Glassmill planning appeal - Day 2 Afternoon - Wednesday 18 March 2026, 2:00pm

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 2 Afternoon
Wednesday, 18th 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.

The time is 1 o 'clock and the inquiry is resumed.

Before we hear from Mr Edwards and Mr Ely, I would like to cheque whether there are any

procedural or housekeeping matters to be raised for the appellant.

Mr Harris.

Mr Edwards.

No, yes, by way of update on the IT, the problem has been identified as all to do with some

Microsoft update that every officer in the council and every computer has to undergo

this morning. It is getting better, I am told, and it should be resolved this afternoon,

so hopefully we are able to make smooth progress.

Just to confirm the list that you handed up earlier in terms of documents, I have managed

to open all of those. So, fingers crossed we can keep going.

I have had a very helpful discussion with Mr Harris and Dr Mealy over lunch about some

revised or printed versions of the HTVI addendum. Are they going to be provided?

Yes, they can be. You might have seen, and certainly I did and I expect to have learned

that the documents that are already before the inquiry are massively helpful, but the

addendum built heritage townscape and visual impact assessment report is not paginated

and neither does it have the VU numbers on it, which makes it more tricky to navigate

quickly.

So I asked Dr. Miele to mark up on a number of hard copies the VU numbers, just to make it easier.

So when we take the witness to VU point 12, you haven't got to say that's the one that's two -thirds the way through the document.

I've given one to my learned friend.

We have them here to hand out.

We have them here to hand out. Also, if you'd find that helpful.

I suspect in due course it might be sensible so that you don't have to carry all these things around.

if we amend the documents in the core document so that it too is navigable in the same way.

We've done the same also with the additional views that are in the documents and that are

more easily paginated and managed in the same way. So both of those are available. I've

offered them to the learning friend. Did you have them in the end?

No. Well, they discussed it.

We appreciate them.

Yes, yes. Well, I'm very happy for that to be handed out.

If that could be handed out, that would be helpful.

And if the core doc

on slide could be updated with a paginated version,

that would be helpful.

Yeah, I did take admittedly double -sided two to a page,

but I did take a set on the side of me,

and I made notes on it myself.

So you probably already wrote the numbers on them,

but it just makes it so much easier.

Can I just take this opportunity to clarify one other matter relating to CGI.

In Dr. Mealy's appendices, there are a number of endocrine produced.

I may have assumed, and I think quite clearly, that they were taken from the original HTVIA,

not the addendum.

That's correct.

Or in terms of the current scheme, it's the use of the addendum HTVIA, not the Mealy appendices.

That's exactly right.

I think that's clear on the face of this document.

I think I had the same question and Dr. Miele raised it with me also.

I think if you look at the heading, it's the original.

It's meant to be the original.

This is the amended.

Thank you very much indeed. I'm very grateful for that clarification.

Thank you. So with that clarification, if you're entering further, are you going to make a comment?

Just from the outcome, we're not at all leaving the new Six -Party out of this.

This document is still in production, we'll pass it across as soon as it's available to you.

I can see you feeling a bit left out and that's not our intention at all.

Thanks Mr Harris. Mr Walton, was there anything in procedure or housekeeping you mind -sizing?

Yes we do have a cheque on that I can beg your indulgence.

I have been instructed or asked by one of the all six members that we could request certain documents

from Mr Harris and his team and I wonder if I can go through them.

There are four essentially titled documents that we would like to get possible,

whether they are available from the land registries.

One would be the freehold title of the Glass Mill site.

The second is, I suppose it's really a question of whether there is a right of access, if

any, a right of access, if any, agreed with the Freeholder to the Tenant's path.

So I'll repeat that right of access, if any, agreed with the Freeholder to the Thames Path.

The third one requests, is there any form of indemnity agreed with the Freeholder title

holder, in respect of the works to be undertaken to the River Wall?

The fourth one is if there is a right of access for construction during the period on the

on the land which belongs to the adjoining owners.

Mr Harris.

Thank you.

I have listened and copied that down very carefully. I have taken instructions on that.

I am not going to give an on the hoof response without speaking to my clients and you wouldn't

expect me to.

Thank you. If you could come back to me and Duke Paul's Mr Harris, you've taken note of

everything that the Royal Six Party has asked for as have I. Thank you very much. Okay,

is there anything further Mr Walton? No? Okay, thank you. So it is again warm in here this

If anybody feels the need for breaks before we reach a natural break point, please do

indicate because I wouldn't want anybody to see health suffering as a result of how wrong

it is. But otherwise, please can I ask Mr Edwards to introduce the Councillor's witness,

Mr Ely, and his evidence. Thank you.

Thank you, ma 'am. Good afternoon, Mr Ely.

Among authorities, the E .L .E's written evidence is concerned to cover mainly proof of evidence

at Core Document 9 .02.

There are three appendices to that proof and they are core documents in the 9 series, respectively

4 .56.

And you also have from Mr. E .L .E a rebuttal proof which is Core Document 9 .08.

Mom, in the usual way and with your permission, I propose to take the totality of the written

evidence as read and to deal with a number of substantive points by way of examination

of the case.

That's fine.

Mr. Eady, I begin by formally introducing the case to the inquiry by reference. Your

qualifications and experience as they are set at in section 1 on internal page 3 of

You're a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and you have an outstanding application

to reinstate the membership of the IHBC.

You also are a member of Newcastle University.

You have a first class Honours degree in planning specialising in design form.

Newcastle and you have a Masters degree in historical conservation with Merrin from Oxford

You set out your professional experience in Cessna over 15 years.

It's been private as a public Cessna practise in London.

And you set out your experience in relation to Cessna's business building,

South Cessna House, Smithsfield Central Market, and the Ram brewery site in Wandsworth.

That's correct.

Indeed.

You also note in paragraph 3, 1 .3 forgive me,

that you have extensive experience and respect

at all of the very famous buildings from 60 ,000

of them served with the corporation

of the City of London.

And in that, however, you advised on London,

some of London's tallest building,

including number one, the Undershaft.

And you led the development of the City of London's

tall building strategy to underpin what I think

is now a still emerging local plan for City of London

in 2040.

Is that correct?

I did for a period of time.

Thank you.

And then the last sentence of paragraph 1 .3, perhaps to formally record that in light of

an inference that could be drawn from Dr. Mealy's rebuttal, you say, I am not opposed

to the right tall building in the right place.

Correct.

Is that still your position?

Yes.

Thank you very much indeed.

Good.

And then your present role, your senior conservation and urban design officer at the London Borough

of Wandsworth and indeed you coordinate design review panels for Wandsworth and Richmond

upon Thames.

Correct.

Good.

Right.

How long have you been an officer with the council, Mr. Eley?

Two years.

Thank you.

Good.

As the Inspector has indicated, your written evidence will be taken as read, so I'm going

to deal with one or two supplementary matters, if we may, and I'll do it under a series of

topics that I'll identify in a moment.

But could I ask please first that you deal with one matter by way of correction.

Would you please go to the Council's Notice of Refusal of Planning permission, which is

core document 1 .3?

304.

Thank you, Madam, 304.

Do you have that?

Yeah.

And when you have it, please, could we look together at the first of the two reasons for

refusal.

Sorry, that's 13 .04.

No, CD 304.

Yeah.

First reason for refusal, please.

The proposal by reason of excessive height and scale within an established local spatial

character that is predominantly low rise, whilst also being located within a low rise

policy zone.

Stop there, Mr. Ely.

Low rise policy zone, does that need to be corrected?

Yes, that is in fact incorrect.

It is a, the appeal site is in a mid -rise zone.

Yeah, just keep your voice up, but it's in a mid -rise zone.

Is that right?

And that is derived from policy LP4 and appendix one, appendix two, forgive me, to the local

plan.

Correct.

Thank you very much indeed.

Good.

Thank you.

That correction then resolved in terms of topics

for evidence in chief.

Dr. Milian and Mon for your note,

there are four topics or themes.

The first of those is the UDS, the urban design study,

the local plan, and mid -rise and tall building zones.

The UDS, the local plan, mid -rise and tall building

zones.

Topic two, the 2018 pre -application advice.

Topic three, the approach to the assessment of impact on spatial character

and topic four, impact by reference to Dr. Mealy's four contexts set out in part seven of Dr. Mealy's main proof.

So those are the topics or themes, Mr. Eley, that I'd like your help with this afternoon.

And we begin please with topic one.

The urban design study of 2021 is core document 516.

Were you involved in the preparation of that document?

I was not.

Thank you.

It was prepared in association with and formed part of the evidence base for the local plan

that was adopted in 2023.

Is that correct?

It did.

Thank you.

Have you reviewed it?

I have and I was very content with its methodology.

You're content with its methodology.

Thank you.

Is it up to date so far as you're concerned?

Correct, and it's not been overtaken by any form of a local or national policy.

Just keep your voice up, please.

Sorry. Correct. It is still robust and reliable and up to date.

Thank you. Has it been overtaken in any way by any changes at national policy or strategic policy level?

No.

Thank you very much indeed. Do you consider it to be a robust and reliable document?

Correct.

Did the inspectors who examined the soundness of what was to become the 2023 local plan,

and therefore the UDS as part of the evidence base, conclude that it was a robust and reliable

document?

They did, and whilst I'm not suggesting we go there, you can find words in essence actually

to that effect in the inspectors report on the local plan, which just for reference is

at CD 6 .11 and paragraph 112.

And lastly, to what extent, if at all, do you consider it to be a material consideration

in the determination of planning applications and appeals, including this appeal?

I consider it a material consideration in that, in fact, the M Design Study makes clear

that it is a material consideration. And again, if you want the reference for that, that's

again at this CD, CD 5 .16, paragraph 1 .2.

Thank you very much indeed.

I'm just pausing there for a moment, and there are going to be a number of times during the examination,

Chief, when Mr. Mealy is going to refer to documents, if you're content,

we'll just provide the references to those documents and only take up the documents when necessary.

Yeah, I'll make you aware of it.

Good. Right. Dr. Mealy, the appeals site itself, again, it is common ground as a matter of fact.

Sorry, I'm getting overexcited.

Mr. Eley and Meeley.

Mr. Eley.

The UDS 2021 identifies the appeal site as being within a mid -rise building zone and

that then followed through, Mr. Eley, into the local plan.

Is that alright?

Yeah.

And without going to it, the mid -rise zone that includes the,

or comprises the appeal site actually, is MBB 202.

The inspector note, I've seen that on page 201 of the UDS.

And it identifies in terms of the scale or height

of a mid -rise building, six storeys and 18 metres.

Correct. Thank you very much indeed.

Just please help with the inspector with how,

in terms of the approach and why the UDS identified the appeal site as appropriate for a mid -rise

building and at that scale.

So the urban design study was amended post reg 18 version for the reg 19 version and

that was the version that was subsequently adopted and it took a much more granular and

specific approach to the tall building's growth strategy and this included a new designation

over the Reg 18 version, that is for a mid -rise designation,

which was in addition to the tall building zones.

Obviously we've just established that the urban design

study was found to be both robust at EIP

and now underpins the local plan.

So to address the point about the rationale for mid -rise,

by definition these are buildings between five

and six storeys, that is more than 50 metres

from ground level.

And these, the mid -rise designation was specifically

to address the point that, and to recognise the point

that the borough generally is low rise

with a prevailing height of about two to three storeys,

thus predominantly low rise, and that buildings

of this height could actually significantly affect

character and heritage.

And just in terms of the justification

within the urban design study.

That can be found within the Rada Raj document.

For your reference, ma 'am, and I'm not suggesting

we go there, but I will refer to it.

So again, CD 5 .16,

para 4 .6,

page 198 of the document,

or 220 of the PDF, if that's easier.

and I'll just talk to that briefly if I may.

So in general, this identifies and introduces

a mid -rise tour building zones

and I think it talks to as relevant to the appeals site

in this situation that the following aspects

justify tour building zones.

So it talks about in places there being transition areas

between tour building zones,

whereby there's a want or need to step down

to buildings forming an edge condition

or responding to the setting of heritage assets.

Another rationale is to address strategic road corridors,

in particular at key junctions, and perhaps importantly,

to respond to the character area profiles

and their related design guidance.

Now, just in that respect, and to be clear, ma 'am,

I'm sure you're already aware the appeal site is in character area B2,

that is Battersea Riverside.

its character profile can be found again at CD 5 .16,

at page 60 of the document.

It is also just to the south, you will have noticed

near to B1, Battersea residential.

That is from page 56 of the same document.

And to some extent there is relevance in character B4,

which is Battersea Park, which begins on page 68.

You will note that the rationale for the mid -rise zones is

consistent with the specific guidance in those tall building

areas either side.

I may well come back to that.

But in this regard, I think it is also worth noting the

justification in policy LP4 of the local plan,

2023 as adopted.

Again, for reference, that is CD5 .02 and page 296 or page 298 of the PDF.

And that's quite clear about this aspect of stepping down towards edge conditions of

which the mid -rise zones are a specific part.

And so just for reference, that states that the tall building maps included in Appendix

to this plan identify an appropriate tall building height range for each zone and show

how heights should be dispersed across the zone. For reference, darker colours indicate

where there is greater potential for height and the light colours indicate less potential

for height. The urban design study 2021 sets the methodology used to define such potential.

And importantly, it's the identified maximum appropriate height does not apply to the entire

and buildings will be expected to step down towards the edges of the zone as

indicated on the relevant tall buildings map unless it can be clearly

demonstrated that this would not be required having regard for local context

and then finishes with development proposals exceeding the height

appropriate height will not be supported on design grounds.

Mr. Eley, your citing there and referring to just for the inspectors note

paragraph 14 .32, which is part of the reason justification

for policy LP4, is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you.

So taking that together, Mr. Eley, mid -rise zones

are identified generally in areas of transition

between tall building zones where stepping down

at an edge condition is required to address

strategic corridors and to respond to character

area profiles.

taking those general considerations and applying them to the appeal site,

do those considerations apply, justify or explain the mid -rise zone identification of the appeal site?

Thank you very much. Good.

Now there are tall building zones, essentially either side of the appeal site.

tall building zone B203 is to the east to the west and tall building zone B204 is to the east, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And the zone to the west is of course the zone that begins on the other side of Battersea Bridge Road, is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

And again, within those zones, as is clear, Mon, for your note, in the UDS at page 183,

the appropriate height for tall buildings within those zones is given as 7 to 12 storeys

or 21 to 36 metres.

Is that correct as far as you're aware, Mr. Eley?

7 to 12 storeys maximum, yeah.

Yeah, very much.

Good.

Again, could you just assist the Inspector, please, by reference to the UDS, what the

approach taken is and the justification to tall buildings

within those two zones?

So the tall building zones were identified through a

comprehensive, a mixture of a comprehensive desk -based and

field research study that was in line with industry standards.

Actually a methodology I understand Dr. Mealy accepted

as sound actually in this very chamber during EIP.

I should also mention that the urban design study makes clear that the tall building zone's

specific guidance also relates to the mid -rise designations and that's set out in the urban

design study.

But for the inspector's reference, I will address the justification and guidance associated

to the two tall building zones head on.

and I do so in detail actually in my own proof,

which just for reference again is CD 9 .02,

section three, that is paragraphs 3 .18 to 3 .36.

And then I return to the provisions

of the urban design study through my visual evidence

presented to this inquiry on character impacts

and place that in direct contrast

to the evidence put forward by both Mr. Barbloff and Dr. Mealy.

But I would just want to set out in relation to this point specifically about the tall

building zones around the site, some of the key observations from the urban design study

in relation to the tall building zones opposite.

And in this instance I think we will go there if that's okay.

So in terms of TBB2 -04 and 03, which is adjacent and opposite

the site, if you could turn to the, again, the design study,

CD5 .16, page 182, or page 204 of the PDF, as I have it.

So internal page 182, is that?

Internal page 182.

Thank you.

So I'll just refer to some of the justifications sent out here.

You should be able to see on the left -hand side, in particular, the sentence, the first

sentence, sorry, it says where it recognises the presence of a 12 -storey, that is, Ma 'am,

Albion Riverside, and an 18 -storey building that is the Montevetro building.

we'll probably hear more about, but it states in the second sentence, and I quote,

existing buildings across the rest of the area are modest in scale but could receive

additional height provided the cumulative impact on the River Thames is fully considered

and the setting of key heritage assets such as Battersea Park, registered park and garden

and the listed Battersea Bridge are protected. Next sentence, the 18 -storey building in the

west of the zone TBB203, again I understand to be Montevetro, detracts from the setting

of the Grade 1 listed St Mary's Church and it is not considered that this height could

be replicated anywhere else within the area. It then continues apart from the recent Lots

Road power station development and the mid 20th century world's ender state, the north

the river, that is RBKC, is relatively small scale

and green in character.

It then recognises development should respond positively

to the latter and not the former.

But importantly, I think, penultimate sentence,

buildings should step down towards the approaches

to the listed Battersea Bridge and Albert Bridge.

This, I point out, clearly corresponds

with the mid -rise designation in relation

to the appeal site.

But then if we jump forward to the model, so if we now jump forward in the document.

Just before you do that Mr. Ealy, just before you move to the appendix where you go with

the details and further detailed analysis is provided, you've identified the text on

the left hand side of page 182 that sets out the explanation for the tall building zones

within the body of the UDS for the zones on either side of the appeal site.

The reference to responding positively to the north bank of the river, it being relatively

small scale and green in character, is that a relevant factor that you would invite the

inspector to take into account in considering this appeal?

Very much, sir.

Thank you.

Andy, also the reference, as you place an emphasis on it in the last sentence, to the

stepping down towards the approaches to the listed Battersea Bridge, again, is that a

point A that you would invite the inspector to have regard to?

And is that a point, or do you consider that to be a point that informs why a mid -rise

building zone was identified and includes the appeal site?

Correct.

And is the identification of a mid -rise zone in that location consistent with the objective

set out in the last census of this text?

Entirely consistent.

Thank you.

Please carry on then.

Okay, so if we can then jump forward to the more detailed justifications at Appendix A,

so that is internal page 2319 of the same document.

I have it as, if it's more helpful for others, as 261 of the PDF.

Did you say 239?

239 of the document, yeah.

Thank you.

So you'll note under analysis.

Just pausing there, just to put this in context, Mr. Ealy, this is in the appendix to the UDS

that includes a little more detail in terms of the tall building zones, is that correct?

Yeah, and this was new in the Reg19 version of the plan when it was updated to reflect

a much more granular approach to the tall building zones and indeed mid -rise zones.

Thank you. And the page that you are taking the Inspector to, which is internal page 239,

if we go forward to the preceding page, we can see at the top of that page a reference

to TB B204 and the image beneath it that...

Can you be interested in that?

Yes of course, I'm so sorry. The witness took the inquiry to page 239. I'm looking at page

238, the preceding page. The heading at the top of the page is TBB204, Battersea, Riverside.

And if you look at the plan, if we look at the plan beneath that, we can see that that

number reflects the tall building zone to the west of the appeals site. Is that correct?

Yeah. Thank you. And then onto the page, you took the Inspector 2, which is page 239, the

next page, does this set out the justification and the analysis of the approach to that zone?

Exactly.

Right, carry on then please.

Thank you for the clarity.

So you'll note under analysis, first this mid reference style being riverside, being

11 storeys, is said to sit comfortably due to the width of the river and the setback,

albeit has been drawn out of the surrounding tall building zone and perhaps the text next

suggests why, and so I quote,

the heights of buildings generally along the riverfront

here are considered to be at capacity.

Increases in height would risk adversely affecting

the character of the River Thames,

including the North Bank, which you just referred to,

which is designated as a conservation area

by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Taller development would also sit uncomfortably

between the two listed bridges,

Battersea Grade 2 and Albert Grade 2 Star,

and would affect views from within Battersea Park,

Park, registered park and garden. Now if we could jump forward again, so if we can jump

to the analysis covering TBB203.

I'm going to ask you just to pause again there, if I may. You referred the Inspector to the

first paragraph under the analysis within this part of the UDS. Again, consistent with

the guidance in the body of the report, it refers to the need to have regard to the wider

context including the north bank of the river.

Again, is that a factor that you would invite the inspector

to have regard to in first of all,

appreciating the reason why the approach was taken in the UDS

to the tall building zone 04 and indeed to the matters

before the inquiry?

Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed.

So you're going then to where?

So it was page 237, internal page 237.

237.

So that is the similar analysis in relation to TB B203, which is that opposite on the

other side of Battersea Bridge Road.

And again, if we look at it under analysis, again, for sentence, evidence gathered through

site visits and the character area profile indicate the height of Monte vitro Tower should

not create a precedent for further development of this scale along the riverside.

That's a reiteration of the earlier point.

At the last sentence, it's worth noting,

reference to the eastern side,

needing to preserve Battersea Bridge

and respond positively to it.

So that's echoing somewhat again,

the conversation that was taking place

on the other tall building zone adjacent to our appeal site.

A third paragraph,

third paragraph first sentence reiterates

the importance of stepping down to Battersea Bridge and West Bridge Road Conservation Area.

And the last sentence refers to the, and I quote, need for careful planning to avoid

a canning effect along the River Thames.

And here, ma 'am, I draw your attention to how the appellant sought to render a potential

prospective feature scenario for this tall building zone in the late submission, which

was the animated video sequence, which we suggest perhaps

misrepresent some of this guidance.

But other than that, in relation to this aspect,

I will leave it to you, ma 'am, to look

at this in your own time.

Thank you.

Just one or two follow -up questions then, Mr. Eley.

The UDS and Arup, the authors of it,

explain why they took the approach

they did in advising the council about the extent of the tall

building zones and how buildings should come forward within that zone. Of course the appeal

side is, as a matter of fact, outside a tall building zone and in terms of its height,

it's about two and a half times the maximum height given for that tall building zone,

isn't it?

Correct.

To what extent do you consider that the considerations that are set out by ARA and the series of

paragraphs you've directed the inspector towards, either support or detract from the acceptability

of what is proposed as part of this appeal in terms of the considerations they identify?

Well clearly the proposed appeal scheme is entirely contrary to this guidance and indeed

I was quite shocked that actually in the submitted design and access statement there was not

a single reference at all to this design study or its content.

Thank you very much indeed.

Right. Anything else that you wish to draw the inspectors attention to so far as the UDS is concerned or the mid -rise and tall building zones and the reasons for them?

Not for now.

Thank you very much indeed.

Finally, then, please, on this topic, Dr. Meeley, in his evidence, produces, it's his

appendix 7 one for your note, some of the material that was submitted in written form

by the appellant in terms of representations on the soundness of the approach taken in

the Reg 19 emerging local plan to the appeals site and generally.

Have you had an opportunity to look at that material?

Yes.

Did the appellant in making representations in respect of the soundness of the emerging

local plan seek to have the appeal site removed from the dry zone?

They did.

And did it seek to increase the height parameters appropriate for a tall building on the appeal

site, on the adjoining site?

They sought for it to be placed into the tall building zone.

They sought, sorry?

For it to be placed within a tall building.

And did the appellant also seek to include reference in the local plan to securing a

landmark building on this site?

Indeed, and a site allocation.

And a site allocation, thank you.

Did any of those representations succeed before the local plan examination in a way that led

to a modification to the local plan to reflect those representations?

No.

Did the local plan inspector find the identification of the appeal site as a mid -rise zone and

the adjoining areas as tall building zones within the parameters set out in the ARUP

study and then in the local plan to be sound.

Correct.

Thank you.

Good.

That's topic one.

Topic two, please.

The 2018 pre -application correspondence.

could I invite you to take out Mr. Marginsy's appendices, which are his core document 8 .08.

When you have it, please, would you turn to appendix B, and I've got a printed copy, and

using the printed pagination, it's page 6 in the bottom right -hand corner.

Page 6 of the appendix.

Page 6 of Mr. Markinson's Appendices, Core Document 8 .08.

Yeah.

And in Appendix B is a letter sent by an officer of the Council to DP9 on behalf of Lockguard Limited in November 2018.

Do you see that?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Were you involved in any pre -application engagement at or around this time?

No.

You wouldn't talk to me about that, would you?

No.

So this is a pre -application sponsored by an officer of the Kansas City DPI on behalf

of Lockhart, whom I understand are the correct facts of the matter, were the predecessor

entitled as a respective DPO.

I understand that.

The inquiry doesn't have any of the pre -application submission made at that time to draw some

of these items. Have you seen any of the evidence really?

No.

Thank you. Do you want to know whether the architects who were involved in the scheme

at this time?

They were not.

They were not. Different architects. And this was a pre -application response. Was a planning

application made by Lockguard following this pre -application response?

No. Thank you.

We can see that from the final page of the letter, which is internal pagination page

18, its author is Thomas Wilson, who was a senior planning officer at the time. Was there

any, as far as you're aware, engagement of either members or indeed any specialist officers

relating to urban design or heritage?

Not that, I'm aware.

Can we look please together at the final paragraph of the letter which begins at the bottom of

internal pagination page 17. Without me reading it can you read that to yourself please Mr

Reedy.

Final paragraph page 17 of that letter.

The paragraph that begins at the foot of the page saying I trust this letter.

I trust this letter clarifies.

You don't need to read it out just read it to yourself please.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

I'll take this shortly, Mr. Ealy.

That paragraph is pretty standard on any pre -application response.

It has the normal, as it were, health cheque, but it is only an officer -level view.

And it also says in terms that the information in the letter is valid for a period of a year.

So therefore the information in the letter expired in November 2019.

It's a matter of simple arithmetic.

Can we then go forward in the letter, please, to page, internal pagination, page 9.

We can see that just to pick it up, the proposal, three inquiry inquiries for the following

erection of a 26 -storey building fronting the Thames and an eight -storey building south

block.

Do you see that?

Thank you.

And then below the description of the proposal, there's a subheading planning policy.

We can see that the planning policy at the time was the MPPF in 2018, the London Plan

2016 and the Core Strategy 2016.

Correct.

And those are both in terms of the London Plan and the Core Strategy, now elements of

the development plan that have been overtaken.

Is that correct?

They've been usurped, yeah.

Sorry?

Yes, they're no longer.

Right, good.

Can we then go on please to page 11 of the letter.

And you'll see a heading towards the bottom of the page,

design and layout, then a subheading, mass and height.

I do.

The site lies within the area spatial strategy for ransom stock.

The trigger point for a tall building assessment is nine storeys within the site,

which the 26 -storey building would meet.

the presence of a tall building would require the proposals

to address the 15 criteria under policy DMS 4,

oblique 4A, as a justification for the height

of the building in this area.

And just to pick it up, if you go forward

in the document to page 10, you'll

see a list of policies in the development management policies

document at the top of the page, 2016, again,

pausing there, a document that's now been superseded.

Is that right?

Correct.

And we see there that the policy DMS4 is the tall building policy in that document.

What was the parameters in terms of height of a tall building at that time?

So a tall building for the appeal site was nine storeys by definition and the area within

which it was located was identified as sensitive and the wide attempts policy area is inappropriate

for tall buildings.

So it was sensitive to tall buildings and nine storeys.

And the policy itself, the officer advised that the presence of the tall building would

require that both to address the criterion and the DMS 4 .4.

What was the range of factors that would need to be considered under those criteria?

All the usual, you would anticipate in the plan now, Marmos, visual impacts, impacts

on heritage assets, character, the river.

The requirement of the pre -application response was they would have to be considered?

Correct.

Finally, please, on this document, can we go back, please, to page 11 and 12 using the

internal pagination?

11 and 12, sorry.

Pages 11 to 12 using the internal pagination. Just give me a moment. I'm just trying to

find the reference that I'd like your help with, please.

Yeah, if we can go please three paragraphs up from the bottom of page 12, a paragraph

beginning the setting of the listed bridge.

Yeah.

Do you have that?

Yes.

The setting of the listed bridge, pausing there, that in context is plainly being, Battersea

Bridge as being referred to, is currently diminished by the presence of the existing

building, the proposed building even with greater height than existing, if well designed

together with an enhanced public realm could improve the setting of the bridge.

So far as your position and your professional judgement is concerned, do you consider that

the existing building within the setting of Battersea Bridge causes harm to the significance

of the bridge?

I don't.

So, if and to the extent that the officer responding to this pre -application engagement

was indicating to the contrary, do you agree or disagree with his view?

I disagree with his view.

And have you explained that in your evidence?

I have.

Can you give the inspector the reference?

Yes, I believe so.

So I set that out as CD 9 .02 between paragraphs 4 .10 and 4 .25.

And your conclusion in terms of the effect of the appeal site in its current form on

the significance of the listed asset matters of bridge is what?

It is neutral.

Neutral, thank you.

Good, thank you.

Topic three then please, approach to assessment of impacts on spatial character.

There are three matters of disagreement in terms of approach between your position Mr.

Eley and that of Dr. Mealy that I'd like your help with.

The first concerns the presence of tall buildings

now within the spatial context in which the development

would be experienced.

And the inquirer has already heard discussion

about the presence of the tall buildings

on the north side of the river at Chelsea Harbour,

also called Lots Road, the Monte vitro building,

and the blocks of flats in Kensington and Chelsea

at World's End.

Can we just go as a point of reference, please,

to Dr. Mealy's rebuttal proof of evidence so we can ground this point in what Dr. Mealy

says.

So that's core document 8 .09.

Tell me when you have that, please.

It's just loading.

I'm there.

And without delving into the detail of what is set out in

paragraphs 3 .1 to 3 .6 on page 6, internal pagination, page 6,

paragraphs 3 .1 to 3 .6.

Sorry.

Sorry, I think I've, this is CD8 .09.

Yeah, core document 8 .09, which is Dr. Mealy's rebuttal evidence, internal page 6, and it's

section 3 of that rebuttal evidence.

Internal page 6.

And for some reason that is Dr. Mealy's CV on my CD 8 .09.

Well, you can't download it, you mean, or?

Yeah, that's it.

Sorry, have I got the wrong reference?

I think they may, yeah.

Sorry, sorry everybody.

I think it's CD8 .11.

Yes, forgive me.

CD8 .11.

I have no idea why I've written 8 .9.

Dr. Miele's rebuttal, yeah.

Okay, so, um, oh yeah, sorry, three point.

Yep, it's internal pagination page six,

and it should be section three, rebuttal point to pre -existing harms.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good.

With that, forgive me for giving the wrong reference number.

I'm not going to deep dive into what Dr. Meeby says in these series of paragraphs, but essentially

his position is, well, the tall buildings that are already there are part of the baseline

and he regards them, therefore, as being neutral in terms of assessing the impact on character

and you need otherwise of the appeal proposal

as an additional tall building.

Is that what you understand the approach Dr. Mealy has taken?

I understand that he deems the existing baseline neutral.

Yeah, thank you very much indeed.

Can I have your position in terms of how you've approached

the presence of existing tall buildings in your assessment

of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance

of the area and whether you agree or disagree

with Dr. Mealy's approach and if you disagree, why?

Okay, so I mean I agree with Dr. Miele that there are clearly a number of tall

buildings which form part of the baseline of assessment, namely those that

you have made reference to at Chelsea Waterfront, Sloughbridge Road, Monteverto and

Wilton State amongst others. Where we differ I think is on substantive matter

of addressing cumulative effects and we've referred to the fact that this is

simply referred to as being a neutral baseline.

But I would like to go to the relevant parts

of historic England guidance,

which is accepted by the parties as best practise advice,

common ground in the heritage specific statement

of common ground.

And in this instance, I'm gonna go to the setting

of heritage assets, that is CD4 .13.

We're just posing there. Would you like the inspector to turn that up, Mr. Eley?

Please, yeah. Sorry, if we could go there. CD 4 .3, thank you.

And that's page 2.

Last paragraph in the box out, if you can see that.

It states, when assessing any application for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset,

local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change.

Now if you go within the same document to page 4, a bullet point entitled cumulative change,

I will just read this out, where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past

by unsympathetic development affecting its setting to accord with the MPPF policies,

consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from

or enhance the significance of the asset.

There are further complementary guidance.

Can I just interrupt you please for a moment, Mr. Eley, just before you move on to other

references, the guidance that you refer to, the setting guidance of heritage

assets produced by Historic England is of course directed at the historic

environment, not directly anyway at the impact of development on the character

of an area and related to the historic environment. To what extent if at all is

there any reason why different approach should be taken to looking at

cumulative impacts when considering impact on character to that which is

taken when considering impact on the significance of heritage assets?

I don't believe there is any reason why you would take a different approach and in fact

and whilst it's not in evidence, my understanding is that an assessment of cumulative impacts

is also part of the Landscape Institute's guidelines on landscape visual impact assessment.

Thank you. And applying therefore the guidance in the setting guidance published by Historic

England, if the inspector were to form the view in accordance with your evidence that

some of these existing tall buildings,

which exist within the context of the appeal site,

themselves cause harm,

to what extent when carrying out a cumulative assessment

should she have regard to the harmful effect

of those buildings and any increase in harm

caused by the appeal proposal?

You need to consider them in coming to an overall

predisposition in terms of harm.

And would that be consistent or inconsistent

as a starting point with treating those buildings

as being a neutral factor in the assessment?

It would be inconsistent with treating it as neutral.

Good. I interrupted you, please.

You were about to refer to some, I think by name,

to some other guidance. So can you...

Yeah, but only by simply pointing out

that further complementary guidance

can be found in Historic England's

tall building advice note,

also a matter of best practise common ground,

and that is CD4 .14, just to reinforce the point.

But I don't think we need to go there.

Anything else you want to refer to in this context and on this point relating to approach, Mr. Ely?

Only that in my evidence I do address cumulative impacts throughout and in line with that guidance.

And in a number of instances find that the appeal scheme compounds existing cumulative harms to the area's spatial character and to indeed, of course, heritage significance.

Thank you. And is there any other documents that you invite the Inspector to consider

in reaching of you as to whether any of the existing buildings, tall buildings, which

provide the context in which, or some part of the context in which the appeals site is

considered are harmful?

Yeah, I think it's obviously relevant to consider what both of the riparian boroughs have to

say on both sides of the river here. And so I think in the first instance, if we could

go to RBKC's building height SBD, which formed a key document underpinning the character

study of RBKC's 2024 local plan.

That is at CD 5 .25.

CD 525, and that is the building heights in the Royal Borough SBD, correct?

That's correct, yeah.

Thank you.

And if we could turn to para 2 .1 .2 to 2 .1 .4, page 13.

And this is in reference to the world's end estate, which

Mammy might have seen when you were on your site

perambulations.

But I think it's worth just pointing this out

as to the burrow on the opposite side of the river's position

in relation to those and others.

tall buildings within their borough.

And none of these clusters relates to its neighbours

in terms of scale, height, pattern, and character.

Just pausing there, Mr. Ealy.

Are you reading from paragraph 2 .14?

Correct.

Thank you, please carry on.

So none of these clusters relates to their neighbours

in terms of scale, height, pattern, and character.

They overshadow existing neighbouring buildings

and immediate spaces,

but also affect the setting of listed buildings

and views of historic skyline some distance away.

When seen from conservation areas nearby

or from the river prospect of Chelsea embankment,

I assume by that, by the way, ma 'am,

that is Kensington Chelsea's adopted protected view

in their local plan from Chelsea Bridge

looking back up the embankment,

just for clarity purposes.

The clusters appear out of place,

disrupting the urban pattern, scale, roofscape,

and the building line of homogenous Georgian

and Victorian residential quarters.

I think it's also useful in this instance

to go elsewhere on the RBKC side to reinforce this point.

So I think if we can go to RBKC's 2022 character study,

so that's sort of performed a similar function

to Wandsworth's urban design study

and underpins their up -to -date 2024 local plan.

So that's at CD 5 .24, and at page 62.

Page, sorry.

Sixty -two. Sixty -two, thank you.

And then if we can see under the title,

negative qualities.

So this is referring to one of the character zones,

character areas on the opposing side of the river,

opposite the appeal site and in relation to

Al -Pakisi's character study.

So negative qualities, fourth bullet.

Can I interrupt you just a moment?

Just to ground this in the character area

being referred to, you've referred the inspector

in the inquiry to internal page 62.

If we go to the preceding page, which is page 61.

Yep.

Do we see there shown outlined in blue with colour,

the character area being referred to?

And that includes Cremorne Road to the west of Battersea Bridge, is that right?

Yes, I understand that.

And if you go to the preceding page, which is page 60, you can see that there's a heading B1 Lots Village and Stanley.

Is that the character area that's being referred to?

So we can see where that is. It includes Cremorne Gardens and Cremorne Road, isn't it?

Yeah, yeah.

Right, back to where you were then.

Okay.

You were on page 62.

62, under the title, Negative Qualities.

Fourth bullet, it makes reference to new development

to the south on the Thames.

So this is in relation to the Wandsworth side,

is often poorly integrated, creating discord

and juxtapositions between old and new development.

Tall buildings dominate views and appear in Congress

in terms of massing and materials.

Then it goes on to refer on its own side,

the tower at 1 Waterfront Drive, by that

which it refers to as being in the adjacent London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

and just to be clear on that point, we understand that to be Tower West

which is in the Chelsea Waterfront scheme, seen as two towers

and they sit in, one's in RBKC and one is in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

and they were approved after public inquiry

And it goes on to say, so the tower at 11 Front Drive

and the adjacent London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham,

which fronts onto the Thames, is a significant departure

in terms of height, grain, and design

to that found in the area, with the exception

of the world's end estate, and will alter the skyline

in this part of the borough.

So I think that is useful context in relation

to the assessment of cumulative harms.

and it is consistent indeed with what we've seen actually

on the Wandsworth side, forming part of the Wandsworth

urban design study and its character profiles

at identifying existing harms as a material part

of the baseline cumulative situation.

And I don't suggest we potentially go back there,

but just by way of reinforcing that point,

The urban design study, CD5 .16, page 62.

That relates to the character of the appeals site B2,

Battersea Riverside.

Again, under its negative qualities,

I note bullet points one, six, and eight,

which recognise that in congress development

has fragmented local character, such as Montevetro,

and it makes reference to the highly developed

Thames frontage in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham opposite.

So in summary I suppose what I'm saying or pointing out is that the cumulative impacts

here are recognised and have informed the plan approaches, up to date plan approaches

on both sides of the river.

Thank you very much indeed.

Right, second point please of the three points in terms of methodology.

the appellant's case in favour of a landmark building on the appeal site.

Firstly, Mr. Eley, is there any development plan policy requirement for or express policy statement of support

for a building with landmark qualities on the appeal site because it is an entry point into the borough across Battersea Bridge?

No.

Thank you. Do you consider that in townscape terms to provide a building with landmark

qualities on the appeal side can be an acceptable response?

I do. I accept as such in my evidence.

Does a building with landmark qualities in your view have to be a tall building, let

alone a building of ground plus 28 storeys?

No, I don't believe that a landmark needs to be tall to perform a landmark function.

And it's not just my view.

I don't know if I'm allowed to make reference to other positions at this point.

Well, you can't as long as it's in evidence.

It is in evidence.

But, you know, I'm not the only person clearly to take this perspective.

And I would just point you, Marm, in the direction you've probably already seen this in any case.

but, and I'm not necessarily saying we go there,

but I can give you the references.

The Wandsworth Expert and Independent Design Review Panel,

it's reiterated in both its formal letters of advice,

which just by way of reference,

or CD 12 .01 and 12 .02,

where I note in summary in the latter,

it states the panel remains unconvinced

that marking the bridge is an argument

for a tall building in this location.

That is CD 12 .02, page two, if you wish to go there,

if you were to refer back to it, sorry.

Again, the Strategic Authority for London,

who might deal with such things as metropolitan markers,

the GLA, they were also clear

that a landmark in this site does not mean

a building of significant height

is appropriate on that basis.

And again, if you want to find that reference,

it's at CD 11 .08, paragraph 37.

And finally, ma 'am, I think the Common Ground

Best Practise, Historic England Tour Buildings

at Vise Note 4 is clear that,

and I'm not suggesting we go there,

but I will just quote briefly from it,

under the consideration of architectural quality,

it states, not all tour buildings can be landmarks,

and not all landmarks need to be tall buildings.

That is at CD 4 .14 para 4 .5 bullet three.

And, you know, I think that reflects Historic England's position

as taken actually at Reg 18 stage.

That ultimately ended up in amendments at Reg 19 stage

in the more granular approach to taller mid -rise buildings

we have now in the urban design study.

Thank you very much indeed.

And final points on this topic, please.

much is made, I think, in, well,

independence evidence generally,

but in the architects' evidence about other

river crossings in London having tall buildings

at bridgeheads and plainly common experiences.

There are some that have tall buildings

on their bridgeheads and that perform some sort

of landmark or wayfinding function.

Are there other examples that you would draw

the inspectors' attention to where bridgeheads

are marked by landmarks that are not tall buildings?

I mean, there was a number actually,

I thought it was quite an interesting exercise

that the appellant undertook in the design and access statement

and then in evidence to the inquiry.

A number of buildings are referred to,

some of which are potentially good buildings,

some of which aren't.

And, you know, interestingly,

Albert Bridge was referred to as a landmark.

Battersea Bridge wasn't.

And some of the other bridges, some of the other buildings,

For example, the Royal Festival Hall was made reference to,

frankly I'm not so certain that that is a landmark

associated with Hunkford Bridge,

but it goes to the point that a landmark presence

doesn't necessarily equate to a tall building.

There were a number of other which I would suggest also,

through form expression or even smaller scale visual cues,

meant they perhaps performed a landmark function,

marking a bridge head,

but which weren't necessarily dependent upon being tall.

Thank you very much.

Anything else you want to raise on that second topic,

which is landmarks, Mr. Eley?

I think only other than that, in essence,

there's no policy tether in either relevant

or not relevant guidance that seeks to mark bridgeheads

as either desirable or indeed,

as it's been put forward at times, necessary.

And I mean that even at a London -wide scale,

it's common ground that the LVMF is not affected,

but this marking bridge has no place within it,

and that's probably done more than anything,

any other document in London to curate its skyline.

Thank you.

Good.

Final topic then please on the methodology

or the basis of a set we can deal with,

I hope briefly.

Urban design as a heritage benefit, that old chestnut.

Dr. Mealy gives his evidence in respect of this

in his rebuttal at paragraph 4 .3.

I don't think we necessarily need to go there,

but can I have your view, please,

as an expert witness on whether improvements,

good urban design is to be regarded in all cases

as a heritage benefit when it has some sort of relationship

to a listed building?

No, I believe we ought to be careful on this matter,

and I've put forward in my evidence,

my position on the subject, and that's at section four,

of my proof that is CD 9 .02 between paragraphs 4 .10 and 4 .25, and I address this in detail

in relation to Battersea Bridge, where I find there's no case for a heritage benefit capable

of balancing to paragraph 215 of the MPPF. I don't wish to repeat that in full, but I

I would summarise my position as a simple proposition,

in essence, when approaching this matter

of whether something is ultimately an urban design benefit

or a heritage benefit.

And I think you could, in essence, consider

just one key question when considering this matter,

and that is whether the works themselves

are capable of enhancing the significance of the asset

and its conservation, with specific reference there to Para 212 and 215 of the MPPF.

So I think the position is simple. When looking at the works, I think you ask yourself the question,

is the heritage asset more significant after these works than it was before these works?

And I think in general speaking, you can treat your gut professional instincts on this one

if something ultimately intrinsically feels like

an urban design benefit such as alfresco dining

or inclusive access or better pavement,

it probably ultimately is an urban design benefit.

But if there is a clear and tangible link to significance,

then I believe it is capable of being a heritage benefit.

And I think in this instance,

the appellant refers to some more generalised

architectural matters to advance a heritage benefit.

such as marking the bridge or purported better architecture.

And in this instance, I don't know if we need

or want to go there, but I would draw the attention

of Youmam to a relatively recent planning practise

note adopted by the Greater London Authority

in association with conservation officers across London.

I understand some consultants.

And it's called the Heritage Impact Assessments

and the setting of heritage assets.

It's at CD 5 .24 and at paragraph 54, page 14.

Sorry, could you just give me that CD reference again?

Oh, sorry.

That was the same as one of the Kensington

and Chelsea documents.

Oh, sorry, it's not.

It's Greater London Authority.

Oh, sorry, did I give you the wrong CD?

Yeah, it's CD 5 .42, ma 'am.

You got the numbers reversed like I did before

I thought that's what I said.

He said, yeah, CD 5 .42.

OK, yeah, paragraph 54.

That's on page 14.

And it actually seeks to address this whole idea of,

tease apart this whole idea of urban design benefits

and heritage benefits.

And I think it's useful, actually,

to know in this instance.

And so I'm going to read it, if that's OK.

And that is, proposals maybe of a high design

or architectural quality provide an iconic marker

with wayfinding benefits, provide a focal point

in a view with a directional quality

or consolidate or complete an existing

skyline composition or cluster,

or contribute to a layered quality of the view.

Where substantiated, such benefits may be

public benefits of a design, townscape,

or architectural type, but do not in themselves

avoid or minimise heritage harm.

Architectural quality, even if outstanding, does not in and of

itself avoid or minimise harm and is not justification for

harm.

Anything else you want to add in respect of that last of the

three topics on approach, Mr. Eley?

Only that I find direct correlations between the case

advanced by the appellant and that sentence in terms of

and try to tease apart what might be a design

and a heritage benefit.

Thank you very much indeed.

Good.

I think you've made your position clear on that.

Good.

Right.

A final topic then, please.

You'll need to have two documents available

in either printed copy or electronically.

You'll need Dr. Mealy's proof, which is core document 8 .03,

and the HTVIA addendum, which is core document 1 .03.

It's the, I'm using the paginated, marked up version

that was very helpfully provided after lunch.

Now, so far as these series of questions

are concerned, Mr. Eley, they derive

from Dr. Mealy's main proof of evidence

in a series of paragraphs beginning on page 71,

internal pagination, top right hand corner, 71.

Let's turn that up, please.

Yeah.

Do you have that?

I've got it, I'm there, yeah.

And by way of introduction, on page 71,

and in the preceding, what would it be, about,

preceding eight pages, Dr. Mealy assesses impact

on the character and appearance of the area

by reference to various contexts, numbers one to four.

The first of those is the river context, you see?

Yeah.

And I'm going to ask you just your position

in terms of how you address these matters in your evidence

and then one or two observations on the conclusions

reached by Dr. Mealy.

But before doing that, please, Mr. Eley, Dr. Mealy,

in his evidence, when describing the appeal site,

refers to it as being a prominent addition

to this part of London, paragraph 717,

as having wide impacts, including from sensitive land

enjoyed by many, 718, and in terms of local impact,

it being prominent across a wide expanse of Battersea Reach.

That's Dr. Mealy's summary at paragraph 10, Roman numerals.

Dr. Mealy's words, do you agree with them?

Yes.

Thank you.

Good.

Right.

Can we then look at these contexts then please?

Page 71 of Dr. Mealy's evidence, his first context is the river and he divides that context

into two subsections.

The first, Kelsey Embankment from Kelsey Bridge to Battersea Bridge and you will see

you see that subheading above paragraph 7 .22 on page 71.

And the second section within the river context

begins on page 73 above paragraph 7 .50,

Chelsea Harbour to Cremorne Gardens.

Do you see that?

Now taking those in turn please,

so far as Chelsea embankments from Chelsea Bridge

to Battersea Bridge is concerned,

Dr. Mealy's evidence focuses on essentially three views.

The first of those in order is the view looking up river from

Chelsea Bridge and that in the HTBIA addendum is view 12 and

existing is on page, it should be page 51 on the PDF version.

That's why I've noted anyway.

Is it?

Oh, it's not paginated then.

Yeah, I know. We've got the Vue numbers but not the pagination.

But if you are looking at it, you might have to look at them both actually.

But it's Vue 12 and in the PDF version it's page 2051.

Oh yeah, sorry, it's helpfully scribbled on it.

Do you have that one?

We can see existing and proposed.

Just using that view as the starting point

for this experience of Context 1,

Kelsey Embankment to Battersea Bridge.

Do you deal with this in your evidence, Mr. Eley?

I do, yeah.

Where?

So I deal with the kinetic experience

across the bridge in my proof,

both in my proof and at Appendix 2,

For reference, CD 9 .05 and figures 15 to 21.

Thank you very much indeed.

Right.

Your assessment, please, in terms of the impact of the development in this context

and the context of this particular view addressed by Dr. Mealy.

Well, I think first of all, I think it's a very highly sensitive view upstream Chelsea Reach.

You're on the edge of the central activity zone and you're coming into the historic inner central west

It's defined by its depth and broad horizontal plane

of the river with its low, verdant and open edges

defined predominantly actually by,

it's quite remarkable, really,

by prevalent nature in a semi -parkland setting

which creates a setting for important historical landmarks,

namely the Royal Hospital as well as Albert Bridge,

Bassy Park of course.

From here I contend that the appeal scheme would be

dominant and actually the most conspicuous

vertical aspect breaching the skyline.

And of a heightened scale on its massive broad edge,

which I notice you've picked up on site, no doubt, man,

which I contend detracts from these spatial qualities.

And as I say, I draw attention to Dr. Mealy's

grappling with this.

So that's at 7 .27 to 7 .28 of his proof.

And he is very much focused on the relationship

between the towers themselves.

I would say rather than their relationships

with other important elements of that spatial composition

and hierarchy, not least of course the Royal Hospital,

Battersea Park and Albert Bridge.

And I think he rightly identifies that it's a distant view.

But in this instance, I think you can see, Marvin,

I'm sure you appreciate this while walking the bridge,

the appeals can be much greater height and mass,

forming no clear, I think, successful relationship

with any of those existing tall buildings,

which in my evidence I find is detracting

from the general spatial character

of this really quite sensitive scheme.

And in fact, in my view, I make an assessment

in that cumulative scenario, in my evidence,

as to that talks to the relationship between those towers

as well as the relationship with that wider setting.

And to my mind, actually, the proposed tall building

would actually sort of undermine some of the mitigating

aspects of the existing tall buildings in the scheme,

not least, I refer to it as architectural symbiosis

or what might be called sort of group value

between those buildings.

Chelsea waterfront buildings in particular

have a much sort of slender form and their access up to a point faces up the river corridor.

And so you get a very slender form, which then as you walk across the bridge, your load

sort of steps down to the central access running straight up the Long River corridor.

And I contest that the heightened scale of the proposed scheme would actually sort of

reduce or further aggravate their impact on the scene.

Thank you very much.

The next of the three views that Dr. Mealy addresses

in this particular context,

that's the first element of context.

One is view four, which is the view

from the north side of the river

looking towards the Albert Bridge.

Could you turn to that please?

If my notes are correct, view four is PDF page 35,

existing page 36 proposed.

And Dr. Mealy refers to and addresses this in his evidence

and in paragraphs including 731 and 732, he refers to the detailed design of the proposed

building, the curving short edges, the recess on the long elevation and colour and finish

as essentially mitigating factors or factors that in some way address the impact of height

and scale. Your view, please, on the impact of the development from view for where you

within your evidence and whether those detailed design matters

mitigate the impact.

First of all, I think it's necessary to address

that obviously this approach isn't just appreciated

in the static at this very point.

But actually, I think it's important to consider

the approach as I do in evidence to Albert Bridge from as far

back as Chelsea Bridge whilst walking along the embankment

and the kinetic experience.

And I address this in my proof for reference, again, on CD 9 .02, Paris, 3 .66 to 3 .78.

And I think it is important to consider the impact on views from further east and downstream

because there the cumulative situation is more significant than it is in this scene.

But clearly, once you get to this point of view four, it's very sensitive, and we address

in the officer's report, and as I address, obviously,

also in my evidence, but from here,

the other cumulative impact in towers

have receded from the view, and emergent in the mid -distance

is the appeal scheme, as well as, of course,

the foreground bridge.

And I notice now that Dr. Mealy now recognises

that there is harm here, and that's a change in situation

from application stage and actually in relation

to taller buildings.

but suggests at his proof, so that's for reference,

that's para 7 .31, that aspects such as the central,

and we can look at these I think now,

aspects such as the glazed central slot of the east elevation

adds depth and relief which offsets the spandrels, it said.

Now I contend that this is a very minor moot point,

especially in this situation.

And I doubt there'd be many people

to which would look straight at the spandrel panels

when looking at the impacts on this view,

which in essence bypasses the height

and scale relationship here,

which my evidence is very clear

that on those foundational matters of height and scale,

there's clearly an impact here.

I'd say it's very significant,

and it would detract from the light, airy silhouette

of the bridge and it's relatively dainty scale.

An impact by both day and night as I'm sure you're now going to go and see when you go

and see some of its iconic lighting later this week.

My suggestion in terms of material selection and detailing, obviously when we, as I set

out in my own proof, we consider the materials and detailed architectural expression when

coming to overriding or overarching conclusions

on the impacts of spatial character and design.

If those are delivered to the high quality

that is suggested in the report,

then it wouldn't compound those impacts,

but we don't think it negates those impacts.

The impacts being from the height and scale and mass.

Exactly. Thank you. Good. Thank you.

Last then view that I'd just like your help

with in this part of the context is view 11 which is the Battersea Bridge view looking

from the north side. And view 11, it is, view 11 is PDF page is 49 to 50. Do you have that?

I've got it, yeah.

Again, it's the same point.

Dr. Mealy identifies that view and refers in his evidence

to the curves of the building, shape and colours, et cetera,

as in some way being the way

which the building will be appreciated.

Your view, please, on the relevance of those matters

and really how you say the building will be experienced

in views such as those represented by view 11.

Yeah, so to my mind,

view 11 has been sort of quite carefully selected.

So it's on sort of near access with the appeal scheme

so seen at its slenderist.

My evidence considers the impact here

as a kinetic sequence between Albert Bridge and Battersea

Bridge and for your reference, Marm, that's CD 9 .02,

Paris 3 .89 to 3 .100.

where you see the approach,

you very much see bridges coming into the foreground,

you see it as an integral part of the Chelsea Embankment

and the old Chelsea setting on the riverside there.

And where for most of that viewing platform,

actually you'll see the building on its edge,

principally on its edge,

and the sheer physical weight and gravity.

I contend would overwhelm, in my view,

the approach to the landmark bridge.

However, my view on View 11 is that even at its slenderest,

a similar effect would ultimately be apparent.

And as you can see from the image here,

there's quite a dramatic rupturing in the generally much

lower skyline datum, drawing away both from the landmark

presence, I believe, of the bridge,

but also diminishing the sense of openness above the river.

Again, I know that Dr. Mealy in his proof,

So for reference, at 7 .37 to 7 .38,

he focuses on the curve and the elevation,

in which instance, I think he asked you

to take a larger leap of faith, I think,

when he suggests that these relate to,

or rather than draw away from,

the gentler curves of the river morphology here.

And at the same time, those curves

has also suggested to allayed to the bridge,

and Albion Riverside's thrown in there as well.

But I would just add that Albion Riverside's

generous setback in rectilinear curves,

more fluid form and horizontal flow,

follows the grain of the river much more

than the proposed scheme,

which I suggest in stark contrast,

its verticality would dominate and detract away

from landmarks within that view.

Before potentially we move on from view 11,

And I would also wish to just pause and say,

I think we also need to consider the rather discrete impacts

from Roper's Garden, which is hopefully you did go to,

ma 'am, on your site visit.

It's directly behind here on the other side of the embankment.

And it's a discrete open space, which

is a registered landscape with a listed statue

at the heart of it.

And the impacts on here, I think, are standalone,

but also very significant.

And if that's not on the site visit,

then I think it should be.

but I address those particular impacts in my proof.

And again, just for your reference,

that's CD 9 .02 and para 3 .96.

Thank you.

Good.

We can leave that to the inspector,

just really, to consider.

Right. Finally, then, on Context 1,

which is the Chelsea Harbour to Cremorne Road.

That's to the west of Battersea Bridge on the north side,

and the sequence that Dr. Mealy looks at is going,

in this case, west to east from Chelsea Harbour down Cremorne Road.

Those are, I think, predominantly addressed by Dr.

Mealy in respect of view 10.

Can we look briefly at view 10 then, please?

Which is on PDF page

a second.

PDF page 47 to 48.

Yeah. You have that?

I've got the video.

We deal with this briefly because Dr Beale takes the same approach.

He refers to the building as being a free -standing building in those views, but then refers to

some detail to detailed design matters.

What do you say, what would you invite the inspector to conclude in terms of the experience

of the proposed building from that location and which aspects of the building contribute

to that experience?

So my evidence on this point again is in the kinetic experience and it can be found in

My evidence CD 9 .02 from paragraph 3 .109.

Yeah, I did note the reference to free standing,

perhaps in other ways isolated.

But I found again, sort of rather unusual,

the immediate focus at some distance here,

I would suggest, is on detailing

and perhaps barely perceptible detailing

such as shadow gaps in the terracotta,

spandrel panels.

And I think this somewhat speaks to the wider evidence

of visual impacts here, which have in essence bypassed

foundational design considerations to my mind

of height and scale relative to contrast

and which focus in on otherwise minor ancillary

levels of detail.

And so of course it is, my position is set out

is that the relative here, scale here,

it drives self -evidently the main visual impacts

on spatial character and of course also

on heritage assets as relevant.

Some of Dr. Miele's evidence seems to be

a bit more inward looking, so the proportion

between the parts of the buildings,

which I'm not saying is an irrelevant consideration,

but then there's no real address of that relationship

with context, so that an external relationship

between proportional relationships.

My evidence on this matter is that the historic,

you've got these interesting historic houseboats

and moorings, you've got the tree line

of the lower scale embankment,

and of all Chelsea, the listed houses on Chaney Walk,

they create an intimacy and sort of human scale

environment in the ground which very much focuses

on the landmark sequence of bridges,

including the landmark presence of course of Battersea

Bridge, which recedes to the openness of the Great Meander

in the river, but it is my evidence that the sheer scale

of the tower from this location, again, here seen in full

or free -standing or isolated, at 10 and 29 storeys apart,

would be of such visual gravity and substantial rupturing

of the skyline that it would sit in stark contrast

to the relatively low scale and prevailing scene.

If possible, I'd also just like to add

that my evidence goes further to also consider Cremon,

Cremorne Gardens.

I think this is an important point

because Dr. Mealy's observation in his proof

for reference at paragraph 7 .53,

he states that they did not model Cremorne Gardens

because of trees, but he acknowledges at 7 .50

that it is prominent from here and has been laid,

he has been laid, I quote, expressly to take advantage

of the river views.

I would invite you, Marmot, if you didn't go to Cremorne Gardens on your previous site

visit, very much to go there and try and understand what Dr. Mealy might mean by the terms of

trees preventing views.

But I think the viewing experience from the public observation jetty, as well as its embankment,

like that from the nearby Chelsea waterfront, is fairly spectacular.

are I think one of the best parts of the Thames path

coming into central London.

And I would suggest here you get a really deep layered

London skyline unfolding, which you see many

of the heritage assets actually at issue in this inquiry.

And this is not tackled by Dr. Mealy in his evidence.

But here I would contend that the impact would be acute,

substantial and harmful to the point

of relative height and scale, the visual contrast

I think would be quite extreme.

This is what you're talking about from Cremon Gardens here. This is from Cremon Gardens. Thank you actually leave that to the inspector to consider

Right and just then briefly the other context that dr. Miele refers to we've left the river can we go to context to?

Which dr. Miele addresses on page 75 which is the approach route and other views from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

This is landside

In Kensington and Chelsea looking towards the development and the focus

essentially here is on HTVIA view 7, which is from the junction of Beaufort

Street and Kings Road. Can we have a quick look at that please?

Yeah. Thank you. So view 7 in the HTVIA addendum, PDF page 41. 41 and 42. Yeah.

I suppose the view both existing and proposed needs a great deal of

elaborational description.

I mean, Dr. Mealy refers to the effect of the development

as being, compared to the existing townscape,

as striking and contrasting,

and he regards it as being positive.

Before I ask you to just briefly explain

your position on this, please, Mr. Eley,

is this view taken from within the conservation area?

Yes, so it's taken through the Cheney conservation area.

Cheney conservation area, yeah.

Thank you.

It would then reenter the Cheney conservation area

at the end where there's an arm across to Chaney Walk.

So essentially, the Chaney Conservation Area

includes the junction.

Then the area in the middle ground down Beaufort Street

is excluded.

And then there's a conservation area then at the south end

as well, isn't there?

Followed by the Thames Conservation Area.

The Thames Conservation Area, yeah.

OK.

Right.

There we are.

Thank you.

Again, your view, please, on how the building

would be experienced in terms of character and appearance

from this location.

So of course, it is another one that's

taken very much on access.

So when you're seeing it, I support the building

and it's slenderist, but I address this,

and I address this at my proof, which is CD 9 .02 para 3 .160.

Yeah, I mean, I know what Dr. Meili's observations

in this regard to this view,

which are at his proof for reference para 7 .80,

but the appeals scheme is striking, as you identified.

and then at 7 .83, whether the harm is ultimately

a matter of professional judgement, which is a fair comment.

He goes on to make a bit somewhat more

of an academic reading of that contrast

put in art historical terms, but then goes on at 7 .84.

I also find the contrast in form and scale

dramatic and stimulating aesthetically,

something that would make the heart beat quicker.

I recognise directly afterwards he suggests

that's somewhat idiosyncratic and personal.

And I agree with Dr. Miele that the appeal scheme

would be striking and I use the term strident.

But my evidence is that ultimately that would go

to draw away from the coherent pattern of development.

That very much is preeminent in the view.

Given the integrity of its consistency

and harmonious height, scale, and rhythm, and would cause quite a dramatic sort of skyline

change, which I contend contrast can indeed be exciting where that's sought, but contrast

does not need to be in the extreme.

Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed.

Penultimately then please, Context 3, Battersea Park.

There are just two or three short factual points I'd like your help with on the assessment

by Dr. Mealy of views from Battersea Park and it relates to two views. The first is

view 13 which is the Pagoda view. Can we go to that please? And that's in PDF pages 53 to 54.

Do you have that? Yeah. We can see both existing and proposed. First of all, do you agree that

this is a sensitive view in the context of Battersea Park in general? Very much so.

Thank you very much indeed. We can see how the building appears in the proposed view from this

viewing position, at least part behind the canopy exfoliated of a tree. Mr. Ealy, as you

proceed westward along this riverside walk, to what extent will the building become more

prominent in views and are there opportunities within the layout of the riverside walk in

that location to experience the building in that way?

Absolutely so, and again I assume that this route was taken, but my position on the embankment

here at Ballastie Park, because it's probably one of the finest riparian prospects in London.

And it's also, I think, the best part in the park to understand its historical relationships

and wider group value settings.

And I think the tower needs to be considered in that context.

And very much as you start moving west, especially once you arrive to the, you might have noticed,

Marm, there's a designated viewing area for Albert Bridge at the very west end of this

embankment.

And by the time you get even close to that,

this scheme will be particularly prominent,

albeit through the tree line.

But I still think that has a significant impact.

Thank you.

And so the viewing platform that you're referring to

is further west towards the Albert Bridge, is that right?

So if you continue west, once you get to the very end

and reach the Albert Bridge side,

there is a sort of designated viewing area

for Albert Bridge at which point.

Okay, thank you very much.

That was all on that view.

Can we go please to view 15,

which is the view from within the park?

the park.

And we can see existing and

proposed, the proposed is

unrendered in the HTVIA

addendum views.

We can see the shelter, we can

see how the building appears in

the trees in what looks like

early spring, probably around

about now, actually.

The image shows what it shows,

Mr. Eady, but could you just

give the inspector your view as

to the wider context and

opportunities within this

general rather more open area of

the park as to how the building will be experienced,

including from behind the shelter in this view.

Yeah, so you will note, Imam, from my evidence that I have,

which by the way, my impacts here are addressed at CD 9 .02

from para 4 .41 and supplemented by my appendix two,

which is CD 9 .05 in figures one to 14.

The appellant's zone of theoretical visibility

does suggest quite an extensive visual impact

from across Battersea Park.

And I feel like this is a sort of moment in time,

as it were, but if you move around the shelter,

not least immediately to the west or north,

or even east, you've got paths that run off,

including the iconic Cherry Avenues,

which are just coming into bloom if you want to go there.

They've become an Instagram sensation, I can tell you, because I run in the park regularly.

It's a very busy time of year to visit now because Instagram has come to get their pictures

taken in front of the cherry trees.

I think you can tell from this image that the visual impact will be clear and significant

from in and around this part of the western part of the park, which has its recreational

fields.

They're very highly used.

They've been there for some time.

And did you ask me about the impact on the view?

I did, yes.

You did?

Because I noticed in Dr. Mealy's evidence actually,

he makes reference to the GLA's position on this being,

in essence, this is sort of Ross in urban,

or sort of rural in urban.

And I very much, I think my view has set out in evidence,

my view has set out in evidence,

it runs parallel to that.

And that there is a strong sense within the park

have been set apart in the prevalent nature from the city.

And I think you can see from here,

and I include a number of my own views

within my appendices too to show the impact

that is there in the cumulative on this west side

of the park of the Chelsea waterfront west building,

which already protrudes above the skyline.

And I can't say it causes harm.

Remembering that's of a similar height to the appeal scheme,

but is much further set back.

I contend it would be a significant visual impact

on the upstream side of the park, which is less,

which is more unblemished

from detracting urbanising influences.

And in that sense, I would also draw attention to some

of my figures that also look at the prospect for impacts

on the Western Carriageway from within the park,

not least the main entrance on that western side

from Park Gate Road where I think it could be actually quite significant.

And again, the appellants on ZTV demonstrate there's a prospect of significant indivisibility

between the two, the appeal site in a very sensitive context of Battersea Park.

And the carriageway you're talking about, is that the central carriageway that goes

east -west through the park or west -east?

No, the western carriageway runs along the western side of the park.

I see.

Thank you.

But again, my appendix two and my evidence goes into this.

and I think you'll find some of those views instructive

when read in the context of the wider visibility

demonstrated through their ZTV.

And finally, can I just help you with one point?

You mentioned the Chelsea Harbour tall buildings

in this view, can you actually see them

from this part of the park?

Yeah, again, I include photographs

of the West Chelsea waterfront, West Tower,

from just to the east actually,

of where we are in the U15.

So that's looking back across the bowling.

Is it a bowling?

OK, it is in your evidence for us.

And across the cricket and recreational fields.

So these are where the park and the really vast scale

of the park and its unblemished tree

line and fine mature specimen trees lining the edges.

And it's largely unblemished, but the Chelsea Waterfront

Tower protrudes and, I contend, is

is relevant in the cumulative situation.

And do you regard the fact that the building,

the proposed building, as indeed the Chelsea Waterfront

building does, penetrates the tree line, as it were,

above the tree line?

Is that also a factor that goes to its adverse effects?

Does that go as far?

Yeah, that's why I'm suggesting in that,

and in common with Historic England and the GLA,

it detracts from that sense of being set apart

from the urban area in the prevalence of nature,

remembering that this park was one of London's

the earliest large -scale metropolitan parks

designed obviously to create a retreat from the urban area.

Thank you very much indeed.

And lastly please, context four,

which is Landside from the south of the river

from the London Borough of Wandsworth.

Dr. Mealy addresses this, his fourth context

beginning on page 77.

And he does so essentially by reference,

still principally by reference to views

from Battersea Bridge Road

and indeed from West Bridge Road.

Can we just focus on the Battersea Bridge roads, please?

Views which are views 21.

And 22.

We look at 21, please, first, which is a view taken

from the south side of the junction of Battersea Bridge Road

with West Bridge Road.

View 21 in the HTVI agenda.

You have that?

Yeah.

Dr. Mealy and his evidence refers to this as being potentially

sensitive location and that the taller element becomes prominent over the duration of the

view.

Then coming nearer to it, you see both the tower and the podium.

I refer there to 700 and 7103 on page 77.

Again, your view as to the effect of the building from this location and indeed any observations

you have about the importance and sensitivity of that view.

Yes, so my position is set out at CD 9 .02 paragraph 3 .150. Yeah, I know that Dr.

Mealy's that's at his paragraph 7 .100 and that the approach is potentially

sensitive. I would suggest it is sensitive. It is locking through the

Westbridge Road conservation area which is on both sides which is part of the

expanded old Battersea village from the 1840s and 1850s

contains a number of locally listed

non -designated heritage assets.

And of course culminates on the grade two listed

Battersea bridge.

But also because it is just a well used and prominent

piece of townscape in the local area.

And I note that Dr. Mealy again at his evidence at 7 .104

it suggested that the 10 -storey lower piece would, I quote,

relate to the foreground scale

and would add interest in diamondism to a busy urban scene.

I would put my evidence in contrast to that,

to say my position is less focused

on sort of rather abstract elements,

such as speculative notions

that the tower would signal the bridge,

or that minor components, such as detailing,

might suggest movement and set out that the design fundamentals are what drives the harm

here, not just minor or ancillary details, but the overall height and scale of the proposal.

I agree that it is a bustling urban scene and that goes to the effect, but this is grounded

very much, I think, in the human scale and kept so by low -level visual cues.

And the appeal scheme would substantially detract from the finer grain, lower scale

historic environment here and the more subtle and graduated stepping up between the historic

environment here and Ransomstock focal point which is of course one of the primary objectives

of the plan led urban design study.

And I would suggest that even the 10 storey line side element would read clearly in addition

to the 29 storey part and would very much detract from that local spatial hierarchy and variegated

lower scale skyline, even the robust institutional presence of the RSA studio building.

Thank you very much indeed Mr. Ealy. Is there anything else you want to add at this stage?

No.

Thank you. That concludes the evidence in the queue.

Thank you. And just to confirm, I have been to Ropis Gardens and Tremorne Gardens on my

I haven't yet seen the cherry blossom in Battersea Park, but I will at some point I'm sure

Just in terms of timing we were expecting to go on into cross -examination now

But it might be a good time to take a break first. I think so. Yes. Okay, so it's now 2 45

Shall we reconvene at 3 o 'clock? Yes. Okay, Mr. Ealy, please remember that

Even though you haven't started cross -examination yet. It's

Advisable not to speak to anybody from your party

regarding the inquiry. Thank you. Okay, so it's inquiry is adjourned until three. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

The time is 1500 and I've been handed ID 09 which is the appellant's list of documents

for cross -examination of Mr. Ely, hopefully the council and the Royal Sixth Party have

got a copy of those.

Over to you Mr Harris.

Can I just mention timing, because the timetable has been quite carefully put together by yourself.

My learning friend was going to be an hour,

he was an hour and 50 or thereabouts.

I don't criticise him or raise anything into that.

But I've given a time estimate of two hours,

which will take us right to the close of play.

And that was the two hours before I heard

the evidence in chief.

And it might be a little longer than that.

And two things arise from that.

First, I think that's a reasonable position,

particularly given the importance of the evidence

that you are about to hear.

Second, the question then arises as to whether it's appropriate

to draw stamps at five or to come back tomorrow.

I'm agnostic as to that,

save that it is the hottest inquiry room

I've ever been in probably.

I don't want to be rushed in any respect.

My little friend will then have to do a reexamination

if there is any.

So I'm just putting a flag down that for all the right reasons we might draw stumps at five,

but we might not have finished the witness.

And that's the case whether I finished or whether my learned friend has finished.

Unless you wish to, I don't know whether you're on the Inspector at Works to Rule,

I don't need to know or any of those matters.

but I think that I'm entitled to a bit of certainty

as to where we are going in terms

of the rest of the afternoon.

OK, well, all I can tell you as far as I'm concerned

is I'll be guided by one, whether the buildings open

beyond 5 o 'clock.

And I'm getting nods.

Two, whether the parties are happy to actually continue,

given that it is warm and given that people will get tired

and I'll be guided by that.

But obviously it may, and I'm not working to rule,

I'm not a part of that union.

But it's kind of let's cross that bridge

when we come to it I think.

If you perhaps take a break, given how warm it is,

perhaps an hour in rather than after an hour and a half,

if you come to a suitable juncture, Mr. Harris,

that would probably be helpful.

Then give everybody a sort of 10 minute break,

opportunity to grab a drink, and then see how we go.

I'm very grateful.

I put my preliminary position now,

and that is I would not be keen,

particularly in all of these circumstances

that you've mentioned,

to go significantly beyond five o 'clock.

And if that means us coming back,

Melina and I have discussed this, we think the programme is exceptionally

generous in the sense that we may even be able to finish the inquiry a day

early or two days early, we both have that view. So we don't have to rush or

push the boundaries of the day unnecessarily and so my preliminary

position, I will stop in an hour if somebody pokes me with a stick, is that I

I for one would not wish to go beyond five o 'clock.

Understood.

And can I get the views of the council first and then the Rule 6?

I would be entirely led by what is appropriate as far as you're concerned, Mr Harris,

and we can go along with whatever consensus emerges.

Okay. And any views from the Rule 6 party?

I'm happy to go along with Mr Edwards and the other advocate.

Okay. Thank you.

So we'll see where we get to, Mr Harris.

One request for Mr. Eley, just before I hand over to Mr. Harris, is just could you please

make sure that you speak relatively close to the microphone.

I know there are points where you're looking away at the screen and I think that's the

point where some interested parties are finding it more difficult to hear you.

So thank you very much.

Mr. Harris.

May it please you, ma 'am.

Mr. Eley, I'm going to split my cross -examination into two distinct and separate areas.

Issue number one, townscape, and issue number two, heritage.

And you've done a similar thing in terms of the structure of your proof, haven't you?

Yeah, well I call it spatial character.

So I didn't hear that.

Oh, sorry.

I call, townscape I call spatial character,

which is inclusive of landscape matters.

I still didn't hear that, sorry.

Oh, I don't know.

Oh, it needs to be right up against me, doesn't it?

Oh, sorry, I thought you could speak with a bit of -

I think the acoustic in this room is quite strange.

Yeah, perhaps.

It's also, these things don't fit very well on the table,

do they?

No, that's true.

Is that better?

Thank you very much, that's much better.

Sorry, so I was suggesting that I separate

spatial character, yeah, from heritage.

Good. And the importance of that is because it's important not to conflate or allied

townscape considerations with heritage considerations. There's clearly an overlap, but one is subject

to a statutory code which the inspector must apply and the other is not. Correct?

Correct.

I'm not sure what you mean by statutory code.

Sorry, well, listed buildings and their settings

are protected by a specific statutory provision, aren't they?

Correct.

Yeah, townscape is not.

Not statutory, no.

And the courts have said that in terms of heritage,

That statutory provision requires decision makers

to give considerable weight and importance

to heritage matters.

Timescape matters don't have that statutory protection

or weight, do they?

No, no.

And therefore, it's important not to conflate

or elide tests that are relevant to heritage matters

with timescape matters.

That's why the inspector has got two main issues and they are different.

Correct?

Yeah, albeit the two are clearly related.

They can be related, yes, but we'll come to that later.

And in the particular circumstances of this case it's relevant,

because as my learned friend made clear in opening,

the local authority does not rely on a heritage reason for refusal.

it has taken the view that in heritage terms,

the public benefits of the proposal outweigh any harms.

Correct?

Correct.

Right.

And if you don't properly understand the difference

between a heritage consideration

and a townscape consideration,

and you don't properly put them in their right place,

you are likely to fall into error, aren't you?

I think you could, yeah.

Yes, I think that's right.

So, bear in mind please, the first set of questions

that I'm asking which will take up a large part

of my cross -examination are to do with townscape.

Townscape.

Thank you.

First question, it's self -evident in terms

of townscape consideration.

self -evident that an essential element of a decision -makers

process is to understand the impact of the proposal

upon its townscape context, isn't it?

Yes.

Good.

And a relevant and important part of that consideration

is to understand the role of the existing site

in its existing townscape, correct?

That's right, but it's also considering

the baseline's not a neutral one.

Yeah, no, I've understood what you said about that,

and I'm going to pick you up on that in a moment,

because you don't say anything about it in townscape terms.

But we'll come back to that.

No need to jump ahead, I'm going to be really directive

in the way the questions are put to assist the inspector

with the difference between us and what weight

she should put on your evidence in that respect.

So I'll just repeat the question again.

An important part of an assessment of impact on townscape

is to properly understand the role of the existing site

in its townscape context, yes?

the role of the existing site in its townscape context.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And in this case, the contribution of the existing site

to its existing townscape will be a matter of judgement

for the inspector, won't it?

And she's already gone to the site,

and she's going to go again.

She can form a view on the nature of the contribution,

positive or negative, of the development

that is presently there, the extant office block,

on its townscape context, yes?

Of course, yeah.

Thank you.

You really do need to get closer.

I can't hear this from behind.

Now I want, before we go to look at various bits of evidence

to explore with you in townscape terms

the matters which any decision maker would need to take into account in

considering the townscape contribution of an existing building. Well I'm going

to call them the glivia tests if you like, you're familiar with glivia aren't

you? So it's right isn't it that decision -maker would want a need to take

into account the contribution that the existing site makes to the experience

of the users of the area, or what Glivia calls receptors.

Yes?

Yes, I acknowledge in my own evidence

that spatial character can also incorporate aspects

such as activity or so on and so forth.

Good, okay.

I'm gonna try and do them one at a time,

but I've noticed that activity is one that you've accepted.

The one I put to you in particular

was the contribution that the site makes

to the experience of users of the area.

It's a paradigm landscape receptor test, isn't it?

And townscape test.

Yeah, I think it's part of the assessment.

Thank you very much.

That's all I'm asking for the minute.

And that would include visual experience, correct?

Predominantly, I think it would be visual experience

because I don't think other senses,

when talking about spatial character,

you predominantly experience things visually.

Okay, so you're agreeing with me?

Visually?

And less so through other matters,

such as sense of touch and smell, et cetera.

Yeah, I'm going onto that.

Functional, functional experience,

how it functions, correct?

Yeah, in terms of how people use the area.

I'm just going from the glivia tests.

I don't really need to give you chapter and verse.

It's not an evidence.

That's not an evidence, is it?

Visual, functional, sensory experience, correct?

As per my evidence, yep.

Yep.

The nature and extent of the activity

generated in the townscape by the existing building.

Is that a question, sorry?

Say again?

Is that a question?

Yes, it was a question.

I think it was related, yeah.

Thank you.

The contribution that the site makes to placemaking.

Similar point, yeah.

But is the answer yes?

I think that can be considered, yeah.

Thank you.

And the importance of the place in the round

is also relevant, isn't it?

Yeah.

And what we've got here is a site that is on the Thames path, which is probably the

busiest, probably, almost certainly, the busiest public right of way in the whole of England.

And if not, one of them.

No idea.

I mean, I obviously, unless you have evidence to such,

then I don't think we can necessarily assert that.

Okay, well, I've noted what you've said

in relation to that.

Millions of people walk the Thames Trail every year,

don't they?

I couldn't possibly know the answer to that, sorry.

All right, I'll probably put it this way.

A very significant number of receptors

walk the Thames Trail every year, don't they?

Yeah, I mean it's an important national trail.

I assume, I don't know what the numbers of walk it are.

No, that's a fair answer.

But I mean, we're trying to do this in a proactive,

positive manner that assists the inspector.

Yeah, I will answer if I know for a fact the answers.

Okay, that's really helpful, thank you very much.

Thank you.

One of the other things that would want to be taken

into account in the circumstances of this case,

in townscape terms, I'm gonna come to heritage later on,

is the contribution that the site makes to the bridge

as a townscape feature,

separate from as a listed building, correct?

As a component of a wider scene.

Yes.

of a small component of a much wider scene?

Well, it may be a small component of a wider scheme,

but the closest site to the approach to the bridge

on its northern, on its southern landfill.

Closest site, yeah.

We heard yesterday, didn't we, from quite a lot of people

that this is a very, very busy road,

both with pedestrians and with traffic.

the receptors to Townscape.

How the bridge operates in Townscape terms,

in sense of place terms, is going to be relevant,

particularly when you're considering the building

that is closest to its landfall in the borough, isn't it?

Sorry, I didn't understand.

I lost the thread, I think, at some point there.

I lost the thread you were going through there.

If you could just really clearly.

All right.

The contribution that the site makes to the bridge

is a townscape feature which functions

by getting tens of thousands of people,

pedestrians and vehicles across the bridge

as a townscape interlude in their lives.

the way in which they experience that is affected,

we can have a debate as to what degree,

by the building that is presently there

and its quality and townscape presence.

You'd be part of your experience of the bridge,

if that's answering your question.

It's good enough for me, thank you.

One of the other matters that you'd want to take

into account in townscape terms,

very much larger now than it used to be

when I started doing town and country planning,

is the accessibility of the existing building

in terms of access to those with disabilities

and any other protected characterizations, et cetera.

Accessibility to society in the round

is an important part of townscape, isn't it?

By accessibility, are you referring to disability access,

DDA, sort of accessibility?

Well, I think it's much wider than that, frankly,

but yes, I am.

Okay, yep.

And your question was in relation to accessibility,

whether it's part of considering the townscape.

Yeah, it is.

That was my question.

and I thought you had agreed that it was,

but I'm happy for you to disagree.

I certainly agree it's a design consideration.

Yes, but it's relevant to the sense of place, isn't it,

that it's inclusive.

Townscape as opposed to heritage for the minute.

Townscape I see more as a sort of visual sensory

experience of a place.

Yeah, I feel that.

I see accessibility as a discrete,

more of a discreet design issue.

Okay.

Well, all of this is fine for me.

So are you saying that the accessibility of a place

is not part of the townscape assessment

of an existing building?

I'd probably consider it separately as an aspect

of urban design.

So the answer to that is Mr. Harris, I don't consider it.

Is that right?

Well, I mean, if I was walking down a ramp, for example,

rather than a stair, I appreciate that that might affect

how I visually appreciate a character of an area.

So what if you had an area adjacent to the Thames

that could only be reached by stairs?

Would that be part of its townscape character?

I would think it must be.

The trouble is, you see, Mr. Ely,

that you haven't done an assessment at all

of the townscape character and contribution

of the existing building, have you?

That's why you're struggling even to understand the question.

I do address the building as a townscape piece.

No, you don't.

It's acknowledged as part of common ground

that we don't obviously object to as replacement

and that there are aspects of it

which we think don't perform well, not least frontages.

That's a different point.

Aspects of paraphernalia on the roof and so on.

that the frontage is clearly quite tired

and could do with enhancement,

that's all that is a sort of common ground.

I would suggest that they're relatively residual

to the wider spatial character impacts

and small whereas the wider impacts

are over a much larger area.

Okay, let's take this in turns then.

First you were here yesterday

and you've read the appellant's evidence

and Dr. Chris Millet's evidence, Mr. Ely, haven't you?

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

The appellant's view on the townscape contribution of the existing building is that it's poor.

You agree?

Sorry, that the building contributes poorly to the townscape.

No, the appellant's view on the townscape contribution, because they have considered

it, is that it's poor.

Do you agree?

Yeah, I agree, yeah.

I'm just going to do the first thing I've ever done at an inquiry like this, which is

to object to a photograph being taken

in the middle of cross -examination,

just in my line of sight.

Can I say that the photograph which appeared

in the press of me last week was very generous,

made me look much more handsome than I am,

although a little grayer than I am.

And I don't, in principle, at all mind that,

but when I'm asking a question,

and I'm looking to the witness, as I'm entitled to do,

and I've got a photograph being taken

exactly in the line of eyesight,

It's really disconcerting.

Sorry.

Sorry to the press.

No, you don't need to delete it.

Yeah.

Well, thank you very much.

Talk about it.

If you could take that into account, Mr. McGivan.

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Yeah, there's no problem.

It's a public inquiry.

It's just that I could see you going up and down,

and I'm thinking of other things as opposed to,

am I looking a bit fat in this one?

All right.

So let's come back to it.

But the appellant's view on townscape contribution

is really, really clear and is set out over many pages

and it is that the existing townscape contribution is poor.

Correct?

I can't remember if it was set out over many pages

but I know that the assessment is poor.

Good, thank you.

They assert to the appellant's witness

that the existing building detracts from the street scene

and they give reasons, yes?

That is what they assert, yeah.

Thank you.

So for example, one of the things that's said

is that the existing building is failing

to address Albion Wharf,

one of the things we heard yesterday.

It's as if there's a missing piece,

do you remember, in townscape terms.

I think I remember it being said yesterday.

Okay, then again, both Dr. Mealy and Mr. Barbalof

point to the difficult accessibility issues

and the poor quality of the public realm

as part and parcel of the existing development's

contribution to place, yes?

Yes.

They consider it as part of that, yeah.

Yeah, good.

Now, if, I'm going to do my lone friend,

Mr. Katkowski's if here.

If, this is the basis on which the question is asked.

If underlined as many times as you like,

that's what he says,

if the decision maker in this case shares the view

about the paucity of the contribution

that the existing building makes to townscape,

then that is a material consideration

in the townscape analysis that the inspector,

the decision maker, has to engage in, isn't it?

It's part of it.

It's part of wider design considerations,

but it must be a very, very small part

of how you appreciate the townscape.

We can disagree about that.

Yeah.

And you haven't done it at all, as we'll see in a minute.

We'll see in a minute, just bear with me a second.

The reason it's an important material consideration

is that the redevelopment provides an opportunity

to enhance the townscape experience

if the existing townscape experience is poor, doesn't it?

Are you talking about still at that very small scale

of the site?

Yeah, well, we'll come on to that, but I think the answer is yes on a small scale basis.

Is that, am I fair?

Do you want to be unfair?

Yeah, no, it's part of the consideration.

Good, thank you.

And the more important the site, the more important that opportunity to enhance will

be.

That's just common sense.

Yeah, I mean, I think you'd have to take, again, you saw it in the beginning, but I

or isolating the context.

I think you've got to consider these things in the round.

You wouldn't just, when considering the impact

on a townscape, you wouldn't just sort of say,

well, there's a stair here now,

and there's gonna be a ramp,

and therefore ignoring the wider townscape,

much wider townscape setting.

But I appreciate that as part of it.

Now, I've obviously taken that point.

And I'm not limiting the fact that we say

the existing building is, in townscape terms,

harmful to just the local.

I'm including it in wider views, in views from the Thames,

views from Chaney Walk, views elsewhere.

Now, and that's why I took you to what we say

about the paucity of the building in townscape terms.

I'm gonna put it to you again.

If the inspector, having been to the site

and go to the site again, agrees with that

limited contribution, then there's an opportunity here

to enhance the townscape experience.

And then the question is whether we've taken

that opportunity or not.

But it's an important starting point

properly to benchmark exactly where the existing

townscape position of the building is,

because without that, you're operating in a vacuum,

aren't you?

So the argument being that if a place

is of elevated interest, therefore enhancing it

would be more important or more -

Try not to answer the question with a question.

It was a very - Sorry, I'm trying to understand

the question.

Well, it will be the third time I've asked it now,

but I'm trying to do the best I can.

If the Secretary of State's inspector

takes the view in the round, agrees with us,

that the existing townscape is not of great quality

and indeed is harmful to the street scene,

then that's an important material consideration, isn't it?

Yeah, I think that's a well -centred consideration, yeah.

Thank you very much.

Just bear with me.

Good.

Can you please pick up

Mr. Marginson's proof of evidence, please?

CD.

It's CD808, I think.

I'll put mine down.

Can I borrow a copy?

Thank you.

It's listed here.

That's 8 -0 -8 is listed as appendices.

Is that right?

Yeah, it's the appendices.

That's what I want.

Can we go to Appendix B, please?

Can I ask the page?

All right, so the inspector wake up the page. I'm not to set a page yet

The inspector make up her own mind and it's for the inspector to judge having regard to existing context. We've agreed that

we've heard the

Appellant's position and it's set out across a number of documents and we asked the inspector to agree with us

All right, that's where the evidence lies

I'll come to what you say in a minute

This is what the council was saying

This is a letter dated the 9th of the 11th, 2018.

And I just want to be clear here.

At page 11 of that.

Page in the PDF, sorry.

I haven't got a PDF.

I'm working on a hard one.

Oh, sorry, I see.

I think I'm using the same nomenclature

as my learned friend, which you found acceptable.

Page 11 on the bottom of the page is page 12 of the PDF.

Thank you, ma 'am. That's really helpful. Thank you.

Page 11.

Can we start on the first page, really? Let's just put it into a bit of context.

This is what Wandsworth as a council were saying

in a formal pre -application response.

I just want to look to see what has changed,

if anything, relevant to the issue I'm now looking at.

On page eight it says,

the Glass Mill is a part five storey, part six storey building

located on the east side of Battersea Bridge Road.

See that?

The building was built in the 1980s

and its glazed curtain wall is typical of that era.

So that's the building that we're talking about,

that we think, and I think you now agree,

the inspector should decide what the nature

of the contribution of that in the round,

including wider views, actually is, yes?

Yeah, good.

And the bottom of page 11,

and I'm going to deal with this in townscape terms first,

just keeping to my rule that you must do that,

we see under the mass and height,

yep, yep, yep, the existing building is a dated

1980s office block clad in reflective glass

and with a significant amount of unattractive visual

clutter at roof level, the building detracts

from the setting of the listed building,

we'll come back to that,

and the Battersea Road street scene.

See that?

That's a townscape judgement, isn't it?

Well, potentially.

It's unclear whether he's also

straying into heritage there.

Well, it's both, isn't it?

There's no doubt about it.

The building detracts from the setting

of the listed building, heritage,

and the Battersea Road street scene.

That's a straightforward.

Well, sometimes I've found that perhaps non -professional

case officers, and that's not meant to be a slight

on this particular case officer, can use the same setting.

This is a professional case officer, isn't it?

Yeah, so that's what I was suggesting,

but what I'm suggesting is sometimes they constrain

use setting in a non -significance context,

and therefore might be a bit,

use setting in the context of a townscape sense,

rather than a significant sense,

and I think that's an important point.

I'm just reading it, albeit not in my first language,

but I am reading it in a straightforward way

as a straightforward English sentence.

Now, you were asked a number of questions about this,

so I assume that you'll have done some homework

as to who was present at this meeting.

No.

No, because you said to my learned friend,

well, it's just one officer's view,

and I don't know who that officer is, et cetera.

Who is Mr. Sellers?

Mr. Sellers is, who dealt with this application,

is a principal conservation and urban design officer.

Council.

He was at the pre -op, wasn't he?

I don't know.

You didn't cheque on that?

No.

All right.

Okay, thank you very much.

So somebody who was clearly and consistently

understanding the difference between heritage.

Is that in evidence, sorry, does it say?

Well, I'm reacting to an answer that you gave

to my learned friend about the weight

that should be given to this,

and the fact that it was just one officer who's since left.

And so, you can cheque, sure.

But I'm conscious that...

I can put it in evidence when Mr.

Well, only in fact that actually in the officer's report,

which I know Barry for a fact did contribute to

on this scheme, he does refer to the site

as being interesting, or at least that makes its way

into the report, and thus that might suggest

there's an element of conflict between the two advices.

Well, I come to that.

We're going to come to that report.

Oh, sorry, I put my head.

Don't worry.

But I mean, that's why I'm casting doubt, I suppose.

But I don't think, I don't know as a matter of fact,

and I don't think it's in evidence as a matter of fact

but the very substance.

That's all fine.

I just, let's assume then the inspector thinks

that the existing building detracts from the street scene.

that would be consistent with this judgement

set out in the letter that we're now looking at,

wouldn't it, in that event?

In this officer's opinion, yeah.

Then, in terms of the existing building

and the contribution it makes to the street scene,

that has not got any better since 2018, has it?

Not that I'm aware.

No, it's got worse, hasn't it?

because there's more paraphernalia on the roof, isn't there?

I haven't counted.

Okay.

The building is now hardly beneficially occupied,

and that is very much clear

when you walk through the area and the site, correct?

I mean, it's a busy urban site,

how much is used in the building, I don't know.

Just as a matter of fact, but I accept your point.

When was the last time you were there?

I live 10 minutes away from it.

So when was the last time you were there?

Probably within the last couple of days.

Yeah, me too.

So you notice, don't you,

that it's a largely vacant building.

You notice that its windows are dirty.

You notice that the townscape contribution

even the 1980s facade makes is a rather shadow.

It does feel underinvested in and slightly forlorn.

Forlorn, thank you very much.

That's really helpful.

and that is more forlorn now than it was in 2018.

Perhaps.

And then this council was saying that it was

detracting from the Battersea Road street scene,

and we agree.

Now, on a number of occasions, you've said,

well, no, I've dealt with this.

Can we go to your proof, please,

and can we look at paragraph 422,

which is part of the reference

that you gave to the inspector.

Sorry, you're jumping a bit too quickly for me.

4 .22, page 78.

I need to get my...

422, yep.

So this is under removal of poor urban architectural design.

Okay.

Now, remember right at the beginning,

we identified the need to separate out properly and not to conflate historic

setting issues from other issues, townscape issues. This is the only

paragraph in your entire proof where I can identify you dealing with the

existing building. No, I think I was incorrect. Right. I think we if we went to

Appendix three.

Appendix three?

Yep.

Oh yeah, okay.

Well, maybe in appendix three.

CD 9 .06, if you want to go there.

Where I talk to the public realm.

Yes.

In terms of design quality.

Yeah, I'll give you that.

Okay, I've understood that.

That's in the section called design quality table.

Yes.

Yep, I'll give you that.

In terms of the proof, and if you like,

the starting point for a consideration

of townscape impact, there's nothing other than

paragraph 4 .22, is there?

I think there is, but I mean, I don't remember

the paragraph off the top of my head,

where I refer to the building in essence being

having a modicum of interest.

I'm gonna leave the appendix three reference

to the inspector to look up.

I mean, I've looked at it, and she can look at it

and judge whether it at all deals with the sorts

of issues that we're dealing with here.

And I'm going to suggest that in terms of the issues

that we are now considering,

this paragraph is the only paragraph that even comes close.

And it's in an area headed,

the case against Battersea Bridge heritage benefits,

isn't it?

Yep?

Well, yeah, it's seeking to tease apart,

as we're trying to do.

It's a definite heritage section.

and what you say is, and you give your reasoning,

although it's not of particular architectural

or historic interest, we consider it makes

an overall neutral setting contribution.

Now that's a heritage issue, isn't it?

I am referring to it in a heritage context at that point.

So am I right that you don't ever identify

in a townscape context, the glibious stuff

that we were just looking for,

you don't ever identify or characterise

the proposal in any way, shape, or form.

You tell the inspector that you disagree

with people who've said before

that it is a harmful setting impact,

but in overall terms, you don't deal with landscape at all,

a townscape at all in 422, do you?

Not at 422, but I do in certain instances

in my visual evidence from the river,

when talking about the riparian views,

I do sort of refer between assessing the appeal scheme

and also assessing the approach,

drawing attention to the approach of the urban design study

and the stepping down.

And so I do refer to the building in broad brush terms.

We're going to look at all of those,

but as we'll see, they're all in terms of the relationship

to the heritage asset and settings.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So let's see where we've reached.

We've agreed, I think, that the existing

townscape contribution, or lack of it,

is a material factor in determining

the impact of the proposal.

Yes?

Sorry, say that again.

Sorry, I missed the end of it.

All right, okay.

We've agreed that the existing townscape contribution,

or absence of it is a factor in determining

the impact of the proposal, the starting point if you like?

I don't know if it is the starting point per se personally,

but I will accept the point that it's material to consider.

Then this question, if underlined as many times as you like,

if and to the extent that the townscape contribution

that the site makes is enhanced as a result of the proposal,

enhanced as a result of a proposal,

and to the extent that would be relevant

and would be a benefit that you take into account

in the overall balance of townscape issues, wouldn't it?

Yeah, but it's more complicated than that, I think,

because you can't divorce it from the scheme

that's proposed, so you've got to consider

the scheme that's proposed as well as -

I'm agreeing with you.

Okay.

All right, I'm entirely agreeing with you.

there are three steps here.

The first step is, is it harmful?

The second step is, does that give an opportunity

for enhancement?

And the third is, is there enhancement?

Now my question to you is really clear.

If and in so far, and to the extent that there is

an enhancement, then that would be a benefit

of the proposal in townscape terms, wouldn't it?

If the inspector found in the round,

including in relation to the appeals, the proposal,

there was an enhancement and clearly so, yes.

Yeah, good, thank you very much, good.

And in this case, the council has no objection

to the redevelopment of the site in principle,

and if we are right and if council officers

previously were right, that's because redevelopment

gives you this opportunity, yes?

Well again, you've got to assess it in the context

of what's been proposed.

Yeah, no, I got you.

I appreciate that theoretically if we were to remove

the appeal scheme and say is there an opportunity

to enhance the existing building,

would that be material to consider?

Yes.

Good, thank you.

And the council has no objection to the redevelopment

and neither does it have a objection

to its redevelopment with a landmark, does it?

You make that clear in your proof.

Yeah, no, that's true, but I am very clear that to perform a landmark function, you do

not need to be tall, and the tall, obviously the height aspect needs to be justified.

Mr. Eley, that's very fair.

You don't, every time I ask you a question, have to repeat the evidence you gave in chief,

otherwise we will be here a very long time.

But I understand the point.

It's going somewhere slightly different.

The council has no objection to redevelopment.

If the planning system believes that this is a

harmful townscape interval in the area,

if that is the case, then the opportunity of redevelopment

would allow the opportunity for enhancement.

And then we've got the question as to whether

this is an enhancement or not.

But one of the things that we've got to look at here

is this, isn't it?

Despite what the reason for refusal says,

and I'm gonna come to this shortly,

the building is identified in a mid -rise zone,

not a low -rise zone, isn't it?

Yeah, I trust that in my evidence.

And that is up to six storeys?

Yeah.

And the building's already six storeys?

If not slightly higher?

Because of plant rooms?

Okay, six or more storeys then.

and it's an even better point for me.

I understand it's six storeys, yeah.

And if this site is to take an opportunity to enhance,

replacing that volume, six storeys,

with something else which enhances

would need to be deliverable, wouldn't it?

Because you can't just work in the vacuum

and say, well, you know, you might be able

to get something better there.

What we've got to look at in the real world

is whether something that could produce

a significant enhancement,

take the opportunity of enhancement

as the letter invited us to.

You'd have to understand that that would be deliverable.

Wouldn't you?

I'd say as a general point,

you might be straying into areas of expertise

that are not mine, but I get that

there needs to be an aspect of deliverability.

Thank you very much.

I don't think I'm going beyond the call

and you've answered the question,

which proves that I was right, I expect.

But there we are.

Good, thank you very much for that.

That's the end of topic number one.

Topic number two.

Sorry, can I, if that's a point, can I get a water?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

That might be a really good point.

At any stage, if you need a break, you just let me know.

Just let me know.

Can we turn to the, sorry Mr.

Eley.

Sorry.

So, mom, heading number two is reason for refusal.

Turn to.

Yes, pick up your proof.

Almost every document in this case

has got the reason for refusal in it.

My proof, yeah.

And almost every recitation of it is incorrect

for a number of reasons.

So, the reason for refusal is set out

paragraph 2 .1 of your proof, page five.

And you later set it out, correct?

Sorry, yeah.

Now this had to be a carefully drafted

reason for refusal because of course the council

took the view that the heritage impacts of the proposal

were outweighed by the public benefits

and they would not advance a heritage impact for refusal.

So this needed some careful drafting, didn't it?

I accept that, yeah.

Good.

And at no stage has the reason for refusal

been sought to be amended.

I'm not gonna take the point that Melinda Friend and you

did at the beginning of the evidence in chief,

And I'm not chasing that point down, if you like.

It's rather more the purport of the reason for refusal

that I'm looking at.

So at no stage was this reason for refusal amended

or altered, etcetera.

This is the reason for refusal that we live with here.

Yes? And it's this reason for refusal

that you tell us frames your main issue A.

That is for completeness the reason for refusal.

Yep?

Yep, I say that's the reason for refusal.

Okay, so I want to explore it with you please.

It alleges excessive height and scale

within an established local spatial character

that is predominantly low rise.

Yep?

Correct.

That's what it says and that's not being corrected.

It then goes on to say, while also being located

within a low rise policy zone,

which is just plainly bonkers wrong, isn't it?

We corrected that, yes.

Well, yeah, I can make submissions on that later,

but what we're looking at here,

by reason of excessive height and scale

within an established local spatial character

that is predominantly low rise,

And that takes its cue, does it not,

from the wording of policy LP4,

which we should pick up, CD5 .2.

I'm not sure we went to it in chief,

apologies if we did, but it's on my list, 5 .2.

This is the relevant local plan.

Oh yeah, and if you go to LP 4, which is on internal page 294, mom tell me if I'm going

too quickly.

294.

294, yeah.

We're going to look at this policy in a lot more detail later, but as you make clear,

I think in 12 places in your evidence,

this is a spatial hierarchy reason for refusal, correct?

There is a spatial hierarchy element, yep.

And where we see at power seven,

the massing of any proposed tall building

should be proportionate to the local environment,

including when taken into consideration

the width of publicly accessible areas,

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That's, if you like, the reason for refusal

dealing with established local spatial character

that is predominantly low rise takes its cue

from that part of the LP4, doesn't it?

I don't know,

because I didn't draught the reason for refusal.

Yeah, I know, but you're now representing the council.

Come on, please.

No, this may be a question for Ms. Chambers,

who's our planning witness.

Yes, no, no, you rely on this reason for refusal.

It frames your main issue A,

and you rely heavily on the content of LP4.

We can all see what it says.

The proposal by reason of its excessive height and scale

within an established local spatial character

that is predominantly low rise, leave the next bit out,

would represent an unacceptable incongruous transformation

within the location.

That's the location, the established local spatial

character location, doesn't it?

That's the reason for refusal that you're defending

at this inquiry.

Yeah, but I, again, I didn't write the reason for refusal.

I produced my evidence as my own professional view

and agree with it.

But I can't read into what somebody else was thinking.

Well, let me put it this way.

It's not unreasonable, given the wording that is used

within the reason for refusal to look to the policy LP4

and to see that it identifies,

under the heading of spatial hierarchy,

which is writ large through your proof,

that it's that part of policy LP4 -7

that is being referred to in relation to an allegation

of unacceptable change on an established

local spatial character, yes?

Yes, again I think this format.

All right, well listen, I'm just gonna note

that you're not answering the question.

It's simple as.

Now let's just see how accurate it is though,

because we've got to look to see what is the established

local spatial character and whether it is in effect

predominantly low rise.

And we're gonna start at present

and then we're gonna look to the future.

Okay.

Okay, so the site sits within the,

within the Ransom Wharf development area, doesn't it?

On the edge of, yeah.

Say again?

On the edge of, yes.

Yeah, it sits within it.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's not on the edge of, it's within it.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

And that runs some both character area,

at least in significant part,

addresses the Thames, doesn't it?

Yes.

Can you take us there, sorry, so we can be clear.

Sorry, I can't hear that.

Could you take us there, sorry, if we're gonna,

I'd prefer to go there, if possible.

Let's do it this way.

Let's pick up, can we, the...

Can we pick up the HVIA as amended?

The CD1 .03.

It's the one that we handed out this morning.

And can we go, please, in it,

I think there's a shorter way of doing this.

To the existing view 11 from Cheney Walk.

Page.

There's no page number.

Oh, yes.

That's why you've got the scribbled 11 on it.

You mean from Chelsea Embankment?

So if you 11, yeah that's not Cheney Walk though is it?

Yes it is.

Well it's not, it's the Embankment Walk.

It's called Cheney Walk existing.

That's what the title of it is.

Okay but that's factually incorrect because it's Chelsea Embankment.

All right.

Sorry.

I wouldn't characterise that as your best point.

I was trying to navigate you in the document by reference to the heading.

If I'd said somewhere else, which isn't the heading of this, you would have gone the wrong

wrong document on the wrong page.

Fair point.

Focal point of interest.

Okay, now here we can see Albion Wharf, can't we?

Correct.

Yeah.

Albion Wharf is also within the Ransom Wharf

focal point of interest, isn't it?

Focal point of activity.

Yes.

Good.

Ransom Wharf focal point of activity.

I'm grateful to my learned friend.

It's within the same character area as the proposal

and as the existing building, isn't it?

Correct.

Thank you.

It's not low rise, is it?

Not by definition, no.

It's of a huge scale.

Scale, isn't it?

Yeah, I don't know if I'd describe it as huge scale.

Right, let's deal with this.

And obviously it was the third iteration of the scheme

on the site that was brought down in height and scale terms.

Okay, I mean, you're aware, the inspector tab for years

pointed out the difference to witnesses,

that there is a difference between scale and height.

Height tells you how tall something is.

Scale tells you about the component parts of the building

and its relationship to other parts of the building

and the human body.

Component parts of a building,

there can be various obviously levels of scale

as you say.

So there can be scale within a building

and there's scale as relative to context.

All right.

Look at Albion Wharf here.

There are a number of scales.

The biggest one is a very large scale indeed,

which is the wraparound,

the inspector's been around the front and the back I expect,

the wraparound of the building that encompasses

it all as a unified facade.

It is, in scalar terms, one of the largest scale buildings

on this stretch of the Thames, isn't it?

Yeah, good, thank you very much.

Second, it's not low rise, is it?

So in terms of both scale and height,

it's neither of small scale or of small height, is it?

I think that's fair.

It was obviously drawn out of the tall building zone

around it because it was deemed to have reached

the maximum height on the river.

Of the area within which the proposal sits,

it's clearly an important part of that character area,

isn't it?

Character area B2.

No, not character area B2.

That's a much wider character area.

I'm talking about the vicinity of the proposal

as identified in any meaningful sense

in the reason for refusal, spatial character

which is established and local.

Whatever that's talking about, it can't mean this site,

can it, it can't mean Albion Wharf.

Because that's neither local, it is local,

but it's neither low rise or predominantly low rise, is it?

I think that the key here is though, predominantly.

Right, okay.

And obviously we can isolate buildings, as you will,

across London where they pull away

from a predominant height and scale.

I would say, sorry, and I think it's relevant to this point

and the original now amended Regulation 18

urban design study,

so which was replaced by the Reg 19

in urban design so it was ultimately adopted.

That did set out prevailing heights

within the character areas,

including the character area that relates to this site,

and that does set out the prevailing height

as two to three storeys, which is low rise.

But the question here is what one appreciates

from the relevant and appropriate viewpoints

when we are considering in the real world

whether this is a building that should be judged

to be within an established local spatial character

that is predominantly low rise.

Can I ask you about, sorry, I didn't mean to catch you off.

Again, I think obviously there's an aspect

of how you define local and this affects a large area

which includes Battersea Park and very much low rise parts

of the Kensington and Chelsea Riverside.

And I think in essence that's where you get to

on predominantly.

But I sort of take your point that in various views

clearly you will see other buildings that

perhaps are low rise.

See what's been suggested here in terms of impact

is that it is an impact which would represent

an unacceptable and incongruous transformation

within the location.

That's what it says.

And I'm just exploring the location with you.

And what we've got is I'll be involved to the one side,

if you like, to the right as you're standing on the bridge.

Then on the other side to the west,

to the west, there is a low -scale development, isn't there?

Is that Morgan's Wharf?

Morgan's Wharf, yes?

Yeah.

Right, can I ask, were you able to go

to Morgan's Wharf, the gated, right, okay.

That is low -rise, it's also low -density,

low architectural quality,

Inward facing, I see you're nodding to all of those so far,

gated community.

It's private roads I think, but I'm not sure it has gates.

It does have gates, I mean they're in your own photographs.

They're normally left open perhaps.

Well hang on, either you know they've got gates

and they're open, or you don't.

There are gates, I've seen them closed, maybe you haven't.

Happy to take point.

There are gates.

Yeah, yeah.

It's exactly the type of development

which is low rise to fit with the reasons for refusal.

But it's exactly the type of development

that government at all levels, and I'll

deal with the progress of the NPPF with a different witness.

Government at all levels is seeking

to avoid in terms of a criminal waste of urban brownfield

site, isn't it?

Yes.

The quote of the inquiry prize I'm going to give to you.

Because you say of this development,

it is more mundane than urbane.

Yeah.

And it is, isn't it?

Yeah, that's fair.

Right.

And what it isn't is something that a proposal

in today's planning world should seek to ape

or even respect in terms of densities or heights

or anything else associated with that rather

toy town development?

Yes, which is why it is in a tall building zone.

That's why it's a tall building zone.

Is that what you said?

It's been identified as being a tall building zone.

You did say yes, thank you.

I'm gonna come back to that.

So in terms of existing local character,

we leave the inspector to identify what the area should be

and whether it should extend to the other end

of Batsy Park, et cetera.

But in these important river -facing views,

which take up a large part of your case,

we've got Albion Wharf, which isn't low rise

or predominantly low rise,

and we've got the other side of the bridge.

If you've still got photo 11 open,

Morgan's Wharf is so low, it doesn't even come

above the parapet of the bridge, does it?

Not in this instance, no.

And that's exactly the type of development

that we shouldn't be seeking to respect

or reflect or to ape, isn't it?

It's been identified as being in a tall building zone

and I identify it as being poor quality.

Yeah, well we'll come on to that in a minute.

Thank you very much.

So in terms of the allegation in the reason for refusal,

subject to the inspector determining

what's the appropriate local area that that is referring to,

In terms of the allegation, the existing local character

and the allegation that it's predominantly low rise

certainly isn't A, right in relation to Albion Wharf,

or B, although it is right in relation to Morgan's Wharf,

is not a character that is appropriate to respect,

because it's low rise of the worst kind, isn't it?

I wouldn't accept the point that we just disrespect it.

I might have an opinion as to its architectural

or urban design qualities, I'm sure we all do,

but there's nowhere in policy that says

we should not respect, as far as I'm aware,

an existing context, even if you suggest it's poor quality.

Like I say, it has been placed within a tall building zone

as it's a site less sensitive

and it can accommodate growth.

Yeah.

There's no part of the council's case, as far as I understand it,

that the impact on Morgan's Wharf is unacceptable.

Morgan's Wharf turns its back on the appeal site, doesn't it?

So I can't cross -examine you.

That's the poor thing about interjections from there.

I'd love to.

But if you go onto the site, it's inward facing.

Your word's not mine.

There is a park and a green area,

and everything faces inwards.

The inspector's been there.

we've got the photographs.

Yeah, okay.

But I don't think you just set it aside.

And I wouldn't say my evidence is not inclusive

of a consideration of Morgan's Wharf.

It's considering the townscape as a whole,

which obviously includes Morgan's Wharf.

It's a predominantly low -rise aspect of setting.

At the minute, I'm just trying to deal with the reason

for refusal, which alleges predominantly low -scale,

and we are out of kilter with that.

and the inspector can make the judgement.

Sorry to interrupt Mr Harris, but could people keep the volume down on their chatting to one

another just because it's quite disruptive to my ability to hear the two people that I'm supposed

to hear talking, which is Mr Harris and Mr Ealy. Thank you.

I will say to be fair to people who are chatting that the acoustic in this room is really quite

strange. So yesterday I couldn't hear Mr Birbaloff but everybody else could.

I could hear what Mr. Edwards was saying to his witness,

even though they weren't miked.

I mean, it's a very strange acoustic.

I agree, it is very strange.

And sometimes I can hear people up in the gallery

better than I can hear people down here.

But that just underlines the importance

of trying to keep the noise down,

other than those who are supposed to be speaking.

But thank you.

Mr. Harris, I apologise.

Thank you.

So, all right, we can have a view on this,

but the allegation is that the relevant area

for determining the application is predominantly low rise,

and we disagree with that

and for the reasons that I've explored with you.

But there's also a proposed character for the area,

isn't there?

There's an emerging context set out in the urban design

study in the local plan, yeah.

Good. And that proposed character

is relevant to the issue of the relationship

to the local spatial character, isn't it?

Which is set out in reason for refusal number one.

Because you've got to understand what the local authority

is saying is acceptable in the future

and what that might be.

I think that might be one for my planning witness.

No, no, no, definitely not.

It's to do with character and spatial character,

which is your evidence.

Sorry, you're right.

What this council has said is appropriate

and the reasons for that, which you went through

in some detail with the learned friend, must be relevant.

So it's important we get it right, isn't it?

Not wrong.

Okay.

One of the things that the urban design study did,

among other things, was to explore opportunities

for tall buildings across the borough, yes?

Correct. And they pointed out, by reference to matters I can deal with with another witness,

that the opportunities were said to be limited.

I think I can't remember that off the top of my head, so if we can go there then I can confirm as such.

Yeah, we can do that if you like,

but you went to, I think, 40 or 50 pages

of this document in chief.

Part of the analysis was for the Atkins

to look at areas of the borough

that had the capacity for growth

and had the capacity for tall buildings, correct?

Yeah, absolutely, I accept that.

It was the point about limited opportunities.

I just would need to confirm.

Oh, well, I mean, we can look at,

well, let's deal with that straightaway, shall we?

By looking at, well, let's do it in the development plan.

CD52, map 14 .1, which is on internal page 298.

Yep, map 14 .1.

Now, again, for a different witness, for very many reasons,

including existing density, large parts of the borough

were ruled out for tall buildings,

and various potential tall building zones were identified,

which eventually found their way into map 14 -1.

So we've got sort of to the west of our site,

which we're familiar with, the large area of Vauxhall

and the area around the -

East.

East, sorry.

The right hand side as we look.

And then you've also got the area around the Clapham Junction Station and then the two

town centres in Wurmsmith and Roehampton for example.

With other witnesses we'll work out whether that's still an up to date position.

But all we know for now is that there were limited areas

and opportunities for tall buildings,

and the UDS explained why that was the case.

And the riverside around Battersea Bridge

was identified as one of the limited areas

where tall buildings might be appropriate.

Correct?

Are you, sorry, still referring to MAP 14 .1?

I am, yes.

Because it's the easiest way to identify that.

And sorry, your point is that the areas either side

of the site were identified as suitable for a tall building.

No, that's not my, I'm pointing to the generality

of what was called Battersea Riverside

in and around Battersea Bridge to the east and the west

were identified as one of the limited areas

where tall buildings might be appropriate, yes?

Yeah, you used the term limited,

which I don't think we found the source of.

I didn't get you there, I used the term?

Limited, and I don't know the source of that, sorry.

Is that your opinion that it's limited?

No, it doesn't need to be my opinion.

I'm looking at the whole of Wandsworth.

Well, I'm working out that the areas for tall buildings

are limited in terms to the borough as a whole.

It just seems, it's what Basil Falti would say,

bleeding obvious.

Yeah, I mean, there's probably a significant number

of tall buildings coming forward in those areas,

so I don't know how.

I can accept that as your opinion,

that there's limited opportunities for tall buildings.

The simple point I'm looking at is that the Riverside area

was one of the limited areas where tall buildings

might be appropriate according to

the urban development study.

is one area where buildings were considered,

the tall buildings were considered suitable.

Well, I don't know why you're having difficulty

with the proposition, but it doesn't really bother me,

so I'm just gonna move on.

The site actually lay within a site which was identified

as having capacity for significant growth, didn't it?

Sorry, are you going back in time now?

No, I'm not, I'm looking at the same document,

but if you don't know, I'd rather you say you don't know

and I can move on.

No, I think I'm not clear as to where you're getting

that from, so you're suggesting from 14 .1?

No, I'm using 14 .1 because it's the most convenient

document.

Okay.

If you don't know, I'd like you to say the site was

identified through the urban capacity study as including

part of a site that had significant capacity for growth.

Do you know or don't know that?

I don't know where you're getting the significant.

Do you know or do you not know that, Mr. Eley?

I don't know where you're getting that significant,

that it has significant capacity for growth from.

Right, so you don't know.

Well the site is in a mid -rise zone.

Right, thank you very much.

I'll deal with that point and the up -to -datedness

of the 2019 NPPF basis.

based urban capacity study with others,

but I am going to deal with this with you.

If you look at this plan,

tall building zones are purple, aren't they?

Yes.

Okay, and we'll look at this in terms

of the development plan later.

And mid -rise buildings are orange.

Yes. Yeah.

And if you look at the area of Battersea Bridge,

which you'll be familiar with it, Marm,

it's that one I'm looking at there.

You could miss it if you really weren't careful.

There is a sliver of orange,

which in effect separates two tall building zones,

isn't there?

Yes, that's your side.

And it's less than the width of the road,

and we'll see why it was put there shortly.

but what we've got is tall building zones in the riverside

on both sides of the approach to the bridge,

apart from that small sliver, which you could miss

if you weren't looking for it.

Yes, thank you.

And so what this emerging plan

now a formal plan, adopted, sought to have,

was tall buildings on the riverside,

alongside the river, on both sides of the bridge.

Of between seven and 12 storeys maximum.

Yeah, we'll come to that again,

and maybe with another witness.

And tall buildings were appropriate, therefore,

across the entire area, apart from Albion Wharf,

which we've already seen, is scale our terms,

very large, and in height terms, tall, yes?

And then?

Which is drawn out.

And then our application site.

Yeah, I mean, I'll be roadside.

Good, good.

You can see here has been drawn out.

Okay.

For reasons we discussed earlier.

Yeah, we did discuss them.

We discussed them and you were very careful

to the paragraphs that you took the inspector to.

Now let me ask this, you've got tall buildings appropriate

across the entire site, apart from Albion Wharf,

and a small sliver of the application site.

Yeah?

What do you mean by the entire site?

Because there's a mid -rise zone

on the opposite bridge head.

The intention is, when you say the entire,

you mean the appeal site, sorry?

I'm looking at the plan, map 14 -1,

we've got a very small orange area between the purple area.

Next to the bridge, yeah.

Next to the bridge, good.

Okay, let me see if I've understood that then.

If the reason for that exclusion

by the urban design study

and then put forward into the local plan,

we're going to look at that progress later on.

If, underlined as many times,

the reason for that exclusion by the UDS

no longer applies,

then that's a massive material consideration

for the inspector, isn't it?

If the reason for the exclusion doesn't materially apply,

did I hear that?

Yes, the reason for the refusal,

the reason for the exclusion?

I'm sorry, I'm not following,

it might just be the time of day, but.

It's very straightforward.

You looked this morning with my learned friend,

this afternoon with my learned friend,

at the reasons for the exclusion.

Mm -mmm.

We have to do this in stages.

If the reason for that exclusion

from what otherwise is a tall building zone,

and you explained it was originally

part of the tall building zone

in terms of the regulation 18.

If the reason for that refusal no longer applies,

that is a reason for exclusion no longer applies,

that's an important material consideration

for the inspector bearing in mind the weight

that this authority is placing on the fact

that it's not in the tall building zone.

I think this is one for the planning witness, I'm afraid.

Sorry, say again?

I think this is one for the planning witness, I'm afraid.

No, it's not, sorry.

You went through this in great detail

with my learned friend this morning,

explaining the logic for that exclusion.

But you are getting into the balancing equation.

No, I'm not.

Nothing to do with the balance.

If the reason for that exclusion no longer applies,

is no longer justified, put it another way,

if the reason for the exclusion is no longer justified,

then that's an important material consideration

for the inspector in deciding what weight

to give to that orange colour

as opposed to the purple colour, isn't it?

Okay, now I'm gonna leave it for the planning.

Oh, I'm going to press you on this, I'm afraid.

Well, you can't do that.

I will just come back to,

I think this is one of my planning witnesses.

No, well, it's not, it's not.

Well, you can.

You know, can I just say, if it was thought that it was,

my learned friend wouldn't have gone through

all of that stuff with you this morning, this afternoon,

and he'd be objecting now, but he's not, rightly.

And neither is the inspector, because you explained

this morning the logic very carefully for why this wasn't

in the tall building zone, although it had been previously.

I'm putting to you, if that logic, whatever it is,

we'll go and look at it in a minute,

if that logic no longer applies, that's a really important

consideration for the inspector, particularly bearing

in mind the weight that the reason for refusal

and your case generally is placing upon the existence

of the building within a mid -rise zone only.

If the reason no longer is there, that's bound to...

So just to help me understand,

so if the urban design study didn't exist.

Say again?

If the urban design study didn't exist,

I, that reason, the reasoning within it.

It's a very straightforward question, Mr. Ealy,

and I'm asking for a really straightforward answer.

You gave evidence, and we went to four pages of the OCS,

the urban design study, to establish why it was,

and I don't want to go to that yet,

I just want a very straightforward answer

to a very straightforward question,

why it was that the application site, among others,

had been removed from the tall building zone.

If that no longer is justified,

then that is a very material consideration

for the inspector in the determination of the case, isn't it?

I feel it's a paling balance question.

It's not a balance question.

I'm going to ask it one last time

and then I will note that you refuse to answer it.

Repeat the question, please.

I repeat the question, I want an answer.

You can do, but I don't feel I can answer the question.

I'd say that's for the planning witness.

I was gonna say, Mark,

I think as far as there's gonna be any criticism

of this view,

and I suppose that question,

I'm certainly gonna object to that.

The question is being,

as I understand it anyway,

there's been some tables of,

there's been some themes in the PBS

that have been put in the book by the President's position.

No, it's not.

It's quite funny,

it's quite following about his position,

then it's being put on a totally hypothetical basis.

And it seems to me,

if Mr. Harris is saying

that something has changed since 2021,

that means that the conclusions on which the UDS

will be reached have also changed,

then you should put that point fair and square

and then ask the question as to whether

it's still a valid material consideration.

I will, but I just wanted to understand,

and I'm entitled to understand this.

It's a fundamental issue which goes to the weight

which the council is saying should be placed

on the mid -range zoning of, mid -height zoning of the site.

I'll try and put it, and I'm not suggesting

you're being awkward, Mr. Ailey,

it may be the time of the day.

If the justification put forward for placing the building

in a mid -rise as opposed to a higher zone

is no longer justified, whatever it may be,

and we're going to look at that,

whatever it may be, not a change of circumstance.

That's the hypothetical situation.

It's not a hypothetical in the circumstance

in this case as we'll see.

But if the justification is no longer there,

that must be a material consideration

to the weight which you give to the existence

of the site within a now no longer justified

mid -range height zone, isn't it?

I think what is material consideration

is for my planning witness.

I'll just give the same answer in the fridge.

Let me try it this way then.

If we look at the justification

which is set out in the document,

which we identified earlier,

the UDS document paragraph 516,

and which you took us to very carefully.

CD 516, sorry.

It's 516 and it's paragraphs pages 181 and 182 of CD 516.

Sorry, it's just, it's loading up.

It's quite slow.

Have we been an hour yet?

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry Mr Harris, could you repeat the page numbers?

Yes, it's an internal page 181 and 182.

And remember you went to this with my lonely friend, not a change of circumstance exactly,

But the reasoning behind the building falling within a transitional zone, as it's so -called.

I'm at 181 now. It's 182, isn't it? Sorry.

It's 1 8 1 and 1 8 2.

We're going to start with 1 8 2.

Just my machine is being a bit slow, as is its operator.

While we're doing this, can I get another water?

Sorry.

Yeah, help yourself.

Thank you.

This was the justification for the mid -rise zone, part of the justification. We can also go to 237 and 239 that you asked the inspector to have particular regard to, wasn't it?

Yeah.

Yes.

Thank you.

And in particular you asked her to note

the last sentence on the left hand side

of paragraph page 182, which reads,

building should step down towards the approaches

to the listed Battersea Bridge and Albert Bridge

buildings in zone TBB203 should also have

in regard to the small -scale character

of the adjacent Westbridge Road Conservation Area, yep?

Yes.

Now, do you remember right away

at the beginning of this cross -examination,

we said it was really important to look at

townscape and conservation separately, heritage separately?

Mm -mmm.

Yep.

Now, this council's position is that this building

causes no unacceptable heritage harm

and that granting permission for it

would be in the public interest.

Wouldn't it, in heritage terms?

The balance in 212, 215, et cetera.

It didn't say there was no harm.

No, no unacceptable harm,

bearing in mind the public benefit.

It said that heritage, yeah,

the heritage impacts were outweighed.

Yep, exactly.

So there is no heritage reason for refusal in this case

at all, is there?

there are aspects that relate to heritage

within the relevant policies.

There is no reason for refusal on heritage policies at all.

It is the inspectors being told by this local authority

that the heritage considerations,

those parts of the heritage background

containing designated heritage assets,

are acceptably dealt with by the grant

of planning permission.

So look at the reason for this being

in the mid -rise zone, please.

Buildings should step down towards the approaches

to the listed Battersea Bridge and Albert Bridge,

should also have regard to the small -scale character

of the adjacent Westbridge Road Conservation Area.

They are heritage concerns that are no longer raised

by this local authority because of the public benefits

of the proposal, aren't they?

Yeah, I think this document does talk to

townscape and heritage sort of together as one.

It was in relation to townscape and heritage matters.

I accept the point that you make that there's not

a standalone para -215 balance or a standalone

heritage reason for refusal.

Right, so what I'm gonna suggest to you,

in line with my learned friend's suggestion,

is that the restriction and movement of this site

from the tall building zone to the mid zone

was driven, looking at this and others that we look at

after the adjournment that we're just going to have,

by a heritage requirement for protection.

Now, in this case, we now know there is no heritage reason

for refusal, so that which needed protection here

has been found to be in the public interest

by this local authority and therefore the requirement for it to be in a mid -rise zone

no longer exists. Do you see the point? That's a matter for you, not the planning witness,

isn't it?

No, I don't think so.

Right, okay. Is that a good time to take a break now?

Certainly. Can I just ask Mr Harris, how much longer, I know it's a piece of string really,

but how much longer do you think you're going to need for cross -examination?

I'll try and answer that directly. I think I'm still two hours to go, to be brutally

frank and I'm sorry to say that. It's been a little more hard going. I don't make any

criticism of anybody, but it's probably my fault. But that's the direct answer to your

direct question.

Okay. And in terms of breaking today, it's your view that we finish for today now in

terms of further cross -examination or just a short break now?

I was thinking a short break now.

A short break now.

I was thinking a short break so that we could work up to five. I don't, I mean, I know Mr

really of old, et cetera, but I don't think either of us

are being naturally grumpy, but we're getting grumpy.

And I think that's to do with the time

and the heat, et cetera.

And so since I'm going to suggest that we're going to have

to come back to cross -examination,

it would make sense to finish at about five,

if we could have a five minute break now.

Yeah, certainly.

Is five minutes enough, Mr. Ealy?

Okay, so it's now 4 .30 if the inquiry is adjourned to 4 .35.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the time is 4 .35 and the inquiry is resumed.

just before hand over to Mr Harris to continue cross -examination of Mr Ely.

Been a comment made by interest parties regarding the use of names for different areas.

If Albion Riverside could be referred to consistently as Albion Riverside,

I think interest parties would find it helpful. Thank you.

Just for clarification, Mr Harris referred to as Albion Wharf is what you're saying,

just for my notes.

That is my understanding and it's quite late in the day.

There was no criticism in the final, just clarification.

It's just one of those things. I think in all fairness it used to be called Albion Wharf

Yeah

Okay

I'm gonna call it Albion Riverside in my decision

It is because that's what it's currently called

Yes, I would prefer if it was called Albion Riverside and I'd like to draw a line under it and pass over to mr

Harris to continue questioning permission for it and the application says that Albion Wharf but

You knew the building we were talking about

Apologies to anybody else who was confused.

I know that it gets used a bit interchangeably locally, I think.

But it is Albion Riverside.

In the documentation it's Albion Riverside, so let's go with that.

Yeah, let's go with that.

Sorry if I made... Sorry if I made...

Okay, I'm going to move to a slightly different topic.

One of the reasons that you referred to in chief,

and again, you refer to it in the UDS and it's in your proof,

is that it was thought appropriate by the UDS

to avoid a solid wall of tall buildings,

bearing in mind the tall building zones

past either side of the bridge.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

Good.

I just want to explore that with you, please,

and in doing so, to look at the...

realism and weight to be given to that piece of analysis

which you took from the UDS.

The area of tall buildings to the west of Battersea Bridge

which we've seen identified in the local plan as purple

in fact takes up and to a very large degree

encompasses Morgan's Wharf, doesn't it?

Yes.

And so the inspector might want to judge the reality

of the threat, if you like, which pushed the appeal site

into a mid -rise, namely the threat of the appeal site

continuous wall of development.

That estate, which is identified as suitable

for tall buildings in townscape terms,

is an occupied, fully beneficially lived in

with hundreds of individual owners

living there, housing estate, isn't it?

I would have to, because I don't know the answer.

I don't know either.

You've seen it.

Well, yes, but did you make reference

to there being leaseholders or freeholders?

No, it doesn't really matter.

There are people living there.

It's an occupied estate, yeah.

It's an occupied estate.

In order to judge the risk, which is said to be,

if you like, guarded against in terms of the appeal site

of there being a wall of tall buildings,

the inspector will have to judge

what the realistic prospect of that part

of the tall building zone coming forward might be.

Wung Chee.

I think you're going beyond my evidence

into planning, I'm afraid.

Well, no, because you put that forward in terms,

in answer to a question from a learned friend,

as one of the reasons why we're in the mid -rise

as opposed to the high -rise.

So I'm just testing here whether that reason remains sound,

particularly given that the council has no objection

to the public interest being served by a tall building

on this site, which was one of the other reasons

it was taken out of the tall building zone.

So let's look at the wall of tall building potential.

We've already agreed it's mundane, not urbane,

that it's low, that it's low density,

but it's also fully occupied, isn't it?

I understand it's occupied.

I don't know if it's fully occupied.

It's not an allocation, is it?

It's not a site allocation, I understand.

Have there been any applications made

in relation to development of that site?

Couldn't possibly answer, I'm afraid.

You don't know.

No.

Has there been any hint at a CPO

to remove the estate and replace it with tall buildings?

Not that I know of.

What's the mechanism by which tall buildings

are going to be delivered there

during the lifetime of the plan?

I mean, beyond my evidence, I think.

Well, except you were taken to the way

in which the local authority presented this

on this capacity study to the inspectorate.

You were asked about that and its robustness.

etc., remember, you said it was fully up to date

and robust, etc.

Do you know when you gave that answer,

whether the inspectors were asked to grapple

with the deliverability of that tall building zone

as part of their consideration?

I don't know what representations were made

in relation to that site.

That's the problem, isn't it?

If no representations are made

as to the deliverability of that site,

the inspectors just probably wouldn't have dealt with it.

But there's nothing in the Urban Development Capacity Study

which identifies this as suitable for tall buildings

to say that it can be delivered at all.

Is there, unless you want to point me to it?

Not that I'm aware of.

I didn't delve into deliverability yet.

All right.

So, unless I'm wrong,

the first time that the deliverability of that part

of the spatial strategy,

which you rely on as being suitable for tall buildings,

and you've said it on two or three occasions,

even in cross -examination,

the first time that the deliverability of that key part

of the spatial strategy,

which is part of the reasoning for us being moved out

of the tall building zone which we were once in,

is to avoid a wall of tall buildings,

both sides of the bridge,

when there's no prospect,

no earthly prospect of tall buildings

to the west bridge and no evidence that it's likely to come forward. Is that right?

No, I, well all I can note is that the EIP inspectors in their report and I

referred to it in chief found the urban design study robust and proportionate.

Yeah I got that but I'm asking you now for the first time it seems whether there

is any prospect of delivery of tall buildings in a very limited part of the

where they might be acceptable when you've got a

Sock and Great housing estate there,

which is built to low density with no prospect,

I put to you, of being delivered

during the lifetime of the plan.

I consider it against the policy from a design

and heritage perspective, it's not for me to talk

about deliverability as a sign.

No, well.

But it may be one for my.

I'm sorry, but if one of the reasons that you were

relying on for this site not being suitable for

for a tall building is that it might give rise

to a wall of buildings both sides of the bridge.

It is, I'm sorry, entirely appropriate for me to know

on what basis you are saying those tall buildings are there.

In answer to a question earlier,

Dr. Mealy was keen for me to notice,

you said that's why we allocated the Toy Town area

as suitable for tall buildings.

Remember that?

Now, if it's suitable for tall buildings

but with no prospect of ever being developed,

that's clearly material to the reasoning

for saying that our building,

our site is no longer suitable for at all building,

for the reasons set out at various pages of the ARRA report,

which I can address with others, isn't it?

I think that's one for my planning colleague, I'm afraid.

Could I just put a marker up at this stage,

unless I've missed it and I don't think I have,

there's absolutely no evidence at all being brought forward

by the appellant about the deliverability

of tall building zone three,

which is the tall building zone

on the west side of Battersea Bridge.

It forms no part of the appellant's case.

And if there is a serious proposition going to be put

that in some way the delivery of tall buildings in whole

or in parts in that zone are not deliverable,

then I would expect to see it in their evidence.

With respect, that's exactly the wrong way around.

And the reason why the site is said not to be suitable

for tall buildings was put forward in evidence in chief

by this witness as being, A, there was heritage harm

which needed to be protected from,

and we've got no heritage reason for refusal,

and B, there was a prospect of a wall of tall buildings.

Now we have modelled those tall buildings,

and we've always indicated that they were indicative,

and if that's the reason that's now being relied upon

in chief, I'm entitled to ask what the prospect

of those buildings coming forward is to underscore

or to properly interrogate why the witness is saying

that it was entirely appropriate and logical to move it

out of the mid -range zone, out of the tall building zone.

So if you like, if there is a burden of proof here,

it's a burden of proof on those asserting the wall

of development to establish it.

And I'm just testing that.

And there's nothing wrong with that at all.

And if my learned friend has got evidence

that that area, which is a housing estate,

is going to be developed for tall buildings,

then he should have been calling it.

Well, by way of response, I don't accept

that was a proper categorization

of either the evidence in Kew for giving.

Just to put a marker down, I don't accept

that the witness has accepted or there is evidence

that the stepping down towards the bridge

which is solely related to heritage matters.

That's another witness in due course.

But I put the point, I maintain the objection

that if it is being suggested that in some way

the tall building zone on the other side

of Battersea Bridge from the appeal site

is not deliverable and therefore the weight

to be attached both to the recently adopted

local plan policy that identifies that as a tall building

and the underlying evidence base should now be discounted

or given limited weight, then if the burden falls

upon the appellant to have called evidence to demonstrate that.

Well, I disagree. There's no evidence of deliverability. It wasn't considered by inspectors.

It wasn't considered by the local authority. It wasn't considered by this witness, but

he's relying on it. Anyway, can we make submissions in closing on that perhaps?

I'm happy for you to both make submissions in closing about it, and would you be able

to move on to the next point now?

Yes, I would.

for all of 13 minutes.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm grateful.

The next topic is the development plan

and the role of tall building zones in it.

The development plan and the role

of tall building zones in it.

Tall buildings always are at least potentially likely

to have cross -border impacts, aren't they?

Yes, especially on river corridors.

Thank you.

And it's important and relevant, therefore, that there is a strategic policy, and there

is in London, dealing with tall buildings, Policy D9.

That's right.

Good.

Thank you.

Can we go to that, please?

I don't think we looked at it in chief, but it's in your proof.

CD5 .01.

That's it, thank you very much.

And this is the topic that we'll finish on.

So am I slow to load?

Oh, it's a very large document.

Do you have it open, ma 'am?

It's at, yeah, it's page 138.

Can you give me the reference to Ellington please?

Tell me when you're there please.

Yes, sorry, my PDFs are playing up, I don't know why.

Sorry, remind me of the page number.

It's internal, page 138.

I'm there.

Good, thank you.

And it's headed to all buildings,

and therefore is directly applicable

to this application, yes?

Yes.

Thank you.

And it's got various parts.

Part A is a definitional part.

Part, no issue as to that.

Part B is to do with locations for tall buildings.

And B3 says tall buildings should only be developed

in locations that are identified as suitable

in development plans.

See that?

And in this case, it's accepted that we aren't

identified as suitable in a development plan.

and to that extent Policy B3 is not complied with,

but then we've got part C, which is impacts, correct?

Yes.

Right, and in terms of impacts, it there then sets out

how tall buildings are to be judged, doesn't it?

Yes.

Now, as the report to committee accepts

compliance with part B is not a gateway

to the use of part C, is it?

I understand that, there's the master brewer.

Good, well we'll come on to the master brewer in a minute.

But what that means is that it's entirely appropriate,

and indeed many tall buildings in London

are granted planning permission

by reference to a consideration of part C,

even though they don't accord with B3, correct?

You could only probably know that.

I don't know whether there are many that go.

But you understand the proposition.

I understand that you can't take a departure.

And so when we're looking at this development plan

and indeed the local development plan,

but we'll come to that separately,

you can full well accord with the policy

and indeed the development plan when read as a whole,

if you comply with C, which also deals with heritage

on a balance, which we come to tomorrow,

but not B3, yes?

I think it's probably one for my planning colleague.

No, well, look, you deal with this in quite some detail

in your proof, so I'm prepared to be lenient,

but I'm also prepared to be appropriately stern with you

and I think I need an answer.

It's entirely appropriate,

let me put the question another way.

A tall building can be compliant with the development plan

D9C policy, even though it doesn't sit in B3.

Because otherwise that's treating it as a gateway.

Yeah, I understand that.

And do you agree?

Yes.

Good, thank you very much for that.

And we'll look at what the court said in relation to that tomorrow.

I thought you'd be saying that because that's exactly

what's said in the report to committee, CD 301, paragraph 2 .63.

And you agree with that, don't you?

Yeah, I'd like to, yeah.

Thank you.

And what that means is if you can establish substantial compliance with D9C, then development

is capable of being consistent with the policy when read as a whole.

I understand that to be the case, yeah.

Thank you.

So merely not being in a tall building zone by itself cannot be a reason for refusal.

You've got to go further, haven't you?

I think once you start getting to those balancing matters,

I accept the general principles here,

but I feel it's for my planning witness colleague

to address those.

No, no, no, sorry, it's not.

Merely not being in a tall building zone,

merely not being in a tall building zone isn't the end of it

merely not being in a tall building zone

by itself cannot be the reason for refusal.

and the law will be set across the board of course.

Could you use the microphone?

Yes, I'm so sorry.

Just going to repeat that.

Mr Harris, first of all, I think this is a matter

for the planning witness ultimately,

if not for legal submissions.

Point number two, the proposition put by Mr Harris

was right up to a point, but where he strayed,

what went into error in my submission as a matter of law,

is to say that a departure from part B

cannot be a reason for refusal.

It can as a matter of planning balance,

and that's clear from the master brewer's side.

So just the way that question was put,

that seems to me went into territory

that was not accurate as a matter of law.

I disagree.

I'm happy to put the question in a slightly different way

because I don't need to go as far as my learned friend says

I'm going.

In this case, it's not the council's case at all

that merely because we aren't in a tall building zone,

we should be refused simply on that point, is it?

I understand that.

It's consistent with the officer's report, yeah.

Sorry, you need to say that again.

I understand that it's consistent with the officer's report.

Good, thank you very much.

Good.

Thank you.

I think I'm going to start on a new topic,

so that might be a sensible time, mum.

Okay, thank you.

So we'll continue with cross -examination tomorrow,

which means, Mr. Eley,

although you are free to go for the evening,

you're not allowed to speak to any of your team or communicate with your team, please.

And just before we finish for the day, there were a number of documents and various things going on

I just wanted to cheque on. So I think there was a lease document that came forward from Thames Walk

earlier today which the parties had copies of and had agreed to look at. Has

everybody had the opportunity to look at those? I haven't. My team has but they

haven't spoken to me about it and I'm sorry for that I've just had one or

two other things on. No so if we roll that forward to tomorrow morning. Thank

you very much. Would that suit everybody? Okay so I'll raise that again

tomorrow a .m. and then in terms of the rule six parties request for various

information freehold title right of access to the Thames Pass etc is it the

same response on on that one as well okay yeah and then on site visit route

That's with the appellants, we think, at the moment, to draw up the plan.

Certainly.

Mr. Eley was preparing on the ... Yes, Mr. Eley was going to ... I had discussion with

him and he was going to, when he has the opportunity, to highlight an additional area we would like

you to visit in the evening, which is basically, so you know, Inspector, walking between Albert

Bridge and Bannersay Bridge to see that side and the site at night as well and cross the road

into the Morgan's Wharf State briefly. So we'll mark that on a plan for you.

Okay so we might be in a position to finalise that after Mr Ealy has finished

giving evidence tomorrow with the hope that I can have an evening potter tomorrow. Lucky me.

Thank you, Dr. O 'Neill, I misspoke.

Just on that point, sorry, because my previous route prior to Dr. Meeley's reasonable suggestions for extending your walk tomorrow

has not been agreed with the Rule 6 party, however, who agreed to my walk yesterday, but are you happy?

My map's quite crude, is that okay?

As long as it's legible, I really don't mind.

But if we can get to a point where everybody's happy, tomorrow lunch time,

then I'm fine with that.

Okay. Thank you.

So was there anything else, procedural or housekeeping wise,

before we adjourn for the day? Mr Harris.

Nothing from us, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Mr Edwards, no. And Mr Walton.

Sorry madam, just for clarification, I wonder if Mr Harris can give an indication

as to how long his cross -examination may continue

and we have an idea as to when Dr. Jubb will be giving evidence.

I think it would be subject to the answers always, about 90 minutes.

Okay, so that leaves us in a position where we may well hear from Dr. Jubb tomorrow

and then it's about whether we make a start on hearing from Mr. Barbeloff or not

and we'll cross that bridge.

But just for confirmation, we're still starting at 10am tomorrow.

Unless anybody desires to start earlier at 9 .30?

I can see my lone friend shaking his head and I tend to agree.

We've got so much spare capacity in the programme even though it might not look like it at the minute.

Okay. Anybody else got strong views?

Okay, so if we start again at ten tomorrow and we'll start off with further cross -examination

for Mr Ely. So thank you everybody very much for your participation today and have a nice

evening. The inquiry is adjourned.

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 2 Afternoon - Wednesday 18 March 2026, 2:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 2 AfternoonWednesday, 18th March 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 2 Afternoon
Wednesday, 18th March 2026 at 2:00pm