Plans to demolish former Hobson Street cinema in Cambridge rejected

A developer has been told they cannot knock down an “iconic” old cinema building in Cambridge after pleas were made to save the historic building.

The old cinema in Hobson Street was last used as a bingo hall, but has sat empty for a number of years.

The redevelopment proposed to demolish the old cinema building, as well as neighbouring buildings in order to build a new office block.

The plans also proposed to include a community space in the basement, and set out how Hobsons Passage running alongside the old cinema building would be refurbished.

Planning officers at Cambridge City Council criticised the application as they said the complete demolition of the “iconic 1930s Egyptian art deco style” building would result in “significant harm” to the conservation area.

They raised “strong concerns” about the proposed design of the new office block, which they said was “monotonous” and an “incongruous form of development”, which they said had no reference to the historic cinema building it was proposed to replace.

Officers also said a “significant” number of objections had been made against the redevelopment.

One member of the public urged councillors at a planning committee meeting on Wednesday (6 November) to “save” the old cinema building.

They said the building should be “cherished, protected and nurtured”, adding that at least the front facade should be kept in any redevelopment plans.

However, the owner of the old cinema building, Mark Richer, said the redevelopment proposals offered to create an “amazing” new building that would bring the site back into use.

He told councillors that there had been a number of attempts to bring the building back into use over the years, but all of these had failed.

Mr Richer said the only way forward was to combine the redevelopment of the old cinema site with neighbouring buildings and explained that a partnership had been formed between owners to do just that.

He said: “The new building we propose is amazing, it is designed by top architects, has zero car parking spaces, 200 cycle spaces, reuses rainwater and grey water, two changing place toilets; in every way a building designed to serve Cambridge’s future.”

Mr Richer said the development could create 300 new jobs and said there would also be a “massive clean up” of Hobsons Passage, which he said was currently “Cambridge’s largest open air toilet and litter bin”.

He added that Historic England had decided not to make the old cinema a listed building and said the latest proposal would bring “meaningful enhancements to the conservation area”.

Mr Richer said they had tried to “minimise the bad and maximise the good” and concluded that the status quo of leaving the building as it is “sucks”.

Conservation officers confirmed Historic England had decided not to make the old cinema a nationally listed building.

However, they said the applicant’s suggestion that because it was not listed it was acceptable to clear it was not the case, highlighting that it is in a conservation area and was a local building of interest.

Although councillors said they wanted to see the old cinema building regenerated and brought back into use, they could not support the plans presented to them.

Cllr Robert Dryden (Lab, Cherry Hinton) said he wanted to see the front facade of the old cinema building kept.

He said he agreed the “whole area needs cleaning up”, but said demolition of the building was ‘not right for Cambridge’.

Cllr Katie Porrer (Lib Dem, Market) said she had no objection to the principle of regenerating the building.

She added that the 200 cycle spaces proposed was “fantastic” and said Hobsons Passage was “disgusting” and recognised improving it would be a “massive benefit”.

However, she said the problems with the proposed redevelopment outweighed the benefits.

Cllr Dave Baigent (Lab, Romsey) said it was a “crying shame” the old cinema building had sat empty for so long, but said he could not support plans that would see it demolished.

When a decision was put to a vote, the committee agreed unanimously to refuse the application.