More on the Environmental Impact:
This page was updated in May 2021
We are told that the Oxford-Cambridge Arc development will ‘unlock the economic potential’ of the region, and must therefore go ahead for that reason alone, despite the environmental and climate change consequences (which, of course, the plans state they will minimise or attempt to mitigate). The Ox-Cam Arc sits within the only three regions in the country that are net contributors to the UK Treasury. This, apparently, justifies siting this project in one of the most economically over-heated parts of the country. Putting Ox-Cam Arc developments and investment elsewhere in the country will ease the over-heating in this part of the UK and would reduce the present stark inequality between different regions of our nation.
Development of the Oxford to Cambridge region
Much has been written in support of development of the Oxford-Cambridge region.
The November 2017 National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) Report ‘Partnering for Prosperity: a new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc’ baldly states:
“The Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc must be a national priority.”
About a year later, the Government gave a formal response to the NIC Report, not only accepting all of its recommendations but also indicating plans and work in progress to implement many of them. It recognised the difficulty of working with the many different administrations across the Arc and gave several suggestions as to how to do this, but also made it very clear that if the local administrations didn’t agree with the plans, the Government itself will take critical decisions and actions. For example, the Government’s Recommendation 2a, about deciding locations for new and expanded settlements along the Arc by 2020, concludes with:
“The Commission is optimistic that Government and local authorities will reach agreement on the scale and location of new settlements in the national interest. However, if agreement cannot ultimately be reached, the Secretary of State should designate these new settlements.”
Recommendation 7 is about Govt and Local Authorities across the Arc working together, and with Local Enterprise Partnerships (unelected LEPs), to define by April 2018 a spatial vision for economic plans, and concludes with the statement:
“If agreement cannot be reached by this date, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government should define the sub-regions based on consideration of the best areas for joined-up economic, transport and land-use planning.”
Highways England’s own outline business case for the Expressway begins with
“The broad arc from Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge includes some of the UK’s most successful, productive and fastest growing economic areas. Existing east-west road and rail connections between these knowledge-intensive economies are notably poor. There is no continuous and direct dual carriageway or rail link between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge creating a significant infrastructure barrier that risks constraining growth.”
The message is clear from the above. There are both development opportunities in the Ox-Cam region and constraints preventing those opportunities being realised. If Local Authorities cannot agree on key parts of the proposals, Government will step in directly and decide for them. Government is both speaking loudly and carrying a big stick when it comes to getting the Arc proposals implemented. This became abundantly clear early in 2021 when Kris Krasnowski, Portfoilio Director for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, announced the Ox-Cam Arc “…is a Whjitehall plan..” and then added “with Local Partners”. The latter turn out to be Local Authority representatives, the Arc Universities Group and the Local Enterprise Partnerships, few of whom have been democratically elected and none at all of whom have been elected specifically to decide Ox-Cam Arc plans.
Investigating the business case for Arc developments
But is the business case for the Arc really sound? Two excellent Reports from SmartGrowth UK suggest not.
The Overheated Arc, Part 1
The first, ‘The Overheated Arc - A Critical Analysis of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford-Newbury “Growth Corridor” – Part 1’ (February 2019) gives useful background history to the Arc and challenges many of the underlying assumptions involved (many attributable to the fact that the Arc’s proponents were educated at one or other of the Universities at either end of the Arc). It points out that even the NIC advisers did not consider the Ox-Cam Arc to be unique or special in any way and stated:
“The Arc is a completely synthetic construct with separate labour markets and little demand to commute between them. To create artificial links, the Expressway is being promoted to facilitate new car-dependent sprawl settlements and long-distance freight haulage.“
This Overheated Arc document also discusses how many of the Arc houses would go to London commuters (i.e. housing London’s over-spill). It points out that sites of major expansion suggested in the NIC Report all ‘happen’ to be near train and major road links to London and, based on an earlier 5th Studio Report for the NIC, suggests that 7,000 of the 30,000 net new houses per year in the Arc would be for London commuters (to reach one million houses across the Arc in 30 years would require in excess of 33,000 houses per year; the original calculations identified a local need for only 23,000 net houses per year, so that an even higher proportion of the 33,000 houses per year might go to commuters).
The Overheated Arc, Part 2
The second SmartGrowth document, ‘The Overheated Arc – Part 2- Sustainable alternatives’ (September 2019) identifies five ‘alternative Arc’s’ in other regions of England, all North of Birmingham, (there would be other choices in the rest of the UK) that have as many advantages as does the Ox-Cam Arc but also have a greater claim to sustainability than does the Ox-Cam region. In addition to the four criteria usually given for choosing the Ox-Cam area for development (1. outstanding universities and research institutions; 2. knowledge-intensive businesses; 3. a skilled workforce; 4. historic cities.) the SmartGrowth Report added four others that its suggested alternatives have that the Ox-Cam Arc does not (5. availability of brownfield development land; 6. no acute shortage of housing; 7. high-quality public transport; 8. a need for economic regeneration).
The UK has many excellent Universities, not just two
Whilst Oxford and Cambridge are undoubtedly world class universities they do not have a monopoly of expertise in every subject, especially those contributing to a high-tech modern economy. To concentrate on just two UK Universities is a bit of an insult to all other UK Universities. Certainly the idea of a ‘brain belt’ between these two universities, and involving eight other higher education institutes (other Universities, Cranfield and the Open University), does not bear closer inspection. Whilst the 10 Universities and Institutes across the Arc contributed to Rubbaglove’s ‘Oxford-Cambridge Arc Universities Group’ document, showcasing each University in turn, there is not a single mention in any University’s profile of collaboration with any other University across the Arc. This document, now withdrawn, was replaced by a different version in November 2020 which, also, makes little mention of collaboration between the Arc Universities. Universities are in competition with each other, and collaboration is often interpreted, rightly or not, as weakness of one or both partners.
UK inequality and investment in the Arc
Pouring more investment into the over-heated regions in the South of the country will increase still further the inequality across our nation. The September 2019 UK2070 Commission reported that:
“The uncomfortable reality is that despite the Government initiatives that have been taken, the economic disparities, particularly between London and the wider south-east and the rest of the UK have grown”.
It concluded that a new national narrative is required. This could start with a re-examination of the dubious economic benefits of the Ox-Cam expressway and an exploration of other sites across the country more in need of, and more suited to, such a development initiative.