The government wants to create the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation and there is a formal consultation our views. Many local groups have submitted theirs, for example this from Cambcycle, as well as the City Council. You have until 11:59 tonight (April 1st) to get yours in!
I’ve already written here about my views, but these are the answers I have submitted as an individual – please note that they are not a formal City Council or Labour response.
What do you think about the current delivery of infrastructure and homes in Greater Cambridge?
While Greater Cambridge has experienced constraints in infrastructure (particularly water supply, waste and transport), local planning capability is not the problem. The Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service (GCSPS) is recognised as the most progressive and effective planning authority in the country, having won the RTPI Planning Authority of the Year in 2025.
The consultation documents refer to a6:1 imbalance between job creation and housing supply (41,000 new jobs created between 2011 and 2019) but this historic data does not reflect current reality where job creation has slowed and house building grown. We need accurate and current data to support decision making.
I accept that there is a current imbalance, and addressing this requires granular, local policy innovation such as reclaiming existing housing stock, rather than simply displacing the award-winning local planning team to focus purely on large-scale new builds. The GCDC could work with the local authority to provide the demand of holiday accommodation, housing for young people more and better student housing so that the over 3000 existing city homes used for these purposed can be brought back for family use.
Another core failure is the inconsistent and overstretched sustainable and public transport network in Greater Cambridge. This reduces quality of life and limits access to opportunities. Funding constraints and complicated governance mean that much of the additional cycling infrastructure required is not being built. A clear vision, lines of authority, and increased funding for transport infrastructure is urgently required.
It is well known that the water supply and wastewater systems are failing, preventing new construction and we lack a viable strategy to rectify these critical infrastructures.
Current plans include huge projects to bring new supply from across the region and to build new reservoir. Both have many viability issues and are subject to rising costs. A small trial has started on water retrofitting on Council property which should provide some small leeway on supply. However not enough is being done to decrease the existing usage: most buildings have no water recycling and combined sewers continue to overflow into waterways during heavy rain.
Urgent trials are needed to reduce current potable water consumption including smart water meters, funding of rainwater and grey water recycling, variable pricing after fair use assessments, and investment to remove all rainwater from shared sewers. Mains water should be referred to as drinking water and much lower consumption must be achieved, while using recycled rain and grey water can be increased.
What do you think about the proposal to create a centrally-led urban development corporation (UDC) in Greater Cambridge?
It all depends on how the devco is organised, who it is accountable to, what powers it has, and how effectively it operates. To me, if the government’s justification for a centrally-led UDC is “nationally significant growth,” my stance is that it is equally necessary to deliver “nationally significant resilience”. As part of this a GCDC should adopt a broader definition of success that includes health, accessibility and quality of life alongside economic growth.
A GCDC could play an important role in coordinating development and infrastructure across Greater Cambridge, however the consultation does not yet set out the type of bold, coherent and comprehensive vision for an expanded Cambridge that could garner wide public support.
In general I do not support a top-down model that creates a redundant, parallel control mechanisms. This is particulary true with respect to planning. A centrally-led body risks stalling delivery through local opposition if it lacks democratic consent. Instead, I advocate for an integrated, collaborative model where the GCDC retains planning powers but relies on the existing GCSPS to process all applications and maintain local democratic accountability.
In addition, it should bring with it additional funding that is much-needed to deliver new transport infrastructure. Either the Development Corporation must assume meaningful transport powers from the outset, or transport governance via the relevant Highways Authority and Transport Authority powers in the region must be redesigned to align with the Development Corporation’s geography and responsibilities.
There is also a clear issue around accountability. Current plans indicate that from the outset elected local leaders will be in the minority on the GCDC’s decision-making board. This democratic deficit will increase due to local government reorganisation, after which potentially there might only be one board member who was the leader of a council in the Greater Cambridge area.
I believe that the government shold ensure local voices are heard through their democratically elected representatives on the GCDC’s decision-making board. The Board should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto.
What matters most to you about the future of Greater Cambridge?
As a city councillor for eight years and having been the executive councillor in charge of planning for seven years future resilience is my absolute priority. We must be really honest about the challenges of climate change and resource scarcity and make all our decisions with this in mind.
The that end I believe the future of Cambridge depends on taking an ecosystem-first approach, ensuring water sovereignty, biological restoration, and local food security as priorities. Furthermore, it is critical that we support a diverse foundational economy (including food production, arts, culture, and local building trades) to ensure the region does not become a monoculture dominated solely by science and technology.
Do you have any views on the objectives of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, as set out in the consultation document?
Broadly, the current objectives are not ambitious enough regarding environmental resilience and local inequality. Successful cities are not defined by growth alone; long-term economic success is usually the result of creating places where people can move and thrive easily, which enables them to live well and access opportunity.
I would therefore like to see the following enhancements to the GCDC’s objectives:
Housing: Explicitly mandate the objective to balance the job-to-housing imbalance by 2030, including powers to reclaim existing stock (HMOs and short-term lets) for family use.
Environment: Mandate a statutory target for water neutrality, a consumption cap of 80 litres per person/day by 2030 and then reducing further as water retrofitting is delivered, and a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain.
Infrastructure: Broaden the definition of infrastructure to include an audit and support of food supply chains, and home-grown construction trades. Ensure that infrastructure is in place prior to first occupation of each development site.
Innovation/Economy: Explicitly reward and provide affordable space for circular economy businesses and the foundational economy, not just the tech sector.
What do you think about the proposed boundary of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, as set out in Annex B of the consultation document?
I agree with the proposed administrative boundary because it is identical to the current operating area of the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service (Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire). This geographical alignment strongly supports my proposal for a collaborative model, making it seamless for the existing shared service to act as the delivery agent for the GCDC.
However, the functional boundary should recognise that the high cost and availability of local housing has expanded the travel-to-work area, so a transport strategy must extend further to integrate a rail-based network connecting nodes like Stanstead, Newmarket, Haverhill and Ely, and beyond.
What do you think about the phased approach we have proposed in regard to plan making powers?
I support the approach during phase 1 (2026-2029) of supporting the draft Local Plan rather than making a new plan immediately. The GCSPS has made significant progress, and delaying this to establish new frameworks would hinder delivery. As the GCDC moves into Phase 2 (long-term spatial planning), it must integrate with the democratic oversight of the local authority to ensure long-term stewardship of the region and this may be better achieve by allowing the existing process to continue with input from the GCDC rather than having it taken over.
What do you think about the proposals to give the Development Corporation plan making powers as set out in the consultation document?
If the GCDC is granted plan-making powers, it should also be granted powers of derogation so it can override the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in order to set higher local environmental standards. For example, if national policy caps biodiversity netgGain at 10%, the GCDC should have the explicit legal power to mandate higher percentages within the emerging local plan, along with energy efficiency standards and water consumption limits.
It is clear to me that the GCDC will only succeed if planning and transport decisions are aligned within the organisation and outside it. Either the GCDC must assume meaningful transport powers from the outset, or transport governance in the region must be redesigned to align with the GCDC’s geography and responsibilities. Without this alignment the GCDC risks accelerating development while placing additional pressure on a transport system that is already struggling to cope.
What do you think about the proposals to give the Development Corporation powers to determine planning applications as set out in the consultation document?
While there may be an argument for GCDC to have planning powers over some larger strategic developments I strongly oppose the creation of a rival, parallel planning team.
Having been instrumental in creating the existing sucessful shared planning service I know that stripping major applications will cause a “brain drain” as staff are poached, stunt the career development of local officers, and drain vital fee revenue from the local authority. It also duplicates effort and costs.
Instead, I have proposed a collaborative model under which the GCDCwcould have a separate strategic planning team and be part of a shared planning committee where elected members are in the majority, using the existing Shared Planning Service to process the applications. This model is proven to work (as seen with the Joint Development Management Committee) and will preserve local expertise, protect staff, and maintain developers’ confidence.
In addition the GCDC Board and any planning committee should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto, while local people should be involved in the GCDC‘s plans by way of additional community involvement such as co-creation workshops or a Citizens’ Assembly.
Do you agree with using thresholds for the Development Corporation taking decision making powers? Which minimum thresholds for determining planning applications do you think are appropriate?
Setting strict thresholds (e.g., 250+ homes) risks fragmenting the city’s planning strategy into a two-tier system. The best way to mitigate this risk is to implement the collaborative model described above. If the GCSPS processes applications for both the local authority and the GCDC, it ensures a single, coherent strategy for sites both large and small, retaining democratic accountability across the board.
Do you have any other views on the proposed approach to the Development Corporation’s powers and functions?
Growing a region involves mich more than assessing planning applications. I urge the government to grant the GCDC powers that go beyond standard delivery of regional development priorities.
There needs to be housing market intervention such as powers to actively reclaim existing homes (holiday lets, HMOs) and develop build-to-rent cohousing.
It may be time to create”Transport for Cambridge”, a new body with powers to bring rail and bus networks under public control, develop a strategic five-hub rail network, and subsidize commuter ticket prices by 70%. Transport and planning must be aligned.
And it would be helpful to have the authority to audit food and construction supply chains to build regional resilience and implement corrective measures.
What do you think about proposed local representation on the Development Corporation board, as set out in the consultation document?
It is woefully inadequate. Simply inviting Council Leaders to sit on the Board is insufficient for true democratic integration and as noted the number of leaders will be reduced when the unitary authority is in place. A top-down model risks a severe democratic deficit. Operational Integration is required. For example by adopting the collaborative model for planning applications and using the existing Shared Planning Service to process applications, democratic oversight and community engagement remain embedded in the day-to-day work of the corporation, rather than being relegated to high-level board meetings.
The GCDC must work alongside existing local authorities, rather than above them, and enable local people to continue to have their say on how the place where they live and work is shaped.
What do you think about the board having expertise in areas such as planning, property development, design, environment, finance, and infrastructure delivery?
While these areas of expertise are necessary, they reflect “business as usual.” To meet the challenges of climate change and national security, the Board must also include specific expertise in active travel, ecological resilience, local food policy and supply chains, circular economics, and community/youth engagement.
It is also essential that the Board has strong local representation so that members have lived experience of Greater Cambridge’s challenges.
Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for anyone with a relevant protected characteristic?
There is a real danger that, as in so many other areas, a dash for simple-minded economic growth will lead to outcomes which privilege those who are already privileged. We can avoid this, if we care enough.
If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, may be impacted and how
As this consultation covers almost all aspects of life and work in the region it is reasonable to assume that all groups will be affected.
Is there anything that could be done to maximise benefits or address any concerns you have identified?
The best way to ensure that the needs of those with protected characteristics are properly taken into account is to have a democratically elected and representative authority and not one appointed centrally. If the GCDC is designed in a way that will address the democratic deficit in current plans then the people directly affected will fix this. If it is not then no degree of paternalism will correct it.
As an absolute minimum the Board should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto.