The Oxford Cambridge Arc

An arch is perhaps one of the most enduring and significant structures within architecture, and has a unique ability to link two separate elements with strength and beauty. 

The Oxford Cambridge Arc, conceived before the pandemic and political uncertainty disrupted planning and development, was intended to create a strong link between the cities of Oxford and Cambridge and extend their prosperity to the wider area. 

In engineering terms, Oxford and Cambridge could be seen as representing the arch’s abutments: the symmetrical pillars upon which the arch rests. The arch ring is the technical term for the structure between the two: in this case the counties of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.

Science and Innovation in Oxford & Cambridge

Representing the abutments are Katherine Jones in Carter Jonas’ Oxford office and Justin Bainton in Cambridge. Carter Jonas’ work within these two cities and their environs demonstrates the symmetry between Oxford and Cambridge: similarities which have existed for centuries and continue to inspire (and challenge) development today.

Katherine’s focus is gaining planning consent for life sciences and R&D clients in Oxfordshire’s science parks, specifically Harwell Science and Innovation Centre and the Culham Science Centre. Katherine has recently achieved planning consent for 21,250 sq ft of flexible, new employment space at Harwell and is at an advanced stage in achieving consent for a further 53,000 sq ft of office space. At Culham, Katherine has obtained planning permission for the expansion of the Oxfordshire Advanced Skills facility and is working towards planning consultant for the internationally significant Fusion Demonstration Plant project on behalf a landmark collaboration between the UK Atomic Energy Authority and Canadian-based General Fusion.

Justin has secured planning consent on behalf of BioMed Realty for the development of substantial R&D facilities on the Granta Park Science, Technology and Biopharmaceutical Campus in Cambridge. The planning consent comprises five R&D buildings with a combined floor area of approximately 35,000 m2 and a new gateway R&D building at the entrance of the park.  

In science parks in both counties, areas allocated for employment are evolving to meet changing requirements. “At Harwell we are exploring opportunities for residential development to complement the employment uses, and Carter Jonas is currently leading the planning process to bring forward the Culham Science Village allocation for 3,500 homes on land adjacent to the science centre,” explains Katherine. “By doing so in the vicinity of the offices and labs, we can benefit sustainability in line with Oxfordshire County Council’s net zero policies. The concept of the 20 minute neighbourhood has taken on greater importance since the pandemic, and we’re also looking into the potential for Build to Rent as demographic change indicates an growing need for high quality rental units.”

“In Cambridge,” Justin explains, “There is an insatiable demand for R&D space, which achieves the best economic return. When sites come forward in Cambridge, they are invariably promoted for R&D first, but with a strong emphasis on sustainable transport infrastructure and more complimentary uses than previously, creating a more sustainable community.”

In Oxford city centre, Carter Jonas recently secured planning consent on behalf of Oxford Science Enterprises for the transformation of a 1980s indoor shopping centre. This form of non-speculative life sciences-led redevelopment, centrally based in a university city, is increasingly common and looks likely to be replicated in Cambridge’s Grafton Centre. 

Both cities have been pioneering in their approaches to biodiversity net gain ahead of the legal requirement: in Cambridge new developments are encouraged to meet a 20% target. Both city councils are currently reviewing sustainable transport strategies which is influencing development projects. Traditional car parks at both Culham and Granta Park are increasingly restricted to hubs on the periphery and a greater emphasis is placed on facilitating cycle parking and connectivity within the campuses.

Another similarity is that while both Oxford and Cambridge are buoyant employment, housing and retail markets, both face the common challenges of a large proportion of listed buildings and conservation areas and restrictive Green Belts. 

Oxford – Cambridge: What lies between?

Returning to the construct of an arch, these ‘abutments’ are not technically part of the arch. In engineering, pillars are of little use if they have nothing to support. “The area that lies between the two varies quite considerably to the university cities,” says Katherine. “The ‘arch ring’ includes the rolling hills of Buckinghamshire, which locals are so keen to protect that the Council withdrew from the Arc to ‘be in control of its own future economic development and housing decisions’; Milton Keynes - the planning experiment that represents everything that Oxford and Cambridge is not, and (depending on the height of the arch) the former new town of Corby to the north. These areas are wide-ranging, which explains why some have resisted the artificial coalescence within a development corporation or similar.”

“Furthermore,” says Justin, “The purpose of the Arc has changed. Initially the focus residential: the creation of one million homes to provide an affordable and accessible base for those working in the cities. But Covid, remote working and the relative increase in value of employment land has changed the original impetus. After the then housing minister Christopher Pincher declared in 2021 that the Arc is ‘not about housebuilding’ the focus shifted away from housebuilding. Political interest also shifted - north, towards the Red Wall and its potential to benefit from levelling up.

The Arc: A focus on Infrastructure

“The ‘arch ring’ was further weakened when it was announced that the Expressway, the dual carriageway which would have linked the two extremes of the Arc, was cancelled. The CAM Metro, which would have provided connectively within Cambridge and beyond, was cancelled following the election of a new Mayor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, and recently the eastern section of East West Rail has been in doubt.”

Is the Oxford Cambridge Arc viable without sustainable transport? “Probably not, as every local authority is moving away from car use and towards public transport,” says Justin. 

And can the Arc succeed without a construct such as a development corporation to create a common strategy and incentivise development? “Everything indicates that the cities of Oxford and Cambridge will continue to prosper as they have done historically because they have the necessary ingredients of success,” says Katherine. “They are demonstrating their ability to adapt to changing market conditions in facilitating change of use from retail to life sciences, accommodating the principles of 20 minute neighbourhoods and delivering sustainability at every level – whether through BREEAM, sustainable transport or biodiversity net gain.” 

“Support for a development corporation hasn’t been universally accepted by the local authorities within the Arc,” says Justin. “In fact it is notable that only two of the 21 authorities which original made up the Arc were within the initial list of 38 authorities which felt they would benefit from the funding and planning advantages of becoming an investment zone.

“Two years ago the Arc was the flavour of the month. But there’s been so much political change since then and the political will seems to have gone.”

Another issue is timing. “An initiative to drive development across such diverse local authorities, to create new transport links and attract employers and residents requires a long-term strategy: one which extends beyond a political term or the average incumbency of a Secretary of State,” says Katherine. 

The progress of the Arc to date demonstrates that prosperous areas will continue to prosper as a result of market forces, but the skill in building an arch lies not in the abutments, but the arch itself. To substantially redraw the map, and to do so sustainability, requires a long term political will which is currently absent both on a local and a national level. It could be said that a pair of abutments with no arch ring is nothing but a premature ruin.