Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Order laid before the House on 4 June be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 sets out that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area where they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation. Between 4 February and 1 April 2026, the Government held a public consultation on establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation to promote ambitious, high-quality and sustainable growth, and unlock the full potential of Greater Cambridge for the benefit of its communities and the country as a whole. I am grateful to all those who took time to engage and provide thoughtful and constructive feedback.
Consultation respondents were clear that Greater Cambridge faces increasingly complex challenges relating to infrastructure provision and the supply of affordable housing. This is having a detrimental effect on quality of life and holding back the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy.
The Government believe that these challenges cannot be met by incremental change alone. Delivering nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge requires a bold, long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered. The Government consider that establishing a centrally led development corporation is the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence.
To show the Government’s commitment to fulfilling the full potential of the region, since publishing the consultation the Chancellor has announced a further £400 million of funding for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, doubling the £400 million announced in October 2025.
Once established, the boundary of the development corporation aligns with the combined administrative boundary of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. This will enable the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation to deliver on its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.
As we set out in the consultation, the development area captures the core functional geography of the Cambridge economy, enabling a holistic approach to growth and infrastructure delivery. It will enable coherent planning across a wide area, strategic land assembly and land value capture to fund infrastructure. However, the success of the development corporation will also of course depend on strong partnership and proactive engagement with neighbouring authorities, and transport and utility providers beyond its boundary.
Although the development corporation will predominantly focus on its designated development area, it will also have influence beyond its formal boundary. This includes the ability to acquire land outside its development area to enable it to meet its objectives. The development corporation will bring a combination of powers, financing and national influence beyond what is available to existing local organisations. The development corporation will provide clarity and certainty through a clear vision for place and a stable governance framework.
The development corporation is intended as a joint national and local endeavour, combining local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership, powers and investment. It will have direct access to central government and the ability to convene and co-ordinate partners around shared priorities. The democratically elected local leaders from Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council, and the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board.
The Government also recognise that resident voices from across Greater Cambridge will form an integral part of the joint local and national endeavour in shaping the area’s future. The Government will therefore ask the development corporation to create structured forums for engagement that reflect the diversity of places and lived experiences across the region and serve as an exemplar of innovative, transparent, continuous and deep engagement. In short, it will provide Greater Cambridge with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable, infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country.
This establishment order will establish the GCDC as an entity, upon which it will be granted automatic infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers. My officials are now preparing the powers and functions order, a negative statutory instrument that is due later this year, which will equip the GCDC with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications for strategic development. Prior to the point at which we define the strategic sites, the development corporation will use minimum thresholds as a proxy to provide a clear and proportionate mechanism to focus the development corporation’s resources on sites of strategic importance. The development corporation will also take on plan-making powers, but it is anticipated that this will be once the draft local plan has been adopted, subject to public examination.
This combination of powers will provide Greater Cambridge with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable, infrastructure-first growth. The model will be an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country, delivering the good growth that this Government support.
To conclude, this order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation and set out the boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will be focused on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth in its boundary, and work collaboratively with councils both within and bordering the development area, transport bodies and utility providers, to help supercharge growth and unlock development opportunities. It will support the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and business and laboratory space.
I extend my thanks to the local leaders and their councils for their hard work and for their ongoing collaboration in delivering nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge. I also thank the Cambridge Growth Company, under the leadership of Peter Freeman, for its ongoing work in Cambridge that has helped unlock planning applications for over 9,000 homes and 528,000 square metres of commercial space. While I am standing at the Dispatch Box, I also thank my noble friend Lord Vallance, who is standing down from the Front Bench but has made a huge contribution to the development of the OxCam arc in his time as a Minister. I am very grateful to him for that work.
I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the order. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the geographic scope of the Development Corporation proposed in the Order is not extended to correspond to the functional economic geography of the Cambridge-based economy; and that this Order is not accompanied by an Order setting out planning powers for the Development Corporation focused on very large new sites for development.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order and setting out so clearly what the Government are seeking to achieve. I have tabled a regret amendment, not because I oppose the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation but because I think what is in the order and in the Government’s plans both is insufficiently ambitious in terms of the geography and what needs to be achieved and overreaches in what the Government are seeking to do for planning and plan-making powers in Cambridge itself.
I should declare an interest. Of course, for 18 years I was Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire, the area that the development corporation will cover, and for the last decade I have been chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. I have had only the most positive continuing engagement through that role with local planning authorities and the Cambridge Growth Company. I agree entirely with the Minister that we will very much miss the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, in his role as the Minister for the OxCam growth corridor, and I hope that the Government will continue to follow through on the excellent work that he implemented.
Why do I say that the Government are insufficiently ambitious? When we look 25 years ahead, we are looking for a development corporation to add value to what is already being done in Cambridge. We are already building. The university has helped to build Eddington. We have built out at Trumpington Meadows. We allocated green-belt land and are building out at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. It is the Government who prevented us from proceeding as we wanted to in Cambridge North because they would not pay for wastewater treatment and removal. We have just had Homes England, Hill Residential, the local authority and the Cambridge Growth Company coming together to set out plans for the redevelopment of Cambridge City Airport as the Cambridge East development, with East West Rail coming through. There is no shortage of impetus from the planning authorities. Indeed, last year, Greater Cambridge Shared Planning, a shared service between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, was the planning authority of the year.
We need to look at this development corporation and ask: how does it add value? The Minister was absolutely right: it is by building out the infrastructure. I will give just one example: the mass rapid transit requirements around Cambridge. Cambridge Ahead has said recently, on where the Cambridge cluster really extends to, that in the years ahead we are looking at what is, in effect, a polycentric system of Cambridge and related large settlements which will form part of a functional economic geography. If you look at a map, a 20-mile radius around Cambridge includes Ely, Newmarket, Haverhill, Royston, St Neots and Huntingdon.
Huntingdon is an excellent example. We need mass rapid transit to Huntingdon, in addition to the A14 and the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. We have the space to do it. Huntingdon’s local plan process is currently looking at some 24,000 additional homes in the plan period and beyond, in places such as Alconbury Weald and Wyton. If the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation is going to deliver that infrastructure, it has the powers to do that beyond its territory, as the Minister said. But, if it wanted to take responsibility for major settlements such as Alconbury Weald or Wyton or, heading to the east, somewhere such as Westley Green, it is technically beyond the boundary that we are looking at. If the Minister wanted to add value to the local planning process, she might like to have a look at East Cambridgeshire District Council, which is not proceeding with any local plan process, unlike Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, which are in the midst of creating a very ambitious local plan and expect to conclude it by the end of 2027.
What I ask the Minister to do is to think very hard about this regret amendment and accept that the development corporation should not be confined to the geography that is set out here. It should, in time, potentially be responsible for other major settlements. Within Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire, it should not take general planning powers and, specifically, should not take the plan-making powers after the point at which the current local plan is adopted. That would be an outrageous abuse of the democratic process and would vitiate all the partnership working being done in Cambridge city and beyond in the Greater Cambridge area to try to deliver precisely the nationally significant growth that the Minister has been advocating.
We are talking here about the establishment order, but I think the Minister fully understands that what we are really talking about is that, when the subsequent planning functions order comes forward, that should be an opportunity for her to think again about the results of the consultation and to bring forward something focused on red-line sites for major, strategic settlements, and not taking responsibility for plan-making powers. I beg to move the regret amendment in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the case for the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. Unavoidably, it sounded like something out of the 1970s, rather than something fit for the 21st century.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, although my perspective is very different from his. One of my regrets about his amendment is that it is only a regret amendment, for there is clear evidence that there is strong local opposition to the creation of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—and there is very good reason for that. It might be said to be the last thing the city, its residents and its environment need or want. You would think it is also the last thing the Government should need or want, given that we have a new Prime Minister acknowledging that far too much focus has been put on, and resources sunk into, the development of a small area of the country, while the north, the Midlands, the south-west of England, many parts of Wales, and far too many coastal communities and market towns have been ignored and stripped of resources by austerity.
I return to Cambridge. The corporation model is designed to accelerate growth far beyond what local infrastructure, water supplies and fragile ecosystems can sustain, while stripping democratic control from Cambridge and Cambridgeshire residents. Developers, not communities, stand to benefit: the corporation risks becoming a vehicle for speculative development, with profits privatised and costs—from water shortages to traffic congestion—pushed on to residents.
The structure of the corporation is profoundly undemocratic, taking away from local councils control over planning decisions, thereby undermining the power of representatives whom local people voted for. The consultation showed majority resident opposition. The local Green group has told me that it is apparent from the debates that have taken place in the newly elected Cambridge City Council—no party now has overall control, but there is a ruling Labour group, the Greens are the second-largest party and the Lib Dems are close behind—that none of the parties supports the corporation.
More, the corporation plan is severely underfunded. What it is due to receive will do nothing to address the existing shortfall in infrastructure. It focuses on all the wrong outcomes, including growing the bioscience and IT sectors. Before any more commercial development happens, what needs to be addressed in particular are the chronic water shortages, the transport bottlenecks, the acute social housing shortfall—which new, high-priced housing estates will not resolve—the insufficient electricity supply, the limited sewage capacity, the lack of sufficient hospital places and the overstretched schools.
The inadequacy of the infrastructure there has been demonstrated by the conditions in Addenbrooke’s Hospital during the recent heatwave. Media reports indicated that four staff members went home ill and two more collapsed at work—and that is the staff. There is a clear need for significant investment there, as well as in the more than 60 schools that either closed early or indicated that pupils could leave because they were too hot. We need to fix the existing infrastructure before we think about going further.
Water stress is, of course, the biggest issue. No one has provided a substantive answer as to where the water will come from for future significant development proposed under the corporation—Lincolnshire or Wales, maybe. Both of those places in this heavily water-stressed land might well have something to say about that. The Environment Agency, as is well known, has opposed local planning applications already, such as the west Cambridge site, due to the lack of water supplies. The trees in the area—this is filling the local media at the moment—are dying because there is not enough water for them. That has been absolutely dominating the local press in the last few days.
I note that recently, the Labour group on the Cambridge City Council amended—downgraded—the Green group’s motion on the rights of the River Cam. Even though it was downgraded, the Labour motion still said:
“We regard the river as an integral part of the life of our city. Threats to our rivers are a threat to us all”.
I hope that the new Government are listening to their local representatives.
This development corporation is an idea that comes from the 20th century—a failed model that has caused the climate and nature emergencies, the terrible state of public health and the rampant inequality of the UK of 2026. It is ironic that this is happening while we have a new Prime Minister who says that he wants to give a greater say to communities. This corporation takes away that say. To quote local Green councillors, this is a “power grab”, not a plan. I realise that the Minister may not be able to provide a fresh perspective today, but I hope that a fresh approach does appear in the new Government over the summer.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I note the criticisms of the new development corporation for Cambridgeshire, as spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, from his expert local knowledge, but my comments are from the broader policy perspective. The use of the development corporation model represents a huge opportunity up and down the country to reorder the development of new homes and infrastructure and the regeneration of existing neighbourhoods. Criticisms have abounded of the major housebuilders and developers failing to deliver the quantity or quality of new homes, facilities and infrastructure that they have promised.
Development corporations can do so much better. By capturing the land value, now without the necessity of incorporating hope value, with the possibility of using compulsory purchase powers as a last resort, a development corporation can deliver a high-quality master plan to include much-needed affordable homes and social and community benefits. Delivering new and regeneration schemes is a long-term proposition, during which there may well be changes of political control within local government for the area. The value of the development corporation is not only its public accountability but its longevity, irrespective of the local uncertainties our democracy creates.
Of course, planning decisions that are bound to cause local upset but which are in the national or regional interest—and we need to build 1.5 million new homes—are hard to take at the local authority level. We know from the success of the development corporations already up and running that this model can be a game-changer. Greater Cambridge would be well-served by having its own.
I support this order, and I greatly welcome in principle the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, with or without the modifications recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)
My Lords, with permission, I will express a few thoughts, and I speak as chancellor of the University of Cambridge. I welcome the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. It will, quite simply, speed things up and cut through bureaucratic delays.
We need to acknowledge the growth potential of our best universities, and Cambridge is, I am proud to say, one of them. The best place for start-up businesses in Europe is currently Cambridge. The alumni of the University of Cambridge in recent years have founded 2,600 venture-backed start-ups—more than anywhere else in Europe. We are rivalled only by the Bay Area in California and the other Cambridge and Boston area in Massachusetts.
Cambridge, since 2024, has raised more venture capital investment in deep-tech industries per capita than anywhere else in the world. We have had particular success in oncology, AI drug discovery, semiconductor manufacturing, chips and processing, cardiology and aerospace. The Government must recognise the world-class opportunity for catalysing growth that is represented by our leading universities, and especially by Cambridge. The development corporation is therefore very welcome.
I give three small words of warning, however. First, we have heard warm words before. The Oxford-Cambridge arc, especially the new rail link between Oxford and Cambridge, has been promised before. It must now happen.
Secondly, one other potential problem is the issue of water resources highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. At the moment, all of Cambridge’s water comes from boreholes dug into the aquifer below ground. In the long term, the huge pressure for development makes that resource unsustainable. I hope the Government will therefore do everything possible to ensure that the new Fens reservoir, which is desperately needed, can indeed happen.
Thirdly, there must be full and considered local consultation. I am delighted that the Minister has committed the Government to ensuring that that happens. The development corporation is a great start, but please make sure that Cambridge’s full potential is actually realised.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, development corporations have been widely welcomed—with one exception—because they have an important function in enabling development decisions that cover a wide area. So, the question for us is not the about principle of development corporations, but whether the Greater Cambridge devco is the most effective vehicle for achieving the purposes set out in the order.
I have a number of criticisms, and the first is about geography, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out. Decisions on local government reorganisation have, so far, specifically excluded a decision on the Cambridge area, yet here is a proposal with boundaries that may not conform to those decisions. This particular order is, therefore, in that regard, premature. Further, the boundaries proposed may actually constrain provision of the much-needed infrastructure.
The next criticism is the locally shared diagnosis that development in the Cambridge area is hampered by inadequate transport, as we have just heard, water resources, which is well known, energy and the affordability of housing. Despite the scale of the proposed development corporation, the solutions to the fundamental infrastructure problems lie with private companies, such as Cambridge Water, and central government to enable the development of much-needed improved transport structures. The Minister said that there will be another £400 million to do all this good work. That is a drop in the ocean compared to what is required in terms of essential infrastructure before all this development can take place. I would like to know whether the Department for Transport, the relevant water company and National Grid have been provided with the funding, either directly or via the regulators, to deliver this essential infrastructure in a timely way.
The third major criticism is that there is no clear rationale or evidence base for removing local plan-making powers from democratically elected councils serving the area. The problem that this creates is enabling development without the consensus of residents or those elected to represent them. The councils involved have a strong record, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to, of successfully making the arguments for growth: 77,000 homes are included in the emerging local plan. Local plans are the bedrock for encouraging agreed change in an area. They consult residents, provide criteria for change and develop a coherent plan, and then councillors debate and agree an outcome. That process is essential if those affected by development are to believe they have had a chance to influence it. To remove plan-making powers and then, disgracefully, planning decisions for all but small developments is democratic vandalism.
All these issues were raised during the consultation, which resulted in 68% of individuals opposing the devco, as well as nearly half of local government organisations. A significant concern of all those who were consulted was the protection of the natural environment. The Government’s response is to commit to establishing what they have described as structured forums to allow direct engagement with residents. The question the Minister must answer is what influence the views from those forums will have on decision-making. If these forums become no more than talking shops, they will rightly be derided.
What is not clear is why the Government have not chosen to use a different model, such as the regional development agency model. The one in Yorkshire with which I was involved enabled significant development across the region by negotiating a strategic plan and providing funding that enabled the private sector to implement it—but, importantly, without bypassing local planning authorities. Can the Minister agree that plan-making powers will be deferred until the draft local plan being developed is adopted, and then only following evidence-based reasons being provided? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to table this regret amendment, with which the Liberal Democrats totally agree.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I make the House aware of my potential interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which neighbours this area. I support my noble friend Lord Lansley in his amendment. I was going to say how important Cambridge is to the economy of the UK, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, has done a far better job than I can. It is an absolute critical part if this country is going to be successful and have the growth that it desperately needs. However, Cambridge is hamstrung by a lack of housing, infrastructure and commercial space for biolabs, technology and so forth. You have a town of around 150,000 which every day, according to the 2021 census, has 55,000 commuters coming in—bearing in mind that that was during Covid, the actual number is probably far higher—largely by car.
The Government are right that Cambridge needs to grow. That is why I was pleased that the last Government progressed with east-west rail, the A14 dualling and the A428 Caxton Gibbet to the A1, but there is much more to do. Cambridge, as I said, needs more housing, lab space and commercial space. It also needs to work with other areas of the wider geography. It is not just the Ox-Cam arc; it is the golden triangle, spanning Oxford to Cambridge to London, which is a global powerhouse in technology and biotech among others. It encompasses the Minister’s Stevenage, and it has central Bedfordshire at its geographic heart.
A DCO can be a useful delivery mechanism, but it needs to be one built on local support, functional geography and democratic accountability. It must have clear outcome-based objectives, with resources and powers linked to those outcomes. The Minister mentioned the negative instrument which is to come that will outline those, but I feel that is very much the cart coming before the horse. If you are going to look at the organisation, you need first to know what it will do and what its powers are. Then there is the question of local government reorganisation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned. We may set up a geography here only for it to change completely in a few months’ time.
The issue of geography is very important. Major projects and developments just outside the proposed area could have huge impact. Tempsford new town is potentially almost as large as Cambridge itself. Around junction 13 of the M1, we have the new town in Milton Keynes, we have a large data centre, we have Universal and we have the Marston Vale development, which will have a huge impact, particularly on east-west rail, the M1 and east-west corridor travel. Then we have things such as the A1 realignment. That needs somehow to fit all together as a package.
Several noble Lords talked about planning powers. Clearly we need to know what the geography is when we look at the planning powers. If you are going to have a much bigger strategic overview, you should not have detailed planning powers. If you are going to have detailed planning powers, that raises the question: why can it not just be based on a council-led DCO rather than a centralised national DCO, or even a mayoral DCO?
I talked about resources. We have heard about a lack of water and we have talked about a lack of electricity. I know from my experience that development in Biggleswade could not go ahead until we had additional power, and there is a constant refrain of a lack of water. What powers will this DCO have over things such as Great British Railways, Anglian Water, highways and the electrical and power companies, not to mention east-west rail? Will it have defined outcomes and targets? Will it have a clear division of responsibilities between the DCO organisation, the local councils and others? I want to be clear on this because the Minister talked about strategic sites, and we discussed this during the passage of the planning Bill. Is “strategic” above nine houses? Is it above 500 houses? What size of development is it? I think many people have a different view of what strategic is.
Many have mentioned democratic oversight. How does central planning in government centralised body fit with the new Prime Minister’s promotion of devolution? I believe the answer will be the creation of so-called structured forums for local residents, but what are the details? What will their statutory status be? How will members be selected? What powers will they possess? How will their views influence decision-making? How will Ministers be held accountable if those views are ignored? It is for these reasons that I support my noble friend Lord Lansley in his amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a very interesting debate on the future of Cambridgeshire and the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution to Cambridge. We had a visit there and I could see his involvement in how Cambridge is developing. I thank my noble friend Lord Smith for setting out the benefit to the whole UK economy of the growth and innovation that is taking place in Cambridgeshire and how important it is to continue investing in that—not just for the local area but for a national purpose. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for welcoming the development corporation approach to these major growth areas.
All the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, with her slightly negative perspective on the development corporation, were made in the 1940s and 1950s about the development corporation for my town. We need the growth that Cambridge offers. The Green Party may want our country to stand still, but this Government will not let that happen. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, as usual, for her thoughtful comments about the engagement of local people in this project.
I start with the boundary issues, which are the subject of the regret amendment and are important. The boundary proposed for the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation covers a broad geography which will enhance the ability to maximise funding and enable land value capture, increasing the viability of strategic infrastructure projects. The boundary aligns with the existing boundaries of South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council, simplifying governance arrangements and allowing the development corporation to support the emerging local plan. This boundary is considered of a suitable scale to allow the development corporation to respond flexibly and adapt to the emerging constraints within Greater Cambridge.
The Government recognise that the boundary does not always align with the location of essential strategic infrastructure. This will require the development corporation to build strong relationships and carry out proactive engagement with neighbouring authorities and transport and utility providers beyond its boundary. The example the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave of mass rapid transit between Huntington and Cambridge is very relevant here. The development corporation will also hold influence beyond its boundary. This could even include acquiring land outside the boundary, so long as it is in line with its functions and is deemed necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the golden triangle. I am very aware of that—my home town sits in the middle of it. The whole area is very important for the UK economy.
Moving on to planning powers, the development corporation will be granted development management powers for sites of strategic importance. We will be defining that through the function and powers SI. If an application exceeds the proposed threshold set out in the consultation but is not deemed to be strategic, it is expected that the development corporation will delegate decision-making to the Greater Cambridge shared planning service to determine the application in the usual way. As a result, we expect the vast majority of planning applications to continue to be determined by the existing planning service. Plan-making powers will be essential to developing that long-term spatial vision for Greater Cambridge that delivers nationally significant growth. The Government are clear that the plan-led approach must remain the cornerstone of the planning system.
Laying the functions order later in the year gives us time to build a planning service capable of delivering its objectives. The development corporation will be granted development management powers once the statutory instrument is approved, but the intention is that a phased approach will be taken to the exercising of plan-making powers, and that those exercising the powers will be limited by Secretary of State direction. We anticipate this direction being lifted once the draft local plan has been adopted, subject to the public examination. The Secretary of State may choose to lift it sooner if, for example, it becomes apparent that the draft local plan would not deliver development at the scale and pace necessary.
I was asked some questions by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Jamieson, on the scope of the planning powers for the development corporation. As a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the development corporation will use the following minimum thresholds to provide certainty about the sites it intends to examine for their strategic importance with a view to exercising its development management responsibilities. This will include all sites proposed with a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats, 5,000 square metres of floor space for all other development, and an infrastructure development which occupies more than 1 hectare of land.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about the impact of local government reorganisation on this programme. The development corporation’s boundary did not pre-empt or prejudice the recent consultation on local government reorganisation, which is a fundamental change. Given the significance of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough for national economic growth, it is important that we take the time to get this right. We will make a decision by October this year at the very latest. We are still committed to the existing timetable, with elections to new authorities in May 2027 and a “go live” date in April 2028. The boundary of the development corporation will be kept under review to ensure that it continues to meet its objectives. Any such review could also take into consideration the new administrative boundaries resulting from local government reorganisation if that is necessary.
A number of points were made about water. Water is a key issue in the whole of the east of England, as we know, but particularly in the Cambridgeshire area. My noble friend Lord Smith rightly raised the new Fens reservoir. No new reservoirs were built for 30 years in this country. That has caused some of the problems we are now experiencing, so we want to get on with that as quickly as possible. The Government are committed to ensuring adequate water supply and wastewater capacity to support sustainable growth in Greater Cambridge and to protect the natural environment. We have very rare chalk streams in this area, which we must look after.
No new homes in Cambridge are currently blocked due to water scarcity issues. Our work with the advisory water scarcity group has unblocked planning applications totalling over 9,000 homes and over 500,000 square metres. In December 2024, the Environment Agency lifted its objections to remaining blocked development following improvements in Cambridge’s water resource management plan and progress made by the water scarcity group. In addition, the work undertaken by the Government’s water delivery taskforce to resolve wastewater constraints means that over 18,000 homes across East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the home counties are now a step closer to being built.
The Government will continue to work closely with partners to ensure that water scarcity is not a constraint on development in Cambridge. The development corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. This includes the ability to lay connecting infrastructure for water mains and sewerage on sites delivered by the development corporation. There will be an opportunity for the development corporation to trailblaze across sites ambitious water efficiency approaches that can inform wider policy development and approaches in Cambridge over time.
There were quite a few comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Pinnock, on consultation and how that has taken place. MHCLG, supported by the Cambridge Growth Company, undertook a series of engagement and publicity events throughout the consultation period, engaging residents, businesses and councils. This was supported by communication about the consultation and public participation through community-led events, MHCLG-hosted webinars and a wider programme of media and digital publicity, including local and regional press coverage, interviews, podcasts and social media. Social media coverage was amplified by local authorities, businesses and organisations.
The Government recognise the very complex challenges facing Greater Cambridge. They require a bold, long-term approach and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered. The magnitude of these challenges cannot be met through incremental change. I know that change can feel unsettling for local residents, so it is not surprising that their reaction to the plans coming forward is sometimes negative. However, importantly, the centrally led development corporation is the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale needed.
My noble friend Lord Smith referred to the rail link that has been promised before—it must now happen. I think he will get the sense from both the new Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister of how we see this as urgent and want to deliver it.
If I have missed any points, I will respond using Hansard, but I am running out of time, so I will just say, in conclusion, that this order delivers the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. We think this is absolutely the right way to generate the growth that will be both locally and nationally important for Cambridge. I hope noble Lords will welcome the order.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this really interesting, albeit short, debate. We have to understand that this is the first of what will necessarily be further debates at some point later in the autumn in relation to the order setting out what the planning functions of the development corporation will be.
I thought what the Minister had to say about maintaining a review of the boundaries was a really helpful and important thing to say, but it has to be understood that there is no legal requirement that the development corporation’s boundaries should align with the administrative boundaries of local authorities. They can differ. Perhaps we ought to give ourselves the freedom to think that they should differ in this instance, because we do not know what the unitary council is going to look like, and it is not absolutely necessary that the development corporation aligns with the unitary council when it comes.
When the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, explains how well Cambridge has succeeded, he is, in a sense, reinforcing the fact that the place I represented and the local authorities which I supported—South Cambridgeshire was a Conservative authority for years—worked together to enable the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to be established by releasing green belt. We worked together to allow Trumpington Meadows to happen, and Cambridge City Council worked with the university to enable Eddington to be built, which is an award-winning development to the west of Cambridge. These things happened at pace and are examples for the rest of the country. So, the point of the development corporation, which I think we all support, is to do more and to add value; it is not to take over the responsibilities and the powers of the local authorities in so far as they are delivering.
I think we can agree that, if a local plan did not meet the need, you would have to step in. But I do not think there is any evidence that the Greater Cambridge local plan does not meet the need. There is plenty of evidence that East Cambridgeshire is not undertaking a local plan process at all, and the development corporation is not planning to step in there. Some parts of East Cambridge abut Cambridge city, and they are some of the principal areas for potential development in the future.
I will finish on this point. When the Minister looks at boundaries, and particularly when she and her colleagues look at planning functions, if they look at the possibility of having development management powers for major sites—I do not mean 250 homes; I mean the really big sites where the development corporation can add value to what is happening already—then fine, go for those sites, but just put a red line around them. You do not have to define strategic sites in the legislation. You can just put a red line around where those strategic sites are. As they come forward, maybe outside the area—in Huntingdon, or even, I say to my noble friend, at Tempsford—you could put a red line around those, make them part of the development corporation and give them the development management powers in that place. One does not need to take plan-making powers for the whole of a local authority area. That would be a step too far. We have enabled this debate this afternoon to put down that marker to the noble Baroness and to the Government, so they can think about that before we return to this in the autumn. With all those points made, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.