Full text of this document
The text below was extracted from a scanned document using optical character recognition (OCR). Minor transcription errors are possible. The original PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. AC-2025-LON-004656
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
BETWEEN: - THE KING (on the application of CHRIST’S LANE ACTION GROUP)
Claimant
and
CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL
Defendant
and
CHRIST’S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE
Interested Party
CONSENT ORDER
UPON the Court granting permission for the above claim to proceed by Order of 9 March 2026
AND UPON the Court considering the enclosed statement of matters relied upon as justifying this Order
AND UPON the Court noting that the Claimant, the Defendant, and the Interested Party are agreed as to the terms of this Order and the statement of matters relied upon
AND UPON the Court being satisfied that the Order should be made as sought.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) | The Claim is allowed and the Decision Notice granting planning permission dated 7 November 2025 (25/02161/FUL) issued by the Defendant is quashed.
(2) The Defendant do pay the Claimant’s costs, agreed in the sum of [TBC] to include the Court fee.
SIGNED on behalf of the Claimant: DATED:
SIGNED on behalf of the Defendant: V Blane DATED: 2¢ Aer | 2ole
Vonesxsn~ Blas
SIGNED on behalf of the Interested Party: DATED: 2€ ec 2626
,,
Approved by the Court
* Shared wae >ervices
3C Shared Services - Legal Practice acting for Cambridge City Council
Please send all correspondence to: Planning Court South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne Business Park Administrative Court Cambourne, Cambridge, CB23 6EA
The Royal Courts of Justice DX 729500, Cambridge 15 Strand Main Switchboard: 01223 457000
London Head of Legal Practice: Tom Lewis WC2A 2LL
Practice Ref: 2555204 Claim No: AC-2025-LON-004656
Date: 28 April 2026 By way of email to administrativecourtoffice.caseprogression@justice.gov.uk
Dear Sirs
Ref: Claim - AC-2025-LON-004656 Application for Permission for Judicial Review by Christ Lane Action Group
1 By this letter, the Defendant, Cambridge City Council, seeks:
(1) To update the Court on the above judicial review claim; and
(2) To invite the Court to make a final order in the terms set out in the enclosed draft Consent Order which has been signed by the Defendant and Interested Party; or
(3) List the matter for a short hearing to consider the position.
Relevant Background
2 In a claim issued on 23 December 2025, the Claimant Action Group sought to challenge the Council’s decision as local planning authority to grant planning permission for the demolition of a 1970s library and replacement with a new library and social study spaces including reprovision of a bridge to the Bodley Library at Christ’s College, Cambridge. There were 4 grounds of challenge.
3 Both the Defendant and Interested Party lodged Summary Grounds for contesting the claim. Following consideration on the papers, permission was granted on all grounds by Kimblin J (Order dated 9 March 2026) with standard case management directions for a Planning Court matter.
mt ae www. acsharedservices.org
3C Shared Services is a strategic partnership between Cambridge City Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council
Fact of settlement discussions and position of parties
4
The grant of permission has caused the Defendant to review its position and engage in without prejudice discussions with the Claimant and Interested Party with a view to settlement.
This has resulted in the draft Consent Order attached and Statement of matters relied upon in support of a Final Order (drafted pursuant to para. 17.1 of Practice Direction 54A), which were drafted on 7 and 8 April 2026 and sent to the Claimant.
The Defendant and Interested Party have agreed to a Consent Order quashing the Council’s decision on all four grounds, with a supporting Statement. In the normal way, the Defendant has also agreed to pay the Claimant’s reasonable costs, to be assessed if they cannot be agreed.
Since then, despite being invited to agree the Consent Order and Statement of matters relied upon on more than one occasion, the Claimant has not provided any comments on the draft. Instead, it has raised matters which, in the Defendant’s view, are not relevant to the judicial review claim.
The substantive hearing of the claim is currently listed for a date in mid-October 2026 (1 day on 13", 14", or 15 October, as per email to the Court of 17 March 2026).
Defendant’s request
9
10
11
12
13
It is acknowledged that there is no agreed final order before the Court, since the Claimant has refused to sign the Consent Order attached.
In the unusual circumstances of this case, where both the Defendant and Interested Party agree that the grant of planning permission can be quashed on all grounds relied upon by the Claimant, we invite the Court of its own motion to make a final order in the same terms as the Consent Order, or else to list the matter to be considered at an early short hearing of no more than 1.5hrs.
Pursuant to the overriding objective under CPR 1.1(2), dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost, includes (inter alia) saving expense (b), ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly (d), and allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases (e).
None of the above would be achieved by this matter having to await a substantive hearing in October, when the Defendant and Interested Party agree that the Defendant’s decision can be quashed as set out above. The position is not materially different from if the Defendant and Interested Party had conceded the claim on all grounds in its Acknowledgement of Service. Quite apart from the further time and expense that will be incurred by the parties in preparing for and attending a substantive hearing, the court’s time and expense will be needlessly wasted in following the directions through to a substantive hearing in these circumstances.
We therefore request that this letter, enclosures, and the Court file are placed before a Planning Court Judge as soon as possible. We invite the Court, of its own motion, to make a final order as per the terms of the draft, or else to list the matter for a short hearing of 1.5hrs at the earliest date possible.
Page 2 of 3
14 We are aware that the Interested Party is in complete agreement with this approach. The Claimant and Interested Party are copied into this correspondence.
Yours faithfully,
Vanessa Blane Senior Planning Lawyer acting for Cambridge City Council
Tel: 07596 887392 Email: vanessa.blane@3csharedservices.org
CC: Claimant - Christ Lane Action Group Interested Party The Master, Fellows, And Scholars Of Christ’s College
Page 3 of 3