Thames Tap ArcWatch consultant Hugh Blaza has spotted a disconnect between those promoting the Arc and those who live close to it.
Another week, another page of readers’ letters in the local media.
And not only are they unsupportive of the Arc and its champions; they are written by individuals, many of whom speak for pressure groups, who are at best suspicious, and at worst, implacably opposed to the proposals which so many see as potentially transformative. And transformative in a good way.
The Arc has been a construct for years, as the property community knows. But it’s my guess that the scientists and organisations driving the Arc don’t actually realise they are doing it; they’re just getting on with the projects their research and jobs entail.
Now, having recognised its potential and what those activities might do, not just for the region itself, but for other parts of the UK, the support of Government – central and local – has been sought and looks as if it will be provided.
But anecdotally (and confirmed at least in the Oxford neck of the woods by the constant message in the local paper’s letters page) support for the project from central Government, the LEPs, local authorities and growth boards is interpreted as an overbearing and undemocratic assault on the region in the name of ‘growth’ and ‘progress’.
It’s not hard to see why people at the Oxford end of the Arc are worried; Oxford is a city of enormous beauty and significant wealth. It is surrounded by wide areas of unspoilt countryside which people don’t want to see covered with new buildings, however ‘green’ they may be.
That’s not to say the city doesn’t have its areas of deprivation, but the contrast with other, far more deprived areas in the Arc couldn’t be starker. A combination of the support from Government and the employment, investment and growth which the activities are generating ought to produce a levelling up dividend for those areas; I don’t believe the Government’s policies here are geographically limited to the north.
But is the message getting through? It seems not. To quote from just one of the letters published recently: ‘The [Arc] does not (and should not have) a monopoly of innovation and employment. So far, neither the concept of the Arc itself nor the tentative plans for it, have a democratic mandate’.
If the Arc construct is a response to the organic growth in pioneering technologies coming out of the universities in the region and not, as the above reader appears to believe, the product of Government policy, its benefits need to be described and broadcast widely.
And that seems to be the idea. The Government’s spatial framework plan, launched some three weeks ago, contained the following statement:
“Our intention is to develop a long-term Spatial Framework for the Arc that will support better spatial planning, provide a blueprint for better-targeted public investment, give investors and businesses greater long-term certainty over growth plans, and allow communities to shape the long-term future of places across the region. The nature and content of the Spatial Framework will be subject to the outcome of both detailed consultation and sustainability appraisal.”
That’s the challenge for those charged with delivering the Arc. Perhaps they might start with some gentle correction of what people, perhaps understandably, are saying in their letters to the local press.
© Thames Tap (powered by ukpropertyforums.com).
Sign up to receive your free weekly Thames Tap newsletter here.
Hugh,
As you will know the people of Oxford, even those who write to the Oxford Times, are more often than not erudite; well-informed; and care deeply about Oxford & Oxfordshire’s environment. I am one of those people! I therefore refute your seemingly arrogant suggestion that gentle correction is required.
I also refute your suggestion that the Arc is a response to the organic growth of the region. It is much more than that and it IS very much a product of Government Policy. Yes the Arc would grow organically, and this would be much more welcome. What is not welcome is the scale of growth that the Government is promoting.
As for your suggestion that levelling up is not just for the North, I’m not sure our friends in the North would welcome more ‘levelling up’ in the South!
As someone interested in property and development you will understandably be interested in the benefits and transformative possibilities of the Arc. However, those of us whose priorities are the environment, biodiversity, climate change etc don’t believe that concreting over Oxfordshire on the proposed scale is what is needed. So forgive me but I will keep writing to the local paper, as you call it.
Dear Suzanne
Thank you for responding to my article. At UK Property Forums, we like to think that we, too, are erudite and well-informed, but we do try not to be arrogant. Rather, our mission is to report on stories which are of interest to our readers and to provoke thought where we think it will help the debate(s).
With great respect, I think you have missed the point about the correction which I think is required. It is our understanding that the Arc is a phenomenon brought about by a boom in technological innovation which will have benefits on many levels, from employment, investment and to the overall good of the human race (an examination of the Arc prospectus will describe the latter better than I can here). All of this needs to be accommodated and it is government policy to do so. We hope and expect that a significant element of the consultation with government will be to ensure that development is not excessive and is as environmentally sound as it can be.
We have in our columns questioned the tactics employed by government to further its policies, the sweeping use (one might argue abuse) of ministerial powers by Robert Jenrick in the saga of the SODC Local Plan being one particular instance.
If it should emerge that the activities in the Arc are merely a ruse to ram through excessive and inappropriate development, then it will be evidence of a malaise which affects more than just the Arc, physically and conceptually. For now, at least, we have the opportunity to hold the government to its undertaking to engage in consultation and we will be watching closely how genuine and comprehensive that is. I am sure you will too and I look forward to reading your correspondence with the Oxford Times and that of others with their own local papers.