‘Who really runs Cambridge now?’ asks ex-city council leader as government calls in decision on Beehive Centre redevelopment

Decisions on the future of Cambridge are being taken out of the city’s hands, it has been claimed, after the government stepped in over major redevelopment plans for the Beehive Centre.

Councillors were about to debate the application to transform the site into a modern mixture of retail, leisure and community space, with laboratories, offices and a new park but, in a dramatic development, were informed just minutes beforehand that the Deputy Prime Minister had ‘called in’ the plans following a request from the applicant, Railpen.

The decision on whether to approve the outline planning application will now be taken by the government after a planning inquiry is held.

Former Cambridge City Council leader Lewis Herbert told the Cambridge Independent: “There’s still going to be an inquiry, of course, but what it’s done is damaging local democracy at a time of major decisions because it undermines the planning committee.”

Mr Herbert described the timing of the decision as “insulting”, adding that he doubted there was any “proper reflection” before “local democracy was gazumped”.

“Who runs Cambridge?” he asked, questioning whether it was the council, the civil service or investors.

The decision comes at a time when the government is pressing hard to promote growth in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and speed up the tortuous planning process, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves saying the “blockers” would be swept aside.

But Cllr Elliot Tong (Green, Abbey), in an opinion column published in this week’s Cambridge Independent, also hit out at the decision.

“Our Labour government has shown that it doesn’t want residents to have an input into the future of Cambridge through locally-elected representatives, instead wishing to build a city where large companies can run rampant with little accountability,” he wrote.

In an interview with Mr Herbert prior to the Beehive Centre call-in, broadcast on Cambridge Radio, Peter Freeman – who was appointed chair of Cambridge Growth Company in October – said it would not be “building buildings” over the next year.

On engagement, he responded: “I haven’t shied away from meeting the local councillors but you obviously can’t talk to 300,000 people as individuals.

“Over the next year, we won’t be building buildings. We will be helping to get some of the projects that are in some ways stuck.”

Mr Herbert also referred to the government’s White Paper on devolution, published in December last year, which commits to the end of the “current parent-child dynamic”.

“It is nonsensical that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has to agree before councils can set rules,” it states, later adding: “There must be a genuine relationship of equals, mutual respect, and collective purpose…”

Mr Herbert responded: “I think they’ve got to press the reset button, because if they let this damage the broader partnership, it could threaten future growth plans, sustainable growth plans.”

Council planners had recommended councillors refuse the latest proposals for the Beehive Centre on the basis that they would block light for the centre’s residential neighbours.

The former council leader felt lobbying had played its part and added: “It was a surprise to me that Rachel Reeves singled out this scheme when she said the Environment Agency had withdrawn their objections in terms of the lack of water supply.

“Railpen have a major stake in this city. They’re making massive profits from large schemes. They had the opportunity because they were in detailed dialogue with the planners about this issue.

“The planners were trying, I believe, to find a middle ground with Railpen, so they could recommend approval.”

But Matthew Howard, speaking on behalf of Railpen at Wednesday’s Cambridge City Council planning meeting, pointed to years of discussion and consultation over the plans, which have heavily involved community groups.

He said: “The council has recognised the significant economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposals. However, despite this, it has recommended refusal based on a technical matter that our application directly addresses.

“Daylight and sunlight were first discussed with the council in 2021 and revisited in detail after concerns were raised in November 2024. Given the issue’s complexity, we urged the council to engage an independent expert. Despite requesting an ongoing dialogue, the draft report was provided just 40 minutes before a meeting on 28 January. A follow-up on 31 January led to agreed actions but this productive exchange was abruptly cut short by an officer’s letter that afternoon.

“We have always aimed to work constructively with officers, but there is a fundamental error in assessing the scheme’s effects on daylight, sunlight and shading.

“Given this is an outline application to establish the principle of development, further detailed design work will be carried out with the officers to define the final proposals.”