Owners argue The Cambridge Don statue does not need planning permission

The owners of a controversial statue in Cambridge have argued they do not need planning permission for the four-metre tall, three-tonne, cast bronze sculpture.

Representatives of Unex Ltd said The Cambridge Don statue, which is said to represent Prince Philip in his role as chancellor of the University of Cambridge, was never fixed to the ground and was just an object placed along Hills Road.

However, Cambridge City Council has insisted that creating a concrete foundation and then erecting the statue on it counts as development.

The arguments were made at a public inquiry held on Tuesday (6 August) after the owners appealed against an enforcement notice issued by the council ordering the statue to be removed.

The council issued the notice earlier this year claiming the statue had been erected without planning permission on land outside Charter House in Hills Road and should be removed from the site.

The owners of the statue, who the hearing heard paid around £150,000 for it, appealed against this decision disputing the need for planning permission.

A legal representative of the owners told the hearing the statue had never been fixed to the ground but was “simply dropped in place and is able to be lifted up”. They argued that it “cannot as a matter of law be considered development”.

The representative said the statue had been placed on a “small concrete slab”, but argued it was separate from the statue itself and that this was neither a plinth or foundation for the statue.

They also provided an explanation for the decision to move the statue from its site on the corner of Hills Road and Norwich Street to a short distance away directly outside Charter House.

They said: “It was moved to illustrate the point that it is not a building, but is quintessentially a moveable object that can and has been moved in a matter of minutes. It is freestanding and detached from the concrete slab and as such cannot be a building.”

The representative also argued that if the inspector did decide that planning permission was required then it should be granted, as they said it did not harm the conservation area.

However, the council’s legal representative said the “erection of the statue, including its associated plinth” were development undertaken in a conservation area without planning permission.

They said: “The council contends both the statue and other associated works clearly constitute development.”

The representative said the “scale, height and prominent location of the unauthorised development” had an “overbearing” and “harmful impact” on the area.

They highlighted that it was in a conservation area and said there were no public benefits of the statue to outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area.

Members of the public also attended the hearing to highlight their opposition to the statue.

Patricia Farra, who lives on Norwich Street, said she and others in the area had been “furious” when the statue was erected on the end of their street with no prior warning or consultation with them.

She said the size of the statue was out of proportion with the rest of the street and “went totally against the conservation area”.

Ms Farra added that Cambridge was much more than the universities and questioned whether the “old fashioned, masculine, authoritarian” statue even represented the modern view of the University of Cambridge.

She said there was also “a lot of local anger” at the amount of money it was costing the council having to fight the appeal against its enforcement notice.

Cllr Katie Porrer (Lib Dem, Market) told the hearing that she and her ward councillor colleagues were concerned about the statue.

She said it had “caused real concern for residents” when it appeared with no notice or consultation.

Cllr Porrer said she was “even more concerned” to hear that the statue was not secured to the foundations, as she said this “does not feel particularly safe”.

She added that the site where the statue was erected was in part of the city that is “part of the town and not the gown”.

She highlighted that it was not an area of the city closely associated with the university, or an area where many students lived.

Cllr Porrer also explained that it was considered that once you passed through the ‘reality check point’ in the middle of Parker’s Piece it was considered to be the ‘town’.

She also said historically the university had not wanted students going to this part of the town near the station.

Cllr Porrer said the statue ‘harmed’ the conservation area and said there were no public benefits to outweigh this harm.

The inquiry continues.