Beehive developer says Cambridge City Council objected without warning after 30 months

A developer says a council’s decision to recommend plans to redevelop the Beehive Centre be refused puts at risk Cambridge’s reputation as “an investment-friendly city” and illustrates that the country’s planning system is a barrier to growth, the Cambridge Independent can reveal.

Railpen said the decision was based on a single outstanding technical issue that had been “influenced” by a “small but vocal group of immediate neighbours” and came “without warning”.

It adds that the council’s approach “enables local activism to eclipse the government’s vision of rebuilding the UK and kickstarting growth”.

Cambridge City Council’s planning committee had been due to decide the application last month. However, shortly before the meeting started, the authority learned the application had been called in by the developer.

The committee went ahead with the meeting and unanimously voted in favour of being ‘minded to’ refuse the application, but the decision on whether to approve the outline planning application will be taken by the government.

The move prompted former Cambridge City Council leader Lewis Herbert to ask “Who runs Cambridge?”, questioning whether it was the council, the civil service or investors.

The letter sent by Railpen, the pension manager, has now been released under the Freedom of Information Act via the website whatdotheyknow.com.

Andy Bord, chief executive of Railpen, writes that the developer has worked collaboratively with the council over the past 30 months to develop its plans “in line with community feedback”.

However, he says: “Without warning, we were advised that planning officers are rejecting the proposals based on a single outstanding technical issue related to natural light for local residents, an issue that has been influenced by a small but vocal group of immediate neighbours.

“These individuals have acted on the basis that the project would constitute overdevelopment and is not in line with the residential character of just four streets, despite the urban design officer and landscape officer formally lodging consultee comments to support the development, and no objection being raised by Historic England.

“The planning application has no statutory consultee objections to it and our full expectation was that the application would attract a recommendation of consent.”

In recommending refusal, officers at the council said the degree of harm would be “wide-ranging, significantly adverse and acutely felt” by residents on a number of streets.

They said the proposed development would be “overly dominant and imposing”.

Mr Bord said the council recognised the “significant economic, social, and environmental benefits” of the plans, but still recommended refusal.

Mr Bord said the light issue was “directly addressed” in its plans and that it aligns appropriately with the “relevant guidelines for the repurposing and development of an existing urban site”. He said Railpen had also sought a postponement of the meeting to resolve the issue, which was ignored.

“These actions are an illustration of our previous, public concerns that the UK planning system is a barrier to UK growth,” he wrote.

Mr Bord concluded: “It is, for me, difficult to reconcile the clear and admirable commitment from central government to Cambridge – of unlocking development and working together to find solutions – with the council’s approach, which I fear enables local activism to eclipse the government’s vision of rebuilding the UK and kickstarting growth.

“It is worth flagging the longer-term risk that this poses to investor confidence in the planning system and indeed Cambridge’s reputation as an investment-friendly city.”

Cambridge City Council was approached for comment.