Building for growth: how can the sector make the most of investment in the Oxford-Cambridge arc?

“The big question is: how do we deliver it at the pace and scale required and quality required?” said Alison Nicholl, head of Constructing Excellence. 

“To do that, we definitely need a firm idea of what it is we are delivering – and to do that, long-term investment decisions need to be separated from short-term political cycles. It’s what the National Infrastructure Commission was meant to be, but I don’t think it’s had the respect from successive governments to actually do that. We need a friendly dictatorship of sorts.”

Nicholl was speaking at the Building the Future Think Tank’s first regional roundtable for 2025, which took place last month and focused on how the built environment sector in the East of England can maximise the opportunities presented by investment in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, both for the industry and for the communities within the region.

From the start of 2023, the Building the Future Commission was working to discover solutions and initiatives to improve the built environment. The commission published its final report early last year, and subsequently transitioned into the Building the Future Think Tank, which has continued into 2025.

As part of the think tank’s fact-finding work, and in partnership with Constructing Excellence and supported by national sponsors Fenwick Elliott and Gleeds, we are this year once again travelling around the country convening high-level roundtable discussions with experts in different regions to ensure that the think tank hears from all corners of the UK.

The first of these, held last month, saw Building gather a group of experts who each have links to the East of England, before the think tank’s roadshow heads to the North-east, the North-west, the Midlands and Wales later this year.

This first stop of the year, in Cambridge, chaired by Building’s head of content, Carl Brown, was all about how the sector can make the most of investment in housing, infrastructure and commercial developments in the innovation economy of the arc.

Thinking bigger: scale and ambition

Galvin Tarling, global head of life sciences at Gleeds, set the tone for the discussion by calling for more ambitious thinking: “The change since year 2000 has been unrecognisable. We need to think a lot bigger – look at what is happening internationally and match the scale of change that is happening in the global market. We need to be more agile.”

Simon Tolson, partner at Fenwick Elliott, offered more on the historical context and suggested there may be a reason this time is different.

He said: “Yes, the arc project has been evolving since the early 2000s, late 1990s. Changes happen every year. But the science-sector part of the equation is now a driving force, so we need to commit to that and keep going.”

Guy Kaddish, partner at Bidwells, also expressed strong support, saying: “I’m a huge advocate for the arc. It can be huge if it achieves goals across ESG – needs to be across all three pillars. Why can’t we try and benefit more people? The question is certainty – how do we move from ambition to delivery?”

The discussion around putting people and communities at the heart of development work across the region was clear, with Andy Dedman, regional managing director for London and the South-east at Currie & Brown, warning it is imperative that the geographic focus does not lock in on the big-name cities.

He said: “It’s wider than Cambridge and Oxford. Milton Keynes and other areas need housing, and that housing needs to be at the centre of moving forwards.”

The importance of place and community

This point was one many agreed on, with Stewart Brundell, managing director for the London and East region at Willmott Dixon, emphasising the importance of towns between the major hubs and not falling into the trap of focusing on the region’s academically prestigious cities.

He said: “Middle towns are fundamental. Jobs and movement of people is important. How can industry collaborate to construct this differently?”

But Alexandra Woolmore, head of planning at Hill Group UK, also pointed out it is important not to paint both Oxford and Cambridge with the same brush – highlighting the contrasting approaches of the key cities.

She said: “Cambridge and Oxford are very different in their historical approach to development. Homes and affordability is a challenge. Those caught in the middle are a real challenge in these cities. Getting community buy-in is key.”

Infrastructure challenges: water, power and planning

The discussion highlighted that the significant infrastructure constraints facing the region could be a major barrier from getting community buy-in.

Matt Dunkley, design director for the East region at Morgan Sindall Construction, pointed out: “There is a massive water resource issue in Cambridge.”

Nicola Carniato, director at AKT II, concurred: “Power is also a major issue,” while adding that “rising costs of construction will be a challenge – ambitious plans need to be balanced with managing the communities”.

Woolmore emphasised the prerequisites for community support: “Communities aren’t going to buy in if their infrastructure isn’t adequate to start with. If you can’t make sustainable drainage systems work in somewhere like Cambridge, you aren’t going to be able to make it work in other places.”

Tarling observed that immediate challenges are growing but could also be part of the solution. He said: “The transition within laboratory stock is accelerating issues with water and power usage. It’s unprecedented, the square footage of R&D facilities coming forward. Will technology answer some of these issues?”

Dunkley identified planning as a significant roadblock: “We need certainty around when we are on site. The biggest barrier seems to be planning. How do we speed up big schemes? There are too many hoops to jump through.”

Kaddish suggested a more executive approach: “For the big pieces, we need to be a bit more executive, potentially – depoliticise and have executives in there. That can then flow through the process.”

Talent and skills: meeting the demand

The discussion acknowledged the people challenge faced by the sector. Matt Johnson, the University of Cambridge’s head of development for north-west Cambridge, highlighted that “the opportunity comes back down to the people and attracting the talent to be there”.

Jane Goddard, deputy CEO and managing director for building performance services at BRE, questioned the sector’s capacity: “How do we design and build things at the pace we are being asked to?” She later added: “There is a level of boldness needed here. Should we be training up bricklayers or CAD developers? There is a whole piece around the skills needed.”

Dunkley concurred, offering a Cambridge perspective: “The market is alive in terms of tender numbers. The challenge is skills. But how do we get our hands on the next layer of talent needed?”

What was seen as key is the idea that the scale of the project also presents opportunities to attract skills in new ways.

Brundell highlighted: “There’s a great opportunity to engage with supply chain partners, as they are the ones that need the work. The responsibility of the industry is to use the arc for long-term main contractor collaboration. That will have the best impact on apprenticeships.”

Innovative approaches: construction and development

There was a consensus that an initiative on the scale of the Oxford-Cambridge arc cannot be achieved with traditional approaches.

Nicola Carniato advocated strongly for modern methods of construction: “Offsite manufacturing should be the future, even if there is resistance. Thinking beyond the region, it spreads investment and creates a ripple effect.”

Nicholl agreed, saying that focusing the messaging on productivity rather than technology may be the key.

“The question should be: how do you maximise productivity? I’m not saying we want modular specifically, but industrialised construction is key,” she said.

Brundell emphasised flexibility in building design: “The type of buildings we build needs to be really considered. We need dismantling or future-proofing. Designing flexibility into buildings is crucial – they could be anything, so we need more of an open mindset that brings in place and communities.”

Woolmore made a compelling point about mixed-use development: “Research has traditionally been located on campuses, which are closed environments. We need to start looking at having more mixed-use development. I spent 16 years working at King’s Cross, and there is so much going on there – businesses are there because there is something already there.” She suggested this successful knowledge quarter could provide a model for Cambridge.

Public-private collaboration: the way forward

The roundtable concluded with a strong emphasis on public-private collaboration. Tarling advocated for education-led joint ventures, while Brundell highlighted “emerging demand for finance and land. We can repurpose buildings and make better use of estates.”

Tolson pointed to the potential of MOD estates for both land resources and technical perspectives, while Woolmore highlighted successful partnership models from a housing perspective.

She said: “Great examples of partnerships reflect the particular council’s needs – not exclusively. Hill’s South Cambridge Investment Partnership works because they have land and we have the expertise. Portfolio approaches can help. We need creative models to scale up.”

Brundell concluded: “The public sector can’t do it on its own,” to which Kaddish added: “The private sector can’t either. We need government funding.”

What the sector in the East of England wants

As the roundtable approached its end after an hour and a half of vigorous debate, the panel were asked to consider what their key recommendations would be to maximise the Oxford-Cambridge Arc for the good of the sector and the wider region.

Responses (see panel above) included suggestions on improved visibility and stability of pipeline, increased focus on placemaking, and a re-evaluation of public-private partnership models of financing.

The roundtable demonstrated that while the East of England faces significant challenges in infrastructure, planning and skills, there are clear opportunities for innovative approaches to development that could transform the region – provided there is certainty, commitment and effective collaboration between the public and private sectors.

The words of the University of Cambridge’s Johnson summed up the overall sentiment of the session: “Choosing something and sticking to it is key. We need to be cracking on and doing it.”