Opening arguments made in Cambridge planning inquiry that will determine future of Flying Pig pub and Hills Road offices
An inquiry over a major development in Cambridge’s Hills Road that will determine the future of the popular Flying Pig pub is under way.
The 10-day hearing, which began on Tuesday, came after developer Pace Investments appealed against Cambridge City Council’s refusal of its plans for the major office and retail scheme.
Supporters of the Flying Pig have vocally opposed the plans, arguing that the changes proposed for the pub – a popular music venue before its closure last October – would ruin its viability.
Pace argues the scheme would protect its future, provide more customers and much-needed, highly sustainable office space in the city.
Controversy over the scheme has raged for years and the inquiry got off to an awkward start amid an effort by the city council’s legal team to introduce some last-minute visualisations from one of its contributors into proceedings.
Christopher Katkowski QC, acting for Pace, told the planning inspector it was “not right for this stuff to be just dumped on us”, adding: “I do rather object to his slapdash way of dealing with things.”
He said the veracity of the images would need to be checked, as they could be prejudicial.
The inspector agreed the late arrival of the images was an issue.
“It’s not particularly helpful for me either. I agree it’s not satisfactory,” he said and refused to admit them into proceedings.
Instead, it was agreed to pay special attention to the impact of the scheme on the areas concerned during a site visit that is due to take place.
Pace wants 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. Alterations to the Flying Pig would involve partial demolition of an “outrigger and store”, alterations to elevations and the garden and construction of an extension. Pace says it would create new “public realm and landscaping”, including space for taxis to drop people off.
Councillors refused the plans in March 2021, stating that insufficient evidence had been provided that the pub’s viability would be protected, citing concerns over the impact of the development on the neighbouring Botanic Garden due to the height and scale of the buildings, and pointing out that the Local Plan designated the site for homes as well as office space.
Landlords Justine and Matt Hatfield left in October 2021 after 24 years at the helm, having been given six months notice to leave by Pace, which said it needed to begin preparatory work.
Pace argues that if the appeal does not succeed, it will be forced to rely on earlier granted planning permission from 2007 that would mean demolishing the pub altogether.
Launching the developer’s case, Mr Katkowski said: “The appeal site has long been a densely developed neighbour to the adjacent Botanic Garden. Apart from the Flying Pig pub, the current crop of office buildings on the site are nondescript, a seemingly random jumble of no architectural, urban design or townscape quality at all and whereas there isn’t a patch of public realm, there are large areas of surface car parking; and as if all that wasn’t dreadful enough, the boundary ‘treatment’ to the Botanic Garden, a grade II* RPG [registered park and garden], is awful.
“It would be an understatement to say that apart from the pub the site does no favours to the character and appearance of the Newtown and Glisson Road Conservation Area within which it lies, nor the street scene nor the neighbouring Botanic Garden.”
He said the new scheme, by contrast, was “the work of the Stirling Prize-winning practice AHMM – the ‘A’ being Simon Allford, the president of the RIBA [Royal Institute of British Architects”.
He told the inquiry: “The scheme is the product of exemplary and extremely extensive and genuine pre and post application consultation.”
He pointed out that there were no objections from Historic England, the council’s conservation, urban design and landscape officers, the University of Cambridge or the Botanic Garden, Cambridge Past, Present & Future or the Disability Panel.
“There was heaps of praise for the quality of the proposals,” he added. “In terms of professional advice, this culminated in the planning officer recommending the grant of permission in a comprehensive and well-reasoned report which lauded the quality of the scheme.
“The scheme’s carefully and well thought-through architecture, urban design and townscape are commendable – aptly characterised by Professor Tavernor as ‘exceptionally well designed’, ‘a delight’ and ‘an urban triumph’ – with the highest levels of sustainable design. “No sensible person could conclude anything other than the scheme would markedly improve the Site compared to what is found on it today in terms of architecture, urban design, townscape, public realm and sustainability.”
The new offices will be built to the BREEAM Outstanding criteria – a leading measure of energy efficiency and sustainability.
“It is also relevant that offices are a better neighbour to the Botanic Garden than, for example, the three residential blocks with dozens of balconies facing the garden which are part of the extant consent,” he said, referring to the earlier approved planning permission.
He argued that the garden was already in an “urban context” and denied that the scheme was inconsistent with the Local Plan - pointing out that the council’s planning officer agreed. While the council had a five-year supply of new homes, there was, he said, a “pressing need” for offices in the city.
Meanwhile, he suggested the pub would benefit from more than 2,000 extra customers on its doorstep from the scheme, and noted that the council’s own planning officer – who had recommended the plans for approval – accepted that it would remain viable.
Following Mr Katkowski’s statement, Melissa Murphy, acting for Cambridge City Council, made her opening statement, arguing that the authority’s adopted Local Plan sought to achieve a “vibrant mix of uses” in the area.
“The aim of seeking to ensure that jobs and homes would be delivered in tandem
underpinned its strategic aims,” she said, pointing out that if Pace was refused permission and took advantage of the extant permission granted in 2007, new homes would be created.
“On that basis, if planning permission were to be granted, the direct opportunity cost of that decision is the loss of 156 new homes, of which 40 per cent (or 62 homes) would be affordable, in a sequentially preferable location,” she said, adding: “The appeal proposal’s failure to incorporate an element of residential development is in clear conflict with the site allocation policy,” she said.
The council argues the development would be harmful to the heritage of the area.
“An interesting aspect of this case is that the most important heritage assets, like Russian dolls, lie within one another. Cory Lodge, which is grade II, is within the Botanic Garden – grade II* – which is within the Newtown and Glisson Road conservation area,” said Ms Murphy.
She continued: “The material submitted on behalf of the appellant which goes about the business of assessing the impact of the proposed development on the heritage assets contains a hodgepodge of confusing and contradictory conclusions.”
And she drew attention to concerns over urban design
“The council also leads evidence relating to the linked but distinct issues of whether the proposed development would appear as an incongruous addition to the streetscene; and how it would impact upon the character and appearance of the area more generally. That urban design evidence demonstrates harm in this regard, supporting the view taken by members that the scheme is not acceptable in its context.”
Meanwhile, she provided an update on the council’s thinking over the future viability of the Flying Pig.
“When members resolved to refuse planning permission, they did so on the basis that insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely affect the viability of the Flying Pig public house.
“At proofs of evidence stage, substantial new evidence was provided by the appellant.
“On the basis of that material, and depending on the commercial terms and conditions sought when the reconfigured premises become available, it is accepted that there is potential for the pub to be viable.
“The parties have sought to progress a separate statement of common ground on viability and to settle the right approach to conditions / s106 provisions to secure that viable future use. Updates will be provided as available.”
The council presented evidence on the townscape and design on Wednesday and on the heritage impact on Thursday, with Pace responding today (Friday) and next Tuesday. The Flying Pig will be discussed in a round table discussion on January 26.
The inquiry can be viewed online by following the link at cambridge.gov.uk/public-inquiry-for-land-at-104-to-112-hills-road, where the agenda can be accessed.
Read more
Plans for Flying Pig pub in Cambridge rejected by councillors
