A conservation charity has said it is “incredibly disappointed” that the government has granted permission for a huge development in North East Cambridge against the wishes of councillors.
The Secretary of State backed the recommendation of a planning inspector to approve the plans for five commercial buildings and 425 homes o the north of Cambridge North station, submitted by The Chesterton Partnership.
Cambridge Past, Present & Future says it will create a 300-metre block of “anytown box” architecture that will “loom over the meadows next to the River Cam”, spoiling the skyline.
But a planning inspector and Secretary of State decided it would cause “limited” harm to the landscape and said the development would help meet the need for more research and development space.
The Chesterton Partnership, comprising Brookgate, Network Rail and DB Cargo, said the proposals for the site off Milton Avenue would offer “high quality architecture” and create an “excellent place to live, work, and visit”.
The partnership lodged an appeal after South Cambridgeshire District Council failed to make a decision on the plans within the required time period.
District and city councillors then discussed the plans at a joint development control committee last year, and said they believed the application should be refused, raising concerns that it would create a “giant wall of development” on the edge of the city.
But after an inquiry, a planning inspector recommended allowing the appeal and granting planning permission.]
Housing secretary Michael Gove agreed last week after giving “significant weight” to the “economic growth and productivity benefits” of the proposals.
A government report said: “The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions that the proposals would assist with meeting the shortfall in laboratory and office floorspace in the short and medium term.
“He also agrees it would contribute to the continued growth of the research and development cluster in the North East Cambridge area and that it would be consistent with the government’s Cambridge Vision.”
The development would offer “high quality design and a distinctive sense of place” said th report, that would “respect and retain the character and distinctiveness of the local landscape including the River Cam corridor”.
“The Secretary of State agrees with the inspector’s overall conclusions that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, but such harm would be limited and generally localised and is mainly due to the change in the character of the site from a largely brownfield site to a new Urban Quarter,” the report added.
“The Secretary of State agrees that, considered in the context of the allocation of the site within the development plan, the proposal as a whole would respect and retain the character and distinctiveness of the local landscape, including the River Cam corridor.”
The report acknowledged concern about water supplies in the Greater Cambridge but pointed to a statement on the subject in March from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Environment Agency and the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Services.
It set out plans to develop a water credits market to “supplement and potentially accelerate delivery of water management measures”.
The report said that “in the context” of this statement, the Secretary of State did not think the development would have an “unacceptable consequence on water supply and quality”.
But James Littlewood, chief executive of Cambridge Past, Present & Future, responded: “We are incredibly disappointed that the government has chosen to overrule the decision made by our locally-elected councillors to refuse permission for this massive new development in north east Cambridge.
“It will result in a 300-metre long and 22-metre-high giant wall of ‘anytown box’ architecture. There’s no need to imagine what it might look like, you can see for yourself because they have already erected two similar buildings, which were regrettably granted permission by our councils.
“It will loom over the meadows next to the River Cam, it will be what you see on the horizon when you walk, run, cycle, row, paddle or cruise along the river or when you are enjoying a picnic on Ditton Meadows, or a pint in the riverside garden of The Plough. It will change the skyline of our city.
“Cambridge Past, Present & Future felt so strongly about the terrible visual legacy this development would leave for future generations that we took part in the inquiry. We made the case that we supported a development but one that was designed to be attractive and relate to the meadows and conservation areas nearby, which unfortunately was not what Brookgate were proposing to build.
“The inspector and Secretary of State agree that it would cause harm, but they don’t feel it is bad enough to be refused. But then they don’t live here.
“We are also concerned that they have made reference to a proposed future water credit scheme as a reason for approving the Brookgate development but they have not imposed any requirement on Brookgate to take part in a water credit scheme, and therefore this development will further harm our rivers and streams which don’t have enough water already.”
The district council was also left disappointed by the decision.
A spokesperson said: “During the public inquiry regarding this appeal, the council outlined how we have been successful in planning for growth within a vibrant and thriving area that supports the important life sciences sector.
“We acknowledged the development could bring some benefits. However, we stated how, in our view, these benefits don’t outweigh the social and environmental harms the development would cause – including impacts on the nearby landscape and historic environment.
“We said at the public inquiry that, fundamentally, the scale and height of the development is not appropriate for the site and surrounding area – which means a high-quality design is not achieved.
Additional reporting: Hannah Brown, Local Democracy Reporter.
