I got called out by a former Cambridge City Council executive councillor on FB and her criticisms – valid as they are, also helped make the point I was trying to make
My original blogpost was about Orchard Park Community School.
Former Cambridge City Councillor Clare King (formerly of the Liberal Democrats before switching to Labour in the early 2010s) was involved in the planning of the development of the neighbourhood and the establishment of the community council, as she explained in two FB responses in response to my blogpost here, which read as follows:
“What matters always and almost solely is leadership. The school.began with 12 pupils and was superbly led by Jenny Russon for years, and also after and it’s only in recent few years that it has declined. I can say that with confidence as I led the build, the staff appointments and was Chair of Gov for 7 years after we opened. It is an enormous shame that it has declined. It absolutely isn’t about lack of support from wealthy colleges or business etc. Organisations are dependent on the quality of their leadership and that’s probably the thing I took away most from the experience ( academies didn’t exist) of building and opening a primary school from scratch ( I was asked by County to do it and it literally started with me)”
“I would add that I also helped found the Community Council ( several of the school governors did), was involved in the very sketchy review and probably know more about the issues of new developments and communities than most round here as we went through them firsthand and, worse, during the economic crisis of those first years. National press compared OP to Beirut and flew helicopters overhead for photos. The tale of the decade spent on that development including the fact we called the school Orchard Park and then residents used guerilla tactics to force Gallaghers to call the entire development that as well, is long and interesting to recall. Setting up a community council from scratch was difficult. Going up against developers, with variable support from South Cambs, on numerous issues was arduous. Orchard Park was a lesson in how not to do design and infrastructure ( we ended up redoing lots in the SCDC commissioned Community Centre ourselves). I’ve read your piece and it’s nowhere near the reality of new developments.”
Above – Clare King on FB, 28 September 2026
The two bits I want to look at in this short response are on leadership and on post-occupancy evaluations.
Post-occupancy evaluations
If Orchard Park was a lesson in how not to do design and infrastructure, then post-occupancy evaluations are essential – as I wrote in this blogpost from 2025. Furthermore with the high turnover of population and the loss of corporate memory after so many rounds of redundancies and cost-cutting, what are the other options to retaining the collective institutional memories so we don’t go about making the same mistakes over again?
Calibre of leaders vs institutional and structural weaknesses
I very deliberately avoided commenting on the individuals responsible for the leadership because I didn’t think it was my place to, being on the other side of town and having little knowledge other than what had been published in official reports (eg the Ofsted Report), by existing elected councillors (such as Cllr Ros Hathorn for the LibDems here), and in the local media (eg the original CambsNews article here). On the latter’s FB page in response to the article, people have responded and you can come to your own conclusions. (There’s also a separate, wider debate on UK media corporations that run social media sites and the levels of moderation / paid moderators they should have for them).
The Soft Edges report by Humanise
Re the final line of the second FB comment, I’m not going to pretend to know every detail of every development happening in and around Cambridge. But then nor should anyone feel shut down or shut out as a result. I generally take the view that Sir Patrick Geddes took way back in 1915 – of whom I wrote about last month.
“We need to establish educational facilities and opportunities in town planning and in civics together, and these as fully as possible for all concerned”
In our current era with democracy under threat from multiple sources, the education of the public about how democracy and democratic systems function (and malfunction!) is all the more important – and perhaps there’s an inverse relationship between the urgency of the current situation vs current provision in lifelong learning services.
“Where does the Soft Edges report apply to all of this?”
The report / case study is primarily about new developments as urban extensions to existing towns and cities
“Cities are constantly changing. As they expand and transform, different kinds of places meet: new housing beside older landscapes, redevelopment beside long-established neighbourhoods, different communities sharing the same territory. These moments of encounter often produce what we might recognise as an urban edge.”
The recent reactions to the Pigeon Land publicity and consultation event next week which I wrote about here – and the concerns of the existing residents of Great Shelford reflect the fears that other towns facing large urban extensions have. What I’ve not seen so far are any studies of how longer term residents in existing settlements have responded to new large urban extensions *after the new homes have been built*.
“Bringing people together is not enough”
…says Humanise in Soft Edges.
“The hard truth is, simply bringing people together does not achieve very much. Participation requires carefully designed conditions that allow people to feel comfortable, curious, and engaged. In this project, the workshops were structured as a sequence of activities that gradually moved from individual experiences toward a shared understanding of the neighbourhood. Over time, interactions became more relaxed and participants began exchanging memories and observations”
Which helps explain why ‘The Big Lunch’ and similar annual events only go so far.
“It’s not simply a case of doing a bit of outreach or gathering lots of people for an annual ‘big lunch’ (nice as they are – such as the Eden Project here), especially if four walls, whether a bedroom or a rabbit hutch flat is all that you have to go back to.”
Above – “Loneliness – and public policy responses,” in ADBF 30 March 2017
…which I wrote nearly a decade ago! (Progress update anyone?!?!)
Having a central building as a citizen hub is only half the challenge – the Soft Edges report shows that what activities are put on for people are just as important.
For example, what would shared conversations about the future of Cambridge produce? Especially on what residents see as what our city has a shortage, and then disaggregating the list to figure out how to go about dealing with each one. (Any ideas on dentists, doctors, and school places?). Furthermore, would we find out trends within different groups – eg people who have recently moved to the city and into a newbuild house vs residents who have lived here for decades and who have lived through the changes?
Above – I wrote about St Neots’ Citizen Hub here. I hope we’ll get one in Cambridge soon. Emphasis on the ***Hope*** given the slogan of Labour’s 2026 party conference!
Talking of which, The Government has published some announcements following the speeches by various ministers at Labour’s conference. The new Social Housing Bill may interest several of you.
If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:
- Follow me on BSky
- Spot me on LinkedIn
- Like my Facebook page
- Consider a small donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge
