Glassmill planning appeal - Day 2 Morning - Wednesday 18 March 2026, 9:00am - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 2 Morning
Wednesday, 18th March 2026 at 9:00am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning. The time is now 10 o 'clock and the inquiry is resumed. For anybody new
today. My name is Ms Joanna Gilbert. I'm a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary
of State to hold this inquiry. This is the second day of the inquiry. Yesterday we heard
opening submissions of the main parties and we heard from several interested parties.
Mr Barbaloff, the scheme's architect, gave a presentation and there was a roundtable
discussion with the Environment Agency on flood risk. Before we get started with today's
proceedings. Can I just remind people to please switch mobile phones and other electronic
devices to silent, please. In terms of fire evacuation, those of us who were here about
quarter of an hour ago will have experienced the fire alarm testing. So you know what it
sounds like. If it goes off today, please take it seriously. The test has been carried
out. If you leave the building as swiftly as possible, whilst travelling carefully,
go down the main stairs, out of the doors, under the archway and around to the Delta
zone point near Ram Street. There will be fire wardens with tabards who will help and
In terms of toilets, there are toilets which are signed outside the chamber and in terms of breaks,
the session this morning is timetabled to last for two and a half hours, it may not do so,
but if it is running long we'll take breaks in between topics as and when suitable, but if
anybody does feel the need for a break earlier please do tell me. And we've got a timetabled
lunch break at 12 .30 for an hour. Are there any procedure or housekeeping matters before
we turn to the roundtable discussion for this morning?
Mr Harris.
Mr Edwards.
Mr Walton.
There was a lady who tried to approach me just before
the inquiry started. I can see a hand up up there. You wanted to hand in a document.
Would you like to come down and talk into one of the microphones please?
break.
Good morning, thank you, ma 'am.
Thank you.
So could you just explain the benefit of everybody
in the inquiry what the document is, please?
Yeah, let me just say beforehand that I am the chair
of Thames Wort Residence Association on 2 Hester Road
right next door to Glass Mill.
I just wanted to put forward and expediate
a couple of the points that were raised yesterday,
including documents that are the lease,
terms for the walkway in front of Rockwell
between, not Rockwell, but the council
and Thames Walk Residents Association.
Furthermore, you asked yesterday whether the
Thames Walk owners of the River Wall were aware
of their responsibilities and had been discussed
on potential liabilities of the River Wall
with the development and the answer to that is no.
So you're looking to submit the lease terms.
Yes.
And can I ask the parties for their views
in terms of my taking that document in?
Mr. Harris, is it better that Ms. Foster deal with this?
No, I think I can deal with it, ma 'am.
Might it be sensible that the document is shown
to Mr. Edwards, myself, and the other advocates
so that we can form a view on your question.
I really doubt that we'll have an objection,
but we best cheque.
Thank you. Do you have copies of the document,
or is it a single copy that you've brought with you?
I'm sorry, I only brought three copies.
Okay.
Unless Mr Edwards and Mr Walton have any disagreement
with what Mr Harris has just said, I'm getting head shakes.
Could you provide the copies of the document
to Mr Harris, Mr Walton and Mr Edwards?
And I will take a view later
as to whether I accept the document.
Yes, ma 'am.
Can I make one further comment about today's roundtable?
Certainly.
As you're aware that today's roundtable
was specifically on the submission made
by Townsville residents association,
Albion Riverside A1.
I was advised by the specialist not to partake today.
And after yesterday's round table and given the amount of lawyers and specialists that were afforded by Rockwell, it was probably very good advice.
As you're probably aware, we did look at Rule 6 and also the round table for today.
and it would have cost us in excess of £75 ,000.
As you're aware, in Thames Walk, we are only 15 flats,
so it's quite an enormous cost.
The Thames Walk Residents' Association believe
that a lot of the work that was requested to be done
to refute Rockwell's claims
should have been a part of Rockwell's submission,
but given that they reduced the amount of flaws in the application,
it did circumvent them having to do a lot of the work that then was requested for us to do to put in front of everybody today.
So I felt I couldn't, as a layman, represent fully the shareholders of Thames Walk Residents Association with any fair level playing field, which is why I'm not participating today.
Thank you. Can I just take your, you give me your details as the chair of Thames Walk
Residents Association. I might assume you're Amanda Hendricks. That's correct ma 'am. Okay,
thank you and if you could circulate those documents that would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. So are there any other procedural or housekeeping matters before
moving on to the roundtable discussion this morning?
No, thank you, ma 'am.
Thank you. So the agenda for this morning sets out the items that I wish to cover and
and they're set out at a very high level and are very similar to those matters which I
set out as being potential headings for areas of discussion in the Statement of Common Ground.
However, no Statement of Common Ground was finalised on these matters. So I do have a
number of questions and just in terms of the roundtable itself, there will be no formal
presentation of case or cross -examination. Comments and questions should be directed
through me. 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. Before we get into the roundtable, can I just ask
for introductions, please? And if we can start with Ms Foster on the end, please.
Good morning, ma 'am. I am Anjali Foster, barrister, instructor for the appellant.
Thank you.
Jonathan Marginson from DP9 for the Appellant.
Lloyd Bush from Velocity OA Transport Planning Consultants
for Rockwell.
Thank you.
Good morning, Simone Pagani from GIA
on daylight and sunlight.
And John Winchester also from GIA on wind microclimate.
Thank you.
Joanna Chambers, planning witness on behalf of the Borough Council.
Nigel Grainger for Wandsworth in Development and Management.
Thank you. Is anybody from the Rule 6 party looking to participate? No.
Is anybody else looking to participate in the roundtable?
Would you like to come down to the roundtable? And could you introduce yourself, please?
Yes, certainly. My name is David Tidleigh. I'm the Head of Transport Strategy for Wandsworth
Mr Tedley.
So the first item on the agenda is, after the introduction, is agreed matters, any update.
So can I ask the appellant whether there are any changes I should be aware of?
There are no changes, ma 'am.
Thank you. Okay and the item three is living conditions with particular regard to daylight,
sunlight, outlook and privacy. So I've had regard to the report that the appellant has provided in
respect of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing and I've also had regard
to the appellant's statement of case, sorry, statement of case, planning, evidence
and appendices and rebuttal. Just in terms of the situation that the appellant
fines. Could the appellant please just set out an overview in respect of the
effect of the proposed development on 6 Hester Road, Thames Walk Apartments and
Albion Riverside please.
I might ask Simone from GIA to actually get into the technical numbers.
But I suppose in terms of impact, you'll have seen that the matter of daylight and sunlight
was comprehensively addressed within the officer report in quite a lot of depth
within section 4 and as you have seen we've got the statement of common ground
which is agreed between the council and ourselves which there is agreement that
the proposal complies with local plan policy LP 2 in particular part b1 which
which refers to avoiding unacceptable impacts
on levels of daylight and sunlight.
Our position is that the levels of daylight and sunlight
to surrounding neighbours is commensurate
with what would be expected of an urban area
in this context, that the proposed development
doesn't generate any substantial harms
in terms of paragraph 125C of the MPPF.
And indeed, we say there is no harm,
and if there is any harm, it will be at a very low level.
That's our kind of overview, I suppose,
but if you want to get into the individual buildings,
then I'll hand over to Simone.
Thank you.
If we could get into the individual buildings,
that would be of interest to me.
May I ask if there is anything in particular that you would like to explore?
So if you could take me through in turn for each. So if we start with 6 Hester Road, then
move on to Thames Walk, then Albion Riverside, and if you could look at VSC first, then No
Skyline and Annual Probable Sunlight Hours, please.
Okay. Okay.
So if I may, I'll start with an overview first, just to set the scene, and then we may want
I want to turn to CD 111, which is our report.
And maybe we can go through a few results.
Yeah, I must warn you, I have been trying to open
the report for the last 20 minutes,
and because of its size, it keeps timing out,
but I'll keep on trying.
Okay, perfect.
Let me try and also make the results more visible for myself.
So the three properties mentioned are obviously the three properties which are closest to
the development.
They are the ones where some impacts are recorded.
In terms of daylight, as you know, we start by measuring
the vertical sky component, and the vertical sky component
is a measure of how much light under an overcast sky
reaches a given window.
In terms of BRE, which is the body that has written
the guidance that we measure light against,
they've defined the vertical sky component
as being a relative measurement.
So you would test it in an existing scenario
and a proposed scenario and then look at
what change there is.
If this change is beyond the 20%,
then BRE says the effect of it would be noticeable.
I think then moving on from there,
if layouts are available, one can also look
at the distribution of light within a given room.
If the information about an internal layer
is not available, then it's recommended not to do so
and go by assumed layouts.
So we have not done that.
The important matter, I guess, in reading the results
is that BRE also goes further than just looking
at relative reduction, and I think that this would be
a very important point to understanding in an urban setting
because relative reduction in an urban setting
is dictated by two factors.
One is if the existing site is particularly open
and then something gets built,
a noticeable relative reduction is often,
well, it occurs quite often.
The second scenario in which this is very important is
if there is any obstructions, for instance,
existing obstructions, at Successor Road,
the building is not flat, so there is floors that jot out
that will cast shadow on windows below them.
On Successor Road, there is walkways that give access
to all of the flats, and these are quite substantial,
So effectively they work as canopies.
And what that does, it means that the existing levels
of light at those particular windows is already very reduced
when compared to how BRE looks at it,
which is in a way that it is nationally applicable.
I would say if you consider BRE's recommended values,
they are identified in depictions within the guidance
as being terrace housing, looking at more terrace housing
opposite, so not exactly the setting we are in
at the moment.
So if a level of light is particularly low,
again, a relative reduction may be quite high,
even though an absolute change may be very small.
So this is kind of the setting for it.
And what we have tried to do in our report
was to consider the results at face value,
so look at an existing reproposed scenario
for all the three properties with the walkways in place.
Then we ran a further scenario taking those obstructions
away in order to understand what the role
of the proposed massing is.
And then we also tried to set the results in context.
So what is appropriate or an appropriate level
of retained light in a context such as an urban setting.
So these are the stages that we've adopted
to try and get to a better understanding
of how the results would then fit policy LP2.
This is Dieter.
Would you like me maybe to take the buildings in turns
and try and look at some of the levels of light
within the properties.
Yes, please.
Now, because there is so many properties,
how would you like me to go about it?
Yes, but this.
We'll start with Six Hester Road.
Let's start with Six Hester.
So, Six Hester Road,
if you were able to turn to CD1E,
and page 74, which is where our results in the report are.
Okay, if you just give me a minute.
Yes, of course.
Just because the download failed again
from the council's website.
So I'm trying to fire an alternative route
via our managed appeal system.
Just bear with me a moment.
Yes.
There are benefits and hazards to working electronically.
I'm so sorry I didn't think of printing out a...
Just it's thinking about it at the moment.
Okay, well we may yet get there. Thank you.
Okay.
Is that hard copy clean?
Does it have any scribbling on it?
I think I may have to go for the hard copy, thank you.
I appreciate it.
Okay, so it was page 74.
It's page 74, 75 of the digital version.
I suppose it is similar.
Oh, 42 actually, yes, in the printout.
Sorry, the numbering keeps moving in this copy. It keeps restarting.
Would it be possible to?
Yeah.
Ah, there, okay, thank you.
Okay?
Okay, should we start from the top?
Yep.
The apartments are set out so that they are
let's say dual aspect.
At the top, we start with the lowest floors,
and then as we go down the table,
we look at higher floors.
We have a room, so a flat ref, floor ref, a room ref,
and then the room use, a window reference,
and then the results.
the results start with VSC by window.
When there is multiple windows,
they are also grouped together by room,
and then in a cell and then sunlight.
So if we looked at the VSC by window,
this particular property would see existing levels
of 22, 23, going down to 17 and 18 .8.
And so this property is quite well lit.
It is one of the properties that overlooks the river,
but still sees an effect of the building jotting out
past the line of the windows of Thames Walk.
Then if we keep on going below, there is a second LKD,
again very similar levels of light,
27, 28, going down to 23.
Then there is the bedrooms.
The bedrooms, as you can see, they start at seven.
There is 1 .8, 0 .7.
These are levels in the existing condition.
And this is what I was referring to when I meant
in an urban setting, it can well be the case
that you find very low levels of light
already in an existing condition.
So any shift from that condition would result
in a very high relative loss, but the absolute change in light would be very minimal.
And did you treat bedrooms differently from living room, kitchen, dining areas?
So the VSC test doesn't really distinguish between room use. There are different tests
that can be done to distinguish the use and set different targets, but in terms of VSC
they don't.
Okay, and in summary for all of the windows that were tested in Hester Road, how many
of them were considered potentially to see a significant change?
So, many in terms of the relative loss.
I mean, there is a summary at the beginning of our report that
gives you the percentages.
There is also in our letter appended to Mr. Marginson an
actual breakdown in all of the retained levels by bracket,
which I don't know, it may be more useful in this case to look
at.
Yep.
So if we go to CD808.
Okay, just bear with me a moment.
Sure.
At page 22, I think that would be the letter that we sent in response to the PDS's report.
So that's the letter dated the 17th of February.
That's correct.
Yes, I have that before me.
So if you wouldn't mind turning to page 308 of that letter.
There we actually start analysing the three properties you mentioned.
So we start with success to road and there is a table that actually highlights the window count
and the retained VSC levels by range.
And we've done this so that we could respond to the PDSs
who took an average of all the VSCs tested,
which in their opinion differed from the one
that we had actually delivered in our report.
So here you can actually see a breakdown.
They're divided on the left -hand side, you see all windows,
and then on the right hand side non -compliant windows only.
So the non -compliant windows would be the one
that see a reduction greater than 20%,
which is what you were asking me to highlight before.
So of all the tested windows on six tests of road,
13 would retain a VSC level between zero and 4 .9,
and then three between five and 10, and so on.
So I guess that would give you the best summary
of the levels of light that people would retain within these
properties. I mean, the reason why we did it this way was
to then arrive at an average result
because the DPS in their letter have
taken an average of all of the windows tested and then they said
here is our average and their point was does it compare
with other, not in the case of 6 -Esther,
but 2 -Esther are affordable properties in the area,
so is it contextual?
So we've done the same exercise
to try and provide averages as well.
In the case of 6 -Esther Road,
the average that we've arrived at is about 15%,
which is obviously an average of all of the 23, 24s
that I was reading before,
and the bedrooms which are actually far lower than that.
And that's the average.
By that you can take away that that's basically
the daylight experienced within the building
if you want in one number.
I think that is the approach taken by the PDS
so we replicated it.
There are IT issues this morning
and the inquiry is not presently being live streamed.
I'm not obviously asking for an adjournment,
but I thought I'd better bring that to your attention,
the attention of others at this stage.
Thank you.
That may also explain why it's been so difficult to download
things.
Is there any understanding of how long
that might take to resolve?
Okay, thank you. If you could please.
Is everybody content to continue without live streaming
or would it be preferred to take a break and perhaps see where we are in half an hour?
Any views?
I'm seeing it.
I'm linking it to my iPhone.
Right.
It may be a Wi -Fi.
It might not be a council issue, but it's council -wide.
It's been raised and it's been looked at.
You may not be able to access very large CD documents.
And you may be able to access those.
That's more of a related issue.
Okay, does anybody else feel strongly about continuing? Okay, shall we just get on with
things, hope that it's resolved quickly. Certainly I have managed to download things like the
wind assessments but not the daylight sunlight which is larger. Mr Grainger.
Apologies ma 'am. Colleagues have messaged me saying that the live stream is working
for them so there's obviously an instance where it's working for someone else.
Okay, well hopefully IT will do their best and things will resolve themselves over time.
If it becomes more of a problem we'll have to think about adjourning.
Where were we? You've been talking about six Hester Road, Mr Pagane, and the VSC situation
there. So in terms of what Anstey Horn had been saying about the VSC at 6 Hester Road,
what's your view on their findings?
Would you mind just turning one page back to two out of three of the letter we were
at.
I have there summarised our position and Ansti Horn's
results, if you can see it just in the middle of the page.
So this is page two of eight?
Page two of eight, yes.
I think that might be helpful, because I
think your question refers to the fact
that they are claiming we stated some percentage compliance.
They found a different percentage compliance.
And we were trying to address that issue.
So that issue is mainly related to the number of windows
that have been tested and then running
a mathematical average.
So if you don't test the exact number of windows,
you come with a different,
or you arrive at a different mathematical average.
In the case of Successor Road,
as you can see, the difference is actually very minimal.
So they independently and us have identified
the same windows to test and therefore the averages
have come out pretty similar.
There is a greater discrepancy on Thames Walk apartments.
And the reason for that is two -fold.
One is that as you would have seen
when we were reading the individual results,
we tested the front and the back of the building.
And the reason for it is that there are some impacts
because the proposed jots out to the front.
The second reason for it is because we have undertaken due diligence and uncovered the
layouts of these properties, which actually see the main living areas at the front and
then some bedrooms at the back.
So we wanted to also identify what was the light levels that would have been enjoyed
within the flat as a whole, given that we had layouts.
So our count of windows is greater than theirs and therefore the compliance rate
Is different the number of non -compliant windows that they've identified is actually pretty similar to ours again
so again, I
We haven't
Hidden anything everything is disclosed
Everything is discussed the levels of light are actually the same because the test applied by Anstey -Horn and ours is the same
It's just the way that the averages have been run is
different.
And what I couldn't quite understand is why, if this was
meant to be a peer review of our assessment, the same windows
haven't been chosen because that's the reason why our report
is 300 pages long.
There is all of the due diligence that comes with it,
all of the internal layouts we found, all of the window maps
that relate to each one of the windows,
whilst in their report there is none of that.
So they have assumed a lot of layouts
and they don't seem to have picked up
on all the information that we had provided
that justified the choice that we made
when running our numbers.
But if you were to look at the same windows tested,
you'd find the results are virtually identical.
So you've talked about the VSC being more different
on Thames Walk because of the windows, because of the layout.
What about Albion Riverside?
Same exact thing.
We've looked at a slightly larger number of potentially affected flats and I suspect that
that's the difference.
It is difficult to understand what has been tested because again, the Aunty St. John don't
provide which flats, which windows they have tested,
they just provide a whole load of results,
but when you count all of the results,
they're fewer than ours, so we've assumed
the same thing must have happened.
Hence the difference.
Again, if you look at the non -compliant number of windows,
the differences are very, very small.
So out of 300 or 100 more windows that we tested,
there were four different.
So again, I'm really, how can I put it?
Let's say that in the reporting of these results,
there's been a bit of sensationalism going on
because when one looks at the actual results
on the windows, they are the same.
So yes, that's why I thought it was worth writing a letter
to actually highlight these discrepancies,
but also make sure that it was clear
that when one looks at a non -compliance,
we're talking about very much similar results.
Okay, and in terms of NSL,
could you explain the situation there?
Sure, NSL, as I said, I have no concerns whatsoever
that the assessments are different
because Zahn -Stihon and GIA have worked
on many projects together, I know them really well,
so they would have run the test in exactly the same way.
My only concern is that they, in what they have submitted,
they have shown to have run pretty much every window
looking inside the courtyard of Thames Walk Apartments,
which is the only set of NSL results that I've seen.
Well, contours that I've seen.
And from the due diligence that we had undertaken,
pretty much half of those windows are circulation.
So they shouldn't have been included in the first instance.
And BRE suggests that only when layouts are available,
one should run in a cell at the risk of otherwise
highlighting issues that aren't there.
Again, the tests are done the same.
One thing that I was a little bit surprised
because it's customary is to actually,
if we look at Six Hester in particular
with all the walkways,
BRE contemplates in those scenarios
a test called a no balcony.
In this case, it would be no walkways assessment.
Because of the prominence of those walkways,
it is clear that they would actually bear
a very significant impact on the amount of sky visible
and an amount of sun that would reach those properties.
Now that test was not run by Anne Stehorn
or not provided to us, but we did run it
and if I can take you to it, just so that you can see
for yourself with the results what the importance
of those walkways for the bedrooms.
This is gonna be just slightly complicated
because we need to jump back on the daylight report,
which is in paper.
I wonder how can I help you to actually identify
the right page in our report.
It's page 143 on paper,
although digital is 175.
Would you like me to try and find the right page?
It looks like that, yes.
It looks like that, and at the top,
six Hester Road, flat 10 continued.
It's just an example.
Now if you, these are all the bedrooms that we tested.
All of the rooms that face the proposal directly
and they all sit beneath an external walkway.
So if we look at the APSH, which is the last set of results
on the right hand side of the page,
can you see there is an existing annual and winter,
proposed annual and winter.
Now, let's say the ideal scenario is 25 annual and five
winter, and this test has been run with the proposal
in place in the proposed scenario, but without the walkways.
And if you scroll down the numbers, you find that the large
the majority of those bedrooms would actually see
either 25 or more annual APSH,
and in winter, either five or more
with the proposal in place.
So this is just to highlight
the importance of those walkways
if they are the main reason why
VSC, NSL, and APSH are so low
because they take away the majority of view of the sky.
Okay, thank you. Just in terms of the Anstey -Horn analysis of the amenity space situation at
6 Hester Road, so could you take me through the differences between the two of you in
that and your views on that?
Yes, again, I don't think that there is a technical
difference in the assessment and how it is run.
I suppose the point is made that it is an amenity area
which is impacted.
I think there was quite a bit of discussion
as to the use of that area in the first instance
and whether it was an amenity, like an outdoor space
that people use to dwell on and enjoy the sunlight on,
which I guess is what BRE goes by as a principle
of an area worth testing.
It was tested, and the results of the tests actually show
that in its existing condition,
doesn't quite meet the 50 % two hours in sun
on the 21st of March.
Is that where it's 38 .1 %?
Correct, correct.
And so there is a reduction further to the,
or owed to the proposed building,
which would obviously see some sunlight
being taken away from it,
particularly on the southern end
where the impacts are actually generated
mainly by success of road smaller block.
If you can see it in plan,
And if you could turn to,
ha, you're right that our numbering in the reports changes
because I have a paper page 23,
but it's further down our reports.
And it's got top -down images of all of the amenity areas
that have been tested.
And the diagrams look yellow and blue,
so you should be able to identify them quite quickly
if you encounter them.
they are towards the end of the,
sorry, the beginning of the report, digital 25.
So actually the number is not that off, sorry.
23 on the paper.
I think it's the first, yeah, it's page 23,
it's right at the start of the document.
On paper it's 23 digital 25, so.
Perfect.
So as you can see, those are all the areas
that have been tested.
If I can draw your attention to area number two
in the diagram.
Area number two is the amenity area that we all...
Does it look like this?
Thank you.
I have found it.
Ah, perfect.
Okay, so on paper page 23,
That's the BRE test for the 21st of March.
So BRE recommends that for an outdoor space
to fill some light, it should receive two hours
of sunlight on the ground.
Area two at the top is the existing scenario.
Area two at the bottom is the proposed scenario.
So as you can see, the existing scenario,
where there is quite a bit of shadow.
And that is because just to the south of that open space,
there is the smaller success to residential block.
That is the main cause of overshadowing to the north
where this area of grass is located.
So as you noted, in the existing scenario, 38 % of it
sees two hours plus in March, and that percentage
will go down to 24 after the proposal is in place.
So the relative loss is greater than BRE would suggest
would make it noticeable.
The absolute loss is about 14 % there.
Now, this is not to say that the area won't receive sunlight,
and this test is done in March.
So as the sun is higher in the sky over the next,
of the following couple of pages,
you can actually see that the area does receive sunlight.
Now, the more colourful diagrams basically show how many hours
of sun is actually hitting the area.
So instead of being blue, yellow, below or above two hours,
there is actually a gradient.
So you can see that the area will still receive
less than two hours, but most of it will actually receive
some sunlight on the 21st of March.
And both in existing and proposed scenario
on the 21st of March, there isn't that much of a difference
in terms of the colour of the sun.
and the area that it will actually not see any sunlight
remains the same, which is right at the bottom
right hand corner.
So I think the take of our take and the officer's take
were the same, whether the area is an area
that is currently being utilised to dwell on
to enjoy the sun, I need it to be tested.
I think was the main debate.
That said, the area was tested, results presented,
and the conclusion drawn was that it was acceptable
in round according to the officer,
and that would be something that I'm in agreement with.
It's certainly not out of context,
given its existing scenario for it.
instance. And in terms of 6 Hester Road, so you've talked about the amenity space
that's been assessed. Yes. And you've talked about the block to the south. Yes.
So what alternative amenity space to the residents of 6 Hester Road have at the
moment other than that space that you've assessed? I don't know, I can't comment on
the use of the walkways themselves,
which I suppose in some of the pictures
I've seen people put chairs on.
I think the main amenity spaces are
the other side of the road,
which have all also been assessed in those diagrams.
They are number five, number six.
Those are the open spaces in the vicinity
available to the public.
There is obviously all the Riverwalk.
Those would be the areas.
of amenity accessible to successor as well as obviously everybody else.
And just in terms of daylight and sunlight and what's been discussed this morning,
what weight should I give to any impact on daylight and sunlight in my planning balance?
And that may not be a question for Mr O 'Connie.
Thank you.
I should answer that then, Mom.
Yeah, my proof of evidence has dealt with that.
Paragraph 6 .24.
My assessment based on the analysis
that you've heard from GIA is that there is no harm to daylight and sunlight to
neighbours but if there, as I said, I think I said this earlier, if there was to be a
level of harm it would be at a low level and therefore would attach low weight in
the planning balance. Thank you.
Anybody else have anything they want to add on daylight and sunlight? Or shall we move
on to privacy? Okay, so in terms of privacy, I'd just like to ask would separation distances
be it between the proposed development and nearby residential development be sufficient?
Who from the Appellants Team is going to respond to that? Mr. Martin?
Yes, I can talk to that.
So I suppose the first thing to say is that the distances between the existing building and, sorry, the proposed building and existing buildings effectively remains the same as the existing situation.
So there is no real change in distances.
There is obviously a change in use of the building from offices to residential.
But those properties already experience a level of overlooking at present.
So Success the Road is overlooked already by the office building and by the Thameside
apartments.
The change of use will obviously result in residential use of the building, but in our
view that isn't materially different than what's experienced at the moment.
And clearly any redevelopment of this site would result in a level of increased overlooking
for residential development.
and that position I've outlined is the position that the council came to as
well in their report.
Therefore would privacy be maintained for residents of Thames Walk Apartments
6 Hester Road and Albion Riverside? In our view yes it would it would be it
would be maintained. As I said, there would be obviously some increase in
overlooking as a consequence of having residential but it's not considered to
be material given the current existing circumstances on the site. And reference
has been made by interested parties to the Supreme Court ruling in Fern and
versus the board of trustees of the Tate Gallery,
not a million miles away from here.
Is this directly relevant here in respect of,
I believe that was a roof terrace in that particular
instance, but also the roof terrace here.
Others may be able to comment on this,
but as far as I'm concerned,
there isn't a direct relevance here.
Others may be able to comment.
Given these issues are highly fact sensitive and fact specific, there wouldn't be any direct read across.
If there's any legal points we can address those in closing.
Thank you, understood.
And just in terms of impacts on privacy, what weight should I be giving to impacts on privacy in my planning balance, Mr. Marginson?
As far as the appellant is concerned, we don't think there is any material change from the existing position and therefore no increased level of harm to privacy.
So we are not putting any weight on that in the planning balance.
Thank you. And anything else on privacy?
If we just move on to outlook.
In reading through comments that were made by interest parties, outlook has been referred
to, but as far as I can tell it's not been particularly clear to establish what specific
issues there are with outlook.
what's the appellant's view on the situation with outlook please?
Yeah in terms of outlook,
our position is as per the position that is set out in the officer report
which went into quite a bit of detail here.
We don't consider there is again any material impact on the outlook of properties
as a result of the proposed development.
The properties at 6 Hester Road,
current outlook is to the office building
that exists on the site at the moment.
Granted, there will be at all the building there,
but the outlook will, for all intents and purposes,
remain the same, other than they will be looking
at a different form of building.
the Thames Walk Apartments outlook to the rear
is obviously towards Hester Road
with 6 Hester Road on the left which remains the same.
There will obviously be the new proposed building
on the right but the outlook isn't really materially changed.
So we don't consider that outlook is materially affected
as a result of the proposed development.
And in summary, what weight should I be giving to any impacts on outlook?
As there's no material change to outlook we consider there should be no weight attached to that in the planning balance.
Thank you.
Okay, is everybody happy to move on to section B of the agenda, which is construction? We're
now at 11 o 'clock. Would now be a good time for people to take a quick comfort break before
we get started on construction? Okay so if we reconvene at 11 .15 and we'll carry on with
section B of the roundtable discussion which is about construction, vibration and structural
stability. So the inquiry is adjourned until 11 .15. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
.
Okay, the time is 11 .15 and the inquiry is resumed. Just before we get started again
on the round table, there's just a couple of issues I wanted to raise, one of which
is the temperature in here. I don't know whether anybody else is feeling warm but I'm certainly
finding it warm in here. If anybody does wish to take off suit jackets etc please do so. I don't
want anybody to be any more uncomfortable than they have to be in this room where I understand
the heating can't be switched off. As long as we don't go as far as shorts and t -shirts I think
we'll be alright. Okay, but please do help yourself to water. There is water at the
end and if anybody does need a break because of the heat please do tell me.
And just in terms of IT updates, is there any change in the overall situation Mr.
Edwards? Not that I've been told, I mean it seems to be that people are having
different issues. I seem to be functioning okay using the councils guest
Wi -Fi but I know others are having difficulty and it seems that the problem
is most acute in seeking to access online large documents but I will carry
out some further investigations and update you when I can. Thank you and has
there been any progress Mr. Edwards just in terms of the site visit itinerary for
the nighttime site visit? Yes, to a degree. I was informed by Mr. Eley
during the break that he's had a conversation with Dr Mealy and I think the suggested route
is agreed as between the Appellant, see Dr Mealy nodding his head, between the Appellant
and the Council and will ensure that we share that with the Royal Sixth Party during the
next session of the inquiry and hopefully have an agreed document that can be provided
to you certainly by the end of the day but hopefully by lunchtime.
That's helpful, thank you and if it could go to the Royal Sixth Party that would be
very helpful. Dr Job. We did express agreement with the suggested itinerary last night.
Okay so if we just have an update again maybe after lunch and we'll see where we are at the
end of the day but that's very helpful I'm glad to see things are moving in the right direction.
Okay, are there any other procedural or housekeeping matters before we go back to the roundtable
discussion?
Mr McGivham.
Do you want to just come to a microphone so everybody can hear you?
Yes, so yesterday you said that I could make a statement.
I wasn't actually aware that that was going to be possible until I saw Mark Littlewood
and others from the public.
So I'd very much like to do that.
I was trying to work on it overnight and this morning.
Because I've been on this whole project
and this planning application for two years,
it's impossible for me to have summarised it.
Plus, John Cookson and I have been working overnight
on reports on the Chelsea Citizen,
which are now live and will be going every day.
So we've got that amount of work going on.
So if I could have a bit more time to prepare something,
that would be great.
Friday would be perfect.
And how long can I have when I do it?
25 minutes?
If you can keep it brief to know more than five minutes,
I'd be less than that but Friday would be perfect.
Is Friday first thing prior to Dr Mealy being heard acceptable to the
appellant?
Yes thank you Mardis, the only point I was going to make is if it could be as early as possible so that our witnesses could respond to anything that's said that's new but as long as it's before Dr Mealy and Mr Marginson that should be fine.
It'll just be a couple of minutes.
Thank you very much and I'll just double cheque. The council and the Rule 6 are fine with that.
Okay, so we'll aim for Friday morning first thing at 10 o 'clock when we open.
Okay, thank you very much. Just add that to my programme so I don't forget.
Okay, thank you. So going back to the roundtable discussion, we've got to the point at 4 on
construction with particular regard to vibration and structural stability. So just first of
all, is it technically feasible to demolish the existing building and build the proposed
development without affecting the structural stability of Thames Walk Apartments? And that
question to the appellant please. Yes ma 'am is the answer. Obviously there will need
to be a whole series of technical reports done at the construction stage
and there will be monitoring put in place to ensure that there is no impact
on the structural integrity of the building and all relevant regulations
will be complied with during the construction.
But this is not an unusual situation,
building a development next to a bridge.
Appreciate that this is a tower, but it doesn't really
change the situation in terms of ensuring
that the structural integrity of the bridge is maintained.
And we, at this stage, don't see any reason
why there would be any harm to the structural integrity
of the bridge as a result of construction of this development.
Thank you.
Just in terms of the living conditions
of the residents, so there'd be work undertaken
in terms of technical reports, there'd be monitoring in place,
but how would the living conditions of existing residents of Thames Walk Apartments
be taken into account through the demolition and construction process?
The developer would undertake to obviously consult with all local residents in close
proximity to the development site in the normal way and residents would obviously be advised
on major works such as when demolition was going to take place, when piling was going
to take place and so there would be, if you like,
an open conversation happening between the developer
and the residents.
Fully appreciate that these buildings
are in close proximity.
Obviously there will be also be things like party wall
issues to resolve so there would in any event be
a statutory requirement to liaise with residents
but in any event the developer would be doing that all through the construction process.
There are a number of proposed conditions as well which we have to submit to the council,
which you have probably seen in the draught conditions pack in relation to a construction
environmental management plan which is condition six as drafted and then construction environmental
and biodiversity plan, which condition eight.
So that will contain full details of how the proposal
is going to be constructed in terms of access
to the site times and deliveries.
Those conditions, we've already submitted information
in relation to construction, but those conditions
will provide further details once the proposal
contractor is brought on board to construct the building. So that
document that you've referred to that you've already provided, so we've got CD
105, is that what you were referring to? I think that may be right so I just need
to cheque, yeah that's the construction environmental management plan, yes.
Okay, and in your view, would the conditions satisfactorily manage the adverse impacts
of construction then Mr. Martinson?
Yes, they would.
I mean this is very typical of a scheme in London of this type where we would submit
a construction environmental management plan at the application stage and there the further
detail would come forward under the conditions to manage that so yes. Thank
you. Is there anything else on construction? Sorry Marl, it's just been
pointed out to me I should have also highlighted that there was two other
documents which is CD 1 .14 and CD 1 .15 which is the construction logistics plan
and outline construction management plan.
Okay.
No, we have nothing further to say at this stage.
Thank you.
Anything further from the council or from anyone else?
No?
Okay.
Moving on to highway safety.
So this is item C,
It's number 5 on the agenda.
So this is highway safety with regard to demolition, construction and operational phases of the
proposal.
Could the appellant just clarify for me the situation in terms of right of access over
the service road?
Ma 'am, in summary, partly as a kind of bi -way context,
we don't see this as a material planning consideration.
If you were to grant permission,
it's an issue that's dealt with under property law
outside of matters for your consideration.
On the specifics, we've taken legal advice
that there is a right of prescription
and access will be permissible under those issues.
But as I said, that's primarily, we will say,
not an issue for your consideration.
Thank you.
and would the proposed developments car parking strategy be deliverable?
Again to the appellant please.
Yes as far as we're concerned yes it would be deliverable, yes.
And I take it does the same go for the evacuation strategy for the building?
Yes.
And reference has been made, a number of interested parties yesterday spoke about the situation
on Battersea Bridge Road and traffic crossing Battersea Bridge. I've seen it for myself
on a number of occasions and certainly on the long walk along the riverbank it's also
possible to see the levels of traffic that build up on Battersea Bridge and how
challenging it can be at times, particularly for emergency vehicles to
get through quickly even when they're on blue lights and sirens. So there was also
reference to the traffic light layout on Battersea Bridge Road and can I just
understand in terms of the transport work that was done, were the changes that
interested parties have referred to to the traffic light layout, were they part
of that transport assessment work when that was undertaken?
So in regards to those specific changes, they weren't known and detailed at the time that we were doing our transport work for the application.
We have obviously subsequently reviewed that and had a look at that to understand what that means in terms of the changing in context.
There was discussions and it was understood that TfL had aspirations to make some improvements to that crossing point and as well to sort of cycle infrastructure along Battersea Bridge Road.
So we were aware that there was the potential for some improvements to be made, but not
in terms of the detail.
But in terms of the detail, so there was an existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing
point on Battersea Bridge Road, which has now been changed to a controlled crossing
point via signal control, which should improve from pedestrian safety in that location.
And in part, as well, my understanding is that the scheme that's been implemented
seeks to enable greater bus priority for the northbound bus services on Bassy Bridge Road,
as part of that layout.
In terms of physical geometry passing through what was a pedestrian refuge island for the
uncontrolled crossing and what there is now, there doesn't appear to have been a demonstrable
change in road widths at that particular point of the network.
In terms of construction management and its impact on the highway, is it appropriate for
that to be left to condition in this instance?
Yes, it is, and it's very common. There's a few reasons why it's relevant. So our requirement
for the planning application stage was the submission of the documents that we referred
to in an outline state. And to some extent, our involvement in that process is a layering
of information before the contractor comes on board who has more expertise in terms of
actual deliverability of the build, the materials, the size of certain elements
of the build to contribute to that whereas we've had the initial engagement
with the local authority and TFL in terms of you know what the constraints
and opportunities and the best route and safest route to construction will be in
terms of vehicle access and logistics. So again the fact that there has been some
changes to the network in the intervening period from the planning
applications now is another reason why it's relevant to have that condition in place for
the detail because contextually things can change on the highway network and the detail
needs to be assessed at a point in time that it's absolutely relevant rather than fixed
in a point in time when things can change and will affect that and be locked in.
So it's very much the case that the kind of logistics plan will be a live document and
it will evolve even through the build when certain activities need to be undertaken,
certain licences will need to be applied for, so it is a live process,
so it's absolutely relevant that the detail should be a condition.
Thank you.
The reference has been made, I think, by some to concerns about the bridge itself and the
safety of the bridge with heavy vehicles.
What's your view as a transport consultant on that?
Can I ask if that relates to structurally or whether that's operationally?
I think it's a bit of both, both operational and stability.
I can certainly talk to operationally in a bit more detail within my professional capacity.
I might ask Jonathan to talk on a structural thing.
But yeah, operationally, the Bassy Bridge Rail obviously operates to accommodate large
vehicles as it stands at the moment.
It is on a bus route currently.
So the introduction of movements associated with the construction of the development isn't
anything new in terms of the composition of traffic that might use Battersea Bridge Road
at the moment, albeit it's understood that it might add some additional movements during
the period of time of the construction.
but obviously that is a temporary scenario and is typical of the type of road that it is.
Thank you Mr. Marginson.
Yeah on the structural integrity point again I suppose, we haven't seen any evidence from
interested parties that there is a structural issue with the bridge and we're certainly not
aware of any.
TFL did not object to the application
and didn't raise any concerns in relation
to the structural integrity of the bridge.
So as we sit here, there's no evidence
that there would be any structural impact
on the bridge as a result of this proposed development
through vehicles, construction vehicles
travelling across Spattersea Bridge.
Thank you. Is there anything else on highway safety from either the appellant or from the council?
Anything further from the Royal Sixth Party? Ah, the council.
Yes, thank you. I just wanted to make a few general points on construction and highway safety.
I mean it's clearly the case that the scale and the location of the development presents
challenges in terms of the proximity to highways and structures and a particular interest in
terms of ensuring the impact on the local residents and road users are adequately protected.
Those road users would include busses and bus passengers and pedestrians and cyclists specifically
and how they get about.
You hear that there are numerous conditions
and obligations proposed in order to help manage those.
I wouldn't underestimate that those would be,
that some of those discussions are quite interesting
between ourselves and the appellant
and Transport for London who, as it's been mentioned,
are the highway and traffic authority for the bridge.
I suppose the only other thing I probably,
I would agree that because the bridge is already
a main road that carries hundreds of busses
and can carry relatively unlimited amounts of HGVs already,
that the bridge itself, in terms of its management
of traffic wouldn't, on that particular issue,
wouldn't generally be a concern to us.
Hester Road possibly would be, because Hester Road
is a local road that comes off the bridge
and is designed in a different way.
And again, we'd need to make sure we've got adequate
and public protection for that.
And then I'd probably just also highlight
that there are lots of other regulations
outside the planning process that would come into play here,
whether they're traffic and highway regulations,
environmental regulations, health and safety regulations,
which would all clearly need to be applied for
and complied with, potentially related
to the planning consent or even outside that.
And third, finally, as you mentioned,
car parking strategy, again, I think there's adequate
conditions within the documentation that would have
that adequately covered.
We are moving into a slightly different sort of era
where lots of people have been mentioned,
I think again in some of the documents,
lots of people have deliveries these days,
and Uber and these e -bikes and autonomous vehicles,
all these things are coming along.
And quite clearly, I think there's also quite probably a
need to ensure that the car parking strategy
and the management of space would be able to deal
with these auxiliary uses that are somewhat new
and innovative.
Thank you.
Does the panel want to respond
on anything they've just heard?
I was only just to make one point,
I believe there is a provision for
sort of car park management plan as part of the condition,
which again actually, you know,
certainly some of those newer details
and more nuanced details,
changing context that we were talking about to pick up
can be picked up through that in those discussions.
I was just gonna add,
Marmon, I thought it'd be remiss of me
if I didn't mention paragraph 116 of the MPPF,
which you're no doubt familiar with, which talks about proposals being refused only where
there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety or residual cumulative impacts on the
road network following mitigation and those impacts being severe, which is not in our
view the case here.
Thank you. Okay, unless there's anything else on highway safety, shall we move on to
environment and climate with particular regard to whole life carbon and wind microclimate?
So, first of all, just in terms of a general environmental point, and this question is
to the appellant first of all.
So in terms of environmental impact assessment, a number of interested parties have raised
concerns that environmental impact assessment was not carried out for the proposed development.
What's the appellant's view on whether the proposed development should have been subject to EIA?
This is dealt with in my proof of evidence at paragraph 5 .149, 5 .150.
O. And there you will see that a formal EIA screening opinion was submitted to the Council
on the 13th of March, 2024. As you know, it's the way of screening whether or not an environmental
impact assessment is required for a proposed development. The Council considered that in
in their normal way and on the 18th of April, 2024,
they wrote back confirming that the local planning authority
considers that the proposal is not likely
to have significant effects on the environment
and the proposal does not require an environmental statement
under the 2017 EIA regulations.
The appellant's own consultant at the time, Temple,
had reached the same conclusions that the proposed development didn't meet the requirements
under the EIA regulations for an environmental statement. In any event, as you will have
seen, there are a wide range of technical documents that are submitted with the application
which deal with the environmental effects of the development.
Just to the council who obviously had to consider that request from the
appellant and then came back with their view. At the point of considering
the proposed development, was that considered in the round with recent
approvals in the locality which interested parties have referred to?
Specifically, there were some historic sites.
This has been quite a number of period of time in the making over years and there's
been a lot going on in that particular area with sites that have been stalled, particularly
in regard to the Ransom Stock sites that was, it's about the permission is about 10 years
old but has only recently come back to life.
So in specific regards, some sites weren't taken into consideration,
but there's been enough time or we had enough awareness of what was coming forward
and certainly certain sites weren't.
So it was looked at as it stood as then the 34 -storey integral building.
Thank you. Steve, do you have anything they want to add to that?
Just one further point, ma 'am, is that the reason, my understanding, is the reason that
the council concluded that an EIA wasn't required is because it fell below the size thresholds
that are set out in the regulations, and that was the reason.
Sorry, madam. Mr Walton.
Yeah, I beg your pardon. Can I point just to be repeated, because the barristers said
that the door was shut and I didn't hear it. It's potentially quite important. Thank you.
That the reason that the council confirmed that an EIA wasn't required is because the
development fell below the size thresholds. Below, yeah.
Thank you. Okay. Just moving on to whole life carbon. So first of all, have options for
retention and retrofitting of the existing building been fully explored consistent with
policy SI2 of the London Plan. That's for the appellant.
Yes, yes they are. The direct rates continually exist in the building, including the lists
of the previous management, was considered by the firms at the time of the application
but it's also being considered in the instances of weather weather as a variable proposition itself.
And that's changing my micro -divertice contenting to a new problem.
The SDSU who looked at the availability of a weakly efficient chicken cow
The purpose of seeing this system building for five services is to see a profile 5 .1 .59
in the area of equity inclusion, which is just as highly probable, but probable that
many of these use the board. We assessed the development of a significant module which
we saw some time to the society and its expectations with the review.
Then we came to the point that Georgia receives these boards in turn for full risk.
and they're taking this business response aspect
and its continuation of these systems.
So I think that we then have an output
which wasn't for the processes would be viable.
So on that basis,
we can be considered only to assess them
under the local association.
In that, we as process,
so it can be considered,
considered whether a certain building could be used as a system building and we consider there are some
elements that could be reused and I know that the set of details are to be provided in the middle of the day
so it's a real economy conclusion.
Mr Stelvalter. Thank you, Madam. Is it possible for the gentleman to answer Mr White to ask
a question about the business of magic? He can certainly ask a question to me and I'm
Yes, I think so.
I think it's more than you would think.
It's another nonsense.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
I'm a member of the Church Health, Jack Jack,
with the Royal Business Society, and I'm part of the facility.
Yes, yes, I've been involved with the applications of the Star Line,
I understand that the whole detail of the system has been taken by the EU, which is
specifically the US, because it was felt that it was being used in the US.
I don't think the UK is going to be stopping by.
It's been so long to know that the UK takes you up in my body,
the UK takes you up to one of the houses,
and I think they will then also have the opportunity to potentially take it.
We've been building ourself in the 1980s since the destruction of the Eberty crisis.
Because of this age, we've never been so successful.
And we've been able to do this easily, as they say, in the business of carbon.
So is there a question, Mr. White?
The question is how much detail was provided to enable this decision to be made.
but it is not really usable and uncomfortable.
So thank you.
It was also looked at
in terms of its content and its
success system. Our purpose is to
develop a consensus period of evidence and some success on the consensus
state where it did okay. We've got to make a pre -position for
the existing office building and that option should just then test it through the workplace
testing which has just referred to.
The minimum is ultimately the government, this is not by any means a decision that any
means that the office has got to be bring forward to do the research that is existing
for the system building and that's just to put that at the top of the mark in the financial
building as best we can.
Thank you.
Just in terms of the propellants that work hard
and like our harbour, has that followed relevant
guidance at all times?
Yes, yes, yes it has. So we've looked at all the GGLA guidelines on this and asked to be
...
There are serious questions like how to get from GGLA to stage 1, which we are responsible to,
and GGLA, who are the leading electric traces, and specifically to confirm that they will be combined with the level of processes within the platform and GGLA,
and the kind of classes in which we are specifically to.
In terms of figures that you used, so certainly consistent by TUT and CSIRO, you have looked
them to some more work for Veteransank.
Now they Meeting with ourarty ac Erdadists.
Whats the Ill grows with structure
because used rig Mandela.
I want to discuss the approach that
took the success of West God
plus he said some another Gaga
if it gives you other 5%,
Okay, thank you.
Okay, anything further
So I just wanted to ask a few questions
about when you've written your line thing for at first
So, could the public publicist of South Africa be interested in the environment?
Would the environment be experienced first in the public realm and then in the residential terraces?
Yes.
So, yeah, the wind conditions for both the public realm and the residential terraces
would not be subject to any wind safety issues, which is defined as when the wind's above
50 metres per second for more than 1 .9 hours a year, that won't happen.
The terraces would be suitable for a mixture of sitting and standing during the summer,
which is a key season for any amenity spaces, external amenity because that's when factors
like temperature or rain don't impact them.
So the terraces will be a mix of sitting and standing with sitting in the areas where it's
been designed to want sitting in.
The public realm, again, suitable for a mix of sitting and standing with more sitting
towards the building and becoming a bit more standing towards the river, which is sort
of what you'd expect and you see for any sort of riverside amenity, typically it's a little
bit windier and you expect it and you accept it, that it's slightly windier when you're
down by the river. But yeah, again, suitable for the mix of sitting and standing with space
around there that we can place seats to ensure that people are sitting in the calmer areas.
Thank you. In terms of the implications of the proposed development and the wind
micro -plume issues particularly, some interested parties raised concerns about
Battersea heliport. What's the situation regarding that?
We have spoken to them. I think they needed to ask their pilots about the
exact flight paths but I think it's something where basically they haven't
objected so sorry if you want to. Yes I can clarify that they haven't objected to the
planning application they've not raised any concerns in relation to this
Is it necessary to impose any conditions and is that workable to ensure an adequate wind microclimate
in terms of areas which are potentially slightly more problematic and where mitigation would be required?
Yeah, so in terms of the mitigation, the key factors for their effectiveness are set out already in the application
in terms of their scale, location and porosity.
But then I think a condition for the detailed design
of those measures would be typical
for a scheme of this nature.
Does anybody else have anything they want to raise
in terms of the wind microclimate
or comment on what they've just heard?
Anything from the council? No? Anything from the Royal Sixth Party? Anybody else?
No? Okay. Was there a hand up there or...?
and sometimes it's almost impossible to avoid it.
So if you haven't been there,
please remind us who you should.
Okay, so just for the benefit of those people
who are watching it on livestream,
they might not have been able to hear you
due to the need for microphones.
You don't need to apologise, but you're up there
and it's not easy to reach a microphone.
But so this is the relationship of the side of Albion Riverside
and 6 Hester Road and a vortex being created in that location from time to
time depending on the general conditions. Okay could the could the opponent
please respond on that and just to confirm I have walked through there.
But can the opponent please talk to that. I've walked around there as well. That particular area is it is noted that it's a
area that our proposal doesn't affect, doesn't impact.
Thank you. Just for the record, for the lady up there, can I just take your name, please?
Were there any further questions regarding wind?
No? Okay. I have any other relevant matters as the next item on the agenda. Is there anything
else that the appellant wanted to come back to from earlier in the agenda or anything
else? No, ma 'am. Okay, anything from the council? No, ma 'am. Anything from the Rule 6? No. Anything
further? So, okay, I'm not seeing any further hands up. So that concludes the roundtable
discussion for this morning. We're running slightly ahead of time at just before 12 o 'clock.
would now be a good time for everybody to take the lunch break and we perhaps reconvene slightly earlier at 1 o 'clock?
Would that be workable?
Okay, I'm getting nods from the appellant, thank you very much.
How's that for Mr Edwards?
That's fine on the adjournment, Madam, but can you just give me a moment just to deal with one other matter?
Yes, certainly.
Yes, it might be a good time to take a break now because I've been told that there will
be, in terms of resolving the internet problems, an interruption in internet access at noon.
Hopefully that will resolve matters.
But I'll keep you posted.
That's timely.
Thank you.
Are you happy with starting evidence in chief at 1 o 'clock for Mr Ealing?
Yes.
Nobody else has any issues with that?
OK.
The time is now 11 .58.
The inquiry is adjourned until 1 o 'clock and hopefully we will resume with working IT.
Mr Edwards.
Just one matter before you adjourn. I recall at the CMC you asked for a list of documents
that were likely to be referred to during the examination of witnesses. To save time
at one o 'clock we have a printed list of documents that I will be referring to in the examination
in chief of Mr Ely, so I can distribute that to you and to others now.
If you could please that would be very helpful and that will be ID08.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. So 11 .59 and the inquiry is now adjourned until one o 'clock.
Have a good lunch.