The Conclusions - 1
Comparing the Options
All the options would add to the cost of living and
production in the region, owing to increased transport congestion and restrictions on land
development. However some options would increase these costs even further, threatening the
areas economic prosperity.
Options which severely restrict development in and
around the City such as Option 1: Minimum Growth and Option 7: New Town, would add between
76% and 83% to the average cost of living during the period 2001-2016. Production costs
would increase by between 48% and 54%, making it difficult for export industries and
services such as the high-tech sector to compete in international markets. Traditional
industries and services would find it difficult to maintain their operations, leading to
closures and redundancies.
Options which encourage development in and around the
City such as Option 2: Densification and Option 4: Green Swap, would increase the cost of
living and production costs within manageable proportions. They would add
between 1% and
1.5% per annum to export costs during the period 2001-2016. This would augur well for the
areas economic prosperity as the higher costs would be counteracted by expected
efficiency increases during the period.
Intermediate options which allow a measure of
development within and around the City, such as Option 5: Transport Links, do not perform
as well as the options which encourage development, but they do perform much better than
those which impose severe restrictions on the development of the City and its surrounding
With the higher cost of living, particularly in the
City, the segregation of socio-economic groups would increase. The City and surrounding
area would become the preserve of the wealthy professional and managerial classes. Manual
and unskilled households would be displaced unless protected by Council housing provision.
Housing affordability would become a major issue with
young people unable to compete in the housing market, and low income groups would be
forced into cramped and substandard accommodation. The option of living beyond the Green
Belt and commuting into the City and its fringe employment locations would become unviable
because of congestion.
Options which severely restrict development in and
around the City such as Option 1: Minimum Growth, Option 3: Necklace, Option 6: Virtual
Highway and Option 7: New Town, would increase the segregation of the City as prices rise.
Only the top income groups could afford to live in the City.
Options which allow a measure of development in and
around the City such as Option 2: Densification, Option 4: Green Swap and Option 5:
Transport Links, would improve the socio-economic mix, encouraging more balanced
communities. In any case, even with these options, the City and South Cambridgeshire would
have a greater proportion of higher income groups, while Huntingdonshire and East
Cambridgeshire would have a higher proportion of lower income groups.
All the options would add to road congestion because
of the increased activity in the region and limited supply of infrastructure. However,
some of the options would lengthen traffic delays within the City considerably, increasing
emissions and thus pollution.
Options which encourage development of the City and
its surrounding area such as Option 2: Densification and Option 4: Green Swap, would
increase traffic on the Citys existing roads. Despite a higher proportion of people
not using their cars, the sheer number of people in the area would increase vehicular
traffic, raising congestion levels and consequently emissions and pollution.
Options which severely restrict development of the
City and its surrounding area such as Option 1: Minimum Growth and Option 3: Necklace,
would heighten traffic in the access roads to the City and its fringe, increasing
congestion and pollution.
Options which introduce alternative forms of
communication such as Option 6: Virtual Highway, Option 5: Transport Links and to some
extent Option 7: New Town, perform much better in terms of congestion and thus pollution.
All the options use existing open space in some form
or another. In some cases, such as Option 2: Densification or Option 4: Green Swap,
private open space within or around the City (in the Green Belt) is used. In other cases
such as Option 1: Minimum Growth, Option 3: Necklace, Option 6: Virtual Highway or Option
7: New Town, agricultural open space is used beyond South Cambridgeshire (Option 1) beyond
the Green Belt (Option 3), in dispersed areas on the Virtual Highway (Option 6) or in one
location (Option 7).
Option 5: Transport Links would utilise a mixture of
existing brown land (underutilised or derelict) near the railways to provide
employment opportunities and green land (ie, agricultural) in villages or new
developments near existing or potential rail stations. Thus it would minimise the intake
of open space.
Man-made amenities, especially in the City and around
it, would be more affected by options which encourage development within or around the
City. The character of the place might change to become a more compact city in Option 2:
Densification or larger city in Option 4: Green Swap, weakening the image of Cambridge as
a University town within a rural setting.
Man-made amenities within the City and its fringe
would not be affected in options which restrict development in the City and surrounding
area. This is particularly the case in Option 1: Minimum Growth, Option 3: Necklace and
Option 7: New Town.
About the conclusions
This is the first of 2 pages summarising the results of
This first page compares the 7 scenarios ion terms of
economic efficiency, social equity, and environmental quality.
The second page groups the
options and summarises their overall merits.