Email from David Howarth MP
Posted by David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, at 13:49, Thu 3 August 2006:
Cambridge is a city undergoing rapid economic growth and enjoying great prosperity, but it is also a city where many can no longer afford to live. For Cambridge to remain a prosperous and sustainable community it must be able to accommodate the teachers, nurses and others who keep the city functioning.
I am pleased that Lib Dems on the City Council have been working towards increasing the amount of affordable housing in Cambridge. Already the city is performing far better in this respect that neighbouring areas, but there is still more to be done.
The City Council drafted a local plan that would have required developers to ensure that half of the new dwellings built in Cambridge would qualify as ‘affordable’. Unfortunately, the government’s Inspector, whose permission is required for the plan to become effective, has reduced the requirement to 40%.
The Inspector claimed that the 50% requirement would put off developers from building new homes, but the Chartered Institute of Housing disagrees, saying that the strength of the Cambridge housing market means that a 50% affordable housing requirement would not deter developers. A 50% requirement is in force in London, and there is no reason why Cambridge should be treated differently.
I questioned the Department of Communities and Local Government about the Inspector’s decision. The minister’s surprising reply was that the government had nothing to say about it. The reason this reply is so odd is that the Inspector’s main role in the planning system is to make sure that councils’ plans are compatible with government policy. For the government to have no comment about the translation of its own policy into a local plan is to say the least puzzling. It is as if ministers want to keep their fingerprints off the decision. But the fact remains that the government is undermining the efforts of Cambridge City Council to make sure that enough affordable homes are being built.
The rules about local plans have changed so that councils no longer have any choice but to accept inspectors’ amendments and so it is this amended Local Plan that was formally adopted by the City Council on the 20th July. Although the Inspector’s amendments are disappointed, the Plan is still a good one and I’m looking forward to seeing the increased affordable housing in action. The plan also demands that new developments meet strict energy efficiency requirements and that 10% of their energy is generated renewably onsite. These are bold and challenging moves by the City Council and will help manage the growth of Cambridge in a sustainable and measured way.
On a lighter note the Summer Recess from Parliament has begun and so I’ve been keeping busy in Cambridge. I enjoyed welcoming some of the City’s older volunteers to a celebration at the Guildhall this week. The event was organised with Cambridge and District Volunteer Centre to celebrate the work of older volunteers in Cambridge. I was impressed with the years of dedicated service put in by these volunteers and by their commitment to their community. All in all it was a very enjoyable afternoon.
Yours sincerely,
David Howarth
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
HearFromYourMP
Posted by Matt Freestone, 11:39, Fri 4 August 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Hi David, Slightly offtopic, but do you have any comment on the forthcoming closure of the central library for 15 months or so from Jan 07.
Is it really not possible to provide at least a limited central facility during the development work?
thanks, Matt Freestone
Posted by Catherine Burgess, 14:49, Mon 7 August 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
As a 30 something single person having to rent (yet in a resonably well paid national level job) house buying remains completely out of my reach.
The reality of "affordable homes" is that if you're not in a "need" group, you have a lot of competition to get them (as well as chasing the council to send you the forms...) In the long term it doesn't provide the security of owning your own home... because your renting part of it...
What's happening about the numbers of people accumulating houses to rent out to people like me? It props up the housing market but excludes the majority of would be first time buyers by keeping prices at a high level (a mortgage for the average house at is currently 2x my current monthly income >< GULP!)
Perhaps a stamp duty that increases proportionally to the number of houses you own should be paid and used to fund "affordable housing"?