Cambridge futures
Download
1 / 39

Cambridge Futures - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 131 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Cambridge Futures' - skyla


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Cambridge futures l.jpg
Cambridge Futures

Project Director

Professor Marcial Echenique

Researcher

Rob Homewood

Review November 2002

Cambridgeshire Draft County Structure Plan


Slide2 l.jpg

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.


Review purpose l.jpg
Review purpose 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 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.


Issue 5a l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

  • Does the Plan set out an appropriate strategy for the overall development of the Sub-Region?

  • Is the infrastructure to support the strategy deliverable?


Issue 5a5 l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

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?


Slide6 l.jpg

Figure 1 Definition of the Sub-Region by Cambridge Futures 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.


Issue 5a7 l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

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


Issue 5a8 l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

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


Issue 5a9 l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

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


Slide10 l.jpg

Figure 2 Employment in edge locations around Cambridge 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.

from P Carolin: Cambridge Magazine

April 2000


Issue 5a11 l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

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


Slide12 l.jpg

Figure 3 Business Parks in the Sub-Region 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.

from Cambridge MIT Institute Urban Design Studio 2002


Issue 5a13 l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

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


Slide14 l.jpg

Figure 4 Export Costs for the Options 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.

from Cambridge Futures report 1999


Issue 5a15 l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

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


Issue 5a16 l.jpg
Issue 5a 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.

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


Slide17 l.jpg

Figure 5 Housing Cost and Salaries 1948-1998 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.

from Cambridge Futures report 1999


Issue 5a summary of main points l.jpg
Issue 5a SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS 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.

  • 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.


Slide19 l.jpg

Figure 6: 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.

Comparison of the Options

from Cambridge Futures report 1999


Issue 5a conclusion l.jpg
Issue 5a Conclusion 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.

  • 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.


Issue 5b l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

  • Are the proposals for the distribution of housing within the sub-region appropriate?


Issue 5b22 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

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


Slide23 l.jpg

Figure 7 Housing Distribution Compared 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.

from Cambridge Futures report 1999 & DSP Policy P9/2


Issue 5b24 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

  • Location of Housing within the built-up area of Cambridge

  • c.f. Cambridge Futures

    Option 2: Densification


Issue 5b25 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

  • 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


Slide26 l.jpg

Figure 9 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.

Densification: Cost of Living Projection

from Cambridge Futures report 1999


Issue 5b27 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

  • Location of Housing in the edge of Cambridge

  • c.f. Cambridge Futures

    Option 4: Green Swap


Issue 5b28 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

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


Slide29 l.jpg

Figure 10 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.

Green Swap:

Congestion Indicator

from Cambridge Futures report 1999


Issue 5b30 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

  • Location of Housing in a New Settlement

  • c.f. Cambridge Futures

    Option 7: New Town


Issue 5b31 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

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


Slide32 l.jpg

Figure 11 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.

New Town:

Social Group Changes

from Cambridge Futures report 1999


Issue 5b33 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

  • Location of Housing in Market Towns and Rural Locations

  • c.f. Cambridge Futures

    Option 5: Transport Links &

    Option 3: Necklace Development


Issue 5b34 l.jpg
Issue 5b 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.

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


Slide35 l.jpg

Figure 12 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.

Transport Links:

Rail Network

from Cambridge Futures report 1999


Issue 5b summary of main points l.jpg
Issue 5b SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS 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.

  • 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).


Issue 5b conclusion 1 l.jpg
Issue 5b Conclusion 1 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.

  • 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).


Issue 5b conclusion 2 l.jpg
Issue 5b Conclusion 2 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.

  • 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.


Next steps l.jpg
Next Steps 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.

  • Consolidation of responses

  • Update if required of submissions

  • Presentation at the EiP

  • Feedback to Cambridge Futures


ad