An Introduction To The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation

I recently had the privilege of spending six months on secondment to the Cambridge Growth Company as head of legal.

The secondment coincided with a pivotal phase in the structuring of a long-term delivery vehicle to accelerate the Cambridge growth agenda, culminating in Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) launching its public consultation on the proposed Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (GCDC).

As work to establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation is in train, Christopher would like to share his perspective on the rationale for GCDC and why he believes we should all be invested in its success both locally and nationally.

Growth under constraint

The Government’s decision to proceed with the GCDC is not merely a local planning story dressed up as national strategy. It is a test of the Government’s ability to build institutions to deliver growth where the economic upside is obvious, but the practical constraints are severe.

In Greater Cambridge, ministers see one of the country’s most powerful innovation economies being throttled by familiar bottlenecks: expensive housing, clogged transport, water scarcity, wastewater limitations and patchy infrastructure.

The success of Greater Cambridge has turned into strain even with an award-winning local planning authority and strong growth ambitions in Greater Cambridge backed by local politicians, our universities and the business community. Homes are being consented more quickly than in other parts of the country but with rapid employment growth a step change is still needed; The current system has not been able to plan, finance and deliver the infrastructure and strategic sites at the scale and pace needed to support the growth required to unlock the enhanced contribution Greater Cambridge can make to UK Plc.

Why a centrally led Urban Development Corporation?

The Government’s has stated that a centrally led Urban Development Corporation can provide the stability, capability, powers and resources needed both to coordinate complex infrastructure delivery and to support sustainable growth, affordability and skills outcomes in a high growth economy.

That model brings the following advantages:

• With a laser focus on sustainable and strategic growth, GCDC will not be distracted by the myriad issues of running a local government and will focus only on strategic sites and infrastructure delivery which meets those objectives.

• Aligning transport, utilities, housing, investment and placemaking so schemes do not proceed in isolation offers the best outcome for its current and future residents.

• A long-term plan, less impacted by political cycles. There will not be the risk of wholesale changing of the guard following local elections.

• Convening powers to encourage collaborative working across sectors, backed by a broad mandate “to secure growth “and accompanied by both development management powers and powers to acquire (including by CPO), develop and dispose of land.

• Central Government backing and access giving:

  • Confidence to investors.

  • Public funding to unlock institutional and international capital.

  • National accountability for success.

The main drawback to a centrally led Urban Development Corporation model is the dilution of local accountability both because of central government leadership and the appointed rather than elected board. This “democratic deficit” will be mitigated by local politicians becoming board members and the Government requiring GCDC to “involve communities and local organisations at formative stages from making decisions to developing plans” but cannot be entirely eradicated without losing the benefit of allowing GCDC to be less impacted by local politics.

GCDC: Personal reflections

Greater Cambridge means a lot to me; it is where I live and work. Many of the clients Christopher works most closely with, such as the University of Cambridge and Railpen, invest heavily in major local projects. It is his community and so, like so many of his colleagues at Mills & Reeve in Cambridge, Christopher is fully invested in its success.

Having worked with CGC in its early stages, I'm excited to see the work started by the Cambridge Growth Company, be taken on through a statutory body. It’s building a strong team quickly with a mix of government, development corporation and local experience.

Local stakeholders have already seen Peter Freeman’s passionate mission led approach as chair and Christopher knows that a lot of hard work has gone in to developing the initial strategies and evidence base for future growth.

GCDC will have skills to plan and, with strong backing from the Treasury, they will have the finance to deliver. With local support, they have every chance of enabling Cambridge to build on what already makes it great and evolve into Europe’s most liveable and innovative city.

Wider implication: A model for national success

Greater Cambridge is not an isolated policy experiment; it’s part of a wider attempt to create institutions capable of delivering growth where the national economic upside is highest.

A development corporation is anticipated for Greater Oxford, and this model can be applied to the Governments’ programme of new towns, the Northern Growth Corridor and beyond.

GCDC will be the trailblazer for a wider programme, a test market for a new model of British growth governance – and business, investors, policymakers and good citizens across the country should be invested in its success.