Agenda item

Application No:    26/02109/FUL

Site Address:       Christs College Library Christs College St

Andrews Street Cambridge

Description:          Demolition of 1970s library and replacement with new library, social and study spaces including re-provision of bridge to the Bodley Library. Alterations to kitchen, Upper Hall and adjacent areas including new plant, access improvements and alterations to wc, provision in the south east range of Second Court. Re-landscaping of Bath Court and ancillary works, installation of temporary kitchen and dining facility in Second Court for the duration of the works.

Applicant:             Lord Simon McDonald

Agent:                   Ms Ellie Drozdowska

Address:               Turley, 8 Quy Court Colliers Lane Cambridge CB23 9DH

Case Officer:       Dominic Bush

Lead Petitioner:   Christ's Lane Action Group

The grounds for asking for a Forum on this application are as follows:

The Christ’s Lane Action Group supports the provision of a new library for Christ’s College. We do not object in principle to a new library. We object to this particular scheme. Application 26/02109/FUL is the same physical building as the previous application (25/02161/FUL). Rather than defend the judicial review of that permission, the Council and the College signed a Consent Order on 28 April 2026 agreeing that it should be quashed on all four grounds and that the Action Group’s costs should be paid; the Court has not yet made a final quashing order, and the substantive hearing remains listed for 20 October 2026. The resubmission reproduces the same reasoning, and now goes further, recharacterising as a “minor beneficial impact” the very bulk and massing that the heritage consultees had identified as harmful. A Development Control Forum is needed so that residents, retailers, the College and the Council can discuss how a new library can be delivered without that harm.

1)       Historic England, the Victorian Society and the independent heritage consultant Alec Forshaw each assessed this scheme and found harm, and none of them has withdrawn that advice. Historic England (29 July 2025) found the building “too big, overdominant” and confirmed on 1 September 2025 that “the overall massing of the building remains unchanged”; the Victorian Society (August 2025) suggested reducing the height by approximately half at each floor to improve the overall scale of the current proposals; and Alec Forshaw (October 2025) found less-than-substantial harm “at the upper end of the scale” to the setting of the Grade I listed Bodley Library. These and other heritage consultees, including the stautory consultee, the Gardens Trust, have not had the opportunity to respond to the resubmission’s new claim of a “minor beneficial impact”.

2)       The scheme creates a canyon effect on Christ’s Lane. It places a sheer wall of approximately 14 metres on the north side of a lane only approximately 6 metres wide, an enclosure ratio of roughly 2.3:1, far exceeding historic streets such as Trinity Street and Rose Crescent (approximately 1.5:1). The height further exceeds the 11.4-metre height limit set for this lane in the 2002 Joint Planning Brief by around 3 metres. Christ’s Lane is a designated principal pedestrian route (Local Plan Policy 10) carrying over 10,000 people a day, and the scheme would turn it into a dark, oppressive corridor.

3)       The loss of daylight is severe and has not been properly assessed. The applicant’s own evidence shows Vertical Sky Component losses exceeding 50% at 25 windows along Christ’s Lane and over 90% at four, with the café windows directly opposite reduced by between 55% and 96%. No BRE 209 (2022)-compliant daylight, sunlight and shadow-plotting assessment has been provided for the lane as a public space, and no Construction Management Plan has been submitted for a route with this footfall.

4)       The scheme offers minimal genuine public benefit or active frontage. Against the harm identified by the heritage consultees, it offers only a single bench and a “book-stop”. Benefits offered by previous Christ’s College library schemes never materialised, including the previously promised green wall. The building presents a blank, inactive wall to Christ’s Lane where the lane requires active frontage.

5)       The building qualifies as a Tall Building: it breaks the existing skyline and is significantly taller than the Bodley Library and First Court, yet no Townscape and Visual Impact Appraisal has been provided against the specific criteria of Policy 60 of the Cambridge Local Plan. The scheme also conflicts with Local Plan Policies 10, 56, 58 and 61 and with NPPF paragraphs 212–215, none of which can be satisfied while the harm found by the heritage consultees is simply denied.

6)       Credible less harmful alternatives were before the Council and remain unaddressed. The 2016 basemented Rick Mather scheme was not found harmful by Historic England, and the Victorian Society expressly contrasted it with the current scheme; the 2016 design would not be harmful, whereas the current one has the potential to be. The Victorian Society also recommended aligning floor heights with the Bodley Library’s oriel window, roughly halving each floor height. Create Streets further illustrated a basemented lower-impact route (October 2025). The failure to engage with these options, one of the grounds conceded in the judicial review, returns unchanged.

Do you think there are changes that could be made to overcome your concerns?

Yes. The Christ’s Lane Action Group is not objecting in principle to a new library. The following changes would overcome our concerns:

1)       Reduce the height, mass and scale of the building so that it no longer harms the setting of the Grade I listed buildings or the character of Christ’s Lane, for example by aligning floor heights with the Bodley Library’s oriel window as the Victorian Society recommended, and by revisiting a basemented, lower-rise approach along the lines of the 2016 scheme.

2)       Introduce genuine active frontage and public benefit onto Christ’s Lane, satisfying Local Plan policy on this principal pedestrian route, rather than presenting a blank wall.

3)       Provide the missing evidence and consult on it properly: a BRE 209 (2022)-compliant daylight, sunlight and shadow-plotting assessment for Christ’s Lane as a public space, and a Construction Management Plan for the construction period.

4)       Bring the ventilation stacks down to a height subservient to the college’s historic buildings, and demonstrate a comparison between alternative ways of realising passive ventilation.

5)       Undertake and publish a genuine assessment of less harmful alternatives, including the 2016 Rick Mather scheme, together with a proper Townscape and Visual Impact Appraisal against Policy 60.