Cambridge city’s unemployment rate, at less than 3%, is significantly below the UK average. How does this mean that Cambridge “needs” jobs? Surely, objectively, most other regions in the UK need jobs more than Cambridge.

Under the plan, job growth is around 40%: so very clearly this job growth by far exceeds the current unemployment rate. Even accounting for Cambridge organic growth, it indicates that the jobs are predominantly for people who are not currently residents. This is not “Cambridge” jobs, it is jobs imported/relocated to Cambridge. The conclusion from this growth is that actually someone or something other than Cambridge needs these jobs and this growth.

To be clear, we believe this to be external parties: national (not local) government, external investors, and external developers. In fact, these parties are seeking to exploit the residents and the resources and positive reputation of Cambridge for their own financial or political benefit.

As residents we resent this, and we resent that the planning system forces the planning service to collude with these exploitative actors in the unhealthy continued growth of Cambridge.

Will the plan deliver housing for the residents of Cambridge that currently need housing? No. The current housing market in Cambridge is driven by investment factors, not by housing needs. This is well argued by London academic Deborah Potts in her 2020 book “Broken Cities”. The simplistic view that the solution is to “build more homes” is increasingly being recognised as wrong.

Will the plan make Cambridge homes more affordable? No. Despite significant recent home-building, the ratio of house prices to average income has increased from 7x in 2002 to 13x in 2017: clearly the current policies are making homes less affordable, as argued by Dr Potts.

Will the plan even make any affordable homes at all? No. The planning criterion of rent “affordability” is 80% of the market rate, and 60% for social rent. Based on the numbers given in the plan, 60% of the average Cambridge rent of £1250 is £750, which is above the average open-market rental price of the rest of England (£700)! Clearly the term “affordable” here is meaningless: the market rate is so high that NO homes are actually affordable. Once again this is a consequence of the market being driven by investment, not housing needs.

The Government’s Standard Method is normally used as a default. In going beyond this method we would suggest that the Plan should also:

include the total of existing unoccupied dwellings in the ‘already in the pipeline’ figure in calculating the number of dwellings required, and to explore all possible means, by incentive, penalty or otherwise, to ensure that such dwellings are occupied within a reasonable time.

adopt a policy that of all new dwellings constructed above the ‘Standard Method’ number, at least 25% should be housing for social rent