Victory for Conservatives' Marshalls Campaign

Another key piece in the Labour Government's warped vision for Cambridge appears to have collapsed today, as Marshall's announced it had ruled out all the remaining options for relocating its aerospace business and was effectively staying put. Although Marshalls do keep their options open, saying:

"it is clear that relocation is not a feasible option at this time, but we do not rule out the possibility that circumstances may change again in the future, in which case we would be prepared to reconsider it."

their announcement today does sound like a very significant announcement that should put a stop to all planning for thousands of homes on the airport site. It is also a humiliation for the Lib Dems running Cambridge City, who have been the main voice in favour of airport redevelopment, and all the transport chaos that would inevitably result in east Cambridge wards like Coleridge.

As much as local Labour politicians may claim to support Marshall's, they also support the cause of the threat - Labour's top down housing targets that force our local Councils to come up with plans like building on Marshalls. It is a humiliation for Labour's plan for Cambridge - thousands of bland properties (yuppie flats and social housing is all the current system can manage), dumped in areas regardless of whether local residents want them there, or if the transport can cope. The other part of Labour's plan - to force congestion charging onto Cambridge instead of building proper transport networks disappeared last month as the 'Transport Investment Fund' process to bid for transport funds disappeared, along with its mandatory congestion charging so controversially supported by our local Labour Councillor.

We could be on the verge of a new Conservative government who have promised to sweep away Labour's top down planning system, that has utterly failed to deliver the quality new housing and transport we need. Coleridge Conservatives have for some time been urging all local parties to take on board the Conservative plans for housing and planning, and start the change of mindset that will be required from nanny government knows best on housing regardless of local opposition, to giving local residents genuine local choice, and start encouraging schemes for the new family housing we desperately need that can attract the support of local people, i.e.a high quality built environment, good quality open spaces, excellent transport links and genuinely sustainable communities.

Protecting the Airport

David Willetts MP, Shadow Minister for Universities and Skills, came to Cambridge last Saturday and heard from Nick Hillman about how important Marshall's airport and other businesses on that site are to Cambridge, as well as the disastrous traffic implications that would result from cramming over ten thousand homes onto the site.

Thank you to Mr Willetts for taking the time out to talk to Cambridge Conservatives - it just goes to show how we really need someone like Nick to represent Cambridge in parliament and who will stand up for Cambridge's interests at the heart of a possible new government. Conservatives were the first to raise the alarm over Marshall, a decade ago, and we still say it should stay.

Richard Normington supports Cambridge at growth hustings

Richard Normington, the Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge, joined representatives of the other main parties in Cambridge for a hustings on The Politics of Cambridge's Growth organised by the Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations on Friday night. FeCRA will be publishing a record of the meeting on their website in a number of weeks.

On the disposition of power between the government and local authorities

While Labour's candidate said the balance was "broadly right", the Green party candidate focused on getting global green targets and the leader of the city council went on about Local Income Tax, Richard said that the balance was way out in favour of the government and that the Conservatives would shift large amounts back, including giving local authorities a 'general power of competence'.

Regarding the complex arrangements for local government financing, where approximately 80% of funds come from the government, Richard say we should "start with easy steps", such as to "ease back on ring-fencing".

On growth in Cambridge

Richard Normington reaffirmed his support for the Conservative policy of scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategy and allowing local authorities to form their own judgement about housing need and provision.

To a question about housing targets the Labour spokesman said that they were "not plucked from thin air" and that they had been debated and agreed. From where I was sitting in the audience I don't think this impressed anyone!

Asked whether he could be sure, as he had stated, that "the need for growth will be accepted without being forced by the government", Richard Normington pointed out that one of the reasons that housing always seems to be unwanted is that the governments rules mean it inevitably turns out to be what isn't needed, citing numbers for the massively increased proportion of new-builds that are poky flats with no gardens.

Richard also added that the Conservatives would provide incentives for communities to agree to development by allowing them to keep the proceeds of new council tax arising from it and some other revenue streams.

Richard and the Labour candidate rejected development on the Marshall site, although the Labour candidate failed to understand that the consequence of the government's targets was that if the council doesn't get on with it the government threatens "we will set up a quango" to force it through.

The Lib Dem wanted to develop the Marshall site while the Green didn't know. (The Green city councillor appears to be in favour.)

On infrastructure

The Green Party wasn't keen on the sort of infrastructure that the other candidates were - roads and utilities - he wanted everything to be with 10 minutes' walking distance. (Nice little utopia you've got there!) Richard Normington ridiculed this sort of protectionism that starts global and ends at the village boundary.

Labour's Transport Innovation Fund congestion charging blackmail was widely derided.

All the other candidates agreed that infrastructure needed to come first or at the same time as development; the current system of post-development levies was considered inadequate.

Richard Normington was scathing of the competence of the Lib Dem city councillors, citing their failure to understand their own system with respect to section 106 agreements at a recent area committee he had attended. One of the interlocutors reported that a Lib Dem had told him "we don't know where to spend it because we don't have any open space to put it!"

It was also pointed out that the developers of the Tim Brinton site in Coleridge have tried to reduce their s.106 contributions from £1.5m to £500k.

On two practical policies for green spaces, while the Green candidate put all his hope in his controversial Wicken Fen project, Richard said that he supports local "food producers not mosquito farmers" and that verges should either be "for trees and grass or cars but not both".

Labour's quango culture threatens Cambridge

Cambridgeshire is consulting again on how it should respond to the East of England Regional Assembly's latest proposed plan for enforcing massive housing growth on our area. Please do take part in the consultation if you get the chance - it ends on 31 October 2009.

This is really the wrong way to do things. We have an unaccountable body in EERA telling our local authorities what to do and then we have another one in Cambridgeshire Horizons trying to do the government's dirty work for us around Cambridge.

It is time for these quangos to go. Conservatives have pledged to abolish top-down housing targets. Of course we do need more houses, but we want to decide locally on what we need, and we need it to happen organically, with infrastructure so that we are not developing ghettos for the future. And if we want to see more houses of the kind we are lacking here (e.g. more than 2 bedrooms) then we need to get rid of the government's targets for density and hefty development taxes (AKA 'affordable' homes subsidised by buyers of 'unaffordable' homes).

Oh, and it would also help if the government stopped demanding maximum parking levels, tightened even further by local Liberal Democrats, resulting in every new development having inadequate parking right from the start.

Conservatives warned 11 years ago that Labour's housing plans (thank Prescott) would result in unsuitable sites being chosen for development, such as Marshall's Cambridge Airport, but were accused of scaremongering by Labour. With the Lib Dems cheerleading for the development, there's only one way to save Marshall - vote Conservative!

Bower's Blueprint #3 - No to forcing Marshall off the airport

This is the third of a series of posts on Bower's Blueprint for Coleridge - a set of pledges to which I would work if elected as county councillor on 4th June.

No to forcing Marshall Aerospace off the airport
I will resist plans to build high density housing on the site of Cambridge Airport.

Why are we opposed to development on the airport?
Marshall is a key local employer that provides training and opportunity for people in Cambridge; we do not wish to see it go.

We are concerned about the effect on traffic in the East of Cambridge from the development. Although a cynic might suggest the Lib Dems supported the airport for development as it is a long way from their voters in West Cambridge, they claim the proximity to the centre of Cambridge would make it ideal for a car-free development, as everyone can walk, cycle or use public transport. They would wish this fantasy to be enforced by providing no new major roads, limited car parking on the development and a congestion charge in Cambridge.

This is the same type of fanciful thinking that assumes nobody living in any new development will want to own a car if you don’t provide adequate parking. However the consultant's report looking at the transport effects concluded that even if a congestion charge was introduced (which we are of course completely opposed to), the effect on East Cambridge roads would be horrific, with the dualling of Perne Road, and even more chaos on Newmarket Road. In short, a terrible deal for existing Coleridge residents.

How did the idea come about?
The proposed development on Marshall’s Airport is a direct result of the Labour Government's top-down housing targets which mandate how many homes must be built in our area. Although local authorities were involved in deciding where housing should be built, coming up with the structure plan in 2001, which became the Regional Spacial Strategy for the East of England, it was clear from the sheer numbers the Government required that many unsuitable sites would be chosen.

Conservatives were the first to warn in 1998 that Labour's targets for increased housing (in the South, while bulldozing the North) would lead to the threat of Cambridge Airport being chosen for development. These warnings were dismissed by Labour initially as scaremongering but David Howarth's Lib Dems in Cambridge soon requested that the airport be used for 12,000 homes!

How likely is it to happen?
Marshall has tried to find a site to which to relocate its business, but has so far failed to do so. This is a major barrier as to date management have indicated they would like to keep the aerospace business close enough to Cambridge for most staff to transfer to the new site.

'Cambridge East' is the last of the fringe areas intended to be developed and with other fringe sites around Cambridge stalled due to the spectacular collective misjudgement about the housing market it seems unlikely that it will be built any time soon.

Who is driving it now?
Cambridge Horizons, which is a 'partnership' quango, has been bullying Marshall to hurry up plans to find a new site for its business with the threat that the land would be put back in the greenbelt and therefore not available for Marshall to develop itself at some point if it should want to. There seems to be a last ditch effort going on to force through the development.

What can Conservatives do?
The Conservative Party has pledged to scrap Regional Spatial Strategies and allow councils to rewrite their Structure Plans so that developments can reflect local needs and priorities. When Coleridge Conservatives discovered this policy we were ecstatic, as this really would save Cambridge!

This is only one part of radical plans by David Cameron to redistribute power from the centre back to local areas. It will help to end the culture in elected local government representatives of blaming other levels of government for all their woes instead of taking responsibility.

While we wait for what I hope will turn out to be a Conservative government I pledge to resist the existing plans for Cambridge East.

Labour's Regional Airport would wreck Coleridge

One of the more surprising comments to come out of last weeks full Council meeting was the admission from a Cherry Hinton Labour Councillor of a hidden agenda for Cambridge Airport. 

He confirmed that an Eastern Region Labour meeting had vowed to turn Marshall's into a regional airport, raising the prospect of many more passenger flights and even the likes of Easyjet flying to Cambridge.

We want to see Marshall's stay at the airfield site (and certainly don't want the high density housing/inadequate transport plan being forced on them by Labour's housing targets), but turning Marshall's into a regional airport will be a nightmare for local residents in Coleridge, with increased noise, traffic and risk. We will fight Labour's plans for the airport all the way.

UPDATE: Cambridge Labour Party are trying to dissociate themselves from Cllr Drydens comments - I'm happy to append the following comments received by email from the Leader of the Labour group:

"Rob as you know did make a comment but he definitely did NOT state at the Council meeting that eastern Region Labour Councillors had voted or had a meeting on this issue."

"Rob attended a non decision making meeting with regional trade union representatives where the unions supported the retention of Cambridge airport, and Marshalls, and supported Cambridge Labour Party's consistent opposition to the 12000 houses proposed there.

I have represented the party in Cambridge at all regional meetings of eastern region Labour Councillors since 2006 and on the East of England Regional Assembly, and there has been no such discussion by eastern Region Labour Councillors, never mind decision on this issue as you suggest.

Labour Councillor regional policy, followed through in meetings developing the Regional Spatial Strategy, is to support only two regional airports - Stansted and Luton."

I welcome Labour's commitment locally (if not nationally) to trying to save Marshall's in Cambridge - it is a battle I have been fighting since around 1999 after Labour's national policy moves on housing targets, and before Labour locally woke up to the issue. However the fact remains that a Labour Councillor made it clear in an open meeting of full Council that a grouping of Eastern Region Labour supporters/Councillors (of whatever constitution - I'm not familiar with the internal machinations of the Labour party) were calling for Marshalls to become a regional airport, something that is very worrying indeed and we will continue to oppose these plans. If Labour have any more clarification of Cllr Drydens remarks, we will be more than happy to publish them in the comments (not anonyously would be preferred!)