Opinion | Edward Leigh

The government’s plan to create a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (GCDC) adds further turmoil to the already massive upheaval that local government reform will bring in 2028.

The GCDC will be the planning authority for all major developments in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, the same footprint as the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service (GCSPS) and the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP). It will be like a supersized GCP, with powers to allocate land for development, compulsorily acquire land, and decide what may be built on it.

It will take decision-making powers away from the GCSPS for all the large housing sites allocated in the new Local Plan, from Cambourne North to Grange Farm, and every significant commercial building – even the higher threshold proposed is one-sixth the size of the replacement for Kett House on the junction of Hills Road and Station Road in Cambridge.

Instead of decisions being made by elected and accountable local councillors, they will be made by “a planning committee of… technical experts in planning, urban design and infrastructure delivery, as well as local representation”. If “local representation” means a few councillors and the mayor, how answerable will they be to the residents they will be representing?

Development at scale requires major new transport infrastructure and services, and a complete rethink about how people access Cambridge city centre. Planning and delivering these will still be down to the Combined Authority, the county council and its successor authority in Greater Cambridge. The government is well aware of the failures of the transport authorities and utilities to support growth over the past decade: “Infrastructure delivery in Greater Cambridge has not kept pace with the provision of new homes.” Which is probably why the GCDC proposal contains a threat: “As a backstop, transport powers can be transferred to the Development Corporation, where deemed necessary.”

Two reports last week to the South Cambs cabinet acknowledge the transport authorities’ failures. The report recommending adoption of a Community Infrastructure Levy (a tax on development based on standardised rates) instead of Section 106 (site-specific planning obligations to deliver or pay for infrastructure and services) cites as a justification, “[South Cambs District] Council and [Cambridgeshire] County Council as Highway Authority are not securing sufficient funding for planned or future strategic transport projects through the existing S106 process.”

The other report responds to Cambridge Past, Present & Future’s challenge to the planning authority’s draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document on why it did not seek to secure more funding from development in the way that Hertfordshire districts and boroughs do (at a rate of around £10,000 per dwelling): “Through engagement with Cambridgeshire County Council and the Combined Authority, the councils are working to get to this position through the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy that will set out the transport infrastructure required to support growth across the area over the short to long-term. The strategy, and its supporting evidence, is required to secure contributions (either S106 or CIL) as suggested. In the absence of the strategy, contributions towards strategic transport infrastructure will need to be determined on a development-by- development basis, having regard to a development’s assessed impacts.”

Since 2017, the region has had three Local Transport Plans, with another in the making, including a new Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy. Meanwhile, the county council and the GCP are still delivering the Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, which was adopted in 2014. Of the more than £250m the GCP has spent to date, almost £100m is on schemes that are not fit for current needs, yet alone the future.

The Combined Authority is preparing a plan for light rail but, with no land safeguarded for it, the challenges of building lines and stations in Cambridge city centre are huge. In the shorter term, the Combined Authority plans to introduce bus franchising. But it has yet to identify a large source of annual funding to support a large expansion in the quality and coverage of services. The mayor has ruled out an increase to the mayoral council tax precept and any form of road or congestion charging. That probably leaves just a workplace parking levy, which was strongly opposed by business lobby groups when the GCP considered it.

Development will release much more money, from land value uplift and government investment, for infrastructure that could benefit everyone. But delivery will be shared between a failing democratic system and a largely unaccountable technocratic one. That is deeply concerning, especially as there is no coherent vision for the region, yet alone one that most people understand and buy into.