Alternatives: five lower or distributed designs are on the record, and the report finds that none of them carries "any notable weight"

The policy asks first whether the harm can be avoided, and the report never answers

The Framework's policy HE4(1)(b) requires decisions to "Avoid (or if that is not possible, minimise) harm to the significance of heritage assets, and instead conserve this significance." The report recites the policy at paragraph 16.6 and makes no finding under it. The Amendment Sheet records the answer the report does not give: "The applicant was given advice to mitigate/ avoid harm to the Bodley Library during pre-application discussions. The applicants have chosen to proceed with the scheme in front of members." Historic England's letter of 29 July 2025 states the mechanism: "In order to meet the requirements of the brief and compensate for the loss of the basement, the building needs to extend further above ground." The College's architects wrote to the Victorian Society in July 2026: "The extent of the volume at this height is extended for a further part along Christs Lane to accommodate some of the area that was otherwise housed in a basement of the 2016 scheme." The College's requirements are quantities of floor area and fittings: "Study Seating: 110-130 desk seats and 20-30 spaces of informal seating", with group study seats, 140 to 180 seats in all; "Shelving: 2200-2500 linear meters total"; "Four meeting rooms/group study rooms". None is a volume, a mass or a bulk, and we accept every one of them.

The College's own consented design: the Council found in 2016 that it met the College's needs

Rick Mather Architects' design for a new library on this site was granted permission in 2013 (11/0495/FUL and 11/0516/LBC) and again in 2016 (16/0405/FUL and 16/0406/LBC). The Council's report of 2016 found: "The proposed new library would meet the needs of Christ's College"; "The various floor levels of the new library provide all the necessary requirements of the College."; "In my opinion, the scale and massing is acceptable, it would not be harmful to the character or setting of the listing buildings or the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."; and, on the basement beside the listed ranges, "I am satisfied that the works would not result in any significant damage to the listed buildings". It stood "set further back at 6.4m from the Bodley Library"; the building applied for stands at "approximately 3.3 metres" (report 16.32). The College's own feasibility study of 2010 set the discipline the design followed: "The parapet wall height is taken from the Upper Hall building and then steps down to give the Bodley Library 'breathing space'."

The College’s reasons are its own, and no carbon comparison is on the file

The College's reasons for setting it aside are its own. The Master, in the College Magazine of 2025: "We rejected the design given planning permission in 2011 because it included a basement. These days we are more aware of the disruption to a historic site that digging entails, and the massive extra carbon." The Council's minutes of the Forum of 29 July 2026 record the College's account of 2016: "However, funding was not available at the time." The scheme applied for pours concrete: the Design and Access Statement says "The new library will be supported on a piled raft foundation."; the Sustainability Statement lists a "Piled concrete sub-structure with concrete foundation and ground slab"; the construction plan provides for the "Largest concrete pour twenty-two loads, 1 day". No comparison of the carbon of this design with the consented design is on the file. hgh Consulting, 21 October 2025: "Concrete below ground has simply been replaced with concrete above ground. No comparative evidence has been provided to show that the proposed structure performs better in terms of whole-life energy use." Asked on 7 October, the Council's sustainability officer said: "I'd like to go away and just check what the current position is there".

The report gives very limited weight to a design the Council approved twice

The report gives the consented design "very limited weight": "The applicant has made the case that this previous scheme is no longer viable for the College" (16.57). The Master told the Committee of 29 October 2025 that the College had "considered dusting off the initial design by Rick Mather for which planning permission was granted in 2011 and 2016, but rejected it". A ward councillor told the Committee of 7 October 2026: "This council has twice approved a lower design for the same library in 2013 and 2016".

The Create Streets variant: the consented envelope, the same floor area, and the report's test for it is the wrong one

Create Streets' review of October 2025, commissioned by CLAG, "takes as its starting point the massing and scale of a previous 2016 proposal by Rick Mather Architects, which included a basement level": "By restoring the basement level, the building height has been reduced without loss of internal area. The alternative proposal's ridgeline is level with the Bodley Library's, reducing the height of the current proposals by approximately 5 metres." It keeps "the necessary function, space and GIA for a new library structure", and says of itself: "These proposals are not definitive". Deltapoll's visual preference survey of 2,073 members of the public, 15 to 18 August 2025, reported in the review: "71% of people polled chose the alternative design as their preferred building, while just 21% opted for the Grafton Architects proposal. 8% said they didn't know."

Create Streets answers the report’s description of the survey and its test

The report describes the survey at 16.58 as "a survey undertaken at the time of the previous application, inviting members of the public to vote in comparison to the applicant's scheme". Create Streets, in its response to the report: "That description risks giving the impression of an informal online survey or self-selecting petition. It was neither." The report says of the design at 16.60, "it is not possible to give it any meaningful planning weight as a viable alternative", because "the CLAG design has never been fully considered by the College." Create Streets: "We do not think this is the right test." "The fact that Christ's College has not itself chosen to develop this option does not diminish the question it raises for the planning authority." "The existence of more than one lower approach reinforces the point that the present height and massing are a design choice, rather than an unavoidable consequence of providing a new library."

By the College’s own test, the consented design is a serious alternative

The College's own test for a serious alternative is in the Council's minutes of the Forum: "It also had no back elevation, so that the relationship with the Grade One listed building was absent nor did it have any floorplans. Therefore, it was not at all certain that the college could achieve what it needed inside the building and was not a serious alternative." By that test, plans, the relationship with the listed building and the College's needs met inside, the consented design passes, with full plans, two permissions and the Council's finding that it met the College's needs.

The Victorian Society's modification is in writing on the file and the report's list leaves it out

The Victorian Society wrote on 22 August 2025: "it would not be unreasonable for the scale of the proposed to take its lead from the floor heights of the Bodley, opting to align the floors with the oriel window of the Bodley structure; thus, reducing the height by approximately half at each floor." The College's agent recorded it on 9 July 2026 as "a suggestion of reducing the building by half a storey" and answered with the architects' rationale; neither document says that it cannot be done. The Society wrote on 6 July 2026: "Heritage harm has been identified, and the College has a duty to consider less harmful alternatives." The report names "Three main alternatives" at 16.51, and the Society's modification is not among them.

The College's own masterplan: five study and library places, and a second site its architects proposed

The College's Governing Body "adopted a comprehensive masterplan for the domus site in October 2023" (Annual Report 2023-24). Its architects' published page describes "a new library and study constellation", and the plan names five study and library places: "1. Bodley library", "2. Working library", "3. Hobson Street library", "4. The Nest", "5. Todd Study Hub". The College runs a distributed library today: the Master wrote in Pieces 49 that the students' study space is "the Y Building, Lloyd Room and Plumb Auditorium; to that we now add… the existing library". The College's letter of 1 August 2026 says its architects "suggested two possible sites for the library: the existing site in Bath Court or on the Hobson Street carpark." The report answers the masterplan with "a car park on Hobson Street" that no objector proposed (16.65, 16.66) and gives it "very little weight". At the Forum the Master gave notice that the College would reply in writing on its masterplan; the reply is the letter of 1 August 2026, and the two sites are in it.

The report tests the alternatives for the College's viability, a test the policy does not contain

The report says at 16.52: "Potential alternative schemes that would result in less harm to identified heritage assets are material considerations. However, the weight given to these alternatives is a matter for the decision maker. Officers consider that that is dependent upon their viability and prospect of implementation." At 1.14: "none of the alternative schemes are deemed to be suitable or feasible alternatives which would meet the college's needs". The Amendment Sheet places the burden on the objectors, "with lack of a suitable alternative being demonstrated to meet the College's needs", and tells members: "The Council must consider the application before it". The 2025 report told members, answering the objection "Lack of assessment of alternative locations" (Table 3, page 170 of the reports pack): "The application must be assessed on its own merits including the library in the currently proposed location." That answer is the subject of the fourth ground of the judicial review, R (Christ's Lane Action Group) v Cambridge City Council, Christ's College Cambridge interested party, AC-2025-LON-004656, on which the High Court quashed the first permission, 25/02161/FUL, on 20 October 2026. The Council's own skeleton argument for the hearing acknowledges to the Court that the alternatives we put forward are a material consideration. The report concludes at 26.33: "Officers do not consider however, that any of the alternatives carry any notable weight as a material consideration in forming a decision on the merits of the proposal."

Corrected, the report finds the harm avoidable, and avoidable harm is refused

Corrected, the report states under HE4(1)(b) whether the harm would be avoided by the consented design or by the Victorian Society's modification; on the Council's own findings of 2016 it would, and avoidable harm to Grade I listed buildings is refused. Left as it is, the fourth ground of the judicial review recurs in the second decision.

Documents

• The alternatives, justification and public benefits paper, 25 September 2026: CLAG's paper to the Council on the five lower or distributed designs, the five reasons the College gives for a library, none of which needs the bulk, and the public access offer of about 78 hours a year.

• The Council's report of 2016 on 16/0405/FUL (register document 2008719).

• Rick Mather Architects, Feasibility Study, 2 March 2010 (31 pages): the College's own study for the consented design.

• Create Streets, Critical review and alternative design proposal, October 2025 (22 pages; register document 9540118), and its response to the officer's report of 28 September 2026.

• MICA Architects, Christ's College Masterplan (6 pages, captured 25 July 2026): the College's own twenty five year masterplan, screened by CLAG at the Development Control Forum of 29 July 2026.

• The Victorian Society, 22 August 2025 and 6 July 2026; the College's agent, 9 July 2026.

• The College's letter of 1 August 2026 (register document 9481026).

Sources: the report of 28 September 2026, paragraphs 1.14, 16.6, 16.32, 16.51, 16.52, 16.57, 16.58, 16.60, 16.65, 16.66 and 26.33; the Amendment Sheets of 2025 and 2026; the 2016 report (2008719), paragraphs 8.20, 8.21, 8.27 and 8.58; Historic England, 29 July 2025; the architects' letter to the Victorian Society (9458386); the Design and Access Statement; the Sustainability Statement; the construction plan (9423970); the College Magazine 2025; Pieces 49; the Annual Report 2023-24; the Council's minutes of the Forum of 29 July 2026; the webcasts of 29 October 2025 and 7 October 2026; the Council's skeleton argument of 6 October 2026, paragraph 36.