Glassmill planning appeal - Day 1 Afternoon - Tuesday 17 March 2026, 2:00pm

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 1 Afternoon
Tuesday, 17th March 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Thank you.

Okay, the time is 1 .30 and the inquiry is resumed.

So we're going to hear from Mr. Barbalof, he's going to provide his presentation.

Just before we do that, just in terms of procedural and housekeeping matters, a draught statement

from David Waddell has been left on my table during the break. Do the main

parties have a copy of that? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Would you be able to scan

the paper form and get that on the website as ID06? And you've already

heard what Mr. Woodell said so it just reflects that. Okay so that's that item.

Just before resuming Mr. McGivern had a question so Mr. McGivern do you want to

frame the question more formally to me now we're in inquiry?

I'm very close to a lot of the detail over those 18 months plus.

I wonder whether I can do that.

I can't just add a little bit today.

It's something I can do later in the week, tomorrow or whatever.

It is welcome.

Well, as an interested party, you're very welcome to speak to the inquiry.

and if you do speak to the inquiry you can provide a copy of what you say to the inquiry

and that would become an inquiry document. If you could try and give an indication as

to perhaps, are you planning to be here every day?

I hope so, yes.

Okay. Perhaps when I ask about procedural and housekeeping matters first thing tomorrow

you can give an indication of when you might be able to speak and we'll fit that into the programme.

But obviously if you're objecting to the scheme, I take it.

Yes.

And in that instance, would you be happy for Mr. Harris to ask questions of you? Yeah, okay. So that's fine.

No, okay. Well, I certainly don't have an issue with that.

In terms of other news over the lunch hour, I have also had an email from my case officer confirming that

DPDS and their clients will not be attending the roundtable discussion tomorrow morning.

And yeah, they've confirmed that in writing to me.

Obviously the roundtable discussion will still go ahead.

It might be slightly less round in terms of people who have opposing views, but you never

know because other people, interest parties, can choose to participate as well.

But I certainly have a fair number of questions for the appellant on the issues that I've

outlined before.

So that will go ahead as planned.

Understood, ma 'am, yes.

I agree.

Thank you.

Are there any other procedural or housekeeping matters before we move on to the presentation?

Yes, you asked and we promised the round table appearances list, which I can provide you now.

Okay.

It's relevant that I do it at this stage for a reason that will come apparent.

Thank you.

As you noted, ma 'am, and it's a good thing, not a bad thing,

we're ahead of schedule.

For the environment agency roundtable,

which environment agency roundtable,

which is this afternoon,

these are our potential participants.

Yes.

I'm on there, but it is Ms. Foster

who will be leading the team as advocate

in terms of environment agency roundtable.

We are anticipating that if we get to it early,

then we should start, subject to the environment agency being here.

We've got in touch with them.

They can be here early.

Our witness in relation to this is James Mortimer,

and he can be here early as well, but not before three.

So we could bring it forward from its present time,

but probably not much more beyond that.

We're trying to understand exactly what time he's arriving.

The day two round table is there set out.

as you say, might be more oval than round, but they're the people that we brought in

reliance upon the DPD's response to the Statement of Common Ground. Whether they'll all be

needed or not is another matter, but we thought it precautionary to get them here.

Yeah, yeah. Well, I've certainly, obviously I have some more questions than others on

some of the topics, but certainly it's helpful to have the specialists here for that. So

I appreciate that. So that's ID07, that list of full appearances.

And we'll cross that bridge when we come to it in terms of timing and Mr Mortimer

and the Environment Agency turning up. And I can see Ms Foster's head as the lead,

but I can't see the rest of it. Well, that will be resolved by the time we get to the roundtable.

Yeah, okay. Thank you. And we've obviously got Mr Riddle to hear from as well, potentially, after Mr Barbeloff.

Okay. Anything else procedural or housekeeping wise from the council? Mr Edwards?

Nothing from the council at this stage, ma 'am. Thank you.

I had one more thing, ma 'am, before. And that was the arrangements for the presentation.

I've discussed it very very briefly with my learned friend who has moved position and

we had in mind that you would sit in the witness seat if I will.

Yeah.

Right then then nothing else to say.

Yeah no that's fine I was planning to move it just seemed better in terms of actually

trying to have the conversation initially to be up here but I will move back.

Mr Edwards you said there was nothing else okay and Dr Jubb.

Nothing else.

Okay.

So what I will do now is move down to be in the witness stand.

Not a comfortable position for me.

And a potato.

I'm going to just introduce you formally, Mr. Barloff.

I'm a qualified architect for 26 years, all of which have been with Farrells, is that correct?

Correct.

You have a BA from Sheffield University and a Diploma in Architecture from the Barloff at the University of London.

You're registered with the ARB and you're a member of the RIABA.

You've been a member of FARA since 1999,

and you're one of three equity members

since its inception in 2012.

Correct.

You've worked with Sir Terry Farrell

on many of the practice's major projects

in the last 26 years, and some which are abroad.

Yes.

What you are going to do is a presentation,

the purpose of which was set out by Inspector Grey,

I think another alumni of Newcastle University

some years ago now, with a view to explain it

to the inspector and the members of the public,

the architectural party.

You've produced, as ordered by the CMC,

a document in advance which contained the images

that you're going to speak to,

and you're now going to give that presentation.

every single image which is either on the screen or on the boards is contained within

that document that was sent to the inspectors, is that correct?

Correct.

I think in the same order.

Yes.

Right.

Correct.

And I'm going to shut up.

Right.

Can everybody hear me?

I have this mic here so it should work.

Okay.

So I'm going to start.

Good afternoon, ma 'am and audience, of course.

As Russell said, my name is Peter Babloff and I'm apartment pharaohs with the architects

for the scheme and I will give a factual presentation about the architectural design and our considerations

for the scheme.

I will not cover matters of policy or heritage as Dr. Chris Mealy and Jonathan Magison will

cover those.

My presentation is about the experience, our design process and our proposals for the site.

Next slide.

I'll start with the experience.

We have a kind of a motto in the office

which places the client.

Next slide please.

These are projects by the practise,

both UK and internationally,

which are recognised as landmarks.

They do bring distinct identity,

work at different scales and create places.

The UK ones, which are on the board there,

they're also on water.

Chelsea waterfront on the left hand side.

There's the Merrimin Howl in the Humber,

and of course Vauxhall Cross and one embankment.

If you go to the next slide please.

I also show here two actually relevant large -scale

urban design projects in London and along the river

which show our experience and in complex urban generation projects.

And the projects I show here are all special and complex sites,

sites which are not normal, they're not ordinary.

sites which always ask this at the time,

more from our design response as architects

and urban designers, and sites which are

not actually ordinary.

They ask for our imagination,

to imagine something special and memorable

in this location.

Next slide.

As we mentioned, I've been with Farrows

actually 27 years now, it's 99,

and I've been a partner for 13 years in the practise.

I have worked closely with Terry over the years on many of our projects and some of

the ones shown earlier.

And this is the last project I actually had the privilege to discuss with Terry.

In the early days of the project, his insight, experience and knowledge gave us a good direction

in the very beginning and formed the thinking of our project.

And what we actually found early in our discussions with the team, Terry and our thinking is that

This is one of those special sites I mentioned earlier.

It's not an ordinary site.

And I think it's a special site because of its location,

the bend of the river, and the immediate context

of Ransom's Dock, and why the cityscape.

The key elements on the site, which is the bridge,

and the listed bridge and the river.

And this unique combination creates the opportunity

to, and I say, optimise the site, create new homes,

improve the public realm, and bring community

in leisure uses to this particular nodal point

along the river.

And in our analysis later, I will show how this is not

just an ordinary site.

It's a place where we can create something special,

and I think something truly special in this location.

I do advocate we use our imagination

to understand and support the potential of the site

to be special and to bring the benefits I've described.

This is a concept sketch I drew very early

in the design of the process,

and it's trying to embody this idea

that we can do something different here.

And I'll go now to describe the process,

our design process, this is the first part

of my presentation.

Next slide please.

If you go, whoops, actually it's fine.

So our design process starts with analysis and research.

We don't just draw, we visit the site

during different times of the day,

different times of the year.

We look for patterns of history and development.

We look at the patterns of the city.

and they shape our thinking.

And our design process is also iterative and collaborative.

Our findings about the site inform our design response,

which in turn gets tested and challenged by the team,

the borough, the DLP, and in public consultation,

and gets refined further in this iterative process,

which I will describe.

I'll go into a series of slides now,

which summarises our site analysis for the project.

Next slide, please.

This is an aerial view.

There's also a board here.

It's exactly the same image.

I like boards because you can continue looking at them.

Presentations are linear.

We can clearly see the sharp bend of the river

and the sweep of the river in this location.

We are looking south towards the site,

kind of ones within the top of the page.

We can see key landmarks, old and new,

which shape the townscape with the stretch of the river.

We see the actual morphology of the land,

how the land is structured.

Next slide, please.

And this is a continuation of this analysis.

This is a site showing tall elements in this location.

They follow the river, they follow the bend,

they also follow movement corridors.

And there's a clear pattern of development of the land.

I'll now discuss this later in my presentation.

Next slide please.

This is a map of heritage assets in the vicinity,

in the area, produced by Monte Gevens.

And it's important for us because we consider

the historical context very early on

as part of our analysis.

It shows the key heritage assets

and we work closely with Dr. Chris Mille and his team

in our proposals to address heritage.

This informed our designs and the response

from the beginning of the project.

Next one please.

This is a map of Ransom's Dock.

We study the site and its immediate surroundings

to understand the nature and structure of this focal point.

We looked at the grain, we looked at the scale,

we looked at the uses.

The area has seen significant change this century.

It has an identity of mixed use character,

including education, commercial and residential uses,

and it's associated with the river and the bridge,

but also the rest of the borough.

It has a distinct character spatially,

if you actually go and walk there.

It's not just the type, scale, and architecture

of the new buildings and the historic buildings,

but also physically.

The Thames Path is actually lower

than the two bridges on either side,

so you have to kind of go up and come down

to actually get to this area.

And that gives us a perceived separation

from the rest of the Thames Path,

but also a special identity and character.

Next slide.

This is a photo which I took

in one of my very early site visits,

and it's looking from the Albert Bridge west.

You can see the large expanse of the river in this location,

exactly where the bridge is in the middle,

Albion Riverside on the left -hand side,

and you can see the Towers of Chelsea waterfront

at the distance.

The river is actually quite wide.

It's over 200 metres long.

It's wider than Wandsworth Park or Brompton Cemetery.

We can see the scale and linear dominance

of Albion Riverside and the linearity of the bridge

coming across, and we also see the rhythm

of the tall buildings in this townscape.

And it's something we call a riverine sequence

following the meandering ribbon of the river.

And indeed it's an observation which was made

in the time study, time strategy queued to Chelsea in 2002,

and I'll quote,

the meandering course of the river

can bring unexpected views of landmarks,

particularly when travelling by boat,

and I would say by foot as well.

And we thought there was an opportunity here

to celebrate and improve the legibility of the bridge

in the wider context with a building,

a tall element to complete the Ransom Docs quarter

in this location.

I'll come closer to the existing building

and the relationship to its surrounding now.

Next slide please.

This is as we approach the building

from the south, Battersea Road going up.

At the bottom there's a long elevation.

We make these collages which is kind of,

you take pictures of the street

and then you put it together.

But we see the relationship with the existing building in the road.

It is, in my view, an unremarkable building with dated architectural language, which I

say is of poor quality.

It's typical of its time, and it's not actually contributing to the setting, and indeed the

aspiration of this focal point of activity, which is Ransom's Dock.

Next slide, please.

This is a view again of the building from the edge of the bridge looking south.

It's careless.

The facade lacks detail and the crystalline form creates like an end to the thing.

It's like a wall and it's not very good there.

And it has a messy rooftop as well and it's a context redesign which is a key one.

This building could actually really be anywhere.

It's of its time.

There were buildings like that in London.

Next slide. It's actually, in my view, even more resolved when you look from the south.

There's different clashes of materials. The access to the road and the park, the relationship is

kind of not there. The building just sits on the edge of the bridge and creates this kind of glassy

wall which reflects the sky. Next one. But where the building really fails is it's in public realm.

This is the views coming down the Batsy Bridge Road

and at the bottom where the stairs are.

You can see the vents of the car park.

You can see this platform, which is not quite clear who is it,

why is it there, and it's completely not active frontage,

and it creates a very hostile environment in my book.

Next one, please.

This is the front bit, where the building really, really fails.

I think the public realm of the Thames Path,

it's not accessible.

The path which is the ramp which is there,

it's actually probably 1 .5 metres I think.

It's very narrow.

People virtually crash if you're cycling,

if you're walking.

And then on the front, on the right hand side of the image,

there is this platform which is very difficult

to actually get there and I haven't seen anybody

really using it because there's steps on the side.

It's potentially even a little bit dangerous place at night.

It would be good to see it at night

if you go there in the evening.

So I think it's a building which doesn't do justice

to the area.

The public realm is not very good, not accessible,

and it does not do justice to the area.

It does not do justice to Ransom's Dock,

also the path, the bridge, and that keynote,

which I mentioned earlier.

Next slide, please.

We also researched the site.

This is historic maps, the painting,

and aerial photograph.

There's quite a lot more material,

and I discussed this in the proof of evidence,

but it's also now dust.

What is important about the site, we discovered,

but it's the nature and magnitude of change

over the last probably 200 years.

And now, as I said, I discussed this more

in the proof of evidence,

but from an early industrial site,

kind of to the left map,

to the late industrial to the right,

the picture of the area was just before the wall,

and you can see quite significant buildings there.

But what's fascinating, of course,

is the painting in the middle,

and you can clearly see the elements,

and I mentioned the elements early.

You see the old Batsy Bridge.

Very far in the distance,

You see the old Chelsea Church.

You can see the old mill, which was on the site.

And these, and the river, of course.

And these were the elements and subjects

of many artists, which Whistler and Constable, specifically.

This is Constable.

But what we found out and what we discovered

is that the bend of the river is a special place and location

in this particular point.

It's a place of change and renewal.

Next slide, please.

Apologies for the small images, but they are available everywhere.

This is a slide about the importance of the bridge and the significance.

It was actually the fifth bridge to be built in London, 1771.

There's more detailed descriptions.

But my view, and if you look at the pattern from an urban point of view, it kind of shaped

the pink areas to the kind of top of the left image developed London.

So when the bridge came, the areas to the west of that

were not developed yet the way they developed later.

So the bridge actually shaped the development of the area.

And the length of the bridge, which is the second diagram,

the approaches to the bridge,

is actually unique in London.

You can walk in a straight line from Clapham Common

to the bottom of the image.

Again, I can't really show it, but to Old Brompton Road,

which is about four and a half kilometres of an hour walk,

there's no other bridge like that.

I do talk a lot about this in the proof of evidence.

So we think that makes the bridge, and not just that, but it's a structural bridge in

the how London and the river is structured.

And it's an important and unique location.

Next slide.

We also look at patterns, and I mentioned that earlier, of how the city develops.

The diagram on the left kind of starts with the yellow sweep going up, which is the Battersea

power station area.

And then we in the next one is going down which is the Battersea Park

And then we have run some dock which is actually completely different scale again

And then he drops down after Battersea Bridge till it reaches Battersea Railway Bridge, and he goes up again

So there's this pattern and it exists. It's there. It's it's not

It's a fact and then the diagram on the right suggests that if we were to follow this logic and some of the landmarks

Currently exist which is on the top is Lombard wolf top left yellow

and then we have one of the towers of Chelsea waterfront,

and then we suggest there's a third one

which can work with that,

and it's a key consideration in our discussion.

It reaffirms that pattern,

but what's interesting is that Lomber Dwarf

is on the west side of Battersea Railway Bridge,

and we are on the east side of Battersea Bridge,

which contains the area between Battersea Bridge

and Battersea Power Bridge,

and it's a kind of a low development area,

as it is currently, apart from Monte vitro.

So I've talked about our analysis,

and key points which are important

is the existing condition of the site,

is the significance of the bridge and the river,

and the patterns of development in London.

I'll go now to discuss the iterative nature

of the design process which we followed.

Next slide please.

So we actually worked very closely with the team,

the borough, the DRP.

It's not the linear process design.

It's kind of a iterative.

We change, we adapt, we do again, and we discuss, we talk.

We always listen.

We export options on massing, height, materiality, and detail,

and we listen to the justice, as I said.

Next slide, please.

So this is a series of iterations,

and I actually have a print of this.

This is in our design access statement.

It's everywhere, so I'm just going to unroll it here

so people can peruse at their pleasure.

So if I just do that.

And it's a selection of joints.

We like the sketchbooks for projects.

It shows changes and development of design from the plants,

from the actual quality of the, not quality,

the actual design of the facades,

massing, floor plans, views.

So it's a process which accumulates a huge amount

of kind of study and thinking about it.

And next slide as well, please.

Did you go to it? No.

So it's very important that this is not everything we've done,

but it is a process which is forwards, backwards, and up and down,

and we changed and looked and everything like that.

But also important is the next slide.

This is again a Montague Evans map, which is the views.

So we started, and we have tools nowadays,

where we can start very early to study views.

View City is one of them.

We studied all these views from day one almost of the project,

and we looked at how it affects the design and we changed,

specifically height and articulation of the tower.

Working closer with Chris actually,

about how the building is expressed in these views.

The next slide.

This is a selection and it's a snapshot again.

There's about 14 themes on this slide

of how we changed the massing, how we came to the massing,

how we changed the expression of the ground floor,

how we adjusted and moved the height,

the expression and articulation of the building.

And we worked really closely with the borough at the time,

specifically with Barry Sella,

and at the time of the DRP with Daniela Lucchese,

who was all co -organising the DRP,

but she had very important insights.

We also worked on the plans as well,

which I'll describe later, with Rachel Wood,

who was looking specifically

at the disabled flats on the site.

I've described the process.

there's quite a lot more, but conscious of time.

Next slide, please.

So I'll start with the proposals.

We have designed a scheme at three scales.

There's lots of threes in this project.

The three scales are the metropolitan scale,

which is the city scale, the local scale, which

is the scale of the quarter, and then we

have a detail scale, the quarter, the streets,

the massing of the Ransom quarter.

And then we have the streets, sorry, the detail scale.

And the detail scale is the architectural detail,

It's the plans, it's how it works, how you occupy the building.

And all of them are important.

You can't design on one scale only.

And the last scale, which is the detailed one, is also inside out.

So start with the local.

It's the important one.

Next slide, please.

It's the one we walk.

So a key diagram, part of our analysis of the existing condition in Ransom Dock.

And we see the key elements, which are there.

The diagram was actually prepared before

there's a current planning approval on Ransom Dock,

but that's not there, but it's in the centre of the site,

and it's the height of Albion Riverside.

So we see the buildings, the roads, the river,

the dock as well, and the bridge.

So there's a key elements in the whole thing.

And the neighbourhood is partially established.

As I said, there's one site which is being developed,

and of course, Glass Mills House,

which is, as I mentioned, outdated.

We see the new ICA campus and there is a poor connectivity on that nodal point.

It's when the bridge meets the quarter.

There's no active use.

The access to Thames Path is outdated, probably dangerous, but definitely not accessible.

So we felt there is an opportunity there to complete that, the quarter, create the riverside

presence and improve the path, active frontages and all the impact.

I'm an engineer, but I read it as being,

how will you maze the wall by 47 centimetres?

How will you do it?

And that can involve all sorts of trial holes

and working out what's there and all the rest of it,

even though they've got historic drawings.

It is very important to make the factual distinction

between a generalised nice to have for lots of schemes

which you try and make every scheme fit into,

versus the facts on the ground as they are here,

reference historic plans provided on Friday,

existing foundation condition,

what we know about the condition structure of the wall,

what we know about the building stepping back,

what we know about the public realm arrangement.

Compare that to some notional building

where this building's already in the flood defence,

let's say it's already set into the flood defence,

and there's substantial redevelopments taking place.

And so the A needs to know, look,

if you're gonna build on this wall, how on earth

are you gonna sort of make the thing work in the future?

You know, how's it gonna allow this wall to be raised

by 47 centimetres in the future?

That may well be a scheme and a case and a set of facts

in which a condition like this, differently worded

because it's now been said it's for a different purpose,

that may be relevant, but on the facts as they are

on this particular site and with this particular development

the way that's been designed,

our submission is it doesn't make any sense.

The environment agency?

So the feasibility is not to just consider

a concept design of a potential way

of hypothetical brazing in the future.

It's to have the evidence that underpins that design.

So do we understand what that flood defence structure is?

Do we know what condition the elements of that structure

are in?

Do we know what that residual life is?

Is that structure fit to last till 2090?

Will there be a structure there that you could raise?

These are the questions that we'd like answered

as part of that scheme of feasibility of that raising.

I have to break, there's a series of points in there

which don't all relate to the same point.

If that section of the river wall fails today,

or in 35 years time, the scheme, if approved,

has a finished floor level, which means it doesn't matter.

But all the stuff behind it, in a very large flood zone,

it does matter to, and we know that,

because it's agreed that the flood defence

serves a far greater catchment than the site.

And so we're mixing issues around,

which are particularly relevant,

which the legal regime that we've outlined

is particularly relevant to,

which is do we know that the flood wall

will still be there in 40, 50, 60, 20 years time?

Well, there's a legal regime

with powers and duties for that.

That's why it's relevant,

and that's why you're required to consider it

and entitled to rely on it.

That doesn't require someone to go and dig holes

in a flood defence as a matter of necessity,

passing the threshold test

for the imposition of a planning condition.

That's our submission.

and that's just one of the points.

There's an entirely separate point around the regime

which we haven't really talked about for

avoidance of prejudice to the wall

and its owners, which was mentioned

during the construction phase,

which is the environmental permitting regime.

Again, another regime which you're entitled,

in our submission, we say you should have

significant kind of regard to,

because that's the FRAP regime which is referred to,

and it's that which protects the wall

and ensures that information is available

during the process of the construction,

construction methodology, et cetera.

And it's, if information is required

as part of that FRAP process,

then absolutely the Environment Agency can request it

when it's got that jurisdiction,

because if you don't provide the relevant information,

then you won't get your permit.

And if you don't get your permit,

then you can't do the works.

Madam, could I just ask one very short question?

Thank you. Who actually owns the river wall?

That's the Thames Walk residential block. The appellant doesn't own the river wall.

No, I'm referring to the Riverwalk immediately outside Glassmill.

That's public highway adopted.

I think I would like a little bit more clarification.

I'm not entirely sure that I accept that.

Mr Marginson, are you able to provide more clarity for Mr White?

Well, I was just going to find the plan.

There is a plan in the statement of common ground

Appendix five

And that shows the extent washed yellow of the adopted public highway

Adjacent to the river wall

But that's adjacent to it it's not the actual wall itself

No, it's not the wall itself that sound as I say by the Thames wall residential building

But they have no material interest in the Glass Mill frontage.

It's a matter of fact that the title to the Riverwall is in the hands of a third party,

which is the Thames, I don't want to get the name wrong, I mislead you, and we can provide

the title, the office copy entries with the correct name, but it's the Thames River Residence

association or whatever the relevant title entity is, they are

registered the land registry as the owners of that some of that adopted highway

land but also the flood defence structure. I think for the avoidance of

doubt it would be helpful to have a copy of the title deeds, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, did the appellant have anything more they wish to say about the

condition on the flood defence raising strategy?

No.

And anybody else on the flood defence raising strategy condition?

No.

Okay.

So moving on to the flood defence intrusive investigations condition.

So this reads, prior to the commencement of construction,

the applicant will undertake a detailed condition and stability assessment

of the tidal Thames flood defence to the north of the site.

The detailed condition assessment must include as a minimum

engineering review of the flood defence structure including any buried elements,

establish the condition of the tidal Thames flood defence structures,

identify any issues or defects that require further investigation or repairs to be carried

out by the riparian owner to ensure the proper performance and stability of the tidal Thames

flood defences. So again we're in a situation where the trigger is

it's prior to the commencement of construction so that does allow some

demolition to have taken place.

Yes. Yes. Okay. And then the appellant rather than applicant will undertake a detailed condition

and stability assessment and what happens to that detailed condition and stability assessment?

Where does it go? Does it get signed off by anybody?

It will be submitted to the LPA and then likely consulted out to us to review.

So it would need to say that.

And then how would that...

It's going back to the same issues as earlier, really.

I don't want to bore you.

The same points apply in relation to this condition.

So we're in a situation again where the appellant does some work, they look at assessing condition,

they look at defects that might be there, but then it's handed that information over

to the environment agency and the local planning authority and the environment agency then

takes that up with the flood defence owner and says, look, this is what we found out.

Yes, but I think it's probably worth highlighting that this is obviously in the event that the

development goes ahead, but we do not believe that this is something that should be dealt

with through condition. We don't think it passes six tests and therefore we shouldn't

go with this approach.

But I'm here today and for the next two weeks trying to consider whether this should

happen or not and there's a whole range of other issues which might lead me to consider

it doesn't happen. But equally I could think the appellant's got a fair point on a number

of things and therefore this is my opportunity and this is your opportunity to tell me why

it's important to have this condition and that this condition is properly worded and

possible for, it's reasonable for the appellant to then go on and implement it

in terms of carrying out an assessment and then what happens after that. And I

need to have regard to the tests but I also need to have regard to the

various planning policy documents that have been referred to.

In terms of content, you're talking about an engineering review of the flood defence

structure including any buried elements.

So that engineering review would establish the condition, presumably, of the flood defence

structures and then you would identify...

it's a badly worded condition overall,

but fundamentally is this something

that the appellant should be doing?

I'll go to the appellant first of all

and then I'll come back to the environment agency.

My key point is if you look at the reason for the condition,

it specifically says to inform the flood risk activity permit,

the FRAT which has already been mentioned,

which in itself under the environmental permitting regulations is, you know, it's a legal document.

So our question is why do we need a condition when we would have to do it for an environmental permit in due course anyway?

And just to add further, mum, the third suggested condition

ties in to this condition, which again comes around

to a similar point as to what happens next,

and again it's simply to inform, depending on the outcome

of the survey, a strategy which, as we've already discussed,

the appellant can't deliver or implement.

The only point I think just to round that off is that there's a risk here of the gold

plate in respect to those three little bullets relative to what the FRAP process requires.

The FRAP is the environmental permitting regime.

Its teeth sunk very much into the developer here to make sure that they're held accountable

and provide necessary information in order to get their permit so they can do their thing.

and that's a standard process and engineers engage with each other up and down the country

to do that.

We're introducing components here which then bleed across into this, what I would say is

nice to have as an agency.

It would be very nice if everywhere people are doing development, somewhere near the

wall, you just get them to do, just first find out all the information we can about

it and let's get them to design stuff as well and go all out on file.

I hate to caricature it in that way but that's the risk we're entering into with a bunch

conditions where it's not really clear on the facts of this particular site in

this particular scheme how they could logically ever perform a proper function.

Anything further from the Environment Agency on what they've just heard?

Thanks, Madam. So just for that distinction, the FRAP would consider the

actual construction activities and the risk of those construction activities.

These surveys are looking at the planning requirements of demonstrating that it's safe for the lifetime of the development for 100 years.

Good night.

Sorry to interrupt again,

but could I just ask one question?

Is any surveys for this hydrological effect

taken within the site of the glass mill itself?

because clearly having the basement area excavated,

the water tables level in that particular area are likely to rise significantly

if sufficient investigation hasn't been carried out to prove that everything is in order.

Who's best place to respond?

All of said investigations would be undertaken as part of the FRAP and importantly with regards

to groundwater levels, there is an existing basement, so groundwater is already displaced.

Is the basement level, the finished floor level of the basement the same as it is now?

No, but an impact assessment will be undertaken to

demonstrate that the proposed basement levels will not further

impact groundwater, which in that location will likely be tidal

anyway.

Thank you.

I did have one small point just on the National Planning Policy Framework.

the references in this document refer, and I think it's the same, yeah so under the

condition on flood defence raising strategy it refers to Para 165 of the

MPPF and then it's the same in the reason for the flood defence intrusive

investigations condition. So paragraph 165 at the moment starts to help

increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy and heat. So I

think there may have been a movement in the frameworks. I assume, are you

referring to paragraph 170 which starts, inappropriate development in areas at

of flooding should be avoided by directing development away

from areas at highest risk, whether existing or future.

Where development is necessary in such areas,

the development should be made safe for its lifetime

without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Yes, ma 'am.

OK, thank you.

I'll just correct that in there.

OK.

So anything else on the flood risk defence remediation

or replacement strategy which Ms Foster mentioned earlier.

So this requires prior to the commencement of construction the applicant must submit

a tidal TEMs flood defence remediation or replacement strategy that demonstrates a minimum

life expectancy of 100 years of the tidal TEMs flood defence structure.

And it then goes on to say depending on the outcome of the requirements of Condition 1,

which I assume is the flood defence raising strategy.

The applicant must demonstrate the residual life of the tidal Thames flood defences

can be extended by a minimum of 100 years by way of a remediation strategy.

I think we would be repeating ourselves, we'd make the same points we've made already.

Fair enough. Anything more from the environment agency on that one?

No, ma 'am.

Okay, thank you. Anything else from the Battersea Society or the Council?

No. Okay, thank you.

And just in terms of legal obligations, I recall there was mention in at least one of the draught legal agreements

to a highlighted section that said, we'll put flooding here if we need to.

What's the situation now?

Guess what our position is.

We don't, having agreed various matters

and seeing the matters that now remain in dispute

for the reasons you've heard,

we don't believe that there are any obligations

which are necessary to make this scheme acceptable

that would then be slotted into that area of the agreement.

I think one exception that I should raise now,

because I think it's a baked in expectation of the agency

and is reflected in correspondence,

is to do with overshadowing of the foreshore.

So there would be something that needs

to go in the 106, which is very limited, which

is to do with overshadowing the foreshore in a way

that I should understand but don't,

but I think it's a relatively small bear

in the grand scheme of things.

Is that related more to the effect that overshadowing the foreshore has on biodiversity and so on?

Correct. I raised that for completeness.

Yeah, there's no reason.

Yeah, no, it's...

Okay. Thank you.

And what's the Environment Agency's view on that in terms of legal agreement issues?

I think we're in agreement with that.

And just turning to compliance with policy and legislation.

So does anybody want to say anything further on either the Metropolis Management Act or the Thames River Prevention of Floods Act?

No? Okay.

The Environmental Permitting England and Wales Regulations 2016.

Thames Estuary 2100.

MPPS. Sorry, I'm just on the Thames Estuary 2100. Just a

small point, but I don't think it itself is policy or legislation.

It's a strategy that's been published by what was then Defra.

it's obviously a strategy that is referred to in policy.

National Planning Policy Framework, we've dealt with which paragraph it is,

anything else apart from that.

Planning Practise Guidance, I only raise it given the spectre of Mead,

which, if you're not aware, puts the planning practise guidance on the same standing.

Anything in the planning practise guidance specifically I should be aware of.

Anything further on London Plan Policy SI12?

Ones with Local Plan Policy LP12.

No? Okay. Are there any other relevant matters that I should be aware of?

Could I just say, Madam, the Thames Path Manager was not contacted by the appellants or their

consultants whatsoever in advising of what is proposed today.

I have an email from her to confirm that.

Thank you Mr White. Would the opponent like to respond?

I'm not aware of that, ma 'am. We will have to come back to you as to whether they were consulted or not.

I don't know whether council consulted them as part of their consultation or not.

I don't believe they have a particular address that's known.

It could have been just consul, swept up with the general consultation, so I'm not aware either.

If you'd like to follow up on that, that would be helpful.

And in terms of anything further, I will think on the conditions.

as drafted and if anything does change in the meantime we can pick it up again

during the conditions session which is likely to be held next Wednesday.

The Environment Agency weren't in attendance this morning. That's not intended as a

criticism, it's just an observation. We did discuss this morning that there is a bit of

an issue with tube strikes next week. So it may be, and I don't know whether you would

intend to attend the conditions session anyway, but it may be that the session in the worst

case scenario is held virtually and you would obviously be able to tune into that. But it

might not be here so it is worth keeping an eye on the council's web page for the

inquiry just to understand where things are but if anything does change in the

meantime please do bring the amended condition or conditions back to the

condition session next Wednesday. Okay anything further before we close this

table. Ms Foster. Just by way of housekeeping in terms of things that we

need to go away to get it's the office copy showing the freehold ownership and

also checking the point about the Thames Path Manager being consulted.

Are those the only two points, Madam? Those are the only points I've written down. I will cheque.

Yes, they're the only things I have starred. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, everybody,

for your input. So we're now at 4 .22, and we're intending to have the roundtable discussion

on the Thames Walk Residents Association

and Albion Riverside points tomorrow morning.

And that's starting at 10 o 'clock.

Was there anything else procedural or housekeeping wise

before we adjourn for today?

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Anything from the council, Mr. Edwards?

Just one message just by way of update.

There's been a communication between Mr. Eley

and Dr. Mealy about the arrangements

for a nighttime site visit, Marmallan.

that's passed on to the Rule 6 parties as well but hopefully we can make some

progress on that overnight and provide an agreed document to you in the morning.

Thank you Mr. Edwards that's much appreciated. Is there anything further

from the Battersea Society at all? I have just one point. In terms of the site

visit, is transport going to be arranged or is it all going to be on feet?

Well, certainly in terms of what was discussed at the Case Management Conference back in

January was that the site visit would be undertaken unaccompanied, so I would be wandering around

by myself for a number of hours. What I did in February was I came to the area about just

Just over a month ago, I came to the area and did the vast majority of the site visit

itinerary then, and then yesterday I repeated that, but following the actual site visit

itinerary rather than just because I don't think it had come out at that point.

But it was relatively similar following the townscape and visual impact assessment viewpoint.

What we discussed this morning was me undertaking a further itinerary of a night -time site visit

so that I could appreciate what the development might look like in times of darkness.

And what was agreed was that the parties would go away, led by the council,

in looking at what a good itinerary would be, because obviously it wouldn't

necessarily include all of the viewpoints that it included before and

to collate that. So at this time it's still my intention to undertake it

unaccompanied and my transportation would be shanks pony, if that's okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, is there anything further? No?

Okay, it's 4 .25 and the inquiry is adjourned

until tomorrow morning.

Thank you very much, have a nice evening.

Really important place, things, to create a coherent

and actually legible place is very important.

Next one please.

We worked really closely with our landscape architects,

exterior architecture, and it's important that the buildings

are considered in the round, including landscape.

And this is one of their diagrams.

How do we achieve this active frontage?

How do we create, improve the connectivity?

How do we improve the nodal point in this place?

So this is one of the early diagrams showing the uses.

So the key takeaways from here is

that we are anchoring the building, both from the south

and to the north, with public uses.

There's a community centre on the south.

There's a restaurant on the north.

And then we have an active frontage,

which is residential entrances.

But the frontage is not directly onto the Battersea Bridge.

We layer this.

We layer this by public realm, a colonnade, and a setback.

So you create a safe and nice address

for people who live in the building.

But then also we set back significantly

the building on the ground in first floor to the north

to create the plaza.

We reconfigure the whole path in this location

to be accessible, to be safe, and to be usable.

So there is also one more point about this slide.

There's actually quite a significant level change

on the site from the river's edge

to the bottom of the site is about the floor.

So currently the building, as you saw, there's a wall,

there's kind of the vents, there's the platform,

it doesn't really work.

So we thought, well, we can make this better.

So we worked with the levels of the site.

And I'll show you next because it's the ground floor.

This is the ground floor of the site,

which is the next slide.

So this is not really a ground floor

because it's stepping down,

but it is a stepping down ground floor.

So if we start from the left,

we have the level of the river,

which is about seven metres AOD.

We go into mid -level with the residential entrance,

which is in the middle,

which is one of the residential entrances.

Then the next one, which is the next yellow,

is the next residential entrance,

goes a little bit lower,

if you get even lower,

with the next one, which is the community space.

So we follow the road, follow the topography.

The existing building doesn't do that,

And it's important to understand this.

And I mentioned the setbacks, the visual permeability.

Oh, it's important also.

There's a visual permeability through the building.

We designed the entrances.

So when you stand in the entrance,

you can see through to the other side.

And it's important to open the buildings visually, if you can.

And again, bookending the building with uses.

Next slide.

What I'm describing here is the base of the building,

how it works.

So this is the upper, this is the first floor.

This is the level above our ground floor.

It's an office space, which is a darker purple, and then you can see the top of blue.

On the right is the top level of the community centre.

We've created interest in the plan as well.

These kind of blobby things to the bottom of the drawing are our bay windows, which

I'll describe later.

And we have great views actually from these offices, both of the Battersea Bridge and

the Park Opposites and also the river.

Next slide.

This is a section of the base and it's apologies too far to see the detail but it brings it

all together.

It's the base of the building.

You can see the stepping down which I described earlier.

Below that we have what we call the lower ground floor because the level of the service

from behind is that level of that road and then below that we have a basement.

Those two levels contain bicycles, cars, we have 18 car parking spaces, plant, waste and

all the things which we need to make this building work.

And then as you go up, before there's

a clear white line, which is where the residential begins,

there's an active on every step ground floor.

Next slide.

Sorry, actually.

Can you go back?

It's important to mention that it's actually

a mixed -use base.

And I forgot to say that.

Because there's not many buildings

have mixed -use bases.

And there's not many buildings in the area which have that.

and I actually think mixed bases are great

because they provide vitality throughout the day,

natural surveillance, people come in and out

and use the building.

Building is alive when people use it,

and if you have people using a building like that,

it will become alive, whether it's a restaurant,

a community centre, or an office building,

or entrances to residential.

Next slide, please.

We talk a lot about the bridge, and I've spoken before,

well, not spoken, we've written before about the bridge.

We got inspired by the bridge in how we express

our ground floor and base.

And it's interesting to know that the bridge

is very, very low profile.

There's a picture in the middle on the left

where you can see Chelsea, world's end,

almost appearing to sit on top of that bridge.

Almost an inhabited bridge.

It's irrelevant, but it's just kind of

nice interesting thing to look at.

But the bridge has a structure.

It's very beautifully designed as a thing,

although it's very low, and very kind of

utilitarian bridge in many ways.

But we believe, and there's three little images

at the bottom, that a defined base with a strong identity

and a strong architectural idea can actually bring identity.

And we believe also creating interest for pedestrians.

It's when people walk around buildings,

they shouldn't just be faced with inactive frontages

or grills or service entries.

We tried to, we studied this a lot.

Top right sketch is one I did out of many

of how do you capture this.

and then this idea of setting back,

raising the colonnade to a particular level,

and then inhabiting both architecturally,

but we'd use the colonnade for something really important.

And then landscapes, so there's three layers there.

Use, architectural detail, and landscape.

A sketch at the bottom is a very early sketch

of how do we actually interpret the bridge.

And this is kind of quite the replica of what the bridge is.

All the elements, there were piers,

there was the metal arches behind,

and there was a balustrade.

But of course, as I said earlier,

the design process is not linear,

and this really changed discussing it with Barry,

Daniella, and actually the DRP.

So we submitted a much simpler,

and I would say more elegant version of the design,

which is currently in simplified,

and I'll describe this later,

which is in the submitted one.

I'll show a few slides of the before and after

to show you how this comes together,

which is the next slide.

So this is the existing.

I'm not going to dwell on it.

I said how poor I think it is and how

it doesn't do the right justice for the building,

how it comes to the ground, creates a wall.

Next one.

And this is our proposal.

You can see the elements clearly.

The raised colonnade, the setback, the planting,

the arches which follow the rhythm of the building,

the linearity of the residential above it.

Because we think this linear route taking you to the bridge

from the bridge is actually very important.

It creates this kind of mental image of you going somewhere.

So the building is designed like that.

The building also talks and I'll describe later

with Albion Riverside in architectural language.

So this is kind of the elements coming together in a visual.

I will show you some kinetic views, because a state visual,

a stale visual, doesn't show the photo quality of the place.

Next slide.

Again, the view from the south.

This was a recent photo when the bridge is very busy

at the moment with traffic as mentioned earlier.

But this is again the building stopping abruptly.

It's scaleless.

I don't know how many floors it actually has.

It's a wall.

It's a glass mill, glass wall, ending on a ransom dock.

Next slide.

This is one of those aspirational evening shots,

but it can be like this because the building is set back.

You can clearly see the community centre,

which is stacked on two and a half floors,

there's a mezzanine level at the end of the building.

Communities use the buildings especially at night,

so this would be an active space.

And we are talking to community groups

to occupy this space.

But that linearity and the way the arches go away

and lead you to the edge of the bridge

is something which is important.

And again, you see the level of detail, articulation,

and kind of depth of the facade above it.

And the last bit I want to show in this sequence,

next slide please.

is the riverfront, because it's important.

And it's actually probably the key one

in terms of how the public would experience the building.

So again, existing, the platform,

good luck getting to that platform

unless you know how you get there.

You may actually end up into the river,

because the steps come together at some point.

Anyway, go to the next one, please.

This is, again, landscape, very, very important.

It's a key diagram.

It's everywhere in our documents.

But it shows how you open up the space.

We set back the ground on the first floor,

the colonnade is set back from the existing line of the buildings to create a larger space in the front.

And we have a layering of uses of the restaurant, the potential spill out of the restaurant,

then we have the amphitheatre, and then we go down to the platform,

and the platform forms our fully compliant ramp, which is quite wide, 3 metres,

and gives you access to Batsy Bridge.

But you can also do a shortcut because there's a step.

So it's an open space, there's more detail in this, we can talk again.

So, I'll take you for a walk now, next slide please.

So yeah, this is the, sorry, this is the visual.

Sorry, missed that one.

So this is how the elements work.

We've seen this before.

You can see the platform at the bottom.

You see how you approach the building from the west,

from the east, and then the setback and the open space

and the active use there.

And it's worth noticing it's gonna be very safe

because of the offices, because of the restaurant,

and because of the openness, you always see where you're going

and it's a key thing in designing public spaces.

So next slide, please.

So now I'll try to do the walk, which is the kinetic views,

as they call them.

And bear with me.

They are portions of what's submitted.

So if you want to watch the full video,

you can watch the full video.

I've just taken some portions of the same sequence.

So it's the same thing you've seen before.

Next one, please.

So this is the view of Thames Walk

as we approach the bridge.

You can see Chelsea, the world's end,

on the right -hand side.

The first side of the bridge,

you can see Chelsea towers at the back,

and you see Thames Walk apartments on the left.

And the next one is the,

I think this is the kinetic one.

Yeah.

So we're walking, maybe a bit too fast.

Thames Walk apartments on the left -hand side.

And then we approach the bridge.

You see how the bridge is set back.

You see the common light coming down.

This is a step you can take or you can choose that.

There's always a choice.

And this is the wide path.

It's a three -metre wide path where pedestrians and cyclists can pass each other.

It's fully accessible.

And as we turn around, you will see this is the beginning of the restaurant, the office

space above, the two columns coming down.

This is the amphitheatre space where people can sit actually and enjoy the river.

And as you turn around, and there's a person with a cycle, they're pushing it, and then

you're passing by.

And then you cross the bridge.

So you see the elements on the left hand side. You can actually see the bay windows

I mentioned earlier how they create more interest in kind of

Texture on the facade and then the arches and we worked really close with the material

So explain materials later and also have some samples and as we as we stop here and we look back

From the middle of the road, which you shouldn't you can see how the building is set back and you can see through the building

The current building would go down as the glass wall glass meal wall in this particular location

I'll go to the next one, please

This is a view coming up.

I showed you the existing before.

I'll show you a visual as well, but let's do a kinetic one next.

So we're going up the road towards the bridge.

The building on this side has more urban character.

Hester Road is on the right -hand side, so it's more square.

It's set back, again, with a colonnade.

There's the green space which exists there.

Hester Road is on the right.

You can see the directionality of the textual design

and the level of detail with the setbacks and the materiality,

which again I'll explain later, and entrances.

So we just passed the community entrance,

one of the residential entrances,

and we're coming towards the bridge,

and then we get to turn around where the restaurant is.

You can see the bay window,

and you can see the pulling back of the building.

I know, I did describe this earlier.

I have one more to go on this one,

and I think I'll go for it,

because it's, I'm not gonna talk too much,

but it's the view looking down,

it's important to understand

and the building is red in the round.

So if you go to the next one, this is the view coming down the bridge effectively.

And if you can start, sorry.

We're walking down, directionality key, the arches, taking you down the bridge, the road,

the setback.

You can tell, well we're going to turn left now and see, but this is the restaurant.

Then you have the one residential entrance,

just on the left -hand side, and the next one.

And then in the end is the community centre,

which is set back from our borderline

where the columns stay.

And this is the entrance to the community centre at day.

You saw it earlier at night.

And we move back to understand the building.

I'll go now into the describing the next stage,

which is about design, which is the detailed scale,

which is the materials, the plants,

and everything like that.

Next slide, please.

This is the scale of the architectural quality and the detail.

It's the spaces which create and the adjacencies, the relationships, and the scale of the people

using the building.

Next please.

I did explain this slide earlier, but what's important is to understand that as somebody

who lives there, there is generous ground floor lobbies for both tenures, which is the

yellow, and you have this layering, which I said it, but I want to say it again.

There's the Battersea Bridge Road.

Then there is a landscape colonnade zone.

And then there is a space behind the colonnade.

And then there is the entrance.

And this creates this filtering and layering,

which provides address and provides

kind of a particular feel that you are going to something

which is special.

If you go to the next slide, this is the typical plants.

There's many more plants.

We have them.

This is the lower level and then purely the tower level above.

It's a very logical, simple building.

It has a mix of types of tenures, family flats,

generous private amenity, setbacks for the lower building,

both architectural and environmental considerations.

We have compact two cores, each two stairs, two lifts,

for each one of them.

We have internalised amenity within the tower

because we tried to keep a very simple volume of the tower,

which I'll explain later why.

And also as you go up, the conditions become better for you to have more internalised and

when you're lower we can have the setbacks which also provide nice conditions because

then you have shade and you don't get rained.

And we maximise the river views and we maximise also the dual aspect units in the scheme.

All this is available.

If you go to the next slide.

As we're going through up to the building, we come to our level where the lower element

stops and the tower continues.

And this is our amenity level.

It's level 11.

It has external and internal amenity,

and it's for the affordable tenure.

It does enable year -round use and well -being for people,

and it has a really generous, really nice south garden,

which I'll show in a second.

Next one, please.

This is, again, landscape architecture.

It's important.

This is how the zones and the uses,

and this is the suggestion.

There's a play area, there's a sitting area,

there's an inside area, there's a gym.

you always have visual kind of connectivity with all these areas. So, you know, elderly person could be looking after grandchildren, etc.

So this intergenerational use potentially which we're trying to to bring here to strengthen the action of the community of this place.

I'll go to the next slide.

But what's key again is we're trying to create a place in this location.

People go there south facing on a nice sunny day. It will be a really nice place to be.

But if it's raining, you can go into the indoor community space.

So there's a flexibility and a kind of niceness.

And one part of the building is going to be the garden.

Next slide, please.

Architectural drawings.

Anyway, this is like a slice of the building.

It's like a cake slice vertically.

So you see everything inside the building.

I started at the bottom, described the base.

Then the middle bit, which is kind of up to this mark there,

so where the garden is.

So this is our middle part, where

we have recessed balconies, quite strong directionality.

a lot of detail in the facade,

cumulating with the garden,

and then the two Yale strips in the middle,

the residential cores going all the way up.

The tower, reading as one element

on the front of the river,

which we expressed in the architecture as well,

we'll describe it later, and then the crown.

It's a kind of coherent structure,

hierarchy of the building,

of public, private,

and uses layering on top of each other.

Next one, please.

How am I doing?

I want to talk about materials.

Again, it's one of those things which change during the design,

and they change for good.

Our first decision, not decision,

our first gut feeling was to, you know, it's like the RCA,

to, well, I'm going to use brick.

So we thought, you know, brick is a nice material,

it's longevity and everything like that.

And we discussed this, and it was burying.

I think also Dr. Chris Smiley, when he spoke about materials,

we thought, actually, we're at the river, let's use that,

let's do something about it.

So we're inspired by the clouds, the rain, the water,

the ripples, and the palette pulls away.

And what we were thinking is that we can use materials

which change during the day, they'll capture the light,

they'll capture the sun, they'll blink when it's sunny,

or they'll be more subdued when it's raining

or when it's overcast sky.

So this is our choice of materials

which we started looking at.

Next slide, please.

It's a tripartite design.

We always do that.

And it's the reason why people do that, because as we described,

there's three scales.

There's a people scale.

There's a middle scale.

There's a scale.

But it's a tripartite design.

We have a selection of materials.

I actually have them here as well,

if you want to have a look at them.

We looked at terracotta.

And terracotta is quite robust.

And it's very robust, actually, and long -lived material.

We know how we're going to build that.

And again, we try to simplify the palette, but we use texture and pattern as we go up and down the building

So the building changes as it go on explain that later, but these are the materials talk again later. So we have

three types of terracotta

Concrete for the arches and then we have three types of metal for the building if I go to the next one

I mentioned tripartite, but our tripartite is a adaptive one and it adapts to the environment

So we are more solid at the south -facing part of the building,

both in the lower bit and in the tower.

We have more glazing towards the north of the building,

because there's more light there.

We also decrease the level of detail,

the fluting and the articulation as we go up,

because the further building is away from your eye,

which is usually the first four floors.

I think Jan -Geert said that.

It's important that you don't overbear a building

in which too much detail and in a very simple facade.

And again, there's a reason why you want to have

a simple expression of the building here

with a strong character, which is different.

So on the right hand side is the visualisation,

which I didn't use these, I forgot.

But this is the visualisation of the,

of the south end of the building,

which is the affordable bit, the recessed balconies,

the roof garden, the community centre, and the level of detail gets less after this level because we go high.

Next slide please.

I mentioned the horizontal expression of the facade, sorry.

Oh, okay.

If you can go back, I have one more point to make here.

So the reason we have a restraint articulation, this is not an angle building,

We are very careful on how we chose the tools

to make the building work in different scales.

There's a kind of a slot in the middle.

There's a situation which gets simpler.

It's because we're trying to make a building

which will not try to compete for attention.

It has a architectural expression which works.

It has an architectural expression.

Sorry to interrupt you Mr. Barbalov.

Is everything okay up in the balcony?

Please could you avoid laughing, clapping, booing, hissing, any of the above.

We're not in the pantomime, it's not the theatre, it's an inquiry that's disrespectful towards

Mr. Barbalov.

If you could please continue Mr. Barbalov.

Thank you, thank you ma 'am.

We're trying to complement the architectural expression

of Albion Riverside and an ensemble

which works together with Ransom Dock

and we do want to celebrate the location,

but we're not after a shape,

we're after something simple which sits there.

So I've described the scales, the two scales

and the local and detailed and I'll finish

with the description of the metropolitan one

which is the contentious one I believe.

Let's go to the next one please.

So, next slide.

This is the Ransom Dock as existing and the reason I put this slide here is that, well

I just want to add one thing here.

If this was designed from the beginning, if I was a master planner ever for Ransom Dock

quarter from scratch, I think the composition, I would put a toe landmark or a toe element

and in the location of Glass Mill's house, because it would be a vertical counterpoint

to the lineage of the bridge, the river and the Albion.

There are three curves there, which is the Albion, the bridge and the river, and there

is a counterpoint which we are saying.

Next slide please.

And we believe that this is the opportunity to complete the quarter.

We talk a lot about this.

The proposal in its lower bit talks to the mid -rise

in this location, heights of Albion, RCA,

and the new development which is in the middle,

which is 11 storeys.

It creates a continuity, the river is complete,

with a setback of the ground floor in the first.

It provides a vertical expression and an endpoint

to the ransom point, and strengthens, in my view,

the overall composition of the area. We have crafted the total element to be

directional deliberately and directional I mean it has a different it has a broad

and a narrow side because that implies directionality and it does work

differently at different scales or different views especially long distance

views but if have included enough architectural detail to work in the long

distance scales by splitting the volume in the middle of vertically. It does

provide clear edgeability and we will emphasise this node,

which I think is very important, of the bridge, the path,

and the road, and the river.

Next slide.

I'm almost there.

And I want to just go back to some of these.

Again, you probably have seen this before.

These are sketches I've drawn over the years

of the development of the project.

It does show how it fits into the broader cityscape.

And I did say that some sites require our imagination

and to create something which works and is special

and works on many scales.

And to strengthen the relation between the kinetic landmarks

and the sequence of buildings which is happening

along the river because the river like meanders like a ribbon

and also to act as a visual counterpoint

of the linearity of the river,

which I mentioned before, the bridge,

and Albion River site, which is quite a big building,

not tall, big building.

And interestingly, in all our explorations,

and you'll see this later in some of the visuals,

and kinetic views, a tall element in this particular

location on the node of convergence of the bridge,

the path, does not by virtue of geometry,

impose visually on the bridge.

As mentioned earlier, the meandering river creates

unexpected, and I will say juxtapositions,

which are quite interesting.

I think our proposals will complement and mark the bridge. I'll show you now three visualisations

which show the before and after as I showed you before. Next please. So this is a view from

Chenwalk, kind of looking southwest. You can see the elements. I'm not going to go back into this.

Next slide.

Our proposal, key things to remember here,

is a counterpoint and openness.

There's openness between the elements,

and it's a counterpoint to the linearity of the elements.

Next slide.

There was discussion about night earlier.

This is a view of the existing.

Interestingly, again, Albion Riverside sits on the bridge.

Interesting, this view.

Next slide.

This is our proposal. Again, it's a completion.

This is the key takeaways from this slide. We complete visually

and kind of as a marker, the quarter

before the bridge on this side, so after the bridge on this side, before the bridge on the other side.

It depends how you look at it.

And then we have a character which works together.

Next one. It's a view you'll never see

but it's an important one. I started with an aerial.

It's a view from south -west, south - no, north -east, looking south -west.

And you can see our proposals at the end of Ransom Dock.

You can see the scale of Ransom Dock.

And actually, Ransom Dock really, in terms of spatial character, extends further down than the actual border of it, but that's a different discussion.

So, we're showing how this fits in the rhythm, which I described earlier, of up and down, up and down.

and we're at the end of the app and it's down again with Morgan off.

I'm going to do some kinetic views to finish our presentation.

Next one, yes, so this is the view from Chainwalk.

We're walking west. Please start.

You can see the building.

What you see here is the maximum parameters as described by the urban design study by the borough on the right hand side.

We put them on the visual, we walk down the bridge and we stop and I'll explain that a bit more.

You can see a proposal in context, you can see the Badassie Bridge, you see how we're not on the bridge, we're behind the bridge.

And you see the two heights, there's a description behind the little screen there of what the heights are.

This is the before, this is the after, you can see the scale of development which is the maximum parameter of development on the right hand side of the image.

we continue walking down on this side.

And stop and then let's do the next one as well.

It's a slightly longer one, we'll walk from the other side.

You can see clearly the development on the back.

You see a lot of landmarks existing and also some of the proposed later along the way

and how their view of each one of them and our proposal to changes as you move.

I mentioned earlier by boat, but also as a pedestrian in this case, there's a view here

which is very similar to which I had earlier, looking from Albert Bridge across, and then

we keep going down, and then we, this is almost the view I had earlier, and then you drop

down and then you can see there's also some proposed ones which is also caught in the

very distance which is approved, World's End, the Chelsea Towers, and then at some point

you start seeing also Monte vitro, you see Albion Riverside.

They all work in a kinetic sequence along the meander of the river.

And there you go, you can see Lombard Wharf just at the very back.

And you see how tower changed its kind of expression,

but works together, in my view, with the Albion,

and provides openness, especially slender in this view.

And there is a point in there, it's directional tower.

And I think the final thing of this is that we're just going to go on the bridge

and approach, but you kind of saw that earlier.

All of this is available online,

and you can watch all of these and rewind, et cetera.

But you can see the slenderness of the tower from this thing

which gives you this entry and exit kind of movement,

directionality, which is very important for us.

So I think this is the end, effectively,

of my presentation.

I've shown you our experience, described our process,

describe the design, I hope.

I believe I showed you how we work with the setting,

with the Battersea Bridge and the wider context.

The consideration and thinking in designing

this special site from architectural design

to the quality of spaces, to the homes

and the public realm, and it is my belief

that our proposal is the right and imaginative

response for this site.

Thank you.

Audience.

Thank you Mr Barloff. I was going to save questions for you for when you give evidence

and obviously Mr Edwards and Mr Walton will have an opportunity to ask questions as will

interested parties objective at that time. So thank you very much for that. It is helpful

to have had. I am going to move back to that seat. If we can perhaps -

Mr Riddle joined us.

Hello.

Might be a good time to hear from Mr Riddle,

then take a break, then reset everything for the roundtable.

Yeah?

OK.

So, Mr Riddle, would you like to come down to where I was just sitting?

Thank you.

Yes please.

And if you could just turn the microphone on at the base,

please, so just, that's great.

Yep.

Terrific.

Over to you, Mr. Riddle.

All right, thank you.

I was very interested in this rather beautiful presentation

that we've just seen.

One of the things that, let me first say

that my wife and I have lived in Badessey for 32 years.

And so we're familiar with the community

and the dynamics of that community

and how some things have changed.

When we were here originally and moved in in 1994,

there were a lot of warehouses there

along the water walkway, including a majestic liquor store,

et cetera, et cetera.

All of that is now occupied by Albin and Whariff.

But in any case, there's been a,

well, there have been efforts to develop certain parts

of the area that we live in,

and we live there at Waterside Point,

So we're living right along that walkway

between the Albert Bridge and the Battersea Bridge.

So we see it every day, day in and day out,

and oftentimes if we're not going over the Albert Bridge,

we're trying to go over to the Battersea Bridge,

walking or taking a bus, or until fairly recently, driving.

Today, if you try to go from the point down at

Latchmere Road, going north across the Battersea Bridge

road across the Battersea Bridge,

and this is not just because of the Albert Bridge closure,

because it's been this way for some time,

it can take you an hour in a bus.

or a car, the traffic is gridlocked.

So the environment that we've been trying

to help to support has been one,

because we live near the river,

the air quality should be better.

What occurred to me as I've been hearing about all of this,

and keeping track of it for some time,

is that one of the things that I've learned

in terms of project planning

is to ask why several times

in order to be able to get to those answers

and not to kill something necessarily

but to understand it better whether or not it's viable.

One of the comments earlier today

was that maintaining the existing environment

is not relevant.

If we're living in a community as we have for many years

and many families do, that is relevant.

Continuity is relevant.

Balance is relevant.

So if we ask the why, I can't seem to come up

with the answers as to why.

Does it enhance the community somehow?

Is there some kind of a demand for that huge building

at that corner?

I'm not saying that there isn't a demand for housing

in London metropolitan area,

but there are many different areas of Wandsworth

where there are a lot of taller buildings

that such a building might not just stand out in.

What about will it ease congestion?

Well I'm not sure how 110 apartments

and probably close to that many additional vehicles

are gonna ease congestion.

I watched some of the illustrations

that were presented today,

and it's very interesting to me that

on the proposal, you see empty roadways,

or virtually empty roadways.

That is not the case.

Most of the day, that roadway is gridlocked.

Do we need more of that congestion?

I also hear about parking.

So not only do you have more cars

that are requiring parking,

and I don't know if parking will be relevant to the 110,

okay, or allocated to them,

what about the restaurant?

Where is someone supposed to park

if they're going to go to the restaurant,

unless that restaurant is merely destined

for the residents of the building.

I can understand why the developer is appealing.

Having invested the money in that property

and then to be told that no, in order for,

your proposal is that you need originally 34,

now 28 storeys in order to make it viable

from an economic standpoint

and then you get pushback.

I can understand, I'm sympathetic.

But I think the interests of the community

are not just on behalf of the developer's economic state,

but rather the wellbeing of all of the members

of the community.

And it's very, very difficult to see

a positive answer to those whys.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr Harris, do you have any questions for Mr Riddle?

No thank you, thank you very much.

Thank you Mr Riddle, I appreciate your time and I appreciate you coming back this afternoon

to speak.

Thank you for your flexibility.

Thank you.

Okay so we are now at 2 .36.

How are things going Mr Harris in terms of attendees from your side?

From our side we're expecting one of our essential people for this roundtable to be here at three, but probably not before.

I don't know whether the Environment Agency have come in yet. I didn't see them during the last spot. Oh yes, there they are.

We're getting waves at the back, yes.

Yes, good. So let me just cheque.

His estimated time of arrival is three.

Okay, so just to give him an opportunity to catch his breath and everybody the opportunity to reset,

just thinking so the appellant's going to have Foster and then potentially up

to five others and then we've got three people from the Environment Agency I

believe and then is anybody from either the council or the Battersea Society

proposing to participate? For the council I think we'll attend. It'll be Mr.

Grainger and Mr. Mors but I very much doubt we're going to have a huge amount

to contribute to this session. Okay and for the Rule 6 party? Three people. Okay so

it might be best just in terms of numbers and the size of that table for

me to carry on sitting up here but for the table to be turned round and for

enough seats to be moved.

But I'm sure that between the three of you,

you can work it out.

If we have until maybe 10 past three?

We'll find a way, ma 'am, yes.

Yeah, okay.

So if we take a break now until 3 .10,

and then we'll have the round table discussion on flood risk.

Okay, the inquiry's adjourned till 3 .10.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Testing.

Arabia file.

Testing.

Thank you.

particularly strange when you turn them off but it won't help the live streaming.

People can't hear if we don't use the microphones.

Thank you.

The time is 3 .10 and the inquiry is resumed.

So we're going to have a roundtable discussion now on flood risk matters.

And the agenda sets out the items that I wish to cover in this session.

I sent that out via the case officer over the weekend.

So hopefully you've had an opportunity to see that,

but it's not a very long and detailed agenda.

We can go through as necessary.

So it's really intended as a prompt or reminder for me.

First of all, can we just go round the table for introductions?

I'll start just for the benefit of everybody who wasn't here right at the beginning.

I'm Ms Joanna Gilbert, I'm the Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to determine this appeal.

And if I can ask the Appellant's team to start and we'll go round, all the way round back to the beginning again.

Thank you, ma 'am. My name is Anjali Foster and I'm a barrister instructed by the appellant.

Jonathan Marginson from DP9.

James Mortimer from Aqua Terra Consulting.

David Gaffney, Construction Director for Rockwell.

Roy Canuck, instructing solicitors from Denton's.

Stephen Brand from the Environment Agency.

Shae Bunyan from the Environment Agency.

Sham Marcellin Fowler from the Environment Agency.

Thank you.

Michael Jubb, Battersea Society, Rule 6 Party.

Thank you.

Tom Comores of Ashford's LLP, constructed by Wandsworth.

Joanna Chambers, planning witness for the Borough Council.

Nigel Grainger for Wandsworth in Development and Management.

Thank you. Okay. And as it's a roundtable discussion, there's no formal presentation

of cases or any cross -examination, so comments and questions should be through me. And during

discussion I'll invite contributions from one side and then from the various others

and from any interested persons. So if you want to make a point or you feel like I'm

moving on before you've had your say, please do let me know.

So the next point on the agenda was are there any updates on agreed matters?

So I saw the statement of common ground that arrived on Friday.

Has anything changed since then that I should be aware of?

Not from the Appellant's side.

Okay.

Not from the Environment Agency's side.

Thank you.

And anything from anybody else?

Nope?

Okay.

So just turning to the point three,

the question of riparian ownership.

So could you just take me through,

and this is directed to the appellant initially,

what the circumstances are for this particular site

relating to riparian ownership?

Yes, so in relation to this site,

you will have seen the plans, hopefully,

in the back of the statement of common ground,

which identified the red line of the application boundary

and the extent of ownership that the appellant has.

And the river wall sits outside red line

and the appellant's ownership.

That sits with the Thames Walk residence building.

building and therefore the river wall is outside of the ownership of the

appellant and the Thames wall residents are the riparian owner of that river

wall. Thank you. Any differing views on that? So while I agree that you're not

riparian ownership, that because we have a specific bit of legislation in London, riparian

owner is not the correct term.

That applies to the rest of England.

So what we're dealing with here is ownership under what we refer to as the Metropolitan

Flood Acts, but you have got it recorded in the agenda as the correct name, but it would

be flood defence owner.

While we recognise that you aren't the flood defence owner, that doesn't actually have

any bearing in the national planning policy framework.

it refers to the developer and it puts the onus on the developer to manage flood risk that results from the development

So we're not sure why that has yeah why it's being brought in for consideration here

Thank you mom the I mean, I suppose the issue here is as we've set out in the

statement I think is agreed.

There is a wider regulatory regime which is relevant

to your consideration, which the MPPF asked you to treat

as one that will operate effectively where there are

defined regulated outcomes from it.

And the Victorian statutes that have been referred to

and are a matter of agreed agreement between the parties

are those that require riparian owner outside of

the flood defence owner to undertake works necessary to maintain or extend the flood

defence and those acts provide a power, other powers, for the Environment Agency to require

the owner to undertake those works and therefore it is a regime that functions to achieve a

particular regulated outcome for the purpose of the cases that have been identified and

what's relevant here in terms of the maintenance

and continuation of the existence of the flood defence

and indeed its future alteration

because there's an entirely separate legal regime

that provides for that to take place with powers

to make sure that it does.

And just to add to that point, Ma 'am,

and that's set out as agreed between ourselves

and the Environment Agency at paragraph 2 .5

of the statement of common ground.

Madame Inspector, can I ask for the either sound

to be turned up or people to be very much closer

to the microphone. It was almost impossible to hear.

And I'll remember to turn the microphone on. That's always helpful. If we can try,

first of all, speaking closer to the mic. If that's not working then we'll have to

pause to resolve it because I need to hear as well and there are points where I'm struggling

if you're not close enough. So I can appreciate Mr White's concerns.

Sorry, it was 2 .5. That's right, paragraph 2 .5.

Just for my understanding, given what's just been said by the Environment Agency in relation

to riparian ownership being a term that is used outside London and the Metropolis Management

Act 1879 to 1962 is referred to in 2 .5 .1. And then 2 .5 .2 states the EEA has permissive

powers under these Act to inspect flood defences and can instruct riparian owners to comply

with their legal obligations to repair and maintain the flood defence. So in this instance

that would be the flood defence owners?

Is that, am I correct in that understanding?

So, where we, if we were to identify,

as part of our inspections, issues that required addressing

through the Metropolitan Flood Act,

we could compel the owner to undertake those works.

Our powers of inspection, like our permissive powers

don't arise under the Metropolitan Flood Act.

That is a completely separate bit of legislation

that I can't remember off the top of my head.

But our ability to inspect

doesn't come from the Metropolitan Flood Act.

the Metropolitan Flood Act sent us on maintenance, responsibilities and obligations of land owners

adjacent to flood defences.

We can compel the land owner to undertake works, but we can't compel them to undertake

works to mitigate risks that have been introduced by third parties.

There's no mechanism within the Metropolitan Flood Act that allows that.

So I'm not sure how we could compel the flood defence owner to undertake works to mitigate risks that's being introduced by a new development.

That's why we have the National Planning Policy Framework.

Did the appellant want to comment on that?

I'm wondering what risks the proposed development brings into play, given that it in itself

has a finished floor level of seven metres above sea level, with safe access and egress

at all times and all flood events for the residents and users. So I'm not sure what

risks the development would suffer given it has its own integral flood defence way beyond

that required under the Tenzestry Plan?

So as I understand it, we haven't been given sufficient evidence from yourselves, so we're

unable to do a full assessment of the flood risks that your development poses.

I think we all agree that by introducing the development, the flood risk does fundamentally

change because you will be introducing more people into the area. In terms of the finished

floor levels, we've only been able to see that for a certain amount of the buildings

without being able to see the entire plans and cross -socians. Yeah, we just can't make

that assessment.

So it strikes me that we're moving on to the existing and proposed circumstances. So I

might ask a number of questions that appear stupid, but I just want to clarify what the

existing and proposed situation is and then we can dig a bit deeper into the

situation of what this development would do and what this developments

responsibilities are. So just in terms of the existing situation, so can the

appellant just advise me on the setback of the existing development from the

river wall from the tidal defence and what the setback would be for the

proposed development please. Yes ma 'am, in the statement of common ground you will

have seen a series of plans which start at appendix 2 3 4 5 6 and they go on.

These are plans that were discussed with the EA and the EA had requested a series of sections,

sort of slices taken through the existing building on the site and the river wall and the proposed.

If I take you to appendix 2, you will see there that on the left hand side is the existing building and river wall.

On the right hand side is the proposed building along with the river wall.

And then there are numerous distances you will see between the river wall and the existing

building and the proposed building.

If you look at the one I think which is furthest down page, on the existing there's a measurement

of 14 .3 metres, this is a ground floor,

and then it propels 16 .2 metres.

So there is, and this is kind of consistent

through a number of the sections as well,

there is a betterment in the position

in terms of the distance from the river wall

in the existing situation to the proposed,

because basically the building line is being pulled back.

Mum, if it helps, just the very last page

has got a sort of all the plans kind of summary

and it's got helpfully shaded blue,

the proposed basement level extent

and you can see that stepping back from the existing

and that's hopefully shown on plan three on the right hand side. Proposed basement level.

Correct, it's the blue on all of the plans but the green sliver that you can

see there is the area that we're stepping away from the river wall.

Could I give you one point of information which is relevant to the

first question before. So I'll just say this to you and you can go to write it

if you want to, this is the relevant power for the EA,

which I suppose should have been referred to

in the agreed section that you've referred to, 2 .5 .2.

When it says the EA has permissive powers, 2 .5 .2,

those powers, obviously the duty under the owner

is under the Victorian statutes,

but the power for the environment agencies

under section 21 brackets two of the Land Drainage Act 1991

And that's by virtue of the amendments that were made under section 107 of the Water Resources Act 1991.

I just know that because I had a lot of fun trying to work it out.

So that's the situation to the duties and powers.

Thank you.

Does the Environment Agency want to add anything to what they've just heard?

So when the Environment Agency talks about setback, we need to consider the entirety

of the flood defence structure.

The setback measurements that have been provided just consider the crest of the flood defence,

which is the very top section which is visible.

That structure will become larger as it goes further down to provide stability to it, and

we need to know what the entirety of that structure is to be able to accurately

measure what the setback is. Once again this just goes back to a lack of

information to be able to make an informed decision on what that setback

is so that we can fully understand the developers proposals. Thank you. Anything

further from Battersea Society or the council? No? Okay. I think there is a

I just wanted to point out a clarification there.

I think Mr. Marginson was going to take you

to the plans provided to us on Friday,

showing the alignment of the existing flood defence,

but also the building foundations from 1982.

I think that's probably quite helpful

at this juncture to look at those.

The Environment Agency?

So those drawings that provided are historic in nature.

That drawing was a composition of drawings

from different ages.

As has been discussed earlier, this used to be a working wharf and it's had a lot of uses over the years.

But we do not have confidence in what is there and what that setback might be.

And as the appealant has agreed, there is a requirement for an intrusive survey to actually determine what is present and what that structure looks like.

Thank you.

And just in terms of the height of the current flood defence, so could the

appellant please just take me through what the height is of the current flood

defence and what is expected and by what dates in terms of changes to the height

of the flood defence?

No problem.

The existing flood defences have a crest level of 5 .85 above Ordnance Datum and the requirement

up until the 21 -35 period will be to raise it to 6 .3 metres above Ordnance Dartum.

There is an intervening epoch which the defence already meets,

subject to possibly a 5 cm difference.

So the existing flood defence is satisfactory to the end of the century

and then up to 2135 requires 45 centimetres of additional height.

If I could just take you to the statement of common ground as well

which is relevant in relation to the point that was made earlier

that then took us into this and to the point that has just been made.

2 .7 on page eight is where it's reflected

that the flood defence needs to be existing, et cetera,

but in terms of flood risk, which is being talked about,

the finished floor level of the building is considered

by the year not to be a flood risk.

So that sort of does deal with that point,

and that's why that is agreed.

And obviously 2 .8 is recording that the section of wall

that's by the site is actually serving

a very large area of London.

It's not just our site that's being served.

There's a huge catchment of inundation risk

that that whole flood defence along the river is serving.

And the cell that T2100 adopts,

so the bits of the river that need to be

at different heights in terms of stopping

that very large flood zone,

southwest London flooding is why those heights have been set for that area.

But in relation to the site, we're just one of a lot of sites in that

whole very large catchment area and that's why it's reflected at 2 .8.

The purpose of that is a strategic flood defence that serves an area well beyond

the site but what's important about 2 .7 is that in terms of flood risk the

the scheme's been designed to be acceptable.

Thank you, the Environment Agency?

I think it's important to note that the

finished floor level point is specifically

addressing the proposed development site,

but as agreed, that flood defence serves

a much wider area, and the need for that to be raised

is more so what our point is, and the development

needs to prove that flood risk won't be increased elsewhere,

and we believe that we've had inadequate information

to demonstrate how that flood defence can be raised

within the space being provided by the proposed development.

Mr. Marginson.

Sorry, I just wanted to pick up on that point

of increasing flood risk.

Where is that point coming from?

Because we haven't heard that from the AI before

and why would this development increase flood risk elsewhere?

I mean, it's entirely acceptable up to the end

of the century, so why the EA saying this proposal

would in some way increase flood risk elsewhere?

The point that we're trying to make is that

with the delivery of the development without the information

to demonstrate those raisings can be delivered

as noted by 2090 is the point which is within

the lifetime of this development.

That defence will need to be raised to 6 .3 metres,

which was agreed in 2 .7, and if those raisins

can't be delivered inherently, there will potentially

be an increase of flood risk elsewhere.

And we're asking for a demonstration,

but we don't believe there's been adequate information

up to this point to prove that.

Could I come back on that?

Yeah, I'm just struggling to understand what you're saying,

because you're effectively saying that if the wall isn't

increased on the application site,

that's going to increase flood risk elsewhere.

But the fact is, the wall won't be increased on any other site

adjacent to this site, unless the EA or the owners of those

flood defences undertake the work.

So, I mean, the whole area is going to flood.

It's not just going to be this site,

and this site isn't going to in itself increase flood risk

if the flood defence walls aren't raised.

If I could just amplify that point before you hand over,

what we know is that there's a legal regime

with the responsibility to maintain and raise,

if necessary, the flood wall.

We know that.

Then we know that there's a power for the environment agency to direct the work that

the works have done where there's a default by the owner of the flood defence and they

can recover the cost of doing so.

Those powers are all inherent in the act that I referred to.

We know that the scheme has been designed to be two things.

One is stepping back from the existing flood defence.

It moves itself backwards at subterranean level.

So we know that there's not a flood defence structure in the area that there's an existing

basement in because there's a basement there.

We also know from the historic drawings which were provided on Friday, there's a large number

of cross beams which are the underpinnings, effectively, or piles.

You can see them, big criss -crosses all over the site, well towards the flood defence from

our proposed line of building.

So we know there's structures in there.

We know there's not a flood defence in there.

Then you've also got in the historic drawings

that were provided, the cross section of the wall.

It says as constructed,

we need a magnifying glass a little bit,

but the 1969 drawings when the mobile dock was replaced

at the eastern end of the wall

and the whole wall was dealt with by these contractors,

they put this helpful composite drawing together

with sections and the sections show

the constructed position.

and when you then look at that with the 1982 drawing

that's provided with a substantial amount of piling,

and then you look at the fact the scheme is in fact

stepping itself back from where the known basement level is,

then we know that we're basically not on

or effectively sufficiently near the flood defence.

You then get to the point that the scheme

has also been designed, secondly,

to have a finished floor level,

which is above the relevant risk level,

even at the greatest extremity that policy envisages.

And it's for that reason that it's recorded at 2 .7

as an agreed matter, which is that

from a design perspective, the scheme is adequate.

And so the disconnect, I think,

from the appellant's perspective is to try to understand,

you could say for any scheme,

any building that's gonna come forward,

it's not the flood defence owner,

anywhere in the whole area that's the wall,

that section of the wall is notionally protecting,

which is a large area behind the dam, if you like,

that all of those schemes would have to do some kind of intrusive survey.

That's the disconnect that we've ended up with.

When you look at the specific facts of this scheme,

it's not a site where, you know, we don't have a building right next to the wall,

we don't have foundations of the wall, we don't know anything about the layout of the wall,

the scheme hasn't been designed to a certain finished floor level.

So the specific facts of this scheme

may not take us to where the environment agency

would like feasibility work to be done

or more surveys that are helpful to be done,

but that we submit is not the relevant test

for the imposition of planning conditions.

And, Ma, just to put this in context,

and I'm sure we'll come onto it later in the agenda,

is that this doesn't go to harm caused by the scheme

going to a reason for refusal.

It goes to necessity for planning conditions,

because there are suggested planning conditions

by the EA which go to the intrusive investigations

by way of a grand pin condition

and flood defence raising strategies.

And so that's the prism through which this debate

is being had, not harmed, that will be caused

by the development.

Did the environment agency want to come back?

Yes, ma 'am.

So the importance of the future raising

and the consideration that the development

is safe for its lifetime, that there is this requirement

and by 29 for that crest to be raised,

is to understand the feasibility of how that can be achieved.

So that needs to consider what the flood defence structure

currently is, what condition it's in,

and most importantly, what space is available

to complete the works to be able to do it

in a sustainable and cost -effective manner

to raise those defences.

So that's why it's crucial for this development,

because it is adjacent to the flood defence structure,

it directly impacts the available space

to complete those works at a future date.

And, Mum, I think the query back is,

when we talk about direct impacts of this scheme

on the ability to carry out future flood defence works,

bearing in mind what we know about the site

from the drawings that we received,

particularly the 1982 ones,

which clearly show the foundation position.

And then we know that the proposed scheme

is stepping itself back away from the river wall

at least 18 square metres worth, the green section.

And we know, because it's agreed, I think,

that the site is constrained at either side,

outside the site boundary, the actual access

as you come in from the highway from the east,

as you come down from Battersea Bridge, they're pinched,

so you're not exactly getting a digger in there.

And so, although it's the appellant's position

that the public realm arrangement that's proposed in association with the scheme will declutter

that.

And so we've said that we think there's an improvement of sorts to the ability to get

round on a bike and hand tool the wall if that's going to be done from the backside

of it.

In any event, whatever the view is taken really of that, there can be no worsening of the

situation, certainly not at a subterranean level.

and we believe that it's common ground

that the subterranean setback is agreed.

And that the surface level, however,

the methodology for carrying out

these future flood raising works,

which are the responsibility of the flood defence owner

with the power of the environment agency

to intervene if necessary,

however those works are carried out,

if the choice is made to do it from the land side,

there's nothing about the scheme

that prejudice is the ability to do those works.

In fact, on the facts, it only improves them,

or even at the very worst view you take,

which I've regarded as very pessimistic at surface level,

it makes them no worse.

This is the cleaning up of the public realm arrangement.

Would the Environment Agency like to respond?

Yes, ma 'am.

So the emphasis there is on subterranean.

It doesn't consider the working space,

the ground level that would be required

to conduct works in the future.

So we do not agree that above ground

there's a betterment in the situation

or an improvement in the situation

to sort of consider the feasibility

of that work in the future.

As per statement of common ground,

we acknowledge the site is constrained as existing,

but that doesn't negate the need

to improve that access in the future.

It shouldn't be remained constrained and that's where the demonstration comes in.

Can they demonstrate that this proposal doesn't restrict access and there's a feasible way

to raise that flood defence and carry out work to it?

I don't want to annoy you by boring you or for any other reasons because I've learned

that that's quite a risk.

but I think that we suffice to say that when you look at the public realm arrangement,

and you can see it on, I don't think it's the best way to number this plan,

it says ground floor plan existing in proposed section EE.

Oh sorry, yeah, it's appendix six, apologies.

The back page.

Sorry, which page?

It's the back page of appendix six in the statement of common ground.

And just cheque you have that.

Just getting there.

It's easier to see it on screen than it is printed off because I can enlarge it.

Okay, so appendix six and it's, did you say the bottom image?

Well if you look at plans one and two,

so the top two images, left and right.

Plan one, existing ground floor level.

Plan two, proposed ground floor level.

And it's clearly better that we know the basement level

because we're stepping back,

but on the ground floor level,

I mean we think it's a point that goes nowhere.

We claim some improvement frankly

to the considerable improvement to the public realm

condition, but in terms of working space,

we say on any view it's sort of at least marginally better

if not quite a bit better,

and you'll see from the site visits,

and you'll be able to judge relative to the visualisations

and do the drawings that go behind or explain plan two,

but compared to the existing sort of maze

of stuff that's there,

I'll put it in the most neutral way,

it's hard to see how it could be said to be worse.

I think the fundamental point that we're trying to make is

that we don't necessarily consider that the development

is inappropriate in this location.

It's simply that we just don't have the information

submitted to be able to make an evidence -based

and informed advisory position, which we've been requesting

ever since this development first came to us.

I'd quite like to move on to the question of intrusive survey, unless anybody else has

anything else to say about existing and proposed circumstances.

So on reading through the statement of common ground at, so 2 .3 .1, so that's towards the bottom of page 7,

refers to, it's agreed that an intrusive survey is needed to verify the precise setback distances.

And then when it's said at paragraph 2 .5 .3, in terms of talking about things that are

agreed, it then goes on at 2 .5 .3 to say, the inspector is entitled to consider whether

other legal obligations are necessary in relation to whether the flood defence will remain of

sound structural integrity for the lifespan of the development.

So what does that mean precisely and what is expected of me?

And I'll go to the appellant first of all and then the environment owners.

I'll deal with that briefly because I think the run of those paragraphs is about that there's an existing regime

for the purpose of the requirement effectively on you to consider the functioning of a regulatory regime

and whether it will achieve a particular outcome.

It's a fudge of wording, 2 .5 .3,

because our position, I think, initially was that

you're required to consider that.

I think where we got to, which we do agree with,

is that if you felt that the Victorian Statutes

and the Land Drainage Act,

as amended by the Water Resources Act,

didn't provide a legal regime

where there was sufficient clarity

about duties and powers in relation to the maintenance

and extension of the flood wall.

If you consider that's not an adequate regime

to place reliance on, then you'd be entitled, of course,

to consider whether some other conditional

planning obligation was needed to kind of fill the gap

and do the job.

Obviously, our position is that we submit

so you don't need to.

Okay, the environment agency?

I think on that point, the point that we agree with

is that of course you are entitled to consider

other legal obligations, but overall the point

that we're trying to make is that the development itself

isn't complying with the MPPF in terms of flood risk.

And what we are also concerned about is that

through the development being delivered,

is that actually further owners could be placed

on this riparian owner of the flood defence,

which again, coming back to it,

we're not saying it is or it isn't,

it's just simply that we don't know

because we haven't got the information

that we've been requesting to be able to make

that valid assessment.

Okay, thank you. Well, we'll move on to the questions of conditions and obligations in

due course later in the agenda. We've then got 2 .7. So that refers to, in relation to

flood risk, it's agreed that the flood defence meets the current height requirements of the

TE2100 plan and that the proposed development has a minimum ground floor, finished floor

level of seven metres above ordnance datum, which exceeds the 2100 to 2135 level of 6 .3

metres that the TE 2100 plan requires all flood defences to be raised to by no later

than 2090.

Then you've got 3 .1 .3 which then says it's not been demonstrated

how the flood defences adjacent to the site could be raised in line with the requirements

of Thames Estuary 2100 plan.

So do those two paragraphs work well together?

Are they consistent with one another?

The Environment Agency?

Yes, I think what is important to agree in 2 .7

is that we agree that of course the finished floor level

is above Ordnance Datum,

which exceeds that of the Flood Defence,

but they are two separate points.

And actually what we're saying in three point,

what number is it?

I've lost it now.

3 .1 .3 is that flood defence which was mentioned earlier

is currently at 5 .85 and what it's required to be raised

to is 6 .3 metres above ordinance datum by 2090.

The seven metres is simply referring

to the finished floor levels of the development

which is a separate point.

Anything to add on that?

Very briefly, I mean obviously 3 .1 is recording

from the DA's position and therefore is a disagreement

with the earlier statement.

We do regard it as being logically incompatible

because as we said elsewhere, it's stated

as agreed matter, not section three, disagreed.

It's an agreed matter that it's not the responsibility

of the appellant to raise the flood wall.

We've dealt before with the legal regime

and whose responsibility it is and who's got powers

and all that kind of thing.

Did the Environment Agency want to respond on that?

And that's the crux of why we need to understand the feasibility, that it shouldn't be making

it harder for the person, it does need to raise it by the presence of this development,

so it's all about feasibility of that raising.

Is everybody happy for me to move on to conditions?

conditions. I note that at 3 .2 the Environment Agency proposed the following conditions in

relation to the raising of the flood defence should planning permission be granted. Obviously

I understand your basic standpoint but you're also travelling further down the road going

well if you're doing this, please look at these conditions as well. You've got a conditioned

flood defence raising strategy, then you've got a condition entitled Flood

Defence Intrusive Investigations and a condition on flood defence remediation

or replacement strategy. So the condition on flood defence raising strategy is

quite succinct. It reads, no development approved by this Planning Commission

shall commence until such time as a scheme to raise tidal Thames flood

defences within the application site in compliance with the recommendations of the Thames Estuary

2100 Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

So if the scheme to raise the tidal flood defences is approved, what then happens?

And if I can ask the Environment Agency first of all.

So it's demonstrating that that raising hasn't been precluded or made harder for the flood

defence owner?

I think it's probably important to add as well that these conditions, through the discussions

around the Statement of Common Ground, we decided to leave it in the disagreed section

and the specificities of the conditions

are to be further discussed if need be.

But again, the overall point that it would need to be

a demonstration of feasibility with more information,

which we don't believe is appropriate

at the condition stage.

My only question is if the appellant produces a scheme for raising the Thames tidal flood

defences, which is approved by the LPA, how is that then enforceable when they are not

the flood defence owner?

So it could be subject to enforcement, which is not enforceable or reasonable.

Just to round that point off, I think the condition as it's worded, there's two issues with it.

One is, I don't think it's unenforceable, because it just is what it is.

The comment that's just been made by the Environment Agency is more to the point that why is it being done by this person,

given that it's already been accepted

that there's a matter of agreed fact

that the developer here in this particular fact,

in this particular scheme,

is not required to raise the wall.

We can understand from a public body perspective

why it's good to get people to design things

and it would reduce the overall cost of design

having to be done by the area.

I entirely recognise that.

But I suppose where we struggle

is meeting the policy requirements tests

for the imposition of a condition, there's a disconnect.

It also secondly refers to defences

within the application site, which is clearly wrong,

because they're not within the application site.

And so there's several reasons why it's,

you know, it's an expenditure of resources by someone

and an expenditure of resources by the LPA

who's got to discharge the condition and deal with it.

But obviously there are policy hurdles

to the imposition of these kind of conditions

to avoid that being done for no reason.

Before the Environment Agency comes back again,

there are a number of things.

Yes, it's not within the application site,

and it's not an application anymore, it's an appeal.

If you're looking at ...

Nothing's happening on this site until you've submitted a scheme.

So a Grampian condition saying you've got to submit a scheme,

which is a scheme, it's not the only scheme, I assume.

There might be alternatives is what I'm saying.

And then it's not for the developer to deliver that scheme

because they don't have that responsibility.

It's for somebody else, and in this instance it's Thames Walk, potentially as the flood

defence owner, to then implement that scheme, which they may look at and say, well, that's

not a scheme that we feel we can implement.

It's too financially onerous on us.

We're going to look at another scheme.

I'm not getting how this is going to be implemented and what genuine positive difference it's

going to make for the developer to be delayed in delivering something.

This is all working on the basis that I'm allowing and with conditions we have to work

on the basis that I'm in the world that says allow.

There is also still a very big alternative world saying I dismiss this appeal and we

haven't gone through all the evidence yet.

We're on day one.

But what then happens with that scheme?

It sits there having been submitted and approved by the local planning authority, presumably

in negotiation and consultation with the environment agency.

And then what happens?

So the purpose of the scheme is that the scheme would be underpinned by the fact that with

that development in place, there is a potential for whoever the owners falls upon to deliver

Raisings in some capacity, of course how that looks

depends on who decides to do it at the time.

What we're simply saying is that with the development

in place supported by the condition survey,

the intrusive condition survey that we're asking for

is one thing.

Demonstration of the adequate space to be able to undertake

those raisings feasibly and sustainably is another thing

and then that would just be supported by at least

one actual fairly detailed scheme of how that could look

just again to support this overall scheme

of it is possible in the future.

Could I raise one point just picking up

on what you were saying, Marm.

I have concerns about the reasonableness of this condition

because we would, the appellant would need to submit

a strategy to raise the wall.

And as you just said, there could be various

alternative methods of doing that.

The local planning authority would inevitably consult

the environment agency.

If the environment agency then decided that they didn't

like that particular option that had been put forward,

and they would say to the local planning authority,

we object and you shouldn't discharge this condition.

and where does that leave the appellant?

Because I think then we would be going down

rounding circles I suspect, trying to find an option

which satisfies the EA.

And having had several discussions with EA on this

on other sites, I suspect that their preferred option

is to raise the wall from the Landwood side.

I don't know how feasible that is or not,

but that would be their preferred option.

and I suspect an option of raising it from the riverside

is something they would object to.

So that's my concern, how reasonable is this condition?

And is it inevitably just going to end up

in preventing the development coming forward?

The Environment Agency?

Yeah, I think it's worth noting that in regional policy,

through the London plan and also the local Wandsworth plan.

It's that it says that within 16 metres,

unless exceptional circumstances are

demonstrated that there needs to be space

for foreseeable future maintenance and upgrade works

to be able to be undertaken in a sustainable

and cost effective manner.

So through that, through the application of those policies,

we are asking for a demonstration

that any developments within 16 metres,

in Wandsworth specifically, demonstrate that.

Without that demonstration, we can't make an assessment

about the future of that flood defence.

Now if I could just make a point on that.

I mean that's not what the condition says.

It's very different, isn't it?

Because what the condition, I mean, I'm a lawyer.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 1 Afternoon - Tuesday 17 March 2026, 2:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 1 AfternoonTuesday, 17th March 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 1 Afternoon
Tuesday, 17th March 2026 at 2:00pm