Our thoughts on the latest Arc developments

The Machiavellian devilry over plans for the area known as the Arc continue. We’d like to bring to your attention a few developments which demonstrate that our concerns about excessive development are as relevant as ever.

Firstly, a question: what are ‘environmental enhancements?’

Firstly, a question:
What are ‘environmental enhancements’?

Hanging baskets fitted to lampposts? Pedestrianisation of town centres? Improved sewage treatment plants?

Sadly not. According to the Board of the new Oxford to Cambridge Partnership (OCP), it is their term for growth. See the minute from their meeting of June 15th on the organisation’s mission statement: (quoted with their bullets.)

“Mission statement is draft and there is potentially a problem with the use of the word ‘growth’.

Keen not to replicate concerns of past to think we are about building houses.

Noted to be careful with the use of the word growth with residents’ associations because of its association with new housing. Suggested to use the words ‘environmental enhancements’ instead."

The shadow Board has now been formalised with the appointment of a chairman (Dipesh Shah), Chief Executive (Richard Hutchins) and two non-execs (Barbara Ghinelli and Lynette Ryal), the latter two strengthening the University connection. The question that has to be asked is why Government thinks funding this level of expertise is good value when aims, power and outcomes remain totally opaque.

There is still no news as to how they will keep their promise of making their meetings public, establish any scrutiny or oversight mechanism, or hold their annual conference as required by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), but I will be pressing for a meeting with Shah and Hutchins after the holiday season. Much of the PR material associated with the OCP talks of making links, clusters and ‘unlocking potential’ and ‘innovative solutions’ – whatever they are.

East West Railway

Those supporters living at either end of the Arc may have seen major coverage in local papers about the threats posed by the East West Railway (EWR). Briefly the Catch 22 is ‘for the railway to make any economic sense it needs massive housing growth, but the unnecessary housing is only logical if there is railway’. The reality is that this region just does not need this growth as succinctly expressed set out in a recent Fabian Society report which found: ‘. . . that almost half of jobs growth since 2010 has been in London and the Southeast, while just 2% was in the Northeast’. It suggests growth comes with its own downsides though, with one million people in London in poverty due to housing costs in an “overheating” capital’.

The front pages of the Cambridge papers were graced with our William Harrold succinctly expressing the illogicalities, contradictions, and lack of joined up thinking underpinning the scheme. The routes for EWR north of Bedford and south of Cambridge are the wrong routes with massive environmental costs that fail to serve the needs of the populations most affected.

The Oxford Times also covered the issue, albeit that the issues at the western end are different. However, the massive infrastructure disruptions, (for a track that actually existed) only serve to validate the fears of the Cambridge Approaches over a new line, who worry about HS2 type mayhem. They did However publish my letter:

Last week’s timely article on the threat of massive housing growth posed by the East west Railway contains support for the development from Anthony Breach.

Having acknowledged the importance to the economy played by Oxford and Cambridge he then goes on justify ARC growth by stating; ‘if the two cities reject growth and prioritise green belts over national prosperity . . . then public investment should go to other cities that are trying to solve their economic problems.’

Surely this is exactly the point of ‘levelling up’ – development in parts of the country where there is an impoverished economy? Housing in the ARC region is the most expensive in the country, with proportionally large profit margins for developers. Excessive growth and development along the ARC will cause (in a previous Prime Ministers words) the southeast to further overheat.

Housing numbers

Stop the Arc is not against growth. To recreate a Harwell would be great for the economy and the region, but Harwell only employs 6,000 people, which would require at max the same number of houses. Who then would the remainder of the proposed hundreds of thousands of houses be for? We would suggest for commuters into London who will have to use their cars either to get to work or the nearest station to scramble onto overcrowded trains into the metropolis.

Milton Keynes has approximately 150,000 houses, just think what impact 600,000 new houses would have on the ARC area, the type of figure that is being used to justify the new railway.

It seems that even the Cambridge local politicians were surprised by Michael Gove’s announcement in The Sunday Times of proposed growth around Cambridge of up to 250,000 houses by 2040, increasing the size of the city five times. Once again, we read of a replica ‘Silicon Valley’ without any nod to the weaknesses underpinning this comparison. How it is proposed that the current tech and scientific workforce of about 43,000 in Cambridge will increase six-fold in this time scale is left unclear. Building houses does not create high skilled jobs.

What is encouraging is South Cambridgeshire MP Anthony Browne’s robust rebuttal of the concept and the practical realities of the plan, pointing yet again to the water issues and the Environmental Agency’s blocking of current housing plans for only 50,000 homes.

In the middle of the Arc along the Marston Vale Line, STARC is actively campaigning to improve EWR’s offer of no new road or foot bridges, while requiring the building of 45,000 more houses to support its business case for its overly expensive ‘Extended Way Round (EWR)’ east of Bedford. These additional houses would wreck local communities by expanding them between six and 20 times while 97% of their inhabitants would be car drivers NOT EWR passengers. They are not compliant with the Local Plans for which infrastructure such as roads are already inadequate. Despite years of work and £millions expended, decisions have been hidden from effective scrutiny by further postponement until 2024 at least.

Your help

To carry on with all of this work we need more active volunteers, including a Membership Secretary, who need not necessarily be a trustee. So if you can spare a few hours per month please get in touch.

Charles Pither, Chairman, on behalf of the Trustees