1 project director professor marcial echenique researcher rob homewood review november 2002...

The Martin CentreCambridge CB2 2EB

1

Cambridge FuturesCambridge Futures

Project DirectorProject Director

Professor Marcial EcheniqueProfessor Marcial EcheniqueResearcherResearcher

Rob HomewoodRob Homewood

Review November 2002Review November 2002Cambridgeshire Draft County Structure PlanCambridgeshire Draft County Structure Plan


2

Cambridge Futures is a not for profit organisation established in 1996 by a group of business leaders, politicians, government officers, professionals and

academics who have been looking at options for the future of Cambridge.

Cambridge Futures Report was published in 1999 alongside a public exhibition, website and videoThe first study of planning options was given the

Royal Town Planning Institute Year 2000 Innovation Award.

The second study Cambridge Futures 2 focuses on transport and is currently underway.


3

Review purposeReview purpose

Cambridge Futures is making submissions to the EiP as an interested party

This section relates to our submission on Issues 5a and 5b and reviews the Deposit Draft Structure Plan from the perspective of the Cambridge Futures Report.

Today’s feedback will be taken on board The final text of the submissions will be made

available.


4

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Does the Plan set out an appropriate strategy for the overall development of the Sub-Region?

Is the infrastructure to support the strategy deliverable?


5

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Definition of the Sub-Region Cambridge Futures welcomes the acceptance of the

Cambridge Sub-region as a planning area The Cambridge Futures definition extends into

neighbouring counties ( Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire) outside the proposed DSP

Is close co-operation with these districts to accommodate growth sustainably possible?


6

Figure 1 Figure 1 Definition Definition of the Sub-of the Sub-Region by Region by Cambridge Cambridge

FuturesFutures


7

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Vision for the Sub-Region providing space for development recognises the area’s

leading role in world research & technology addresses housing commuting problems aggravated by 50

years of restrictive policy tries to balance housing near jobs recognises unique natural environment and built heritage

without curtailing prosperity


8

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Overall Numbers 47,500 new homes 1999-2016 equivalent building Cambridge city in 17 years current build rates would need to increase 55% would not stop cost of living rising (property

prices up 19% to 83%) insufficient densification to contain prices


9

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Growth and Location of Employment 49,200 new jobs 2001 to 2016 mainly hi-tech and higher education plus support services basic sector jobs gravitate towards Cambridge fringes and

trunk corridors service sector jobs increase substantially in Cambridge

centre


10

Figure 2 Figure 2 Employment Employment

in edge in edge locations locations around around

CambridgeCambridge

from P Carolin: from P Carolin: Cambridge Magazine Cambridge Magazine

April 2000April 2000


11

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Location of Housing important to bring houses near jobs for sustainability sequence corresponds to employment area importance firstly within Cambridge by Densification secondly edge city e.g. Northern Fringe, Addenbrookes,

University Farm & Airport thirdly beyond green belt in new settlement or expanded

towns


12

Figure 3 Figure 3 Business Business

Parks in the Parks in the Sub-RegionSub-Region

from Cambridge MIT from Cambridge MIT Institute Urban Design Institute Urban Design Studio 2002Studio 2002


13

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Economic Impact proposed house numbers not sufficient to stabilise

property prices and cost of living national planning policies restrict development location

and therefore push up prices land costs now represent over 50% of housing costs ( up

from 10% before WWII) rising property & transport costs inflate salaries, spiralling

production costs upward (estimated 17% to 66% by 2016) regional competitiveness jeopardised unless productivity

rises over 2% pa


14

Figure 4 Figure 4 Export Costs Export Costs

for the for the OptionsOptions

from Cambridge from Cambridge Futures report 1999Futures report 1999


15

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Social Impact more housing in & around Cambridge reduces social

segregation but only small part of allocation property prices as a proportion of income increased key workers etc. on nationally fixed salaries suffer most &

priced out of city property market cheaper accommodation retreats further away increasing

commuting social housing dwindling proportion of market section 106 agreements limited & inefficient answer


16

Issue 5aIssue 5a

Environmental Impact possibly 24% more trips from 24% more households? Why Only CHUMMS included as improvement to

infrastructure? max. 25% of new housing in this corridor remainder areas have no proper infrastructure provision congestion could increase 200%, waste and pollution Transport Plan Review needed for new public transport,

radial highway capacity, south eastern orbital highway, more park & ride facilities and demand management measures e.g. congestion tolls


17

Figure 5 Figure 5 Housing Cost Housing Cost and Salaries and Salaries 1948-19981948-1998



18

Issue 5a SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTSIssue 5a SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS The adoption of the Cambridge Sub-Region as a planning area is

welcomed.

The proposed strategy goes a long way to recognise the role of Cambridge as a world leader in research and technology.

The overall housing number allocated is probably not sufficient for the estimated growth in demand.

Location of housing recognises the need to be near jobs.

Economic impact:

the cost of living up somewhat and production costs up, due to increased property prices and traffic congestion.

Social impact:

probably marginally improved social mix in the Sub-Region.

Environmental impact

probably severe, especially due to transport congestion and pollution. Insufficient provision for transport infrastructure to support the strategy.


19

Figure 6:Figure 6:

Comparison Comparison of the of the

OptionsOptions



20

Issue 5a ConclusionIssue 5a Conclusion

• reasonable strategy overall in terms of land allocation. • falls short of the optimum for containing property price increases. • would do little to decrease social segregation (and improve housing

affordability) but at least it would not make it worse. • biggest problem is the lack of appropriate infrastructure – especially

transport – to support the strategy.• proposed increase in transport infrastructure from CHUMMS is limited

to one corridor (about a quarter of the Plan). • wishful thinking that no extra transport capacity will be required.

• The County needs to confront this squarely with the help of Central Government and develop an appropriate comprehensive transport infrastructure plan, including a package of public-private funding.


21

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Are the proposals for the distribution of housing within the sub-region appropriate?


22

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Proposed Distribution of Housing DSP equivalent to selection from Cambridge Futures Study Futures analysed impacts of options separately & proposed

combination promoting equity, efficiency & environment DSP selections score well on economic efficiency and

social equity, less so in environmental quality Futures results indicative only of scale & direction of

impacts Min Growth & Necklace options rejected by DSP for poor

economic & social performance despite positive environmental outcomes


23

Figure 7 Figure 7 Housing Housing

Distribution Distribution ComparedCompared

from Cambridge from Cambridge Futures report 1999 & Futures report 1999 & DSP Policy P9/2DSP Policy P9/2

DSP Distribution Camb.City

SouthCambs

EastCambs

Hunts Fenland Total cf CambridgeFuturesOptions

Within built up areaof Camb.

6,500 2,400 8,900 Option 2:Densification

On the edge ofCambridge

6,000 2,000 8,000 Option 4:Green Swap

In a New Settlementat Longstanton/Oakington

6,000 6,000 Option 7:New Town

In Market Towns &Cities

5,500 3,500 6,500 1,500 17,000 Option 5:TransportLinks & Option3: NecklaceDevelopment

Elsewhere 4,100 2,500 1,000 7,600

Total 12,500 20,000 6,000 7,500 1,500 47,500


24

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Location of Housing within the built-up area of Cambridge

c.f. Cambridge Futures

Option 2: Densification


25

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Densification 8900 dwellings only 40% of Futures scenario impact probably less than half Futures predictions least increase in cost of living (19%) as housing located

near jobs relative affordability of housing in Cambridge improves

accessibility (say 5%) to all , good for key workers substantial transport problems from increased population

even considering increased cycling (15%) and public transport(100%)

increased traffic delays, cost, energy waste and pollution


26

Figure 9Figure 9

DensificationDensification: Cost of : Cost of Living Living

ProjectionProjection



27

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Location of Housing in the edge of Cambridge


Option 4: Green Swap


28

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Green Swap 8000 dwellings in same locations as Futures scenario but

fewer ( Airport, Clay Farm, University Farm & N. Fringe) Second lowest cost of living increase (30%) slight decrease in social segregation (2.5%) may help key

worker groups Amongst worst options for congestion housing relatively close to jobs but combination of

increased population & increased travel distances high increases in traffic delays and pollution no green swap in DSP i.e. no compensatory public access


29

Figure 10Figure 10

Green Swap:Green Swap:

Congestion Congestion IndicatorIndicator



30

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Location of Housing in a New Settlement


Option 7: New Town


31

Issue 5bIssue 5b

New Town housing location same as futures scenario but much slower

growth (6000 rather than 22,000 by 2016) Futures showed impacts largely negative everywhere except

locally as jobs mostly outside New Town relatively low cost homes attracts mainly low income

population to New Town distorting social mix St Ives line would improve public transport usage but

proximity to jobs in Cambridge still increases car use (60%) A14 congestion would increase even after CHUMMS smaller scale possibly still causes over 50% increase in

delays and pollution


32

Figure 11Figure 11

New Town:New Town:

Social Group Social Group ChangesChanges



33

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Location of Housing in Market Towns and Rural Locations


Option 5: Transport Links &

Option 3: Necklace Development


34

Issue 5bIssue 5b

Transport Links/ Necklace Development 17000 dwellings in market towns & villages equivalent to

Futures options above (22,000 dwellings total) Cost of living increases around 50% given public transport

availability slight increase in social segregation possible travel times better than other options if public transport

taken up still marked increased congestion, delays and pollution in

Cambridge


35

Figure 12Figure 12

Transport Transport Links:Links:

Rail NetworkRail Network



36

Issue 5b SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTSIssue 5b SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS– The proposed distribution of housing:- represents a selected combination of the options explored by Cambridge

Futures. 8,900 housing units within Cambridge (Densification) contains costs,

improves social equity but increases congestion. 8,000 housing units on the edge of Cambridge (Green Swap) also contains

costs, marginally improves social equity but substantially increases road congestion.

6,000 housing units in a new settlement (New Town) increases costs & social segregation and marginally increases the congestion in Cambridge.

17,000 housing units in market towns and large villages (Transport Links and Necklace) increases costs of production, social segregation but improves travel time only if high quality transport is available.

appears appropriate in terms of economic efficiency and social equity but deficient in terms of environmental quality (insufficient transport capacity provided for new development).


37

Issue 5b Conclusion 1Issue 5b Conclusion 1• proposed distribution of housing points in the right direction in terms of

economic efficiency and social equity• except for new settlement, the distribution tends to limit the increase in

cost of living and improve social mix• overall allocation of dwellings is not sufficient to contain the housing

price increases & is short of the demand predicted for next 15 years• estimated rise in cost of living of the combined options is around 40%. • allocation would improve marginally the mix of socio-economic groups

(easier to accommodate key workers near their jobs).


38

Issue 5b Conclusion 2Issue 5b Conclusion 2• allocation would substantially increase transport congestion. • CHUMMS will help but not with the difficulties within built up

Cambridge. • Traffic delays, time wastage and pollution within built up Cambridge

possibly up over 100%.• It is hoped that traffic forecasts of the combined options, as put forward

by the County, will be available for the Examination in Public.

• increase in pollution is worrying and the reduction of open space can be concern.

• Could maintain green wedges connecting the countryside with the city• should strive to keep the best quality landscape and compensate

(swap) the land taken for development by public access land. • Need to avoid fringe villages being conurbated into the City.


39

Next StepsNext Steps

Consolidation of responsesUpdate if required of submissionsPresentation at the EiPFeedback to Cambridge Futures

1 project director professor marcial echenique researcher rob homewood review november 2002...

Documents

cambridge subregion

study cambridge futures

cambridge futures report

cambridge fringes

cambridge magazine

cambridge centrefigure

cambridge futuresissue

future of cambridge