On Tuesday 20 October 2026 the High Court quashed the Council’s first permission for the Christ’s College library, of 7 November 2025, on all four grounds of our claim.

The Court’s decision

The campaign, date by date

The Secretary of State froze the Christ's College library permission on 13 October, six days after the identical application 26/02109/FUL was controversially approved on 7 October. On 20 October 2026 the High Court quashed the first approval, 25/02161/FUL, on all four grounds of our claim, in R (Christ's Lane Action Group) v Cambridge City Council, Christ's College Cambridge interested party, AC-2025-LON-004656. The hearing took place in Court 18 at the Royal Courts of Justice, before Mr Justice Kolinsky, in the Planning Court. Each entry links to the document or the report.

Read the latest newsletter Where things stand

October 2026

  1. Quashed · 20 October 2026The High Court quashes the first permission for the Christ's College library on all four grounds. Mr Justice Kolinsky set aside, on our application, the Court's order of 25 August 2026, which had approved a draft consent order we had not signed. The Court quashed the Council's permission of 7 November 2025 (25/02161/FUL) on each of the four grounds of our claim.
  2. Breaking · 13 October 2026Angela Rayner, Secretary of State, freezes the Christ's College library permission. Six days after councillors voted the identical scheme, 26/02109/FUL, through, the Secretary of State directed the Council not to grant permission without her specific authorisation, while she decides whether to call the application in. At 9.22 am we had asked her for a holding direction under article 31, and for the application to be called in. Daniel Zeichner, Member of Parliament for Cambridge, forwarded our submission the same day. At 8.37 pm her Planning Casework Unit replied that a direction had been issued that day which "prevents the Council from granting planning permission without special authorisation". The direction is on the Council's register as document 9554694: "the Secretary of State hereby directs your Council not to grant permission on this application without specific authorisation." The Unit has confirmed to us in writing that it "has no end date". Read the direction, the Council's acknowledgement and the Unit's letters.
  3. 15 October 2026Our emails to city councillors no longer pass through the Council's mailbox. The Council's Single Point of Contact wrote to us on Thursday 15 October that, with immediate effect, direct emails to City Councillors would no longer pass through the mailbox. Since August every email we sent to the Council had been blocked and went instead to that mailbox. Our letter of 30 September to the fourteen members of the Planning Committee never reached them from us. It reached them at 4.44 pm on Friday 2 October as a different email from the mailbox, under the mailbox's own subject line, with our text pasted below a note. The change came eight days after the vote.
  4. 14 October 2026The national press reports the freeze. The Architects' Journal: "Rayner intervenes to halt Grafton's controversial Cambridge library". Building Design: "Rayner freezes consent for Grafton's Cambridge library six days before scheme heads to High Court". The story led Building Design's daily news email of Wednesday 14 October 2026, first in the subject line and first under "Latest news".The Cambridge Independent: "Christ's College library plans halted while secretary of state considers call‑in". The Council told the press that this stage "is a procedural step to determine whether the application should be decided locally by the council or by the secretary of state".
  5. 14 October 2026Breaking: the Secretary of State freezes the permission. Our newsletter of 14 October. Sent to residents, supporters and the press at dawn: how 13 October went, hour by hour, and what the direction means. Read it (PDF).
  6. 12 October 2026Our statement to Planning magazine. The statement is on the Campaign Statements page.
  7. 8 October 2026Cambridge Independent: "Controversial Christ's College library plan approved by Cambridge City Council ahead of High Court hearing". Local Democracy Reporter Eoin McCaul reports the vote.
  8. 8 October 2026The College says the second application is identical to the first. The College's statement on the vote, on its website, says of application 26/02109/FUL that "The second planning application is identical to the first".
  9. 7 October 2026, afternoonThe identical application approved thirteen days before the High Court hearing, on a report the Council's own skeleton argument describes differently to the Court. The Council's skeleton argument for the hearing, signed with a statement of truth by its Senior Planning Lawyer on 6 October, tells the Court at paragraph 2(1): "There remains a valid Order, endorsed by the Court and dated 26 August 2026, which quashes the decision granting planning permission on all 4 grounds in the claim." The report before members says at paragraph 1.2 that "the Court has not done so" and that "The planning permission still stands until such time as the Court determines otherwise."Item 6 began at about 2.30 pm. The Vice Chair (webcast 05:39:32): "I personally don't feel I've had enough time really to really take in everything on the amendment sheet. This is a very complex application. ... I'm personally minded to defer this application." A motion to defer, proposed and seconded, was never put to the vote.What members were told, with the time on the Council's webcast and the record beside each statement.The Delivery Manager (05:48:36): "The current report does not rely upon the concept of optimum viable use in reaching its recommendation."; paragraph 26.25 of the report counts the continued use of the Grade I listed College buildings among the social benefits and 26.26 gives them "significant weight", the error the Council conceded in the High Court and the report repeats.The Delivery Manager (05:51:18): "All correspondence sent by CLAG and its associates to members up to the start of planning committee today, that's 10:00 AM, has been forwarded to members by the SPOC. Members have a complete record of those representations."; our letter to the fourteen members of the Committee, sent at 9.27 am on Wednesday 30 September, was forwarded to them by the Council's mailbox at 4.44 pm on Friday 2 October, fifty five hours later and sixteen minutes before the weekend, and our papers of 25 September had been answered in the Amendment Sheet, published on the Monday night, one by one: "This letter does not change the officer recommendation."The Chair (05:55:37): if the Committee deferred, "as of next Friday, they would have a right to submit an appeal ... and it basically means that we would lose the right to determine this application"; the Chair said it again at 06:16:08 and at 06:27:32. Six days later the Secretary of State directed the Council not to grant the permission without her authorisation.The Senior Planning Lawyer (05:59:30): "Members, I am going to advise deferring on grounds of I haven't had time to read the papers that are on the planning portal or you've had in your possession for a couple of days is not a substantive ground for deferral."; our forty four page response and the Council's later sheet had reached members that morning.The Chair (06:00:22), on the Amendment Sheet: "I think it's only about 10 pages, so it's not too long" and "I'm going to allow 10 minutes for people to read the amendment sheet"; the sheet runs to twenty pages, item 6 from page 6 to page 20.The Senior Planning Lawyer (06:26:33): the Council had agreed "a consent order that effectively quashed the planning permission, quashed the decision"; no order had quashed the permission at that date (the High Court quashed it on 20 October 2026), the Chair had told the same meeting (05:57:51) that the quashing "isn't a decision yet because it hasn't gone to the court", and the order of 29 September 2026 in the sheet's own Appendix 1 keeps the hearing of 20 October listed.The case officer (06:33:13), on our response of the morning: "Officers remain of the view that the officer report and all the information before members is sufficient and accurate to make a decision and it wouldn't alter the recommendation of officers."The case officer (06:56:00): "there are no objections received other than from the Victorian Society. Both Historic England and the council's conservation office have identified levels of harm to heritage assets, but do not raise any objection overall."; the report's own paragraph 7.1 records 57 representations in objection, and Cambridge Past, Present and Future's letter of 9 July 2026 finds "multi-layered harm".The ward councillor (07:12:14): the process "has not been transparent and democratic"; and (07:14:00): "It is inexcusable that members' emails should be interfered with".The Delivery Manager (07:21:29), asked about the continued use: "Chair, this is not an optimum viable use point. This is about accessibility. That's why it's a public benefit"; accessibility is counted separately at 26.23.The case officer (07:24:23): "I think it's clear in my report that I set out the level of harm prior to assessing heritage benefits and then conclude after assessing benefits that there's still a low level of harm overall set out in my report."The conservation officer (07:28:28): "So in terms of harm and positive effects, in a heritage sense, the balance of that from my point of view is a low level of harm." Two officers gave two accounts of one figure: the conservation officer's comments reach it "On balance", after four positive effects are set against the harm (6.14); the report states it before the benefits (16.35) and gives no reason of its own. No consultee put the harm at "low" before the benefits. The Framework's policy HE5(2)(c) says: "The degree of harm should be identified". The degree before any weighing is on no document; the Council, asked for it on 25 September, answered that updated comments from the conservation officer "are not required". The 2025 error is repeated.The vote to approve came after three hours. Read the record of the meeting · Watch the Council's webcast · Read our response and the ten errors.
  10. 7 October 2026, morningOur response to the report and the Amendment Sheet, with the ten errors, reaches every member before the meeting. Our forty four page response (register document 9547246) and the ten errors on two pages went to every member of the Committee that morning: the report described to the Court differently from the report before members; the continued use of the listed buildings weighed as a benefit again; the harm neither justified nor avoided on the report's own paragraphs; Historic England's finding of harm from the bulk of the whole building confined to a stair tower without reasons; the tall buildings policy declared not engaged on the report's own words; no finding whether the proposal accords with the development plan as a whole; the shops' daylight not assessed; the temporary building in Second Court assessed by no one; and a report written before our papers of 25 September reached the Council.The case officer told the Committee (webcast 06:33:13): "There was a 44 page letter objection received this morning from Christ Lane Action Group raising the 10 areas of objection to the officer report and the amendment sheet" and "Officers remain of the view that the officer report and all the information before members is sufficient and accurate to make a decision and it wouldn't alter the recommendation of officers."The Chair allowed ten minutes for members to read the Amendment Sheet and the papers of the morning. Read the ten errors · Read the response.
  11. 7 October 2026, morningCambridge Independent: Council accused of risking an "avoidable legal challenge". Gemma Gardner reports on the morning of the vote.
  12. 5 October 2026, eveningThe Council's Amendment Sheet rewrites the report two days before the vote. The sheet's file was generated at 6.49 pm on Monday 5 October 2026 (the file's own metadata) and was, in the Chair's words, "published on Monday night and sent to all members".It is where our papers of 25 September were answered, one by one, with "This letter does not change the officer recommendation.": "It has not therefore been possible to consider these representations in the report itself."After hgh Consulting's letter it amended paragraph 1.25 "to clarify that the level of harm is an assessment of the officer and not Historic England" and paragraph 16.38 "to remove reference to Historic England's agreement": the report as published had told members twice that Historic England shared the officer's figure for the harm.It rewrote paragraph 26.7 so that the stair tower "therefore has a minimum height requirement".It records that "The applicant was given advice to mitigate/ avoid harm to the Bodley Library during pre-application discussions. The applicants have chosen to proceed with the scheme in front of members."Read the Amendment Sheet.
  13. 5 October 2026Alec Forshaw: "No document on the register states a fire requirement for the height of the tower, and no regulation imposes one". Last year's report said the applicant had "chosen to retain" the stair tower as drawn. This year's says it "provides a form of fire escape" and "therefore has a minimum height requirement". Conservation architect Alec Forshaw: a requirement that no document states is not the "clear and convincing justification" the Framework demands. Read it (PDF).
  14. 5 October 2026eb7: Policy P3 of the new Framework gives the shops and cafés on Christ's Lane a right to "adequate access to light". The officer's report never mentions P3. The National Planning Policy Framework changed on 17 August 2026. Policy P3 protects "occupiers and users" of neighbouring premises, not just homes, so the retailers and coffee shops on the lane count. The applicant's daylight case rests on a passage that no longer exists and "can be given no weight". The officer's report does not refer to Policy P3. The shadow study of the lane has still not been produced. Read it (PDF).
  15. 5 October 2026We have asked for item 6 to be deferred. No reply. Our letter to Councillor Katie Porrer, Chair of the Planning Committee, and Stephen Kelly, Joint Director of Planning, asks for item 6 to be deferred until members have a corrected report and an accurate record. It sets out what has been kept from members: the Court record, our papers of 25 September, and the register's dates. Annexes: the Court correspondence, the order of Sir Peter Lane, our print of the register. The Amendment Sheet's answer: "The letter is noted and in the view of officers is not considered to require deferral. Chair could not unilaterally make this decision."
  16. 5 October 2026Backdated and blocked: our email to residents, friends and councillors. Sent today to residents, supporters, the press and every councillor in the county. The officers' report tells councillors the register's dates are right; they are not. Every email we send councillors is blocked. Read it (PDF). Backdated. Blocked. The CLAG fact sheet of 5 October 2026
  17. 4 October 2026Planning consultant Roger Hepher: the Council is "walking inevitably into another - and entirely foreseeable and avoidable – legal challenge". Roger Hepher, Executive Director of hgh Consulting, objects on CLAG's behalf and asks that his letter go before councillors on Wednesday. Granting permission, he writes, would be "walking inevitably into another - and entirely foreseeable and avoidable – legal challenge". He urges refusal or, at the very least, postponement until the High Court has ruled. His summary names eight criticisms of the report: the fire escape claim and the report's "minimum height requirement" for the stair tower, with no fire strategy on the file; the refusal to weigh the lower library consented in 2013 and 2016; the biodiversity law set aside for the temporary building; Policy 60 declared not engaged; Historic England's advice rewritten; a harm figure reduced by a benefit the Council had conceded in the High Court it was an error to count; the Local Plan's test never applied as a whole; and the continued use counted again under social benefits. Read his letter (PDF).
  18. 4 October 2026A former conservation officer of the Council on the flaws in the report. John Preston's note on the report's treatment of heritage harm and benefit goes to the Council for members. Read it (PDF).
  19. 2 October 2026Blocked: our letter to the committee never reached them. We wrote to all fourteen members and reserves of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 30 September at 9.27am. It did not arrive. At 4.44pm on Friday 2 October a Council mailbox sent it to them as a different email under its own subject line, with a note that our emails "are automatically diverted". Since 21 August every email we send the Council, whoever it is addressed to, has gone to the same anonymous mailbox: our court papers, our letters to officers, our objections. The Court correspondence, including the Council's 29 September email to the judge that we saw only after the judge had ruled, is in Annex 1.
  20. 1 October 2026Backdated: the papers we sent on 25 September appear on the register a week late, dated 25 September. We sent the Council a letter to the case officer and sixteen supporting papers, with twenty six exhibits, on Friday 25 September, before the officers' report was written: the letter to the case officer, seven findings and ten confirmations sought; the harm register; Historic England's own file on the scheme; the map record; the conditions paper; the letters to the conservation officer and the environmental health officer; the design and development plan paper; the alternatives paper; the sustainability evidence; the record of the Forum; and the letters on avoidance, document accuracy, determination timing, the register, the committee papers and the minutes. Each is described on the Documents page.None of the forty three items was on the public register at 11.20 am on Wednesday 30 September, the morning after the report was published. Ten were on it by 4.25 pm that day, fifteen more by 7.52 pm, and the rest on Thursday 1 October; every one is shown under the date 25 September, as if it had been there all along.The report tells councillors at page 88 that every document is dated to when it was uploaded. Our print of the register, with the Council's own document numbers in order, is Annex 3 to our letter of 5 October.

September 2026

  1. 30 September 2026The officers' report recommends approval of the identical building, and the agenda's link to it serves an empty file. The report of 28 September 2026, 115 pages, finds harm "at the lower end of the scale" to the setting of the Grade I listed Bodley Library and conflict with Policy 61 of the Local Plan, and recommends approval. It says of the first decision that the Council and the College "have conceded in writing to all four grounds of challenge" and that "All four grounds of judicial challenge have been directly addressed as part of this officer report". It says nothing of our papers of 25 September. The agenda was published on Tuesday 29 September, the last day for five clear working days; its link to the report served an empty file from that evening until the late morning of Wednesday 30 September, when the Council added a note: "The original webpage link to the officer report is not working, so is duplicated here." Our letters to Democratic Services and to the members of the Committee that morning were sent while the file was empty. Read the report.
  2. 25 September 2026Our case against the report, sent to the Council before the report is written. On Friday afternoon we sent the Council a letter to the case officer and sixteen supporting papers, with twenty six exhibits. They put to the Council the errors in the assessment of this scheme, each to be corrected before the assessment can be made accurately under the Framework of 17 August 2026.On the file the degree of harm is fixed after the benefits instead of identified first. Accordance with the development plan rests on "no overall harm", a finding the Council's own conservation officer no longer makes, and the plan has never been applied as a whole. The tall buildings policy has never been applied. No document finds whether a lower or distributed library would avoid the harm, or states what the building's volume, mass and bulk is needed for. Benefits are claimed that the proposal does not bring or that no document assesses for the design applied for. The requests members made at the Development Control Forum are unanswered. The applicant's statements assess a design with higher chimneys. Three specialist officers' advice is inaccurate on the Council's own file.The letter asked the case officer to confirm by Tuesday 29 September what the report would find. The report had gone to Democratic Services at midday. Read them on the Documents page.
  3. 3 September 2026The Council's consultation on the new Framework closes. The Framework of 17 August 2026 replaced the National Planning Policy Framework; the Council invited comments on its relevance to the application until 3 September. Historic England wrote on 27 August: "We are comfortable that our existing advice remains relevant and appropriate".

August 2026

  1. 1 August 2026The College answers the Forum in writing. The College's agent's letter answers the questions put at the Forum, including the masterplan: its architects "suggested two possible sites for the library: the existing site in Bath Court or on the Hobson Street carpark."

July 2026

  1. 29 July 2026The Architects' Journal takes the row national. "Planning row erupts over Grafton's Cambridge library job": The Architects' Journal reports the judicial review, the consent order agreeing the first permission should be quashed on all four grounds, and the court's refusal to let the College hurry it. The College's own planning agent concedes "the material submitted is almost entirely the same". The second application, 26/02109/FUL, "could go before the planning committee in September".
  2. 29 July 2026Two hours at the Guildhall: the Development Control Forum. The Forum secured by residents' petition meets at the Guildhall. CLAG puts the College's own masterplan on screen; the Master laughs, then gives notice that the College will reply in writing. On the chimneys the Master says: "That height can begin beneath the ground." Read some highlights from the Forum, then watch the Council's film of the whole meeting.
  3. 24 July 2026Fifteen days late: the Victorian Society's last word surfaces after the consultation closed. On 9 July the College's planning agent circulated a rebuttal of the Victorian Society's objection and asked the Council to upload it; the College's and its architects' responses appeared on the planning file the same day. The Society replied within the hour, standing by its objection: "Our principal point still stands. Harm is attributed to this scheme, and this has not been mitigated in the resubmitted design." That reply reached the public file on 24 July, fifteen days later and two days after the consultation had closed.
  4. 17 July 2026The College blocks residents' record of the College Open Meeting. The Council confirms it is uploading CLAG's missing documents to the planning portal, with one exception: CLAG's record of the College's own 6 July open meeting. The College's solicitors objected that "publication of the transcript on the planning register is inappropriate and procedurally unfair, particularly where it may be afforded evidential weight in the determination of the application." In plain English: keep it off the file, in case anyone deciding the application actually reads it and takes it seriously. The Council acquiesced. CLAG has replied that the College cannot rely on the open meeting as part of its consultation record while suppressing the residents' account of what was said, and that the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement requires representations to be published online.
  5. 16 July 2026CLAG puts the Council's own safeguards to the Council. At Full Council on 16 July, CLAG asked why residents, not the Council, keep finding the failures in officer advice, consultation and public participation. Every Council safeguard has failed on this application; the one safeguard that cannot fail is the High Court, which hears the case on 20 October. CLAG asked the Council to wait for it before determining the second application, 26/02109/FUL, in September.
  6. 14 July 2026The Public Forum, timed to make it pointless. The Council notifies CLAG that the Development Control Forum it had reinstated will be held on the morning of 29 July, the same day as the Planning Committee meeting that will consider the application, separated only by a "comfort break". CLAG has complained that stacking the Forum and the decision on a single day defeats the purpose of a Forum, which is to inform members ahead of their decision, not minutes before it.
  7. 12 July 2026The Observer publishes CLAG's letter. "Rowan Moore reviewed the architecture and buried the law." CLAG's letter, published in full, sets out what the column left out: the consent order agreeing the permission should be quashed on all four grounds, with residents' costs paid. The founders of Create Streets write alongside: Cambridge "deserves buildings that meet their brief and enrich the city… The present design has not achieved either."
  8. 10 July 2026The Observer corrects the record. After CLAG's fact check, The Observer rewrites its account of the legal position online. The article records the April consent order agreeing to quash the permission and pay CLAG's costs, and the live second application, 26/02109/FUL, with a note that it "has been changed since publication to clarify the current legal and planning situation".
  9. 10 July 2026Same scheme, same harm: the expert confirms. Alec Forshaw, a conservation specialist with over 50 years in the heritage sector, on the second application, 26/02109/FUL: "The scheme has not been altered physically in any way; the proposals are identical."
  10. 9 July 2026The Forum the College tried to cancel is back. A day after the Forum was cancelled, the Council's Senior Planning Lawyer reinstates it, citing the petition's strict compliance with the requirements.
  11. 9 July 2026Cambridge Past, Present & Future objects. The charity finds "multi-layered harm to highly sensitive designated heritage assets", urges the College to "negotiate a lower and less bulky design", and warns that the Council "cannot ignore the deep local opposition from residents, and everyday users of Christ's Lane".
  12. 8 July 2026College dodges the public Forum; Council cancels it. The College declines to attend the Development Control Forum requested by 75 petitioners, assuring the Council that a meeting "will not generate any new information". The Council cancels the Forum the same day.
  13. 8 July 2026Historic England: it's the same harmful scheme. Historic England confirms the second application, 26/02109/FUL, is effectively a resubmission of the scheme it found harmful in 2025, re-encloses its 2025 letters, and maintains its no-objection bottom line.
  14. 6 July 2026At the College open meeting: "I am now going to talk over you deliberately". CLAG's record of the meeting notes the abandoned Mather scheme, the College's claim of "heritage benefit" overruling five heritage experts, and "I am now going to talk over you deliberately."
  15. 6 July 2026Victorian Society: "the same scheme cannot improve its harm". "The same submitted scheme cannot improve its level of harm… Advice ignored."
  16. 5 July 2026The Observer covers the debate, leaves out the Council's concession. Rowan Moore's architecture column covers the dispute. CLAG publishes a fact check setting five of the article's factual statements beside the primary documents. The Observer later corrects the article online.
  17. 3 July 2026SAVE supports our campaign. SAVE Britain's Heritage tells its readers of strong local resistance that the plans would turn "one of the city's oldest pedestrian routes into an oppressive, 'daylight-starved' tunnel", and points them to CLAG's petition.
  18. 1 July 202675 residents petition for a public Forum. Residents petition the Council for the formal public meeting they are entitled to request, setting out six grounds of objection to the second application, 26/02109/FUL.

June 2026

  1. 11 June 2026The Bursar tells 42 councillors "The details of the project have not changed". The email assures councillors nothing has changed, describing the judicial review as a "pending challenge" and omitting the signed consent order. The College's "Dear Neighbour" letter goes out the same day.
  2. 10 June 2026The College resubmits the same building plans. Application 26/02109/FUL resubmits the same building. The College's own covering statement: "the material submitted is almost entirely the same."

May 2026

  1. 28 May 2026The judicial review is listed for 20 October. The Planning Court lists AC-2025-LON-004656 for a one-day substantive hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

April 2026

  1. 28 April 2026The College and the Council agree that the permission should be quashed on all four grounds. Christ's College and Cambridge City Council sign a draft consent order agreeing that the November 2025 permission should be quashed on all four grounds. CLAG does not sign it, so that the grounds are heard and receive a judgment in Court.

March 2026

  1. 6 March 2026Permission to proceed: Mr Justice Kimblin finds all four grounds "strongly arguable". Mr Justice Kimblin finds all four grounds "strongly arguable" and refuses the College's request to expedite: "The College has been educating students since 1505." The order is served on 9 March.

December 2025

  1. 18 December 2025Residents take the College to the High Court. The claim against Cambridge City Council's grant of permission is filed in the High Court on four grounds.

November 2025

  1. 7 November 2025Planning permission is issued. The decision notice for the first application, 25/02161/FUL, is issued: the permission the High Court quashed on 20 October 2026 on all four grounds of our claim.
  2. 4 November 2025Councillors approve the scheme. CLAG responds in Varsity: "This isn't the end… the planning process may be broken, but our resolve is not."

October 2025

  1. 31 October 2025BBC: college library "slowly falling down". Roger Hepher of CLAG calls the design "unnecessarily tall, bland and unwelcoming".
  2. 16 October 2025eb7: daylight losses along the whole lane. An independent review for CLAG. Using the applicant's own report, it sets out the daylight losses along Christ's Lane.
  3. October 2025Forshaw: harm to the Bodley "at the upper end of the scale". The conservation specialist finds harm "at the upper end" of less than substantial.
  4. October 2025Create Streets: a lower, viable alternative exists. An independent critical review and a viable, lower-bulk alternative proposal for the site (PDF).

September 2025

  1. 11 September 2025The first Development Control Forum is held. Residents put their objections to the College and the Council at the formal public forum on the first application.
  2. 1 September 2025Historic England looks again: the harm remains. After the College's modifications: "the overall massing of the building remains unchanged".

August 2025

  1. August 2025The Victorian Society: halve the height. The national amenity society's remedy is blunt: halve the height, align each floor with Bodley's oriel window, and drop the brutalist styling.
  2. 13 August 2025CLAG launches its objection. Varsity reports CLAG's objection, citing Historic England's finding of harm from the building's excessive bulk.

July 2025

  1. 29 July 2025Historic England's first advice: harm from excessive bulk. Historic England finds harm "primarily as a result of the excessive bulk" of the proposed building.

June 2025

  1. June 2025The first application is lodged. Christ's College applies to demolish and rebuild the library on Christ's Lane: applications 25/02161/FUL and 25/02162/LBC.

Upcoming

  1. No date yetThe Secretary of State's decision on call in. The direction of 13 October 2026 has no end date. It remains in effect until the Secretary of State decides whether to call application 26/02109/FUL in.

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.

Join the mailing list Where things stand