Exhibit M1 to the minutes letter: the case officer’s email of 31 July 2026

The document in full

Open the original PDF

Page 1

Exhibit M1 to CLAG’s minutes letter (24 September 2026): CLAG’s copy of the case officer’s email of 31 July 2026 on the figures stated at the Development Control Forum and the record of it Filed with CLAG’s minutes letter, for the public register of application 26/02109/FUL.

The pages below are CLAG’s print of the case officer’s email of 31 July 2026 at 21:19 to CLAG, as CLAG holds it, with CLAG’s own email of 31 July 2026 at 15:51, to which it replies, quoted below it as the case officer’s email carried it. CLAG’s email of 15:51 is on the register as document 9482121, forwarded by the case officer for upload; the reply is not on the register in its own right. The print is made from CLAG’s stored copy of the message; the header under which the message was passed on within CLAG is not printed. The case officer’s telephone number is masked with a black box; every name and office address in the message is shown. Nothing else is changed. Each page carries its item number, its page within the item and its page in this exhibit; the page itself is reproduced below the stamp at a slightly reduced size. The letter quotes these sentences of the case officer’s: 1. 2.

“I can confirm that the figures I stated within my presentation to the Development Control Forum on the 29th July were written on the basis that the 47 representations in objection were in addition to the submissions from Christ’s Lane Action Group.” “I can confirm that any committee report will accurately and unambiguously state the number of representations received. A record of the DCF has not yet been provided but when it has I will also ensure that this accurately reflects my comments.”

Item M1.1: the case officer’s email of 31 July 2026 to CLAG, with CLAG’s email of the same day below it.

Page 2

Exhibit M1, item M1.1: the case officer's email of 31 July 2026 to CLAG, with CLAG's email of the same day below it. Page 1 of 2. Source: CLAG's stored copy (.eml), printed 24 September 2026

Exhibit M1, page 2 of 3

Printed by CLAG on 24 September 2026 from its stored copy of the message (.eml); the message's own header and body as received at residents@christs-lane.com. The case officer's telephone number is masked by CLAG; the signature images are not printed.

From: Dominic Bush <Dominic.Bush@greatercambridgeplanning.org> Date: 31 July 2026 at 21:19:15 GMT+5:30 To: Christ's Lane Action Group <residents@christs-lane.com> Cc: Toby Williams <Toby.Williams@greatercambridgeplanning.org>, Vanessa Blane <Vanessa.Blane@3csharedservices.org>, "Democratic Services (CCITY)" <Democratic.Services@cambridge.gov.uk>, Matthew Hussey <Matthew.Hussey@cambridge.gov.uk>, James Goddard <JamesH.Goddard@cambridge.gov.uk> Subject: RE: 26/02109/FUL: case officer misquoted in press on DCF figures

Dear CLAG, Thank you for your email. With regards to the four points within your request:

1. I can confirm that the figures I stated within my presentation to the Development Control Forum on the 29th July were written on the basis that the 47 representations in objection were in addition to the submissions from Christ’s Lane Action Group. Whilst the figures may have changed since, at the time of creating the presentation this is how I calculated the submissions. 2. In request to any request to contact Building Design, I am taking advice on how the Council’s response to the article. 3. I can confirm that any committee report will accurately and unambiguously state the number of representations received. A record of the DCF has not yet been provided but when it has I will also ensure that this accurately reflects my comments. 4. I can confirm that your email will be uploaded to the file. Kind regards, Dominic

Dominic Bush | Senior Planning Officer Pronouns (He/Him)

Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service South Cambridgeshire Hall | Cambourne Business Park | Cambourne | Cambridge | CB23 6EA The Guildhall | Market Square | Cambridge | CB2 3QJ e: Dominic.Bush@greatercambridgeplanning.org | t: ████████████ www.greatercambridgeplanning.org | www.cambridge.gov.uk | www.scambs.gov.uk | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | X The Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service is a strategic partnership between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. When you contact us, we will do our very best to help you. Please note our colleagues have the right to be treated with respect while they try to help you, threatening behaviour or verbal abuse will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to terminate contact if these guidelines are not followed. My working days are: Tuesday - Friday

From: Christ's Lane Action Group <residents@christs-lane.com> Sent: 31 July 2026 15:51 To: Dominic Bush <Dominic.Bush@greatercambridgeplanning.org>

Page 3

Exhibit M1, item M1.1: the case officer's email of 31 July 2026 to CLAG, with CLAG's email of the same day below it. Page 2 of 2. Source: CLAG's stored copy (.eml), printed 24 September 2026

Exhibit M1, page 3 of 3

Cc: Toby Williams <Toby.Williams@greatercambridgeplanning.org>; Vanessa Blane <Vanessa.Blane@3csharedservices.org>; Democratic Services (CCITY) <Democratic.Services@cambridge.gov.uk>; Matthew Hussey <Matthew.Hussey@cambridge.gov.uk>; James Goddard <JamesH.Goddard@cambridge.gov.uk> Subject: 26/02109/FUL: case officer misquoted in press on DCF figures

Dear Dominic Bush, Application 26/02109/FUL, Christ's College library. Representation figures stated at the Development Control Forum, 29 July 2026, and their misreporting. At the Forum you gave three figures: 61 comments in support, 47 in objection, and 19 submissions from Christ's Lane Action Group. You may not yet have seen that Building Design published an article yesterday (attached as a PDF, since it sits behind a registration wall; the link is https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/forum-to-discuss-grafton-architects-controversialcambridge-library-plans-ends-in-recrimination/5143459.article) which reports: "According to a council officer who spoke at the forum, the proposals have received 61 comments in support and 47 in objection, of which 19 are from Christ's Lane Action Group." That sentence is attributed to you, and it is not what you said. The "of which" construction is the reporter's, and it is wrong: the 19 CLAG submissions are additional to the 47 objections, not among them. You are being misrepresented, and the misstatement is circulating under your authority as case officer. As published it reverses the apparent balance of representations and diminishes the group's submissions, which include commissioned expert evidence. This application is shortly to be determined by committee, following a permission quashed by consent on all four grounds on 28 April 2026, in proceedings that turned on the accuracy of what decision makers were told. A misstatement of the balance of representations, in the trade press and attributed to the case officer, will be read by members. The record created in your name needs correcting, and the correction is yours to make. We accordingly ask, today: first, your written confirmation that the 19 CLAG submissions are additional to the 47 objections; second, that you ask Building Design to correct the sentence attributed to you, or confirm the position in terms we can transmit to them; third, that the Forum record and any report to committee state the figures unambiguously; and fourth, that this letter is placed on the application file. We will write separately, with exhibits, on the documentary record of what CLAG presented at the Forum concerning the College's own masterplan, which the Master publicly characterised as "a total misrepresentation". That letter should also sit on the file, alongside any letter the College sends. Yours sincerely, Christ's Lane Action Group

Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived

Open the original PDF