Issue - meetings

The Leader introduced the report.

The report referred to the Government proposals for a Development Corporation for Greater Cambridge. The Corporation would cover the areas of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. The purpose would be to accelerate economic growth in and around Cambridge over the next 25 years.

In response to questions from Cabinet Members and those Councillors present, the Leader said:

      i.         Highlighted the summary of feedback from a meeting of the extraordinary Council held on 19 March 2026, where Members held a substantive discussion on this topic and expressed a range of views. There had been considerable agreement on several elements of the proposals, alongside some areas of disagreement.

    ii.         Summarised concerns regarding the Government’s proposals to remove planning powers from local authorities. They noted that the proposals covered two areas:

·      Plan‑making powers, which would be transferred immediately but not used until after adoption of the next Local Plan, expected around 2029.

·      Planning determination powers, under which the Development Corporation would determine applications for larger sites, while local authorities would retain responsibility for smaller applications.

   iii.         Key concerns included the loss of local democratic accountability, the reduced ability for residents’ voices to influence planning decisions, and the view that elected local authorities were best placed to balance competing considerations.

  iv.         Highlighted the robust performance of the current democratically controlled planning service, noting 37,000 approved but unbuilt homes, the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan due for submission later in the year, and the high level of community engagement with over 100 events held during the most recent consultation. Such engagement would not be achievable under an unelected body.

    v.         Noted the comment regarding the potential for unrestricted growth with no master planning in place.

  vi.         Believed the central issue was the democratic deficit created by moving planning powers from elected local authorities to a Development Corporation, stressing that residents currently influenced decisions through their elected representatives, the Government and the Development Corporation must justify how a new planning committee would operate differently and sufficiently better to warrant removing these powers.

 vii.         Question what a Development Corporation Planning Committee would do that was sufficiently different or better, and whether creating an entirely new committee could be justified when it would still be bound by the same national planning laws.

viii.         Although planning was a quasi‑judicial function, elected councillors retain a closer and more accountable relationship with residents than appointees who may not live in the city and are not directly elected. The justification for such a transfer of powers should come from Government and the proposed Development Corporation.

  ix.         Noted the comment made that the proposals undermined the Council’s best‑value duty, transferring profitable planning functions to a Development Corporation would leave the Council with a significant budget gap, harm recruitment, and retention, and weaken service quality. The Development Corporation should instead focus on long‑standing infrastructure deficits, such as wastewater capacity and grid limitations before attempting to accelerate growth. The growth assumptions, particularly for the life sciences sector, were uncertain and required stronger national support. It was concluded that the proposals needed substantial improvement and warned that pursuing the transfer of planning powers would be detrimental.

    x.         Highlighted that much of the planning process occurred before applications were formally determined, involving substantial engagement between developers and the planning service. Transferring this work to a Development Corporation would further reduce the influence of the local authority and elected representatives over major schemes and how the city developed.

  xi.         Noted the following points raised by Councillor Porrer:

·      The Planning Committee always abided with the National Planning Policy Framework who considered applications where there has been an objection(s).

·      Stressed the importance of retaining cross party locally elected councillors in planning decisions, noting that councillors played a vital role in explaining decisions to residents and maintaining accountability.

·      Transferring functions to a Development Corporation could weaken enforcement, risk losing experienced officers, and undermine a high‑performing planning service.

·      Agreed that the main concerns related to the proposed removal of plan‑making and development‑management powers and reiterated that infrastructure must be addressed first.

 xii.         Noted the comments made by the Leader of the Liberal Democrats:

·      Mistake not to have taken a vote on this matter at the extraordinary Council meeting.

·      The Cabinet debate seemed to have gone from a clear consensus at Full Council, where all contributions had warned against creating a democratic deficit, with a comment now made that was not so important.  Urged the Leader not to be swayed from that position when finalising the response.

·      The comments collated from Full Council by the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development was a fair and accurate representation.

·      Democratic accountability remained a central concern, as planning decisions involved a long, formative process, not just the final committee vote. Major applications, such as Cambridge East or North East Cambridge, would directly shape the existing urban area, making it essential that the Council retained control throughout.

·      Asserted reassurance that democratic deficit would be fully addressed in the Council’s consultation response and noted that this had consistently been a core theme in their own contributions.

xiii.         The consultation consisted of 13 questions relating to the Government’s proposal for a Development Corporation. The Council’s response would be submitted in accordance with the Constitution agreed in May of the previous year, with the Leader holding ultimate responsibility for government consultation submissions. It would not have been practical to vote on the precise wording of every part of the response, the views expressed were extremely helpful and would be fully considered.

xiv.         Confirmed they would be happy to share the draft response with group leaders before submission and the issue of democratic deficit would be included as had indicated in public debate.

xv.         Would encourage all residents to take part in the consultation.

Greater Cambridge Development Corporation: Consultation - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government - Citizen Space 

The Chair sought general assent that the Cabinet had considered the feedback from the extraordinary Council meeting held on 19 March and had provided sufficient advice for preparing the final response to the consultation on the proposal to establish a centrally‑led Urban Development Corporation for Greater Cambridge. Members were reminded that they could submit any further advice after the meeting and that the draft would be shared with Opposition Group Leaders.