Daylight: on the applicant's own figures thirty six shop windows fail, and the Council assessed none of them

The failures are the applicant's own figures, and are not in dispute

The applicant's daylight report (Right of Light Consulting, 8 September 2025, register document 9423969) says at paragraph 4.1.3: "Even though a number of the rooms/windows do not pass the numerical tests, this does not amount to non-compliance with the BRE requirements." eb7, the daylight consultants, on the same figures, 5 October 2026: "Thirty-six windows serving the retail units and coffee shops fall below the BRE targets. Eleven retain a Vertical Sky Component (VSC) of less than 5%, against a target of 27%, and six would receive virtually no sky visibility at less than 0.5% VSC. Twenty-six windows experience reductions exceeding 50% against the 20% guideline, four of them exceeding 90%. ... These are not marginal deviations but significant and noticeable changes to the naturally-lit areas of these units." Four of the rooms behind them also fail the no sky line test of daylight penetration. "The failures are therefore not in dispute." The four windows of one retail unit's main frontage and entrance (windows 7 to 10) lose 55, 75, 87 and 96 per cent of their light, on the applicant's own figures as eb7 reads them.

The view that shops need no daylight rests on a passage confined to housing

The applicant's consultant wrote in 2025 that the premises "are non-domestic, which in our opinion do not have a requirement for daylight or sunlight." The College's agent wrote on 1 August 2026: "Most retail units the world over, have deep floorplates and do not rely on, or need, high levels of daylight. This is simply not a material planning issue and that appears to have consistently been the view of the Council's Environmental Health Officer." The Council's environmental health responses on this application (register documents 9468203 and 9499190) state no view on daylight. The daylight report rested on paragraph 130C of the former Framework, a passage confined to housing. Housing is no part of this application, and paragraph 130C "has not been carried forward into NPPF 2026".

The report sets the guidelines aside for the shops, then finds the harm "limited" without assessing it

The report says at paragraph 22.16: "The majority of users of shops or services such as these are likely to only visit for a short period of time before leaving. 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." At 26.16 it finds that "the harm to their occupants is limited". eb7: "This conclusion could only be supported if there has been substantive consideration of the technical work". The BRE guide applies "where occupants have a reasonable expectation of daylight", which the Amendment Sheet itself quotes, and the people who work in the shops and cafés are there all day. The one home the report accepts fails the vertical sky component test is discounted at 22.6 because "the room it serves passes the NSL test"; the two tests are separate, and passing one does not answer failing the other. The report gives the lane as "approximately 8 metres in width" at paragraph 2.3 and as "approximately 6.5 metres" at 22.1; the applicant's own sections (Short Sections CC and DD, register documents 9423845 and 9423850) show about six metres, and the Council's own report of 2004 on the buildings opposite gave the lane as "between 6-8m along its length".

Corrected, the shops’ daylight is assessed and fails Policy P3

Corrected, the shops' daylight is assessed on the applicant's own figures and fails, and Policy P3 requires the harm to be avoided where possible: a lower building avoids it. Left as it is, a policy of the Framework has been left out of the report, and a finding of "limited" harm rests on no assessment.

The shadow study of the lane has been asked for since 2025 and has never been provided

Appendix F of the Local Plan asks for shadow studies "at different times of day and throughout the seasons". No plan view shadow study of Christ's Lane has ever been submitted. The report says at 22.20 that "officers do not consider that a full assessment is required" and at 22.21 that the building "would undoubtedly somewhat enclose part of Christ's Lane". What was provided instead is a three page study by the applicant's architects (register document 9439767) with, in eb7's words, "no author, date, plan, scale, shadow outline, area or duration", which shows "plainly increased shadow across the lane at 18:00 on the summer solstice". The case officer told the Committee of 29 October 2025: "the proposed library shown here does have an impact, especially within this six o'clock image". At the Development Control Forum of 29 July 2026 the College said the building "would not affect the light".

The 2002 brief required heights that avoid a "canyon-like and oppressive" lane

The 2002 Joint Planning Brief for the buildings opposite required that "Building heights along Christ's Lane will need to be designed to avoid Christ's Lane becoming canyon-like and oppressive". Create Streets' review of October 2025: "The height of the building (14.1m) along a 6m wide lane creates an enclosure ratio of about 2.3:1", comparable, the review says, to parts "of Manhattan or Barcelona". The case officer told the Committee on 7 October that the chimneys stand "approximately 14.2 metres" above the lane and the flat roof "approximately 12.5 metres"; the existing library stands "approximately 5.7 metres" (report 14.3). Policy 60 of the Local Plan, on tall buildings, requires "adequate sunlight and daylight within and around the proposals"; the report declares the policy not engaged (see The application page, error 6).

Documents

• eb7's review of 16 October 2025 (9 pages): using the applicant's own report, the daylight losses along Christ's Lane, window by window.

• eb7's letter of 5 October 2026 (register document 9545280): Policy P3; the thirty six windows; one retail unit's frontage; the report's 22.16 and 26.16; the three asks: a transient shadow study before determination, the derivation of any flexibility applied, and an independent review of the applicant's report.

• The applicant's daylight report of 8 September 2025 (register document 9423969) and the architects' study (register document 9439767).

Sources: eb7, 16 October 2025 (register document 7392055) and 5 October 2026 (9545280); the applicant's daylight report (9423969); the report of 28 September 2026, paragraphs 2.3, 22.1, 22.6, 22.16, 22.20, 22.21 and 26.16; the applicant's agent, 1 August 2026 (9481026); the webcasts of 29 October 2025 and 7 October 2026; the Create Streets review, October 2025.