The Cambridge North planning application – outline permission for which was controversially granted on appeal by ministers in the dying days of the Conservative Government in 2024, is back with detailed proposals. But how will they deal with Anglian Water’s new policy of routine objections?
See the BBC Cambridgeshire summary here, and see me and others moaning about the ministerial override at the time here.
It was a bitterly-contested application that the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service recommended refusal on. The submission from South Cambridgeshire District Council identified *eight* reasons for refusal.
- Reason for refusal 1 – Impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area
- Reason for refusal 2 – Impact on heritage assets
- Reason for refusal 3 – Design
- Reason for refusal 4 – Comprehensive development
- Reason for refusal 5 – s106
- Reason for refusal 6 – Flood risk
- Reason for refusal 7 – Ecology
- Reason for refusal 8- Safeguarded sites
Above – South Cambridgeshire District Council (2023) p2
Cambridge Past, Present, and Future described the application as “The Great Wall of North East Cambridge“
“What Brookgate is proposing will be 300 metres long and 20 metres high. Like a giant wall of ‘anytown’ architecture; it will be the Great Wall of North East Cambridge. There’s no need to imagine what it might look like, you can see for yourself because they have already erected two similar buildings (see photo), which were regrettably granted permission by our councils (See the highlights of the committee hearing from 2017 here). All you need to do is imagine this extended by 200 metres.”
Above – Cambridge PPF – You can read their piece from 2023 which features the ‘acceptable’ design of Cambridge North Station
“How big is the site?”
Above – from the Design and Access Statement 6.2 Sites S11-S21 (Outline) Part 1, Application 15 June 2022. From Ref 22/02771/OUT (from the planning portal here)
Network Rail’s media centre have their own CGI.
Above – Network Rail 09 Apr 2025 with a stunningly bland and unimaginative example of Cambridge Spreadsheet Vernacular that will maximise the financial returns for the investors…
…while risking increasing the mental stress of those living and working in the vicinity if the growing evidence base from the field of neuroarchitecture such as this from Humanise in Seoul Sept 2025 is anything to go by.
Which contrasts greatly with the statement from architect Mr F Ludewig who was instructed by the developers to write in support of the application
Above – from Appellant – proof of evidence of F Ludewig – Masterplan & Architecture, 09 May 2023. From Ref 22/02771/OUT (from the planning portal here)
That point about beauty being subjective and all that? Noting that Michael Gove – the Secretary of State at the time was making lots of noise about bringing back beauty to architecture and design (See his statement to Parliament on 19 Dec 2023 here) which gave the construction industry a bit of a fright before successfully lobbying out all ‘beauty’ references in the new guidance from the Labour Government. So I’m not expecting much change in the detailed proposals.
Cambridge’s water crisis hasn’t gone away
“The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Cambridge Water Recycling Centre which currently does not have capacity to treat the flows the development site. Anglian Water are obligated to accept the foul flows from the development with the benefit of planning consent and would therefore take the necessary steps to ensure that there is sufficient treatment capacity should the Planning Authority grant planning permission.”
Anglian Water to GCSP 05 July 2022, listed as 11 Nov 2022 in Ref 22/02771/OUT (from the planning portal here).
Given that Anglian Water are routinely objecting to all major developments in and around Cambridge, this puts the developers in something of a bind because while they an build out the development, the ‘grampian condition’ that would be the get-around in the event of a potential refusal would mean none of the buildings could be occupied and used until the sewage capacity issues are resolved.
The original proposal to relocate the Milton Wastewater Plant to Honey Hill was approved by the DEFRA Secretary Steve Reed MP – now the Housing Secretary, but was later vetoed by The Treasury when Anglian Water said the costs had shot up far beyond the original figure that ministers were prepared to subsidise the project by.
As ministers know – because it’s on their desks – the growth of Cambridge cannot happen without a significant increase in:
- Electricity supply capacity
- Water supply capacity
- Used/Wastewater processing capacity
The longer Anglian Water take to resolve the situation, the longer it will take for the new developments – housing, industry, or other, to be occupied and put into use.
It will be interesting to see how the developers and councillors propose dealing with that one on Wednesday week – will they take it head on or will they put it in the ‘Someone else’s problem’ box?
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:
- 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
The Cambridge Town Owl 