How housebuilding targets have risen across each area of Cambridgeshire

Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited a Cambridgeshire construction site as government reforms to allow more building on the green belt were unveiled – and said that providing homes for people must be the “top priority” over nature and the environment.

New mandatory housebuilding targets have been unveiled tasking councils with delivering 370,000 homes a year in England.

Cambridge has been told to build 1,135 homes annually, up from a target of 1,068 announced earlier this year – and that figure was up 55 per cent on the previous number of 687.

South Cambridgeshire, meanwhile, has been told to build 1,174, up slightly on the 1,156 target from earlier this year, which in turn was up 11 per cent on the previous figure of 1,039.

East Cambridgeshire must build 682, up from 655 from earlier this year, which was a rise on the previous number of 583.

Huntingdonshire has been tasked with building 1,213 homes annually, while Fenland must construct 592 and Peterborough has been told to put up 1,006.

It adds up to 5,802 new homes a year in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. If this was achieved each year over the typical 20-year Local Plan period, it would add up to 116,040 new homes.

“For years, we have had not enough houses being built. That means that individuals and families don’t have the security that they want,” Sir Keir said during a visit to a construction site in Alconbury last Thursday with Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner.

“We are determined to break through that, to do what’s necessary. Of course we want to get the balance right with nature and the environment, but if it comes to a human being wanting to have a house for them and their family, that has to be the top priority.”

And he warned that the government would step in if local authorities failed to deliver.

“The starting point is Local Plans, and that’s really important for councils to develop the plan according to the target, taking into account local need and working with developers. But are we going to push it through if those plans don’t work? Yes we absolutely are.

“Are we going to push away the planning rules and make them clearer, as we have done today, get away the blockers that are stopping the houses being built? Yes, we are absolutely intent.”

Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council are working together as the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service on the next Local Plan for the area, covering 2020-2041.

If the new housebuilding targets for the two areas – a total of 2,309 a year – were to be met for this period, it would mean 46,180 homes being built. Currently, the councils are already planning more than this anyway. Their current plan for 51,700 homes – including major developments at the likes of Northstowe, Waterbeach, West Cambourne and North East Cambridge – are based on forecasts of job growth so have always exceeded government minimum targets.

A spokesperson for Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service said: “Work already carried out by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service has previously found that around 2,463 new homes a year are needed to meet the forecast jobs in Greater Cambridge. We outlined this in early 2023 and that figure was based on jobs forecasts at that time.

“We note the publication of a housing target for the Greater Cambridge area is 2,309 homes per year. On that basis, the housing target is similar to the figure we’re already envisaging for the new Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

“The forthcoming monitoring report to be considered by both councils in the new year will highlight that for the last monitoring period April 2023-March 2024, the council recorded 1,582 dwellings being completed. Whilst lower than in previous years, partly as a result of the phasing of delivery by developers, the average annual increase in new homes across the Greater Cambridge area between 2011 and 2024 has been 1,683 homes per year.”

It remains to be seen, however, what impact the creation of the Cambridge Growth Company – set up by the government to accelerate housebuilding in the Cambridge region – will have on these numbers.

Headed up by Peter Freeman, former chair of Homes England, the growth company has been told by housing minister Matthew Pennycock to “develop an ambitious plan for the housing, transport, water and wider infrastructure that Cambridge needs to realise its full potential”.

The construction of East West Rail is also predicated on the potential for major housebuilding around the new stations it will bring, which include one at Cambourne.

The Prime Minister and Ms Rayner have pledged to build 1.5 million homes and take decisions on 150 major infrastructure projects this Parliament. The updated national planning policy framework (NPPF) commits to a “brownfield first” strategy, with disused sites that have already been developed in the past prioritised for new building.

The default answer when a developer seeks to build on brownfield sites will be yes – but the government says these sites will not be enough for the number of homes needed.

Councils will therefore also be ordered to review their green belt boundaries to meet targets by identifying lower quality “grey belt” land that could be built on.

The framework defines the grey belt for the first time as green belt land that “does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes”. Those purposes include limiting urban sprawl, stopping neighbouring towns merging into each other and preserving the special character of historic towns.

Mr Pennycock told Times Radio grey belt could include “disused petrol stations, abandoned car parks, but also just low-value scrub land”.

Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting in urban regeneration are no longer included as green belt purposes.

Specific guidance on how local authorities can assess their green belt land is due to come in January. But councils will be expected to look at releasing higher-quality green belt land if they exhaust their supply of brownfield and grey belt.

They can also bring forward higher performing green belt land for development before brownfield and grey belt if they are on “more sustainable” sites, such as around train stations.

If environmental or infrastructure constraints mean councils cannot meet their target, they would need to provide evidence which will then be examined by an independent public inquiry led by a planning inspector acting for the housing hat can meet targets looking back over the last few years or going forward could also face having a “presumption in favour of development” applied.

Any development on green belt land must comply with new “golden rules”, which require developers to provide infrastructure for local communities, such as nurseries, GP surgeries and transport, as well as a higher level of social and affordable housing.

The government announced £100million of additional cash for councils, along with 300 additional planning officers, to speed up decision-making processes.

A forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill is also intended to speed up approval of projects.

Responding in the Commons to Mr Pennycook, shadow housing secretary Kevin Hollinrake said: “What we do not welcome is the war on rural England he is pursuing.

“Following on the family farm tax, the withdrawal of rural services delivery grant, now we see the massive shift (to) mass-housebuilding in rural areas and on green belts.

“We do not welcome the bulldozing of democratic accountability, we do not welcome the lowering of housing targets for urban areas, including a 20 per cent reduction in London, who are already missing their targets by 50 per cent.

“And we do not welcome an average doubling of 100 per cent increase for predominantly rural areas.”