Introduction: the current Housing situation in Greater Cambridge
Greater Cambridge has a crisis of housing affordability. Too many people now live under the stress of insecure housing and many others are forced to live miles away from their place of work. Data published in October 2022 showed that median salaries in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire were £36,000 and £39,500 respectively1. However, according to research based on the HM Land Registry UK House Price Index in April 2023, the salary needed to buy a flat in Cambridge is £67,478 and that needed to buy a terraced house would be £109,1482.
Average rents in Cambridge are totally unaffordable for the average earner as well. It was worked out this year that four out of five people cannot afford the average rent price3. The median monthly rent for a room in Cambridge this year was £630.004 (that has gone up by over £100 in two years), and average monthly earnings were a take-home pay of £2000. But many sources5 have now worked out that you need about £49,000 to live comfortably in this city and not struggle to make ends meet.
The numbers of families without a permanent home and in short-term housing, whether hotels and B&Bs or temporary rental properties, hit a record high6 this year, with the latest statistics showing it now affects 121,327 children, according to data collated by the House of Commons library7. Other figures, also compiled by the library, show that councils across England have 261,189 homes that are classed as long-term vacant, meaning they have been empty for six months or more.
Locally, the build, build, build philosophy has done nothing to bring down the average house prices or the average rents, or provide enough social housing for the numerous Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire families who are currently on the waiting list for social housing, numbering 1508 and 19188 respectively as of March 2023. However, this number is now thought to have almost doubled.
The decades of growth in housing supply clearly haven’t solved these serious housing issues and yet more growth is sought via the Local Plan. Instead of profit-driven private sector housing developments (including inaccurately named “affordable” housing), Greens want to see a large increase in social housing, backed up by innovative approaches such as ownership cooperatives and co-housing projects. We need to make better use of existing housing stock and suitable brownfield sites. In addition, we call for strict controls governing rented accommodation, and the drawing up of a renters’ charter.
Responses to sections of the Housing Strategy:
p.11: “For those on low incomes, the housing options are scarce, with a reliance on social housing for rent. There is also a growing ‘affordability gap’ where middle income households are being squeezed out of the market, with limited housing options for home ownership or in the private rented sector.”
We completely agree. Why is it then that the rate of social housing provision is so slow? For instance, there is zero social housing promised at a proposed development on Fanshawe Road (p.4, Update on New Build Council Housing Delivery9). This rows back significantly on the initial ‘100% Social Housing” promise for this development with no explanation given by the council as to why this is happening.
Looking at the council housing picture in Cambridge City: according to the HSC Programme Update Report delivered to the Housing Scrutiny Committee on 23rd January 2024, 272 of the 706 council houses planned for the next ten years are promised as social homes (a percentage of 39% of all council housing). The next decade will see worsening inequality if the current trend continues meaning greater numbers in housing need. The rest of the 706 houses are planned as affordable housing, a mix of 60% and 80% of market rent which constitutes 15% and 30% of forecasted council housing respectively, and private sale which will be sold at full market rates constituting 16% of the forecasted council housing for the next ten years. The waiting list for social housing numbered 1508 in Cambridge (and 1908 in South Cambridgeshire) according to records in March last year. This means that at the present rate of social housing supply, it will take 50-60 years to meet the needs of all of the households on this waiting list. So the reality is that many of these people will have passed away by then after a lifetime of being abandoned by their council. This paints a very depressing picture in our city that hosts significant inequality despite the enormous amounts of wealth generated here. The projected council housing mix will do very little to address this yawning gap in economic wellbeing and in fact only adds to the problem as the largest share of the council housing provision is pitched at 80% of market rent and private sale. That is 46% if we add together the 30% (213 homes) at 80% of market rent and the 16% (113 homes) at private sale.
“Providing a range of homes at different tenures will go some way in providing homes that are affordable for those on a lower to average incomes.”
As explained in the introduction section, four our of five people cannot afford average rent prices. Going back to the figures provided in the Housing Scrutiny Report for the next ten years, as the Housing Strategy itself is lacking in figures, the mix provided favours the unaffordable end of renting/buying and will do very little to provide genuinely affordable housing which is social housing. Pitching affordable housing at this point as 80% of market rent is still not affordable for most people, for example the median rent for a 1 bedroom property is £1450 per month10 and someone earning a salary of £36,000 will take home £28,971 which equates to £2414.25 per month11. This means they are spending 60% of their income on rent. With 80% of market rent, the so-called ‘affordable rent’, the amount it costs to rent this 1 bedroom property would be reduced to £1160 – this is 48% of income going on rent. According to the latest report published by the ONS, a property is “”affordable” if a household would spend the equivalent of 30% or less of their income on rent (for new or existing tenancies)”12. So this so-called affordable rent is 18% in excess of being affordable which leaves the big question of how these tenants are going to ever be able to afford to save for their own home.
“Social and Affordable Rent remains the highest priority…”
Spell out further that affordable rent is not affordable…
“…decisions on affordable housing mix are based on sound and up to date evidence.”
p.12: Mitigating and adapting to climate change
“The delivery of a new generation of high quality energy and water efficient council homes.”
“The use of on-site renewable energy and low carbon technologies, and homes built to Passivhaus or similar high standards.”
“Information, advice and support to enable occupants to understand how new technologies can be used and the benefits they can bring.”
The Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Green Party applauds these intentions as they are absolutely key to hitting those crucial Net Zero targets by 2030 for Cambridge City and 2050 in South Cambridgeshire.
p.13: “As well as homes being developed in the right places, with early provision of appropriate infrastructure…”
What exactly is the strategy for providing ‘appropriate infrastructure’? Can the council give examples of how they have facilitated better infrastructure in previous developments such as the Ironworks development or the Timberworks development? What is the plan for this very important aspect of housing which impacts greatly on local services? How does the council work to improve the chances of citizens being able to get a dental appointment, a doctor’s appointment, a school place for their child, and even a hospital appointment? There is strong evidence of Cambridge citizens not being able to access these basic service currently with some travelling to Ely to access an NHS dentist and many on waiting lists for important hospital treatment. The current strategy lacks sufficient detail to address these important issues affecting the wellbeing of Cambridge citizens.
“…some priority for allocation of Social and Affordable Rent homes is given to particular groups of applicants to help create mixed communities.”
This would be a better intention than the current situation where there is evidence that the council is acting in a contrary manner. For example, at the Fanshawe Road development, no social housing has been promised, meaning that the housing provided there will not cater to a mixed community – it will cater to those who can afford it which is extraordinary considering that 22 of the households who were moved out were social housing tenants. These people have been promised a home in the new estate which seems like an empty gesture as many who will have settled in their new communities with children settled at school and are highly unlikely to find it a sensible decision to uproot their lives once more and move back. Add to that the fact that the new homes will be pitched at a much higher rent, effectively pricing them out of the new development and it is easy to see the intention behind this project is one of gentrification, and does not “meet a broad range of housing needs” (p.13).
“Cambridge City Council will: deliver and keep under review its 10-year affordable housing programme, through the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP), to help increase supply, address losses incurred through the Right to Buy, and meet a broad range of housing needs.”
We notice that no figures are provided here, unlike South Cambridgeshire District Council who do provide a target of delivering “at least 375 new council homes between 2023 to 2028” (p.14) over the page, and we wonder why that is. There is no commitment to an actual number in the strategy which is what we would expect to find especially as the goal is to keep the programme “under review”. What can the strategy review if there are no figures in the strategy to review? The Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Green Party has had to do some digging to find the projected figures for the council housing delivery in Cambridge city13 and the numbers have been cited already in this response to show that the proposed delivery does not match housing need in Cambridge.
“Cambridge City Council will: provide some new council homes at 80% of market rents targeted at local workers, through homes delivered over and above the 40% affordable housing requirement in the Local Plan.”
Looking at the data cited above regarding spiralling rental costs and house prices, we are not confident that local workers can afford what the council are offering. For example, consider that the starting salary for a social worker is £24,00014; this is a vital contributor to public welfare, increasingly essential to prevent child mortality as the recent very tragic case of Bronsen Battersby sadly illustrates15. This essential member of the public sector, along with other public sector workers such as nurses, junior doctors, teachers and teaching assistants, cannot currently afford to live in Cambridge and this can be seen from the recruitment issues being experienced. Cambridge housing is prohibitively expensive, the high costs leading to many local workers leaving and heading to other areas where housing is more affordable and there is more confidence that the local infrastructure can meet a household’s needs. We are not confident that the strategic objective of offering homes at 80% of market rent is affordable enough for local workers to deem it sensible to stay in Cambridge.
“Improve its approach to early planning for the delivery of new council homes, including working with existing tenants and leaseholders to help ensure homes can be effectively managed and service charges can be set at appropriate levels.”
This is another necessary and particularly meaningful intention especially as the recent experience of leaseholders at Davy Road does not reflect an existing intention to set service charges “at appropriate levels.” Leaseholders there are being charged for scaled back essential works with no reasonable explanation as to what these essential works are and why they are needed considering the residents of the Davy Road flats have been warned that the site has been marked for development. Leaseholders have been told to save for maintenance costs for a building that they might have to move out of which seems incredibly unfair.
p.15 “Everyone has the right to live in a warm, safe and decent home…”
The above goal is an honourable one and yet this mission of the council’s is not evident with the current number of socially-rented homes. Why is the council not facilitating this right by placing a necessarily strong emphasis on prioritising social housing and doing whatever they can to facilitate these rights?
p.16: “The councils are committed to maintaining high standards in council homes, and have a number of programmes in place to help ensure the safety and wellbeing of tenants. Mitigating damp and mould is one area where there has been a recent increase in focus.”
We are not confident that this is true of the council. Many council tenants complain of a lack of effective action by the council on damp and mould. Earlier this year, the number of complaints about damp and mould went up to 408 and there is widespread awareness amongst Cambridge City councillors that this is a serious issue for the residents they represent16.
“Cambridge City Council in particular has been seeing an increase in reports of homes being used as short-term holiday lets.”
We feel that is a ‘needs-must’ situation for council tenants and a sign that the cost-of-living (inequality) crisis has meant that residents are having to think more creatively about how they can afford to make ends meet. As some of the statistics depicted on the following page (p.17) illustrate, there is a wider, and very serious, broader issue of growing poverty, particularly in unaffordable Cambridge.
p.17: “Ensure that rented homes meet statutory Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards, for the benefit of tenants and to help meet council objectives around reducing carbon emissions.”
Could the council not go further than the minimum energy efficiency standards considering they have committed to a Net Zero target by 2030? This target is not going to be achieved with the current ‘minimum’ aspirations of this strategy.
“Whilst the number of long-term empty homes across all tenures is low compared to many other parts of the country at less than 1% of the total Greater Cambridge housing stock.”
We disagree with this statement on Empty Homes in Cambridge and feel this is incorrect information. Research from Action on Empty Homes reveals that 1 in 24 homes in Cambridge is empty17. which shows that ONS statistics are not showing the full extent of the problem, and in terms of reliability of the research from Action on Empty Homes, it is claimed on their website: "Each year Action on Empty Homes analyses the Government’s official data on long-term empty homes, producing the only comprehensive analysis of this data. Our data below is based on Government data published by DLUHC 8 Nov 2023."
“Cambridge City Council will: Implement its new net zero retrofit pilot project to retrofit 50 council homes to net zero carbon standards.”
This seems a shockingly low target considering the aim is to achieve Net Zero on all council stock by 2030 – if this is the goal, then we can already consider that target missed. Oddly, there is no mention anywhere in the report about the number of houses that the council own and how we can know what percentage of the stock will be retrofitted. The whole document seems to be missing figures and numbers so we can understand what is actually being committed to in this strategy.
p.20: Preventing and tackling poverty & inequality, and building community wealth.
This sections talks about the growing number of people who are “struggling to make ends meet.” We completely agree; however, the goals mentioned here, namely “Enabling residents to access debt and other financial advice…support to increase access to digital services…grant funding to help minimise fuel and water costs” will make very little impact on the overall picture of growing poverty and growing homelessness if people in great housing need cannot be housed in the first place. The amount of social housing needs to be much higher commitment so that those on the waiting list for a social home, not an affordable home, can have a chance of escaping destitution and homelessness.
p.21: Both councils offer community grants to voluntary and community groups which help bring people together, and there are plans for warm spaces, which were provided in partnership for people to meet to help with the cost of living crisis, to evolve into longer term Community Hubs.
As with the rest of this strategy, these claims about what is already being done would benefit from examples and case studies. Without this evidence, these come across as empty, sweeping statements.
Conclusive comments about the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029
- The rate of social housing provision is much too slow considering the spiralling number of Cambridge citizens in desperate housing need. Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Housing Strategy must meet the challenges of our region: namely, growing poverty, increasing homelessness and worsening inequality that is affecting the wellbeing, life chances and life expectancy of our people.
- The Strategy lacks insufficient detail and rigorous evidence backing up its claims about dealing with damp and mould complaints, the number of empty homes in this region, appropriate service charging for leaseholders, what is realistically affordable for local workers who need housing (especially in Cambridge), and its legacy in providing enough housing for those of its residents who are really struggling.
- The Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Green Party applauds the intentions of mitigating and adapting the council housing stock as they are absolutely key to hitting those crucial Net Zero targets by 2030 for Cambridge City and 2050 in South Cambridgeshire, but the 50 council homes committed to by Cambridge City Council will certainly miss that target. No figure at all has been pledged by South Cambridgeshire District Council.
Greens Solutions to Cambridge’s Housing Affordability Crisis
1. The Greens would give councils the power to set rent controls in areas like ours where the housing market is particularly overheated. Similar to how it has been done in Berlin and Amsterdam, and how it is now being done in Scotland where they are trialling it out until the end of next month (March 2024). In Scotland, private landlords now cannot increase their tenant’s rent by more than 3% unless you can prove that there has been an increase in certain costs.
A good argument for rent controls is that the evidence from Europe shows that regulated markets can also be attractive to investors. It is a departure from the UK norm which let’s face it is creating more destitution and more homelessness and suffering for our people, and bringing us closer to the European norm which is a more balanced approach.
2. Greens would introduce an incentive to bring empty homes back into use. Recent research has found that England has ‘twice as many empty homes as families stuck in B&Bs’. The number of families without a permanent home and in short-term housing, such as hotels, B&Bs or temporary rental properties has hit a record high this year with latest statistics showing it affects over 120,000 children. I know a mother and two young children who have only just been moved from a London hotel after being stuck there for a year only to be moved into another temporary accommodation, at least this is a ground floor flat – but it’s a twenty minute bus ride away from the eldest child’s school. Meanwhile, figures show that 261,189 homes across England are classed as long-term vacant. Research from Action on Empty Homes reveals that 1 in 24 homes in Cambridge is empty (ONS statistics are not showing the full extent of the problem).
3. The right-to-buy scheme has to go. Despite all the housebuilding, very, very few of the houses becoming available are social homes. In Cambridge, the Labour Council have only provided 113 homes for social rent than we had a decade ago; a shocking average of just 11.3 a year. So although Cambridge City Council has built or acquired 786 new homes over the last 10 years, they have lost the majority of this housing stock through Right to Buy sales and demolitions.
This is not helping over 2500 households who are currently on the waiting list for a social home. A figure that has increased of course due to the cost-of-living crisis, or let’s call it what it is ‘an inequality crisis.’
And in the meantime, we all need to clear up the confusion between social housing and affordable housing and educate the public that they have totally different financial implications for household budgets. What is worse is the confusion means residents think their council is dealing with local housing affordability crisis when, in reality, they are exacerbating the problem.