Our slides for the Development Control Forum, 29 July 2026

The document in full

Open the original PDF

Page 1

CHRIST’S LANE ACTION GROUP PETITIONERS FOR THE PUBLIC

·

We support 'libraries’ & opportunities & buildings the city can cherish Not this design, which harms the city and gives nothing back to the public realm.

Development Control Forum · 29 July 2026 Application 26/02109/FUL — Christ’s College library, Christ’s Lane

Page 2

WHY ARE WE HERE? ➢ A Judicial Review brought to the High Court ➢ The College and Council Concede to Quashing on All Four Grounds ➢ Reasoned Judgment By The High Court on 20 October 2026 ➢ Rather than wait, the College re-submits the same application 7 Nov 2025 Dec 2025 9 Mar 2026 28 Apr 2026 10 Jun 2026 20 Oct 2026 29 Jul 2026 First permission CLAG: judicial Permission to College & Council The same High Court Development granted review, proceed consent scheme hearing, Control four grounds on ALL four to quash: ALL four resubmitted Royal Courts of Forum · TODAY grounds Justice

The High Court gives judgment on 20 October 2026, twelve weeks from today’s Forum.

Page 3

W H AT T H E J U D G E S A I D “[The claim] raises important issues about the decision making in this case which had a bearing on key planning considerations which informed the grant of consent. I consider that they are strongly arguable and merit consideration at a full hearing.” The Honourable Mr Justice Kimblin, Judge of the High Court, granting permission on all four grounds, March 2026

Page 4

THE COLLEGE AND THE COUNCIL CONSENTED TO QUASH “The Defendant and Interested Party have agreed to a Consent Order quashing the Council’s decision on all four grounds relied upon by the Claimant.”

Cambridge City Council to the Administrative Court, 28 April 2026

The Permission No-one Defended CLAG asked the High Court to retain the hearing, so the errors are ruled on and do not recur. Listed for 20 October 2026, Royal Courts of Justice.

Page 5

THE COLLEGE’S CLAIM:“PROCESS, NOT THE DESIGN”

“ T H E C O L L E G E ' S A P P L I C AT I O N I S PA R T O F T H E P R O B L E M ”

Page 6

THE FOUR CONCEDED GROUNDS FIRST APPLICATION: How the Planning Committee was misled 1 Historic England found harm: "excessive bulk", "too big for its location". Members were told the opposite. 2 The report found harm, then called it "neutral". Both cannot be true. The balancing never happened. 3 The library was counted as its own benefit, securing "optimum viable use" erroneously. A phantom public benefit. It is already a library. 4 When heritage harm is found, less harmful alternatives must be considered. Members were actively dissuaded from considering alternatives on the table.

Four Heritage Grounds. All conceded by the College and the Council. None defended.

Page 7

Every Heritage Expert finds Harm The College calls it "a Benefit"

Page 8

THE VERDICT OF EVERY EXPERT Every heritage expert that assessed this scheme finds HARM CAMBRIDGE PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE

HISTORIC ENGLAND

V IC TO R IA N SO C IET Y

“…certain levels of harm to the significance of the listed building, primarily as a result of the excessive bulk of the new building.”

“Our principal point still stands. Harm is attributed to this scheme, and this has not been mitigated in the resubmitted design.”

“…multi-layered harm to highly sensitive designated heritage assets.”

Advice letter, 29 Jul 2025 — position unchanged 8 Jul 2026

Reply to the applicant’s agent, 24 Jul 2026

New Objection, 9 Jul 2026

COU NCIL’S CO NSERVATION OFFICE R

AL EC FORS HAW IH BC M RT PI

“…the heritage benefits are not considered to fully outweigh the heritage harm.”

“The proposals unquestionably cause

harm to designated heritage assets of very high significance.”

New Harm Finding, 13 Jul 2026

Heritage appraisal & 2026 addendum

Five independent assessments. One conclusion.

Page 9

J U LY 2 0 2 6 C A M B R I D G E PA S T, P R E S E N T & F U T U R E ‘OBJECTS' “…we cannot ignore the deep local opposition from residents, and everyday users of Christ’s Lane.” Cambridge Past, Present & Future, objection to 26/02109/FUL, 9 July 2026 Cambridge’s largest civic society.

“The design results in certain levels of harm across multiple assets, including the setting of the Grade I listed Bodley Library, Bath Court, and the Central Conservation Area.”

“…the minimal public benefits identified here fail to outweigh these costs.”

Page 10

THE COLLEGE SUBMITS THE SAME SCHEME; E R R O R S I N TA C T The College: Heritage Harm (re)framed as 'Benefit’: “The need to apply public benefits to outweigh heritage harms does not therefore, in our view, apply here.” Christ’s College Covering Statement, June 2026 — claiming a “minor beneficial impact” on the Grade I listed buildings

The Experts: Disagree “It goes without saying that the same submitted scheme cannot improve its level of harm.” The Victorian Society, 10 July 2026

Page 11

THE COLLEGE SIGNED CONCEDING THE ERRORS Y E T, T H E Y R E T U R N E D A N U N C H A N G E D S C H E M E W H E R E T H E F O U R G R O U N D S S TA N D

Grounds 1 & 2 — repeated Heritage harm denied outright: no harm, so, College Claims that no balance is needed. Ground 3 — repeated The “optimum viable use” benefit reappears, but the library already in use, so should not be applied. Ground 4 — repeated Still, no assessment of any less harmful alternative. The College could have adjusted the scheme, taken expert advice, waited for the High Court's Reasoned Judgment. Yet it rushed to resubmit the scheme unchanged.

Page 12

W H AT I S T H E R U S H ? “…so that the Council can re-consider the application more quickly.” Christ’s College Covering Statement, para 2.2, June 2026

“…the College chose to enter contracts before the permission was legally secure. That was a risk which it chose to take. The College has been educating students since 1505. If it takes some additional time to review the legality of the consent, that is something which the College will manage.” Mr Justice Kimblin, March 2026, refusing the College’s request for special expedition

The Court refused expedition. Why is Cambridge Council being rushed?

Page 13

V E R D I C T O F H E R I TA G E H A R M A 4-storey+ building over a 2-storey Grade I Masterpiece “The building feels too big, over-dominant on this space, particularly in its relationship with the south range of First Court and the Bodley Library.” Historic England, 29 July 2025

“…we are of the view that the building is too big for its location.” Historic England, 29 July 2025

below-ground

1,050 m² replacing 680 m² 4+ storeys beside the 2 storey Grade I listed building

Grafton section: the proposed wall over Christ’s Lane

Every building here has deferred to the Bodley. This one would not.

Page 14

Why a taller building was REJECTED in the Rick Mather Feasibility Study

Consented building causing no heritage harm

Christ's College New Library Feasibility Study by Rick Mather Architects 02.03.2010

Page 15

F I R S T A P P L I C AT I O N E R R O R : N O P L A N N I N G B A L A N C E Members were mislead that the harm was Neutral, NO PUBLIC BENEFIT BALANCING “…there is harm identified to an aspect of the overall Grade I site, that being said the overall harm is considered to be neutral" - Case Officer Presentation 2025 APPROVAL (First APPLICATION) Key material considerations • Provision of library facilities to meet the needs of the current student body. • Significantly improved accessibility of the library and wider College • Improved sustainability performance of the site. • Works help to secure the optimum viable use of the site and its listed buildings • Public benefits through the enhancement of the public realm along Christ's Lane. Officer Recommendation: Approve

Page 16

2 0 2 6 : A F U N D A M E N TA L LY D I F F E R E N T Q U E S T I O N F O R MEMBERS: THE PLANNING BALANCE “…the heritage benefits are not considered to fully outweigh the heritage harm.” Conservation Officer, 2026 EVERY heritage expert finds heritage harm to Grade I listed setting: HARM GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT

THE QUESTION MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE FACED THE FIRST TIME: DO PUBLIC BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE HARM? • Provision of library facilities to meet the needs of the current student body. • Significantly improved accessibility of the library and wider College • Improved sustainability performance of the site. • Works help to secure the optimum viable use of the site and its listed buildings • Public benefits through the enhancement of the public realm along Christ's Lane. [ACCORDING TO WHOM?]

Page 17

OPTIONS and CHOICES

College’s own Alternatives: Disregarded The College changed its mind. The City should not pay.

Page 18

A LT E R N AT I V E S — 1 : A L R E A D Y C O N S E N T E D

“We considered dusting off the initial design by Rick Mather… but rejected it.” The Master of Christ’s College, Planning Committee, 29 October 2025

Rejecting its own consented design is the College’s prerogative. Paying for that in Heritage Harm is not the City’s role.

Page 19

A LT E R N AT I V E S — 2 : E N G A G E D F A C A D E S When Cambridge was shown two alternatives, it chose

71%

21%

public support — Create Streets’ contextual alternative

public support — the College scheme

Page 20

A LT E R N AT I V E S — 3 : N o t j u s t a ‘ L I B R A R Y '

A ‘ S T U D Y C O N S T E L L AT I O N ' The College’s Masterplan to achieve its objectives

Fell o Gar ws den

“Until the new library is built, temporary study space is available in the Y Building, Lloyd Room and Plumb Auditorium; to that we now add… the existing library… The structure is safe, clean, and vacant; we might as well use it.” The Master of Christ’s College, Pieces issue 49, Spring 2026 — distributed study space, in the College’s own words

Better for Student Welfare A diversity of study settings is the College’s own case for neurodivergent students A constellation delivers more of it than one big room. Better for Carbon, Sustainability & the Environment Repurposing existing rooms beats any new-build

Mica Architects

Better for Accessibility (New) Hamied Court has added ground-floor seminar rooms — and a lift now makes the Plumb Auditorium and Sosnow Room step-free.

Page 21

A LT E R N AT I V E S — 3 : N o t j u s t a ‘ L I B R A R Y '

A ‘ S T U D Y C O N S T E L L AT I O N ' The College’s Masterplan to achieve its objectives

Fell o Gar ws den

“Until the new library is built, temporary study space is available in the Y Building, Lloyd Room and Plumb Auditorium; to that we now add… the existing library… The structure is safe, clean, and vacant; we might as well use it.” The Master of Christ’s College, Pieces issue 49, Spring 2026 — distributed study space, in the College’s own words

Better for Student Welfare A diversity of study settings is the College’s own case for neurodivergent students A constellation delivers more of it than one big room. Better for Carbon, Sustainability & the Environment Repurposing existing rooms beats any new-build Better for Accessibility (New) Hamied Court has added ground-floor seminar rooms — and a lift now makes the Plumb Auditorium and Sosnow Room step-free.

Page 22

P H A N TO M B E N E F I T S . R E A L LO S S E S .

“The public pays the price.” “canyon-like and oppressive.” What building heights on Christ’s Lane must never make it — the City’s own brief, 2002.

Page 23

“A B E A U T I F U L WA L L” “…it’s very important to make a beautiful wall which will be enjoyed by passers-by.” The applicant’s architect, Grafton Architects · Development Control Forum, 11 September 2025

A 14-metre wall beside a 6-metre lane: enclosure 2.3 : 1. The Lane today 1.3 : 1 · Silver Street 1.6 : 1 · Trinity Street 1.6 : 1 Rose Crescent 1.5 : 1 · Pembroke Street 1 : 1 to 1.3 : 1 Over 40 per cent more enclosed than the tightest of central Cambridge streets. THE CANYON EFFECT.

Page 24

A FRAGILE ECO-SYSTEM

Ten years to become a successful civic space. Why destroy it?

Page 25

THE CITY DESIGNED A C I V I C S PA C E H E R E Redevelopment of Bradwells court (2007) “a distinctive mixed-use development” “active frontages… vitality.” “a new public square… a first point of arrival.” A Historic England national exemplar.

A street you go to, not just go through Historic England, Valuing Places — one of 18 National Case Studies

Bradwell’s Court Planning and Design Brief, Cambridge City Council, 2002

Page 26

The LANE OLDER THAN THE COLLEGE

‘The lane predates the College. It is the town’s door into academic Cambridge — from the bus station into the historic core.' Cambridge, 1574 — Museum of Cambridge

Christ's Lane: a central pedestrian route • linking the East and West of the city. • connecting the main Bus Station, the Commercial centre, and Academic core. • 10,000 people a day Museum of Cambridge, “Revisiting the Story of Cambridge” (2026) · Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal: Drummer St & Christ’s Lane

Page 27

TOWN & GOWN

A C I V I C S PA C E FOR THE CITY

Page 28

T H E Q U E S T I O N F O R T O D AY

Why outrun the Court? “…the College chose to enter contracts before the permission was legally secure. That was a risk which it chose to take. The College has been educating students since 1505. If it takes some additional time to review the legality of the consent, that is something which the College will manage.” Hon. Mr Justice Kimblin — refusing the College’s request for special expedition, March 2026

The judgment lands on 20 October - Only 12 WEEKS AWAY

A decision for generations, for tens of thousands of people. Isn’t it worth getting right? The first unlawful decision ended with the Council agreeing to pay the Claimant’s costs. We do not wish a repeat.

Page 29

WHY ARE WE HERE? THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY for the Council, the College and the Public 1

Defer — No determination until the High Court has ruled on 20 October. A lawful decision needs the judgment.

Use the twelve weeks — A genuine look at the consented design, the constellation, a appropriate-sized scheme. Consideration of alternatives.

Bring us together — College, Council and Community at one table, in an engaged, respectful, transparent, collaborative process. "... resilience, flexibility, and imagination. In the library saga, we are drawing on all our virtues!" - Christ's College Master, Lent 2026

Open the original PDF