Architect quizzed over controversial plans for Hills Road in Cambridge at inquiry that will decide Flying Pig’s future
The architect behind a controversial office scheme in Cambridge’s Hills Road that will determine the future of the Flying Pig pub has been quizzed at a public inquiry into the plans.
Simon Allford is founding director of Allford Hall Monaghan Morris (AHMM), the Stirling
Prize-winning architecture practice that drew up the proposals on behalf of Pace Investments for 104-112 Hills Road.
Developer Pace is appealing against Cambridge city councillors’ decision to reject its plans to demolish Betjeman House, Broadcasting House, Ortona House, Francis House and the rear multi-storey car park to Francis House to build two new commercial buildings of five and seven storeys, along with cycle and car parking.
Called a ‘Starchitect’ at one point by Melissa Murphy, the city council’s legal counsel, Mr Allford is currently president of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).
Referring to the post, she told him in cross-examination: “It’s very impressive. It’s a very prestigious organisation and doubtless a very influential position.
“The fact you mention your RIBA presidency… you’re not suggesting, are you, that the scheme has been reviewed by RIBA in some way, or given its blessing?”
Mr Allford replied: “I’m very clear in everything I do. If I’m the president, I’m the president, if I’m at AHMM, I’m at AHMM. I referenced the fact that I teach at Harvard. I’m not presenting Harvard here. I’m presenting this project, on this site. It is background and context, just as other witnesses have referenced their education or anything else. It would appall me to do that in any way, shape or form. I would seek at all times to avoid conflict.”
Probing further, Ms Murphy asked if his RIBA role meant he was obliged not to cause harm to heritage assets through his schemes.
“Thinking about design in the historic environment, and I suppose linking it to RIBA, but maybe tangentially… is there some sort of architectural equivalent of the hippocratic oath?” she asked.
“My submission has nothing to do with the RIBA,” he replied. “I submit schemes and they are judged on their own merit.”
She questioned him on one of the key reasons councillors gave for rejecting Pace’s plans for the site - that there are no homes proposed in the scheme, even though the Local Plan earmarks the area for a mixture of commercial and residential uses.
“Despite your client being in a position to deliver out the whole allocation, it looks like residential wasn’t even a serious contender for consideration. Is that not a bit surprising?”
“No, because the client has extant permission for residential,” he replied, pointing to the existing approval that Pace secured for a different set of plans in 2007.
“The client was considering, bearing in mind all the development that has come forward from the station through to Hills Road, a different use that would address another need within Cambridge.”
Under the new proposals, the much-loved Flying Pig pub, at the front of the site, would be retained although slightly modified. It lies empty now, though. The landlords that ran it for 24 years, Justine and Matt Hatfield, left in October 2021 after being given six months notice by Pace, which wanted to start preparation work on site.
If it fails in its appeal, Pace says it will fall back on the extant permission from 2007 which would involve demolition of the pub. Supporters of the pub had hoped for a different scheme altogether that protected the pub as it is.
Ms Murphy also quizzed Mr Allford on the need to demolish so many of the buildings on site.
“I have looked, and have not found, any written consideration of the merits of retaining or refurbishing any of the existing buildings on the site in whatever form,” she said.
Mr Allford told her: “Existing buildings were carefully analysed in the beginning. They are detractors in the conservation area. There was no merit in keeping them.”
And he explained it would have been impossible to “release the site” for public space if the existing “unsatisfactory” buildings were maintained.
“Our preferred option was to remove the car parking from the site, to release and enhance public realm,” he said, adding that more than a decade on from the earlier scheme “the area had changed considerably”.
“The landscape had changed - the Station Road development, Station Square - which meant the appropriate brief was an office-based development,” he said.
Christopher Katkowski QC, acting for Pace, asked him whether the plans had got the basics right.
“I would say that in the 30 or 40 years we’ve been practising, this is only the second public inquiry I’ve been to,” said Mr Allford.
“We would not come to submit a planning application if we didn’t have what we considered the key stakeholders - in this case, the [Botanic] Garden, Historic England and the local authority.
“Of course, we are serving our client, but we’re also serving the city of Cambridge, long-term. We believe we’ve got the fundamentals of a long-term opportunity in transforming this site absolutely right. We’re providing outstanding quality workspace.
“We can also help grow the SMEs that are vital to Cambridge, with our ground-floor and potential first-floor incubator areas. We can also provide some useful enhanced public realm benefits.
“In terms of the massing of the building, this is a sensitive site.
“We’re absolutely sure that the collaborative consultation we’ve got over the last two years have allowed us to produce a group of buildings - two of which are new, two of which are retained - to make an outstanding campus that will attract the very best of bright businesses, new and old, to this key site in Cambridge and will also work well with its neighbours.
“I think we have the potential to deliver a really special, unique piece of architecture for the great city of Cambridge.”
The 10-day inquiry is due to end next week, and will involve a visit by the planning inspector to the site.
Heritage experts offer contrasting views on impact of scheme
Heritage experts for both sides in the planning inquiry gave contrasting views for the planning inspector to consider.
One of the reasons the city council gave for refusing permission - despite an officer’s recommendation to approve the plans - was the potential harm the sizeable scheme would cause to the heritage assets in the area.
A report for the city council supporting this view was submitted to the inquiry by Christopher Griffiths, of HCUK Group, an expert in heritage assets and historic buildings.
He concluded: “The effect of the proposal would result in harm to the significance of the Cambridge University Botanic Garden (grade II*), Cory Lodge and the New Town and Glisson Road Conservation Area. The level of harm would be less than substantial - ‘medium’ on the spectrum within this category, ie enough to be described as significant, noticeable or material.”
But architect Professor Robert Tavernor, a heritage witness for Pace, and former Cambridge resident, said the scheme would “make an outstanding contribution to the character of the locality”.
Assessing the heritage impact, he said: “While I accept there will be less than substantial harm – at the lowest end – to the significance of the grade II-listed Cory Lodge in a single view, on balance I believe the heritage significance of the grade II* registered Botanic Gardens will be left unharmed and the character and quality of the urban transition between garden and city enhanced.”
City councillors had also raised concerns over the viability of the Flying Pig pub, which was also due to be discussed as part of the 10-day inquiry which finishes next week.
Read more