And, in terms of the amenity, the “open space” element is quite considerable (well, I think so anyway and I don’t think I am by any means alone).

One of the scariest things I heard at the growth hustings was Nimmo-Smith’s description of Cambridge as an island “surrounded by agri-desert”. This suggests to me that he considers the area around Cambridge (presumably including the green belt?) to be intrinsically unproductive and ripe for development.

Of course, you can just try to pump cash directly into the north, but that approach has been tested to destruction (and not only by the current lot, although they have been particularly keen) and I see relatively little to show for it.

What is unreasonable, though, is to expect to have it both ways i.e. to advocate high housing targets to meet demand in the SE and then complain that the north atrophies.

More could be done to improve the ability of those in social housing to move than is being done
now.

As an afterthought, what proportion of the overall housing stock do you think should be made up of “social housing”? In my own view, I think it would be valuable to return at least to the sort of proportions that pre-date the “right to buy” policy of the early 1980s (which removed some 5000 well-built homes in Cambridge City from the public sector - rather more than are likely to be included on a Marshalls’ site development).

It seems a little too easy to suggest that social housing limits mobility of labour. Owner-occupation only encourages a one-way mobility of labour, from richer areas to poorer areas. How many owner-occupiers from the North of England can afford to sell up and buy in the South-East, for instance, except at the risk of the sort of crippling mortgage burdens that they are now trying to eliminate from the market?

It is possible to build houses within and around the edge of the city which will be attractive and practical places to live, and which people would be prepared to spend their own money buying. That’s not what we’re currently seeing though. With respect to the airport site the process is in too early a stage to see what quality of homes, transport infrastructure, employment opportunities and community facilities will be included in the plans, but I don’t want to see a repeat of Arbury Park and I’ve not seen any evidence the Liberal Democrats do have the will to put policies in place to ensure the developments they’re supporting around the city are high quality practical places to live.

In one of the sections of my article on the Parliamentary Hustings focusing on Growth where I expressed my own views I wrote:

Building new houses can, in my view, affect market prices but only if it is good quality, both in terms of the build and location. Poor quality housing won’t affect house prices outside new developemts; high quality well located new homes will. I think there needs to be care taken with the provision of social housing and shared ownership that they are not pursued at the expense making properties on the open market more affordable. I do not think that it is good for society to have too great a proportion of social housing. In addition to their affect on market prices they reduce people’s mobility to the determent of the national economy.
The current cost of a home as multiple of salary is a figure which needs to be brought down; housing supply is only one small variable affecting this, the easy availability of credit, and the willingness of people to take on debt is another very significant factor which also has to be tackled.

I support placing new homes in the city. I think it would be better though if the highest density housing was in the city centre and don’t think the strategy of building blocks of flats on the outskirts is the way to go. Overall at Arbury park end result is a density less than we see in some of the very popular and desirable high density Victorian terraces of the city centre.

Cllr Harrison has written a blog post expanding on the reasons she supports building homes on the airport. Her, and other Cambridge Liberal Democrats’, focus on social housing provision (she suggests a driver for the development is the “8,000 Cambridge people now on the waiting list for affordable housing here in the city”) is in my view a big part of the problem. I don’t think the state (or worse, public-private partnerships) ought be housing such a large proportion of the population, I don’t think that tackles the underlying problems at all and will take the country in the wrong direction.

Cllr Harrison has ignored the fact that Marshall is looking UK wide for sites to relocate to. I think she has also either mis-understood or mis-represented Marshall’s intention with respect to the site, a site in which they are still making substantial investments.

Not necessarily; a significant factor with regards to Arbury/Orchard Park
is the quality of what has been built, not least the obviously unfinished
nature of the development, and other aspects, like the hugely unattractive
way in which King’s Hedges cuts it off. Had the development been
implemented better, it could be a lot more attractive, and there is surely
every possibility that a Cambridge East development, if it were to go
ahead, could have high construction and community standards, as could many
other developments, if the policies and will are in place.

Cambridge’s eastern area is currently of poor quality with a lack of facilities and services. This development, which has been in the pipeline for years, would bring huge advantages to the area, as well as catering for the city’s desperate need for more housing.