Council keeps tight rein

Planning restrictions affecting green belt land could dampen the euphoria permeating Cambridge’s booming office market. Adrian Morrison reports It’s a nice problem to have. Cambridge’s property professionals are having to justify their existence as competing bidders hotly contest all available prime space. Demand is high, rents are going stratospheric, and letting agents barely have to break into a sweat. The icing on the cake is that this trend is predicted to continue. Microsoft is building its biggest research facility outside the US at the West Cambridge university campus, and the move has been hailed as proof of the city’s global status and corporate appeal. But amid the euphoria is concern that planning restrictions will hamper growth, in turn prompting talk that Cambridge will lose its European standing as preferred destination for hi-tech companies. Richard Coke of Lambert Smith Hampton refers to a “planning strait-jacket”, although he concedes that attitudes in local authorities are changing. “With Oxford pushing hard to take top spot in the hi-tech league, and Germany pledging it will become the European leader in biotechnology, Cambridge needs all the help it can get if a lack of suitable office and R&D accommodation is not to stifle hi-tech growth,” says Coke. Commercial land in short supply In particular, the lack of land for commercial building is proving problematic – unless the green belt is loosened. There is also conflict between the local plan – which wants business pushed to the city limits – and central government directives – which are aimed at blocking “unsustainable” out-of-town schemes. Property people are also dismayed by the amount of time it takes for council planners to process applications. Agents’ worst fears were realised when the city’s planners rejected the Wellcome Trust’s proposed 39,947m2 (430,000 sq ft) development south of the city at Hinxton Hall because it extended into the green belt. However, given that the trust is involved in some of the most high-profile biotech research in the world, most notably the mapping of the human genome, it was believed its scheme would be supported. This incident brought home the strength of public feeling about the protection of the green belt. However, the DETR seems likely to allow a compromise scheme of 24,154m2 (260,000 sq ft) at the same location after Wellcome threatened to move its operations to Germany. John Granger of Carter Jonas says: “If the Structure plan does not address the fact that more space is needed by these companies in the greater Cambridge area, there is going to be a problem. Most of the science parks are near capacity.” The Cambridge Sub-regional Study, conducted by a private firm of consultants for the city council, identifies the need for a further 56,000 employees by 2016 to cope with growth. The current local plan allows only for the creation of 10,000 jobs and 9,500 homes by 2006. Tim Holmes, director of developer Wrenbridge, believes: “Another settlement to rival Cambourne will be needed within the next five years, possibly at Waterbeach or Oakington Barracks.” The city council hopes the East Anglia Planning Guidance – due to be drafted by the end of the year – will address how this growth can be accommodated. Peter Studdert, director of environment and planning at the city council, admits: “The scale of economic growth has taken policy-makers by surprise. We are going to have to reconcile a lot of conflicting interests. “The politicians who recognise there is a national interest in supporting growth find they get caught in the middle between a national need and local conservatism.” But he adds: “The green belt is a sacred cow that we feel is long overdue a challenge.” CB postcode is sought after So the political will does exist in some corners of the council to find a way to satisfy the demand from hi-tech companies for a CB postcode. But Studdert states bluntly: “There is no easy consensus.” Those concerned about the economic development of Cambridge feel let down by central government because the city cannot gain access to European or Single Regeneration Budget funds. They argue that this is necessary to put vital infrastructure in place – such as housing, public transport, and schools – that will ensure growth does not lead to gridlock or put further strain on the housing stock. Jamie Green of Bidwells says: “The government recognises the contribution made by Cambridge to UK plc. Some road improvement schemes that had been forgotten are coming forward again.” Green refers to a scheme which brings disused railway tracks back into use to run guided buses from St Ives to Cambridge. But some argue that infrastructure is the least of it, that if Cambridge is to compete on a global scale then the needs of leading-edge companies must be met more quickly. David Henry of FPDSavills says: “If a large facility wants to have something on site this year, doors tend to be opened more quickly in California and Germany than in already congested areas such as Cambridge.” While he concedes that too laissez-faire an attitude would be damaging to the city, he warns: “Global players want to be in Cambridge but for political reasons tend to be deflected to other centres in the region, such as Peterborough. We should be meeting the demands of these companies while the demand is there.” Occupiers may look elsewhere The implication is that companies may want to be near the research institutes and skills pool of Cambridge, but will consider alternatives in the UK and abroad if they are not able to expand. Indeed, local agents suggest that the recent boom in biotech clusters in Oxford is partially due to the inability of Cambridge to satisfy this demand. “The biggest threat is that, unless the transport infrastructure and housing is provided to maintain the calibre of employee needed, there will be a problem within the next 10 years and we will not be able to accommodate the predicted growth,” says Wrenbridge’s Holmes. However, he remains confident that the city’s institutions want to address the problems of sustainable growth. But to do so they must address the issue of a medieval city at the heart of a hi-tech revolution. Benchmark centres – ranked by most similar Cambridge’s retail offer can be compared with rival Oxford’s Cambridge central Cambridge – Grafton Centre Huntingdon Peterborough Newmarket 1 Maidstone Eastleigh Abingdon Plymouth Devizes 2 Colchester Andover Braintree Maidstone Stamford 3 Salisbury Chippenham St Ives (Cambridgeshire) Stockport Northallerton 4 Bedford Fareham St Neots Swindon Ripon 5 Oxford Sittingbourne Witney Chelmsford Chippenham Source:Experian Cambridgeshire retail research Cambridge has a vacancy rate well below the national average UK East Anglia Cambridge central Cambridge – Grafton Centre Huntingdon Peterborough Newmarket Total floorspace (m2) 716.3m 24.0m 2.1m 654,100 633,900 1.9m 651,800 Retail Retail (m2) 387.6m 13.0m 557,800 410,300 379,400 1.2m 302,000 % Comparison 65 70 80 87 60 76 66 % Convenience 23% 20 12 6 30 18 19 % Retail service 12% 10 8 7 10 5 15 Comparison Comparison (m2) 251.9m 9.1m 446,900 355,600 227,400 881,600 198,700 % Clothing/footwear 24 21 30 25 16 20 28 % Department/ variety stores 16 22 20 43 4 44 15 % Household goods 18 16 5 10 33 7 12 % Health & beauty 11 9 11 5 8 6 12 % Leisure goods 7 7 9 6 7 9 15 % Other comparison 24 25 26 11 32 15 18 Non retail Non-retail (m2) 328.7m 11.1m 1.5m 243,800 254,500 719,800 349,800 % Vacant 16 12 5 8 6 11 3 % Catering/bars 14 11 6 13 7 14 9 % Other non-retail 70 77 89 79 86 74 88 Vacant floorspace % Vacant (m2) 7 5 4 3 3 4 2 Market Residential catchment population 196,310 91,633 20,402 309,160 49,991 Market share/penetration (%) 21.9 18.8 9.9 33.3 16.9 Source:Experian