and other infrastructure has been painfully too slow, too expensive and not ambitious enough to support a growing City. We need new dedicated public transport corridors to support new homes, a network of high quality (‘Dutch standard’) segregated cycling and walking routes, and sustainable sources of water and energy. We need devolved powers over local planning to simplify and reduce the cost of the process of getting permission – maybe a new development corporation, and then ensure much more of the economic gain from planning permission goes back to the local community, with (as in other parts of the world) significant infrastructure levies on new developments to build transport and other infrastructure so every resident has accessible public transport and active travel options and sustainable supplies of water and energy.

Supporting the growth of the Cambridge knowledge based economy

The businesses and research institutions based in Cambridge have transformed the world for the better in science, medicine and technology, and this has only been possible through the close, connected network of talent across our universities and businesses physically located in the Greater Cambridge area. We should actively support curated growth and development to allow world class companies to grow to their full potential and remain headquartered in the sub-region, and not see the local Cambridge economy as just a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Growth that works for everyone

Too many people feel left behind in Cambridge, and see a divided City. We need growth that works for everyone in Cambridge: A planning system that focuses on better quality, more beautiful, more sustainable homes available to all, landmark public and private buildings, the highest quality Green Spaces protected and accessible, world class community, leisure, cultural and sporting facilities. We need high quality local public services, funded through local taxes (likely through devolved powers over business rates or similar taxes) and successful businesses and individuals encouraged and supported when giving back to the community.

How to make this happen?

I’m a passionate believer in democracy – change should be possible from the bottom up. There will always be opponents of growth, but we need to persuade a majority of the benefits.

What does a political campaign look like? Talking to elected Councillors, MPs and candidates, asking them to support the growth of Cambridge. Asking them to actively work towards a new Greater Cambridge unitary authority, and for devolved powers over planning in return for permitting and encouraging more homes near Cambridge. Communicating with voters, engaging them, and persuading them that if they want a better Cambridge, and more affordable housing, they need to use their vote in local elections to support local representatives committed to making this happen.

Any campaign will need to engage the young people currently seriously disadvantaged by the generation of insufficient new home building – but who currently don’t vote as much as older NIMBYs.

Many people in Cambridge support the growth of the City - its time for us to fight for it.

Its time to make the Mill Road Modal Filter Work

There was an interesting local Council by-election result from Tottenham Hale last week - fought by the Conservatives entirely as a campaign against a local Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN). The Conservative vote share fell from 8.3% to 5.8%. To make it abundantly clear, this means opposing LTNs is not a strong election winning tactic - it damages support. 

My views differ from friends in the Conservative party on the merits of the recently agreed bus filter on Mill Road in Cambridge (a form of LTN) - this will close Mill Road bridge to private motor vehicles (with a few exceptions like taxis and vehicles used by blue badge holders). To summarise where we are now:

• A big study of LTNs in London shows no significant increase in traffic on boundary roads around LTNs - some journeys are longer, other journeys are replaced by more sustainable options, overall these effects approximately balance on boundary roads, and traffic is much lower inside the LTN. There is no reason to believe the results from the Mill Road filter will be significantly different.
• There is a difference of opinion over the impact on trade on businesses on Mill Road. But the risks have been significantly overstated by opponents of the filter. For most shops, there was no (legal or safe) option to stop off outside the shops. Studies have shown shop owners systematically overestimate the contribution to their trade from cars. Most vehicles on Mill Road are just passing through. Mill Road is great, but it is much more pleasant to visit the shops, restaurants and cafes without the hideous levels of car use on the road we currently see.
• All the evidence is that there is strong public support for the filter - the Conservatives made no electoral impact with a campaign against the filter at last year's local elections, and winning Council candidates in the area strongly support the filter, two official surveys have also shown clear net support. The decision to approve the permanent Traffic Regulation Order was made by the Highways Committee of the County Council, with Councillors voting in favour, including all the Councillors closest to the filter. If the plans with strong local support in Cambridge had been blocked mostly by Conservatives from distant parts of the rural County, it would have made it harder still for any kind of Conservative recovery in the City.

At the meeting, the Conservative group tried to delay the decision and kick the can further down the road, by calling for more studies and a public enquiry. There has been more than 2 years to consider traffic modelling, and lots of evidence from elsewhere - the conclusions of any further work would have been as above - broadly neutral impact on boundary roads, much lower congestion on and near Mill Road. Taking the decision away from democratically elected Councillors to a public enquiry would have needed taxpayers money being taken from other areas to pay the cost of making a less democratic decision. The cost and delays to seemingly every government decision of giving people endless rights to appeal, object, veto or delay controversial decisions is having a catastrophic impact on economic growth and the public finances - it does not reflect well on the Conservatives that they proposed engaging in these tactics here.

So my main message to the Conservatives and those traders who have opposed this decision - or regardless of what you think of the Mill Road bridge bus filter - a popular, considered, democratic decision has now been taken to introduce a permanent TRO. It is time to move on, and work constructively to make the most of the obvious benefits of a lower traffic Mill Road, and continue to enhance the street to attract in more people. There are new opportunities like adding spots of short-stay shopper parking, blue badge spaces, removing the now-unnecessary traffic lights at Gwydir Street, and removing peak-time delivery restrictions - all of which are not possible when there is so much through-traffic.

Any time and effort spent trying to undo a fait accompli is effort that distracts from the campaign against the GCP's congestion charging plans - which all the evidence suggests aren't popular over a wide area, do not have a democratic mandate and will do a lot of harm to people who will have no viable options to paying a large new additional tax. To defeat the congestion charging plans will require a broad coalition - it won't be helped if campaigners constantly veers towards an extreme general campaign to oppose all measures to help and encourage people to use their cars a bit less, and more sustainable options a bit more.

Response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation.

Below is my response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation. Looking back at this very irregular blog, this really is Congestion Charging groundhog day - pretty much the same plans have been dusted off from Oct 2016, and my views haven't changed much on them since then. When this round is over, we really do need to get to the bottom of who is trying to force this on Cambridge (as you struggle to find an elected politician who claims responsibility), and why we have wasted so much of the last 6 years when it comes to delivering actual transport infrastructure.

Anyway, here goes...

1) To what extent do you support or oppose the proposals for bus improvements and fare reductions?

Oppose. Some are OK, overall they won’t deliver significant enough benefit for the costs involved.

2) Do you have any comments on the proposals for:

Cheaper fares?

More routes?

Fast, high frequency services?

Longer operating hours?

Increased rural services?

Simpler ticketing?

Zero emission bus services?

Broadly supportive of cheaper fares, with some public subsidy. When I have used buses in the past, I was surprised by the high fare costs, which are clearly a barrier to more bus usage, particularly as it is an additional marginal usage cost for people who have already paid the fixed costs of car ownership.

The current service providers are not currently able to run the advertised bus service with any degree of reliability. Top priority should be ensuring that the current timetables can be sustained. I’d also support extension of service times on main routes to cover the evening rush hour.

However, most of the proposed changes to increase services into increasingly more rural areas, increase frequency and increase operating hours e.g. to the early hours of the morning are likely to involve enormous levels of public subsidy with very little benefit to the overall transport situation, as for reasons elsewhere in these responses they fall far short of what is needed to make a journey by bus a more appealing option for most journeys, and with lower population densities there won’t be enough demand to sustain the large ‘per passenger-journey’ subsidies needed. Our local Councils have repeatedly tried to subsidise various routes at extended hours, but usually cancel schemes when the extraordinary subsidy per person becomes apparent. (e.g. nightbuses were tried in Cambridge City in 2001 but cancelled later as it would almost have been cheaper to pay for taxis for the low usage numbers). The current Cambridge City Council budget consultation includes cancelling subsidies to reduce the location and hours of some routes.

Simpler ticketing is a great idea in principle, but hard to do in practice - would only make sense if using a commercial off the shelf solution and not trying to invent something bespoke locally.

Zero emission bus services are obviously a good idea, but are likely to be rolled out nationally in the near future anyway.

3) Are there any additional improvements to bus services that would be needed for you to use bus services for more of your journeys? If so, what are they? Or if you are a non-bus user, what would encourage you to use the bus?

Nothing at all would persuade me to use buses more as they are too slow and inefficient for any conceivable journey I would want to make. A 50% reduction in congestion (even if this did turn out to be achievable which is far from clear) and more frequent service wouldn’t significantly impact this calculation, as the speed of bus journeys is fundamentally limited by the speed limit of roads, residual congestion, the circuitous routes they need to take in order to cover sufficient population in any rural journey, and the time taken at bus stops. To put this into context - I used to live in central Newmarket, and work at Cambridge Airport, which has a direct bus route. My transport options were:

Drive: A good clear journey would take just over 15 mins door to door. Anything over 30 mins would constitute a very bad and unusual journey for congestion.

Train: If I was going elsewhere in Cambridge after work, I would use the train/folding bike combination. The train journey was around 25 mins, with about 10-15 mins cycling each end, so around 45-55 mins in total, but reasonably consistent journey time compared to car, although much less flexibility.

Bus never came into consideration - even with a bus service from Newmarket stopping outside my final destination, the journey time itself would have been at least an hour due to the route taken, plus 10 mins walk at the start, plus the need to arrive at the bus stop early. Journey times would be inconsistent, the service would always be less reliable and less comfortable than car or train. Even if it was free, and there was increased reliability due to less congestion, and an option to get a bus home later in the evening, and a congestion charge on car use, it still wouldn’t have come into consideration as it would remain far too slow and inconvenient, and the same would be true for anyone whose time is valued at any kind of commercial rate. For anyone with a similar journey without a direct door-to-door bus (ie most people living outside Cambridge) the time cost of buses would be enormously high. 

I currently live in Chesterton in Cambridge. I walk or cycle most journeys. If I find myself somewhere without a bike and need to get home (eg. arriving at the main train station), I used to get a taxi/Uber, now I would get a Voi scooter - buses would take far too long to be a viable alternative regardless of congestion. I only use my car rarely, if I need to carry something too heavy for a bike - in which case the bus would similarly not be suitable. I am currently able to mostly use sustainable travel options because I am fortunate enough to be able to afford housing (almost) suitable to my needs in Cambridge. Because of generations of poor planning approach by the local authorities, we haven’t built enough new homes where they are needed within sustainable commuting distance of people’s jobs, friends and social lives. Many people work in the City but can only afford a family home some distance away from Cambridge. This problem can only be fixed by fixing the planning system and building more homes where they are needed nearer to Cambridge, concentrated around access points to new dedicated public transport corridors.

4) The bus improvements are proposed to start immediately after a decision in summer 2023 and ramp up over the following 4-5 years. What bus improvements would you want to see delivered first?

See answers to Q2

5) To what extent would you support or oppose the franchising of the local bus network by the Mayor and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority?

Don’t know 

The current system of running buses is clearly broken - supply in the private sector has become monopolised (or acts like is has), services are unreliable and not well co-ordinated between providers and transport modes.

However, it is unclear if local authorities (particularly the mess of local authorities we suffer from in greater Cambridge) would do a better job, nor is it clear that there is an efficient and cost effective process to introduce bus franchising. The experience in Greater Manchester suggests that currently the statutory process to implement franchising is slow, complex, expensive and subject to delaying tactics like legal challenges. Given the size of the greater Cambridge area, it may make more sense to lobby government to introduce a much more streamlined route to franchising instead of trying to use the current system, possibly as part of a local devolution scheme.

6) To what extent do you support or oppose additional improvements to walking and cycling, accessibility and public spaces?

I am strongly supportive of improvements to walking and cycling. I have no confidence that these proposals or our current local authorities can deliver what is required.

The current high modal share for cycling in Cambridge is mostly in spite of the cycling infrastructure, not because of it. The delivery record of the local authorities is extremely poor, with projects such as the Chisholm Trail taking decades to approve, and even now is only half built, with phase 1 going significantly over budget and taking far longer than a project of that complexity should have done. The Greenways projects were proposed in 2016. Despite the large numbers of new homes proposed at Waterbeach, the relevant Greenway was again delayed this year, and is still years away from opening. There needs to be a step change in the approach to delivering cycling infrastructure to reduce costs and speed up delivery.

The proposals outlined for cycling and walking are vague and unambitious. We should plan to deliver a full dutch standard network of cycling and active travel routes to support safe and convenient cycling. By Dutch standard network I mean a dedicated network of interconnected segregated routes in and around Cambridge, with appropriate infrastructure such as bridges and underpasses to ensure cycling and micromobility is the most cost and time effective choice for most journeys.

An easy way to start down this road is for all new developments to include Dutch standard cycle facilities - we are still approving car based dormitory settlements that fall far below best practice standards for active travel. 

7) If a Sustainable Travel Zone was introduced, are there any other improvements you would like to see funded?

I don’t believe the proposals to raise revenue through congestion charging are acceptable or will be implemented in anything like their current form, so this question is not applicable.

8) Do you have any comments on the proposal to introduce a Sustainable Travel Zone?

The proposals to improve the bus service do not amount to a significant intervention commensurate with the transport needs of the Cambridge subregion and its recent and potential growth. They cannot provide a comprehensive solution to sustainable transport as they will leave too many journeys that simply cannot be made in a reasonable timeframe by bus or active travel. They do not constitute investment in transport infrastructure, and do not provide new dedicated public transport corridors - they provide subsidies to operating costs that could be removed at any time if budgets get tight. 

That so many long journeys in and out of Cambridge are required to support the local economy is testament to decades of failed planning policies that have not built sufficient new homes near to where they are needed, and have favoured the development of car based dormitory settlements, forcing people to commute long distances between homes they can afford to bring up their families, and the jobs they need to provide for them.

As such, it is implausible that the proposals will succeed in reducing congestion or speeding up journeys as predicted, further reducing their effectiveness, and the costs of the congestion charge will be unavoidable for many, so will function as a highly regressive new form of taxation on sections of the population that are already struggling with high living costs.

There are further problems with the congestion charging proposals. The operating costs of the system will be high so it will be a very inefficient form of taxation. The initial implementation will be capital intensive and technically risky. The proposals involve a significant degree of surveillance of people’s movements around the city - an intrusion of personal privacy that is hard to justify given the limited net benefits identified.

There is no democratic cover for this proposal, and political support is largely absent or opaque or both. Significant and controversial changes such as this, should not have been progressed to this stage without being clearly presented to electorates at local elections, where it is clear which authority is responsible for the proposals, and which candidates for those authorities support or oppose the proposals, so voters have the chance to not elect those supporting a controversial change. This has systematically not happened in this case. The program is being promoted by the Greater Cambridge Partnership - a body which is not directly elected, but functions through appointees. Whilst some of those appointees have been vocal in supporting those proposals, it is not clear they have the support of those that appointed them in doing so. None of my local Councillors at City or County level have expressed support for the plans, despite being pressed for their views repeatedly. At the local elections and since, no candidate in my area has publicised support for the plans. At a recent by-election in South Cambridgeshire, there was a very strong swing towards candidates opposing plans for congestion charging. This all suggests that there have been strong efforts to hide the plans from voters prior to elections, and remove this decision from effective democratic control - that is completely unacceptable. The mess of local authorities hasn’t helped, with it being very unclear which out of the combined authority, county council or greater Cambridge Partnership is responsible for introducing the measures or implementing them. 

In order to progress proposals such as these, we need all the local authorities to be replaced in the Greater Cambridge area by a new Unitary Authority, with empowered directly elected representatives, with policies being clearly put to voters at an election before being progressed.

9) To what extent do you support or oppose the introduction of a Sustainable Travel Zone to fund improvements to bus services, walking and cycling?

Strongly Oppose.

10) If you do not support the introduction of a Sustainable Travel Zone to fund improvements to bus services, walking and cycling, what alternative funding proposals would you propose to tackle the challenges faced by Greater Cambridge?

Greater Cambridge is one of the most economically successful regions of the UK, with progress being made on science and technology that is transforming the world for the better. It is scandalous that this has not been accompanied by proper funding of transport and other infrastructure.

To fund the decent transport systems we need and deserve:

Create a Greater Cambridge Unitary Authority to improve the efficiency of local government, allowing it to deliver projects quicker and more cost effectively.

Seek devolved powers over local planning, and use those to build significantly more homes near Cambridge on new and existing dedicated transport routes (reducing the need for car journeys, and supporting active and sustainable transport)

Introduce significant community infrastructure levies on new developments that channel more of the uplift in value from planning permissions into new infrastructure (as happens in other countries) and use the funds for capital spending on new transport infrastructure, including a new network of dedicated public transport routes (e.g. Light Rail) and Dutch standard segregated active travel routes.

To fund ongoing operational subsidies for transport networks, more funding needs to originate from the successful businesses, for example:

A workplace parking levy

A better share of business rates from successful businesses going to the new local authority to use on transport subsidies, potentially as part of a local devolution deal.

If further revenue subsidy is required:

Move towards charging market rates for residents parking permits (currently would be £80-100 per month in central Cambridge) - this would have an effect in reducing demand, but would be more expensive in higher cost areas where there are more sustainable alternatives, so would be far less unfair and regressive than congestion charging that mostly hits the less well off

An additional Council tax precept for public transport

11) Do you have any feedback on the proposed Zone and its boundary?

If proposals are progressed, discussions on the zone will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress.

12) Do you have any comments on the proposed hours of operation of the Sustainable Travel Zone?

If proposals are progressed, discussions on the timings will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress. I would note that some of the most congested times (weekends on Newmarket Road) aren’t currently in scope, but quiet parts of the weekdays when congestion isn’t really an issue at all are currently in scope.

13) To what extent would you support or oppose the principle of phasing in the Sustainable Travel Zone charge?

Oppose

14) Do you have any comments on the suggested phasing approach?

Its hard to see how the phasing is anything other than a political calculation as to what might be acceptable. It significantly weakens the financial case for the plans and opens it up to significant risk.

The bus subsidies will be introduced early, followed by significant capex to introduce congestion charging followed by possible congestion charging revenue. This makes it very unlikely that an appropriately risk weighted net present value calculation of the costs and benefits of the proposals will be positive.

Specifically, there are a number of risks that may derail the introduction of the charging mechanism, including technical challenges, legal and privacy challenges, political challenges (ie elected representatives who continue to support charging being dumped from office causing plans to change) and potential changes in national government policy (e.g. if the takeup of electric vehicles causes a national road pricing scheme to be introduced to replace VED and fuel duty). In any of these cases, the local charging mechanism could be abandoned leaving no mechanism to continue to fund the buses, and with no progress made on delivering real transport infrastructure either.

15) Do you have any comments on the proposed charge levels?

The charges will be significantly detrimental to those working in lower paid jobs.

16) Do you have any comments on the proposed discounts, exemptions, and reimbursements?

17) Do you have any other comments on the proposed discounts, exemptions and reimbursements?

If proposals are progressed, discussions on the discounts and exemptions will degenerate into a political calculation around how many people need to be removed from the scope of the charge to allow the scheme to progress. 

The exemptions scheme looks complex and adds to the overall complexity of the proposals. Specifically in this case, the proposals introduce an element of means testing into the process, that will be complex and bureaucratic to administer, as well as adding to the disbenefit of moving from benefits into work, when the high effective marginal tax rate (benefit withdrawal rate) for those on universal credit is already a significantly problematic disincentive to work. It is also unclear, for example, why a care worker who might have perfectly viable alternatives to driving like cycling would be exempt, but an electrician or plumber who has no choice but use a van to carry tools isn’t exempt.

18) Taking into account the improvements suggested above, are there any changes to the proposals or additional measures that would help enhance or address impacts on you / your business / your organisation and the way you travel?

No further comments

19) Please comment if you feel any of the proposals would either positively or negatively affect or impact on [people or groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010].

No further comments

Cambridge Local Plan Consultation: Building a Bigger, Better Cambridge

Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Councils have been consulting on the next local plan that will determine how the Cambridge sub-region is developed over the next few years. This is my responses to their initial consultation that closed recently.

This is a personal response and doesn't represent the views of any other organisation.

Question 2. Please submit any sites for employment and housing you wish to suggest for allocation in the Local Plan. Provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible.

As indicated in answering Q39, the Green Belt around Cambridge should be reviewed, and where sites currently within the Greenbelt can be developed at high density and with excellent sustainable transport (ie close to major employment sites), those sites should be removed from the Green Belt and the sites developed. This would suggest a number of new sites that could be delivered with many new homes, for example:

• The West Fields between Grange Road and the M11 – Given the local housing shortage and feasibility of developing this area with excellent walking, cycling and public transport links to key employment sites like the City Centre and West Cambridge site, coupled with its lack of special or notable features beyond ordinary agricultural land, its hard to imagine a better or more appropriate site for new housing, and it should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing.
• Much of the land between Cambridge and Shelford could be allocated to housing, with a new public transport corridor and cycle network linking to the Addenbrookes bio-medical campus.
• The field bounded by Long Road, Hobson Brook, the Guided Busway and Clare/Peterhouse sports ground is perfectly placed for housing with sustainable transport.
• Land between Milton village and the railway could be developed around the proposed rowing lake, within easy sustainable commuting distance of the Science Parks area.

Question 4. Do you agree that planning to 2040 is an appropriate date in the future to plan for? If not, what would be a more appropriate date and why?

This date is too far into the future – reflecting our poor ability to deliver in a timely fashion – in particular infrastructure. Plans should be accelerated for public transport improvements (e.g. Cam Metro or alternative area wide rapid transit, Cambridge South Station etc), so housing can be delivered sooner.

Question 5. Do you think we have identified the right cross-boundary issues and initiatives that affect ourselves and neighbouring areas?

A Unitary Authority is urgently required to cover the Cambridge sub-region (Cambridge, South Cambs and possibly slightly larger). The current system is a threat to democracy, as with so many different authorities and bodies involved without consistent political leadership (Cambridge City Council, South Cambs District, Cambs County, The Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, MPs, GCP etc) there is no real accountability – so developing planning policies becomes a technocratic exercise in evidencing how proposals meet dictated overall objectives e.g. on number of new homes required. The next local plan should not be decided on the basis of a questionnaire or consultation like this - there needs to be recognition that many of these questions are political issues (like how fast should Cambridge grow), and they should be decided by politicians making a case, and people voting for those that outline the plans they most agree with. With better democratic accountability, we could have real choice to be bolder and more radical, and with less scope for objections blocking good plans, and less likelihood poor developments will be permitted. All local authority leaders should be urgently calling on the government to create a single unitary authority to allow greater Cambridge to reach its potential.

Question 6. Do you agree with the potential big themes for the Local Plan?

Broadly yes, although there is not enough emphasis on growth - taking advantage of the unique position and opportunity available for the Cambridge sub region to develop further the knowledge based economy and build more globally significant technology companies.

Question 8. How should the Local Plan help us achieve net zero carbon by 2050?

The key element in achieving net zero is developing sustainable transport networks within current and in particular new developments. This involves prioritising walking, cycling and sustainable public transport, and de-prioritising private motor vehicles.

It will be important that new housing is built with easy walking and cycling access to employment sites and other facilities (hence the importance of developing sites such as the west fields) The city should accelerate plans to require all motor vehicles using the city to become zero emission e.g. electric cars and buses. No new buildings should use fossil fuels for space heating or other domestic purposes. Buildings should be designed to not require significant heating in winter or cooling in summer.

Question 13. How do you think we should improve the green space network?

The local plan should maintain protection of all the special parts of Cambridge (e.g. Gog Magogs,
Grantchester Meadows, the River corridor generally). New developments should include significant green areas. The plan should prohibit allowing minimum open space requirements on new developments to be bought out with cash contributions – there needs to be a mechanism to create more substantial open spaces even if land is only developed in small parcels none of which on their own would result in the creation of significant new open space.

Question 15. Do you agree that we should aim to increase tree cover across the area?

Yes.

Question 16. How should the Local Plan help us achieve 'good growth' that promotes wellbeing and social inclusion?

Key to social inclusion is building better public transport networks and improving cycling and walking routes at the expense of roads busy with motor vehicles. Cycling in particular needs a comprehensive interconnected network of cycle routes segregated from other traffic and pedestrians, with priority over motor vehicles.

Ensure local facilities are built at the same time as housing – with private facilities – shops, pubs, sports facilities etc as important as public sector facilities like schools and community centres.

Public Houses should be provided in all new developments. The Councils have belatedly come round to the idea of protecting existing pubs, recognising their value as community assets, but fail to recognise the value of pubs as community facilities in new developments, with pubs usually a poorly executed afterthought. The Fox in Bar Hill and Monkfield Arms in Cambourne are just bland, generic ‘estate’ type pubs. Eddington and Great Knighton don’t appear to have any new pubs at all. A lack of facilities like pubs helps turn these neighbourhoods into dormitory suburbs, with less social cohesion and with increased travel required for leisure.

Ensure all new communities have a good mix of tenures and types of housing.

Question 17. How do you think our plan could help enable communities to shape new development proposals?

Too much new house building is entirely delivered by large, volume, national housebuilders, with no input from the residents that will live there, or the Cambridge context. Planning policies should encourage more self-built housing, and smaller more distinctive developments. Where consultations are held, they should be listened to, instead of holding them and then just doing whatever the developer wanted to do anyway.

Question 18. How do you think we can make sure that we achieve safe and inclusive communities when planning new development?

Local police stations or outposts and higher levels of community policing.

Question 19. How do you think new developments should support healthy lifestyles?

Building high quality cycling infrastructure and encouraging higher cycling rates and lower car usage is the most significant contribution that can be made to support healthy lifestyles. Research indicates a number of significant health benefits from active commuting.

Sports facilities. Ensure there are sufficient green spaces which are suitable and available for events like parkrun. Fund significant sports facilities like a Rowing lake and Triathlon Centre from s106 agreements. Include more sports fields in new developments – too many of the sports fields currently in the city are only available to University members.

Question 20. How do you think we should achieve improvements in air quality?

Build all new developments as zero carbon, with no fossil fuels at all burnt in the new development areas for transport or heating buildings.

Question 21. How should the Local Plan protect our heritage and ensure new development is well designed? Question 23. How do you think we could ensure that new development is as well-designed as possible?

Far too few quality public buildings are built. Outside of the University, with very few exceptions (new mosque, Marmalade Lane), few new developments in Cambridge achieve notable quality, let alone outstanding. Too many are very poor – the Marque, Cambridge Leisure Park and Travelodge, the new hotel at Cambridge North Station, and much new housing is bland and uninspired. Planning policies should encourage the development of at least some landmark buildings within each site (high quality materials and design, intended to stand the tests of time), and all large new development sites should aim for consistent high-quality design and materials throughout the site.

Question 24. How important do you think continuing economic growth is for the next Local Plan?

Very Important. The Cambridge sub-region is uniquely placed to grow rapidly in knowledge-based
industries such as software and biotech. This relies on the network effects of the co-location of new
businesses with Cambridge University and existing businesses, talent and entrepreneurs. By supporting rapid growth, as well as an important role supporting the national economy, breakthroughs will be made that might not otherwise happen - there are cancers that will be cured quicker, and advances in technology essential to tackling climate change and many other problems that simply won’t happen anything like as quickly if we don’t maximise the growth of the Cambridge knowledge based economy, and this economic advantage will be lost to the UK permanently if we don’t encourage growth in the Cambridge sub-region. Saying that Cambridge has had enough growth, and new growth needs to be elsewhere would be a reckless neglect of the current opportunity, the next local plan should encourage that growth explicitly, and political leaders should be much bolder in supporting that.

Question 25. What kind of business and industrial space do you think is most needed in the area?

Too much of the office space needed by tech companies seems to be controlled by the Colleges and small numbers of surveyors and estate agents. As a result, there is not enough flexibility in options
available, particularly for high growth companies. Agents and landlords demanding minimum lease terms of 5-10 years is not uncommon – wholly inappropriate for companies that may be growing at 50-100% a year. New development should prioritise flexible configuration buildings to be let on flexible lease terms.

The other omission is allocating space within the subregion for large tech company headquarter buildings – areas that can allocated to accommodate the custom built headquarters and R+D divisions of the next Arm or CSR. Whilst it is unlikely to be possible to allocate such space immediately adjacent to the City, sites should be identified for this purpose along public transport corridors, and where there are or is potential for excellent cycle access.

Question 26. Do you think we should be protecting existing business and industrial space?

Generally yes, but the retail sheds south of Newmarket Road between Coldhams Lane and Coldhams
Common, along with the Beehive centre are relics from a past age of car based shopping trips – the retail sheds should all go and be replaced by housing, which would be within easy reach by cycling and walking from the City Centre and the new Chisholm Trail.

Question 27. How should we balance supporting our knowledge-intensive sectors, with creating a wide range of different jobs? What kind of jobs would you like to see created in the area?

Growth should focus on high value knowledge-based employment sectors and businesses to support
these sectors, as Cambridge has special strengths in these areas and the benefits to the City and Country should be maximised.

Question 30. What approach should the next plan take to supporting or managing tourism in Cambridge and the rural area?

Most of the main tourist sites are already very busy. We shouldn’t encourage much more of it, and should ensure current tourism doesn’t have an impact on local environment, e.g. pollution/congestion from tourist coaches.

Question 32. Do you think we should plan for a higher number of homes than the minimum required by government, to provide flexibility to support the growing economy?

Yes – strongly agree – we should aim for as rapid growth of housing as can be done at high quality and with great transport infrastructure, as long as this is supported by the continued growth of knowledge based industry.

Question 33. What kind of housing do you think we should provide?

Focus on making the market price of housing affordable to as many people as possible, rather than
sucking all the value out of new development by insisting on very high % levels of below market priced housing to be rationed and allocated by the Councils. This should enable more of the planning gain to be taxed and used to provide high quality sustainable transport that everyone will benefit from and that is required to meet carbon neutral goals. Some traditional affordable housing is clearly needed, but more affordable housing is best delivered by just building a lot more housing in the area.

Question 35. How should we ensure a high standard of housing is built in our area?

Local housing design standards should adopt design principals advocated by groups such as
Createstreets (www.createstreets.com).

Question 36. How should the Local Plan ensure the right infrastructure is provided in line with
development?

The local plan should provide for a rapid transit system, including underground sections to cover the
centre of Cambridge. This can be paid for by taxing the uplift in values from new housing developments.

Space needs to be made available for segregated cycle routes.

All new properties should be built with fibre to the premises internet connections.

Question 37. How should we encourage a shift away from car use and towards more sustainable modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking?

Stop building car-centric development like we do now – make proper provision for cycling.

Question 39. Should we look to remove land from the Green Belt if evidence shows it provides a more sustainable development option by reducing travel distances, helping us reduce our climate impacts?

Yes – the current Green Belt should be reviewed, with all ‘non-special’ areas adjacent to Cambridge
removed from the Greenbelt, to be replaced with protection for important wildlife or green sites, and a green belt further out from Cambridge. All other sites within the newly expanded Green Belt should be considered for housing if they can be delivered with sustainable transport to all required facilities.

Question 41. Do you think the Local Plan should be more flexible about the size of developments allowed within village boundaries (frameworks), allowing more homes on sites that become available?

Yes – villages should be allowed to expand, particularly if it helps them become self-sufficient in local services such as healthcare, shops and community facilities.

Question 42. Where should we site new development? Rank the options below 1-6
1 Edge of Cambridge – Greenbelt – and move the green belt out.
2 Densification of existing urban sites
3 Public transport corridors
4 Disperal – growth of existing villages

Question 43. What do you think about densification?

Hard to achieve in areas already developed, but fine in principal as long as sufficient green open spaces retained.

Question 44. What do you think about developing around the edge of Cambridge on land outside the
Green Belt?

Shouldn't do this and encourage commuting through the Green Belt if there were sites in the current
Greenbelt that were easier to deliver with sustainable transport to the key employment sites.

Question 45. What do you think about developing around the edge of Cambridge in the Green Belt?

The most appropriate area for new development.

Question 46. What do you think about creating planned new settlements?

Councils should focus on delivering the ones already planned – eg why has Northstowe taken so long
when the housing need has been so urgent for so long? – its not as if the delay has resulted in really great design or even adequate cycling infrastructure – unless there is a fundamental change in transport thinking, the new settlements will continue to be car based dormitory towns for Cambridge commuters.

Question 48. What do you think about siting development along transport corridors?

The most sensible way to expand Cambridge beyond the City.