The plan states “Our new development strategy aims to meet our increased need for new homes in a way that minimises our environmental impacts and improves the wellbeing of our communities.”

As argued above (in the new jobs and homes section), the primary driving force in the Cambridge housing market is for external investors to profit from the bubble that is the housing market. It is this which should be regulated, as it is so heavily resourced that it will always outpace any feasible increase in housing supply. Understanding this is critical to having a planning strategy that works. The “need” for new homes will be met with higher and higher prices paid by investors, which will push home ownership and even rental out of the reach of an increasing number of Cambridge residents.

Additionally, the plan will not improve community wellbeing. The plan will create increased capital growth for landowners, developers, and business owners. As described in the book “The Spirit Level” (2010), this has been conclusively and objectively shown to drive up inequality, and drive down community wellbeing. It is widely publicised that Cambridge is the UK city with the highest level of income inequality. This is a clear and direct consequence of the economic growth strategy which the plan presents as “good” for the city.


We also question the strategy, which is already very heavily reliant on new build housing, to allow for 10% more housing than the objectively assessed needs using a high-end estimate. Why should there be a contingency for an under-estimate by the plan (so ask for more), instead of an over-estimate (so ask for fewer), when the strategy is already taking a more optimistic view of growth than the Standard Method? Surely the “contingency” for high growth is already factored in the very use of a jobs-drive model vs the Standard Method? There is no objectively-supportable argument for this extra 10% “contingency”.