Broad context
The plan area has an economic dynamic driven, in the main, by firms meeting exogenous demands for their expertise, intellectual property and products. This has resulted in local demands for employment space and houses that outrun the growth of property provision. In consequence both rents and house prices have risen sharply.
The exogenous growth achieved by Cambridge firms is broadly beneficial to the UK economy as a whole and derives significantly from investment in research and development. It is possible that the levelling-up agenda may lead to some scaling back of central Government funding for Cambridge-based R&D, although the findings of recent research suggest this would be damaging to the national economy, as our area is notably outstanding in the commercialisation of R&D. Moreover our area is also notable for the expenditure on R&D by businesses (BERD).

The decision not to use the Standard Method set out in the NPPF and PPG as the basis for estimating housing needs and jobs is clearly wise given the distinctive nature of the local economy. However, deciding what level and trajectory of jobs increase to project as the basis for the plan is far from straightforward. This would have been true even in times of a settled global economy. In present times there are multiple and various further complications.

Issues which are problematic for forecasting
Even prior to Covid, there were signs of some waning enthusiasm for globalisation and consequently a certain amount of on-shoring. The disruption to supply chains from the pandemic and geo-political concerns about national security, notably in relation to China and Russia, are likely to prompt further re-adjustments to business location. Policy responses to climate change will have further impacts on both consumption and where goods are produced that have implications across the UK as a whole.

More locally, both individuals and companies are in the process of adjusting to new ways of working. People who can work more from home may seek more domestic space than hitherto and be willing to live further away from their workplace in order to afford it. Equally, some firms may be expected to re-evaluate space requirements if their employees come in less often.

Projecting forwards is especially tricky when timeseries-based trends are quite likely to have been disrupted by turning points. For a number of data sets, such as commuting, this is exacerbated by their latest evidence being from the 2011 census. By Spring 2022 more recent data will start to become available, but they will have been gathered, thanks to Covid, during a period of great disruption and uncertainty.

These issues are compounded by the fact that the economic geography of the area covered by the plan is unhelpful – though combining SCDC and CCC is a significant improvement. More specifically, the cheaper housing that Cambridge so desperately needs can most realistically be looked for to the North, East and (possible a lesser extent) the West but, as clearly shown in the map of currently proposed sites for development, it is to the East and, to a lesser extent, the North that the plan boundaries are most tightly drawn – thereby excluding settlements such as Ely, and Newmarket.

A final point underlining the fragility of forecasts is that given the size of greater Cambridge, the strategic decisions of a few key players can radically change the context. For instance, how likely is it that a forecaster would have predicted the arrival of Astra Zeneca? And, looking forwards, how certain are we of the intentions of the Marshall Group – who have just indicated that they will sell their motor business?

In view of the difficulties summarised above, I have tried to consider whether the impacts from over-allocating land for jobs is better or worse from making an under-allocation. My tentative conclusion is that over-provision but it is very tricky to think through all the impacts and attaching weights to their reflect their relative importance is inevitably subjective. A more robust conclusion is that it is vital for implementation of the plan to be informed by a regular review of the quantum, composition and location of job growth and to be agile in making appropriate adjustments across the full range of topics that the plan covers.