Consultation outcome

Greater Cambridge Development Corporation: Analysis of consultation responses and next steps

Updated 3 June 2026

1. Introduction

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) consulted on the proposal to establish a centrally-led urban development corporation in Greater Cambridge, to be known as the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (“the Development Corporation”).

The consultation ran between 4 February and 1 April 2026. MHCLG, supported by the Cambridge Growth Company, undertook a series of engagement events and publicity throughout the consultation period, engaging residents, businesses and councils.

This included direct outreach, formal briefings and wider public communications to maximise awareness and participation, alongside targeted engagement with business, education, community and civic organisations across the proposed area and neighbouring authorities. This was supported by communication about the consultation through established networks such as universities, Cambridgeshire Chambers of Commerce, and local authority e‑bulletins to town and parish councils.

Elected members and local councils were engaged through a series of public, recorded scrutiny sessions and briefings at district, county, town and parish level. Dedicated engagement was also undertaken with the business and innovation sectors, via online briefings and sector‑specific forums.

Public participation was supported through community‑led events and MHCLG‑hosted webinars, alongside a wider programme of media and digital publicity, including local and regional press coverage, interviews, podcasts, and social media. Social media coverage was amplified by local authorities, businesses and organisations.

Report overview

Chapter 2 summarises the consultation responses received, by each question. It does not attempt to capture every point made, though all responses were given full consideration. Consultation questions encouraged respondents to provide free text answers, leading to qualitatively rich responses. Analysis is therefore typically presented around common themes, although some statistical insights have been presented.

Chapter 3 sets out the government’s intentions and next steps to proceed with the formation of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation.

Background

Greater Cambridge is one of Britain’s most important engines of growth, home to the University of Cambridge, other world-class research institutions, and innovation-led ecosystems in technology, advanced manufacturing, and the life sciences. 

However, despite its global significance, Greater Cambridge faces challenges with housing affordability, congested transport and infrastructure capacity that are limiting growth and threatening its position as a global centre of innovation. These challenges are not new, and local institutions have worked hard to address them over many years. 

In response to these challenges, the government consulted on the proposal to establish a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, a centrally-led, urban development corporation with the legislative powers, focus and resources to unlock the area’s potential.

The consultation set out that the Development Corporation would have a clear remit to deliver lasting benefits for both existing and future communities. It would do so by accelerating economic growth; coordinating enabling infrastructure; leveraging public and private investment; delivering environmentally sustainable outcomes; and reducing inequality through affordable housing and skills development. Building upon the exceptional quality of place seen across much of Greater Cambridge, the objective of the Development Corporation would be to deliver exemplary development in the form of high-quality, well-designed, attractive, and sustainable homes and neighbourhoods.

The consultation proposed that a centrally-led approach would provide the stability, capability and capacity needed to coordinate complex infrastructure delivery across multiple councils, landowners, delivery partners and agencies, and secure the major public and private investment required to unlock growth at this scale. It was proposed that the Board of the Development Corporation would include leaders from local councils and the Mayor of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, ensuring local democratic input and accountability on its approach.

The consultation invited views on the proposal to create a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, focusing specifically on:

1. The case for establishing a centrally-led urban development corporation.
2. The proposed objectives and activities of the Development Corporation.
3. The proposed approach to integrating local democratic representation in the Development Corporation’s activities.
4. The proposed geographical boundary in which the Development Corporation would operate.
5. The proposed approach to a spectrum of powers that the Development Corporation would be granted.

The government has noted consultation responses concerning impacts on persons or groups with protected characteristics, and the Secretary of State has had due regard for eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations, as per section 149 (Public Sector Equality Duty) of the Equality Act 2010, when taking a decision on whether to establish a development corporation in Greater Cambridge. Environmental considerations have also informed Secretary of State decisions through the environmental principles policy statement (Environment Act 2021) and a Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening report.

The Public Sector Equality Duty and Environmental Principles Policy Statement will continue to inform the Development Corporation’s Corporate Plan, Framework Agreement, Development Plan, and in individual business plans for all projects to satisfy legal obligations in relation to environmental and equality duties.

The consultation did not cover specific details of development that will come forward. It will be for the Development Corporation, once established, to work with local communities and partners on how to take forward development of the area, building upon the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

Overview of consultation responses

The consultation received 773 responses. Responses were submitted through an online survey, post and email.

When asked if they live or work in Greater Cambridge, 91% of respondents answered ‘Yes’ and 5% answered ‘No’. The remainder either did not answer or did not know.

The table below provides a categorised breakdown of respondents. Some individuals responded explicitly on behalf of the organisations they represent and have been categorised as ‘organisations’. Those in the ‘individual’ category did not respond on behalf of an organisation.

Respondent type	Number of responses
Individual	617
Organisation (total)	(145)
Local authority	6
Neighbourhood planning body, parish or town council	34
Developer	16
Business	14
Other private sector organisation	15
Professional body	7
Interest group or voluntary organisation	36
Organisation (Not applicable)	10
Organisation (Not answered)	7
Not applicable	3
Not answered	8

The consultation analysis in Chapter 2 categorises organisations into the following groups:

• Individuals
• Local Government: this includes local authorities and neighbourhood planning bodies, parish or town councils
• Private sector organisations and professional bodies: this includes developers, businesses, other private sector organisations and professional bodies
• Interest groups or voluntary organisations

2. Summary of responses by question

Part 1: Why a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation is needed

What do you think about the current delivery of infrastructure and homes in Greater Cambridge 

Infrastructure delivery

The prevailing theme amongst responses was that infrastructure delivery in Greater Cambridge has been slow, piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historic population and employment growth. Reflecting the constraints outlined in the consultation, a chronic and widening infrastructure gap was identified as having a detrimental impact on the quality of life of residents, constraining the ability of the region to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence.  

Individuals and organisations widely reported that Greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, coordinated, long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision-making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required. Infrastructure challenges raised by respondents generally aligned with those identified in the consultation document, including transport and access to social infrastructure, water and wastewater capacity, and energy network capacity.

Transport and social infrastructure

The most common theme raised by respondents was that transport provision is inadequate and poorly coordinated. Many felt that transport has been hampered by a lack of clarity and consistency, with repeated and disruptive changes, leading to scattered and piecemeal provision, rather than a holistic network.

Respondents stated that unreliable public transport and chronic road congestion consistently obstructs efficient access to workplaces, schools and key services. Businesses also reported that unpredictable and unsustainable transport provision damages firms’ ability to attract and retain talent, and undermines Greater Cambridge’s global competitiveness. Despite its reputation as a ‘cycling city’, respondents described cycling infrastructure as unsafe and inaccessible for many, further increasing the pressure on road networks.

Local government organisations, voluntary organisations and individuals, stressed that transport challenges are amplified in villages and rural areas across Greater Cambridge, especially in relation to accessing the city centre. Some responses, notably from voluntary organisations and interest groups, also highlighted deficits in social infrastructure in areas outside of the city, including health and social care, education and community facilities – exacerbating and entrenching levels of deprivation and social isolation.

Water and wastewater

Some respondents noted that Greater Cambridge is classified as ‘seriously water stressed’ and raised concerns about the sustainability of historic and projected growth rates. Wastewater treatment was described as at near capacity, placing risks on growth in the short-term. Some respondents said that due to the fragility of water infrastructure and over‑abstracted chalk aquifers, continued growth risks significant ecological damage, unless an infrastructure-led approach is taken to water provision.

Energy network capacity

Some organisations commented that energy capacity, alongside the robustness of the distribution network, is an emerging concern which threatens to restrict growth and undermine decarbonisation ambitions.

Housing delivery

The consultation responses revealed that housing affordability was a central concern across Greater Cambridge. Individuals and organisations alike felt that market rate homes are inaccessible to most of the population, while rent levels have climbed far above the national average in recent years. Respondents pointed to unmet affordable housing demand, forcing residents and families to live further away from the city, where they are increasingly dependent upon unreliable public transport.

Many organisations reported that poor housing affordability, alongside increased living costs, has damaged the ability to attract and retain staff. They said that this has negatively impacted the diversity of the local skills pipeline, forcing companies to invest or outsource internationally, and threatening to undermine Greater Cambridge’s research, education, technology and industry sectors.

Many respondents noted that local housing delivery has been relatively high compared to the national average and pointed to the strong performance of the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service. However, the majority view was that housing delivery has not kept pace with levels of demand, amplifying affordability challenges, and constraining wider economic growth.

Even in areas of high housing delivery, many respondents felt that essential social infrastructure has not come alongside it. Developments such as Northstowe, Waterbeach, and Bourn Airfield were raised as examples of housing development consents outpacing the provision of schools, health services and nearby amenities. Some individuals also felt that Greater Cambridge has been overdeveloped or pointed to an increase in bland or ‘identikit’ housing, and the threat posed by ‘urban sprawl’ to the natural beauty and historic identity of the region.

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

Many respondents strongly prioritised the sustainable and inclusive growth of Greater Cambridge, with commensurate improvements in quality of life, equitable access to opportunities, the protection of natural assets, and enhancements to the region’s globally leading innovation ecosystem. Respondents suggested that this will require a coordinated and consistent approach to aligning infrastructure, affordable housing delivery, employment growth, and a local skills pipeline.

Respondents further highlighted the need for future transport provision to serve Greater Cambridge as a system, recognising that surrounding villages are fundamental to supporting significant growth of the region’s economy. Many therefore advocated that growth must come alongside increases in connectivity, including integrated, reliable and efficient mass rapid transit solutions, and improved rail connections to strengthen regional links.

There was a divergence in views on where new housing should be clustered, with some respondents suggesting that it should be focused in or around the city, while others felt it should be dispersed across the region. Organisations were in broad agreement that future improvements to housing infrastructure delivery will depend upon alignment between multiple stakeholders, including local and central government, infrastructure and utilities providers, investors, and delivery partners.

Many also suggested that growth must be balanced with a deep appreciation for the distinctive and varied ways of life across Greater Cambridge. Individuals and organisations pointed to a longstanding tradition of civic engagement and local participation, and the importance of government and local organisations working in partnership to shape the vision for the region. Attention was drawn to protecting and maintaining the rural and agricultural priorities of areas outside of the city. Many respondents also advocated the protection of Greater Cambridge’s character and heritage, warning that future growth cannot come at the expense of eroding the very qualities that make Greater Cambridge unique.

There was strong support for future growth having in-built environmental protections and climate resilience, including an infrastructure-first approach to increasing water supply, alongside a clear and transparent strategy to protect Greater Cambridge’s green belt, farmland, biodiversity, and chalk streams.

Respondents emphasised that future growth must alleviate, rather than exacerbate, regional inequalities, pointing to variations in health inequalities, crime, and economic deprivation. Some individuals pointed to proposed developments at the Grafton and Beehive centre, expressing concern that provision of laboratory space would come at the expense of essential services and community spaces. Emphasis was placed on the need for new developments to provide safe and inclusive spaces, which promote social cohesion and accommodate diverse community needs.

Government response 

The government recognises the strength and consensus of the concerns raised about the current delivery of infrastructure and homes in Greater Cambridge, and the impact this has had on quality of life, housing affordability, and the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy.

Complex governance arrangements, fragmented decision‑making, and uncertainty over long‑term funding have made it difficult to holistically plan, finance and deliver infrastructure at the scale and pace required. The government recognises the strong performance of the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, while acknowledging concerns that housing delivery and affordability have not kept pace with demand.

The government believes that the scale and complexity of these challenges will require a step change in delivery. These are the core issues that a Development Corporation will be established to address.

The government also welcomes respondents’ emphasis on protecting Greater Cambridge’s unique character, environment and heritage, supporting rural communities, and ensuring that future growth reduces, rather than exacerbates, inequalities. The government expects the Development Corporation to be an exemplar of excellent community engagement, and it will be established with objectives that require it to work closely with local government, communities and local partners to ensure that growth is shaped by these priorities at formative stages and delivers lasting benefits for existing and future residents.

Part 2: The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation and its objectives

What do you think about the proposal to create a centrally-led urban development corporation in Greater Cambridge?

This section focuses on the strategic rationale for establishing the Development Corporation. Details on its governance, boundary and powers are covered in subsequent sections.

The consultation found that views were mixed on the proposal to create a centrally-led Development Corporation in Greater Cambridge, which varied by respondent type:

• Individuals: 68% were either opposed or mostly opposed. 21% were either supportive or conditionally supportive. 10% were neutral, and 2% did not answer.
• Local Government organisations: 48% were either opposed or mostly opposed. 38% were either supportive or conditionally supportive. 10% were neutral, and 4% did not answer.
• Private sector organisations and professional bodies: 8% were either opposed or mostly opposed. 81% were either supportive or conditionally supportive. 6% were neutral, and 5% did not answer.
• Interest groups or voluntary organisations: 42% were either opposed or mostly opposed. 39% were either supportive or conditionally supportive. 14% were neutral, and 5% did not answer.

The primary reasons cited in opposition to the creation of a Development Corporation were that:

• A centrally-led body would reduce local democratic representation and accountability in relation to key decisions about the future of Greater Cambridge. The impact on local democracy was raised in approximately three-quarters of opposing responses. Respondents were typically concerned about limited channels to influence decisions, and the potential distance between decision-makers and those living in the region. Local democracy also featured prominently among respondents that were mostly supportive, who typically emphasised the need for strong democratic representation and accountable safeguards.
• Some felt that the proposal aimed to solve infrastructure challenges through changes in governance, rather than addressing the underlying investment, market and environmental constraints currently hindering growth. Some organisations suggested that government should instead commit to funding elected local authorities, rather than creating a new body at a time when Local Government Reorganisation measures are aimed at simplifying structures.
• Some respondents noted that the consultation proposals primarily listed the economic and social benefits of a Development Corporation but did not outline benefits or safeguards to the natural environment. They felt that mandated government growth proposals could threaten the natural environment, undermine commitments to net zero and Carbon Budgets, or put further strain on water infrastructure.

The most common reasons given in support of establishing a Development Corporation were that it would:

• Provide the coordination powers required to resolve increasingly complex infrastructure constraints, unlock the delivery of strategic sites, and plan for a holistic growth strategy.
• Provide an integrated, long term strategic vision for housing infrastructure and placemaking in Greater Cambridge, leading to sustainable and inclusive growth at the scale and pace required.
• Bring the central government influence behind addressing key constraints in the region, along with a joined-up approach to funding and unlocking investment.

Amongst those that were supportive of the proposal, this was frequently caveated on the condition that the Development Corporation would:

• Work closely with existing governance and centres of knowledge, rather than adding complexity to the system.
• Have robust, transparent and accountable safeguards to ensure local representation, including established processes and forums for residents to both meaningfully influence and appeal decisions, and participate in the journey of inclusive and sustainable growth. Priorities and decision making must reflect the wider geography of Greater Cambridge to account for the diverse needs and priorities across the region.
• Have sufficient powers and authority to make tangible progress in unlocking and accelerating the delivery of essential infrastructure.

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

The consultation produced a range of views on the objectives. While many respondents expressed general alignment with the objectives in principle, some raised questions about their implementation and how they would be prioritised.

Overarching comments on the objectives included:

• Many individuals and organisations stated that the objectives should include protections for residents and local institutions to shape the future of Greater Cambridge. Some suggested that the objectives should include specific provision for democratic accountability, transparency and ability for local people to influence the Development Corporation.
• Further detail was requested on how growth ambitions would be weighed and prioritised against other objectives to ensure ‘good growth’ that promotes environmental sustainability, and inclusion and opportunity. Many organisations and individuals stated that economic considerations must be grounded in the region’s environmental capacity to deliver. They suggested that that development will not inherently achieve sustainable or inclusive outcomes, and that the prioritisation of these potentially competing objectives requires a clear and transparent strategy.
• Some suggested that there is overlap between the Development Corporation’s objectives and existing local institutions, requiring a clearer articulation of its distinctive role and responsibilities. Looking beyond Greater Cambridge, respondents also questioned how the objectives would align with wider strategic initiatives, such as the Oxford–Cambridge Corridor and the Tempsford growth area.
• Some respondents suggested that the objectives must demonstrate flexibility to shifting local priorities over time. Recommendations included establishing robust and transparent review mechanisms which evaluate the Development Corporation’s performance, including KPIs to monitor delivery, allowing local partners to input on both the powers and scope as the needs of Greater Cambridge evolve.

The consultation also produced a range of views on how the objectives could be refined or strengthened.

Respondents suggested that the objective Transformational economic growth could be enhanced by placing greater emphasis on sustainability, heritage, and delivering tangible benefits to local communities. The objective should be clear that growth must come alongside holistic placemaking, which protects the natural environment and delivers an increase in the standard of living across the region.  

To deliver a cohesive growth plan for Greater Cambridge, some respondents suggested that the Development Corporation must play a convening role by aligning wider government initiatives in skills, health and education – going above and beyond the remit of its core activities to ensure a coherent and inclusive approach is taken to growth.

There was also support for including an objective on the legacy of the Development Corporation, and that it should have a clear goal to deliver high quality of life in Greater Cambridge for generations after the Development Corporation has ceased to operate.

There was broad agreement that Infrastructure-led development should form the cornerstone of the Development Corporation’s activity, and this would be essential to unlocking housing, growth and improving quality of life across the region. Some respondents had recommendations on how this objective could be sharpened, suggesting that:

• The Development Corporation’s remit should encompass a broader range of infrastructure challenges in Greater Cambridge, including working to address wastewater and water scarcity, and increasing power and grid capacity.
• The objective should clarify the strategic approach to transport, including how reducing road congestion or improving cycling infrastructure will fit into a coherent strategy, alongside mass rapid transit solutions.
• There should be explicit housing objectives, such as overall housing delivery targets, affordability levels, or reference to building quality and traditional architectural design codes.

Respondents generally felt that the objective for Environment and climate required greater detail and assurances that environmental considerations would be treated as ‘hard constraints’ rather than optional considerations to the Development Corporation’s activity. Respondents felt that the objective should set out rigorous baselines, targets and evaluation methods for:

• air quality and carbon budget commitments
• chalk streams and water security
• nature recovery and biodiversity net gain, including targets of at least 20%

Some suggested that the Inclusion and opportunity objective should include the ambition to improve equitable access to health, wellbeing, and green community spaces.

Government response

The government recognises the increasingly complex challenges facing Greater Cambridge, and believes that this requires a bold, long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, coordinated and delivered. The magnitude of these challenges cannot be met through incremental change. The government considers that establishing a centrally‑led Development Corporation is the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence.

The government acknowledges views that changes in governance alone cannot resolve underlying investment, market and environmental challenges. However, existing institutions do not have access to the full range of levers required to address infrastructure and housing challenges at scale. A centrally-led Development Corporation brings a combination of powers, financing, and national influence beyond what is available to existing organisations.

This includes:

• Direct access to central government and the ability to convene and coordinate partners around shared priorities. Working with the Development Corporation, government departments will factor growth in Greater Cambridge into future spending plans, ensuring the region has the services and social infrastructure needed. A joint national and local endeavour will strengthen Greater Cambridge’s ability to address complex, strategic challenges such as water security, transport connectivity and housing affordability. In doing so, the Development Corporation will act as a catalyst for change.
• A coordinated, systems‑based approach. The Development Corporation will bring together a suite of powers to assemble land, access investment, fund enabling infrastructure, and recover costs as development is delivered. This will support a more sustainable financial model over the longer term, which minimises costs to the taxpayer and maximises land value capture.
• It will also manage and deploy a significant balance sheet and leverage major public-private investment needed to unlock an infrastructure-first approach. Since publishing the consultation, the Chancellor has announced a further £400 million of funding for the Oxford–Cambridge Corridor, doubling the £400 million of investment for Cambridge announced in October 2025. This £800 million funding package will forward‑fund critical infrastructure and kickstart development in the region.
• The Development Corporation will operate as a dedicated organisation with a long‑term mandate, focused on consenting and delivering development and infrastructure of national importance. Its independence from short electoral cycles will allow it to take a long‑term view and sustain momentum over time, outside of the coordination capabilities of even the best local authorities.
• Finally, the Development Corporation will provide clarity and certainty through a clear vision for place, supported by embedded powers, including planning powers, and a stable governance framework. A balanced mix of professional expertise and political representation will help ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest, informed by evidence and long‑term objectives, and not put at risk by short‑term political pressures.

In short, it will provide Greater Cambridge with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable, infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country. Recent evidence from Cambridge Ahead revealed that 80% of industry leaders they surveyed felt that the government’s focus on the Oxford-Cambridge Corridor has boosted or maintained business confidence.

As set out in the consultation, the democratically elected local leaders from Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, and the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will be invited to join the Board. The government also recognises that resident voices from across Greater Cambridge will form an integral part of the joint local and national endeavour in shaping the area’s future. The imperative to unlock infrastructure and delivery constraints must be rooted in an inclusive and sustainable approach, which has the needs of local communities embedded in its design and objectives.

In response, the government will work with the Development Corporation to introduce additional mechanisms to strengthen local participation and representation. Specifically, the government will ask the Development Corporation to create structured forums for engagement which reflect the diversity of places and lived experiences across the region, and serve as an exemplar of innovative, transparent, continuous and deep engagement. This approach will provide a clear structure for enabling residents to help shape priorities, inform proposals, and ensure that a wide range of voices are heard as plans are developed transparently. An example of where a forum for community representation has been successfully established is the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation Community Review Group. Made up of 11 local residents, it provides views and recommendations to the development corporation at key stages of the planning process.

Upon establishment, it is intended that the Development Corporation will proactively engage with the Greater Cambridge Design Review Panel and the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel. These panels currently advise the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, and the government is committed to ensuring the Development Corporation receives appropriate advice on delivering and enabling high standards of quality and design.

Objectives of the Development Corporation

The government acknowledges views on the proposed objectives of the Development Corporation. The objectives should not be considered hierarchically, but as mutually reinforcing. Sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people, that is why it is this government’s number one mission. However, this cannot be achieved by deprioritising any one of the Development Corporation’s objectives.

The Development Corporation will be legally bound to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. This includes the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change. In doing so, it must have due regard to the desirability of good design. The Development Corporation will be held directly accountable to central government for its performance against its objectives. Working with local partners, and relevant bodies, will be crucial to balancing viability and deliverability alongside respecting Greater Cambridge’s unique heritage, natural environment, climate resilience and nature recovery, and this integrated approach will be central to the Development Corporation’s purpose.

In light of the consultation feedback, the government has made the following revisions to the objectives.

Transformational economic growth

Drive a step change in the sustainable and inclusive economic development of Greater Cambridge, commensurate with its status as a critical national growth area. Deliver a significant increase in high quality jobs and homes, cement Greater Cambridge’s status as a global centre for science, technology, and innovation. In delivering growth, recognise the importance of high quality placemaking that respects Greater Cambridge’s distinctive character, heritage and natural environment, creating beautiful, well-designed places where people want to live, work, study and visit. Provide current and future generations living and working in Greater Cambridge with a high quality of life.

Infrastructure-led development

Coordinate and advance the delivery of a radical upgrade to infrastructure in Greater Cambridge, removing systemic barriers to growth and setting new benchmarks for connectivity and sustainability. Work with stakeholders and local partners, including utility companies, to identify infrastructure solutions for the region so that planning for future demand is aligned with forecasts for growth.

Innovative investment

Establish Greater Cambridge as the UK’s flagship for public-private investment into infrastructure and housing, unlocking significant capital. Front-load infrastructure funding to accelerate delivery of well-planned, sustainable communities that go beyond current and draft local plan ambitions. Drawing on the government’s track record for attracting private investment at 5 times the level of public funding, this investment would support delivery at major strategic locations.

Environment and climate

Deliver environmentally sustainable and climate resilient outcomes, through creating and maintaining large, connected, high-quality green and blue spaces, and long-term stewardship of natural assets. Collaborate with local partners, statutory agencies and communities through the planning system and other processes to enable biodiversity net gain, nature recovery, improved air quality and public access to nature.

Inclusion and opportunity

Reduce inequality between people and places in Greater Cambridge, maintaining a high rate of affordable housing delivery. Establishing a progressive skills and talent agenda that links local communities to the growing opportunities across the innovation ecosystem, and so reduces unemployment in all age categories.

Local representation, participation and transparency

Ensure that community representation is embedded in the work of the Development Corporation. Make engagement accessible, transparent, and involve communities and local organisations at formative stages from making decisions to developing plans.

The Development Corporation’s delivery against its objectives will be measured in many ways including the number of homes it delivers, GVA growth, infrastructure delivery and performance, environmental assessments, carbon emission reductions, nature-based indicators such as green space access and employment opportunities for local communities – where these result from the Development Corporation’s powers, functions and funding. Targets for each objective will be set across the Development Corporation’s Corporate Plan, Framework Agreement, Development Plan, and in individual business plans for all projects.

Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is widely considered a world leading environmental policy. The government recognises the importance of BNG in delivering nature-positive homes and infrastructure that this country needs, and has recently announced a package of reforms to improve its effectiveness. There is an opportunity for the Development Corporation to make an important contribution to nature recovery through the effective implementation of BNG that matches the scale of government’s growth ambitions for the area, alongside the long-term stewardship of natural assets.

Part 3. Governance of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation

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

While the vast majority agreed with the principle of local representation on the Development Corporation Board, respondents typically emphasised that this must be meaningful rather than symbolic. Views on the proposed representation on the Development Corporation Board varied by respondent type:

• Individuals: 49% were opposed. 25% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 8% were neutral, and 18% did not answer.
• Local Government: 60% were opposed. 23% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 7% were neutral, and 10% did not answer.
• Private sector organisations and professional bodies: 8% were opposed. 67% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 6% were neutral, and 19% did not answer.
• Interest groups and voluntary organisations: 47% were opposed. 25% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 5% were neutral, and 22% did not answer.

Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council strongly opposed the principle of decisions being made by appointed, rather than elected, board members. Cambridgeshire County Council also called for local democratic representation and professional officer representation in the planning functions. The inclusion of the Mayor was welcomed by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.

Among those who opposed the proposal, the primary reason given was that local influence is insufficient, in terms of both representation of local views and democratic accountability. A significant number of respondents raised concerns that the Board composition, voting rights, and governance was not precisely defined, and that the 4 locally elected leaders would not form a majority and could therefore be outvoted. Some respondents also noted that democratically elected leaders sitting on the Board is not the same as accountability, with the Development Corporation being accountable to the Secretary of State and not to residents.

Respondents also questioned whether the council leaders and Mayor could adequately reflect the views of residents from across the full geography of Greater Cambridge, from communities in the city, through to rural areas. A significant number of respondents stated that they would like local representation to include: residents, community representatives (possibly in the form of a Citizen’s Assembly), or town and parish councils.

Some respondents expressed concern that Local Government Reorganisation could risk reducing the number of local leaders on the Board from 4 to 2. They stated that because the Board will be designed before Local Government Reorganisation, any new unitary council(s) would have no formal input on its composition and governance framework. Some therefore suggested that the Development Corporation should commit to revising the Board if a unitary council was established, ensuring that any incoming democratic body has a substantive rather than inherited role. 

Some respondents expressed concerns about local leaders serving on the Board, emphasising the importance of the Development Corporation maintaining a clear focus on the government’s long‑term objectives and avoiding undue influence from short-term or partisan political issues.

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

The proposal to incorporate people on the Board with relevant experience and expertise, as set out in the consultation document, was generally accepted and supported by respondents.

Some respondents noted that individuals with relevant expertise do not necessarily need to be appointed as board members to effectively influence the work of the Development Corporation. Instead, they suggested that there should be a stronger emphasis on board members with experience at a strategic level, rather than technical or operational expertise. This was seen as important given that the role of the Board is to set direction and shape strategy, rather than to manage operational issues. It was also suggested that those on the Board with specific expertise should be residents of Greater Cambridge, with strong local knowledge and understanding of the area.

Importantly, a number of respondents emphasised that expertise on the Board should not outweigh local views, noting the risk of locally elected leaders being outnumbered by experts and therefore, having limited influence in decision making.

Further areas of expertise were proposed by some respondents and included:

• Business and innovation
• Higher Education, academia and research, including recommendations that the University of Cambridge should have a formal board seat
• Climate resilience
• Water, including supply and wastewater, hydrology and chalk aquifer experts
• Ecological scientists
• Habitat and nature recovery
• The science and tech sector
• Utilities, infrastructure and transport systems
• Affordable housing and alternative tenure models
• Urban design, placemaking and masterplanning
• Accessible design
• Delivery and project management
• Heritage, placemaking, architecture
• Building materials and technology experts
• Anthropology and sociology
• Public Health and wellbeing
• Retail and leisure
• Engineering
• Digital innovation
• Local SMES and social enterprises
• Skills and Workforce
• Community engagement, participatory planning, co-design and communications
• Youth voice
• Landowners/farmers representation groups e.g. NFU, CLA or larger land agents
• Tourism, arts and culture
• Other government departments

Government response

The government recognises the strength of views expressed on the proposed governance and the importance of local representation on the Development Corporation Board.

The government is clear that delivering nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge requires a balance of leadership from central and local government alongside subject matter expertise. Local authorities alone cannot unlock the scale of infrastructure investment, cross‑boundary coordination, and long‑term certainty required to deliver nationally significant growth. The Development Corporation is therefore intended as a joint national and local endeavour, combining local insight and input from locally democratically elected representatives with national leadership, powers and investment.

The Development Corporation will be formally accountable to the Secretary of State, reflecting the ambition to deliver nationally significant growth. To ensure local leadership continues to have a substantive and influential role, the government is committed to maintaining 4 Board positions for democratically elected local representatives, even if the number of democratically elected local leaders reduces following any local government reorganisation. The proportion of voting rights will be set out by the Board’s Terms of Reference and broadly outlined in the Framework Document between the Department and the Development Corporation.

It is also anticipated that a planning committee of the Development Corporation would comprise technical experts in planning, urban design and infrastructure delivery, as well as local representation, ensuring meaningful and early engagement on key planning decisions that will shape the future development of Greater Cambridge.

The government notes concerns that council leaders and the Mayor alone may not be able to reflect the full diversity of views across Greater Cambridge, spanning urban, rural and village communities. As set out above, this is why the government will ask the Development Corporation to create exemplar engagement structures which would enable broader community participation, including from residents, community representatives, and town and parish councils.

Transparency and openness

As set out in the consultation, transparency and openness are essential to ensuring that the Development Corporation will be accountable to local residents and to the wider public. As it enters delivery, the Development Corporation will hold its planning committee meetings in public, following the same practice as local councils. In doing so, the government expects it to adopt the principles set out in the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, enabling members of the public to report on meetings of their council using digital and social media. It is also anticipated that the Development Corporation would regularly hold Board meetings that are open to the public.

The Development Corporation will be subject to transparency requirements including monthly publication of expenditure over £250 and the disclosure of certain salary information. It will also be subject to the Freedom of Information Act as well as the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Whilst the Development Corporation will not be a local authority, and therefore not directly covered by the Local Government Transparency Code, it is the government’s intention that the Development Corporation should generally (to the extent relevant) follow the same transparency provisions expected of local councils.

Expertise

The government recognises that the Board’s role will be to set long‑term strategic direction rather than manage operational detail. Members will therefore be appointed to support strategic decision‑making and provide deep technical expertise, while ensuring that local democratic leadership and community perspectives remain integral to the Development Corporation’s work.

Part 4: The boundary of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation

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

Amongst respondents that commented on the size of the development area, views were divided. The most common view was agreement with the consultation’s proposals that the development area should align with the combined administrative areas of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire. Only for Local Government organisations was this not the most common view.

• Individuals: 42% agreed with the proposed boundary. 25% felt it was too small, and 33% too wide.
• Local Government: 19% agreed with the proposed boundary. 34% felt it was too small, and 47% too wide.
• Private sector organisations and professional bodies: 58% agreed with the proposed boundary. 29% felt it was too small, and 13% too wide.
• Interest groups and voluntary organisations: 47% agreed with the proposed boundary. 32% felt it was too small, and 21% too wide.

Around half of individuals did not specifically engage with the size of the boundary. As set out in the previous section, this was frequently motivated by opposition to the Development Corporation, irrespective of the boundary size. Respondents also frequently did not give a clear opinion but instead sought clarification on issues such as local government reorganisation and cross-boundary working.

Combined administrative area of South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council

Respondents who supported the proposed boundary noted that aligning the Development Corporation’s development area with the combined administrative areas of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council captures the core functional geography of the Cambridge economy, enabling a holistic approach to growth and infrastructure delivery.

Those in support suggested that alignment with the existing boundaries would enable coherent planning across a wide area, strategic land assembly, and land value capture to fund infrastructure. Many of those in support said that success would depend on strong mechanisms for collaboration beyond the boundary, particularly in relation to transport, water and utilities.

Defining a smaller Development Corporation Development area

Respondents who felt the proposed development area was too expansive were primarily concerned that it could lead to a “one‑size‑fits‑all” approach, with not enough consideration for the character of villages, green belt policy objectives, and areas of valuable agricultural land. A further concern was a lack of democratic accountability and local representation for such a large area, and the risk of a lack of focus on strategic growth.

Defining a wider Development Corporation Development area

Respondents who felt that the proposed development area was too narrow were primarily concerned that infrastructure constraints – particularly transport, water and utilities – stretch well beyond the proposed boundary. Some pointed out that Mass Rapid Transit systems extend beyond the boundary, while the Fens Reservoir and Grafham to Cambridge pipeline sit outside of the proposed development area, which they felt could negatively impact the Development Corporation’s influence on delivery.  

Respondents also cited the need to consider the economics of the wider area, to realise the full potential in terms of strategic growth. Some noted that people living in places, including Haverhill, Newmarket, St Neots and Tempsford amongst others, are also experiencing housing pressures and are part of the Greater Cambridge economy. They said that the proposed development area could lead to greater inequalities, as those living in generally more affordable areas beyond the boundary would be excluded from the benefits that being inside could bring.

Local Government Reorganisation and cross boundary working

A significant number of respondents raised the forthcoming decision on Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), and the need for the development area of the Development Corporation to be considered in light of the decision. Some questioned whether the proposed boundary would prejudice or pre-empt the LGR outcome. Respondents also reported that they would want the Development Corporation to work with surrounding areas and authorities to ensure that what they were delivering was beneficial to the wider area, not just communities who live within the designated development area.

Government response

The government recognises the varied responses on the Development Corporation’s boundary, and remains of the view that the boundary should align with the current, combined administrative areas of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. A broad development area will underpin the Development Corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver upon both local and national interests.

As set out in the consultation, the proposed boundary encompasses the land required to support the delivery of strategic infrastructure, providing a sufficiently broad geography to maximise funding opportunities and enable land value capture to support social and environmental projects. Aligning the boundary with Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council simplifies governance and delivery and will enable the Development Corporation to support the progression of the draft local plan. Taken together, the boundary allows for integrated, long‑term spatial planning and alignment of funding across Greater Cambridge as a whole, while providing the flexibility for the Development Corporation to respond to evolving opportunities and constraints over time.

The government recognises concerns from some respondents about a wide development area either diluting the purpose of the Development Corporation or leading to a reduction in democratic accountability. The government is clear that the Development Corporation will work in partnership with local councils to ensure its remit is tightly focused on strategic and nationally significant development. The vast majority of planning applications will continue to be determined by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service.

The government also recognises concerns that the proposed boundary may not always align with the delivery of strategic infrastructure. The success of the Development Corporation will depend on strong partnership and proactive engagement with neighbouring authorities, and transport and utilities providers beyond its boundary. Although the Development Corporation will predominantly focus on its designated development area, it will also have influence beyond its formal boundary, providing it is in keeping with its objective to regenerate the area within the boundary. This includes the ability to acquire land (including compulsorily) outside its development area to enable it to discharge its functions within its boundary.

The government also recognises the importance of ensuring that nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge benefits the wider area and the country as a whole. The Development Corporation will be expected to work closely with neighbouring local councils and planning authorities, engaging collaboratively to ensure that growth delivers positive outcomes across the wider area. The Development Corporation will also closely collaborate with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority on its emerging Spatial Development Strategy, which will set out a vision for growth across the wider region.

Finally, the government notes concerns raised by respondents about Local Government Reorganisation and the interaction with the Development Corporation’s boundary. Proposals for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were received in November 2025 and have recently been consulted on. The Development Corporation’s boundary does not pre‑empt or prejudice the outcome of LGR. The Secretary of State may decide to implement an LGR proposal with, or without, modification, or to not implement any proposal for an area. The government would consider, through due process, any changes to the development area deemed necessary as a result of any LGR.

Part 5: Powers and functions of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation

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

While the consultation found broad consensus that infrastructure delivery, coordination and long-term certainty are central barriers to growth in Greater Cambridge, respondents mostly disagreed that transferring plan-making powers to the Development Corporation would resolve these issues. Responses varied by respondent type:

• Individuals: 61% were opposed. 21% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 6% were neutral, and 12% did not answer.
• Local Government: 63% were opposed. 25% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 3% were neutral, and 10% did not answer. Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge City Council, and South Cambridgeshire District Council were all opposed to the proposal.
• Private sector organisations and professional bodies: 17% were opposed. 67% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 8% were neutral, and 8% did not answer.
• Interest groups and voluntary organisations: 42% were opposed. 39% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 8% were neutral, and 11% did not answer.

Opposition to the Development Corporation taking plan-making powers:

Many organisations and residents stated that plan-making is an essential function of local government, enabling residents to hold elected representatives to account. Transferring this function to an unelected body would undermine democratic accountability to residents and local partners.

Others pointed out that the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service was awarded Planning Authority of the Year by the Royal Town Planning Institute, and that the key barriers to growth are not plan‑making or a lack of permissions, but infrastructure constraints. Transferring plan‑making powers was therefore sometimes described as duplicating an existing function, rather than adding value.

Several respondents suggested that the Development Corporation would be more effective if it focused exclusively on delivery, particularly the funding and provision of strategic infrastructure such as transport, water, sewage and utilities. Taking on plan‑making responsibilities was seen as risking dilution of this core purpose.

As an alternative, some respondents proposed a shared‑service model, such as expanding Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service capacity to align with growth ambitions, or the Development Corporation commissioning Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service to prepare a successor local plan.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority also questioned the need for the Development Corporation to produce a successor plan, given that it would need to be in general conformity to their Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) and suggested that the Development Corporation could instead rely upon the SDS to drive growth. Many respondents stated that further clarity is needed on the remit of the Development Corporation and the SDS, as overlayered governance and overlapping powers could reduce investor confidence.

Granting the Development Corporation plan-making powers:

The primary reason given in support of granting the Development Corporation plan‑making powers is that they are essential to achieving a step‑change in growth and infrastructure delivery. Without these powers, some respondents suggested that the Development Corporation would be constrained by the same fragmented governance arrangements that have historically delayed infrastructure investment, particularly in transport, water and utilities.

Many of those in support emphasised that a Development Corporation led plan could take a longer-term view, providing greater certainty for investors, and overcoming political constraints that have limited ambitions in previous plans.

Conditional support for plan-making powers:

While some respondents agreed with the transfer of powers in principle, support was usually conditional. There were several recommendations about how the proposals could increase democratic participation, local partnership and environmental safeguards. Common conditions included:

• Meaningful local democratic input, with plan-making powers only being transferred to a Development Corporation with the consent of the local planning authority, with a backstop of Secretary of State call-in, in the event of a deadlock. Any local plan developed by the Development Corporation must be subject to rigorous local consultation and participation.
• The approach must integrate or harness the expertise of Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, if powers are transferred.
• There was also strong emphasis on the need for any future plans to build positively upon the draft local plan, to preserve certainty and investor confidence. Equally, any development pursued outside the draft local plan would need to align clearly with the overall direction of travel, as consistency was widely seen as essential to maintaining confidence in the plan‑led system.
• Clear environmental safeguards, including early engagement with statutory consultees and explicit regard and budget for environmental constraints and sustainability.

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

Amongst respondents that were mostly supportive of the Development Corporation taking plan-making powers in principle, there were mixed views on whether the phasing of these powers would be beneficial in practice. The responses exposed a key tension between whether phasing protects momentum and the certainty of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan, or instead locks in delay and under‑delivery, given the urgency of growth and infrastructure needs.

Some respondents described phasing as a sensible and pragmatic approach, which respects the advanced state of the draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan and maintains momentum on the work already undertaken by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service. It was also stated that a phased approach would enable a seamless transfer of powers, while enabling the Development Corporation to focus its immediate attention on urgently addressing strategic infrastructure deficits and accelerating the delivery of stalled sites.

Other respondents argued that phasing plan‑making powers could introduce unnecessary delay and constrain the Development Corporation’s ability to deliver a step‑change in growth, particularly where the draft local plan is perceived as insufficiently ambitious or misaligned with national growth objectives. These respondents highlighted the tension between establishing a body intended to accelerate delivery, while committing in the short term to a local plan shaped by existing approaches. Some therefore supported limited early flexibility for the Development Corporation to bring forward additional development outside the draft local plan, providing it does not undermine the plan‑led system.

If a phased approach is to be successful, many respondents emphasised that the adoption of the draft local plan must be underpinned by a clear and public government position on its role as a foundation for future growth, rather than a cap on ambition. Some respondents sought assurances that the draft local plan would not be rewritten prematurely, unless robust evidence demonstrates that it is failing to deliver growth ambitions or meet community needs.

Some individuals, local authorities and organisations expressed reservations about phasing being subject to shifting central government priorities. In particular, concerns were raised about the implications of government retaining the power to lift the direction restricting the Development Corporation’s plan‑making powers before adoption of the local plan:

• Respondents highlighted that, if such a direction were lifted earlier than expected, it could simultaneously undermine the local plan, while the potential incoming Greater Cambridge unitary council(s) would have little or no democratic influence over the preparation of a successor plan that would shape development across the area for the following decades.
• While it was recognised that ministers may intervene where an existing or draft local plan is judged not to be delivering growth at the “scale and pace necessary”, respondents noted that the consultation does not set out clear or objective criteria against which a judgement would be made. Some respondents therefore suggested that there needs to be clarity on the accountability and process, such as independent scrutiny before the ministerial trigger is exercised, for example a formal Planning Inspector assessment of whether the grounds for early plan-making had been met.

Government response

The government recognises the concerns raised by respondents, but remains of the view that plan-making powers will be essential to developing a long-term spatial vision for Greater Cambridge, that delivers nationally significant growth. The government is clear that the plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. Although the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service is progressing their draft local plan, there is not currently an up-to-date local plan in place, and the last local plans for City of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire District Council were adopted in 2018.  

The government notes suggestions that the Development Corporation should be a ‘delivery only’ body that focuses on the funding and delivery of strategic infrastructure. However, addressing the systemic challenges facing Greater Cambridge requires more than delivering individual transport or water projects in isolation. It requires a systems‑based approach to infrastructure‑led growth and the co-ordination of plan-making, which brings together land assembly, investment, central government influence and planning powers within a single body. Only a centrally‑led Development Corporation can provide these powers and coordination in combination.

The Development Corporation will be subject to clear accountability to central government, and any future local plans it prepares will be subject to government scrutiny to ensure they deliver against the agreed objectives. This will be informed by meaningful and continuous public engagement and any plan prepared by the Development Corporation will be subject to the same statutory and procedural requirements as other local plans, including public consultation and independent examination, and will be developed in close partnership with communities and local councils. There will also be a spatial development strategy (SDS) prepared by the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and any local plans, including one prepared by the Development Corporation, will need to be in general conformity with the SDS, once it is adopted. This approach will ensure future plans reflect both national and local priorities.

Phasing of plan-making powers

The government remains of the view that a phased approach to granting the Development Corporation plan-making powers, as set out in the consultation, is the optimal way to kickstart growth in the plan-led system. The fastest route for an up-to-date local plan to be adopted in Greater Cambridge is for the current draft local plan to progress. The government is clear that adoption of the draft local plan should not limit or delay future ambition for growth and, subject to its adoption, successor plans would be expected to build positively on the draft local plan’s foundations to support continued growth.

Phasing of plan-making powers will not impede short-term progress on addressing infrastructure constraints. The government is already working at pace through its expert Water Scarcity Group to address water scarcity and wastewater issues that risk delaying immediate growth. This includes working with Anglian Water to resolve existing wastewater capacity issues at the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant and engaging with a range of delivery partners to deliver new water savings measures to reduce water demand in the short-medium term. The Cambridge Growth Company is already working closely with local partners to explore options for mass rapid transit for the city to support its long-term growth.

It is the government’s intention that the Development Corporation works in close partnership with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, to firstly facilitate and enable the delivery of allocated sites in the draft local plan, and then prepare successor plans.

The government recognises that there remain concerns that the proposed approach to issuing a direction restricting the Development Corporation’s ability to exercise its plan-making powers, could be lifted earlier than expected. We believe it is important that the Secretary of State ultimately decides when it is appropriate to lift any proposed direction. However, we anticipate that to be once the draft local plan has been adopted, subject to the public examination. The Secretary of State may choose to lift it sooner, for example if it becomes apparent that the draft local plan would not deliver development at the scale and pace necessary.

Interaction with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority’s Spatial Development Strategy

The government notes the interaction between local planning in Greater Cambridge and the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) which will be published by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Growth Plan has welcomed the establishment of the Development Corporation and has set out an ambition for the region to be the UK’s fastest-growing regional economy outside London, with ambitions to deliver the ‘Global Cambridge Opportunity Area’.

The government will require the Development Corporation to work alongside the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to tackle the barriers preventing growth. The SDS will set the spatial framework for the combined authority area. Future local plans, including those for Greater Cambridge, will have to be in general conformity with the SDS and will need to allocate specific sites for development to meet that spatial strategy. It is expected that the combined authority will work with the Development Corporation when producing the SDS, and as a local planning authority, the Development Corporation will be a statutory consultee for the SDS. This will help ensure that proposals for Greater Cambridge are aligned with plans for the wider region.

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

Responses were mixed on whether the Development Corporation should be granted powers to determine planning applications for large-scale or strategically important applications, as set out in the consultation. Views varied by respondent type:

• Individuals: 65% were opposed. 18% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 5% were neutral, and 12% did not answer.
• Local Government: 60% were opposed. 28% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 5% were neutral, and 7% did not answer.
• Private sector organisations and professional bodies: 8% were opposed. 77% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 4% were neutral, and 11% did not answer.
• Interest groups and voluntary organisations: 39% were opposed. 22% were supportive or conditionally supportive. 11% were neutral, and 28% did not answer.

Against the granting of development management powers

From respondents who opposed granting the Development Corporation development management powers, the most commonly cited concern was reduced democratic accountability in the determination of planning applications. Connected to this were concerns that national growth objectives or developer interests could be prioritised over local communities, and that important local priorities, particularly environmental constraints, heritage, placemaking and design quality, could be weakened. Several respondents questioned whether the Development Corporation would possess the depth of local knowledge and specialist expertise currently embedded within the award-winning Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service.

Amongst local authorities, Cambridgeshire City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council both strongly opposed the proposal. Cambridgeshire County Council questioned the need for the Development Corporation to have these powers and stated that it would need clear guarantees that it would remain a statutory consultee and be consulted on all development impacting on its current statutory functions.

Furthermore, some respondents cited evidence that planning permissions are not currently holding back the sustainable economic growth of Greater Cambridge. Some also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, if the Development Corporation were to act simultaneously as land assembler, investor and decision‑maker on planning applications.

In favour of the granting of development management powers

Respondents who supported granting the Development Corporation development management powers generally said that it would speed up and streamline decision‑making, particularly for complex, infrastructure‑dependent schemes. Many considered it essential that planning applications for strategic sites be determined by the Development Corporation, to ensure alignment between infrastructure delivery, land assembly and growth objectives.

Support for the proposal was frequently conditional, with respondents emphasising the need for meaningful local influence in decision-making, stronger democratic accountability, transparent governance arrangements, and a close working relationship with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority also stated that further clarity is needed on how the Development Corporation would interact with their emerging role in determining strategic applications under devolution legislation.

Some emphasised that a Development Corporation could bring together individual planning decisions into a holistic vision, and that it could recruit and retain expertise, e.g. in infrastructure planning to facilitate effective decision-making. They also felt that the Development Corporation having development management powers would help ensure that decision making was taken from a strategic perspective, taking into account the ambitions for growth in the wider Oxford-Cambridge corridor, and that there would be clear benefits to the Development Corporation being able to co-ordinate across the statutory and non-statutory bodies that influence infrastructure and utilities.

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?

Respondents were asked whether specified size thresholds should be used to determine the granting of development management powers to the Development Corporation. Respondents could either put ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Don’t Know’. Views varied by response category:

• Individuals: Yes: 16%. No: 45%. Don’t Know: 20%. Did not answer: 19%
• Local Government: Yes: 38%. No: 30%. Don’t Know: 10%. Did not answer: 22%
• Private sector organisations and professional bodies: Yes: 46%. No: 25%. Don’t Know: 14%. Did not answer: 15%
• Interest groups and voluntary organisation: Yes: 22%. No: 22%. Don’t Know: 20%. Did not answer: 36%

Overwhelmingly, respondents who were open to the creation of the Development Corporation were of the view that development management powers should only be granted for strategic development. Many respondents felt that the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service should still determine the majority of applications, and all the applications that were ‘business as usual’. Primarily, this was because the local planning service was deemed to be better placed to determine non-strategic applications, and respondents felt that the Development Corporation should remain focused on its objective of enabling nationally significant growth and infrastructure delivery.

Amongst respondents who commented specifically about which minimum thresholds would be appropriate, the most common view was that they should be set higher than the range in the consultation, reflecting a preference for the Development Corporation to remain tightly focused on strategic sites. This approach was preferred by 71% of local government organisations, 34% of individuals, 39% of private sector organisations and professional bodies, and 54% of interest groups and voluntary organisations. Respondents who supported higher thresholds generally did not distinguish between residential and non‑residential development, but where they did, the emphasis was typically on increasing non‑residential thresholds.

Remaining responses either suggested that thresholds should be on the upper or lower end of the consulted range, below the consulted range, or did not answer the question.

Respondents who suggested lower thresholds than the consulted range were typically motivated by wanting a single organisation to coordinate the majority of development, or to prevent smaller parcels on strategic sites coming forward which would fall below consulted thresholds and therefore would not be determined by the Development Corporation.

A number of respondents emphasised the need for a much clearer definition of “strategic sites”, particularly in relation to the consultation proposal that the Development Corporation would determine applications, regardless of their size, on any site necessary to ensure the delivery of a site of strategic importance.

Other suggestions included having flexible thresholds, where agreement would be reached on a case-by-case basis between the Development Corporation and the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service. Another suggestion was that the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service should still determine applications next to sensitive ecological sites, reflecting the importance of local knowledge and specialist expertise in these areas.

Enforcement and rights to enter land powers

Some organisations highlighted that enforcement is an intrinsic part of the planning system, and that if enforcement powers are to remain with existing local councils, clear governance structures will need to be put in place between the Development Corporation and the planning authority’s enforcement team.

Government response

The consultation set out the government’s intention for the Development Corporation to be granted development management powers for strategic sites within its boundary. The government is of the view that granting these powers will be essential to accelerating strategic growth in an integrated and coordinated way. As set out in the consultation, the Development Corporation will look to support development outside of the local plan, where this is supported by national policy changes and other material considerations.

The decision to grant these powers to the Development Corporation does not reflect a judgement on the performance of the existing Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service. Only applications for sites of strategic importance would be determined by the Development Corporation, with the vast majority of planning applications continuing to be determined by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service. The decision to grant development management powers to the Development Corporation for strategic sites reflects the need to balance local and national planning merits, to facilitate nationally significant growth in the area. The government considers the solution to effectively overcome these constraints is a Development Corporation with integrated financial and infrastructure powers, and national backing and influence, alongside the ability to determine planning applications on strategic sites.

The government also recognises concerns about reduced democratic accountability in the determination of planning applications. As set out above, the Development Corporation will be subject to clear accountability to central government, and its performance will be scrutinised against the agreed objectives. It is anticipated that a planning committee of the Development Corporation would comprise technical experts in planning, urban design and infrastructure delivery, as well as local representation, ensuring meaningful and early engagement on key planning decisions. The government agrees that local priorities relating to the natural environmental, heritage, placemaking and design quality, captured in policies, must be at the core of decision-making, and these priorities have been embedded into the objectives of the Development Corporation. 

Proposals in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill intend to give Mayors of Combined Authorities and Combined County Authorities new planning powers, including powers to intervene in planning applications of potential strategic importance (PSI applications). These powers, if granted, will need to be implemented through secondary legislation following Royal Assent, and MHCLG will publish further detail in due course.

Defining strategic sites

The government agrees with respondents that development size is not always the best determinant of ‘strategic development’. That is why the government consulted on the Development Corporation being granted the power to act as the local planning authority for strategic sites and any site that may prejudice the delivery of a site of strategic importance. The government intends to provide a definition of ‘sites of strategic importance’ at a later date, which will provide certainty on which development falls under the Development Corporation’s remit to determine.

Prior to the point we define strategic sites, the Development Corporation will use minimum thresholds as a proxy to provide a clear and proportionate mechanism to focus the Development Corporation’s resources on sites of strategic importance, providing certainty about development management responsibilities to applicants and residents.

After careful consideration of consultation responses, the government has decided to set the following thresholds over which the Development Corporation would be granted the power to act as the local planning authority under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Development Type	Proposed Threshold Minimum
Residential Development	A minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats
All other development	A minimum of 5,000m2
Major infrastructure site	Infrastructure development which occupies more than 1 hectare of land

The government acknowledges suggestions from respondents that thresholds should be set either on the upper end or higher than the consulted range. Thresholds for non-residential development have therefore been set above the consulted range, at a minimum of 5,000 sqm, and simplified by removing references to use classes.

The government recognises and accepts that almost all strategic residential development will be over 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats. However, to account for the possibility of residential development prejudicing the delivery of sites of strategic importance, residential thresholds will be set at a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats.

It is important to note that while the Development Corporation can delegate decision making to the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service in accordance with section 149A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service is unable to reverse delegate the determination of planning applications to the Development Corporation.

As such, setting the threshold for residential development at a higher level, for example 500 or 1,000 houses, flats, or flats and houses, would mean that the Development Corporation would be unable to exercise development management powers for any application which falls below that threshold, even if a given application could prejudice the delivery of a strategic site.

If an application exceeds the proposed residential threshold of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats, but is not deemed to be ‘strategic’, our expectation is that the Development Corporation will delegate decision making to the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service to determine the application in the usual way. As a result, we expect the vast majority of planning applications to continue to be determined by the existing planning service.

Once a strategic sites definition is in place, it will further reinforce the presumption that residential development of fewer than 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats should be determined by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and not the Development Corporation, which will remain focussed on the delivery of strategic development.

The government agrees that well‑defined working arrangements with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service will be essential. The government is committed to reaching a formal agreement with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service shortly after the Development Corporation has been legally established. This would set out efficient development management administrative process, including processes for live pre-application discussions, alongside arrangements for processing and delegating decisions and specialist advice available within the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service to inform decisions or applications. The agreement would also cover the sharing of resources and use of expertise, where appropriate.

Enforcement

The government remains of the view that enforcement powers should remain with the existing local councils. The Development Corporation will work closely with existing local authorities to draw on existing expertise and prevent duplication of work and roles.

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

Many respondents broadly favoured a Development Corporation whose primary purpose is to enable infrastructure‑led growth. However, many respondents emphasised that the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Development Corporation would depend less on the formal breadth of its powers, than on how those powers are funded and exercised, and how well they cohere with existing and future governance arrangements.

As set out in previous sections, a significant number of individuals and a minority of organisations were opposed to the Development Corporation in principle, and therefore often provided no further comment on its breadth of powers.

Financial powers and functions

Many organisations and individuals agreed that a Development Corporation would need credible financial powers to enable infrastructure-led growth and attract investment. However, many stated that financial credibility is more significant than formal financial powers, and that the announcement of £400 million across the Oxford to Cambridge corridor will be insufficient to cover the necessary up-front infrastructure investments or meet the scale of transformational growth envisioned. Alongside calls for substantially greater long‑term funding, respondents proposed wider financial flexibilities, including:

• Greater powers for the Development Corporation to raise private finance, reducing dependence on central government funding cycles.
• Changes in how land acquisition is treated by HM Treasury rules on Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities, to ease borrowing constraints.

Additional funding for social infrastructure provision was welcomed by respondents, however some local authorities and organisations said that further detail is needed on the likely sources, with current Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy arrangement unlikely to be sufficient alone.

Some organisations also questioned how the proposed financial powers would interact with fiscal devolution, following the Chancellor’s Mais Lecture in March 2026 which committed to setting out plans to give regional leaders control of a share of some national taxes.

Some respondents also expressed concern about financial risk and debt exposure, particularly where borrowing is not clearly capped or aligned with transparent accountability mechanisms.

Infrastructure powers

A recurring theme across responses was that the Development Corporation would need robust infrastructure delivery powers. Strategic infrastructure deficits, notably transport, water, wastewater, power and utilities, were widely identified as the primary constraints on growth and quality of life, rather than the planning process itself. Many viewed the Development Corporation as well placed to act as an enabler and coordinator, bringing together government departments, regulators, providers, and local councils to unlock stalled delivery.

Some local authorities strongly opposed any transfer of powers relating to schools, public health and highways, and sought clarification on the proposal that a Development Corporation would have powers to ‘deliver infrastructure directly – planning, funding and providing utilities, schools, health facilities and public spaces’.

Respondents, particularly environmental bodies and local councils, requested further detail on how infrastructure powers would be practically applied to addressing urgent water shortages across Greater Cambridge, including how the Development Corporation would interact with the existing water infrastructure provision by water companies.

Given that infrastructure decisions may have impacts beyond the main development sites, some respondents emphasised the need for clear democratic accountability and ‘rural proofing’, such as through engagement with local authorities, parish councils and existing community forums. 

Transport powers

The consultation’s proposals for transport powers generated diverging views from respondents. Many individuals and organisations suggested that the Development Corporation should take transport powers from the outset, accelerating the delivery of strategic transport that will unlock transformative growth, and avoiding the historic failure to implement a holistic strategy. Some suggested that the current division of highways and strategic transport has caused a fragmentation in the delivery of strategic transport projects.

Some respondents suggested that the vesting of transport powers to the Development Corporation could be accompanied by a Secretary of State direction that they would not be used unless existing delivery routes were failing, as per the consultation’s proposals for plan-making powers.

Other respondents agreed with the consultation’s proposal that the Development Corporation should work closely with existing transport authorities to deliver transport solutions and identify options for mass rapid transit, with transport powers only being transferred as a backstop or last resort. Respondents suggested that governance arrangements with the Combined Authority and local authorities must be tightly defined to avoid duplication or delays, and that consideration must be given to how governance will be impacted by Local Government Reorganisation.

Land acquisition and remediation powers

Respondents widely recognised that land assembly challenges have delayed delivery of key strategic growth sites. Many stated that compulsory purchase powers may be necessary in limited circumstances, but only as a measure of last resort, where there is a clear public interest case and all other approaches have been exhausted or where fragmented delivery would risk poor place‑making outcomes. There was a strong preference for the Development Corporation to adopt a collaborative, partnership‑led approach with landowners and developers as its default position.

Some individuals raised concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest if a Development Corporation both promotes development and exercises compulsory purchase powers. Environmental and statutory bodies further emphasised that any land acquisition must be informed by a full assessment of environmental constraints, including flood risk, protection of ecologically sensitive sites, groundwater protection, and the remediation of contaminated land.

Reviews on powers

A theme across responses was the need for mechanisms that will review the Development Corporation’s need for certain powers over time. Some suggested that powers should be explicitly time‑limited or subject to revision. Many therefore suggested the need for formal review points, or milestone-based mechanisms which would revert certain powers to local bodies once certain objectives have been met.

Government response

The government agrees that the Development Corporation’s formal powers must be underpinned by strong financial credibility and clear parameters governing how those powers are exercised. Delivering infrastructure‑led growth at scale requires both robust governance and the confidence of investors, delivery partners and local communities.

Financial powers

Since publishing the consultation, the Chancellor has announced a further £400 million of funding for the Oxford–Cambridge Corridor, doubling the £400 million of investment for Greater Cambridge announced in October 2025. This £800 million funding package will be used to kick‑start development around Cambridge and Oxford. Crucially, it will allow the government to leverage the further major public‑private investment needed to unlock nationally significant infrastructure.

The government recognises that long‑term funding certainty and financial flexibility will be essential to support delivery at scale. Over the long term, the Development Corporation will be able to access central government grants and borrowing, providing financial flexibility support nationally significant growth.

The Development Corporation can also co-invest with private and institutional partners to de-risk development and attract capital. It can also develop assets, generating income to reinvest in growth. With approval from the Secretary of State (to ensure borrowing is affordable, sustainable and prudent), in the long term it could have the ability to borrow from public financial institutions and from private sources. We will continue to explore opportunities to further expand the pool of funding and borrowing that the Development Corporation could access, working in collaboration with local partners and other public financial institutions, to maximise the credible financial powers of the Development Corporation.

The Development Corporation will learn from Homes England’s impressive track record of securing investment. Since October 2016, the Agency has deployed over £9.6 billion of capital through existing investment programmes, working alongside delivery partners to attract an estimated £48 billion of private sector investment into the vehicles it supports.

Infrastructure powers

The Development Corporation will take a proactive role in driving sustainable development and managing emerging water and energy‑related risks. A key part of that role will be the provision of site‑specific infrastructure, including measures that build on national reforms to improve water and energy efficiency, and enable water reuse and integrated water management. This approach will contribute to ensuring that new growth is in line with the Development Corporation’s environmental objective. The Development Corporation’s activity will be backed by the influence and weight of central government, ensuring that providers plan sufficiently in advance for growth and that infrastructure is delivered in step with development.

As set out in the consultation document, the Development Corporation will have a range of infrastructure powers that are automatically provided (under the Local Government and Planning Act 1981) and can choose to use. For example, the Development Corporation will be given powers from the outset to directly plan, fund, and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration.

Other than the transfer of local authority planning functions identified above, the local authorities will remain responsible for the provision of council services in the Development Corporation area. This includes services related to education, building control, and public health. The Development Corporation will also not duplicate or assume the statutory responsibilities of power or water companies for delivering strategic energy or water infrastructure.

The Development Corporation will unlock investment into social infrastructure and public spaces through a variety of routes, including leveraging public-private investment, developer contributions such as Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy, and capturing increases in land value.

Transport powers

Improving transport infrastructure in Greater Cambridge is a major priority for the government, reflecting its central importance to residents’ quality of life and to enabling future growth. The Development Corporation will be set up to address this challenge by developing and implementing a long-term plan, integrating both land use and transport infrastructure.

No single authority in Greater Cambridge has the geographical remit or plan-making and transport powers to achieve this. Consultation responses reflected the consequences of this: fragmented governance and decision-making leading to under-provision of infrastructure and decreasing economic and environmental sustainability as a result. The Development Corporation will have the plan-making powers and access to funding needed to implement that plan. In the first instance, it will not hold relevant transport powers but will seek to work in partnership with existing transport authorities to develop and implement its plan.

Some consultation responses expressed a preference for the Development Corporation to hold relevant transport powers from the outset. The Development Corporation will work with existing transport authorities in Greater Cambridge to develop and implement its plan for transport to ensure growth is sustainable and infrastructure-led. Delivery of needed upgrades to transport infrastructure is too important to be subject to delay if that approach does not work. For that reason, the government has legislated, through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, to introduce a new duty on relevant transport authorities to cooperate with development corporations to deliver transport plans. Transport powers would only be transferred to the Development Corporation if existing local partners were not fulfilling their duty to co‑operate with the delivery of the Development Corporation’s plans. This provides an appropriate ‘backstop’ to ensure the Development Corporation is empowered to act on transport.

Subject to the outcome of local government reorganisation, highways powers would be held by any new unitary council(s), while strategic transport functions would remain with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority as the designated Local Transport Authority.

Land acquisition and disposal powers 

Land acquisition and disposal powers will be granted to the Development Corporation from the outset. This includes the power to acquire land by agreement or compulsory purchase orders, vest land from public bodies, assemble fragmented sites, remediate contaminated areas, and dispose of land to facilitate development. This strategy will underpin the Development Corporation’s ability to both finance and deliver nationally significant growth.

The government recognises that land assembly challenges have historically delayed delivery of strategically important sites. The Development Corporation will therefore have access to compulsory purchase powers to be used proportionately and where necessary. Compulsory acquisition would be considered where efforts to acquire land by agreement has failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of a compulsory purchase power. The Development Corporation’s default approach will be collaboration and partnership, working with landowners and developers to achieve outcomes that deliver upon local and national priorities.  

Reviews on powers

As set out in the consultation, the Development Corporation is envisaged to operate for at least 25 years, providing the sustained focus needed to plan and deliver the intended transformational change. At the end of this period, it is expected assets and powers would transfer back to locally accountable institutions, expected to be the relevant local authorities.

To ensure ongoing effectiveness and value for money, the Development Corporation will be subject to a review 18 months to 2 years after its establishment, with regular monitoring throughout its lifespan.

Expectations relating to monitoring and reviews will be set out alongside the legislation to establish the Development Corporation, and will be detailed in the Framework Agreement signed by the Department and the Development Corporation. The Framework Agreement will contain clear provisions for winding‑down and transfer of functions, ensuring accountability, value for money and long‑term flexibility.

3. Next steps

Following the publication of this consultation, the Statutory Instrument establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will be laid on 4 June. Following this, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval, it is anticipated that the Development Corporation will be established as an entity.

Following establishment, the Secretary of State will appoint an interim Board comprised of subject matter experts in fields relevant to development, such as transport and urban design. A public appointments process for the permanent Board will be commenced as soon as possible once the Development Corporation is established, alongside invitations to local leaders, leading to the appointment of a full Board by early 2027.

A powers and functions Statutory Instrument will be laid in the autumn, which will equip the Development Corporation with plan-making and development management powers. This will be accompanied by a Secretary of State direction to restrict the use of plan-making powers by the Development Corporation when it is established.

Annex A: Full list of consultation questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

a) If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, may be impacted and how. b) Is there anything that could be done to maximise benefits or address any concerns you have identified?

About you (optional)

14. Do you live or work in the Greater Cambridge area? (defined as the proposed boundary of the Development Corporation)

[Yes / No / Don’t know]

15. Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation?

[Individual / Organisation / not applicable]

16. If you’re responding on behalf of an organisation, please provide the organisation’s name and the contact details of a nominated contact.

17. What type of organisation are you representing? (if applicable)

• local authority
• neighbourhood planning body, parish or town council
• developer
• business
• other private sector organisation
• professional body
• interest group or voluntary organisation