An email sent by county council officers to Cambridge City Councillors, asking them to pass the link to the survey to their constituents, states : “Across the UK, demand for housing has been rising year on year. In Cambridgeshire, the Government is suggesting a population increase of 43% by 2031.” The County Council’s webpage says: “We need your views by 23 April 2009. … Results will be published and presented to members of the Council at the Cabinet meeting on 5 May 2009.”.

The first questions in the consultation ask respondents to prioritise the following “factors we should consider when providing for new development in the County”, the survey first asks for your top three, then your bottom three:

• Reducing our impact on climate change
• Meeting the needs of existing communities e.g. housing
• Creating jobs for local workers
• Improving the County’s ability to attract future economic growth
• Improving public transport links to the main cities and towns
• Improving provision for walking and cycling
• Protecting and enhancing the natural environment
• Keeping the unique character of Cambridge and the market towns
• Providing other key infrastructure such as schools and healthcare
• Supporting members of our communities who are disadvantaged

These appear to be presented in the same order to all those who view the survey. Perhaps the fact “Climate Change” is at the top indicates the County Council believe this is the most important consideration and are trying to use the survey to back that up. Other items don’t appear to me to make sense to attempt to “prioritise”. With respect to schools and healthcare, clearly adequate provision must be planned for to cope with any population growth; this is totally non-negotiable, it is a must-have item. It makes no sense to have it on such a list. I cannot see how any useful information can be obtained from check-box answers to this question.

Some of the factors which I think ought to be considered when providing for new development in Cambridgeshire:

• We need to determine where the demand for new homes is, we need to build only to meet the demand created by economic activity in the area. We must not build huge numbers of new homes for people, for whom there will be no jobs. Housing growth has to be carefully linked to economic growth.
• We need to ensure the new houses are affordable, and that building new housing has the effect of making homes more affordable. We need to ensure the prices of the new homes are not kept artificially high, providing huge profits to developers. A share of the economic proceeds from deciding to go-ahead with significant new development of homes ought go into keeping the prices of the new properties down.
• The region is hugely important contributor to the national GDP (and to national-life in ways not measured by GDP) this needs to be recognised and maintained; this justifies national investment in the region, improving infrastructure and enabling us to increase our population. Without this national investment we cannot cope with the levels of growth the nation would like to see here.
• We need to ensure we are not building more commuter / dormitory settlements for London (or Cambridge).
• The new homes ought be as energy efficient as possible in terms of heating, hot water, electricity usage. This will help make us more resilient in the future to a world where energy prices may rise.
• New development must be accompanied by improvements in transport infrastructure; opportunities for residents of the new homes to travel other than by car must be maximised.
• When we build we need to be creating desirable places to live. Good quality homes, in environments designed to engender community are crucial. (Homes which flood are not going to be pleasant places to live in.)
• We need to ensure we have the resources required to service these homes. Do we have enough water? Where is the energy going to come from? New growth needs to be tied into national policies to ensure the whole country has enough energy, this is not something which can be tackled at a County Level, but is a reason not to build if we do not know where the power and water for these homes is coming from.
• We need to make sure we don’t destroy Cambridge, and keep it an attractive city for the University and business to operate in, achieving this requires building new homes so that the City is an affordable place to live in.
• Locating new high density housing near the City Centre, and places of work, makes sense from many perspectives. It enables walking and cycling to work/school/other destinations, doesn’t involve building on green fields, avoids creating the transport problems associated with new towns in which there are few jobs and no existing transport infrastructure.

Statements Everyone Will Surely Agree With

The survey goes on to ask if you agree or disagree with each of the following,

By 2031 we should:

* offer a high quality of life for all residents and workers
* be a world leader in knowledge based business and research, yet be more diverse in our economy overall
* provide good quality public transport and extensive cycling and walking networks
* provide residents with opportunities to live in a more environmentally friendly way
* conserve and enhance our urban, rural and historic environments
* be well prepared for the impact of climate change and adapted to possible increases in flood risk

I would be surprised if anyone would argue against any of those aspirations, again I can’t see what use that question really serves to find out people’s opinions on how new homes ought be provided in the county.

Finally - An Important Question

There is an important decision which is about to be made by councillors; if they want development in new towns, or next to additional settlements. Answers to question therefore might actually be useful to councillors.

Respondents are asked if they agree or disagree that we should:

provide more homes and jobs in, and close to, Cambridge — While I think new development of homes ought be minimised, and closely linked to demand created by economic activity, where new home are to be built I think building them in and near Cambridge is preferable to building new settlements or expanding villages which it is impossible to serve with public transport.

provide more homes and jobs in the existing market towns — Agree (better there than in villages or new-towns)

provide more homes and jobs in further new towns — I Disagree

provide fewer new homes and jobs than in the past — Disagree, on the basis that the nation’s population, and the region’s population is rising (though I would seek not to excessivly concentrate that rise in the South East).

Additional Thoughts Box

An “Additional Thoughts Box” is provided, I wrote the following:

We need to build only to meet the demand created by economic activity in the area. We must not build huge numbers of new homes for people, for whom there will be no jobs. Housing growth has to be carefully linked to economic growth.

New development must be accompanied by improvements in transport infrastructure; opportunities for residents of the new homes to travel other than by car must be maximised.

We need to ensure the new houses are affordable, and that building new housing has the effect of making homes more affordable. We need to ensure the prices of the new homes are not kept artificially high, providing huge profits to developers. A share of the economic proceeds from deciding to go-ahead with significant new development of homes ought go into keeping the prices of the new properties down.

The region is hugely important contributor to the national GDP (and to national-life in ways not measured by GDP) this needs to be recognised and maintained; this justifies national investment in the region, improving infrastructure and enabling us to increase our population. Without this national investment we cannot cope with the levels of growth the nation would like to see here.

We need to ensure we are not building more commuter / dormitory settlements for London (or Cambridge).

The new homes ought be as energy efficient as possible in terms of heating, hot water, electricity usage. This will help make us more resilient in the future to a world where energy prices may rise.

When we build we need to be creating desirable places to live. Good quality homes, in environments designed to engender community are crucial. (Homes which flood are not going to be pleasant places to live in.)

We need to ensure we have the resources required to service these homes. Do we have enough water? Where is the energy going to come from? New growth needs to be tied into national policies to ensure the whole country has enough energy, this is not something which can be tackled at a County Level, but is a reason not to build if we do not know where the power and water for these homes is coming from.

We need to make sure we don’t destroy Cambridge, and keep it an attractive city for the University and business to operate in, achieving this requires building new homes so that the City is an affordable place to live in.

Locating new high density housing near the City Centre, and places of work, makes sense from many perspectives. It enables walking and cycling to work/school/other destinations, doesn’t involve building on green fields, avoids creating the transport problems associated with new towns in which there are few jobs and no existing transport infrastructure.

Further Questions

The survey finished by asking for the submitter’s Gender, Age, Employment status and where they live.

I’d intended what I had written to be interpreted as stating it’s the EERA which is undemocratic. I have now clarified this.

The members of the joint panel are all councillors and that’s a pretty reasonable example of how collaborative working between councils for regional planning ought be done. However there are problems such as the fact its the County Council’s cabinet which has the final say; and there’s the problems arising from the fact the “A” team don’t turn up.

Remember Tony Benn’s powerful questions:
1. What power have you got?
2. Where did you get it from?
3. In whose interest do you exercise it?
4. To whom are you accountable?
5. How can we get rid of you?
In the case of EERA, it appears you can’t get rid of it.