Our papers of 25 September 2026
Exhibit T1 to the determination timing letter: the Council’s response of 26 August 2026
PDF · 5 pages · Primary source · The text below is the PDF’s own text, page by page
Exhibit T1 to our determination timing letter of 25 September 2026 (register document 9540154): the Council’s response of 26 August 2026.
The document in full
Page 1
Exhibit T1 to CLAG’s determination timing letter (23 September 2026): CLAG’s copy of the Council’s response of 26 August 2026 Filed with CLAG’s determination timing letter (23 September 2026), for the public register of application 26/02109/FUL. The exhibit is CLAG’s copy of correspondence the Council sent to it. Every page carries its item number, its page within the item and its page in this exhibit; the document itself is reproduced below the stamp at a slightly reduced size. The header under which the email was passed on within CLAG, at the top of the first page, is masked, and the place is marked. The document is otherwise unchanged. The response is not on the register in its own right. 1.
Item T1.1 (exhibit pages 2 to 5): the Senior Planning Lawyer’s response of 26 August 2026 to CLAG’s email of 20 August 2026, as sent to CLAG. CLAG’s email of 20 August 2026 is on the register as document 9501516. The response sets the Council’s answers below each numbered item of that email, in red on the original. The time printed on CLAG’s copy is the receiving client’s, in a zone five and a half hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time. The letter quotes: (a) from the answer to item 2 (exhibit page 2): “The three submissions to which you refer will be addressed, as appropriate, in the Officer report.”; (b) from the answer to item 8 (exhibit page 3): “An EOT has not, as yet been agreed with the Applicant, beyond the current statutory period of 9 Sept, any agreed EOT with the Applicant is for the Council to manage.”; (c) from the answer to item 9 (exhibit page 4): “The planning application will be put before the planning committee when the Council considers it reasonable to do so in light of the current reconsultation, whether that falls before the 20 October or not. The Council does not consider that in putting the 2026 application before Planning Committee it would contravene any enactment or rule of law. Christ Lane Action Group is once again reminded that Application 26/02109/FUL is a fresh application and whilst it is substantially the same as the application subject to the Judicial Review, it is a new application and will be considered on its own merits.”
Page 2
Exhibit T1, item T1.1: the Senior Planning Lawyer's response of 26 August 2026 to CLAG's email of 20 August 2026. Page 1 of 4. Source: CLAG's copy, Fwd_ Christ College - 26_02109_FUL (2555204).pdf
Exhibit T1, page 2 of 5
Page 3
Exhibit T1, item T1.1: the Senior Planning Lawyer's response of 26 August 2026 to CLAG's email of 20 August 2026. Page 2 of 4. Source: CLAG's copy, Fwd_ Christ College - 26_02109_FUL (2555204).pdf
Exhibit T1, page 3 of 5
Page 4
Exhibit T1, item T1.1: the Senior Planning Lawyer's response of 26 August 2026 to CLAG's email of 20 August 2026. Page 3 of 4. Source: CLAG's copy, Fwd_ Christ College - 26_02109_FUL (2555204).pdf
Exhibit T1, page 4 of 5
Page 5
Exhibit T1, item T1.1: the Senior Planning Lawyer's response of 26 August 2026 to CLAG's email of 20 August 2026. Page 4 of 4. Source: CLAG's copy, Fwd_ Christ College - 26_02109_FUL (2555204).pdf
Exhibit T1, page 5 of 5
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.