1 / 39

Cambridge Futures

Cambridge Futures. Project Director Professor Marcial Echenique Researcher Rob Homewood Review November 2002 Cambridgeshire Draft County Structure Plan.

skyla
Download Presentation

Cambridge Futures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. • Today’s 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 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 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

More Related