Lewis Herbert interviews Chair of Cambridge Growth Company, Peter Freeman on Cambridge Radio

Posted byCambridge Town OwlPosted inUncategorized

One of my former local councillors and the former leader of Cambridge City Council puts the question to the man instructed by ministers to grow our city and economic sub-region

You can listen to the interview on what I still call Cambridge 105, here

“The council is doing a fabulous job”

…concluded Peter Freeman at the end of the interview. Yes – which one? The joys of our current governance system, although I think he was referring to the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, which he praised for being so pro-active in putting together a substantial evidence base for the emerging local plan. (You can browse through the document library here – and also see the update from Cambridge City Council at item 6 of S&R here, due for debate in under 24 hours time!).

In one sense Mr Freeman’s responses generated more questions than anything else – mainly because he’s not nearly as far advanced in his work as perhaps some may think or assume he is. Understandable given that Michael Gove published his case for Cambridge nearly a year ago under the previous government, and that we’ve been waiting for central government to define ‘Cambridge’ for the purposes of government policy ever since. It turns out that in Mr Freeman’s opinion, Gove’s proposals were far too rushed and that a much more considered and co-operative approach, one that will involve lots but not as many homes as Gove indicated, being pursued by Mr Pennycook the Housing Minister, bodes better for Cambridge’s future.

Mr Freeman needs to come up with a system of conflict resolution

In my view, that has to involve those in favour, and who stand to benefit financially from the growth, being sat with those who stand to lose out and/or who are the least likely to gain from it, to solve a shared problem. Otherwise he’ll end up being portrayed as the monarch who listens to the pleadings of all and sundry before deciding which option he dislikes the least.

In the interview, he indicated to Mr Herbert of how growth could benefit some of the rural villages that lack existing community facilities, and that the additional new homes built could be the difference between a settlement sustaining a pub or shop or even an existing primary school. Where settlements have their facilities, amenities, and public services already close to capacity, he said those are the ones in principle he’d prefer to leave alone.

Transparency of meetings and representations – especially from corporations

One of the most significant things he can do is to break open what can feel like a veil of secrecy in the decision-making processes. In particular he and his staff need to be absolutely incorruptible when it comes to who they meet, when, and where. That means no ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ and no ‘off the record briefings’. Having a public record of who me meets, and who they represent would go a long way. Furthermore, this should very clearly go for firms of lobbying, consultancy, and professional service organisations who should expect to have to name their clients who have vested interests. One thing that would make the task much easier is by Ministers directing the Land Registry to make its land ownership data open access and freely available to all. (Feel free to email your MP to ask ministers if they will do this).

Community building

At Teacambs2 earlier today (the next two are on Tues 11 Feb at Cambridge Wine on CHRd, and on Sun 23 Feb at The Rock) one local picked up on our discussion to tell us about the awful build quality her and her family had seen across a number of newbuild estates – name-checking Orchard Park and Marleigh. And that’s on top of the recent headlines on Cambridge Station’s newbuild social homes. And that’s not even mentioning the challenges that Cambourne and Northstowe have had on amenities and infrastructure.

For somewhere like Cambridge, one of the other challenges we have – driven in part by unstable employment patterns imposed by large institutions, is loneliness. How do we design it out?

Lewis put the challenges of community development to Mr Freeman.

“A lot of people who live in a city don’t feel that they are part of a community – do you think that there should be a real community element going forward?”

*Absolutely – yes* … *Hopefully in the way the street patterns are laid out you will meet people you will know*

Lewis Herbert at 30m45s, Peter Freeman responds

This followed a very nuanced exchange on the institutions and facilities that anchor communities, and trying to figure out what the approach should be to different villages around Cambridge, some of which will inevitably grow.

Residents can see broken and disjointed government when they see it

The damage to democracy is done when senior ministers are unwilling to change the structures that cause the problems at a local level – such as effectively forcing councils to agree to significant levels of house-building while not funding local NHS services to provide GPs and dentists for the expanding population.

Yet while the disconnect between things like local healthcare provision and levels of house building remain, Mr Freeman may find himself blamed for problems caused by things that were not within his terms of reference. Therefore he has a huge personal interest in ensuring that the new unitary structures and the new powers for combined authorities in and around Cambridge have the capabilities to deal with potential problems later on down the line.

Food for thought?

If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:

Below – for those of you interested in rail and light rail, note that Rail Future East Anglia Branch meets on Saturday 22nd February 2025 – Bury St Edmunds – AGM at 14:00
Friends Meeting House, St John’s Street, Bury St Edmunds IP33 1SJ – also have a browse of their newsletters here.