Whose
Cambridge? — Christ's College Library Judicial Review, case AC-2025-LON-004656

Four grounds. All conceded. None defended.

• 1
  Historic England warned of harm. Councillors never heard it. Members were led to believe Historic England saw no heritage objection. The opposite was true — the statutory adviser had found harm to the setting of the listed buildings. The committee voted on facts that weren't real.
• 2
  The heritage balance that never balanced. One question decides everything: does the scheme harm heritage, and do the benefits outweigh that harm? The report never answered it. No finding of harm. No honest weighing. The most important judgment in the case — skipped.
• 3
  “Optimum viable use” — a benefit that didn't exist, weighed as if it did. The new library was credited with securing the “optimum viable use” of College buildings that were already in secure, continuous use. A phantom benefit went on the scales — and tipped them in the scheme's favour.
• 4
  The smaller building scheme they pretended didn't exist. A lower-bulk scheme already had consent. Create Streets offered another. The committee was told to ignore both — and sold the oversized bulky scheme as the only way, when a smaller, consented building scheme was already on the table.