On Tuesday 20 October 2026 the High Court quashed the Council’s first permission for the Christ’s College library, of 7 November 2025, on all four grounds of our claim.

The Court’s decision

Documents

The primary sources behind the campaign, in full text. The Court record first; then our papers of 25 September 2026, the letter to the case officer and the sixteen supporting papers we placed before the Council, and the objections of 4 to 7 October; the Council's and the College's own documents; the consultees; the call in papers; and the newsletters.

Where things stand

The Court record

Our papers of 25 September 2026: the letter to the case officer and sixteen supporting papers

Sent to the Council on the afternoon of Friday 25 September 2026, before the report was written; on the register from the afternoon of 30 September and 1 October, each shown under the date 25 September. Together they put 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 to the case officer sets out the seven findings the report has to make, and each paper proves one or more of the errors on the Council's own file. The report was finished at midday the same day. Each of the ten errors on The application page is a finding these papers asked for by name before the report was written.

  • The letter to the case officer (31 pages). The lead document. 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 of 17 August 2026 and the Local Plan set them, with the Council's first decision before it. The confirmations, sought by Tuesday 29 September 2026, are that the report will make each. 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:

    1. (1) The degree of harm to the Grade I listed buildings and the conservation area fixed after benefits have been set against the harm, instead of identified first, and the harm given less than the weight section 66(1), HE6(1) and HE6(3) fix. Every heritage assessment on the file but the applicant's finds harm, and four name the building's volume, mass and bulk as the cause.
    2. (2) Accordance with the development plan found, as the 2025 report found it, on "no overall harm", a finding the Council's own conservation officer no longer makes, with no decision under section 38(6) on the plan as a whole.
    3. (3) The Framework's design policy DP3(3) and the Local Plan's tall buildings policy, Policy 60, not applied to a building the statutory consultee finds "too big for its location".
    4. (4) No finding under HE4(1)(b) 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.
    5. (5) No statement under HE4(2) of what the building's volume, mass and bulk is needed for, when the reasons on the file justify a library and not this bulk.
    6. (6) Public benefits weighed under HE6(4) that do not result from the proposal or are not assessed for the design applied for. The sustainability claim is the applicant's own text repeated as the Council's advice, the light on the lane is unassessed and the access offer is secured by nothing. The continued use of the listed buildings is the third ground of the judicial review under another name.
    7. (7) The requests members made at the Development Control Forum of 29 July 2026 unanswered from the register, where each answer goes against the scheme or does not exist.
    8. (8) A report resting on documents that assess a design with higher chimneys, and on no assessment of the temporary kitchen in Second Court.
    9. (9) The advice of the conservation officer, the sustainability officer and the environmental health officer left uncorrected in the respects CLAG's letters show to be inaccurate on the Council's own file.

  • The harm register, Annex C (15 pages). The College told the Council that the scheme "was supported by all professional consultees" (covering statement, paragraph 3.17); the register shows every heritage assessment except the applicant's finding harm, four of them naming the building's volume, mass and bulk as the cause. The record of each assessment, in its author's words with the degree found: Historic England, the Council's conservation officer, the Victorian Society, Cambridge Past, Present & Future and Alec Forshaw.

  • The Historic England file, Annex H (11 pages, with Exhibit H1). The statutory consultee told the College in writing in December 2024 how to avoid the harm at the Bodley Library, the Council's officers said the same the day before, and the Victorian Society specified how in August 2025. The applicant changed nothing and filed the same drawings. The proof is Historic England's own casework file on the scheme, released under freedom of information on 28 August 2026, which classes its letters as concerns. The College's agent wrote to Historic England on 14 May 2026, before filing, that a committee decision "should be possible before October".

  • The map record, Annex F (6 pages, with Exhibits F1 to F3). The applicant's own townscape appraisal gives the view along the lane "Value: Low"; the Council's own designation maps mark the views along Christ's Lane in both directions as key positive views and colour the College's whole frontage to the lane as Grade I listed. The applicant's own archaeological assessment shows the site as the College's garden and kitchen side on every map from 1688 to 1888.

  • The conditions paper, Annex G (17 pages). No condition reduces the harm from the building's volume, mass and bulk, because every condition any officer proposes takes the building as drawn, and no assessment a benefit depends on can be left to a condition. The construction plan closes a public footpath that no condition can lawfully authorise, and the temporary kitchen in Second Court has been assessed by no officer.

  • The letter to the conservation officer (16 pages, with Exhibits H3 to H5). Four findings in the conservation officer's comments of 26 August 2026 are wrong on the Council's own file: no degree of harm is stated before four positive effects are set against it; the conservation area enhancement is measured against the 1970s library, the baseline the applicant's own townscape consultant asked the Council to adopt in December 2024; the comparison with the consented design is wrong above ground, where the harm arises; and the harm is located in the stair tower where Historic England finds it in the bulk of the whole building, with no reason given. The third ground of the judicial review began in this office's response of 18 September 2025.

  • The letter to the environmental health officer (8 pages). The Council's environmental health advice finds the scheme acceptable on the premise that the application is "an almost identical resubmission" and that the odour and plant noise assessments of May 2025 remain valid; those assessments describe the design before the amendment of August 2025, and the 2026 conditions bind the applicant to them by name and date. The advice also treats discharges under the 2025 permission as a basis for compliance conditions, where the Council's own email of 28 July 2026 says no such approval counts.

  • The design and development plan paper (27 pages, with Exhibits S24_1 and S24_2). On the Council's own findings the proposal does not accord with the development plan, and the decision in accordance with the plan is refusal. The 2025 report found accordance on "no overall harm"; the Council's own conservation officer finds harm the positive effects do not outweigh, and Historic England finds harm from "the excessive bulk". On those findings the proposal conflicts with Policies 61(a), 61(c), 61(e), 55, 57(a) and 60. The tall buildings policy applies on the applicant's own words: the building "will extend the building upwards and reduce the visible skyline in the view from the southern side of St Andrew's Street" (Heritage Statement, paragraph 5.20).

  • The alternatives, justification and public benefits paper (51 pages, with Exhibits D6 to D10, H2 and J1). The harm could be avoided, is not justified and is not outweighed: the three findings the Framework's heritage chapter requires after harm is found, in order, avoidance under HE4(1)(b), justification under HE4(2) and the balance under HE6(4), each go against the scheme on the file. The harm could be avoided by a lower library meeting every requirement the College has stated, beginning with the design the College itself had consented in 2013 and 2016, which the Council found met its needs. No clear and convincing justification of the bulk is on the file: the reasons given justify a library. No public benefit resulting from this proposal outweighs the harm: the list holds the incidents of any library on the site, the advantage of one college's members, works already consented, or promises the application does not contain; the public access offer is unsecured and comes to about 78 hours a year.

  • The sustainability evidence. The sustainability case gives no reason for the building's bulk and fails the Council's own standard, on the College's own documents and the Council's file. The chimneys, the one sustainability measure tied to the bulk, give no reason for how high the building stands: they work by their length, can start below ground, as the Master accepted in public, and the energy model credits them with no saving. The College gives concrete as its reason for no basement and then pours concrete below ground and in the chimney wall, with no carbon comparison against the consented design. On the College's own figures the building's energy efficiency fails the Council's minimum standard until roof panels are added, and the saving comes from roof panels and heat pumps that need none of the bulk. The Council holds no assessment against its own standard, although on this site in 2011 and 2016 the same office checked before supporting.

  • The record of the Development Control Forum of 29 July 2026. The Council's minutes, published 21 September 2026, record the members' questions and none of the College's answers or the chair's undertakings; CLAG's record, entry by entry from the Council's own recording, stands beside them and carries what was said. Each section states the error a report would make on these words: the consultees' findings against the College's "no objection" account; the Victorian Society's alterations not made; "to avoid further digging" contradicted by the application; the College's own test for a serious alternative; the public access offer; the nine requests members made.

  • The avoidance and justification letter. Neither conclusion the Framework requires before the harm can be justified or weighed is on the file. The first, under HE4(1)(b), is whether the harm could be avoided by the consented design or by another lower or distributed library meeting the College's stated requirements. The second, under HE4(2), is what the building's volume, mass and bulk is needed for, on evidence, as distinct from what a library is needed for. The letter asks that the report state both, and asks whether the report will rely on the College's architectural competition or feasibility studies, and if so that the brief, the six entries and the studies be placed on the register.

  • The document accuracy letter. Five of the applicant's documents assess, explain and argue for a building with chimneys 900 mm higher than the drawings show. The drawings show the chimneys at "24530 Top of Chimneys"; the Heritage Statement, the Design and Access Statement, the Planning Statement, the Townscape and Visual Appraisal and the Sustainability Statement assess the other design. The Council's own conservation officer records twice that the Heritage Statement "does not include subsequent revisions made to the chimney height and internal layout". The letter is a request under section 62(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the Council require documents that assess the design applied for.

  • The determination timing letter. The Council had agreed before the Court that its first decision on this scheme be quashed on all four grounds. The letter asks the Council to confirm that the application will not be reported before the Court has given judgment, and that determination waits until each consultee has provided what the letter lists. The letter also asks that the report confront the first decision and that agreement, and that a judgment given after members resolve and before the decision notice issues goes before members before the notice issues. The report went to committee thirteen days before the hearing.

  • The register integrity letter. How the Council runs the public register: the College's papers displayed at once, the objector's papers kept off at the College's request, withheld until CLAG complained, displayed after the consultation closed and dated as if on time. Against the Council's own documents: its Statement of Community Involvement, which says representations "will be added to the application file and made publicly available online"; its letter of 21 July 2026, "CLAG as an objector will be treated exactly the same as any other objector on any planning application."; and its instruction on the file, "Could the documents please be dated the 14th July."

  • The committee papers letter. Three of the Council's own documents say late papers count: its Statement of Community Involvement, "Late representations may be considered up to the point of determination of the application"; its notice of 19 August 2026; and the Senior Planning Lawyer's letter of 26 August 2026, that they "will be addressed, as appropriate, in the Officer report". The report was written without ours. Our papers were filed after the Framework representation period closed on 3 September 2026. In 2025 the case officer wrote that hgh Consulting's letter "will therefore not be referenced in the report" and that the experts' reports could not be appended.

  • The minutes letter. The Council's printed minutes of the Development Control Forum of 29 July 2026, published 21 September 2026, fifty four days after it, run to 114 items. They record the members' questions and none of the College's answers or the chair's undertakings, and nine items record something other than what the recording carries. The letter asks that the answers and undertakings be recorded, the nine items corrected, and the recording kept available.

The objections and expert reports of 4 to 7 October 2026, and the earlier reports

The Council's documents

The consultees

The College's documents

The call in papers

The newsletters

Four grounds. What members were told, and what the documents said.

The Council's report of 28 September 2026 says at paragraph 1.15 that "the Council and the Interested Party have conceded in writing to all four grounds of challenge". On 28 April 2026 the Council and the College signed a draft consent order agreeing that the permission of 7 November 2025, 25/02161/FUL, be quashed on all four grounds. We did not sign it, so that the grounds are heard and receive a judgment in Court. On Tuesday 20 October 2026 the Court set aside, on our application, its order of 25 August 2026, which had approved the draft consent order we had not signed, and quashed the permission on all four grounds of our claim. The hearing took place in Court 18 at the Royal Courts of Justice, before Mr Justice Kolinsky, in R (Christ's Lane Action Group) v Cambridge City Council, AC-2025-LON-004656, in the Planning Court. The Council's statement of matters relied on, sent to the Court on 8 June 2026, sets out each ground as the Claimant argued it and says: "Having reviewed its position following the grant of permission, the Defendant accepts that the Decision Notice should be quashed on the basis of the Grounds above." Each ground is set out below in the claim's words, with the sentence the 2025 report gave members, the document that shows it wrong, and the 2026 report's repeat.

1 Historic England found harm from the bulk of the building. The 2025 report told members that, in line with comments received from Historic England, there was no overall harm.

Historic England wrote on 29 July 2025: "we are of the view that the building is too big for its location", and 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". Historic England's second letter, of 1 September 2025, on two amendments, recorded that "The overall massing of the building remains unchanged".

The 2025 report left that advice out and told members there was no overall harm

The report's summary of Historic England's advice, paragraphs 6.19 to 6.21, summarised the second letter and left the first out. Our claim, paragraph 52: it "failed to advise the committee that, although HE had not formally objected, they had identified harm to the listed building and setting of surrounding buildings". The conclusion at 14.33 then told members: "In line with comments received from Historic England and the Council's Conservation officer, who raise no objection to the development, the development is not considered to result in any overall harm to the relevant heritage assets, applying paragraph 215 of the NPPF". Our claim: "This was factually incorrect, and positively misleading."

The first ground is that the Committee was misled as to Historic England’s advice

The ground, in the claim's words: "The Committee was materially misled as to Historic England's advice." The Council's statement of matters records the Claimant's argument that "the Officer Report omitted to mention that HE had identified heritage harm in their earlier response", and accepts the quashing on it.

The 2026 report put Historic England’s name to the officer’s figure

In 2026 the report as published put Historic England's name to the officer's own figure: paragraph 1.25, "As considered by Historic England and the Council's Conservation officer the proposed replacement library would result in harm (at the lower end of the scale)", and paragraph 16.38, "It is considered that this view is consistent with that of both Historic England and the Council's Conservation Officer". The Amendment Sheet of 5 October amended both, "to clarify that the level of harm is an assessment of the officer and not Historic England" and "to remove reference to Historic England's agreement", after hgh Consulting's letter of 4 October. The report still confines the harm to "the setting of the Bodley Library" (16.36), where Historic England found harm to "the setting of the surrounding buildings", and gives no reason for the difference.

2 The 2025 report found harm to the Grade I listed Bodley Library and told members, in the same report and at the meeting, that there was no overall harm.

The report found harm to the setting of the Bodley Library at 14.14 and 14.15. At 14.31 the report told members: "Whilst there is a level of harm identified to the highly significant Grade I listed Bodley Library, this harm, at the lower end of the less than substantial scale, is considered to have been clearly and convincingly justified." The same paragraph ends: "The overall impact upon the relevant listed buildings is therefore considered to be neutral". At 14.33 it told them the development was not considered to result in "any overall harm".

At the meeting of 29 October 2025 the officer said: "the overall harm is considered to be neutral, in that the harm to setting of Bodley is outweighed by other heritage benefits. Nevertheless because there is harm identified, public benefits need to be provided". Our claim: "These two conclusions are logically inconsistent."

The second ground is that the Committee was misled as to the existence and extent of the harm

The ground, in the claim's words: "The Committee was materially misled as to the existence and/or extent of harm to the significance of designated heritage assets." The Council's statement of matters records the Claimant's argument that the report "provided confusing and inconsistent advice as to whether there was a 'neutral impact' or 'less than substantial harm' to the setting of a listed building", and accepts the quashing on it.

In 2026 the two officers give two accounts of one figure

In 2026 the two officers give members different accounts of how the one figure was reached, and the degree before any weighing is on no document.

The conservation officer's comments of 26 August 2026 set four positive heritage effects against the harm and then state the degree: "the positive effects are not considered to fully outweigh the harm. On balance, the harm is considered to be at the lower end of the scale, and therefore NPPF policy HE6 (4) is engaged." (6.14). On 7 October the conservation officer told members: "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."

No sentence of the report says how its figure was reached

The report states the same figure before the benefits: "Specifically, officers consider the level of harm arising from this aspect of the scheme to the setting of the Grade I Bodley Library to be low." (16.35). No sentence of the report says how "low" was reached. The sentence is the 2025 report's sentence (14.14), which took "lower end" from the conservation officer's response of 18 September 2025, with the figure moved to "officers consider". The Amendment Sheet of 5 October moved the summary's figure the same way, "Officers consider this harm to be (at the lower end of the scale)", "to clarify that the level of harm is an assessment of the officer and not Historic England" (1.25). On 7 October the case officer told members: "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." The report then sets the heritage benefits against the figure (16.73, 26.31) and the public benefits against "the identified low level of harm" (26.34).

No consultee put the harm at low before the benefits

No consultee put the harm to the Bodley Library's setting at "low" before the benefits. Historic England found "certain levels of harm" from "the excessive bulk of the new building" and gave no degree (29 July 2025; its 2026 emails refer back to that letter). The Victorian Society found "a low-to-moderate level of less-than-substantial harm", which the report records at 6.79. The independent heritage appraisal on the register found "Less-than-substantial harm at the upper end of the scale to the setting of the Grade I listed Bodley Library" (9458570, paragraph 58). The applicant finds no harm to that setting.

The degree before any weighing is on no document

The Framework's policy HE5(2)(c) says: "The degree of harm should be identified". We asked the Council on 25 September 2026 to state the degree identified before any positive effect was set against it. The Amendment Sheet answered: "Updated comments from the Council's Conservation Officer are not required." If the report's "low" is the comments' figure, the heritage benefits are set against the harm twice and the HE6(4) balance is struck against a figure from which they were already deducted. If it is the officers' own degree, no document identifies it or gives its reasons, and members were told it was "in line with" consultees none of whom found it. In 2025 the report gave the harm as "lower end" in one paragraph and the heritage impact as "neutral" in another, and the Council conceded that error before the Court. The 2026 report repeats it with one figure: a balance in one officer's account, the harm before the balance in the other's.

3 Members were told the library would "help to secure the listed building's optimum viable use". The listed buildings have been in that use for five centuries; the Council conceded this was an error, and then it proceeded to repeat the error.

What the words mean. The National Planning Policy Framework in force in 2025 let a council weigh harm to a listed building against the public benefits of a proposal "including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use" (paragraph 215). The Planning Practice Guidance explains the term: "Putting heritage assets to a viable use is likely to lead to the investment in their maintenance necessary for their long-term conservation", and "If there is only one viable use, that use is the optimum viable use" (Historic Environment, paragraph 015). Optimum viable use is a benefit a proposal brings to a building whose upkeep depends on finding a use that pays for it.

The 2025 report counted a use already secured as a benefit

The listed buildings here are First Court, the Bodley Library and the south east range of Second Court, the oldest parts of the College, in the use they were built for since they were built. The 2025 report told members at 14.19 that the library "would help to secure the ongoing use of the listed buildings for their intended, educational use" and at 14.31: "as concluded by the Council's Conservation Officer, the development of new increased library facilities would help to secure the listed building's optimum viable use. The overall impact upon the relevant listed buildings is therefore considered to be neutral". Our claim: "There can be no question that the optimum viable use of the listed buildings as an educational institution is already secured"; and: "The continuation of an existing, baseline, OVU cannot lawfully be elevated into a distinct public benefit capable of outweighing heritage harm."

The third ground is that optimum viable use was an irrelevant consideration

The ground, in the claim's words: "The Committee took into account an irrelevant consideration - optimum viable use ('OVU')." In the High Court the Council conceded that this was an error: its statement of matters records the Claimant's argument that the report "relied upon the expanded library facilities as a benefit of the proposed scheme because they would help secure the listed buildings' optimum viable use" and that "the listed buildings were already in their optimum viable use", and accepts the quashing on it.

And then the Council proceeded to repeat the error. The 2026 report says at 1.12 that the proposal "is not considered to secure the long-term re-use of a listed building so as to constitute a public benefit", that the point "is not, therefore, relied upon", and that the new Framework "removes specific reference to OVU where the previous version of the NPPF stated that it was a potential public benefit that could be used to outweigh identified heritage harm". The report then counts the same thing under another name. At 16.39 the report records the conservation officer's view that the proposal "would sustain the ongoing use of the Grade I listed buildings" and calls the improved library facilities "a public benefit of the scheme rather than a direct heritage benefit". At 26.25: "The provision of an updated library facility for students of the College would help to support and sustain the ongoing use of the Grade I listed College buildings by providing improved, accessible library facilities." At 26.26: "The social benefits arising from the proposed development are afforded significant weight in the planning balance."

Members and the Court were told the report does not rely on it

On 7 October the Delivery Manager told members: "The current report does not rely upon the concept of optimum viable use in reaching its recommendation", and, asked about it again: "Chair, this is not an optimum viable use point. This is about accessibility. That's why it's a public benefit". Accessibility is counted on its own at 26.23. The Council's skeleton argument tells the Court that the report "does not rely upon the proposal helping to secure" the optimum viable use of any listed building (paragraph 35). The words have changed and the benefit claimed is the same: the continued use of buildings whose use was never in question. The applicant's own Planning Statement says at 7.99 that "staff and student numbers will remain as per existing". Under whatever name it is next counted, the continued use of the College's listed buildings is not a benefit this building brings.

4 The Council had twice consented a lower library on this site. The 2025 report told members to assess the scheme "on its own merits" and never asked whether the lower design would avoid the harm.

The Council granted permission for Rick Mather Architects' design, with a basement, in 2013 (11/0495/FUL) and 2016 (16/0405/FUL). Its report of 31 August 2016 found: "The proposed new library would meet the needs of Christ's College". Our claim, paragraph 78: "Where a proposal would cause harm to a heritage asset then the possibility of the harm being reduced or avoided by development on an alternative site, via an alternative design or 'mode of development' is a material consideration."

The 2025 report told members to assess the scheme on its own merits

The 2025 report's answer to the objection "Lack of assessment of alternative locations" was: "The application must be assessed on its own merits including the library in the currently proposed location." (Table 3, page 170 of the reports pack). The report's heritage assessment did not mention the consented design: our claim, paragraph 81, "The officer's report said nothing whatsoever about the 2011/2016 schemes, whether in the context of OVU or generally". The officer's amendment sheet for the meeting told members "the current proposal must be assessed on its own merits" and that the scheme "is what is being put forward for consideration"; our claim: "Members were thereby actively dissuaded from considering the material question of whether it would be possible to avoid or reduce the identified heritage harm through alternative modes of development." The Master told the Committee 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".

The fourth ground is that the Committee failed to take the alternatives into account

The ground, in the claim's words: "The Committee failed to take into account a relevant consideration – the existence of less harmful alternative modes of development." The Council's statement of matters records the Claimant's argument that "the possibility of that harm being reduced or avoided through an alternative scheme or a realistic mode of development was a material consideration", and accepts the quashing on it.

In 2026 the report makes no avoidance finding and tests the alternatives for viability

In 2026 the report recites the Framework's policy HE4(1)(b), avoid the harm, at 16.6 and makes no finding under it: Alec Forshaw, 5 October 2026, "The officer's report recites policy HE4(1)(b) at paragraph 16.6 and makes no finding under it."

The report names three alternatives (16.51) and tests them for "viability and prospect of implementation" (16.52). 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). The report gives the Create Streets design no "meaningful planning weight" because "the CLAG design has never been fully considered by the College" (16.60).

The report weighs the College’s letter about its masterplan, not the masterplan

The report takes into account the College's letter about its masterplan, not the masterplan. At 16.62 the report records the alternative as put at the Development Control Forum: a library on this site "in addition to additional library facilities elsewhere within the college grounds". At 16.63 the report takes the College's letter of 1 August 2026, written after the Development Control Forum: the masterplan "suggested two possible sites for the library". From that letter the report finds at 16.64 that the masterplan is not "evidence of the college suggesting to 'break up' the library provision into multiple sites". At 16.65 the report assesses only "an alternative location, such as the Hobson Street car park" and finds "no information". At 16.66 the report gives the masterplan "very little weight as a viable alternative". The masterplan's own published diagram lists five study and library places, "1. Bodley library", "2. Working library", "3. Hobson Street library", "4. The Nest" and "5. Todd Study Hub", and the Governing Body adopted the plan in October 2023 (our alternatives paper, Exhibits D8.1 and D8.2). The report's paragraphs on the plan do not mention them.

The Victorian Society’s modification, half the height at each floor, is left out of the report’s list

The report leaves the Victorian Society's written modification, "reducing the height by approximately half at each floor", out of its list. The report concludes: "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" (26.33). The Amendment Sheet tells members: "The Council must consider the application before it, which it has done in the report before members."

Sources: the Statement of Facts and Grounds (inside register document 9475597), paragraphs 6, 50 to 58, 61 to 65, 72 to 78 and 80 to 86, which quote the officer's report of 29 October 2025 at 4.1, 6.19 to 6.21, 14.14, 14.15, 14.19, 14.31 and 14.33 and the officer's amendment sheet for that meeting; the reports pack of 29 October 2025, Table 3, page 170; Historic England's letters of 29 July 2025 (register document 9457102) and 1 September 2025 (9457105); the Council's statement of matters relied on, sent to the Court on 8 June 2026 (9540128), paragraphs 8 to 12; the Council's report of 31 August 2016; the officer's report of 28 September 2026, paragraphs 1.12, 1.15, 1.25, 6.9, 6.13, 6.14, 16.6, 16.35, 16.36, 16.38, 16.39, 16.40, 16.51, 16.52, 16.57, 16.60, 16.62, 16.63, 16.64, 16.65, 16.66, 26.23, 26.25, 26.26 and 26.33; the Amendment Sheet of 5 October 2026, agenda item 6, point 5; the Council's skeleton argument, paragraph 35; the Council's webcast of 7 October 2026 (05:48:36, 07:21:29, 07:24:23 and 07:28:28); the Planning Practice Guidance, Historic Environment, paragraph 015, as quoted in the claim; Alec Forshaw's comments of 5 October 2026 (9545338); the applicant's Planning Statement, paragraph 7.99; the Victorian Society's letter of 22 August 2025 (7355397); our alternatives, justification and public benefits paper of 25 September 2026, Exhibits D8.1 and D8.2.

Read the ten errors in full (13.11) Read the hearing page

The ten errors in the Council's report

Each error is stated in the words of the paper placed before every member on the morning of 7 October, then the report's own sentence, then the document that contradicts it, then what follows on each course: corrected, the report leads to refusal; left as it is, the decision is open to challenge on that ground. The Council's 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 Council's skeleton argument for the hearing, signed with a statement of truth by its 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" and that "The planning permission still stands until such time as the Court determines otherwise."

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 counts the continued use of the College's buildings among the social benefits at 26.25 and gives it "significant weight" at 26.26. The skeleton tells the Court at paragraph 36 that alternatives put forward by us are a material consideration; the report gives them no notable weight (26.33).

Members were told none of this. If the Court is told the truth, members were not; if members were, the Court was not.

2. "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."

The Framework's policy HE6(4) weighs harm against "any public benefits resulting from the proposal". The College's listed buildings have been in collegiate use for five centuries; the applicant's own Planning Statement says at 7.99 that "staff and student numbers will remain as per existing"; the report accepts at 1.12 that the proposal does not secure the long term reuse of a listed building.

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." The report then does it. At 26.25: "The provision of an updated library facility for students of the College would help to support and sustain the ongoing use of the Grade I listed College buildings by providing improved, accessible library facilities." At 26.26: "significant weight in the planning balance". At 16.39 as amended the same consideration sits inside the degree of harm. At 16.43 the library "would facilitate the continued use of the Bodley Library for its intended purpose". The sheet rewrote 16.39 and left 26.25 and 26.26 as they were. On 7 October the Delivery Manager told members it "is about accessibility"; accessibility is counted at 26.23.

Corrected, the continued use comes out of the degree of harm and out of the benefits, the design, the landscaping and the wider space are counted once instead of twice, and what is left is public access "at certain times of the year" that the Council may reduce in writing, and benefits a lower library also brings. That does not outweigh harm to Grade I listed buildings. Left as it is, the third ground of the judicial review recurs.

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. The stair tower: paragraph 26.7, rewritten on the Monday evening, tells members it "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". Paragraph 16.34 says: "The applicant, however, has chosen to retain the current height of the proposed staircase tower as an alternative means of escape forming part of the fire strategy." The register holds no fire strategy. The 2025 report said the applicant "has chosen to retain" the tower as drawn; the Council's own advice of 19 December 2024 recommended "repositioning the stairs back towards Bath Court so it is away from Bodley Library". Alec Forshaw: "No document on the register states a fire requirement for the height of the tower, and no regulation imposes one." A stair is as tall as the storeys it serves, and the storeys are the bulk.

The scale the report calls required, the Council’s own advice called higher and larger

The scale: paragraph 26.8 says "a building of this scale is required" and 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", the applicant's Heritage Statement at 6.9 "of a greater scale than the existing and previously approved scheme", and the Council's 2016 report found the consented design "would meet the needs of Christ's College". The College's reason for building nothing below ground is answered by its own documents: the Design and Access Statement says "The new library will be supported on a piled raft foundation", and the Master told the Forum on 29 July that the chimneys' "height can begin beneath the ground".

Corrected, the report finds no justification and the harm is unjustified. Left as it is, members were told a choice was a requirement.

4. "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 advice of 19 December 2024: "The proposal would appear too close in terms of its siting to the Bodley Library and too busy in terms of its design and detailing, detracting and competing with the listed building."; "The proposed building should be stepped away from the Bodley Library and inwards from Christ's Lane."; "Within the 2016/2011 approved schemes, there is a step back and larger gap between the Bodley Library and the proposed new library building which allows a better transition from the historic listed building to the new proposal."

The report never asks whether the harm could be avoided

The 2016 report found of the consented design: "the scale and massing is acceptable, it would not be harmful to the character or setting of the listing buildings", set back 6.4 metres from the Bodley Library where this building stands at "approximately 3.3 metres" (16.32). The report recites HE4(1)(b) at 16.6 and makes no finding under it. It tests the alternatives for "viability and prospect of implementation" (16.52), a test the policy does not contain; it 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 design no "meaningful planning weight" because "the CLAG design has never been fully considered by the College" (16.60), answers the College's own masterplan with a car park on Hobson Street that no objector proposed (16.65, 16.66), leaves the Victorian Society's modification out of its list of "Three main alternatives" (16.51), and concludes that none "carry any notable weight" (26.33).

The sheet tells members that "The Council must consider the application before it", the 2026 form of the answer on which the fourth ground of the judicial review stood in 2025, "the current proposal must be assessed on its own merits". Corrected, the harm is avoidable, and avoidable harm is refused. Left as it is, the fourth ground recurs.

5. "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's words: 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 feels too big, overdominant on this space, particularly in its relationship with the south range of first court and the Bodley Library"; "the building is too big for its location". No degree is given. Historic England wrote on 27 August 2026 that "We are comfortable that our existing advice remains relevant and appropriate".

The report confines the harm in cause, buildings and degree and gives no reason

The report confines the harm at 16.36 to "the setting of the Bodley Library", at 26.5 to the stair tower, and at 16.35 to "low", and as published told members at 1.25 and 16.38 that Historic England shared that figure, which the sheet withdrew. Three differences, cause, buildings and degree, and no paragraph gives a reason for any of them; 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". The Victorian Society, Cambridge Past, Present and Future and Alec Forshaw each find the harm wider or higher than the report.

The enhancement is assessed against the 1970s building the scheme demolishes

The harm to the conservation area: the Council's own appraisal marks the views along the lane as a "key positive view", the report finds harm in public views at 16.35 and enhancement "including within important public views" at 1.26, and credits the enhancement "when assessed against the existing library building" (26.19), the 1970s building the scheme demolishes. Corrected, the harm to be weighed is the harm Historic England found, to the surrounding buildings from the whole building, and no paragraph of the report finds that the benefits outweigh that harm. Left as it is, the statutory consultee has been departed from without reasons, and the first ground recurs.

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"; the applicant's own Heritage Statement says at 5.20 that the building "will extend the building upwards and reduce the visible skyline in the view from the southern side of St Andrew's Street"; the report's own 16.32 records the frontage rising "from approximately 5.7 metres currently to approximately 13 metres"; on drawing 004700 P03 the parapet at 22830 overtops the Bodley gable at 20840.

The report’s own figures answer its two reasons for setting the policy aside

The report declares the policy "not engaged" (13.20) for two reasons: the building is under 19 metres, a figure Appendix F of the Local Plan gives as the trigger for an automatic assessment while saying a building of four to six storeys beside heritage assets "may also need to be evaluated"; and the building opposite is "approximately 15.5 metres", where the same report's 14.5 puts that building at "approximately 10.3 metres" where it meets the lane. So none of the policy's tests is applied: criterion (c), to "clearly demonstrate that there is no adverse impact", which the report's own harm finding fails; criterion (d), "adequate sunlight and daylight within and around the proposals", which the applicant's own daylight report fails.

Corrected, the policy is applied and the proposal fails it. Left as it is, a policy of the development plan has not been 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) and with Policy 10(c) (13.4), and with Policy 31 on the roof (14.25).

The report nowhere decides whether the proposal accords with the development plan as a whole. Its finding of accordance is at 13.9, in the section on the principle of development, "in accordance with Policy 43 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and the overall objectives of the Development Plan", a policy for university faculty sites that supports development "when it meets the principles set out in this policy and other planning policies", words the report leaves out. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is applied inside the heritage balance in one sentence at 26.34. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 works the other way: the High Court in Forge Field held that harm to a listed building's setting "gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted".

Corrected, the proposal conflicts with the plan and the decision in accordance with the plan is refusal; the report names no material consideration that outweighs the plan, because it never finds that the plan is not met. Left as it is, the statutory test has not been applied.

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: "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." It then finds at 26.16 that "the harm to their occupants is limited", a finding made 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."; "Twenty-six windows experience reductions exceeding 50% against the 20% guideline, four of them exceeding 90%.". 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. 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. No shadow study of the lane has ever been submitted.

Corrected, the shops' daylight is assessed and fails, and Policy P3 directs that the harm be avoided or mitigated. Left as it is, a policy of the Framework has been left out.

9. "The temporary building in Second Court, among Grade I listed ranges, has been assessed by no officer and no consultee."

A two storey temporary kitchen and dining building is to stand in Second Court for the construction period. 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 on 7 October: "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, on the same building under the first permission, 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" and at 15.6 that the officer "raised concerns". The statutory biodiversity gain condition is set aside at 18.2 "Given their temporary nature", a reason the statute does not contain; the sheet says "Officers require additional time to investigate this matter", and condition 11 was amended orally on the day.

Corrected, the harm to the setting of Grade I buildings is assessed and weighed, as section 66(1) requires. Left as it is, a harm the applicant itself identifies has been approved unassessed.

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 documents "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."; and, of the letter to the conservation officer, "This report sets out in full the officer heritage assessment response to all of the points raised within this letter." A report finished before a letter arrived does not contain the answer to it. The sheet's response to each document ends "This letter does not change the officer recommendation."

Five errors show that neither the report nor the sheet was checked: the Act is named as the "Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990" (16.1, 26.35); policy HE6(1) is misquoted; the application is given as "26/02161/FUL" (6.71, 16.30); hgh's letter is dated "Sunday 4th September"; and condition 22 controls lighting within "the proposed covered Library Court" when the design has no covered court.

Corrected, the report deals with our papers of 25 September and the experts' reports and changes the findings they contradict. Left as it is, section 70(2) of the 1990 Act, which requires the authority to have regard to all material considerations, has not been met.

Read the ten errors (two pages, PDF) Read our response to the report and the sheet (44 pages, PDF)

The first permission is quashed. The second is frozen.

On Tuesday 20 October 2026 the High Court quashed the first approval, 25/02161/FUL, on all four grounds of our claim. The Secretary of State has frozen the permission. On 13 October she directed the Council not to grant it without her authorisation while she considers whether to call the application in, six days after the identical application 26/02109/FUL was controversially approved. If you would like to support a call in, write to us and we will tell you how.

Email residents@christs-lane.com.

Join the mailing list Where things stand