The call in

What a call in is

Under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Secretary of State may direct that a planning application be referred to her for decision instead of being decided by the Council. She then appoints an Inspector to hold a public inquiry, at which the applicant, the Council and objectors give evidence and are questioned on it, and she decides the application on the Inspector’s report. The Council’s resolution of 7 October falls away: the decision is hers.

The policy includes national controversy and significant architectural and urban design issues

The policy is the written ministerial statement of 26 October 2012, confirmed in 2019 and current today. The Secretary of State “will, in general, only consider the use of his call-in powers if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which in his opinion: may conflict with national policies on important matters; … could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality; give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy; raise significant architectural and urban design issues”. The Government’s planning guidance (Determining a planning application, paragraph 024, revised on 8 April 2026) says the Secretary of State “is generally concerned with whether the application involves planning issues of more than local importance that warrant the decision being made by him rather than the local planning authority”. The Unit told us on 14 October what the decision is: “A decision on whether or not to call in an application is not a substantive decision. It does not determine the merits of a planning application (or lack of merit). It is a procedural decision as to who should deal with a planning application.”

What has been achieved

On 7 November 2025 our first request for a call in reached the Unit at 4.09 pm. The Council issued the decision notice for the first permission, 25/02161/FUL, the same day. The Unit wrote on 10 November 2025 that a permission granted by a local planning authority “is a valid permission unless it is challenged and deemed to be otherwise by the courts”. We challenged it, and on 20 October the High Court quashed it on all four grounds.

The direction was issued on the day of our second request

On 13 October 2026 our second request reached the Unit at 9.23 am, with a request for a direction under article 31 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 by return. The Council had written on 28 July 2026 that it would decide the application, 26/02109/FUL, “whether or not the High Court has issued a decision”, and the register showed an agreed expiry date of Friday 16 October 2026. Building Design reported that “The council had been due to issue its official approval for the newer application on Friday 16 October.” The direction was issued that evening and sent to the Council at 8.30 pm; the Unit wrote to us at 8.37 pm that a direction had been issued that day which “prevents the Council from granting planning permission without special authorisation”. The Member of Parliament for Cambridge forwarded our request to the Secretary of State the same day. On 14 October the Architects’ Journal, Building Design and the Cambridge Independent reported the freeze. The Council told the press that this stage “is a procedural step to determine whether the application should be decided locally by the council or by the secretary of state”.

Members were told not to wait thirteen days, and the direction holds the permission

The sequence is the record. The Council wrote to us on 28 July 2026 that it would decide the application, 26/02109/FUL, "whether or not the High Court has issued a decision". On 7 October the Chair told members three times that if they deferred the Council "would lose the right to determine this application", and the Committee approved. Six days later our request reached the Unit at 9.23 am, the direction was issued the same day, and the Unit's reply reached us at 8.37 pm. The Council could not issue the permission on Friday 16 October, the date it had agreed with the applicant, and has not issued it. Members were told they could not wait thirteen days for the Court; the direction holds the permission for as long as the Secretary of State takes to decide whether to call the application in, and the direction itself says it "should not be read as any indication of the Secretary of State's attitude towards the application scheme".

A direction of this kind was the first step of every recent call in

A direction of this kind is the first step on the path every recent call in has taken. Anglia Square, Norwich: a direction on 7 December 2018, the call in on 21 March 2019, the scheme refused on 12 November 2020 for its bulk and massing beside the city’s heritage. The Marks and Spencer building on Oxford Street: a request from SAVE Britain’s Heritage on 20 April 2022, the call in, the scheme refused on 20 July 2023. The Beehive Centre, Cambridge: the direction and the call in on 12 February 2025, twenty minutes before the Council’s committee sat, and the decision on 9 December 2025. Blandford, 2024: a call in after a committee approved a scheme for the second time. In each case the Secretary of State decided whether to call the application in some weeks after the direction. The Unit publishes no timetable and we give none.

Our case for a call in

The case is made from the Council’s own documents and the words of the statutory consultee. Under each criterion of the 2012 statement we state the record and our conclusion. The full case is in our request of 13 October and our representation of 16 October, both on this page.

The application conflicts with national policy on the historic environment in important ways.

The harm. Historic England, the statutory consultee, wrote on 29 July 2025: “we are of the view that the building is too big for its location.” It found that the proposals “would result in certain levels of harm to the significance of the listed building, primarily as a result of the excessive bulk of the new building, which we consider would detract from the setting of the surrounding buildings”, and that they “would be bulkier that those that were previously granted consent”. It wrote that it “would strongly encourage that massing is further reduced so it sits better within this context”. On 8 July 2026 it wrote that its views “remain unchanged from those previously assessed”.

The Council’s own conservation officer wrote on 26 August 2026: “When considering the above heritage effects with reference to NPPF policies HE4 (1, 2), HE5 (1-4), HE6 (1-3) and HE9, the positive effects are not considered to fully outweigh the harm.” The Victorian Society found “a low-to-moderate level of less-than-substantial harm”. Cambridge Past, Present and Future found that the bulk “causes, multi-layered harm to highly sensitive designated heritage assets and stands in conflict with Policy 61”. Alec Forshaw, conservation architect, found “Less-than-substantial harm at the upper end of the scale to the setting of the Grade I listed Bodley Library”.

The report itself finds at paragraph 16.75 that “the application would be in conflict with Policy 61 of the Local Plan” and at 13.4 that “The heritage balance is considered to result in overall harm to the setting of the Grade I listed buildings and therefore there is conflict with criteria (c) of Policy 10.”

Avoidance. The Framework’s policy HE4(1)(b) asks whether the harm can be avoided. The Council’s own report of 31 August 2016 on the consented design, with its basement, found: “The proposed new library would meet the needs of Christ’s College”, and that the basement works “would not result in any significant damage to the listed buildings”. The Council’s advice to the College of 19 December 2024: “The proposed building should be stepped away from the Bodley Library and inwards from Christ’s Lane.” The Amendment Sheet of 5 October 2026: “The applicants have chosen to proceed with the scheme in front of members.” The architects’ own letter says the volume at the upper level “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 report 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). Our conclusion is that the harm can be avoided and was not, and that policy HE4(1)(b) is not met.

Justification. Policy HE4(2) requires “a clear and convincing justification” for harm. The report tells members that the stair tower “therefore has a minimum height requirement” (26.7 as amended) and that “a building of this scale is required” (26.8); its own paragraph 16.34 records that the applicant “has chosen to retain the current height of the proposed staircase tower”, and no document on the file states a fire requirement for the tower: 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.” The same paragraph 26.8 calls the consented designs “comparable in scale”; the Council’s own advice of 19 December 2024 called this building “higher and larger in scale than the consented schemes”, Historic England “bulkier”, and the applicant’s Heritage Statement at 6.9 “of a greater scale than the existing and previously approved scheme”. Our conclusion is that no justification for the building’s volume, mass and bulk is on the file, and that policy HE4(2) is not met.

The balance. Policy HE6(4) weighs harm against “any public benefits resulting from the proposal”. The report’s “lower end of the scale” is a net figure: the conservation officer reached it “On balance” after four positive effects, one of them “Sustaining the ongoing use and conservation of the grade I listed building by providing improved, accessible library facilities”. The report calls that effect “a public benefit of the scheme rather than a direct heritage benefit” (16.39 as amended) and then counts it among the social benefits at 26.25, with “significant weight” at 26.26, while accessibility is counted separately at 26.23.

On 7 October the Delivery Manager told members: “This is about accessibility. That’s why it’s a public benefit”. So one consideration has been used three times. It reduced the degree of harm. It was counted as a social benefit. It was counted again as accessibility.

The College’s buildings have been in collegiate use for five centuries; the applicant’s own Planning Statement at 7.99 says “staff and student numbers will remain as per existing”; the report at 1.12 accepts that the proposal does not secure the long term reuse of a listed building. Our conclusion is that the degree of harm has not been stated before the weighing and that a consideration which does not result from the proposal has been weighed three times, so that policy HE6(4) has not been applied.

Historic England narrowed without reasons. Historic England found harm from “the excessive bulk of the new building” to “the setting of the surrounding buildings”, naming “the south range of first court and the Bodley Library”. The report confines the harm to “the setting of the Bodley Library” (16.36) and, as published, told members at 1.25 and 16.38 that Historic England shared its “lower end” figure, which Historic England never gave; the Council amended both paragraphs on 5 October after hgh Consulting’s letter. Asked on 7 October, the conservation officer told members that Historic England’s “views are their independent views. I won’t seek to justify or explain those”. Our conclusion is that the statutory consultee’s finding has been departed from without reasons.

The temporary building. A two storey temporary kitchen and dining building is to stand in Second Court, among Grade I listed ranges; the applicant’s Heritage Statement at 6.5 says it “will cause a negligible degree of harm to the setting of the listed ranges comprising Second Court.” No officer and no consultee has assessed it; the conservation officer told members on 7 October “we’re considering the general principle of it rather than the specific details of it”. Our conclusion is that a harm to the setting of Grade I buildings has been approved unassessed.

The application conflicts with the Framework’s heritage policies on the Council’s own record

Our conclusion on this criterion is that the application conflicts with the Framework’s policies HE4, HE5 and HE6 in important ways, on the Council’s own record and in Historic England’s own words.

The application raises significant architectural and urban design issues.

The building stands about 13 metres high beside a lane about six metres wide: the report’s own paragraph 16.32 records the frontage rising “from approximately 5.7 metres currently to approximately 13 metres”, and Create Streets measures “an enclosure ratio of about 2.3:1”. On the applicant’s drawing 004700 P03 the parapet is at 22830 and the apex of the Bodley Library gable at 20840.

The report declares Policy 60 not engaged and applies none of its tests

The Local Plan’s Policy 60 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 the building “could be seen to break the immediate skyline” (13.20) and then declares the policy “not engaged”, so that none of its tests is applied: criterion (c), to “clearly demonstrate that there is no adverse impact”, which the report’s own harm finding fails, and criterion (d), “adequate sunlight and daylight within and around the proposals”, which the applicant’s own daylight report fails for 37 of the 61 windows opposite. The Council’s own Bradwell’s Court brief of November 2002 set the lane’s rule: “Maximum building height not to exceed ridge height on gable of North Court”.

The applicant declined to address the massing before the application was made

The design issue was identified before the application was made, by the statutory consultee and by the Council's own officers, and the applicant declined to address it. Historic England's casework file, released under freedom of information on 28 August 2026, shows its inspector writing to the applicant on 20 December 2024: "Our strongest concerns relate to the massing of the building, particularly on its encounter with Bodley Library, which at the moment feels rather uncomfortable, given its proximity and height. We strongly recommend this area is revised, maybe receding, scaling down this end and relating more to the alignment of the library might improve this relationship." The Council's own advice of 19 December 2024: "The proposal is higher and larger in scale than the consented schemes, and the proposed scale and massing of this raises concern." and "The proposed building should be stepped away from the Bodley Library and inwards from Christ's Lane." Historic England's letter of 1 September 2025 records the answer: "The overall massing of the building remains unchanged". The Amendment Sheet of 5 October 2026 records it again: "The applicants have chosen to proceed with the scheme in front of members."

The public preferred the lower design, and the Council has not assessed the issues

In a Deltapoll survey of 2,073 members of the public conducted from 15 to 18 August 2025 and reported in the Create Streets review of October 2025, 71 per cent preferred the lower design. Our conclusion is that the application raises significant architectural and urban design issues that the Council has not assessed under its own policy.

The controversy is substantial and national.

The architecture press, the planning press and the city's own paper have called the scheme controversial in their own words.

The national architecture and planning press call the scheme controversial

The Architects' Journal, 29 July 2026, under the headline "Planning row erupts over Grafton's Cambridge library job": the scheme "has become embroiled in a major planning row". The Architects' Journal, 14 October 2026: "Rayner intervenes to halt Grafton's controversial Cambridge library"; on the Journal's own site that report stood first under "Most popular" on 17 October.

Building Design, 13 October 2026: "Grafton Architects' controversial Cambridge college approved for the second time". Building Design's daily news email of 14 October 2026 led with its report of the freeze. Building, 13 October 2026: "Controversial Cambridge college approved for second time". Building Design and Building, 31 July 2026: "Forum to discuss Grafton Architects' controversial Cambridge library plans ends in recrimination".

Planning, 15 October 2026: "a university college's controversial plan to redevelop a library building". The Cambridge Independent, 8 October 2026: "Controversial Christ's College library plan approved by Cambridge City Council ahead of High Court hearing"; and on 14 October 2026: "A government intervention has stopped Cambridge City Council from issuing a decision notice on Christ's College's controversial new library plans."

The Observer's architecture critic gave the dispute a column on 5 July 2026 and the paper published our reply; the BBC reported the first approval on 31 October 2025; The Critic published Nicholas Boys Smith of Create Streets on the scheme on 18 November 2025.

The controversy reached two Forums, Full Council and the Secretary of State

SAVE Britain's Heritage wrote on 3 July 2026 that the building would turn "one of the city's oldest pedestrian routes into an oppressive, 'daylight-starved' tunnel". The Victorian Society and Cambridge Past, Present and Future found harm. Two Development Control Forums were held, on 11 September 2025 and, on the petition of 75 residents, on 29 July 2026; Building reported that the second "ended in recrimination". The report records 119 representations, 57 in objection, and "more than 70" from this group. A public question was put to Full Council on 16 July 2026. The Member of Parliament for Cambridge wrote to the Secretary of State on 13 October 2026.

Our conclusion is that the controversy is substantial and national: the national architecture and planning press report it as such, and the Secretary of State's direction of 13 October was issued on the day it was asked for.

The effects reach beyond the locality.

The Bodley Library and the ranges of First and Second Court are Grade I, the highest grade. The Framework of 17 August 2026 was written, in the Government’s words, to “standardise policies that apply across the whole of England”, and this is among the first applications of its heritage chapter to a Grade I collegiate setting: the readings the Council has adopted, that viability is the test of avoidance, that a requirement no document states is a justification, that the continued use of a listed building is a benefit resulting from the proposal, and that the degree of harm is a net figure, would apply to every college and every cathedral close in the country. An Inspector decided on 2 October 2026, on an Oxford college’s appeal, that “even a low level of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset carries considerable importance and weight”. The Secretary of State called in a Cambridge scheme, the Beehive Centre, on 12 February 2025. Christ’s Lane itself is one of Cambridge’s oldest and busiest pedestrian routes, barely six metres wide, through which more than ten thousand people pass every day between the historic core and the bus station. Our conclusion is that the decision sets the reading of the new Framework for Grade I settings across England.

The Council has not considered all relevant matters.

The courts have held that, in deciding whether to call in, the Secretary of State is “bound to have regard to whether in reaching its decision” the authority “had properly considered all relevant matters” (Westminster City Council v Secretary of State [2014] EWHC 708 (Admin), paragraph 37).

The report was written without our evidence: the Amendment Sheet says of our papers of 25 September (the letter naming the findings the report had to make, the harm register, Historic England’s own casework file on how the harm could be avoided, the five lower or distributed designs and the letters to the specialist officers), “It has not therefore been possible to consider these representations in the report itself”, answers them one by one with “This letter does not change the officer recommendation.”, and says “Updated comments from the Council’s Conservation Officer are not required.”

Our response to the report, with the ten errors, was placed before every member on the morning of 7 October; the case officer told members it was “a 44 page letter objection received this morning” and that “it wouldn’t alter the recommendation of officers.” We asked the Council four times, on 29 September, 5 October, 7 October and 12 October, for an undertaking that no decision notice would issue before the Court’s judgment. No reply was received to any of the four. Our conclusion is that the matters the Council has not considered are the ones the Framework requires it to decide.

What we asked for

Our request of 13 October 2026 asked for a direction under article 31 by return, and for a direction under section 77 referring the application to the Secretary of State. Our representation of 16 October 2026 asks that the direction stand; that the application be called in; that it be decided after a public inquiry, as the Beehive Centre was; that we be given notice of the Council’s and the applicant’s representations; and that the Unit obtain from the Council the Amendment Sheet for the Planning Committee of 7 October 2026 and the Council’s webcast of item 6 at that meeting, the item on this application. The Amendment Sheet amended paragraphs 1.25, 16.38, 16.39 and 26.7 of the officer’s report, and conditions 3, 11, 13 and 32 were amended at the meeting.

We have not asked the Secretary of State to refuse the application, and we have not asked her to wait for the Court. The call in decision is, in the Unit’s words, a decision “as to who should deal with a planning application”. Our case is that the planning issues are of more than local importance and that the Council’s own record shows it.

The documents

• The direction of 13 October 2026, register document 9554694.

• The Council’s acknowledgement, 14 October 2026, register document 9554677.

• The Planning Casework Unit’s letter to us of 13 October 2026 and its reply of 14 October 2026.

• Our request to the Secretary of State of 13 October 2026, with its annexes.

• Our representation to the Planning Casework Unit of 16 October 2026.

• Our request of 7 November 2025 and the Unit’s reply of 10 November 2025.

• The written ministerial statement of 26 October 2012.

How you can help

The Secretary of State is deciding whether to call application 26/02109/FUL in. We need you to write to her in support of a call in. If you would like to, write to us at residents@christs-lane.com and we will tell you how.