Cambridge Growth Company’s Mass Transit Commission to report back in June 2026

Posted byCambridge Town OwlPosted inUncategorized

Which probably means July if they want to get it done before Parliament’s summer recess, or September for when Parliament returns.

It’s in papers for South Cambridgeshire District Council for their full council meeting on 04 December 2025 – see item 12. Ideally this should also have been a paper for Cambridge City Councillors in their full council meeting last week.

Ideally both councils should be publishing these for their councillors so that they have consistent information sets. Hopefully some of our city councillors will pick up on this summary by Liz Watts, Chief Exec of South Cambridgeshire District Council as it’s a useful update for those not familiar with where the Cambridge Growth Company has got to.

“Why can’t transport policy people just say ‘Buses’?”

Because it’s written in an old transport report that’s obsolete, that’s why.

Above: “High Quality Public Transport” from Cambridge Futures 2 in 2003, an acronym used all too often by transport bosses to hide their bus-based solutions when other cities around continental Europe have wonderful tram and light rail systems forming integral parts of their public transport network

Above – what we didn’t get from the Cambridge Futures 2 Combined Proposals

The thing is, we were sold tunnels as an integral part of the solution

Stephen Platt’s survey in 2004 shows what we were asked 21 years ago.

Above – Platt (2004) Cambridge Futures 2 Transport Survey

What would a similar survey say today?

Mr Platt also wrote another article about Cambridge’s future transport in 2017

Above: Platt (2017) Cambridge Futures 1990-2030 p15

The historical context matters – even if it’s over things like the use of annoying acronyms

I won’t repeat what I wrote in my earlier blogpost on the geographical limitation of the mass transit commission. That still stands and it’s up to the Growth Company and the member councils to compose and agree a response. Failing that I’ll simply table another public question for the Mayor of the Combined Authority Paul Bristow who chairs another CPCA Board Meeting on 18 December 2025. Which is showing Zoe-Bread-levels of dedication to chasing up local councils on stuff.

Talking of historical contexts…

Government orders Anglian Water to pull its finger out…

“The government has instructed Anglian Water to accelerate planning for wastewater infrastructure upgrades required to accommodate development and growth both now and for the Cambridge Growth Company’s long-term ambitions for expansion in Greater Cambridge. This will report to government by early 2026.”

Above – Liz Watts to South Cambridgeshire District Council Full Council 04 Dec 2025

We’ve been here before.

Back in the mid-1970s the Anglian Water Authority placed an effective embargo on all major planning applications in and around Cambridge until the Government provided resources for it to increase capacity at the Milton works north of Cambridge. It’s not like we weren’t warned.

Above – at the tail end when Cambridge City Council still had a fair number of significant responsibilities, the City Engineer and Surveyor wrote this in 1965

Above – Mr Burrows for Cambridge City Council, March 1965

“The population of the drainage area and water consumption have increased at rates greater than envisaged twelve or more years ago, with the result that the sewage works is now treating the maximum flows for which the extensions completed in 1958 were originally designed to ultimately receive.”

This was the impact of replacing slum properties lacking running water with new, low density housing estates with running hot and cold water.

It would be a strange irony if developments were halted because a privatised water company had splashed away their mega profits over the years while piling on the debts instead of investing in new infrastructure to prevent such catastrophes. One of the selling points of privatisation being that it was meant to tap up huge investment fund that did not involve government balance sheets creaking under the strain as in nationalised industries.

The appendix on water credits – which is a bit like the carbon markets

It’s at item 10 here and highlights:

  • Retrofitting of existing properties (homes and businesses) with water efficiency devices and measures so as to reduce the overall consumption of water in Cambridge. The idea being that this will create some breathing space for more homes and properties that come on stream
  • On the water credits scheme – long awaited and long delayed, the idea is that developers unable to reduce the water consumption of their developments to the minimum would purchase water credits in lieu/in place of efficiency saving. The idea is that the most water efficient buildings ‘earn’ water credits through low consumption, and those with high consumption have to ‘buy credits’. I think that’s how it works. The idea that over time the water credit price becomes so high that developers choose to install water efficiency measures rather than let their new owners or tenants take the financial hit.

Not everyone is convinced.

One year and two days ago, Cllr Jean Glasberg (Greens – Newnham) called out the Government on their plans in a letter to The Guardian. We’re still a very long way to go. The resources required to retrain a critical mass of residents to retrofit their firms and businesses really should be underway by now. At the moment locally Cambridge Carbon Footprint has been doing great things for years. But charities can only do so much. At some point – and especially in a crisis – the state has to step in and provide the resources to step things up. And that still has not happened.

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: