ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE FOR CAMBRIDGE!
The Cambridge & South Cambridgeshire Green Party (C&SCGP) is appalled by the tone, top-down approach, and lack of reality in the government’s new report The Case for Cambridge1. With ‘economic growth’ mentioned five times, and ‘climate’ appearing just twice, the proposal totally ignores all that Cambridge residents have been calling for in recent years: affordable housing, a reduction in the city’s extreme inequalities, and real solutions to the climate and biodiversity emergencies.
Sarah Nicmanis, Green Party parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, said: “Planning for the future of Greater Cambridge must be done with those who have long-term genuine interests here. I’ve heard too many residents say that they fear being ‘squeezed out’ by escalating housing costs and rising prices. We have a planning system that allows for such collaboration, and we need to get this back on track. The new Local Plan, already delayed by uncertainties about water availability, housing needs, and transport issues, is now being overturned by Gove’s top-down proposal, which risks aggravating the Town vs Gown sore that never seems to heal.”
If, as the report insists, Cambridge is doing so well economically, why is it a case for levelling up? Utterly tone deaf towards the cost-of-living crisis, it presents a fairy tale scenario of how the university, its tech offshoots, and the associated elite population could become even wealthier over the next two decades. The future of Greater Cambridge, however, is not only for students, talented graduates, academics, and tourists. The report emphasises the need for housing but totally misses the point that the real priority is genuinely affordable homes for long-term residents and the sustainability of service industries for tourism, academia, tech companies, the public sector, the trade and commercial sector, agriculture, and the food industries.
The references to ‘gentle density’ for housing, potential trams and light rail, and solutions to the water crisis are, of course, welcome – but most of these are dropped in as asides. The exception is water, which is addressed in a separate ‘guidance’ document2, not surprisingly given the strong stance taken by the Environment Agency (EA) on future development. We strongly support the EA’s insistence on pausing large-scale planning proposals until suitable mechanisms are enacted for ensuring adequate water supply, not only for the residents of Greater Cambridge, but also for the natural environment on which we depend.
Oliver Fisher, Green Party parliamentary candidate for South Cambridgeshire, said: “The water solutions need to be ‘real’ and we know what these are and what the water companies should be doing: a major campaign to reduce everyone’s water use to 80 litres per day; repairing infrastructure to seriously reduce leakage; installation of meters as well as rainwater harvesting systems and greywater recycling systems wherever possible; implementing a tiered water pricing structure to incentivise water conservation, and implementing hosepipe bans. These are tried and tested actions – and we must put them in place.”
The C&SCGP has concerns that a key part of the guidance is the establishment of a water offsetting and credits system. We strongly oppose this approach – studies have shown that the well-established carbon credits market has had little impact on carbon emissions, even if it has helped some small-scale biodiversity conservation and local community projects3. As the Cam Valley Forum has emphasised, water credits, an even newer concept, are likely to be less well regulated and effective4. We are deeply concerned over the proposal’s approach to capitalisation no matter the cost. Our residents deserve better.
