Our formal response
In December we submitted our response to the outline planning application. This is saved as a document on the planning portal to sit alongside with formal statements from other groups. We’ve also written this summary below. Please contact us if you have any questions.
We are a group of cross-ward residents local to the Beehive Centre who are objecting to the development proposals as shown in planning application ref. 23/03204/OUT.
Firstly, and to be absolutely clear, we recognise and support the principle of the redevelopment of the Beehive Centre. By preference, we would to see proposals for a mixed-use development including affordable housing, community facilities as well as an updated retail offer and all delivered with due consideration and mitigation of environmental impacts.
As currently proposed, we object in the main on the grounds of over development of the site. The proposals are for 11 very tall, boxy and bulky buildings*. We understand that because of their use as laboratories/offices, they are required to have large and simple floorplates with higher than usual floor to floor heights. They also have larger rooftop plant equipment and extraction flue requirements. This all adds to their height and bulk.
*Building number does not include associated cycle parking buildings and does not count linked buildings (J, I, F and D) as six buildings.
Within our objection we reason that the proposals represent a complete failure to respect location, setting and context even after amendments have been made. We maintain that the proposals are too extensive for the area to accommodate and would result in unacceptable harm to the surrounding urban character, to Conservation Areas and heritage assets, to neighbouring housing, and worryingly, individual and cumulative harm to the City’s skyline.
Furthermore, we challenge the need for further lab and office space in Cambridge and certainly question the notion of locating labs within urban/suburban areas of the city particularly with regard to risk to air quality.
Although we recognise and appreciate the place Cambridge has in tech. and scientific research endeavour, as well as UK economic growth, it is becoming obvious just how much the environment is suffering. The Beehive application does not seem to give sufficient, if any thought to local environmental issues. We have therefore highlighted the issue of sustainability as it is now very apparent that the infrastructure of the region, natural or otherwise, is creaking under the strain of recent growth in conjunction with climate change. This is particularly so in regard to our local water resource and the electricity grid supply.
In relation to the local environment, the application has limited information. As mentioned local air quality and risk of accidental release of toxic substances from the labs has not been addressed thoroughly enough. Crucially, the application certainly has not considered the contribution the development will undoubtedly make to the existing urban heat island in Romsey and Petersfield. These are fundamental considerations for Councillors and Greater Cambridge Shared Planning to consider particularly in light of their commitment to tackling climate change and loss of biodiversity.
It is probably unsurprising that there will be overlooking and overshadowing issues on neighbouring properties related to this over-sized development. Some of the overlooking and overshadowing concern properties in the Mill Road Conservation Area.
Because of the size and form of the proposed buildings the effect on the local, and not so local, urban character will be far reaching. In distant as well as nearby views the development proposals are reminiscent of a large manufacturing plant which alone is incongruous in the Cambridge context.
The visualisations of the proposals within their context are shown in the Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Close up the building form and size is alien in comparison to the low rise/low density, residential (in the most part) context. Seen from elevated viewpoints around the city, the visualisations illustrate a large, protruding and consolidated mass breaking the skyline. Disturbingly in some views, the proposed building mass will be seen in very close quarters to Kings College Chapel and other historic core heritage assets. It is plain to see that the proposed buildings will directly compete visually with these internationally renowned collegiate buildings and will irrevocably detract from and erode the City's heritage. Since the proposals are so tall, we consider that there should be additional views tested from viewpoints around the city that are not elevated and certainly from immediate neighbouring properties.
We have pointed out that the proposals cannot possibly comply with Policy 60 : Tall buildings and the skyline in Cambridge. This and other recent applications that include tall and bulky buildings are particularly concerning as it is not obvious if any thought is going into keeping track of the cumulative effect of coalesced clusters of tall buildings and their presence on the Cambridge skyline.
The objection draws attention to the report testing maximum building height scenarios produced for North East Cambridge. The report concluded that the maximum height should be 36m. The Beehive proposals are much taller. We question why, if it is not appropriate to build higher than 36m at the furthest edge of the city, why would 40-50m be acceptable relatively close to the city centre and within low-rise housing?
The landscaped areas proposed for the Beehive Centre are far from generous and should be made much larger in order to 1) accommodate the community activities aspired to in the application, 2) to add additional space between the buildings and 3) to counter the UHIE these tall, bulky buildings will exacerbate. And additional green space will of course add a better and genuinely worthwhile contribution to biodiversity. Within our conclusions we advocate lessening the number of buildings and replacing with additional green space.
Importantly, we believe that the Beehive application is not just an east Cambridge issue; these speculative applications can pop up anywhere in and around the city as can be seen in several recent applications. We are concerned that what makes Cambridge special; the relatively modest scale of the buildings, the quality of the architecture, the open green spaces that are as much part of the city as are the grazing cows. And of course, the character of the city’s skyline with its few taller buildings which until recently emerge as slender and elegant spires and ‘incidents’ above the prevailing lower buildings and trees. All that is threatened and being eroded by overly large and coalesced development proposals such as the Beehive.
And of course, we should not ignore the fact that if granted permission, the proposals for the Beehive Centre, with its staggering building heights, as well as other current, similar large applications, will set a very grave precedent for future development in the city.
Afternote
In response to a comment made by Cambridge Past, Present and Future, between submitting our objection and writing this summing-up we have looked into recent large planning applications (decided or not) for lab/office space in Cambridge.
CPPF comment is as follows: “Reference should be made to the Greater Cambridge Employment and Housing Evidence update (Iceni, January 2023). The report concludes that the need for the offices or office / R&D, which is already essentially met through the current supply, will be positively met and exceeded through the proposals at North East Cambridge, Cambridge East, Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Babraham Research Campus (paragraph 5.54). In addition, there are recent consents at Botanic Place, and Lockton Houe, Clarendon Road, to give just two examples. The Council's own evidence is therefore that there is a 'no need' argument for this proposal.”
We add further to the list as follows:
Grafton Centre - 23/02685/FUL, (35,924 sqm of net internal life science and office floorspace),
Taylor Vinters Building, Milton Road - 23/00835/FUL (Office accommodation (4,648 sqm) and Laboratory space (4,388 sqm).
Beehive Centre – 23/03204/OUT (119,212 sqm Gross Internal Area of flexible office/laboratory space),
This may not be a complete list, just the ones we are aware of. We have questioned the need for the amount of additional office/laboratory space in the Beehive application. We certainly question the amount of spare office space when there appears to be so much underutilised office space in the city.
We are pleased to note that at paragraph 0.16 of the Emerging Local Plan (First Proposals) the current thinking about where to accommodate additional lab. and office is in existing commercial clusters which are out of town or on the edge of town and not in central housing locations.
We very much hope that Councillors will take this thinking into consideration.