Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.