Politics and growth
There’s an irony in the fact that growth is the key element of the government’s Plan for Change, and yet perhaps the main obstacle to growth may end up being politics.
In conversation with Planning and Development InSite, Paul Belton, Partner in the firm’s Cambridge office, reflects on whether the government’s growth aspirations, which focus on Cambridge, are achievable in the current political climate.
Growth needs certainty – but politics rarely provides it
Achieving both physical and economic growth, in terms of new homes and places of work, is a political necessity for government. Accordingly, high expectations are being placed on Cambridge as a national engine of growth: the government has allocated £10 million to setting up the Cambridge Growth Company to “develop an ambitious plan for the city” which includes the construction of further commercial and laboratory spaces; high quality affordable homes, in the places that people want to live; new forms of sustainable transport drawing on existing connectivity for both cycling and walking, and the means of accelerating delivery of water infrastructure across Cambridgeshire.
When the funding announcement was made in the Autumn Budget last year it was met with considerable enthusiasm, but following economic and political uncertainty, together with proposed changes to local government structures and to the planning system, concerns remain about the timing of any delivery.
“The government is right to identify Cambridge as having the potential to fulfil its growth ambitions,” says Paul. “The city is well placed geographically and appeals to new residents across the demographic spectrum; land values are usually high enough to make housing development viable, and the city, thanks to its several science parks and variety of successful businesses, shows potential to build on its already considerable economic success. The difficulty will be to deliver growth quickly, particularly bearing in mind established constraints such as the Green Belt, the historic underinvestment in public transport within the city and an increasing issue with water security. While none of these problems are insurmountable, each requires a long-term solution and those proposed, such as new guided busways (e.g. Cambourne to Cambridge) and a new reservoir, will take years to achieve and are not universally popular. Six months on from the initial announcement, more and more people are asking a very pertinent question – will this government be around long enough to see its vision realised?
Paul highlights that achieving sustainable development at scale takes decades, and there is little regard for five-year electoral terms. “Major housing schemes, strategic infrastructure, and spatial visions don’t align easily with the political appetite for quick wins. But the current political impetus will certainly help in speeding up development in Cambridge and the wider area. It’s encouraging, for example, to see a Direction by the Secretary of State which will push the proposed Fens Reservoir Project through the planning system under the DCO process. But while this can potentially save time, we’re still talking many years – it won’t be providing drinking water to new homes before the next general election and perhaps even the one after that.”
A fragmented political picture
The local elections in May demonstrate the extent to which the political map is changing – locally in this instance, but potentially nationally. For the first time, the Labour and the Conservative parties jointly accounted for less than half of the national vote share (at 20% and 15% respectively). Meanwhile, Reform UK, with 30%, surged ahead, gaining seats and momentum across the country.
As Paul explains, some political fragmentation is evident in Cambridge, which finds itself under a complex mix of political leadership. “The City Council is Labour-run, while Cambridgeshire County Council has switched to Liberal Democrat. At the same time, our Labour Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has been replaced by a Conservative. And we cannot ignore the fact that Reform UK has increased its number of seats on the County Council from zero to 10.
“The existing multi-layered governance arrangements risk creating real friction in decision-making. The city needs a shared vision to align infrastructure, investment and housing delivery into a coherent strategy, but political divergence at different levels of government risks pulling in different directions.
“Added to that, some will argue that the Cambridge Growth Company creates an additional layer of decision-making. And the rumour is that the new Mayor would like to see the Growth Company – a potential future development corporation to oversee growth – scrapped altogether.”
There is more to come on local government re-organisation and on devolution in this region and decisions will need to be made to ensure that structures are simplified if new delivery is to be achieved in a meaningful timeframe.
Infrastructure first – but who pays?
Before the significant number of new homes and employment premises are delivered, a pressing need for infrastructure – from water and power to transport – must be addressed.
“The government is unlikely to throw huge sums of money at Cambridge on the basis that the city’s land values should, in theory, support viable development,” says Paul. “But if that’s the assumption, then new delivery models are essential. The Cambridge Growth Company provides the opportunity to unlock strategic infrastructure funding without heavy long-term reliance on the Treasury.”
That said, central government has already intervened in situations in which infrastructure constraints are limiting growth. One example is the new reservoir; another is a new wastewater treatment plant which had delayed the Local Plan and the major growth area around Cambridge North station.
Energy constraints are also an issue. While Cambridge has not yet faced the power supply pressures seen in other regions, Paul warns that the city is not immune. “We haven’t seen large-scale data centre applications here yet, but they are probably inevitable given the projected increase in employment, especially in science and technology,” he says. “Power capacity will increasingly be a determining factor in major applications.”
Planning at the pace of politics?
The recent Planning Reform Working Paper: Speeding Up Build Out draws attention to and aims to address the lag between planning permission and delivery. Its recommendations, however, haven’t gone down well in the industry. “Private developers won’t build faster than the market allows,” says Paul. “And there are many more issues at play which aren’t recognised in this report. While its objectives are commendable, the report just goes to show how very much out of step political expectations are with the development sector.”
Paul adds that infrastructure creates further delay. “The Cambridge Growth Company has appointed consultants to ‘prepare a vision, supported by a robust evidence base that will underpin a long-term growth strategy for Greater Cambridge.’ That process alone could take at least a year. It’s hard to see how what remains of the five-year government term could cover the full cycle of evidence gathering, delivery planning and funding, let alone deliver visible results, and there is no certainty that an incoming Government of a different political persuasion will toe the line.”
Short-termism in a single-term government?
There is a growing view in the country that Labour may have no more than a single parliamentary term – too short a time to make a meaningful impact. Public polling remains fragile, and statements from Keir Starmer about seeking re-election in 2029 have not silenced speculation that this could be a one-term administration.
“This was very much the mood at UKREiiF,” reflects Paul. “Following local election results, developers and promoters are increasingly seeing the current political climate as short-term. They’re prioritising quick wins and looking for fast-moving sites. There’s a sense that the window for action is narrowing.”
Paul stresses that housing delivery doesn’t respond well to compressed political cycles. “Even with political will and capital investment – and there’s not a lot of either – the delivery pipeline takes time. The system is simply not built for rapid acceleration.”
A template for growth?
Cambridge is widely viewed as a test case. Cambridge Growth Company chair Peter Freeman has confirmed that the city is being positioned as a template for how to scale up delivery elsewhere. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has even suggested the model could be replicated in Oxford and other high-growth corridors.
“Cambridge is uniquely well-placed,” says Paul. “Cambridge’s opportunities – and its challenges too – can’t be cut and pasted across the country.”
Paul adds that strong viability can disguise underlying infrastructure stress. “Just because a scheme is financially viable doesn’t mean it’s deliverable,” he says. “The Fens Reservoir project being called in under NSIP rules shows how seriously the government sees the issue of water infrastructure, and how central it is to unlock growth in this region.”
Clashing priorities, clashing authorities
The recent election of Paul Bristow as Conservative Mayor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough marks a change in tone on key issues – most notably transport. For example, in a move that puts him at odds with the Labour-led City Council, Bristow has controversially stated that he wishes the recently pedestrianised Mill Road Bridge to be reopened to cars.
“This sets the stage for potential conflict,” says Paul. “The Mayor is responsible for the spatial framework – but that will need buy-in from multiple authorities, and it’s not clear how his agenda aligns with that of the Cambridge Growth Company, or with local plans.”
Paul sees risks in the political misalignment. “It’s difficult to deliver city-wide infrastructure if there’s no shared vision. When key political players disagree on strategic priorities, progress stalls.”
So can growth be achieved?
Despite the challenges, Paul remains cautiously optimistic but emphasises that serious growth will require political maturity, a new structure of local government, and a break from short-termism.
“Growth is achievable,” says Paul. “But only with political consistency and long-term funding models.”
He adds that the Cambridge example offers lessons, but also limitations. “What this city needs – and what others will need too – is a long-term, cross-party consensus on infrastructure delivery. That might require new governance models or more central coordination. But above all, it needs patience – timescales that look beyond the next election.”
