Azara Blog: Cambridgeshire Horizons open meeting

Date published: 2005/06/08

Cambridgeshire Horizons (CH) had their first open meeting tonight. They are responsible for seeing the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan (which specifies what is going to be built, where, and related issues) implemented over the next ten years or so. As you would expect from such a meeting, the people attending were the usual suspects, in particular loads of politicians and people representing special interest groups. And in Cambridge special interest groups always means cyclists (always way over-represented in such events) and railway enthusiasts.

David Trippier (once upon a time a Tory MP) is the chair of CH. He and Stephen Catchpole, the chief executive of CH, gave Powerpoint presentations. The CH strap line appears to be "driving forward sustainable communities" and that immediately tells you the politically correct complexion of what is going on. Having said that, at least Trippier seems to have his head screwed on. And the task at hand is daunting.

The Cambridge region is supposed to have 47500 new homes built between 1999 and 2016. Between 1999 and today around a quarter of that total, 11629, have been built. Well we are over a third along the way between 1999 and 2016, so the current build rate of around 2000 homes per annum needs to be nearly doubled (soon) in order to meet the target.

That depends crucially on getting infrastructure in place, which requires massive funding by central government. Apparently right now the deficit in forseen funding is around 2.2 billion pounds (almost certain to go up), with around half of that down to transport. And Trippier stated that the most crucial bit of development was the upgrading of the A14, with the dualing of the A428 a close second. Wow, what a shock for someone to state that. The usual Cambridge ruling elite seem to think that putting in a few cycle paths and persecuting car drivers will sort Cambridge transport. But Trippier is a relative newcomer to Cambridge, so not yet infected with Cambridge middle class provincialism.

The new build will be split roughly a third for infill and sites less than 100 units (14900 to be exact), a third for sites over 100 units excluding Northstowe and the Cambridge Fringe development (16870 to be exact) and a third for Northstowe and the Cambridge Fringe (15730 to be exact). Northstowe is the proposed new town near Longstanton on and around the disused Oakington airbase (which is allegedly brownbelt, but is mostly green and is indeed more green than most of the surrounding area, which is industrial agriculture). The Cambridge Fringe areas are the proposed new developments at Arbury Camp (next to the A14), the Histon Road - Huntingdon Road fields, the fields near Addenbrooke's, and the university land between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road, all in the short term, and Cambridge Airport in the longer term (yes, the city is still stupidly asking one of its major employers to get lost).

Apparently as well as the 47500 new homes we are going to get 50000 new jobs. If they say so. Trippier said he didn't want Cambridge to just build houses for London commuters, but certainly a lot of the houses and flats recently built in Cambridge city centre are full of London commuters, and it's hard to see that changing. Trippier wants houses for locals, including the "indigenous" population (such quaint terminology). (And needless to say, not that many people have deep roots in Cambridge, which is about the best thing about the city.)

After the presentations there was a question and answer session, when Trippier and Catchpole were joined by Peter Studdert, Director for Sustainable Communities for CH (dreadful title, so you know you are already in trouble). Most of the questions were asked by politicans and special interest groups. The politicians in particular seemed to be doing nothing but posing, since they already knew the answers to the questions they asked. Issues addressed:

What about water consumption and flooding? Well, apparently the government is going to introduce rules controlling water consumption in houses. So more control freakery. And Studdert stated that "only" 2% of water consumption was for drinking, and 35% for flushing the toilet, as if somehow that was relevant. (If we are only allowed to do things that are strictly necessary for survival then 99.99% of our existence disappears.) And on flooding apparently (big) new developments will need to appraise for that.
What about rail instead of buses (e.g. the proposed guided bus route parallel to the A14, which might end up as the biggest white elephant to hit Cambridge)? There is supposed to be a new railway station at the Chesterton sidings, but the proposed one at Addenbrooke's seems to be not happening, so why not. Well, the stock response was that this is the responsibility of the SRA and Network Rail, not CH.
What about proper cycling routes to the villages? It is a bit silly the lack of cycling paths to the villages, given how dangerous the roads are, but this is no doubt because they are very expensive considering how few people would use them (not many people are willing to cycle five miles or more one way to work). Trippier made the unfortunate mistake of mentioning that CH were encouraging recreational cycling (including at the proposed new rowing lake near Waterbeach). Well, ok, recreational cycling is interesting, but the question was about cycling to work, and one of the other cyclists got slightly upset at Trippier for his answer.
What about housing for locals rather than for London commuters and buy-to-let investors? Much of the new housing is so-called affordable (it's all relative), and Trippier mentioned that the buyers in that sector could be controlled by the council, but that the remaining, "open market", housing had no such controls. He said that for an "affordable" house they could make sure that someone who just arrived in Cambridge would not be able to buy it. Well, maybe he is already suffering from Cambridge middle class provincialism. Imagine you're a new lecturer, who gets paid rubbish by the university, and you arrive in Cambridge, only to be told you aren't eligible for housing that other, allegedly more worthy, people are. Rather pathetic, and hopefully that is not the real intent. (London commuters are a different story. Although that is almost impossible to control as well, since one partner might be a commuter and the other a local worker.)
A Labour city councillor suggested Waterbeach as deserving a train station upgrade, and that more housing should go there instead of on Cambridge Airport. Apparently there will be around 10000 homes on the airport site, and you can just imagine the mess that will create on the roads in the area. Newmarket Road and Coldham's Lane are already a mess, thanks to the efforts of the local council. At this point Studdert descended into the surreal, suggesting that maybe this wouldn't be a problem "since oil will run out in 25 years so there will be no cars". Well, give that man a sanity check (firstly he's probably wrong about oil, and secondly there are alternatives). He then went on to extol the high density build strategy currently flavour of the month amongst the UK urban planning elite. High density builds are the slums of the future.
What about the Cam, can it cope with more people? Get serious.
A LibDem county councillor asked about the east - west rail link and the Milton sewage farm. Obvious posing, he knows full well the east - west rail link has nothing to do with CH. The Milton Road sewage farm (next to Cowley Road) is supposed to be moved. Apparently the posh people of Cambridge don't like the smell, but do not care if the people next to any new site have to suffer as a result (NIMBYism). Well a recent study concluded that the amount the land is worth is 100 million pounds less than the move would cost. That's around 1000 pounds per Cambridge resident and who would be willing to cough that up to pay for the move (not even those who live nearby, probably).
Why do developers have a representative on the CH board, isn't there a possible conflict of interest? No, the board advises, it does not execute. Developers are part of the solution, they have expertise, and nothing will get built without them.
What about all this alleged new employment? Will there actually be jobs for all these new people and where will these be? Why are we chucking out Marshalls Airport (one of the largest employers in the city) and replacing it with all that housing, are people just going to have to get in cars to go to work? Well more surreal moments from Studdert. It is the weird belief of the ruling elite that if you put shops and offices somewhere near housing then people will walk to work. Unfortunately it is no longer the 19th century. Most jobs in Cambridge are high skill, and most high skill people do not live next to their workplace, because the skills are so specialised and there are other considerations (e.g. partners who work, etc.). It seems that the Cambridge ruling elite are going to try to force the people who live in the new "affordable" housing to work nearby. Well that might solve the "problem" on day one but it will not solve it on day one thousand. People move jobs. The UK ruling elite need to be injected with a healthy dose of common sense.
What about section 106 (the law which means that councils can force developers to hand over some money for infrastructure development)? Why not encourage developers to be pro-active and offer money up front? Well that might seem to make sense but why would a developer want to do that? They want to hand over money as late as possible. Tescos has been on Newmarket Road for some time now and the bridge they are supposed to pay for is still only on the drawing board.
The university is too powerful, there should be "more" democracy, which apparently means a unitary Greater Cambridge Authority. This chap looked like he was going to talk on for ages but was cut off after a few minutes. Needless to say this has nothing to do with CH. But it's obvious that Cambridge would be non-existant (except for a few peasants) were it not for the university, which is why it is so powerful.
What about a Muslim community centre? All down to money (surprise).
A (Tory?) county councillor complained about the extra housing and cost that were now in the structure plan relative to what had been originally envisioned (all the fault of central government). Trippier then launched an astonishing attack on the Department of Transport, saying it was "a law unto itself" and the "policy is near to chaos". No doubt true (that's what happens when you put a bunch of civil servants in charge of anything). Then Catchpole said he didn't want to be rude, but the questioner and his fellow politicians had signed off on the structure plan, and the only responsibility of CH was to implement it.
A Cambridge city council bureaucrat asked about Quality of Life. Blah, blah, blah. (Fill in your favourite politically correct phrases.)
A LibDem city councillor then posed some more, asking about more money for cyclists (surprise), when she knew full well what the answer was (maybe; and Catchpole pointed out she was even involved with a funding application on that score).
A Cambridge county council bureaucrat then asked about Quality of Life. Blah, blah, blah. Trippier did point out, at this point, that although some people opposed expansion, 11000 homes had already been added in the last six years and probably nobody even noticed it happening (much). (Well, ignoring the massive building program on Hills Road near the railway line.)

Nobody asked the politically incorrect questions:

Will the proposed new Chesterton train station have decent car access? (Otherwise nobody more than a mile from it in Cambridge will use it because the links will be better to the main station.) Ditto for the possible new Addenbrooke's train station.
What improvements will there be for car drivers (besides the A14 and A428 upgrades)? (They are the majority but the Cambridge ruling elite treat them like scum.)
Will developers have a complete stranglehold on new housing, or will some part of each (big) site be reserved for self build? Will any new house have a decent garden? Will any new house be decent? (It's hard to attract world-class talent when the best you have to offer is a cardboard shack.)
Will any big retail centre be allowed away from the centre of Cambridge? (Almost certainly not, since the Cambridge ruling elite have a vested interest in forcing all shopping to be in Cambridge itself. And the NIMBYs who run the villages might also prefer that policy.)

The meeting was over in two hours. Not really very consequential.

_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com. For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com (replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").