THE future of Oxford University's library service depends on the Bodleian Library getting the go-ahead for a £29m book depository, a planning inquiry was told yesterday.

The university told the planning inquiry that the depository, on the Osney Mead industrial estate, was crucial to the long-term future of the world-famous library in Broad Street - and the whole library service.

Last year, city councillors turned down the university's plans, prompting the university to appeal.

In his opening statement for the university, Keith Lindblom QC said: "The uncomfortable truth is that the collections of the Bodleian Library have outgrown the space available for them.

"In simple terms the need is for a modern, purpose-built facility which will ease the unmanageable strain on the Bodleian's existing historic buildings, while providing secure and sustainable accommodation for its unique and extensive collections.

"Only if this is accomplished can the university make progress with its strategy for the library service."

The city council objected to the planning application on the grounds that the building would damage the city's historic skyline, that it would not provide enough renewable energy, and that the university had not provided sufficient reassurance regarding flood risk.

Mr Lindblom said the university would provide evidence over the next fortnight to contest the council's objections.

The council's case is being backed by Oxford Preservation Trust. Steven Sensecall, representing the trust, said: "It was Matthew Arnold who made Oxford's skyline famous with his 'sweet city of dreaming spires' and artists such as JMW Turner, who immortalised the dreaming spires in a rich array of drawings and paintings.

"It is somewhat ironic that the very body that was instrumental in creating this iconic landscape of dreaming spires is now proposing development that will cause significant harm to that very same landscape."

Mr Sensecall added that the university's assertion that there were no suitable alternative sites was not correct.