Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Why this matters

In order to boost the UK economy, the government has ambitions to rapidly increase the numbers of new houses and jobs in the Cambridge area. To bring this about, it is proposing to establish a government-controlled organisation called an urban development corporation (UDC) in Greater Cambridge.

The UDC would operate across Greater Cambridge (Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire), and would have greater powers than local authorities, including those to access government funds, borrow more, acquire land and directly deliver infrastructure to support new developments such as utilities and schools.

While Greater Cambridge’s local authorities would continue to deliver most services as they do currently, the government is proposing that the UDC takes over certain planning powers from Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (the joint local planning authority for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire). These include the power to draw-up the masterplan for development in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, and the power to grant planning permission for larger developments.

Regarding transport, the consultation sets out that the UDC would not initially gain the power to draw up the masterplan for transport in Greater Cambridge, nor powers over local roads (e.g. ability to introduce a bus gate) and public transport (e.g. ability to determine services on a particular bus route) initially from Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. It could obtain these in the future, however, should the two local authorities not implement the schemes the UDC considers necessary to support  its growth plans.

Most of the members of the UDC’s decision-making board would be individuals chosen by the government. The leaders of Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council (all potentially replaced by the single leader of the relevant unitary authority following upcoming local government reorganisation), and the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough would also be invited to join. The consultation is clear, though, that local elected representatives would not have a majority on the Board.

The UDC would be in place for at least 25 years, with an initial review of progress after 5 years. The consultation states that its progress would be regularly reviewed during its lifetime, but details on how this would be measured are not provided.

Read the consultation materials and listen to the debates on the proposals at Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

Summary of Camcycle’s views

Cambridge has the opportunity to demonstrate how a globally-significant city can grow while remaining healthy, connected and liveable. However the consultation does not yet set out a bold, inspiring and comprehensive vision for an expanded Cambridge, nor how a Greater Cambridge Urban Development Corporation would line up transport infrastructure and spatial planning to achieve this.

A vision is needed which must position housing, employment and services in a way that reduces travel distances and enables easy sustainable (i.e. non car) transport. Then, if the Development Corporation is to succeed, planning and transport powers must be aligned within the same governance structures.

Without stronger integration between planning and transport, the proposed Development Corporation risks accelerating development while placing additional pressure on a transport system that is already struggling to cope.

In addition, rather than risk adding more complicated layers of governance to the region – while also taking away democratic accountability – any Development Corporation put in place should work closely with the existing planning service, which should be used to determine applications of any size. The Board should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto. Local people should also be involved in the Development Corporation’s plans by way of additional community involvement such as co-creation workshops or a Citizens’ Assembly.

How to respond

1. Share your views using the online survey by 11.59pm on 1 April 2026.
2. If you only have 5 minutes to respond, questions 1, 2 and 10 are most relevant to cycling
3. There is no need to answer every question.
4. Any points you want to raise in response to a question need to be set out in full as part of that question’s answer (do not write ‘see above’, or ‘see response to previous question’).

If you do not want to use the online survey, or if you want to send supporting evidence with your response, you can:

• email [email protected]
• or send a response by post.

Consultation guide

If you only have 5 minutes to respond answer question 1, 2 and question 10. Our guide focuses on the implications of the proposals for transport, featuring suggested points you may wish to include.

Question 1: What do you think about the current delivery of infrastructure and homes in Greater Cambridge?

• The inconsistent and overstretched sustainable transport network in Greater Cambridge reduces quality of life and limits access to opportunities. Despite Cambridge’s reputation as a cycling city, many people do not feel that Greater Cambridge’s cycle network enables them to travel by cycle. Significant improvements are required before cycling is accessible for everyone. While recent upgrades (e.g. the Milton Road scheme) have succeeded in making cycling easier and safer and boosting cycling levels, funding constraints and complicated governance mean that much of the additional cycling infrastructure required is not being built. A clear vision and increased funding for transport infrastructure is urgently required.  
• Though the GCP received significant funding to improve Greater Cambridge’s transport network, delivery of its ‘corridor’ schemes has been slow, the Greenways have been watered down in quality and are behind schedule (thereby reducing their impact), and the organisation has not succeeded in bringing forward a solution to reduce congestion. Consideration must be given to the root of all these issues.
•   Across Greater Cambridge, employment is becoming increasingly concentrated within Cambridge and on its immediate edge, while housing development has often been directed further away across the wider region. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan (currently in development) looks likely to exacerbate this. Travel distances will therefore increase and car dependence become even harder to avoid. It is imperative that future growth in Greater Cambridge instead aligns housing, employment and services to reduce travel distances and enable greater use of sustainable transport.

Question 2: What do you think about the proposal to create a centrally-led urban development corporation (UDC) in Greater Cambridge?

• A Greater Cambridge UDC could play an important role in coordinating development and infrastructure across Greater Cambridge, however the consultation does not yet set out the type of bold, coherent and comprehensive vision for an expanded Cambridge that could garner wide public support.
• A Greater Cambridge UDC could bring about additional funding that is much-needed to deliver new transport infrastructure.
• Planning powers are currently proposed for the Development Corporation while transport responsibilities initially remain distributed across multiple organisations with different geographic boundaries and priorities. It is therefore unclear how a Greater Cambridge UDC would resolve the region’s central challenge when it comes to growth: aligning development with the transport infrastructure required to support it. Changes to planning processes may accelerate development, but without equivalent controls over transport infrastructure the risk is that development could proceed faster than the networks needed to support it.
• Either the Development Corporation must assume meaningful transport powers from the outset, or transport governance – the relevant Highways Authority and Transport Authority powers – in the region must be redesigned to align with the Development Corporation’s geography and responsibilities.
• From the outset, local leaders will be in the minority on the UDC’s decision-making board. This democratic deficit will increase due to local government reorganisation, after which potentially there might only be one board member who was the leader of a council in the Greater Cambridge area. The government must ensure local voices are heard through their democratically elected representatives on the UDC’s decision-making board. The Board should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto.
• The Development Corporation should also adopt a broader definition of success that includes health, accessibility and quality of life alongside economic growth.

Question 3: What matters most to you about the future of Greater Cambridge?

Respond to this according to your own views, considering your aspirations around the future transport network and the links between transport and people’s quality of life and access to opportunities.

Question 4: Do you have any views on the objectives of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, as set out in the consultation document?

The consultation says the UDC would be “guided by a commitment to sustainable growth, delivering high quality placemaking…”. Its objectives would be: 

1. Transformational economic growth
2. Infrastructure-led development
3. Innovative investment
4. Environment and climate
5. Inclusion and opportunity

The detail under objective 2 includes: “Building on ongoing work to identify Mass Rapid Transit solutions for the region, introduce transformative transport solutions that minimise journey times, reduce congestion, and enable seamless movement across Greater Cambridge”.

We recommend you mention that:

• Though objectives are listed, the UDC’s vision for an expanded Cambridge isn’t clear.
• The UDC must recognise the importance of a world-class sustainable transport network to Objectives 1, 4 and 5. Successful cities are not defined by growth alone; long-term economic success is usually the result of creating places where people can move easily, which enables them to live well and access opportunity.
• It is essential that transport infrastructure (and associated services – a busway is of limited benefit without good services running on it) are in place from the first occupation of each development site.
• Objective 2 refers to ongoing work to identify Mass Rapid Transit solutions, but does not mention the role of cycling and other sustainable modes within the future transport system. Cycling has been central to the success of Cambridge thus far. A transformation of the networks for walking/wheeling, cycling and bus transport must be considered alongside a new MRT system and will be considerably better value for money in challenging economic times. Without continued growth in all of these essential modes, it is difficult to see how Cambridge could accommodate significant increases in population and employment while maintaining a functioning transport network.

Question 5: What do you think about the proposed boundary of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, as set out in Annex B?

• The proposal to include South Cambridgeshire as well as Cambridge in the proposed boundary of the UDC makes sense from the point of view of transport, as around half of the employed residents of South Cambridgeshire commute to Cambridge for work, but even then the geographical reach of the UDC may not be sufficient.
• Greater Cambridge has significant connections to locations beyond its boundaries, for example Haverhill, Ely, Huntingdon, St Neots and Newmarket because the high cost and availability of local housing has expanded the travel-to-work area. Consideration must be given as to how the UDC could bring about better connections from locations such as these to Cambridge by sustainable transport. If the UDC only supported and enabled transport schemes that were wholly within Greater Cambridge, this would reduce its impact.

Question 6: What do you think about the phased approach we have proposed in regard to plan making powers?

We support the proposal that plan making should not begin until after the next Local Plan is adopted in 2028.

Question 7: What do you think about the proposals to give the Development Corporation plan making powers as set out in the consultation document?

The UDC would have the power to make a new local plan for Greater Cambridge – a masterplan for the development of new housing and employment space. This would eventually succeed the Greater Cambridge Local Plan that is in preparation this year. A local plan cannot be delivered without a transport plan that makes the sites it sets out viable, however. Currently planning powers are proposed for the Development Corporation while transport responsibilities – including the power to draw up a transport plan and act on it – initially remain distributed across multiple organisations with different geographic boundaries and priorities. 

We suggest you say:

• A local plan cannot be delivered without a corresponding transport plan that ensures the development sites it sets out are viable. Currently the power to draw up a transport plan to accompany a new local plan will remain with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.
• A Development Corporation will only succeed if planning and transport decisions are aligned – both within the organisation and outside it. Either the Development Corporation must assume meaningful transport powers from the outset, or transport governance in the region must be redesigned to align with the Development Corporation’s geography and responsibilities. Without this alignment the Development Corporation risks accelerating development while placing additional pressure on a transport system that is already struggling to cope.
• Any Development Corporation put in place should work closely with the existing planning service, which should be used to determine applications of any size. The Board should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto. Local people should also be involved in the Development Corporation’s plans by way of additional community involvement such as co-creation workshops or a Citizens’ Assembly. It is vital that residents have a meaningful voice.

Question 8: What do you think about the proposals to give the Development Corporation powers to determine planning applications as set out in the consultation document?

The consultation proposes that the UDC gains the power to determine the outcomes of planning applications on sites over a certain size, and planning applications on sites of any size it considers will have an impact on strategically significant developments.

We suggest include the following points in your answer:

• It is vital that local residents and elected representatives continue to have a say on planning decisions that fundamentally shape their area.
• Any Development Corporation put in place should work closely with the existing planning service, which should be used to determine applications of any size.
• The Board should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto.
• Local people should also be involved in the Development Corporation’s plans by way of additional community involvement such as co-creation workshops or a Citizens’ Assembly.

Question 9: Do you agree with using thresholds for the Development Corporation taking decision making powers? Which minimum thresholds for determining planning applications do you think are appropriate?

The consultation proposes that the UDC gains the power to determine the outcomes of planning applications on sites over a certain size, and invites comments on what that threshold should be (see Table 1 below).

We suggest you make the following point:

• Any Development Corporation put in place should work closely with the existing planning service, which should be used to determine applications of any size.

Question 10: Do you have any other views on the proposed approach to the Development Corporation’s powers and functions?

While the Greater Cambridge UDC would obtain certain planning powers straight away or soon after its establishment, the consultation proposes that it would not obtain transport powers initially. Instead, it would work closely with existing transport authorities to deliver solutions, and only obtain powers over transport should the County Council and/or Combined Authority fail to implement its plans.

We suggest you say:

• Planning powers are currently proposed for the Development Corporation while transport responsibilities initially remain distributed across multiple organisations with different geographic boundaries and priorities.
• A Development Corporation will only succeed if planning and transport decisions are aligned – both within the organisation and outside it.
• Either the Development Corporation must assume meaningful transport powers from the outset, or transport governance – both Highways Authority and Transport Authority powers – in the region must be redesigned to align with the Development Corporation’s geography and responsibilities. Without this alignment the Development Corporation risks accelerating development while placing additional pressure on a transport system that is already struggling to cope.

Question 11: What do you think about proposed local representation on the Development Corporation Board, as set out in the consultation document?

The consultation proposes that four local leaders are appointed to the UDC’s decision-making board (the leaders of Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, and the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. all potentially replaced by the single leader of the relevant unitary authority following upcoming local government reorganisation). Local Leaders will be in the minority on the Board however (it will have at least 9 members in total), and they will not be able to act as Chair or Vice Chair of the Committee. Local people will therefore be unable to vote in or out those with majority control of the UDC. 

We know that Camcycle members and supporters will hold a range of views on the interaction between efficient delivery of transport infrastructure and effective democracy. However, we believe that if a Development Corporation is put in place, it must work alongside existing local authorities, rather than above them, and enable local people to continue to have their say on how the place where they live and work is shaped.

Consider making the following points:

• A Development Corporation must work alongside existing local authorities, rather than above them, and enable local people to continue to have their say on how the place where they live and work is shaped.
• A Development Corporation must engage with local people extensively throughout the entire duration of its existence, and that it is essential that the Board has strong local representation so that it has lived experience of Greater Cambridge’s transport network.
• Any Development Corporation put in place should work closely with the existing planning service, which should be used to determine applications of any size.
• The Board should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto.
• Local people should also be involved in the Development Corporation’s plans by way of additional community involvement such as co-creation workshops or a Citizens’ Assembly.

Question 12: What do you think about the board having expertise in areas such as planning, property development, design, environment, finance, and infrastructure delivery?

The consultation refers to ongoing work to identify Mass Rapid Transit solutions for the region, but fails to mention the role of cycling (or indeed walking/wheeling or bus travel) within the future transport system.

We recommend you make the following points:

• The Board must have expertise in active travel. Cycling already carries a substantial share of everyday journeys, particularly for travel to employment and education. In a historic city with limited road capacity, walking and cycling allow large numbers of people to move efficiently using very little space while providing affordable access to jobs, education and services. It is difficult to see how Cambridge could accommodate significant growth and maintain a functioning transport network without increasing the number of people who travel by cycle.
• It is also essential that the Board has strong local representation so that it has lived experience of Greater Cambridge’s transport network.

Question 13: Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for anyone with a relevant protected characteristic?

The Development Consultation must consider how growth will impact those already at a disadvantage in society, including younger people, older people and disabled people. There is no evidence from the consultation document that their voices will be heard.

Click ‘yes’.

Question 14: If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, may be impacted and how.

• Young people in Greater Cambridge should be at the heart of plans to supercharge growth in the region, as they will be impacted most by its outcomes. They are also the group most likely to rely on active travel and public transport to access education, employment, healthcare and social activities.
• Any transport infrastructure and transport services delivered by the UDC must be designed with the needs of younger people, older people, disabled people and women in mind (as well as the needs of other minority groups). It should bring increased benefit and access, rather than further entrenching inequalities.

Question 15: Is there anything that could be done to maximise benefits or address any concerns you have identified?

• There is no indication at present that younger people will be represented directly on the UDC’s decision-making Board. The Board should include at least one person under 25, or a representative appointed by young people.
• While local elected representatives would sit on the UDC’s Board, they would be outnumbered by other Board members appointed by the government. In the absence of board members directly appointed to represent minority groups, elected members are best placed to represent those at a disadvantage in society. The reduced democratic representation increases the risk that minority voices are not heard.
• Therefore, the Board should either be comprised of a majority of elected members, or the elected members should be given the power of veto.