The OxCam growth corridor is a pinion of Labour’s mission for economic revival, with the new Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (GCDC) core to growth at its eastern end. Announced, consulted on and established within six months, the GCDC is a centrally appointed body underpinned by an £800 million funding package for the region.
The GCDC has been granted responsibilities over land assembly, infrastructure delivery and investment, and from 2027 is due to take development management powers over strategic schemes, with plan-making powers to follow.
The reaction has been mixed. Local leaders, many of whom now sit on the GCDC board, have criticised a powerful new institution taking strategic planning powers from two authorities with a strong delivery record, while 68% of individuals responding to the Government’s GCDC consultation were opposed or mostly opposed to it.
Cambridge City Council has noted the corporation’s area is “almost double the size of the 17 previous UDCs combined”, while the Leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council, Cllr Bridget Smith warned it “risks undermining the very things that make growth successful – local knowledge, community involvement, and democratic decision-making”.
Labour has placed devolution at the centre of its agenda: combined authorities, local government reorganisation (despite the recent announcement from Angela Rayner that plans will be being paused while undergoing a review) and the transfer of powers to regional leaders – all in the name of bottom-up economic growth. Andy Burnham has consistently argued that growth can be delivered more effectively when decisions are made locally.
Set against this, a centrally imposed delivery body appears contradictory.
The GCDC demonstrates the Government’s practical priority: strategic planning and regional delivery matter more than localism for its own sake.
The same instinct is visible in the recent proposal for extending mayoral call-ins, allowing mayors to overrule councils in the name of speed. Taken together, the pledge to “bring power home” looks to be less about devolving power to communities than about concentrating it where decisions can be made efficiently.
Greater Cambridge may offer a guide for future growth locations, and if successful, similar approaches could emerge elsewhere. The New Towns Taskforce made a strong case for Development Corporations to deliver such projects.
The lesson of the GCDC is that Labour’s devolution agenda is not wholly about pushing power downwards, but about reaching for whichever governance arrangement will deliver growth the fastest.
Those who recognise this and build strong regional relationships will be best placed to move faster.