Report of Discussion: 17 March 2026

Tuesday, 17 March 2026

A Discussion was convened by videoconference. Deputy Vice‑Chancellor Professor Martin Burton, SID, was presiding, with the Registrary’s deputy, the Senior Proctor, the Senior Pro-Proctor and six other persons present.

The following items were discussed:

Remarks on the Report of the Council, dated 18 February 2026, on the demolition of the former Cavendish Laboratory buildings in Cambridge West

(Reporter, 6815, 2025–26, p. 348).

Dr M. J. Rutter (Cavendish Laboratory):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, for almost a third of a century I worked in the so-called ‘Cavendish 2’ buildings. But I will not be that sorry to see them go.

Single-glazed, metal-framed, windows which did not shut properly and which rattled in the wind were one of their less attractive features. Asbestos everywhere was a more major problem. My office had painted asbestos panels above its windows, a feature repeated above every window on the floor. Other materials, whilst not pure asbestos, contained asbestos fibres for strength. This included most window sills and some of the floor tiles. Almost every time that a hole needed to be drilled, or the building’s wiring or plumbing adjusted, asbestos precautions were required, in case low levels of asbestos were present away from the obvious bulk sources. Quite a contrast to the practice when I first started working in the building, when it contained slightly more asbestos, but its presence rarely caused disruption.

There were rumours that the Engineering Department wished to use the buildings as they are, and I think it was wise to reconsider.

But there is one concern I have about this Report. That arises from an email sent to the Physics Department on 13 February which stated:

The University’s Estates Division have announced that following the comprehensive programme of chemical and asbestos decontamination, the careful demolition of the six buildings, which will not be required in the future, will start in summer 2026. ... Following demolition there will be a cycle route across the Cambridge West site. Plans for future use of the site have not yet been finalised.

The same details are also to be found on a public webpage of the Estates Division.1

I find the ordering of the Council’s Report, the future consideration by the Planning and Resources Committee and publication of a Grace, and the public announcement of demolition, to differ from that which would be expected if either the Council or the Regent House were a governing body, and not a rubber-stamping device.

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History), received by the Proctors:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, both Reports for Discussion today recommend that the Regent House take short-cuts. The Report of 1991 on the Development of the West Cambridge Area, spoke of ‘the attractive views of the countryside beyond the City fringe, as seen from West Cambridge’ as something ‘which should be safeguarded’. The continuing need to protect those views will strike anyone driving into Cambridge from the West. The demolition of these disused buildings will surely help.

At p. 1053 of the Statutes and Ordinances the Financial Regulations state that ‘approval by Grace of the Regent House shall be required for the sale or transfer of any real or leasehold property belonging to the University’. This Report sets out a plan which relies on an abbreviated process in the case of the proposed demolition of the former Cavendish Laboratory buildings in Cambridge West (‘Cavendish II’) the Council relies on ‘the revised process for seeking Regent House approval for building projects’. It includes a recommended Grace.

Statute F bundled Finance, Audit, Planning and Resource Management together with ‘Buildings’ when the present Statutes gained royal approval in 2014. That has left much at the disposal of Ordinances created under Statute F, which currently set out at p. 1054 the sequence which has been followed in the present case. The Finance Committee and the General Board jointly ‘issue regulations for the financial and operational management of University sites and buildings’. The Estates Committee acts ‘subject to any sites and buildings regulations approved by the Council, the Finance Committee and the General Board from time to time’. However ‘in order to fulfil its purpose’, the Estates Committee ‘may need to exercise the powers of the University to enter into or carry out transactions in relation to the University’s property and the management of that property’, but only to the extent that their exercise falls within the scope of its delegated authority.

Permission for demolition having been achieved as part of the University’s outline planning application for Cambridge West as approved in 2024, now, ‘consistent with the revised process for seeking Regent House approval for building projects, the Council expects only to publish a second-stage Notice and Grace, provided there are no material changes to the project’. It is confident that compliance with Statute F’s requirements about the University’s buildings may be reduced from three stages to two because no difficulties became apparent when planning consent was sought, though the business case is yet to be approved. ‘The full business case will be determined by the PRC [Planning and Resources Committee] at a meeting in Easter Term 2026.’

This is a process which has taken some time to arrive at a recommendation for the Regent House to approve, perhaps prompting the stated wish to shorten the process. In its statement on ‘Demolition of Cavendish II’ the Estates Division tells the story so far after the construction of the Cavendish Laboratory on the Cambridge West site was approved by Grace 3 of 7 February 2018 as a new building.1 It is noted that these buildings, constructed in the 1970s, are now unsafe, as has proved to be the case with a number of the buildings in RAAC concrete dating from the same period, on which the University has made more than one apologetic statement.2

What if any is the implication for the applicability of Statute F II should a building simply collapse so that the University retains the land but no longer has that ‘property’ on it? Might this be a moment to consider review of Statute F? The Statutes and Ordinances have a good deal to say about the land of both the University and its Colleges, but nothing as neatly encapsulated as Oxford’s Statute XVI 4 which requires its counterpart of a Grace braced on the ‘area’ which triggers the need for a Resolution of Congregation:

No allocation for University purposes of a site the area of which exceeds 1,000 square metres, or of a building the overall floor area of which exceeds 600 square metres, shall be made unless approved by resolution of Congregation under section 1 of Statute IV.

Remarks on the Report of the Council, dated 18 February 2026, on changes to Statutes J 4 and C XV

(Reporter, 6815, 2025–26, p. 349).

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History), received by the Proctors:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Regent House is asked to request the King in Council to substitute ‘allocate for application at the discretion of the Council’ for the words ‘pay over to the University Chest’ in Statute J. Historically the Privy Council takes a respectful view of such petitions, in the confidence that the University knows what it is doing but it is worth bearing in mind the difference between changes to Ordinances and Special Ordinances which require only Regent House consent and those requiring royal consent as is the case for all Cambridge Statutes (though only some of Oxford’s Statutes).

I believe the Chest still stands as a physical object in the Registrary’s Office, the Registrary having custody of the keys needed to open it. It seems safe enough there. Constitutionally speaking mention of it may, however, be moved in and out of the Statutes and Ordinances. This Report proposes to tidy up the missed deletion of a mention which was ‘overlooked’ on a previous occasion when both the Regent House and the Privy Council approved the removal of references to the Chest from the Statutes.1

I see that I was the only speaker in the Discussion of February 2023 on the Report of the Council on the transfer of parts of Statute concerning the Chest to Special Ordinance. The Council responded in a Notice dated 8 March 2023 in which it said it agreed the use of Special Ordinances ‘should be reviewed’ and would ‘aim to initiate that review before the tenth anniversary of their introduction in February 2024’.2 Meanwhile the proposed Grace was approved.3 But what came of the promised review of the use of Special Ordinances?

Statute J 4 concerns ‘Press and Assessment’, which conjoined the Cambridge University Press with ‘Assessment’ from 2021 and stipulates arrangements for dealing with the income generated and the circumstances in which ‘the audited accounts show a sufficient balance’ for transfer of income ‘over to the University Chest’ to be appropriate.

It is perhaps worth noting the effect of adjustments made a few years ago. On 24 February 2021 a Report of the Council on recognition of the merger of Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment in the University’s Statutes and Ordinances4 explained that this endorsed a proposal which had been made by what was then the Local Examinations Syndicate. That and the Press had formed two ‘businesses’, which were to be merged, with the Ordinance for the Local Examinations Syndicate rescinded. The new Press and Assessment Syndicate was to have its own seal and a Board whose membership was not to be confined to members of the Senate, providing ‘more flexibility’. The Council said it intended ‘to review further the overall governance arrangements for the merged businesses once the operational matters arising from the merger have had time to bed down’.4

Where has this got to? Statute J allows Press and Assessment not only to concern itself with publishing but also ‘engage in provision of associated services’. ‘On the advice of its Finance Committee’ the Council may ‘assume full responsibility itself for the management of the Press and Assessment Department for the time being’. If it does so it must ‘make a full report to the University on the circumstances necessitating such action’. The Council may also designate ‘which postholders in the Press and Assessment Department shall be treated as University officers’.

It would be helpful to have an update about the roles of such officers and in a Report if that is needed. The University is no longer shy of business and commerce and beyond Press and Assessment the Judge Business School offers an Executive M.B.A. with a Global version and a Business Doctorate which surely need to be ‘delivered’ at least in part by University officers.

Tucking miscellaneous extras into a Report is perhaps undesirable, but this Report includes another adjustment of some importance, the renumbering of Statute C XV as Statute C XIV. This follows from the rescission of Statute C XIV concerning Associate Lecturers with effect from 1 October 2025.

The online version of the Statutes does not seem to have caught up with this change. Perhaps it should be updated from the 2024 version which is still there at present and is not yet listed among the ‘previous editions’ on the helpful website which explains that amendments approved during the 2019–20 academic year when ‘production was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, are only available in pdf format’.5 Copies of the printed edition of the Statutes and Ordinances may be purchased for £25, but it looks at though the version of the Statutes dated 2024 is the most recent version available for consultation online.