Practical proposed steps for Cambridge.
The stages explain what should happen first. They are not promised completion dates. Funding, powers and ongoing costs need to be established before a proposal is adopted.
Proposal
Reset the Hartree plan after the funding refusal
The council says Hartree cannot proceed as proposed because funding to relocate the wastewater treatment plant was refused.
Proposed response: Update local expectations and distinguish any workable alternatives from the scheme that depended on relocation.
Evidence
Who could lead: Cambridge City Council and Anglian Water.
- Start now
Explain which housing and infrastructure assumptions depended on the refused funding.
- Over the next few years
Assess feasible alternatives through planning and funding decisions, with their limits stated openly.
- Over the longer term
Track homes actually delivered through approved alternatives rather than retaining the blocked scheme as committed supply.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Hartree and North East Cambridge: Cannot proceed as proposed after funding refusal. See the dated project evidence.
Measure: Published revised assumptions, alternatives assessed and homes completed under approved schemes.
Trade-off: Alternative uses may have different capacity and environmental constraints. A replacement scheme is not yet confirmed.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Hartree and North East Cambridge →
Proposal
Use small sites to provide the family homes people need
Cambridge’s six-site programme prioritises larger council homes and includes homes designed for wheelchair users.
Proposed response: Track the home sizes and accessibility actually delivered, alongside total numbers.
Evidence
Who could lead: Cambridge City Council and delivery partners.
- Start now
Show the planning, land and funding status of each site and explain any loss of existing facilities.
- Over the next few years
Complete approved phases with resident input on access, shared space and links to local services.
- Over the longer term
Compare the homes let with the family sizes and access needs the programme set out to meet.
How to judge progress
Starting point: July 2026: more than 90 homes proposed or progressing across six sites; not all are approved or complete.
Measure: Homes occupied by size and accessibility, with net additions distinguished from replacement homes.
Trade-off: Small sites can provide useful homes but have separate costs and constraints. Replacing buildings must take account of services and neighbours.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Small-site council homes programme →
Proposal
Keep Cambridge’s established market working
The Market Square scheme is designed around the existing seven-day market.
An established market provides a practical starting point for improvements.
Evidence
Who could lead: Cambridge City Council.
- Start now
Agree operating arrangements with traders.
- Over the next few years
Maintain accessible stalls and services during works.
- Over the longer term
Review trader retention and customer access.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Civic Quarter: Market Square: Planning permission granted; final go-ahead still required. See the retained dated source.
Measure: Traders able to operate and accessible market days.
Trade-off: Planning permission still needs the final delivery decision.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Civic Quarter: Market Square →
Proposal
Do not count Hartree homes without an alternative infrastructure plan
The planned neighbourhood cannot proceed as proposed after relocation funding was refused.
Housing forecasts need to reflect the unresolved wastewater constraint.
Evidence
Who could lead: Cambridge City Council and Anglian Water.
- Start now
Remove unconfirmed delivery from near-term expectations.
- Over the next few years
Publish viable alternatives and their costs.
- Over the longer term
Track actual approvals and starts against the revised plan.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Hartree and North East Cambridge: Cannot proceed as proposed after funding refusal. See the retained dated source.
Measure: A funded infrastructure route and verified housing starts.
Trade-off: Alternative arrangements may change housing numbers, costs or timing.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Hartree and North East Cambridge →
Proposal
Make room for homes people can afford
Average private rent is £1,805 a month (August 2026) in Cambridge council area. This is £346 higher than the England average for the same month. Homes rented privately ranged from 20.2% in Cherry Hinton to 50.5% in Market — a gap of 30.3 percentage points.
Housing costs matter most alongside earnings and the number of affordable homes available. A local average cannot tell us whether a particular household can afford its home.
Who could lead: The housing and planning authorities, housing associations and developers.
- Start now
Publish the local waiting list, temporary accommodation and affordable-home delivery figures together. Start by checking the different needs in Market and Cherry Hinton; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test proposed housing sites against affordable-home need, access to work, school places and water capacity.
- Over the longer term
Check whether completed homes reduce unmet need, rather than counting planning permissions as delivery.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Average private rent is £1,805 a month (August 2026) in Cambridge council area. Homes rented privately ranged from 20.2% in Cherry Hinton to 50.5% in Market — a gap of 30.3 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 14 of 14 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Affordable homes completed, households waiting, time in temporary accommodation, and rent compared with local earnings.
Trade-off: More homes can put pressure on infrastructure and land. Affordability requirements also affect development viability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Average monthly rent →
Evidence: Average home price →
Hartree and North East Cambridge →
Small-site council homes programme →
Proposal
Plan homes and care around an older population
11.4% of people in Cambridge council area were aged 65 or over (21 March 2021). People aged 65 or over ranged from 7.6% in Newnham to 17.3% in West Chesterton — a gap of 9.7 percentage points.
Age alone does not mean poor health or a need for care. Accessible homes, reliable transport and support close to home matter as people get older.
Who could lead: Adult social care, local health services, housing providers and transport authorities.
- Start now
Compare the location of older residents with access to care, shops and transport. Start by checking the different needs in West Chesterton and Newnham; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Prioritise home adaptations and care capacity in places with the clearest unmet need.
- Over the longer term
Build accessible homes and joined-up care into local development plans.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 11.4% aged 65 or over; 21 March 2021. People aged 65 or over ranged from 7.6% in Newnham to 17.3% in West Chesterton — a gap of 9.7 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 14 of 14 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Waits for home adaptations and care, avoidable hospital stays, and accessible homes delivered.
Trade-off: Services need skilled staff and ongoing funding. Age profiles alone cannot measure unmet care need.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 65 or over →
Proposal
Bring support closer to people in poor health
3.2% of people reported bad or very bad health in Cambridge council area (21 March 2021). Across England, the figure was 5.2%. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 1.3% in Newnham to 5.2% in King's Hedges — a gap of 3.9 percentage points.
This is how residents described their health in the census. It can reveal differences between neighbourhoods, but does not diagnose illness or measure current waiting times. Age profiles differ between places, so these shares do not measure service quality.
Who could lead: Local health services, public health teams, employers and community organisations.
- Start now
Use neighbourhood evidence to find where poor health and barriers to services overlap. Start by checking the different needs in King's Hedges and Newnham; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test accessible local support and publish who is reached and who is missed.
- Over the longer term
Review whether health gaps narrow, alongside housing and employment improvements.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 3.2% reporting bad or very bad health; 21 March 2021. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 1.3% in Newnham to 5.2% in King's Hedges — a gap of 3.9 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 14 of 14 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Access to services and the health gap between neighbourhoods, using comparable age-adjusted measures when available.
Trade-off: A census snapshot is dated. New service decisions also need current needs assessments and residents’ experience.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People reporting bad or very bad health →
Proposal
Connect local skills to local opportunities
55.8% of people aged 16 or over had a degree or equivalent (21 March 2021) in Cambridge council area. Across England, the figure was 33.9%. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 1.5% in Newnham to 17.2% in King's Hedges — a gap of 15.7 percentage points.
Qualifications show one part of the skills available locally. They do not show whether people have secure jobs or work that uses those skills.
Who could lead: Employers, colleges, universities and the relevant skills authority.
- Start now
Compare vacancies and employer needs with training available to local residents. Start by checking the different needs in King's Hedges and Newnham; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Link training to real jobs, including routes for people without formal qualifications.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained employment and earnings after training, not just course starts.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 55.8% with a degree or equivalent; 21 March 2021. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 1.5% in Newnham to 17.2% in King's Hedges — a gap of 15.7 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 14 of 14 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Sustained jobs, earnings and training completion for residents who face barriers to work.
Trade-off: Training takes time and cannot create demand for jobs on its own. Qualifications are not a complete measure of ability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent →
Evidence: People aged 16+ with no qualifications →
Civic Quarter: Market Square →
Proposal
Target safety work where problems repeat
Mapped police records are available for neighbourhoods in Cambridge council area.
Published locations are approximate and some crimes are not mapped. Counts show recorded incidents, not the chance of an individual becoming a victim.
Who could lead: The local police force, council community safety team and relevant services.
- Start now
Check recurring places and categories alongside local police priorities and residents’ reports.
- Over the next few years
Test focused prevention and support, with a comparison period agreed before the work starts.
- Over the longer term
Publish whether problems fall, move elsewhere or return, and adjust the response.
How to judge progress
Crime evidence and coverage →
Starting point: Use the dated, complete periods shown in Crime and safety; keep anti-social behaviour separate.
Measure: Comparable recorded incidents, repeat victimisation and residents’ reported experience; never a single crude league table.
Trade-off: More reporting can increase recorded crime. Enforcement and support may work differently for different problems.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Proposal
Turn published plans into visible progress
3 named local projects or plans have official evidence in this collection.
A published plan makes responsibilities and intentions easier to inspect. It does not prove that funding is secured or that promised benefits have arrived.
Who could lead: The named project owners and council scrutiny bodies.
- Start now
Put the scope, owner, funding position and next milestone in one public place.
- Over the next few years
Report delivery against the agreed scope and explain delays or changes.
- Over the longer term
Check the benefits residents actually receive after completion.
How to judge progress
Starting point: The dated stages in Projects; unknown costs and funding remain unknown.
Measure: Milestones met, costs against the approved budget, and measured outcomes after delivery.
Trade-off: Delivery reporting takes staff time, but a launch announcement alone cannot show value for money.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Civic Quarter: Market Square →
Hartree and North East Cambridge →
Small-site council homes programme →
Proposal
Target support where disadvantages overlap
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 6.5% in Newnham to 19.8% in King's Hedges — a gap of 13.2 percentage points.
These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.
Who could lead: The council's housing, public health and employment teams, with local services.
- Start now
Check current advice and support access in King's Hedges, using the census pattern as a starting point and asking residents what is missing.
- Over the next few years
Test joined-up housing, work and health support, and publish who takes part, who cannot reach it and what changes.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained outcomes and whether gaps between neighbourhoods narrow, using comparable dates and measures.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 6.5% in Newnham to 19.8% in King's Hedges — a gap of 13.2 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 14 of 14 wards.
Measure: Access to support, unresolved housing problems and sustained work or health outcomes. Census percentages alone cannot measure a new programme's success.
Trade-off: Targeting neighbourhoods can miss people in need elsewhere. Avoid labelling every resident by the average for their ward.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages →
Civic Quarter: Market Square →
Hartree and North East Cambridge →
Small-site council homes programme →
