Changes in the Landscape of West Cambridge, Part V: 1945 to 2000 Philomena Guillebaud

Changes in the landscape of west Cambridge, Part V: 1945 to 2000 Philomena Guillebaud This last of a series of articles covers the period between 1945 1911–12.) and 2000, which saw great changes in the landscape of what Although enclosure of the West Fields had been had once been the West Fields of Cambridge: many new completed in 1805, earlier than either the East Fields university and college buildings, some private housing and, or Chesterton, no such residential explosion had fol- for the frst time, more than a token amount of social hous- lowed because the colleges, the dominant landown- ing. Demolition of large private houses built before 1914 ers, manipulated the enclosure process to ensure that was limited, many providing the initial accommodation the lands closest to the Backs (the local expression for for new colleges, most of which found their homes in west the former water meadows and college gardens on ei- Cambridge. By contrast, most University development took ther side of the stretch of the river Cam lying west of place on previously unbuilt land. The patern established at the town) were in their exclusive hands. Their large- the time of enclosure in 1805, which had left its mark clearly ly successful eforts to prevent the encroachment of on development over the succeeding 150 years, became much buildings on the green vistas beyond the river arose less signifcant thereafter thanks to the extensive acquisition not, be it said, because of far-sighted concern for the of land, whether by purchase or lease, by the University. future development of the colleges, much less of the Whereas before WWII there were few limits to what the university: the mind-set of the Cambridge academic University and colleges could do with their land, they now at the start of the nineteenth century, as is evidenced had to come to terms with a planning machinery which by Winstanley’s Unreformed Cambridge (Winstanley obliged them to ft their plans within a broader overall 1935), was essentially introverted and what motivated framework of development. At times, particularly in the the dons at the time of enclosure was the desire to cre- early days, there have been difculties but with experience a ate and maintain the equivalent of a semi-private park degree of mutual accommodation has been arrived at. or greenbelt in which they could ride and walk. Eventually the impact of the agricultural depres- sion after 1870 obliged the colleges to fnd new sources Introduction of revenue by granting building leases inter alia in this western quarter, leading to the creation of the suburb This is the last of a series of fve articles tracing the of west Cambridge (Guillebaud 2007), which came evolution of the landscape of west Cambridge through to be inhabited mainly by academics and other pro- the past two centuries, beginning with the enclosure fessionals. But the east and north sides of the origi- of the West Fields in 1805 and concluding in 2000. The nal town continued to grow faster, and between the later date is admitedly arbitrary but it makes a con- wars most development, notably including council venient stopping point for this narrative. housing, occurred in those areas. By contrast in west Over the last 200 years the town of Cambridge de- Cambridge change was minimal in the interwar pe- veloped in a series of spurts. The frst and most dra- riod: fve short roads were built and partly developed matic occurred in 1811 after the enclosure of one of for private houses, one terrace of council housing ap- its two medieval Great Fields, the East or Barnwell peared (south of Barton Road), the new University Fields.The over-crowded old town burst out east- Library was erected and Clare, one of the ancient wards in a rash of new residential building (Bryan colleges immediately east of the river, put up a new and Wise 2005), later spurred by the arrival of the rail- court across the river in west Cambridge. Both of these way. Another spurt, this time northwards, took place academic forays into new territory were undertaken at mid-century, after the 1840 enclosure of the Parish with reluctance and only after lengthy eforts to fnd of Chesterton (historically not part of the Borough central sites had failed. Most other university expan- of Cambridge, but much of it later incorporated in sion, of which there was a good deal (laboratories, lec- it when the municipal boundaries were redrawn in ture halls, etc., fnanced with the aid of government 2 Philomena Guillebaud grants), continued to be squeezed into the congested ligatory function for all local governments, private town centre. land development was forbidden without the consent Nevertheless the seeds of west Cambridge’s expan- of the local planning authorities, and development sion after World War II were being sown in the inter- rights in undeveloped land were transferred to the war period. The two most signifcant changes were State, which set aside £300 million from which to pay the introduction of town planning and the new sys- compensation in hardship cases. The transfer of de- tem of central government grants to the University. velopment rights did not survive the return to power While outlining the broader economic and social of the Conservative Party after 1951, but it created an context within which University development took enormous burden of work for all academic bodies, place after 1945, the sections which follow describe in both before and after its elimination. turn the physical changes in west Cambridge atrib- The County Council, now designated as the plan- utable to the expansion of existing and the creation ning authority, was faced with the need to prepare of new colleges, to the growth of University facilities a comprehensive development plan for the county, and to new housing construction, both private and preceded by a detailed survey of its physical features. social. The major changes over the period 1945-2000 The plan was to run for 20 years, with quinquenni- are shown in Figure 1. al reviews. Realising that drafting such a plan was beyond its resources and having taken advice, the County recruited in 1948 a planning consultant, Prof. Planning for the post-war period Holford, retaining him for 18 months. Somewhat unusually, the County Council accepted an ofer by A previous article (Guillebaud 2008) outlined the in- the University to meet one-third of the cost of em- ter-war experience with town planning in Cambridge, ploying him. He was joined by Henry Myles Wright with its very limited impact on west Cambridge. The who had worked with Holford at the Ministry of early initiatives had focussed on developments in Town and Country Planning; the later did much of east and north Cambridge, and it was not until the the detailed local work since Holford was simulta- Cambridge and District Town Planning Scheme was neously involved with other assignments. Their re- drafted in 1936 that atention began to be paid also port (Holford & Myles Davies, Cambridge Planning to the other side of town. The University, individual Proposals 1950) was completed in December 1949 and colleges and/or the Cambridge Preservation Society published a month later, its recommendations under- raised objections to certain features of the Scheme, lying much of the development plan for the county notably the kind of zoning envisaged and the route of and town published by the local authorities in 1952 the proposed ring road through the western outskirts and approved by the Minister for Town and Country of Cambridge, and in consequence a public inquiry Planning in 1954. took place, presided over by an inspector appointed The Holford report made two major points: frstly by the Ministry of Health. Given the glacial pace at that Cambridge had a unique character as a univer- which planning maters moved this was not held sity town which must be safeguarded, and secondly until March 1939, and while the inspector seems to that the town had serious trafc problems which had have considered some of the objections well-found- to be solved. Both were factors in the recommenda- ed, with the outbreak of war the entire scheme was tion that the future rate of growth should be reduced, shelved and his report was never published (Cooper such that the population of the town (within certain 2000, 75–76). defned boundaries) could be stabilized at not more Even in the thick of the war, planning for the than 100,000. At the same time major new road pro- post-war period was very much on the minds of the posals were made. Without going into detail here authorities. In 1943 the newly-formed Ministry of (the reader interested in a more detailed examination Town Planning commissioned Stephen Dykes Bower of planning in this period is referred to the Holford to review Cambridge planning experience and the Report itself or to Anthony Cooper’s book Planners nature of the problems faced; his report was never and Preservationists) it may be said that few of the new published, but as the frst serious examination of the road proposals, although incorporated in the 1952 issues—particularly whether limits should be placed plan and several subsequent revisions, were ever on future growth of the town in order to preserve its carried out whereas the policy of size limitation was special characteristics as a university town—it proved adopted and followed until the 1970s, with repercus- useful to his successors (Cooper 2000, 78–86). Also sions which persist to the present day. in 1943, an interim Act was passed requiring plan- Concern for the future of Cambridge was of course ning permission for new developments in areas not not confned to the central authorities.

Load more