The map record, Annex F, 25 September 2026

The document in full

Open the original PDF

Page 1

CLAG: the map record (25 September 2026) Annex F: The Council’s own designation maps mark 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. Christ’s College’s (“the applicant”) own townscape appraisal gives the view along the lane a “Low” value. The applicant’s own historic map record, in its Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, shows the application site as the College’s garden and kitchen side on each map from 1688 to 1888, and says it “remained a garden through most of the Post-Medieval period”. That is the history Historic England (“the statutory consultee”) relies on when it finds the building too big for “what historically was a domestic kitchen garden”. This annex sets the two records out, one entry for each map, from the Council’s and the applicant’s documents alone, with the two designation maps and the view of 1575 filed as exhibits. It is evidence for the design finding, that the design conflicts with the design policy of the National Planning Policy Framework of 17 August 2026 (“the NPPF”), DP3(1), and the policy of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 (“the Local Plan”) on responding to context, Policy 55, on the context the designation identifies, and for the premise of the statutory consultee’s finding of harm. It makes no finding of its own; the findings it serves are stated in CLAG’s design and development plan paper, conservation officer letter and case officer letter Submitted for the public register of application 26/02109/FUL, to be recorded under the heading above and displayed on the day it reaches the Council, Friday 25 September 2026: the Council’s notice of 19 August 2026 states that views are “published onto the website promptly” (document 9499001), and the applicant’s letters of 5 and 27 August 2026 were displayed within a day (documents 9486713 and 9506331). Application 26/02109/FUL: Christ’s College Library, St Andrew’s Street, Cambridge. Christ’s Lane Action Group (CLAG). It states every point it relies on, so that it stands on its own. Quotations are verbatim from the document cited, and documents are cited by their numbers on the register of this application unless another register is named. Filed Friday 25 September 2026.

Contents 1.

The Council’s designation maps mark key positive views in both directions along Christ’s Lane, which the applicant’s own appraisal values as “Low”, and the NPPF’s design policy DP3(1) and the Local Plan’s context policy, Policy 55, require the design to respond to that context

2.

The applicant’s own map record shows the site as the College’s garden and kitchen side on each map from 1688 to 1888, the history the statutory consultee relies on in finding the building too big for “what historically was a domestic kitchen garden”

3.

The maps supply two findings for the report, that the design does not respond to the context the designation identifies and that the site’s history is the kitchen garden the statutory consultee relies on, and the papers this annex names state the report’s step on each

Page 2

1. The Council’s designation maps mark key positive views in both directions along Christ’s Lane, which the applicant’s own appraisal values as “Low”, and the NPPF’s design policy DP3(1) and the Local Plan’s context policy, Policy 55, require the design to respond to that context DP3(1) of the NPPF, the first of its key principles for well designed places, requires that development proposals “respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings”. Policy 55 of the Local Plan (“Responding to context”) supports development “where it is demonstrated that it responds positively to its context”, and asks that development “identify and respond positively to existing features of natural, historic or local importance on and close to the proposed development site”. HE9(1)(b), in the NPPF’s policy on conservation areas, asks that proposals “Consider the area’s special architectural or historic interest (as identified as part of the designation of the conservation area) in the design of development”. The designation identifies that interest street by street in the Council’s Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal, published in 2016 and approved on 27 June 2017 (“the Conservation Area Appraisal”, cited by section and by the page numbers printed in each section), and its two maps of this place mark views along Christ’s Lane as key views. So the context the design has to respond to includes those views, as the designation identifies them. The entries below are the Council’s own maps and words. They are evidence for the design finding in CLAG’s design and development plan paper, filed with this annex, section 1, and for the conservation area measure in CLAG’s conservation officer letter, filed with this annex (“the conservation officer letter”), section 3. If the report assesses the effect on the views the designation marks, the conservation area is measured on the designation’s own terms, and the findings of harm on the register are answered on those terms. If the report repeats an enhancement found “in relation to the existing poorquality building”, it measures the area on something the designation does not contain (the conservation officer letter, section 3, items 1 and 3). 1.

The St Andrew’s Street map marks a key view from the street along the lane. The Conservation Area Appraisal rates St Andrew’s Street “SIGNIFICANCE - HIGH”. Its townscape map marks an arrow, keyed “Key View”, that starts on St Andrew’s Street at the mouth of Christ’s Lane and runs the length of the lane towards Christ’s Pieces. The same map colours the College’s range on St Andrew’s Street as a Grade I listed building and marks its gate tower with the star keyed “Focal feature”. (The Conservation Area Appraisal, St Andrew’s Street, pages 1 and 4 of 7; Exhibit F1, filed with this annex, is page 4.)

2.

The same section says what the lane is, and how scale is felt beside a pavement. “The redevelopment of Bradwell’s Court has reopened the historic Christ’s Lane to the public and has provided an enhanced pedestrian link between the Lion Yard / market area and the bus station and Christ’s Pieces beyond.” Of the street’s buildings it says: “The buildings are generally two to three storey scale, but feel taller where they are in close proximity to the pavement.” (St Andrew’s Street, page 5 of 7.)

3.

The Drummer Street and Christ’s Lane map marks key positive views in both directions along the lane. The Conservation Area Appraisal rates this area “SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANT”. Its townscape map marks arrows keyed “Key Positive view” along Christ’s Lane in both directions: a short one from the St Andrew’s Street end looking north east, and a long one from the Drummer Street end looking south west. Further arrows at the lane’s north east end point into the lane and out into Christ’s Pieces. It colours the College’s whole frontage to the lane, the application site included, as “Grade I

Page 3

Listed Building”, and the lane’s surface as “Area of Quality Paving”. (Drummer Street and Christ’s Lane, pages 1 and 3 of 5; Exhibit F2, filed with this annex, is page 3.) 4.

The same section records the lane’s history and the open setting at its end. “Historically, the west end of the street ran from the narrow route of Christ’s Lane along the backs of long tenement plots fronting St Andrew’s Street.” And: “The north side preserves the open setting of Christ’s Pieces, part of the medieval endowment of Christ’s College, which is now a municipal park with a strong Victorian character.” (Drummer Street and Christ’s Lane, page 1 of 5.)

5.

The Conservation Area Appraisal’s general chapter carries historic maps, and names Christ’s Pieces among the open spaces that define the core. Its figures reproduce maps it dates 1592, 1698, 1798 and 1886. Of the open spaces it says: “These spaces circle and penetrate the commercial area and are a vital component of the core’s character.” And: “To the east, Jesus Green, Christ’s Pieces and Parker’s Piece perform a similar function. This girdle of landscape is a reminder of the constrained medieval town.” (Chapter 2, paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, page 7; Figures 3 to 6, pages 11 to 15.)

6.

The expert heritage appraisal on the register, by Alec Forshaw, has put the second map to the Council. It says of the applicant’s Heritage Statement, which it calls the HS: “The HS references the Cambridge Historic Core Appraisal Street Analysis for St Andrew’s Street (noted as ‘High Significance’), but not that for Drummer Street and Christ’s Lane (noted as ‘Significant’). The latter notes the impending development of the Library, but also identifies ‘key positive views’ in both directions along Christ’s Lane. The significance of the approach from Drummer Street has not been adequately addressed by the applicant.” (The expert heritage appraisal by Alec Forshaw IHBC MRTPI filed with CLAG’s objection of 10 July 2026, document 9458570 (“the heritage appraisal”), paragraph 3, page 4; paragraph 9, page 6, says the same of the College’s frontage.)

7.

The applicant’s own Heritage Statement accepts that the designation marks the view, and confines it to one direction. “The reopening of this historic route along Christ’s Lane is highlighted within the St Andrew’s Street analysis of the Appraisal as comprising a ‘key positive view’.” The Heritage Statement then says that this is the view from St Andrew’s Street towards Christ’s Pieces, and that the College’s elevation “does not contribute” to it. The Council’s second map marks key positive views along the lane in both directions (entry 3), and the Heritage Statement does not mention that map (entry 6). (Document 9423964, paragraph 4.36, page 19.)

8.

The applicant’s own Townscape and Visual Appraisal gives the view along the lane a low value. Its View D looks south west along Christ’s Lane, which is the direction of the longest arrow on the Council’s map, and its entry for the view reads “Value: Low”. Its two views from St Andrew’s Street towards the lane read “Value: Moderate”. It says of the Conservation Area Appraisal’s street by street analysis that it is “not used as the basis for identifying townscape character areas within this report”, and that it “has directly informed an assessment of elements and areas of townscape value”. The words “key positive view” appear nowhere in it. (Document 9423730, pages 6, 15, 22, 24 and 26.)

On that record the designation marks key views along Christ’s Lane, from St Andrew’s Street and in both directions along the lane, and the applicant’s own appraisal values the view along the lane as “Low”. On the designation’s measure the expert appraisal on the register finds that views of the Bodley Library’s turreted stair tower from Christ’s Lane “will be either blocked or overwhelmed” (document 9458570, paragraph 24). The Victorian Society, Cambridge Past, Present & Future and the expert appraisal each find harm to the conservation area; only the applicant and the officer, on the applicant’s baseline, find enhancement (the conservation officer letter, section 3, item 8). The finding this evidence supplies is that the design does not respond to

Page 4

the context the designation identifies, in DP3(1)’s and Policy 55’s terms (CLAG’s design and development plan paper, filed with this annex (“the design and development plan paper”), section 1; CLAG’s letter to the case officer, filed with this annex (“the case officer letter”), section 4). A report that gives members the applicant’s “Low” value for a view the Council’s own designation marks as a key positive view, without saying what the designation marks, misleads them on a matter bearing on their decision. The authority is R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314, [2019] PTSR 1452 at [42].

2. The applicant’s own map record shows the site as the College’s garden and kitchen side on each map from 1688 to 1888, the history the statutory consultee relies on in finding the building too big for “what historically was a domestic kitchen garden” HE5(2)(c) of the NPPF, in its policy on assessing effects on heritage assets, requires an assessment to identify whether a proposal would “Result in harm to the significance of a heritage asset”, and HE5(4) requires the significance to be understood from the evidence. DP3(1), the NPPF’s design principle, asks that proposals “respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting)”. The statutory consultee’s finding of harm rests on the site’s history: a building of this massing “within what historically was a domestic kitchen garden”. The applicant’s own map record documents that history, map by map, in the applicant’s own words. The entries below are those words. They are the evidence for the statutory consultee’s premise, which CLAG’s harm register (Annex C), filed with this annex (“the harm register”), section 1, item 1, and the design and development plan paper, section 5, item 2, rely on. If the report states the site’s recorded history when it states the statutory consultee’s finding, the finding rests on a premise the applicant’s own record documents. If the report prefers the applicant’s assessment, which finds no harm from the building’s bulk, it prefers a finding made without that history; the step on the statutory consultee’s finding is the case officer letter’s (section 2 there). 1.

The applicant’s summary of the site’s history, in its Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (Cambridge Archaeological Unit, report 1607, July 2024; document 9423724; “the map record”, cited by paragraph, page and figure), whose term for the application site is “the PDA”: “The PDA remained a garden through most of the PostMedieval period, slowly encroached by buildings from the 19th century onwards.” (The map record, summary, page iv.)

2.

1574, Lyne’s map (Figure 11). “This map was not intended as an accurate representation of the town, but rather as a very generic guide.” Of the College: “Christ’s College was located just outside the Barnwell gate and was depicted as a quadrangle with a large gate and gardens at the rear. The PDA is not depicted, but would probably have lain within a courtyard or garden on the side of First Court.” (The map record, paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.1.5, page 9; Figure 11, page 64.)

3.

1575, the view of Cambridge by Braun and Hogenberg (Exhibit F3, filed with this annex, with CLAG’s labels). The base image is the Cambridge University Library’s copy, classmark Atlas.4.57.3, “Cantebrigia: opulentissimi Angliae Regni urbs celeberrimi nominis, ab Academiae conditore Cantabro, cognominata”, published at Cologne about 1575 in the Civitates Orbis Terrarum. The Library’s record says the view “depicts Cambridge from the west” and that “closer inspection reveals strong resemblances” to Lyne’s map of 1574. The labels on Exhibit F3 are CLAG’s, marking the College and the line of the lane; the view shows the College as Lyne’s map does, and the applicant’s

Page 5

reading of Lyne’s map at entry 2 applies to it. (Cambridge University Digital Library, Atlas.4.57.3; Exhibit F3.) 4.

1688, Loggan’s map (Figure 12). “The PDA, fronting present-day Christ’s lane, is occupied by gardens and encompasses the kitchens and part of an extension to the north.” And: “A large plot of land to the north-east of the PDA is labelled ‘Christ Coll. Piece’ and is bordered by small watercourses.” (The map record, paragraphs 5.1.12 and 5.1.13, page 10; Figure 12, page 65.)

5.

1798, Custance’s map (Figure 13). “The PDA still lies in formal gardens on the side of Christ’s College main quadrangle along what is now labelled ‘Christ’s Lane’.” (The map record, paragraph 5.1.15, page 10; Figure 13, page 66.)

6.

1830, Baker’s map (Figure 14). “Christ’s College extended its building along Christ’s Lane within the PDA, which mostly remained undeveloped.” (The map record, paragraph 5.1.18, page 10; Figure 14, page 67.)

7.

1888, Ordnance Survey (Figure 15). “The PDA is still only partially built and encompasses two lecture rooms, the larder, kitchen and buttery as well as college rooms to the north. The south-western part of the PDA still consists of a small garden.” (The map record, paragraph 5.1.22, page 11; Figure 15, page 68.)

8.

1903, Ordnance Survey (Figure 16). “an extension to the library has been built on the south-western edge of the PDA. It was completed in 1895-7 and reduced the size of the gardens.” (The map record, paragraph 5.1.25, page 11; Figure 16, page 69.)

9.

1927, Ordnance Survey (Figure 17). “New buildings have been added within the PDA and the frontage of Christ’s Lane is nearly fully built.” (The map record, paragraph 5.1.28, page 12; Figure 17, page 70.)

10. 1966, Ordnance Survey (Figure 18). “The buildings within the PDA appear to have been extended slightly and the courtyard reduced in size.” (The map record, paragraph 5.1.32, page 12; Figure 18, page 71.) 11. The lane is a recorded historic route. The map record names it “Hangman’s Lane (present day Christ’ Lane; CHER MCB23100)” (sic). The applicant’s Heritage Statement: “A tall boundary wall ran between the two buildings along the line of Christ’s Lane, originally called Hangman’s Lane or Rogues’ Lane. In between, Bath Court appears to have been filled with gardens, probably mostly related to the kitchen.” (The map record, paragraph 6.5.15, page 16; the Heritage Statement, document 9423964, paragraph 3.2, page 7.) 12. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement says the same of Bath Court. Its account of the materials opens with “Bath Court’s origins as a narrow walled garden laid out alongside Christ’s Lane”, and it says of Loggan’s engraving of 1688 and a painting of 1856 that they “allow us to imagine Bath Court as a garden”. (The Design and Access Statement, part 1, document 9423960, page 7.) 13. The statutory consultee’s finding rests on that history. Historic England’s letter of 29 July 2025: “The introduction of a new primary building of the massing proposed within what historically was a domestic kitchen garden is challenging. Whilst we acknowledge the proposals represent a more contextual approach and the architectural quality of the scheme, we are of the view that the building is too big for its location.” And: “the increased height towards Christ’s Lane feels quite large when seen alongside the relatively modest elevations of the college”. (Document 9457102, pages 2 and 3; the harm register, section 1, item 1.) 14. The applicant’s Heritage Statement took the same record as its baseline and found no harm from the bulk. Its baseline included “historical map regression and the study of

Page 6

aerial photography”. It calls Bath Court “historically an ancillary space within the College”. Its finding of harm attributes none to the volume, mass and bulk of the new building (the design and development plan paper, section 3, item 3). (Document 9423964, paragraphs 2.6, pages 4 and 5, and 4.37, page 19.) 15. The heritage appraisal on the register reads the same record the same way. It describes the lane’s existing range as “a varied but domestic scale of single, two and three storey buildings and boundary walls”, and says the consented design was modelled “to maintain and defer to the established grain and hierarchy of college buildings”. (Document 9458570, paragraphs 43 and 10.) On that record the site’s history is the one the statutory consultee relies on, documented in the applicant’s own words at entries 1 and 4 to 10. The finding this evidence supplies is the premise of the statutory consultee’s finding of harm from the building’s volume, mass and bulk, which the case officer letter, section 2, and the harm register, section 1, carry.

3. The maps supply two findings for the report, that the design does not respond to the context the designation identifies and that the site’s history is the kitchen garden the statutory consultee relies on, and the papers this annex names state the report’s step on each 3.1 This annex is evidence. It makes no finding of its own. It supplies the Council’s own designation maps and words (section 1) for the design finding. The design does not respond to the context the designation identifies, in the terms of the NPPF’s design policy DP3(1) and the Local Plan’s Policy 55, and the applicant’s own appraisal values the view the designation marks as a key positive view as “Low”. That finding is stated in the design and development plan paper, section 1, and the case officer letter, section 4; the conservation area measure the conservation officer’s enhancement finding leaves out is in the conservation officer letter, section 3. It supplies the applicant’s own map record (section 2) for the premise of the statutory consultee’s finding of harm, which the harm register, section 1, and the case officer letter, section 2, carry. 3.2 Carrying the maps and the record in the words set out in sections 1 and 2, and making the two findings on them, before the report is written, resolves the matters this annex evidences.

Christ’s Lane Action Group (residents@christs-lane.com)

Open the original PDF