Cambridge Futures

1
Cambridge Futures

• Project Director
• Professor Marcial Echenique
• Researcher
• Rob Homewood
• Review November 2002
• Cambridgeshire 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 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.
• Todays feedback will be taken on board
• The final text of the submissions will be made
  available.

4
Issue 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 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 Definition of the Sub-Region by
Cambridge Futures
7
Issue 5a

• Vision for the Sub-Region
• providing space for development recognises the
  areas 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 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 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 Employment in edge locations around
Cambridge from P Carolin Cambridge Magazine
April 2000
11
Issue 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 Business Parks in the Sub-Region from
Cambridge MIT Institute Urban Design Studio 2002
13
Issue 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 Export Costs for the Options from
Cambridge Futures report 1999
15
Issue 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 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 Housing Cost and Salaries
1948-1998 from Cambridge Futures report 1999
18
Issue 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 Comparison of the Options from
Cambridge Futures report 1999
20
Issue 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 5b

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

22
Issue 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 Housing Distribution Compared from
Cambridge Futures report 1999 DSP Policy P9/2
24
Issue 5b

• Location of Housing within the built-up area of
  Cambridge
• c.f. Cambridge Futures
• Option 2 Densification

25
Issue 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 9 Densification Cost of Living
Projection from Cambridge Futures report 1999
27
Issue 5b

• Location of Housing in the edge of Cambridge
• c.f. Cambridge Futures
• Option 4 Green Swap

28
Issue 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 10 Green Swap Congestion Indicator from
Cambridge Futures report 1999
30
Issue 5b

• Location of Housing in a New Settlement
• c.f. Cambridge Futures
• Option 7 New Town

31
Issue 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 11 New Town Social Group Changes from
Cambridge Futures report 1999
33
Issue 5b

• Location of Housing in Market Towns and Rural
  Locations
• c.f. Cambridge Futures
• Option 5 Transport Links
• Option 3 Necklace Development

34
Issue 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 12 Transport Links Rail Network from
Cambridge Futures report 1999
36
Issue 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 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 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 Steps

• Consolidation of responses
• Update if required of submissions
• Presentation at the EiP
• Feedback to Cambridge Futures