Cambridge is home to a university with a fiercely entrepreneurial culture. It is also a thriving technology and science centre that draws professionals from all over the globe. In this environment, the prospect of devolved powers from the government makes it fertile ground for development.
However, it is how those devolved powers will be managed, and by whom, that will determine success.
“[Devolution] would help developers a great deal by providing more political consistency,” said Chris Goldsmith, managing director at Turnstone Estates.
“There is not always a shared vision of how the city and south Cambridge operate. Being able to focus on a Boris [Johnson] or someone who had a vision for the place would provide us, as developers, with the political stability to ensure Cambridge is working as a whole.
“However, it is important that central government doesn’t walk away. It still needs to be involved in the way Cambridge connects to the rest of the country,” he added.
Goldsmith was a panellist at a lively EG Question Time debate held at Cambridge’s Clare College on 27 November. Also on the panel were Mike Shaw, head of national strategic development at Savills; Peter Seaborn, planning partner at Mills & Reeve; Clair Rickaby, senior underwriter at CRS; and Claire Ruskin, chief executive of Cambridge Ahead.
Speaking in front of 200 industry professionals, the panel agreed that nearby Peterborough should be treated separately in devolution plans.
“No” came Shaw’s sharp response to the question of whether Peterborough should be part of the power sharing.
His answer summed up the sentiment of delegates who, in a show of hands, voted overwhelmingly for a Cambridge-only arrangement.
With office letting volumes down by one-fifth on last year and agents struggling to find space for tenants, the debate turned to how the city could preserve its medieval centre while meeting demand for modern, flexible offices.
Goldsmith said shared working spaces should go beyond the traditional café and break-out offerings so that employees could collaborate, not just within their own companies but with other industry professionals as well.
Rickaby said: “I think business parks are more successful when the buildings are separated, as they are in Reading. All of the buildings going up there are designed perfectly for co-working and the kind of businesses that they want to bring to the area.”
She added: “Architects are doing a good job but we need more than just office space – we need research space and the ability to vary its use.”
Savills’ Shaw said: “We only have to look at clusters to see that like-minded people want to be together. But the big problem we have with clusters and high tech is that there isn’t enough space. If AstraZeneca came and asked for 400,000 sq ft, where would they go?”
“But those buildings are all going be purpose built. Integration happens naturally in business. I’m more concerned about some of the residential developments.”
With the government’s Spending Review housing commitments fresh in the minds of delegates, a second audience poll revealed that 64% thought they would be good for Cambridge; 20% said they would have no impact and only 16% thought they were bad for the city.
Goldsmith sided with the minority, citing concerns over affordable housing.
“There is a lack of affordable housing, which pushes people further from the centre and causes congestion,” he said.
“This problem will destroy the city. [The Spending Review] is not tackling affordability across the spectrum, only in terms of owner-occupation. It doesn’t tackle the fundamentals of the problem. We need to have more housing for rent and shared equity. Focusing on helping only first-time home buyers doesn’t solve the country’s, let alone Cambridge’s, problem.”
The issue divided the panel. While Shaw lamented the government’s emphasis on home ownership, Ruskin warned against “spiralling into a negative point of view”.
She said: “Cambridge is a bit like Chelsea. People who grow up in London do not expect to live in Chelsea. There are still places that are affordable. I do agree that £200,000-plus houses are not affordable on a £20,000 salary but we need to keep building flats that are on the affordable end.”
But where? It was suggested that urban pockets in the 5km of green belt surrounding the city should be made available. Rickaby urged the panel to “think intelligently about the green belt because building up in the centre was not a viable option”.
Survey reveals cambridge’s connection problems
Cambridge Question Time kicked off with a presentation from Hans Pung, president of research institute RAND Europe.
Cambridge was a “very successful city”, said Pung. It had nine times the number of patents per head than the next nine places in the UK put together and 4,500 knowledge-intensive companies – an 8% increase over five years.
There were some risks to growth, however, which were identified in RAND’s Cambridge Quality of Life survey, commissioned for Cambridge Ahead.
The survey of 5,000 employees in the city found that although most people were satisfied with professional development opportunities and local services, concerns about housing affordability, transport and road congestion remained.
Much of the dissatisfaction came from the younger respondents – almost a third thought that the quality of life offered by Cambridge was lower than that offered by other places, and that the city lacked connectivity with the community.
Listen to the debate at www.estatesgazette.libsyn.com
Follow the debate on Twitter at #EGQTCambridge
