…possibly in February 2025 according to the Better Beehive Campaign. Time to look at the planning application documents again – all 540 of them!
Go to the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service here, Then hover over ‘Search’ -> ‘Planning’ -> ‘Simple Search’ and type in the reference: 23/03204/OUT
The text of the application summary reads:
“Outline application (with all matters reserved) for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site for a new local centre (E (a-f), F1(b-f), F2(b,d)), open space and employment (office and laboratory) floorspace (E(g)(i)(ii) to the ground floor and employment floorspace (office and laboratory) (E(g)(i)(ii) to the upper floors, along with supporting infrastructure, including pedestrian and cycle routes, vehicular access, car and cycle parking, servicing areas, landscaping and utilities. (The Development is the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment)”
Which tells me that there are some final submissions that need to be considered – something confirmed in the most recent documents submitted in the screengrab below:
Above – Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service – 23/03204/OUT
No to ugly stuff!
It’s depressing that the public art document includes ugly stuff like this.
Above – Ugly stuff. Even worse, they use Great Kneighton as an example of something to aspire towards
Above – more ugly stuff
The theme that has become far too familiar in 21st century developments is the separation of public art from the building design itself – as the above image from the applicant’s public art strategy demonstrates: ie bland and boring building design with a piece of abstract sculpture plonked in front of it requiring the individual to have a Ph.D in contemporary sculpture to make any sense of it.
We’ve had similar controversies before, like the ugly lump outside the railway station
Above – the ‘Ariadne (Wrapped) or the ‘Bound Woman’ piece that gets in the way of everyone at Cambridge Railway Station. In the Cambridge Independent here. The furore was followed up in BBC Cambridgeshire.
“Ms Curtis added the “last thing Gavin would want” was for people to think he was promoting misogynistic beliefs.”
Above – BBC Cambridgeshire 21 Oct 2024
Maybe the artist should have come up with a better, more imaginative piece (and worked with the people who have to pass the spot on a regular basis) instead of producing what he did. (I think it’s reasonable to ask all involved what they would have done differently and how, in order to have avoided such negative comments rather than implying that it was the public’s or someone else’s fault. And in this case, the lump gets in the way of pedestrian flows so I think it should be shifted on those grounds alone. Put it outside Brookgate’s offices or something).
Urban design of the Beehive redevelopment.
The design panel’s comments make for interesting reading. (Greater Cambridge Design Review Panel – meeting notes 23/05/2024 in Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service – 23/03204/OUT)
Fiona Heron on urban design was scathing:
‘The updated proposals still have issues in terms of scale and massing, and a series of
enclosure. They do not achieve the aim of ‘elegant when seen from afar’.’
Paul Bourgeois on climate:
“More onsite generation could be included as these buildings are likely to be very heavy users of electricity. If possible, battery storage options considered to smooth out demand peaks and better use electricity generated so it is not ‘lost’ to the grid. The applicant team should be researching the latest developments in solar PV generation to mitigate the impact on local electricity grid supplies and connection potential of others.”
I’m glad that someone raised the issue of solar panels and energy generation. This for me is an issue across Cambridge’s sci-tech developments, which should have far more solar coverage than they currently do.
The size/massing of the buildings inevitably causes overshadowing issues. Local residents in the Better Beehive group want these considered now, at outline stage rather than at ‘reserved matters’ stage where it’s easier to bulldoze over objections on the grounds that outline permission had already been granted. See long-since-demolished Wilton Terrace. We’ve been here before.
East West Rail consultation is now required
Any new planning applications that fall within the area designated in the East West Rail project under the safeguarding directions that were imposed by the Transport Secretary back in 2015 (details are in the letter from EWR’s consultants Adams Hendry Consulting). Hence they’ve asked for a clause in any planning permission requiring the developers to consult with EWR before going ahead with any works. This sort of ties in with my request (which I’ll be putting to the city council later today) about a possible light rail or suburban railway station for Coldham’s Lane Bridge. I want to see if the developers can be made to fund some feasibility studies for such a station given that they are also looking at redeveloping the Cambridge Retail Park (see here) and will be making an online presentation to councillors on 15 Jan 2025 (see the papers here).
I remain unconvinced by the transport proposals – even with the county council’s required mitigations which they’ve summarised as:
Delivery of new access junction;
- Delivery of improved accesses at Sleaford Street, York Street and St Mathews Gardens;
- Delivery of improved cycle route through the site;
- Delivery of some off site signage improvements;
- Contribution of £30,000 towards the implementation of resident parking;
- Delivery of enhanced bus services to serve the site;
- Delivery of cycle lanes and pedestrian improvements on Coldhams Lane between the site
access and Newmarket Road; - Delivery of new bus stops and bus stop shelters on Coldhams Lane, with a maintenance
contribution for the bus stop shelters of £20,000; - Contribution towards strategic transport including Greater Cambridge Partnership
schemes of:
£350,000 to the Chisholm Trail;
£657,000 to the Eastern Access;
£30,000 to the Bottisham Greenway; - Contribution of £5,000 towards measures to restrict car parking in the contra flow cycle
lane on Harvest Way; - Contribution of £866,000 towards a flexible fund to be used for the above strategic
transport schemes or additional bus services; - Contribution of £409,000 towards a Monitor and Manage Fund to be used for the above
strategic transport schemes if car mode share targets are not met; - Establish a Transport Review Group to review progress and allocate funds;
- Travel Plan implementation, monitoring and management including car park management;
Above – Cambridgeshire County Council to GCSP Service 19 Dec 2024 in Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service – 23/03204/OUT
Anyway, it’s over to the planning officers and councillors on the planning committee. Keep an eye on the city council’s calendar of events.
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 <- A critical mass of public policy people seem to have moved here (and we could do with more local Cambridge/Cambs people on there!)
Consider a small donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge.
The Cambridge Town Owl 