Day 1 in the Big Beehive House.

Posted byCambridge Town OwlPosted inUncategorized

The Planning Inspectorate opens its public hearing into the called-in planning application for the massive Beehive redevelopment that proposes turning a car-based shopping centre into a new sci-tech park with no railway station despite a railway line running past it

TL/DR? You can read the brief summary by BBC Cambridgeshire here, or (if/when they are up again) see the video links below on the GCSP’s YT Channel

Everyone was getting ready for the planning application to be heard (see my blogpost here) when RAILPEN – the pension fund that had bought the site, lobbied the Building Safety Minister and got the application called in for a minister to decide.

Because it was not clear on what grounds the firm had asked ministers to call in the decision, the campaign group The Better Beehive Group sent in an access to information request asking for correspondence in this case to be released. You can read it here.

I’ve been following this huge planning application for over three years

I first wrote about it back in June 2022 here.

“Don’t you have anything better to do with your life?”

Clearly not!

(So if anyone wants to help support my reporting on local democracy issues in/around Cambridge, and is able to do so in these tough economic times, please see https://ko-fi.com/antonycarpen)

Cambridge Past, Present, and Future ask the Planning Inspector to consider the 14 issues raised in the main Officer’s Report (see item 25/30/PLAN of the Planning Committee’s papers of 12 Feb 2025 here), as the only reason for refusal that the city council cited was the huge impact on local residents that the overly-tall buildings would have on blocking sunlight from the homes and gardens next door. (See p124, para 30.21 of the Officer’s Report).

“The harm to residential amenity would be significantly adverse and permanent. Significant conflict with adopted policies 55, 56, 57 and 60, which seek to safeguard residential amenity and for proposals to have a positive impact on their setting, arises. The scheme would not accord with para. 135 (f) of the NPPF (2024).”

Above – Cambridge City Council, Planning Committee Officer’s Report 23/03204/OUT 12 Feb 2025, Para 30.26

Hence the grounds for a ‘minded to refuse’ decision (due to ministers calling in the application) was as follows:

“By virtue of the scale, massing, and positioning of the maximum building parameters, the proposed development fails to keep potential reductions in daylight and sunlight to a minimum in St Matthew’s Gardens, Silverwood Close and other adjacent properties and gardens.

“The extent and degree of harm would be both wide ranging, significantly adverse and acutely felt by existing occupants. Many habitable rooms would feel poorly lit, colder, and gloomier, particularly where living rooms are concerned. Multiple gardens would also feel less pleasant and enjoyable, due to the significant increase in overshadowing that would be experienced. Moreover, the proposed development would be overly dominant and imposing on neighbouring properties, particularly in St Matthew’s Gardens and Silverwood Close, resulting in an oppressively enclosed outlook.

“The overall harm to residential amenity would be significantly adverse and permanent, contrary to policies 55, 56, 57 and 60 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and paragraph 135 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).”

Above – Cambridge City Council, Planning Committee Officer’s Report 23/03204/OUT 12 Feb 2025, Para 31.1

“What reasons did Cambridge PPF give for sustaining their other objections?”

Because this is not an appeal, anyone can put in an objection and try to reference it to the standards and criteria within planning law, national planning policy guidance, and the local plan. Cambridge PPF’s latest representation on their website is here. They stated:

“We do not consider that the revised plans overcome our objections.  The need for R&D development is not justified and the building design will impact the skyline and the conservation area.”

Above – Cambridge Past, Present and Future – summary response October 2024.

What makes the need for R&D space harder to sustain are the Government Policy statements on the future of Cambridge published since then. This is where the Save Honey Hill campaigners also had problems with as in early 2025 ministers published policy-statement-after-policy-statement in support of large developments, making it easier for the Secretary of State acting even in a quasi-judicial capacity to approve applications without significant risk of a legal challenge from opponents.

Hence I would not be too surprised if the Planning Inspector decided to approve the application. For the residents’ sake I would hope that the Inspector could require a significant reduction in the bulk and massing, which as one of the objectors at the hearing on Tuesday stated that even the 10% reduction from the original plan does not account for those original plans being far, far too large in the first place. Note that the developers for the Kett House carbuncle on the corner of Station Road look like they are trying the same trick.

Interestingly, ministers have announced a new set of rules on planning appeals – to speed up decision-making.

“Under the new process the majority of written representation appeals will accept only the evidence put before the local planning authority during application.”

Above – GovUK Press release 25 June 2025

Note there’s a media coverage issue here – somehow the public will have to find out earlier in the process when making objections, because by the time it gets to appeal it will be too late. At the same time it saves those who have already submitted their opinions from having to resubmit them to ensure the Planning Inspector takes note of them!

Food for thought?

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: