The application

The Council's report, and the sheet that rewrote it two days before the vote

The officer's report is dated 28 September 2026, runs to 115 pages and recommends approval. It finds harm "to the setting of the Grade I listed Bodley Library", put "at the lower end of the scale" (paragraph 1.25 as amended by the Amendment Sheet) and "low" (16.35); "the application would be in conflict with Policy 61 of the Local Plan" (16.75); "conflict with criteria (c) of Policy 10" (13.4). It says of the first decision that the weight to be given to it "could only be described as very limited because the Council and the Interested Party have conceded in writing to all four grounds of challenge" (1.15), that "The planning permission still stands until such time as the Court determines otherwise" (1.2), and that "All four grounds of judicial challenge have been directly addressed as part of this officer report" (16.77).

The report’s own link served an empty file on the day it was published

The agenda was published on Tuesday 29 September 2026, the last day on which the report could be open to inspection five clear working days before the meeting. The agenda's own link to the item 6 report served an empty file from that evening until the late morning of Wednesday 30 September. The public reports pack, a file of 412 pages reached through a different link, carried the report at pages 133 to 247 from 10.12 am on 29 September. Nothing on the agenda page said so until the Council added a note on 30 September: "The original webpage link to the officer report is not working, so is duplicated here." Our letters to Democratic Services and to the members of the Committee on the morning of 30 September were sent while the file was empty.

The Amendment Sheet answered our papers on the Monday night before the vote

The Amendment Sheet's file was generated at 6.49 pm on Monday 5 October 2026 (the file's own metadata) and was, in the Chair's words on the day, "published on Monday night and sent to all members". Item 6 runs from page 6 to page 20. It is where our papers of 25 September were answered, because the report does not deal with them: "It has not therefore been possible to consider these representations in the report itself." It says: "Updated comments from the Council's Conservation Officer are not required."

The sheet records what the report leaves out

The sheet records, in the Council's own words, what the report leaves out. On avoidance: "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." On our record of the College's open meeting of 6 July, kept off the register: "not initially uploaded as it contained quotations from a third-party who had not consented to it being uploaded"; the report's own Table 3 gives a different reason for the same act, "declined to be uploaded at the request of the applicant", and the College's solicitors had written to the Council on the day: "The College respectfully requests that the Council does not place the transcript on the public register." On the application documents, which describe a design with chimneys 900 mm higher than the drawings: they "remain appropriate to base an assessment upon".

The sheet withdrew Historic England’s name and gave the stair tower a new reason

After hgh Consulting's letter of Sunday 4 October, which the sheet dates "Sunday 4th September", the sheet amended the report: paragraph 1.25 "to clarify that the level of harm is an assessment of the officer and not Historic England"; paragraph 16.38 "to remove reference to Historic England's agreement"; paragraph 16.39 rewritten so that sustaining the use of the College's buildings "is a public benefit of the scheme rather than a direct heritage benefit"; paragraph 26.7 rewritten so that the stair tower "provides a form of fire escape to the upper levels and is the sole point of access to the roof and therefore has a minimum height requirement". So the report as published for the five clear days told members twice that Historic England shared the officer's view of the harm, and both statements were withdrawn on the Monday evening; and the reason given for the stair tower was written on the Monday evening. On the biodiversity gain for the temporary building the sheet says: "Officers require additional time to investigate this matter and will report any further update orally on the day of planning committee."

Read the report Read the Amendment Sheet Read the order of 29 September 2026 (Appendix 1 to the sheet)

What we placed before the Council, and when

Friday 25 September 2026. Our case against the report, sent before the report was written: a letter to the case officer and sixteen supporting papers, with twenty six exhibits, sent on the afternoon of Friday 25 September 2026 in five numbered emails and two further emails carrying the exhibits, to the case officer, the Council's planning mailboxes, the Senior Planning Lawyer and the Joint Director of Planning.

The letter to the case officer puts to the Council the errors in the assessment of this scheme, each to be corrected before the assessment can be made accurately under the Framework of 17 August 2026

The letter puts to the Council seven findings and ten confirmations sought. The findings are those the report has to make (its sections 2 to 7 and 9), in the order the statute, the Framework and the development plan set them, with the Council's first decision on this scheme before it. The confirmations, sought in writing by Tuesday 29 September 2026, are that the report will make each finding, with the Council's first decision stated before them (its section 1). On the register as it stood, each finding pointed to refusal. We group the errors the letter and its papers put to the Council under nine heads.

The harm has to be identified with its degree and given its weight

The harm to the Grade I listed buildings and to the conservation area has to be identified with its degree before anything is set against it, and given the weight section 66(1) and the Framework's policies HE6(1) and HE6(3) fix. Every heritage assessment on the file but the applicant's finds that harm, and four name the building's volume, mass and bulk as the cause. The report has to state, policy by policy, whether the proposal accords with the development plan and apply section 38(6): the 2025 report found accordance on "no overall harm", a finding the Council's own conservation officer no longer makes. The Framework's design policy DP3(3) and the Local Plan's tall buildings policy, Policy 60, have to be applied to a building the statutory consultee finds "too big for its location", and neither had been.

The harm could be avoided and this bulk is not justified

Under HE4(1)(b) the report has to find whether the harm could be avoided by a lower or distributed library meeting the College's requirements. The applicant was told in writing how to avoid it, and the Council found in 2016 that the consented library met the College's needs. Under HE4(2) the report has to state what the building's volume, mass and bulk is needed for: the reasons on the file justify a library, not this bulk. Under HE6(4) the report may weigh only public benefits that result from the proposal and are assessed for the design applied for. The sustainability claim is the applicant's own text repeated as the Council's advice, and the light on the lane is unassessed. The access offer is secured by nothing, and the continued use of the listed buildings is the third ground of the judicial review under another name.

The report had to answer the Forum’s requests and assess the design applied for

The report has to answer from the register the requests members made at the Development Control Forum of 29 July 2026, and on the register each answer goes against the scheme or does not exist. The report has to rest on assessments of the design applied for and of the whole development: the applicant's statements assess a design with higher chimneys, and the temporary kitchen in Second Court is assessed by no one. And the report has to correct each respect in which the advice of the conservation officer, the sustainability officer and the environmental health officer is inaccurate on the Council's own file. The report was finished at midday the same day. Each of the ten errors at 9.5 is a finding these papers asked for by name before the report was written.

The letter and the evidence papers: every assessment on the file but the applicant's finds harm, the statutory consultee told the College how to avoid it, and no condition reduces it

The harm register shows that every heritage assessment on the file except the applicant's finds harm and four name the building's bulk as the cause. Historic England's own casework file, released under freedom of information, shows that the statutory consultee told the College in writing in December 2024 how to avoid the harm at the Bodley Library. The map record shows that the Council's own appraisal marks the views along the lane as key positive views. The conditions paper shows that no condition reduces the harm and that the construction plan closes a public footpath.

The letters to the specialist officers: the conservation officer's four findings are wrong on the Council's own file, and the environmental health conditions carry assessments of a design with higher chimneys

The letter to the conservation officer sets out four findings wrong on the Council's own file. The letter to the environmental health officer sets out the assessments of a design with higher chimneys carried into the 2026 conditions by name and date.

The policy papers put on the record the plan the report must apply as a whole, the five lower or distributed designs, and sustainability figures that fail the Council's standard until roof panels are added

The design and development plan paper covers section 38(6) and the tall buildings policy. The alternatives, justification and public benefits paper covers the five lower or distributed designs. The sustainability evidence shows that on the College's own figures the building fails the Council's minimum standard until roof panels are added. The record of the Development Control Forum of 29 July 2026 stands beside the Council's minutes.

The six procedure letters ask for the avoidance finding, documents that assess the design applied for, no determination before the Court's judgment, a register that shows our papers when they arrive, late papers carried to members, and the Development Control Forum's minutes corrected

The procedure letters are the avoidance and justification letter, the document accuracy letter, the determination timing letter, the register integrity letter, the committee papers letter and the minutes letter. Each is described on the Documents page.

On the register from 30 September, every paper dated 25 September

None was on the register when the report was published; they appeared on the register from the afternoon of 30 September and on 1 October, every one shown under the date 25 September.

Sunday 4 October 2026. hgh Consulting's letter and its summary of eight criticisms of the report (register document 9544599): the fire escape claim and the report's "minimum height requirement" for the stair tower, with no fire strategy on the file; the refusal to weigh the lower library the Council approved in 2013 and 2016; the biodiversity law set aside for the temporary building and the tree officer overruled; Policy 60 declared not engaged for a building whose parapet overtops the Bodley gable; Historic England's advice rewritten; a harm figure reduced by a benefit the Council had conceded in the High Court it was an error to count; the Local Plan's "as a whole" test never applied; and the continued use counted again under social benefits. Roger Hepher wrote: "It seems most surprising that a local planning authority of the standing of Cambridge City Council should be prepared to entertain such an abuse of proper planning process." Also on 4 October, the note of John Preston, a former conservation officer of the Council, on the flaws in the report's treatment of heritage harm and benefit.

Monday 5 October 2026. Alec Forshaw's further comments, answering the fire escape claim: "No document on the register states a fire requirement for the height of the tower, and no regulation imposes one." eb7's letter on daylight: the report never names Policy P3 of the new Framework, and on the applicant's own figures "Thirty-six windows serving the retail units and coffee shops fall below the BRE targets." Our letter to the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Joint Director of Planning asking that item 6 be deferred until members have a corrected report and an accurate record, with the Court correspondence, the order of Sir Peter Lane and our print of the register annexed. No reply was sent to us. The Amendment Sheet says: "The letter is noted and in the view of officers is not considered to require deferral. Chair could not unilaterally make this decision." Our supplementary notice of intended proceedings. Our fact sheet to residents, supporters and every councillor in the county on the register's dates and the blocked emails.

Wednesday 7 October 2026, the morning. Our response to the report and the Amendment Sheet, forty four pages, with the ten errors on two pages (register document 9547246), placed before every member before item 6. The case officer told the Committee that a "44 page letter objection received this morning" raised "the 10 areas of objection to the officer report and the amendment sheet", and that "Officers remain of the view that the officer report and all the information before members is sufficient and accurate to make a decision and it wouldn't alter the recommendation of officers."

What members were told on 7 October, beside the documents

Item 6 began at about 2.30 pm before seven voting members. The Vice Chair opened: "I personally don't feel I've had enough time really to really take in everything on the amendment sheet. This is a very complex application. ... I'm personally minded to defer this application." A member said: "I need some sort of assurance that I have now received everything I needed to see." A motion to defer, proposed and seconded, was never put to the vote. The Chair paused the meeting for ten minutes so that members could read the sheet. The vote to approve came after three hours, thirteen days before the High Court quashed the first permission, 25/02161/FUL, on all four grounds.

Members were told the following. Beside each statement is the document.

• The Chair, on the Amendment Sheet: "I think it's only about 10 pages, so it's not too long." Item 6 of the sheet runs from page 6 to page 20; the sheet runs to twenty pages. The Chair allowed "10 minutes for people to read the amendment sheet" (webcast 06:00:22).

• The Senior Planning Lawyer, on deferral (webcast 05:59:30): "Members, I am going to advise deferring on grounds of I haven't had time to read the papers that are on the planning portal or you've had in your possession for a couple of days is not a substantive ground for deferral." The Amendment Sheet was published on the Monday night; the Council's later sheet and our forty four page response reached members on the morning of the meeting.

• The Chair, on deferral: "as of next Friday, they would have a right to submit an appeal ... and it basically means that we would lose the right to determine this application." The date was one the Council had agreed with the applicant; the applicant's own covering statement had told the Council that "Timescales are important for the College." The Council had written to us on 28 July that the application would be decided "whether or not the High Court has issued a decision". The Chair said it three times (webcast 05:55:37, 06:16:08 and 06:27:32). Six days later the Secretary of State directed the Council not to grant the permission without her authorisation; the Council could not issue it on 16 October and has not.

• The Chair, on the judicial review: "judicial reviews are kind of on technical issues. They're not challenged. ... It wouldn't come back to say you made the wrong decision, you made the right decision. It would just say, consider it again". Two of the four grounds are that the Committee "was materially misled"; Mr Justice Kimblin found the four grounds "strongly arguable" and wrote that the claim "raises important issues about the decision making in this case".

• The Chair, on the emails: "I have personally been satisfied that the emails have gone out to members because I took that upon myself as chair to make sure". The ward councillor told the meeting that our letter to the Committee of 30 September "did not reach my inbox. It came two days later, late on Friday afternoon, forwarded by the mailbox", and that "no members were ever informed that this was happening".

• The Chair, on Historic England, said that it had not said the staircase turret was harmful, "but our conservation officer, in his own opinion, has noted, in effect, picked up their reference and found that it's harmful." Historic England found harm "primarily as a result of the excessive bulk of the new building", to "the setting of the surrounding buildings". The conservation officer told the same meeting that Historic England's "comments are broader".

• The Senior Planning Lawyer: "The council conceded all four grounds and agreed with the applicant, known as the IP, to a consent order that effectively quashed the planning permission, quashed the decision." No order had quashed the permission at that date; the High Court quashed it on 20 October 2026. The Council's own letter to the Court of 28 April 2026 says "there is no agreed final order before the Court". Sir Peter Lane's order of 29 September 2026, Appendix 1 to the Amendment Sheet before members, records that the draft consent order was signed by the Council and the College only and keeps the hearing of 20 October listed. The report itself says at paragraph 1.2 that "the Court has not done so". The Chair told the same meeting (webcast 05:57:51) that the quashing "isn't a decision yet because it hasn't gone to the court", and (06:29:15) "assuming they quash it, then it would come back to planning committee".

• The Delivery Manager: "The current report does not rely upon the concept of optimum viable use in reaching its recommendation." Paragraph 26.25 counts, among the social benefits, that the library "would help to support and sustain the ongoing use of the Grade I listed College buildings", and 26.26 gives those benefits "significant weight". Asked about it, the Delivery Manager said: "Chair, this is not an optimum viable use point. This is about accessibility. That's why it's a public benefit". Accessibility is counted separately at 26.23. In the High Court the Council conceded that counting this use was an error; the report repeats it (webcast 05:48:36 and 07:21:29).

• The Delivery Manager: "Officers confirmed that the officer report was available via the full report pack, five clear working days before today's meeting." The agenda's own link to the report served an empty file until the late morning of 30 September; the Council's own note of 30 September says "The original webpage link to the officer report is not working".

• The Delivery Manager: "All correspondence sent by CLAG and its associates to members up to the start of planning committee today, that's 10:00 AM, has been forwarded to members by the SPOC. Members have a complete record of those representations." The ward councillor's account is above. Our letter to the fourteen members of the Committee, sent at 9.27 am on Wednesday 30 September, was forwarded to them by the Council's mailbox at 4.44 pm on Friday 2 October, fifty five hours later and sixteen minutes before the weekend. Our papers of 25 September were answered in the Amendment Sheet, published on the Monday night, one by one: "This letter does not change the officer recommendation." (webcast 05:51:18).

• The case officer: "there are no objections received other than from the Victorian Society. Both Historic England and the council's conservation office have identified levels of harm to heritage assets, but do not raise any objection overall." The report's own paragraph 7.1 records 57 representations in objection; Cambridge Past, Present and Future's letter of 9 July 2026 finds "multi-layered harm" and urges "a lower and less bulky design".

• The case officer said the lane "is considered sufficiently wide to retain access during the construction phase". Later in the same meeting the case officer said the construction plan records that "the lane would need to be closed at certain temporary periods for deliveries or such".

• The case officer, on the chimneys: "both of which are acknowledged to be lower than the peak of the building on the opposite side". The report's own paragraph 14.5 puts the frontage opposite at "approximately 10.3 metres"; the peak is set back from the lane.

• The case officer told members that Historic England's first letter "identified a certain level of harm as a result of the mass and scale, I believe, of the building as a whole", and that the conservation officer and the case officer had located the harm in the staircase tower and the setting of the Bodley Library. The conservation officer said that Historic England's "views are their independent views. I won't seek to justify or explain those", and that "their comments are broader". The Delivery Manager: Historic England's concern "is not just confined to the relationship of the scheme with the Bodley Library." The report confines the harm to one element and one building, at "low", and gives no reason for the difference.

• The conservation officer (webcast 07:28:28): "So in terms of harm and positive effects, in a heritage sense, the balance of that from my point of view is a low level of harm." The case officer told the same meeting (webcast 07:24:23): "I think it's clear in my report that I set out the level of harm prior to assessing heritage benefits and then conclude after assessing benefits that there's still a low level of harm overall set out in my report." Two officers gave two accounts of one figure. The conservation officer's comments reach "lower end" only "On balance", after four positive effects are set against the harm (6.14). The report states the same figure as "low" before the benefits (16.35) and gives no reason of its own. No consultee put the harm at "low" before the benefits. The Framework's policy HE5(2)(c) says: "The degree of harm should be identified". The degree before any weighing is identified on no document, and the Council, asked for it on 25 September, answered that updated comments from the conservation officer "are not required".

• The case officer told members that with solar panels up to six credits could be achieved, "exceeding policy target of four credits." Without the panels the applicant's own figures fall short of the Council's minimum standard: an improvement of 0.36 against the 0.4 required, and three credits against four.

• The sustainability officer, asked about the carbon of a basement against the carbon of the building above ground: "I'd like to go away and just check what the current position is there". No comparison of the carbon of this design with the consented design is on the file.

• The Master: "Its chimneys are integral to ventilation. They need to be the height they are to achieve that effect." In the same statement: "They point out that the same effect could be achieved if chimneys started underground, but we don't want to dig a basement." The Council consented a basement here in 2013 and 2016, and its 2016 report found the works "would not result in any significant damage to the listed buildings". With that sentence the ventilation justification for the building's height was given up: the stacks work the same below ground, so the whole building can be lower.

The ward councillor told the meeting: "avoid harm, then justify harm and then only then balance harm. This report fails all three." And: "So which is it a requirement or a choice? A report that tells members a choice is a requirement, has misled them."

Read the record of the meeting Watch the Council's webcast Read our response and the ten errors (PDF)

The ten errors in the Council's report

Our response to the report and the Amendment Sheet, forty four pages, and the ten errors on two pages reached every member of the Committee on the morning of 7 October. Each error is stated below in the words of that paper, with the report's own sentence and the document that contradicts it; the full text of each, with what follows on each course, is on the Documents page. The Amendment Sheet of 5 October cures none of them.

1. "The Committee is asked to decide thirteen days before the hearing in the High Court, on a report that the Council's own skeleton argument describes differently to the Court." The skeleton, signed with a statement of truth by the Senior Planning Lawyer on 6 October, tells the Court at paragraph 2(1): "There remains a valid Order, endorsed by the Court and dated 26 August 2026, which quashes the decision granting planning permission on all 4 grounds in the claim." The report before members says at paragraph 1.2 that "the Court has not done so". The skeleton tells the Court at paragraph 35 that the report "does not rely upon the proposal helping to secure" the optimum viable use of any listed building; the report gives the continued use of the College's buildings "significant weight" at 26.26. If the Court is told the truth, members were not; if members were, the Court was not.

2. (repeat error) "The continued use of the listed buildings is weighed as a public benefit again, among the social benefits that the report gives 'significant weight'. Weighing it was the third of the four grounds." In the High Court the Council conceded that this was an error, and the report states the ground correctly at 1.11: "The continuation of an existing, baseline, OVU cannot lawfully be elevated into a distinct public benefit capable of outweighing heritage harm." It then repeats the error at 26.25: the library "would help to support and sustain the ongoing use of the Grade I listed College buildings by providing improved, accessible library facilities", with "significant weight in the planning balance" at 26.26. The buildings have been in that use for five centuries.

The 2026 report says at 1.12 that the point "is not, therefore, relied upon", and at 26.25 counts "improved, accessible library facilities" that "would help to support and sustain the ongoing use of the Grade I listed College buildings" among the social benefits, to which 26.26 gives "significant weight". The words have changed and the benefit claimed is the same: the continued use of buildings whose use was never in question.

3. "There is no justification for the harm: the report tells members that the stair tower and the scale of the building are required, its own paragraphs call both the applicant's choice, no document states a requirement, and the applicant gives none." Policy HE4(2) requires "a clear and convincing justification" for harm. Paragraph 26.7, rewritten in the Amendment Sheet, tells members the stair tower "therefore has a minimum height requirement"; paragraph 16.34 says the applicant "has chosen to retain the current height of the proposed staircase tower". The register holds no fire strategy. Alec Forshaw, 5 October 2026: "No document on the register states a fire requirement for the height of the tower, and no regulation imposes one." A choice presented to members as a requirement is not a justification.

4. (repeat error) "The harm could have been avoided: the Council's own sheet records that the applicant was advised how to avoid it, and chose to proceed." Policy HE4(1)(b) asks whether the harm can be avoided. The Amendment Sheet: "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." The Council's own advice of 19 December 2024: "The proposed building should be stepped away from the Bodley Library and inwards from Christ's Lane." The report tests the alternatives for "viability and prospect of implementation" (16.52) and never asks whether the harm could be avoided.

In 2026 the report tests the alternatives for "viability and prospect of implementation" (16.52), gives the consented design "very limited weight" because "The applicant has made the case that this previous scheme is no longer viable for the College" (16.57), and concludes that none of them "carry any notable weight" (26.33). The report takes into account the College's letter about its masterplan, not the masterplan (16.63 to 16.66).

5. (repeat error) "Historic England found harm from the bulk of the whole building, and the report confines it to one stair tower beside one building with no reason for the difference." Historic England: harm "primarily as a result of the excessive bulk of the new building, which we consider would detract from the setting of the surrounding buildings"; "the building is too big for its location". The report confines the harm at 16.36 to "the setting of the Bodley Library" and at 26.5 to the stair tower, and gives no reason; the sheet says updated comments from the conservation officer "are not required", and the conservation officer told members "I won't seek to justify or explain those". A statutory consultee's finding departed from without reasons is an error of law.

The report as published also put Historic England's name to the officer's own figure at 1.25 and 16.38, and the Amendment Sheet withdrew both two days before the vote, "to clarify that the level of harm is an assessment of the officer and not Historic England".

The figure itself, "low", is the 2025 error on the degree of harm repeated: the conservation officer and the case officer give members different accounts of how it was reached. The conservation officer's comments reach it "On balance", after four positive heritage effects are set against the harm (6.14). The report states the same figure before the benefits (16.35), and no sentence says how it was reached. On 7 October the case officer told members: "I set out the level of harm prior to assessing heritage benefits". The conservation officer called the figure "the balance". No consultee put the harm at "low" before the benefits: Historic England wrote of "certain levels of harm" from "the excessive bulk of the new building" (29 July 2025) and gave no degree; the Victorian Society said "low-to-moderate"; the independent heritage appraisal on the register "upper end". In April 2026 the Council conceded before the Court that advice giving the harm and "neutral" at once was an error. The 2026 report gives one figure that is a balance in one officer's account and the harm before the balance in the other's, and the degree before any weighing is on no document.

6. "The tall buildings policy is declared 'not engaged', when the report's own words meet it." Policy 60 of the Local Plan applies to "Any proposal for a structure that breaks the existing skyline and/or is significantly taller than the surrounding built form". The report says at 13.20 that there are views "where the built form could be seen to break the immediate skyline above the existing built form of the existing College", records the frontage rising "from approximately 5.7 metres currently to approximately 13 metres" (16.32), and declares the policy "not engaged". On drawing 004700 P03 the parapet at 22830 overtops the Bodley gable at 20840. None of the policy's tests is applied.

7. "The report finds conflict with the development plan, and never decides whether the proposal accords with the plan as a whole." Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the decision to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The report finds conflict with Policy 61 (16.75), with Policy 10(c) (13.4) and with Policy 31 (14.25), and nowhere decides whether the proposal accords with the plan as a whole; its finding of accordance is at 13.9, in the section on the principle of development, under a policy for university faculty sites. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is applied inside the heritage balance in one sentence at 26.34.

8. "The daylight of the shops opposite is not assessed, and the lane is given as wider than the applicant's drawings show it." Policy P3(2)(b) of the Framework requires that development "Not give rise to, or contribute to, an unacceptable level of access to daylight and sunlight for neighbouring residents and occupiers". The report says at 22.16: "It is therefore not considered to be reasonable to apply the BRE guidelines and to assess the impact of the proposed development upon these units.", and then finds at 26.16 that "the harm to their occupants is limited", with no assessment. eb7, on the applicant's own figures, 5 October 2026: "Thirty-six windows serving the retail units and coffee shops fall below the BRE targets."; the four windows of one retail unit's main frontage and entrance lose 55, 75, 87 and 96 per cent of their light. The report gives the lane as "approximately 8 metres in width" at 2.3 and "approximately 6.5 metres" at 22.1; the applicant's own sections show about six metres.

9. "The temporary building in Second Court, among Grade I listed ranges, has been assessed by no officer and no consultee." The applicant's Heritage Statement says at 6.5 that it "will cause a negligible degree of harm to the setting of the listed ranges comprising Second Court."; the report's Table 3 says "No details of this are required or to be secured as part of this application."; the conservation officer told members "we're considering the general principle of it rather than the specific details of it". The Council's own trees officer wrote on 9 February 2026 that the tree beside it "will be deprived of natural hydration for at least two growing seasons, which is totally unacceptable"; the report records at 15.4 that the tree "has died".

10. The report was written before our papers of 25 September reached the Council, and the sheet answers them without changing a finding. The sheet: our papers "were received following the finalisation of the officer report which was sent to Democratic Services around midday on the 25th"; "It has not therefore been possible to consider these representations in the report itself." It answers them one by one. To Historic England's own casework file on how the harm could be avoided, to the map record and to the conditions paper: "This letter does not change the officer recommendation." To the letter to the conservation officer on four findings wrong on the Council's own file: "The letter does not change the officer recommendation." To the letter to the case officer naming the findings the report had to make: "The points raised within this letter are noted." Five errors in the report were not caught: the Act is named as the "Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990" (16.1, 26.35); the application is given as "26/02161/FUL" (6.71, 16.30); hgh's letter is dated "Sunday 4th September"; policy HE6(1) is misquoted; and condition 22 controls lighting within "the proposed covered Library Court" when the design has no covered court.

Read the ten errors in full, each with the report's words, the document that contradicts it and what follows on each course Read the ten errors paper (two pages, PDF) Read our response to the report and the sheet (44 pages, PDF)

Since the vote

The Council's decisions list of 7 October records the application, 26/02109/FUL, as "Decision: Approved" and adds: "The above decisions are subject to decision notices being finalised and issued." No decision notice has been issued. On 13 October the Secretary of State directed the Council not to grant permission "without specific authorisation" while she considers whether to call the application in; the Unit has told us the direction "has no end date".

Read the call in page Read the holding direction from the SoS