![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
Debates around the purpose of green belts arise regularly in England. The aim of this paper is to contribute to this debate by examining the way in which pressures to review green belt policy have mounted at the local level. The paper evaluates the way that planning policy in the Cambridge sub-region has shifted in emphasis to reflect changing national directives and in response to localized growth pressures. Focusing upon the University of Cambridge's proposed urban extension, the paper demonstrates the way that this key stakeholder's needs have taken precedence, outweighing green belt designation.
Notes
1. Central Government's Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (PPG2), published first in January 1995 and amended in March 2001 (DETR, 2000), sets out the five main purposes: (1) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; (2) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; (3) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (4) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and (5) to assist in urban regeneration. The fourth purpose is the most important in the Cambridge context and is the focus of this paper (ODPM, 2001).
2. At present, general policies controlling development in the English countryside (principally in the Government's Planning Policy Statement 7; ODPM, 2004) apply with equal force in green belts. In addition, there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in green belts, with the Government's Town and Country (Green belt) Direction 2005 further clarifying arrangements and criteria for refusing applications for planning permission for inappropriate development in green belts. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Citation2007), for instance, called for green belt land to be set aside only in truly exceptional circumstances of development need (ODPM, 2005).
3. The CPRE (2007, 2008) in their Briefing Notes argue that, between 1997 and 2005, 45, 250 new homes were built on green belt land. Since May 2006, 48 planning applications involving development in green belts have been permitted, which resulted in 450 hectares of green belt land being built on. They estimated that around 10, 000 acres (4, 200 hectares) of green belt land is at risk from proposals in the government's draft regional plans. Land from the Cambridge green belt is included in this national estimate.
4. Independent Planning Inspectors, acting as an executive agency for the government, examine all development plan documents that local authorities in England prepare. Representations from the different stakeholders are taken into account during this examination process. The authority must make the changes recommended by the inspector in order to adopt the planning document. This process is highlighted in the final section of this paper.
5. The Cambridgeshire Development Study (July 2009) clearly demonstrates the stark job/housing imbalances within the city. Cambridge's population in 2007 was estimated at 120, 000, with 114, 000 jobs based within the city boundary and only 45% of them taken up by its residents. The study projects Cambridgeshire's net employment growth (2001– 2021) to be 75, 400, with 69% of this growth projected for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. They suggest that difficulties will remain in diverting this growth and economic prosperity to the other districts in the county (East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and Huntingdonshire), particularly their market towns.
6. The role that planning policy played in supporting this high-tech cluster through selective management strategies is discussed in the second section of this paper.
7. This hierarchical English planning system, involving the reconciliation of often competing priorities between different stakeholders, will be discussed in the Cambridge context. Regional planners have to take into account national policy, such as PPG2, and an assessment of local needs when formulating their Regional Spatial Strategy. The Structure Plan translates this strategy to a county level and Local Plans to the district level. Following changes in national legislation, Structure Plans are no longer prepared and Local Plans are being replaced by statutory Local Development Frameworks, including Area Action Plans (see final section of this paper) (ODPM, 2004a).
8. The CPRE's Briefing Notes provide an up-to-date overview of the planning battles occurring over green belt land in each authority across England, including the Universities of York, Bristol, Bath and Oxford's expansion plans. The CPRE's local campaign groups also document the details of these disputes on their websites.
9. The government made available £610 million to the four growth areas (of which the Thames Gateway accounted for £446 million) over 3 years for land assembly, brownfield site reclamation, establishing new partnership-based delivery mechanisms, developing affordable housing and providing local infrastructure (ODPM, 2003).
10. Cambridgeshire Horizons was established by Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council to manage the delivery of Cambridgeshire's growth strategy, ensuring projects are delivered on time, on budget and to the highest possible standards. Its Board comprises a cross-section of 20 public and private stakeholders within the county, including the university's Pro Vice Chancellor (which again reiterates its importance within city politics). The Board is supported by the Joint Strategic Growth Implementation Committee, who comprises members of the county and district councils (Cambridgeshire Horizons, Citation2010).
11. Cambridge Preservation Society has been, in particular, at the heart of the city's ‘Quality of Growth Charter’ debate. Interestingly, to reposition itself as a powerful influential voice in shaping the city's growth, the society re-launched itself as ‘Cambridge Past, Present and Future’ society (CPPF) on 7 September 2009 at a well attended public meeting in the City Council's Guildhall. This ‘call to arms’ was to alter perceptions that they were anti-change, but instead their mission is to ‘respect the past, enjoy the present and influence the future’ (Chairman of CPPF). Senior representatives from the university and Cambridgeshire Horizons joined them on the podium, stating their ‘common purpose’ and that CPPF as ‘a sympathetic and understanding ally’ (University Registry) and ‘a critical friend—rebranding itself to focus on the future and cementing our constructive dialogue’ (Chief Executive, Cambridgeshire Horizons)
12. The government recognizes the contribution that universities make to the national economy through education and research as well as innovation, which stems from them and from their relationships with the commercial world. Its aim is therefore to increase funding for R&D to 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product by 2014 and to increase public-sector R&D funding available to universities in real terms year on year. The University of Cambridge receives the largest amount of research grant funding from the Research Council of any UK university, with it being UK's leading research university and ranked normally first in league tables of all European universities.
13. Green belts under threat in other university towns include York, where the university expansion entails the release of 117 hectares of green belt land to accommodate 1, 150 dwellings. Bristol and Bath green belt has plans for a 12 hectare university expansion to accommodate 27, 500 dwellings, airport and port expansion. Oxford green belt is also undergoing a boundary review to accommodate 4, 000 new dwellings (CPRE, 2007, 2008).
14. The University of Cambridge employed 8, 722 staff in 2006 (Cambridge City Council & South Cambridgeshire District Council, 2009). A measure of the considerable importance of the university to the national and regional economies is provided in a report by Library House (Citation2006), which estimated that if the University of Cambridge did not exist, the impact of the loss of its expenditure and employment over the next 10 years would require the replacement of a net present value of £21.2 billion and 77, 000 new jobs regionally, and £4.8 billion and 10, 800 new jobs nationally. These figures do not take into account the ‘spin off’ benefits the university has brought in the form of businesses. Fifty-one companies are said to have ‘spun out’ directly from the university and 250 companies have been started based on knowledge transfer from the university.
15. The University of Cambridge has estimated that the 8% annual growth in research funding has driven a 2% annual growth in the university estate. The university estate has about 100, 000 m2 of space remaining for development. Continued growth of the estate as a whole at past rates would see this land built out by about 2015, and the proposed North West Cambridge land would then last until 2019. There is also evidence of pent-up demand from private investors for collaborative projects with the university, a demand that the availability of serviced land at the North West site would help to meet. Besides research growth, the number of students is anticipated to increase by around 5, 000 over the next 25 years. Accompanying this increase will be a rise in staff numbers, which is projected to be in the order of an additional 3, 000 staff. One-half of the provision of housing on the North West site would be for university key workers as well as student accommodation, relieving some of the pressure from the housing market in Cambridge (CCHPR, Citation2007; University of Cambridge, Citation2009).
16. The Times Higher Education (Citation2001), reporting on the university's announcement, alleged that ‘in acknowledgement of the controversy over allegations of improper intervention by the prime minister into planning decisions for Oxford University, Cambridge vice-chancellor would not seek ministerial support to gain consent for the plans’ (p. 23).
17. The university's estate management led this initiative, with a specific North West strategy committee being established four years ago, chaired by the university's financial committee and reporting to the university's council. The committee has expanded to include a wide range of university stakeholder representation. The North West scheme is also on the agenda at regular high level talks between the university's Vice Chancellor and Registrar and local authorities' chief executives.
18. As part of the Examination through Hearings, the Inspectors called for the University to submit Hearing Statements in October 2008, including additional information on the needs for development by the university; the viability and mix of development; the housing trajectory and phasing; the development footprint and strategic open space provision.
19. The ‘green corridor’ is between 200 m and 400 m wide (approximately). The land currently comprises three pasture fields and the Park and Ride site. The Park and Ride site will remain and one of the pasture fields will be used for allotments and playing fields, so the nature of the spaces changes from countryside to open space/sport/recreation.