Evaluating regional spatial imaginaries: the Oxford–Cambridge Arc

ABSTRACT

The process of imagination is central to region formation, underpinning the spatial definition and territorial bounding of areas, the development of spatial identity and institutional capacity, and the cultivation of social relations and networks. While recent academic contributions have crystallized certain theoretical dimensions, attempts to evaluate the nature and efficacy of regional spatial imaginaries remain ad hoc. In this paper we derive a general evaluative frame and six associated criteria against which particular regional spatial imaginaries can be appraised. These are then deployed to evaluate two major episodes in the construction of the putative ‘Oxford–Cambridge Arc’ in southern England.

KEYWORD:

• spatial imaginaries
• regionalization
• regional formation
• city-regions
• evaluation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to all interview respondents who participated in the research for this paper, along with Nicholas Miles, Tim Marshall, Peter Headicar, Graham Wood, James Simmie and Elizabeth Wilson.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 For responses to this call, see https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cambridge-Milton-Keynes-Oxford-Phase-1-call-for-evidence-responses.pdf.

2  See note 8 below.

3 The East of England Plan (adopted 2008), the South East Plan (2009) and the East Midlands Plan (2009).

4 The South East Plan (SEERA, 2009, p. 24) argued that the ‘South East performs strongly on the economic level with much of its wealth generation coming from the highly networked information-rich knowledge economy centred in the “Golden Arc” from Bournemouth and Poole and South Hampshire and extending into a Western Crescent taking in Reading and Oxford and onto Milton Keynes to Cambridge’, and the East of England Plan (GOEE, 2008, p. 23) noted that ‘there is potential for economic links to be strengthened between Cambridge and Ipswich and westwards through Bedfordshire to Milton Keynes and Oxford, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc’.

5 The outline of policy development in this section is informed by detailed analysis undertaken by the No Expressway Group (https://www.noexpressway.org/).

6 Interestingly, on 17 December 2014, a combined authority proposal was unveiled by Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire county councils. However, the district councils across the respective counties had not been engaged in associated discussions and the tri-county unitary idea was effectively stillborn.

7 Chancellor Osborne was the key central government actor, though it has been reported that a chance conversation between Lord Wolfson (Chairman of Next) and Prime Minister David Cameron was a starting point here (Smart Growth UK, 2019, p. 4).

8 Detailed reporting of all 79 responses is impossible within the confines of the current paper, but in sum revealed a substantial majority which did not yet recognize the area as a unified economic corridor. Indeed, responses tended to emphasize the diversity of the area rather than its unity, and in some cases identified its important relation to London. However, shared strengths were quite widely perceived within the ‘corridor’ in terms of general business growth, openness to innovation and collaboration, and economic growth potential, together with shared challenges in terms of infrastructure shortfall, housing pressures, environmental sensitivities and lack of institutional foundation. The case for greater emphasis on coordinated, corridor-wide planning and decision-making was often (but not universally) supported, though in support of diverse and conflicting objectives at both local and national scales. Lastly, the question of incorporating adjacent towns and cities was generally viewed positively in terms of transport, infrastructure and spatial planning, with Swindon particularly prominent in this regard, but also looking towards East Anglian cities (Norwich, Peterborough) and Reading in the Thames Valley.

9 In November 2016, HE published the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Strategic Study Stage 3 Report outlining the case for an expressway connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge, and proposing three initial options for a perceived ‘missing link’ between the M1 and M40, to be reviewed in relation to the proposed east–west rail connection. Subsequently, in September 2018, HE produced an extensive Oxford to Cambridge Expressway: Corridor Assessment Report which assessed the suitability for the expressway of three broad corridors between Oxford and Cambridge under seven headings: connectivity, strategic transformation, economic growth, skills and accessibility, planning for the future, environment, and innovation. One corridor (B) was announced as the ‘preferred corridor’, and two associated suboptions were identified for further study: B1 (passing west of Oxford City) and B3 (east of Oxford City) for further study.

10 ‘City Deals’ were introduced by the then UK coalition government in 2011–12 to extend decentralization to the eight largest English cities outside of London, and to foster economic prosperity and growth. A second wave of deals was then negotiated with smaller cities in 2013–14, with Oxford–Oxfordshire the 11th area signed in Wave 2 on 30 January 2014.

11 These were: (1) Daventry/Silverstone–Northampton–Wellingborough–Rushden – in line with the aspirations for a Northamptonshire Arc Mass Transit scheme; (2) Milton Keynes/Bletchley–Marston Vale/Cranfield–Bedford–Sandy; and (3) Aylesbury–Leighton Buzzard–Dunstable–Luton.

12 See https://www.noexpressway.org/.