Our alternative Ox-Cam Arc spatial framework consultation reveals that more than 9 out of 10 people would vote ‘No’ to the Ox-Cam Arc if a vote were taken today.

This is a stunning result, and a complete rejection of all of the Government’s plans for the high-growth future of the five Arc counties (Beds, Bucks, Cambs & Peterborough, Northants and Oxon).

Thank you to the more than 3,800 people who responded to our alternative survey!

The results and comments show that the public is fed up with being kept in the dark about all Ox-Cam Arc plans. The official Government consultation document contained not a single word on the levels of growth in jobs, houses and economic output that this Whitehall-driven Arc plan involves. Nothing at all. Why is this? What is the Government afraid of?

This was the first ever Government public consultation on the Arc. So why was it so short on the details? It was a complete charade because, at the same time, property speculators, developers, businesses and all those who will profit from Arc development are queuing up to take part in a 2-day Built Environment meeting in November of this year. This is perhaps the biggest developer meeting ever about the Ox-Cam Arc. Have all these developers and others been given the same vacuous, information-free document about the Arc as the one we, the public, were given? We doubt it. What have developers been told by the Government that the 3.7 million people who live in the Arc have not?

Our future is being decided for us, not by us.

Our alternative Arc Spatial Framework consultation was constructed with the Oxford POETS (Planning Oxfordshire’s Environment and Transport Sustainably) and with help and advice from a number of other concerned groups across the Arc whose logos are shown below. It highlighted some of the hard choices that lie ahead - for example between development and the environment - and asked people how rapidly the Arc should grow.

Responders were not against growth, but wanted it limited to the average or below-average rate expected for the rest of country - a fair share, not a disproportionate share.

We took a snapshot of our alternative survey results at the same time that the official questionnaire closed - 11.45p.m. on 12th October. By that time, our survey had received 3,843 responses, 31% more than the official survey’s 2,933 online responses. Thus ours is the biggest online survey ever of Whitehall’s Ox-Cam Arc plans.

And it shows just how concerned are people, both inside and outside the Arc, about the level of development proposed……….

Here are highlights from the alternative survey responses:

• 70% of responders thought the government should look at other areas before going further with the Ox-Cam Arc. Only 4% thought that the Arc would benefit everyone and help ‘level up’ the country.

• 93% of responders ‘disapprove (8%) or ‘strongly disapprove’ (85%) of the high levels of growth proposed for the Ox-Cam Arc. Only 3% ‘strongly approve’.

• 92% of responders felt the Arc should grow at the national growth rate or lower. Only 4% felt it should grow at a higher rate.

• 92% of responders thought that it is ‘probably..’ or ‘definitely impossible’ to develop the Arc AND improve the environment at the same time.

• More than 90% of responders ‘Agree..’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that Government should provide funds to improve nature without any development strings attached.

• The top three priorities for responders were

• ‘Clean air, enough water and healthy rivers’ (for 82% of responders),

• ‘Green spaces and thriving local nature’ (80%), and

• ‘Climate change action’ (71%).

The bottom three were

• ‘Jobs for everyone’ (15%),

• ‘Economic growth’ (9%) and

• ‘Mobility: quick travel’ (6%)

• 89% of responders felt their priorities for the future are ‘Partly..’ or ‘Completely incompatible’ with the Government’s ambitions for the Arc. Only 5% felt their priorities were ‘Mostly’ or ‘Very compatible’

• More than 65% of responders want decisions about the future to be made as locally as possible (by elected representatives, or referenda). Fewer than 3% wanted such decisions taken by unelected Growth Boards or Local Enterprise Partnerships; and fewer than 1% wanted them taken by those who will profit from Arc developments (businesses, land-owners, property developers and Universities).

• If there were a referendum today, more than 93% of responders would vote ‘No’ to the Ox-Cam Arc, 4% would vote ‘Yes’ and 3% are ‘Don’t know’s.

Click on the right for a press release of our alternative consultation responses.

Our alternative survey remains open at https://tinyurl.com/5MinArcSurvey Those who haven’t yet done so can still let us know what they feel about Ox-Cam Arc plans.

We will put all the text responses to our alternative survey on this website later, once we have removed all email addresses and anything that could identify individual responders.

Commenting on these results…..

Roger Carey, Chair of Buckinghamshire Environment Action Group said, “The alternative survey shows the depth of feeling not just about the potential impact of the Arc proposals, but the way in which those proposals are being justified and delivered. People see the Arc as a democratic deficit leading to an environmental deficit – something you might expect in the Amazon basin, but not in the South-East of England.”

Dr William Harrold of Cambridge Approaches said, “This shocking survey result reveals that national and local governments have been planning the Ox-Cam Arc for years when fewer than 5% of the people actually want it. If people do not want the Arc, the business case for the Bedford to Cambridge section of the East West Railway needs urgent review.”

Lois Wright, Director, CPRE Bedfordshire comments "We have long known the strength of feeling against Ox-Cam in Bedfordshire and when given a fair and democratic way to comment, people clearly show they do not support this project. Politicians and decision makers must now start listening and take appropriate action."

Dr Alan James, chairman of CPRE Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, said "The Ox-Cam Arc is the worst possible solution to our housing crisis – and the slowest. Re-using empty homes and building on brownfield sites nationwide would be faster and emit less greenhouse gas. The Arc will also be a major risk to national food security. Induced climate change and water run-off will increase flood risk to the Fens where 31% of our vegetables are grown alongside other food crops. It will also cover large areas of highly productive farmland with buildings and infrastructure. In a country which already imports c. 60% of its food, this is national madness. It is no wonder that sensible people have come out so strongly against it. They must be listened to.”

Wendy Blythe, Chair of the Federation of Cambridge Residents’ Associations (FeCRA), said “The Ox-Cam Arc is one of a number of growth corridors affecting Cambridge. We would like to see the equivalent survey carried out for the other growth corridors – the UK Innovation Corridor– London Stansted Cambridge, the Cambridge Norwich Corridor and the Cambridge North of Peterborough Corridor. Most people in these Growth Arcs still have no idea about these plans. When they do, they are very concerned about their impacts.”

Professor Tony Booth of Friends of the River Cam said, “The Ox-Cam Arc proposals threaten our already struggling river system with hugely increased abstraction, pollution and encroachment from building and infrastructure. They are designed for the benefit of developers, investors and the Treasury and against the flourishing of the environment and the vast majority of residents in our area.”

A spokesperson for Need Not Greed Oxfordshire, David Young said “There has been no proper assessment of the logic of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as a sub-region for ‘transformative growth’, and it is impossible to see how international obligations on Climate and Biodiversity and national obligations on levelling up can be anything other than seriously harmed by continuing this approach. The public are right to be concerned.”

Speaking on behalf of Planning Oxfordshire’s Environment and Transport Sustainably (POETS), Noel Newson said "POETS is highly critical of the framing of the government consultation on the Spatial Framework for the Arc. Issues which need addressing include the lack of democratic involvement in the NIC and central government promotion of the Arc; the inattention to the climate change, biodiversity and ecosystems crises; the vagueness of the boundaries of the so-called Arc; the inconsistency with effective levelling-up policies; and the boosterish role of major development interests in the promotion of the Arc. STARC's alternative consultation shows the overwhelming extent of public concern about the Arc proposals."

The Smart Growth UK Coordinator, Jon Reeds, said, “We’ve long known the Arc was a threat to the environment and to levelling up. Now we can see it has virtually no support from local people either.”

Professor David Rogers of the Stop the Arc (STARC) Group said “The Ox-Cam Arc was identified for a high-growth future by Government diktat despite studies showing better locations for such developments elsewhere. Investing in the high-employment Arc denies such investment to other parts of the country and denies workers there the dignity of jobs in the places where they were born and grew up. It’s the wrong project, at the wrong time in the wrong place.”

Largest ever survey shows 9 out of 10 people reject the Ox-Cam Arc