Glassmill planning appeal - Day 3 Morning - Thursday 19 March 2026, 9:00am

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 3 Morning
Thursday, 19th March 2026 at 9:00am

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.

Good morning. The time is now 10 o 'clock and the inquiry is resumed. I'm Joanna Gilbert.

I'm a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to hold this inquiry. This

is the third day of the inquiry. Yesterday we had a roundtable discussion on living conditions,

construction, highway safety and environmental issues, followed by the evidence of Mr Ely

for the Council. Before we continue with cross -examination of Mr Ely, can I just make the usual reminders.

If you can please turn your mobile phones off and other devices to silent, please. That

would be very helpful. In terms of fire evacuation, we had the fire alarm testing yesterday morning,

So if you hear a fire alarm, please take it seriously.

We are supposed to leave the room in an orderly manner,

go down the main staircase, out of the doors,

across the courtyard and out onto the main road

and around to Ram Street where there is a zone for people to collect.

But there will be fire wardens along the way who I'm sure can guide and advise.

In terms of temperatures in the room, it's pretty nice at the moment but we are expecting it to get a little bit warmer later.

So please do remember that I'm not standing on ceremony in terms of jackets.

I want you to be comfortable rather than as smart as possible.

So please do take breaks as needed and advise me if you need breaks.

please do help yourself to the water that is over at that end of the dais and we'll hopefully get through it.

Just before I ask about any procedural or housekeeping matters from the parties,

can I please ask the appellant first of all, just in terms of any progress made on looking at the lease document provided by the Thames Ward Residence Association yesterday

and the request from the Rule 6 party yesterday in terms of documents.

Mr Harris.

Yes, thank you, ma 'am.

The lease document is not a lease and I'll explain why in a moment,

but it is a document that we are content for you to see

and I'll ask now that that copy be handed up to you.

I'm doing that job.

And are the other parties content? Thank you. I'm getting nods. Thank you.

I'm going to read from a prepared, very short statement so that you have our position in

relation to it and that the third parties can hear our position in relation to it. The

The chair of the Thames Walk Residents Association asked that a document described as a lease,

and it's got lease in inverted commas on the outside, be admitted into evidence.

We don't object to it being admitted into evidence, and now it has been.

The document, as you'll see, is not a lease.

It's an agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which for those

of us old enough to remember, was the predecessor to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning

Act.

and Section 38 of the Highways Act.

As part of the earlier development of land at Bridge House,

which includes Glass Mill site,

the owner of the land,

which is described in the agreement as the company,

was required to construct the riverside walk

and then to dedicate the land containing it to the council.

See Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement.

The council agreed to and has adopted it

under Clause 3 of that agreement.

Clause 3, as you'll see, also makes clear that in adopting the Riverside Walk, the council

itself is responsible for the maintenance of the Thames Path, but is not liable to maintain

the river wall and the parapet.

The responsibility for such continues to be the responsibility of the owner of the Riverside

Walk land, which forms part of the title.

We know that the registered owner of that is the Thames Walk Residents Association.

Everything there that I've said is in the note and is consistent with the position set out in the report to committee and in the section 106 agreement in draught.

That deals with that issue, hopefully to your satisfaction.

Then what we've done in the same note, which we'll hand in, is to provide a copy of the Glass Mill Title and Registered Plan to the inquiry.

It is provided alongside a copy of the registered title and plan for SGL 270066 owned by the

Thames Walk Residents Association Limited.

Confirmation as to whether Glass Mill site has rights of access over the Thames Path

River walkway.

The answer is yes.

The Thames Path Riverside Walk, for the reasons we have outlined just above, is a public highway.

For the developer of the Glass Mill site to carry out works on the Highways land to improve

the public realm, as you were told yesterday by Mr Pinnock, would need authorisation from

the Council as Highways authority.

Entry into a Highway Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 is the usual

process for securing such works.

This is what is envisaged to facilitate those works,

as agreed under the committee report.

I'll give you the paragraph numbers, 2143, 1022, 1310,

and 1902.

These are all in the note.

And the draught section 106 agreement, as agreed

between the appellant and the council.

And ILAD, it's not in the note, but ILAD, as also noted

in the GLA part two consideration where the issue

of the section 278 and the delivery

of the public realm was considered.

Three, confirmation as to whether the owner,

developer of Glassmill site has provided an indemnity.

There is no indemnity agreement in connexion

with the river wall.

No indemnity agreement is required.

As you heard the day before yesterday, the owner developer

of the Glassmill site does not propose or indeed is not

required to carry out any works to the river wall as part of this development, therefore

there's no need for an indemnity.

For confirmation as to whether the owner developer of the glass mill site has a right of access

or construction for construction purposes on land owned by the adjoining owner, there

is no intention for construction vehicles to make use of any land owned by an adjoining

owner.

the construction logistics plan has the access

for construction via the A3220 Battersea Bridge Road.

Therefore, it's not needed.

We don't have full copies of all of that at the minute.

That's why I'm reading it out,

but we'll make sure during the adjournment

that those will be provided to all of the parties.

The document will also contain, as my copy does, the relevant documents which are referred

in that.

And we'll pass that over.

It should be in the next ten minutes or so.

Is that all right?

So, ma 'am, that will bear the answers to the questions that we were asked.

And we'll formally pass that over shortly.

It's taken a bit of a rush to get them all together in time for this morning, but I'm

pleased to say we were able to do that. Can I just cheque, is the council and the

Royal Six Party happy with my accepting those documents? Yes ma 'am, we're

certainly happy for you to receive the notes and we've heard what's been said.

I'll take instructions on it but I very much doubt I'll have anything further to

say on behalf of the council in response. Okay. I think madam, our position is that

once we see that document we will if necessary have some say about it but

When we say it, we'll read it and we'll digest the contents.

Thank you to Mr. Harris for that.

I'm very happy with that.

The one thing I would point out is that we've got

the statement of case and in particular the proof

which will be the subject of testing later today.

There's nothing in it related to any of this.

There ought to be a time when we can respond

one way or another to what looks as if it might be a different point taken now.

I wouldn't put it any higher than that.

Thank you Mr. Harrison. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it but I would of

course provide the appellant with the opportunity for right of reply. Thank you

very much. Okay just before moving on I understand from the internet that the

TFL strikes have been called off in March. So, later strikes are still timetabled, but

as of now, as of yesterday evening, the strikes due to occur next week are no longer taking

place. So, I'd just like to take the parties' views on, I assume we're sitting in person

here next week. Mr Harris.

I don't see a good reason for not sitting in person. That's that's our position I think

Mr. Edwards

Mr. Walton

Okay

Looks like we're sitting in person here next week as we have been this week. Okay. Thanks for sorting that out and

Any procedural or housekeeping matters other than what we've already discussed from the appellant, please. Mr. Harris. Nothing. Thank you, sir

Thank you, ma 'am.

Mr Edwards.

Mr Walton.

Okay.

Just a reminder to witnesses today,

if you can please answer the questions asked of you.

Normally, you should do this with a yes or no answer initially

and you can then qualify that.

And a reminder that also conceding a point does not mean you have lost the case.

So, without further ado,

Mr Harris, would you like to continue cross -examination of Mr Ely?

Thank you, ma 'am.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr Ely.

Yesterday we looked at the UDS and the reasons for removing the site from the tall building zone

and we also looked at the development plan and the Hillingdon case and the fact that

a site wasn't within a tall building zone wasn't in itself a bar to a tall building in the

circumstances of this case, D9B not being a gateway.

Do you remember that?

I remember the discussion, yes.

Good.

And so I promised yesterday, so I should keep that promise,

that we would look at just one or two paragraphs in Hillingdon.

I'm sure the inspector's familiar with it,

but if not, it's CD 13 -7.

It's a case in December 2021.

Glamorous array of QC's involved in the case.

On the front is peace.

Mr. Edwards and myself on the same side for once.

I think the essence of it comes at paragraph 85.

Hillingdon Borough Council were saying that, in effect, D9B was a gateway rendering D9C

otios.

Can we look at paragraph 85?

I think there's nothing between us on this,

but I just want to make that clear.

In considering whether to grant planning permission

for a tall building which did not comply with paragraph B3

because it was not identified in the development plan,

it would surely be sensible and in accordance

with the objectives of policy D9

for the proposal to be assessed

by reference to the potential impacts

which are listed in part C.

We agree, don't we?

I understand that's what the judgement intends, yes.

The claimant's interpretation, so suggesting that, if you like, 9B was a gateway, and once

you didn't pass the gateway, you failed 9D9 in the round, leads to the absurd result that

a decision maker in those circumstances is not permitted to have regard to Part C, must

assess the impacts of the proposal in the vacuum.

in these circumstances goes on to say,

and this is the point I was making yesterday.

Sorry Mr. Harris, today I'm having trouble

hearing you actually.

It might be that you need to be closer

to the microphone again.

Yeah, I wasn't yesterday, interestingly enough,

but I am today.

I tell you what, that's really helpful.

I put it back to where it was yesterday.

But you've got the text in front of you.

So paragraph 85, yeah.

85 we've looked at.

In 86, in these circumstances,

is it's unsurprising that there are at least three decisions.

Remember, we were talking yesterday about it being

a usual position in London,

that you're not in a designated tall building zone,

but nevertheless can be granted planning permission.

In these circumstances,

unsurprising at least three decisions,

both prior to and since the defendant's decision

in this case, in which the claimant's planning office

has been interpreted policy D9 in the same way

as the defendant in considering

other tall proposals in Hillingdon.

So there's that.

And that decision is 2021, and so would have been known about,

and no doubt in the forefront of the inspectors' minds

when they were considering the issue of tall building

policy in this borough and its general compliance

with the London Plan.

I assume so.

Good.

Thank you very much.

We've already identified that not a gateway approach

and the need to look at 9C is recorded in the committee report.

The reference is CD301263.

We did that yesterday.

So I think this is the position we've reached.

It's entirely possible if there is substantial compliance with D9C

of a development being consistent with policy D9 as a whole,

even if it's not in a tall building zone.

Again, I think it's for my planning witness, not for me.

My duty to the inquiry is to provide evidence on spatial character and heritage impacts,

but I don't get involved in the actual planning balance or interpretation of the policies

themselves ultimately.

I think that is for my colleague, Ms. Chambers.

Well, I'll ask Ms. Chambers about that.

I don't agree or accept that because of the way you gave your evidence in chief and in

your proof, but I don't think it's going to assist the Inspector to go further than that.

We also know, don't we, that the inspectors found, following consideration of all of the

submissions in relation to the local plan, that there was a requirement in policy TB4

for a major modification.

You are aware of that, aren't you?

Yes.

And that major modification was required to reflect the logic that we've just looked at in paragraph 85 and 86, wasn't it?

Does it state that exactly in the inspector's report?

Well, I think it more or less does, but I mean it says to ensure general compliance

with the London Plan that this change was necessary.

It's a major modification that was necessary to ensure soundness and it was part at least

of the case made on behalf of those objecting that even if you weren't going to allocate

to site for a tall building, you should make sure that sites that weren't tall building

sites were dealt with on their merits in accordance with Hillingdon.

Yes?

I'm afraid I'm not close enough to the EIP process to have known whether that was

directly a result of the team.

You see, you began this yesterday, this examination in chief, telling the inspector how familiar

and how robust it was and those sorts of things.

But I'm not gonna press you.

Sorry, but just to clarify on that point,

I talked to the urban design study

and I talked about it being found robust and proportionate,

which were the inspector's words,

or the inspector's words in the report on the local plan,

but I didn't try and suggest that,

I didn't try and go into the depths of the policy,

as it were, as to their rationale

behind the change to resist.

And I wouldn't want to read into it,

because I simply don't have the answer.

It would be unfair of me to try and read into it.

Well, if that's the case, maybe you

shouldn't have got involved with it yesterday as a comment.

But I'll move on.

Maybe the best way of doing this is to look at Ms. Chambers'

proof at 4 .4 is my note.

Maybe this is a shortcut.

4 .4, so just bear with me a second.

Is that the paragraph starting the inspectors considered the representations made?

Yes, I think it is, ma 'am.

Just bear with me.

So, 4 .4 I have is technical housing standards, nationally described space standards.

I'm nearly there, just bear with me. Yes, 4 .47, I've got 4 .4 bracket but it's 4 .47.

Just see if you can agree with this and that might very much shorten this part of the cross -examination.

Sorry, I'm not there.

page 22, the inspector was there before us all.

Thank you.

The inspectors considered the representations made

and ultimately, what she says the only,

we say it's a very big, but it doesn't really matter,

I can pick that up with her,

the only concession was major modification MM 146,

which introduced some flexibility, she says,

into the policy seeking to restrict tall buildings

outside tall building zones as opposed to not permitting

and thereby allowing for consideration of a scheme

against LP for the application stage.

Yes?

Okay.

So that's the extra flexibility that,

as Chambers says, was introduced as a major modification.

That's how she characterises it.

We say she's broadly right.

You don't say she's wrong, do you?

I'm actually, can I get there please,

because I was given the wrong CD number,

so it's actually 9 .03.

Can you take me to the exact paragraph

if you want me to comment on the paragraph itself?

If I can.

Paragraph 4 .47, are you there?

Right, I thought you said CD 4 .47.

I'm there now.

Now, we think it can be put higher than that, but you don't take issue with what she says

there about adding some flexibility so that a scheme should be considered against LP4

at the application stage, do you?

No.

No, good.

Okay.

And then we've got the next paragraph, which I'll pick up with Dr. Judd, actually, but

It says the modification will allow a degree of flexibility

and thus providing opportunities for tall building

where one can demonstrate other material considerations

in support of a tall building

beyond an identified tall building zone.

However, it must be borne in mind that such opportunities

are likely to be extraordinary rather than ordinary,

and then it goes on to explain what it means by that.

We are not persuaded that the borough should be made

a free for all in relation to tall buildings

across Wandsworth.

So what we got is an acceptance by the inspector

so that it is and can be appropriate

for tall buildings outside the zones

to be judged by reference to the provisions of LP4

and also D9 and to be granted,

pursuant to those provisions

or other material considerations.

In other words, the zoning in the particular circumstances

of this case, we agree,

is not the final matter or close to it.

Yeah, I think you're reading into policy, which is a matter for Miss Chambers again.

Okay, all right, but we've got the point. It's not a free -for -all. Nobody on this side of the

room is saying it's a free -for -all, but we're looking at the case on its merits.

Good, thank you very much for that.

I want therefore to look... I want therefore next heading, content and meaning of TB4 in that

context. Can we pick up the development plan, please? And I want to bear in mind that we

are dealing with the townscape elements of the case. The townscape elements of the case.

And can we look at the wording of TB4, please? It's CD5 .2. It's the strategy development

and plan local part.

It's the policy LP4, it's page 294.

Should have about twenty six yellow stickers in it if we were

in an ordinary...

I know, I can see.

Let me know when you're there Mr. Eley.

Sorry, I'm not helpful.

Good, thank you very much.

Now we discussed this a little earlier

when we looked at the shape of the reason for refusal,

which referred to the local environment

and the local environment being predominantly low built,

et cetera, do you remember that yesterday?

Don't want to go through all that again.

Can we look at the way that section B now reads?

Proposals for tall buildings will only be appropriate

in tall building zones identified on the tall buildings map,

included in Appendix 2 to the plan,

where the development would not result in any adverse

visual, functional, environmental, cumulative impacts.

See that?

That's specifically directed at buildings

which are within the tall building zones.

So in other words, it's saying just because you're

in the tall building zone.

Doesn't mean you get any tall building.

In the tall building zones, you've got to pass those tests.

Then we got the next sentence.

Planning applications for tall buildings,

that's wherever they are, doesn't say

in tall building zones or elsewhere, it's generally,

will be assessed against the criteria set out in part C

and D of the London Plan Policy D9

and those set out below as follows.

Now that's entirely consistent as you read it

with the approach in Hillingdon that we just spent

a bit of time on, isn't it?

Thank you, good.

And we know that reason for refusal number one,

both from its own wordings and from the 23 references

to spatial hierarchy in your proof,

is a reason for refusal townscape

dealing with spatial hierarchy.

Yes?

Yes, I'm really grateful for that.

And in your proof you also say that there is a sort

of definition of spatial hierarchy in LP4,

and we see that there it is.

Spatial hierarchy comes after visual impacts.

Now, I'm not dismissing any other part of this policy.

visual impacts for example,

or tall buildings near the river Thames,

but in terms of spatial hierarchy,

we've got two paragraphs,

paragraph seven and paragraph eight, correct?

Right, so when we're looking at the spatial hierarchy

elements of this case on behalf of the local authority,

we see this, the massing of any proposed tall building

should be proportionate to the local environment,

including when taking into consideration

the width of publicly accessible areas

adjacent to the proposed buildings,

as well as the proximity to public open spaces,

parks, water courses, et cetera,

and should be designed.

So we got that test, and now it's an and.

Now, that's the local environment which is referred to

in Reason for Feasibility number one, isn't it?

That's the local environment that is said

to be predominantly low rise.

We went through all of that yesterday.

You went here, sorry, I'm not sure if my microphone works.

It is.

You need to get closer to it, and maybe the battery

is running out.

It doesn't need to be on or off.

It's on.

Yeah, it's definitely on.

It's not on, but it's not.

It's not.

It's not turning.

It's not on.

It's not green.

It's not weird.

It's not your fault, Mr. Eley.

Let's just sort it.

No.

Ah ha, it obviously had a malfunction briefly.

It turned green.

It's so funny this morning, tell me if that happens again.

Oh is it, okay.

That's better.

I was close enough to it I think.

Shall I repeat the question, you're okay.

No, sorry, I think I understood the question,

which I'll just repeat just to make sure.

But I remember you went here yesterday

and it's very much focused in on Spine Point 7 here

and the visual impacts and you're suggesting

that the local environment here,

that you're reading into the reason for refusal

and saying that is the local environment.

Again, sorry, I think I gave you the same answer yesterday,

I'm afraid, but it's not my place to read

into the decision maker.

Again, just to reiterate, I was not the decision maker

in this case.

I wasn't involved at application stage

and I now only advise on matters of spatial character

and heritage impacts, matters of policy interpretation

that go to the reason for refusal

I'm afraid, or for Miss Chambers, but...

You can just make a note of that,

because I will just repeat that, I'm afraid.

But in order to frame your evidence, you see,

you use, as you do in paragraph two one,

the reason for refusal.

Main issue A, the effect of proposal

on character and appearance of the area

is the focus of this proof,

as per the council's reason for refusal number one.

Yeah, and I address, sorry, I address the policy,

as you can clearly see in my conclusions

on spatial character and heritage.

I address the policies in the reason for refusal,

but I'm not reading into the,

I'm not trying to read parts of the policies

into the reasons for refusal.

I feel that is for the decision -making stage

and that goes beyond me, as it were.

Well, I don't think it is beyond you.

You do yourself a disservice,

but we can leave the definition of the local environment

and what it means, bearing in mind the reason for refusal

and the committee report, if you like, to the inspector.

So there's this test proportionate to the local environment,

brackets whatever that means,

that's a matter for the inspector.

Are we in the next commission?

It's a matter of judgement ultimately, isn't it?

And then, and should be designed so as not to create

an overbearing impact, having regard to its context.

They're the two spatial hierarchy tests in paragraph seven.

Proportionate to local environment,

and we can disagree as to what that means,

but should be designed so as not to create

an overbearing impact having regard to context.

Now that's the townscape test, isn't it?

Yeah?

Yeah, I don't think it's specific,

just make reference to heritage assets.

Heritage assets are referred

to some of the earlier spine points.

Yeah, I'm in no way seeking to go down

the heritage route for the minute.

You and I have agreed that it's really, really important,

particularly because of the different statutory regimes,

to look at these issues in their own terms,

particularly in a case where the local authority

has found that there is no heritage reason for refusal

because of the public benefits.

Now, in terms of spatial hierarchy,

I'm just trying to get to the root

of what your evidence really is

and whether it is properly separating heritage

from Townscape, the test here is proportionate

to local environment and designed so as not to create

an overbearing impact having regard to its context.

That's that particular part of the policy, yeah.

And that particular part of the policy

will only be breached where there is a finding

of overbearing impact in Townscape terms, correct?

It talks about being proportionate to its local environment.

I'd say that potentially doesn't necessarily mean

something needs to be overbearing.

Including taking tests.

There are two tests.

Okay, so you're reading.

I'm asking you about the second test.

We can have a debate about what the first one is,

but we've had it.

We don't have to have it again.

Mr. Eley, in terms of the and,

should be designed so as to not create an overbearing impact.

That's the second townscape test, isn't it?

Yes, that is one of the tests in the policy.

Okay, thank you very much for that.

Then there are three tests in relation to tall buildings near the River Thames frontage.

I don't understand the local authority to be relying on any of those.

I'd have to go back to my evidence, but I believe we do take the position, obviously,

that the proposed building harms the River Thames, and that was set out in my evidence.

Okay, I don't want to go through these.

I can go through these with Ms. Chambers if necessary.

But I'm looking at seven.

Eight, where tall buildings are proposed to be located in close proximity to publicly

accessible areas, measures should be incorporated to soften their edges, create high quality

public spaces, including through the use of generously sized, safe, and attractive walkways,

and the introduction of soft landscaping, including trees of an appropriate scale for

the space to which it relates.

Now, in order to consider that, you've got to look at the existing publicly accessible

areas and to judge whether the proposal, in combination with what can be done on the site

and the agreement of the local authority to enter a section 278 off the site, is better

or worse than existing, haven't you?

Yes, obviously we went through this in length yesterday about common ground matters, yes.

Okay, well I'm going to safely take the view that the Inspector might take a view that

what is there will be improved, the question is how much, by the proposal in terms of publicly

accessible areas.

So I'm going to concentrate in spatial hierarchy terms on seven.

Thank you very much.

Now, do we agree, and this relates to, I think the six or seven times you used this term

yesterday, do we agree that this is a brownfield site for a use that is needed, housing and

affordable housing?

It's not for my evidence, but I mean, I can just talk to that.

So that is the evidence of my colleague Joanna Chambers.

It's massively relevant to your evidence.

And you are, I think you are by training

a term planner, aren't you?

I am, but I'm not here at this inquiry

giving evidence on term planning or balance matters.

No, no, no, but you don't put aside your knowledge,

Mr. Ealy, you don't put aside your knowledge.

If you could answer a question fairly and appropriately,

you should.

You're not in a silo, you can use your expertise.

The reason I've done that is because

on a number of occasions yesterday,

you identified harm in a certain way.

Now, I know why you're now doing that,

but let's just make it clear.

This is a situation where townscape harm,

townscape harm, heritage harm to one side for the minute,

insofar as it exists,

townscape harm falls to be considered

having regard to the most recent NPPF, doesn't it?

Yes.

Right.

And for brownfield sites,

which serve a pressing purpose,

there is a presumption that they should be granted

unless the harm identified is substantial, correct?

That's my understanding on the basis

of the evidence of my colleague, Joanna Chambers,

which I think this is probably more appropriate for.

and obviously my evidence is that substantial harm

to spatial character is caused.

But it's then for others to do that balancing exercise.

I've got that.

And we all know that the word substantial

in terms to townscape harm didn't appear

in the report to committee,

but you're now using it and I know why.

But the reason that I know why is also an additional test

when looking at this policy, isn't it?

So you've got to look to see whether the proposal

is proportionate to the local environment.

We can have a debate about that.

You've got to look to see whether the impact

in townscape terms that you are promoting

is overbearing, having regard to its context.

And then you've got a further test, which is,

and in townscape terms, is that harm

substantial to disapply the presumption

in favour of the grant on brownfield sites

for much needed land uses?

Yes?

Not for my evidence, I'm afraid.

Okay.

It's another question for my colleague.

But the greatest of respect,

informing your judgments

as to nature and extent of impact,

you've got to have in mind, haven't you,

in landscape terms,

whether what you are promoting as a harm

is substantial enough to disapply the presumption.

That's the framework in which you operate.

Or is that not what you've done?

No, I assessed it based on my,

well, a mixture of obviously matters

from the spatial scope of impacts,

the sensitivity of those impacts,

the importance of those places,

are the sort of defining features

that guide my assessment as to why substantial harm

is caused to spatial character,

and that is simply a matter of planning judgement

is for others, namely my colleague Miss Chambers

to ultimately address the wider balancing exercise.

My evidence just would differ,

well you've seen that it differs

to Miss Chambers on these matters.

Yeah, I know, and I know that's where you've got that.

Just so there is, there was a little disquiet

on this side of the room yesterday,

because in certain contexts,

and particularly referring to heritage assets,

you use the formulation substantial harm,

as you just have now.

Let's be really clear, I think I know what you were saying,

and I think probably the inspector

knows what you were saying.

When you say substantial harm in a townscape sense,

you're not reading across substantial harm

in heritage terms, which is a fundamentally

different concept, isn't it?

No, and I make clear in my evidence,

and I'm sure you've seen this, Marmot, at the start,

where I make the very clear point

that a lesser substantial harm doesn't equate

to less than substantial impact on spatial character

taken as a whole, very purposefully sought to seek that out

and made it clear why and how I come to that conclusion.

So I think there's common ground between us, isn't there?

That even from your knowledge as a town planner

and the NPPF, the framework within which you are looking at, that if there are townscape

harms, in order to found a reason for refusal, they must be substantial.

If townscape harms are less than substantial, or if townscape impacts are beneficial or

neutral, then they don't set aside the presumption in favour of the grant of permission.

Mr. Eley is giving evidence in respect of urban design and townscape matters. He is

not giving evidence as an expert, evidence on town planning matters. If it assists Mr.

It is common ground that the NPPF is a material consideration and within it paragraph 125c

is a material consideration.

That involves a planning balance and Ms Chambers has given written and will give oral evidence

in due course in respect to that matter.

So I would suggest, Madam, that these points, as Mr Eley has said, are really more appropriate

for Ms Eley as – I'm sorry, Ms Chambers – as the expert planning witness.

Thank you.

Too many names there.

Mr Harris, would you please continue?

Yes, thank you very much, ma 'am.

I won't comment on that, I don't want to take up time with it,

but you'll see in a moment why I've spent overly much time on it, perhaps.

Good, okay.

Good, thank you very much for that.

Could I get a water?

Is that okay?

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Take a few over there.

Or maybe don't because we do want to finish this morning.

Yeah, maybe. Yeah, exactly.

Let me know when you're ready.

Okay, so I'm grateful to my learning friend.

What we're looking for is,

in terms of the test that we're looking at,

the spatial hierarchy, we're looking for

local proportionality, overbearing,

and insofar as there are any harms from that,

such harms should be substantial.

That's the framework which I'm going to ask the planning witness about in more detail,

but I think we've all agreed that's broadly where it is, with or without my learned friends' intervention, very grateful.

So I just want to do a few test impacts, please, just to make sure that what we're not doing is confusing heritage impact with townscape impact, etc.

Can we look to Battersea Park first please? Now a general point Mr. Eley, all the viewpoints

in this case were selected, chosen and or agreed by the local planning authority, weren't

they?

No.

No?

No, that's my understanding. Obviously you were aware I wasn't involved at application

stage.

But I made representations on this in my rebuttal,

you will have seen.

In your rebuttal, yes.

Yeah.

A week before the inquiry, or two weeks before the inquiry.

So at the time of the application,

and when it was taken to committee,

all the viewpoints selected, chosen,

and agreed by the local planning authority, weren't they?

No, like you say,

well you're aware from the statement of common ground

that we did not agree that all of the views

represented the full spatial scope and that will become obvious obviously from my own

evidence to this inquiry that go beyond and I've sought to explain why I've gone

beyond the views that are simply within. This is an EIA application isn't it? I don't think it was actually.

You didn't think it was? Well I don't think it is, it isn't is it? That was discussed in the

Council. That's right, exactly. Yeah, sorry, my fault. But even outside the EIA regulations,

using the Town and Country Planning Regulations, if at any time a local authority believes

that the information before it is inadequate, then it can seek further information, can't

It can, but I mean, as you know, I wasn't involved in application stage, but my understanding

is that the council's position on the heightened scale was very clear from the staff, in particular

on the policy side of things. I have seen an email produced, which was produced by yourselves

actually in exchange on the statement of common ground, which in no way agreed the views.

I understand that during pre -application stage,

and ma 'am, this may require some explanation,

are you aware with the software View City?

Ma 'am?

Oh, you are?

Okay, good, just so I wasn't just straying

into unfamiliar territory.

I understand that a View City model was requested

on numerous occasions from pre -application stage onwards,

and that was never given, and I've actually repeated

that request at appeal stage in discussions

with Dr. Mealy in relation to the three sisters

conservation area.

I asked if we were able to try and resolve this,

could you provide a view city model?

I can produce the email if you wish,

and that was never responded to.

All right.

I'm not sure how much this is helping the inspector.

I'm proceeding on the basis that if the local authority

thought it was necessary to have more information,

they could have required it,

and they didn't.

I'm gonna ask Dr. Mealy to deal with this directly

because he was there and you weren't.

But I just want to look at Battersea Park, please,

and the viewpoints selected and chosen there.

And Dr. Mealy gave direct evidence

that these were identified and selected

by the local authority in terms.

We'll come to that.

But I just want to see what we have got

before the inquiry as opposed to what we haven't got before the inquiry. The whole purpose

of having these agreed vos is to ensure that the inspector is proceeding on information

that is accurate and she can't proceed on information that doesn't exist. So just look

at what we've got. Of course it's also appropriate if it's thought necessary for the local authority

to produce its own viewpoints, and they haven't.

So we're dealing with what we've got, Mr. Ely, not what we haven't got, and which there

is going to be factual dispute as to what can and can't be seen, which I'm sorry to

say is a position that this sort of inquiry shouldn't be at.

But using what we've got...

I think we agree in that sense.

Okay.

Well, all right.

Looking at what we've got, we've got the position set out

in the visual impact assessment addendum,

which you went through with my learned friend yesterday.

And we've got viewpoint 13 first,

which is the one that hopefully,

helpfully we marked up yesterday.

I'm just going to go back to the

Yep.

This is the Pagoda view, which was

specifically chosen by the local

authority to be representative of

this view of the Pagoda.

And Dr. Mealy can explain that

yesterday. You weren't there.

Looking at the

existing on the proposed.

The question for the inspector is,

is it harmful in terms of the policy?

Is there an overbearing impact in townscape terms?

You spoke yesterday about your views on this

in heritage terms, but in townscape terms,

is there a overbearing impact?

And if there is, is that overbearing impact

substantial in order to rebut, in townscape terms,

the position the Planning Commission

should be otherwise granted.

But I wouldn't ask the Inspector to base a decision

on simply one view from this view in corridor.

No, I'm going to go through several views.

I'm going to go through all of the views

that exist in relation to this.

Okay.

So...

But of course you've got to use

a mass spect of professional judgement.

You're not going to produce every view.

And so you've got to use these views

in order to orientate yourself.

and I think read them alongside the zone

of theoretical visibility that was provided

by the appellant to actually make assumptions

as to some of those views.

Whether it was agreed with the local authority,

I cannot confirm.

As I say, my opposition is not the views

weren't agreed with the local authority

and I've seen no evidence before the inquiry

that that is the case.

And as I say, we requested the view city model

because we like to look at these things

in the kinetic experience to understand.

and so we've had to use degrees of professional judgement

using what we've got.

And I would also say the test at LP4 can't purely be

whether this impact is overbearing or not

because we can go back to LP4 if we wish,

potentially be here till the cows come home.

But there's obviously a lot of other spine points

within LP4 which would directly relate to this view

that aren't necessarily meaning this needs to be overbearing.

I accept that and I accepted it at the time

but I'm looking at the essence of the counsel's case,

which is own spatial hierarchy.

Sorry, you keep saying our case

is entirely spatial hierarchy,

but it's not, that's not true.

Our case is about spatial character,

of which spatial hierarchy is an aspect of,

as well as views along viewing corridors,

aspects of openness and enclosure,

all of the usual subjects, sorry.

I'll let the inspectors expect.

examine your reason for refusal and also the way you characterise it in your proof.

I've taken this line particularly bearing in mind what you said in your proof and I am exploring

whether you have elided heritage issues with timescape issues. Now just looking at this image

and the inspector's got the zone of visibility, the ZTV,

which you referred to and you asked her to use judgement.

The zone of the ZTV is done on a bare earth basis,

isn't it?

No trees.

And it becomes difficult to consider trees.

No, I totally appreciate that.

And I acknowledge that and I'm happy to concede it.

And that's why we would have really appreciated

the sharing of the View City model,

which does in part accurately reflect trees,

and we could have made a fuller assessment.

And I know, ma 'am, actually that Historic England

imply a frustration on this point

in relation to Battersea Park in their letter.

And we can go there to look at it if you wish,

but they sort of suggest that if a digital model

were shared with them, then they wanted to look,

I think, actually at the Cherry Tree Avenue,

and suggest a level of visibility

that clearly wasn't shown to Historic England.

So I think in terms of stakeholders in this party,

we're perhaps not the only frustrated one in this respect.

Okay, so there's the usefulness of the ZTV,

doesn't include trees.

Can we look at the next two images as well please,

which are the ones?

Sorry, just on that point very specifically,

I think it does up to a certain level,

but a methodology actually wasn't given with the application

unless you could point me in the direction,

because I looked for the methodology

in the built heritage landscape.

In this case, are you aware of whether the trees

were deliberately turned off or deliberately turned on?

Are you aware?

Like I say, a methodology wasn't submitted,

but usually...

I didn't hear the answer.

A methodology wasn't provided, but usually,

it does consider trees up to a certain height.

Right.

Unless it's turned off, like you say.

But you can also use professional judgement clearly

in order to come to conclusions based on

existing townscape and experience.

I'm trying to help the inspector here.

What we've got is the only TVAA in front of the inquiry.

You've not done any other evidence.

Our position is that these are agreed.

That's set out in our proof.

This particular one was agreed by Mr. Sellers,

who sits behind us, as being representative

of the relationship between the park,

the pagoda, and the proposal.

Now, we're all gonna say they are facts.

Now, I just want to look at these, please,

with that in mind.

No, sorry, I think we have to...

Just bear with me, because I've not asked a question yet.

13, can we look at 14, please?

We've got existing and proposed,

and the proposed is shown by the blue line behind the trees,

which would be switched off on the ZTV,

which the inspectors got.

Is that correct?

Sorry, say that again.

Yeah. Look at 14.

Yep.

Look at the existing.

Yes.

Look at the proposed.

Yes.

The blue line identifies the location of the building.

Yeah.

The inspector's going to have to judge, using all of the things available to him, including

walking around, etc., whether that constitutes a substantial harm in townscape terms. Your

view is that it is part of a substantial harm.

Not necessarily this particular view, ma 'am.

You have seen in my evidence I focus more primarily

on the western side of the park,

of which we have very little evidence, unfortunately.

And I say that is really quite unfortunate.

And I mean, I thought this view was peculiar

in that they went through the efforts of putting,

making this into an outline view,

which would have cost quite a lot of money.

Whereas I would have thought

you could use a city view here

just to simply demonstrate that it's not particularly visible

and highly screened.

but you'll notice that my evidence focuses quite a lot

on the western side of the park in particular

where there's a more blemished skyline to the park

and where we know we'll be able to see much more

of the building, not least from the view

I'm sure we'll go to near the shelter

which I addressed in my evidence in chief

in which Historic England clearly expressed

slight frustration as not being able to fully understand

the impacts on the western side of the park.

There's another view from Battersea Park

in the submission, sorry, which is particularly obscure

When was it that you became so frustrated in relation to the ability to determine the impact?

When was that Mr. Eley?

Well of course like I say I'm reflecting what the colleagues who dealt with the application stage

as well as my own frustration post application stage and not being shared the fused city model.

Right. Is there a reason for refusal that there's insufficient evidence or insufficient material for the council to form a view?

No there's not but officers can't.

at any stage seek any further views, formally or otherwise?

I don't know the answer to that question, honestly.

That's interesting.

Well, but I know that, like you say,

usual practise on these schemes would be request

to view city model and we would have reviewed that.

We've obviously managed to use these views.

Did the local authority produce any of its own images?

Unfortunately, we do not have the resource or capacity

to purchase our own images.

I'm sure you're aware of that.

And that's why we rely so significantly on six lines.

Well, that's maybe why you should have asked.

I think we could go around in circles on this for quite

some time.

Sorry, ma 'am, I couldn't hear that.

I think we could go around in circles on this

for quite some time.

Can we perhaps focus on the views

that we do have in the HTVIA, please?

Yes, which is what I was proposing to do.

So we've looked at 13 and the inspector, experienced inspector, will form her own judgement walking around.

She must note that the ZTV doesn't include the trees. You could have put in a ZTV, this wouldn't have cost very much to present TV with the trees or asked us to do it.

Sorry, just on that point, the only way we're able to produce ZTVs is if U City Model is shared with us and we can actually produce them in house then.

Good.

Then we've got dealing with the inspector's request, we've got view 14.

I've got your points on that.

Then we've got view 15.

Just to benchmark your position, in townscape terms, are you saying that that is a substantial

harm?

No, and I'm clear in my evidence that my case of substantial harm is clearly a cumulative

of one that accrues over very many, both minor and very significant harms.

And then together, my professional judgement is that overall the impact on local spatial

character is substantial.

That doesn't, you can't then read that into each single individual views.

That's very fair.

Good.

Thank you.

That's very helpful, in fact.

So you're not saying that that is substantial.

Can we go please to Chelsea Bridge, VU 12.

Oh, just before we leave Battersea,

when you're looking at townscape impact,

because we are hunter gatherers

and are able to judge distance and proportion very well,

the distance between an impact

and the receptor is an important consideration, isn't it?

It does, I think it will appear much more prominent

than you will see in this image,

for example, from the shelter.

I think that would be a very prominent impact, frankly.

And I would invite the inspector to judge that herself

with her own eye, but you will be aware.

The answer to my question is yes,

distance is an important consideration.

And the distance here would be well in excess

of half a kilometre away, wouldn't it? I don't know exactly but I will give you

that roughly, it might be near that. And I think you all will quite notice that. I mean

I invited you and my armlet yesterday to go and have a look and appreciate Chelsea Waterfront

which is a much much greater distance still and feels very present within the park and

on its edge and this is obviously much much closer still and a much broader and will appear

higher than it. So I think you can use your own professional judgement in that respect

using your hunter -gatherer skills as Mr Harris made reference to.

Okay, do 12 next please. And again bearing in mind that we're looking for something that's

overwhelming and something that is substantial harm, at least in contribution to a cumulative

impact. You describe this at 351 of your proof.

You want to go there? Should we go there?

Makes sense I think. As an unusually expansive and deep river prospect.

Sorry, let me get there, sorry.

What paragraph, sorry?

It's the same one, 351.

Yes.

Unusually expansive and deep river prospect,

and there we can see it on your photograph.

The riparian townscape is defined by depth, openness,

and preeminence of its central object, the River Thames.

Preeminence, that's your words, isn't it?

Yep.

So the question for the inspector in terms of the policy is,

is it substantial harm?

Is there really, in the true sense of the word,

an overbearing impact here?

And your judgement is that there is?

It's not, well, I disagree that she needs to just read

substantial harm into every single view.

What's your judgement then here?

Is your judgement that there is substantial harm or that there isn't substantial harm?

Like I made clear previously, my judgement on substantial harm is judgement made in the

round taken into consideration of all of the impacts kinetically experienced through the

viewing areas which I identify, which comprise the local area and which are a mixture of

the sensitivity of the object itself,

of its importance, and of the nature of the impact,

and then taken overall, whether there is a substantial,

my evidence does not seek to go to just individual views

and say whether this is substantial or not,

and it takes a view in the round.

I would suggest that it would be very difficult

to reach a substantial level

if you were to just isolate particular views.

No, that's why we provided the kinetic views also.

Can we go to, again picking up the inspector's suggestion,

Could we go to a view 11, please?

And the starting point here is the existing contribution

to Townscape, which we began this cross -examination with,

which you, apart from one paragraph,

don't deal with in your proof.

That's the existing position, and the inspector

has to judge whether that is harmful to Townscape

in the way that your colleagues thought it was.

I didn't agree that I don't know you don't know okay fine we've got your view

on setting and neutral which we disagree with we don't have your exposition as to

townscape impact in your proof at least just can we look at this please it's

just a matter of approach I think here we can see the bridge clearly it's a

It's a physical and functional entity,

a barrier if you like between the Ransom -Borf area

to the left and the, I forgot what you said yesterday,

the sobriquet you had for it,

but let's call it the Toy Town area.

I think it was Urbain, not, Munday not Urbain, sorry.

Munday not Urbain. I'll give you that.

I knew you'd remember.

But that's what we've got.

And then we've got Morgan's Wharf, as we agreed yesterday,

not even visible below the parapet of the bridge.

Now we know from the generality of your case

that the council's formal view is that

there is no unacceptable heritage harm

caused by this juxtaposition

because of the fasciculus of balance

that the court speaks of and the provisions of NPPF,

that's for another witness,

but that's the council's form and position,

no heritage reason for refusal.

Now there is heritage harm,

it's just being balanced by not being.

That's what I said.

Oh, you suggested no heritage, sorry, okay.

So then what we got for the inspector is,

is there townscape harm?

And if so, is it substantial,

does it contribute to substantial harm?

If she doesn't find that there is substantial harm

in that context, then in townscape terms,

in townscape terms, then the presumption

in favour of the grant remains, doesn't it?

And that's the issue here?

You're straying into going beyond my evidence, I'm afraid,

that's the balancing exercise.

Yeah, okay. Thank you very much for that. Good.

Next, please. Next general topic.

this concept of a pre -existing level of harm or impact

from all the other tall buildings.

Yep, and you identify harm from Monteverto,

Lots Road, World's End, and several other tall buildings,

mostly post -war buildings.

local authority developments.

I just want to explore that with you, please,

because I'm gonna suggest that very significant care

is needed in these circumstances.

You relied on the heritage, historic heritage position

on heritage impact and heritage harm

and preexisting harm, do you remember that?

Yeah, I took you to the storey.

We went to that.

I don't think we need to go to it again.

There's no requirement to treat pre -existing buildings

in that way, in that document.

It says it's something that might be done or could be done,

but isn't required, doesn't it?

It says it's something that could be done,

but it is also cumulative impacts

are referred to in the PPG, the MPPG.

We'll come to the PPG and what it says shortly.

but even in heritage terms it's not a requirement

and let's consider why that might be the case.

Many of the buildings you referred to

were granted planning permission in the 60s, 70s,

and 80s, weren't they?

I think, well, actually the main offenders, if you will,

are actually later than that.

I think you might have been involved in Chelsea Waterfront,

which was a call -in in the early noughties,

if I remember rightly.

Yes, Chelsea Waterfront.

and it was recommended for refusal by the inspector

purely on the basis of the impact on the river,

nothing else, but was approved by the Secretary of State.

And so those are what, I mean I've been watching them

with much regret I must admit, Mark,

go up for a number of years now.

But they're relatively recently completed.

Some yes, some not.

The world's end estate is 60s, 70s I think.

All right, let's just take the world's end estate.

The month to VETRO is 2000.

So sorry, I'm trying to make the point

that they actually take place, obviously,

within a modern planning system and have taken place

over a number of years, many of which more recent.

Good, and in townscape terms, they are therefore part

of the established 21st century townscape, aren't they?

Yeah, we acknowledge that.

Right, and that can't be ignored in townscape terms.

Well, we don't explicitly ignore it, yeah.

So say again?

We explicitly don't ignore them.

I can't hear you, sorry.

Oh, sorry, we explicitly do not ignore them

and we treat them in the cumulative scenario.

Yeah, yeah.

But the fact that they exist can't be ignored.

Now, I've been looking carefully at the way

in which other people have approached this case.

And Historic England, for example,

they don't adopt this reservoir of harm position, do they?

Can I ask where the reservoir comes from?

I was confused by that at rebuttal stage.

Because you call it a preexisting harm,

harm, a pre -existing harm that should be taken into account.

It's a reservoir of harm, which you say

comes from the buildings which are townscape intrusions.

So for example, from Battersea Park,

in your proof of 344 and 349, you in effect say

any tall building that's visible starts a level of harm

which is infects, if you like, the baseline

from which our options should be eliminated,

with the MBA type proposals,

which I'm just suggesting is the main thing

the inspectors should look like,

and should be very clear and de -de -deated

about accumulating on with torsional distancing,

growth and the combination decades ago

in the 90s and 80s,

because they are part of the TATUS escape, I would say.

What's a TATUS escape?

The TATUS escape is your shift, isn't it?

No, absolutely. I don't think it's an excellent situation.

They do operate on all boards, and that's it.

And the rest of us head on down into the streets of the Tumutah,

and they build and repair the roof.

They take the old wooden roof and they treat that effect with the old building.

That's just a small problem.

Well, you have had them. I mean, in the 3 -3 -4 -4.

My pleasure.

Yeah, this is your turn for the 3 -3 -4 -4.

In relation to back to CC Park, so long may every people be free to attend a farm.

From every real building, you can say that there's an appropriate and not only an open -sizing element.

From every real building, a permanent and a voluntary annualization.

Sorry, I'm at 3348.

You want to study this harm compiled at an after -treat?

They face my problems, my rise of disappointment, which are measured by my spatial extractor.

I'm at 3444, 3348.

I think I'm almost there.

Sorry, sorry.

Are you there yet, Mr. Haines?

I just arrived. Sorry, sorry.

Okay.

is that many of the buildings have been granted

a climate change management interest

under the authority established

in the 21st century times being gone by.

Your, the difficulty with your baseline

of answers from this is in terms of

the starting of a true certificate is,

how far that could take you back to C .S .G. Chelsea

but for other judges in the same room

and for other residents in the strange pathway?

Yeah, yeah, I think it does set a date,

at least it does set a date

particular reasons and it might not be really related.

But where do you stop them?

Well, I mean, it's not a subject.

It is not a subject of my life.

As any of us in this case, judge,

that you need to have a limit to escape the harm

with alleged harm from

what you've learned,

the words that I've learned,

Montevergo,

and the state's, the 50s and 60s.

Any of you else suggest that?

that GLA's letter says that they're there for a reason.

Remember GLA didn't address the address of the heritage

and I think it's sort of gonna be a black line

because the town's gonna have some issues.

Sorry, just because I'm a French -American,

but the GLA letter must be the station of the letter

due to all of their concerns

and opinions on the human relative.

I think it's spanned past this in England and they don't necessarily report it unless it's in the material.

And Cessna was out for a detail and in the end they were open to it.

They do consider, and we'll see why in a minute as it was in the news,

but just this issue is of there's everything else in the community,

the buildings and the Cessna, et cetera, et cetera, in their human assessment.

Historically, England and London do talk about existing buildings, specific literature,

children from the historic environment, mainly the engaging churches and church churches,

since their heritage is all post -Hannah. But I'll agree that they're not very, very

specific in the department. London and London are sometimes just as detailed as they are

in order to the point of those perspectives. If that tradition stops being clear, you're

not going to tell me specific details as you would expect in an entire history.

I'm going to suggest to you today that there are any folks who are supposed to do this

also.

Now, this is a new detective which is out of the body of every single taught terrorist

and in the intrusion which forms part of the exact same line of our -

Let's look at the circumstances why it might be not appropriate to do that, please.

Let's consider, shall we, the world's end.

and

I'm going to be looking at what it says about

in the 10 settlement justice, is that it's having

a terms of escape document.

So if you are clear, yes, it's easy.

I think it's 5 .24 Mark, just bear with me, I've put it over here on my screen.

It's been a long day.

It is, it's finally 24.

Yep, thank you very much.

5 .24.

Because, as you know, when it comes to accumulating karma,

you've got to recognise that these judgments are contestism, contestism, or haven't you?

It's a matter of judgement.

Yeah, yeah. So what does Wargarh, Anzett, and Chelsea's thinking about to obsess about

which you relied on as one of the main detructible features?

Well that's a sad question.

So it's not a question?

Say again again?

It's a bizarre question.

Yeah, yeah. What does the consensus judge think about what's out there?

Well, we were in there and evidence achieved in relation to the road, the heights in Ballboro, SBD, where the very expletives of Alba actually should be shown from the world's interstate.

But I recognise actually an I -9 just must sound out, this seems to be a bit more lenient towards a visibular characteristic.

the same problem.

But that's what they say as tall as it is now.

We do need to step very carefully to the SDP with the

learn -a -friend -in -a -bank.

Which is a key from the APOC.

It's just a first -class study.

OK, so now we look at the SDP.

Which one is it?

It's 66.

Yeah.

It's in the region of 66.

Let's look at what they say.

So we've got page 56 coming up on page 56.

64, sorry.

Yeah, 64.

64, sorry.

So this is a pay -for -pay for B2, 3 more and well known B2s?

That's it, and then we're going to 65, which is now that.

And then we're going to go to 66, which is the La Valley features.

See that?

Now 66.

Yeah, yeah.

Distinctly not part of the B2,

trend to design that world's best and undervalued features.

Characteristics of the ambience of social transom subjects

in the 50s, 70s, 80s, 50s, and 70s region,

social and historic value.

Fourth bullet point, the visual relationship

between the world and the instinct of the ternous,

the underemployed feature, with expanses in view

to the whole from the elevated levels of existence

and the voter, the mere inventions

stored on African nutrients, etc., etc.

You start looking at04 planning for vision, planning for Time think that you

You know, so, so he's always times that takes -a care for

Strive and

Can we have you please our CCDR9Cc4.

You know where we're going you think?

Yeah, so do I.

When we're looking at cumulative impacts for tall buildings, this is the development plan, isn't it?

It is, yeah.

Cumulative visual, functional and environmental impacts of proposed, consented and planned tall buildings in an area must be considered.

It doesn't say anything about pre -existing, does it?

No, I picked that up and that's a fair point.

You picked that up?

Yeah, of course, yeah.

But it also doesn't dispel considering baseline situations,

which is common and is the case

under the Landscape Institute guidelines

as well as the Historic England guidelines.

Mr. Ealy, I'm going to suggest

if you look at the report to committee in this case,

they don't identify that reservoir of harm

that you've put together in the circumstances of this case.

they don't identify every tall building

as a harmful intrusion.

There's one reference to Lott's Road

and one particular view.

There's nothing in the historic England analysis

to suggest that you adopt this reservoir of harm approach.

There's nothing in the statutory development plan

that suggests that you do that.

And unless you point me elsewhere,

there is no other person that identifies harm

from every single tall building that is visible

because it is visible in the case apart from you.

Ma 'am, you'll be aware of how local authorities

are under pressure when it comes to officers' reports

of being concise.

And an officer's report is not the same as evidence

to an inquiry and it was upon me to build upon

on the officer's report whilst remaining in kind with it.

The officer's report on at least one,

but I think two occasions makes reference

to the cumulative impacts,

namely from Chelsea waterfront lots road as you identified.

I mean, clearly cumulative impacts

as I took you to extensively yesterday

form an integral part of the urban design study

for this area as it does also

for the Kensington and Chelsea side.

So I would say these are under documents that underpin the plan led approach here to design and

Consider cumulative harms in relation to heritage assets. The MPPG is quite clear that cumulative is a consideration

I don't I didn't read into this part of d9 that it meant it's irrelevant to consider baseline cumulative

Considerations, it's just simply saying you should also consider

pipeline or

potential developments coming forward.

I mean, I noticed that Dr. Mealy in his rebuttal

suggested it creates a difficulty

in terms of coming to a balance.

I don't think it really does.

He suggests it requires a separate extended stage

on the balance, which needs to take place.

I can see that that might be the case

if it's a pipeline change,

because there may be questions, for example,

as to whether that development's likely

to come forward or not, which might go to the weight

of that cumulative harm.

But I think it's more than fair and I know it's historic England and the GLA as in this instance quite regularly

We'll just say this is inclusive accumulative harms

But they won't necessarily go out in full detail in a short shrift letter as setting out their position

Especially if their position is quite clear one

Okay, let's see if we can agree these propositions, please mainly because a tall building is visible doesn't mean it's harmful

Correct. Thank you. There is no unanimity about the harmful impact

of any building in this case.

Take World's End for example.

We've seen various views about various,

various views about its qualities, impacts, et cetera.

No, I'm not so sure.

You took us to one part of the character study

in relation to World's End.

But sorry, the section that refers to views

is referring to views from the flats being valued,

not views from the river,

which their building hides SBD,

which is a foundational key document

to that character study talks about clear harm

from as far east and downstream as Chelsea Bridge.

And I think, you know,

Mam, you'll have noticed this on your site,

the significant impact that congealed, dark,

brooding cluster has on the setting of, for example,

both the river and also Albert Bridge.

And I know that that's your view.

We can't not consider this.

Thank you, Mr. Eley.

I know that that's your view

because I've heard it several times.

The question was there's no unanimity

about the harmful impact of any building.

Well, sorry.

Can you just let me finish the question?

Yes.

No unanimity about harmful impact of those buildings.

For example, you know, Montevitro's won very many

architectural townscape awards.

You know Dr. Miele's position on it.

I just want to explore with you here what would happen,

bearing in mind that this is a subjective judgement.

do you agree in the circumstances of this case that all of this is a matter of judgement

for the inspector?

Yes, that's fair.

We've already agreed that visibility doesn't equal harm.

The inspector's going to have to form a decision which will be, if you like, a benchmark, etc.

On your view, has to form a view also of every single one of those intrusions and judge whether

whether it is part of a baseline reservoir of harm

that you have to apply,

notwithstanding the fact that it's already part

of the townscape, but is that your case?

No, I don't accept this reservoir of harm.

It forms no part of my evidence

that there is a reservoir of harm.

I feel it's an attempt to escalate my treatment

of the cumulative impacts,

which I feel is much more proportionate than that.

Clearly you can't take into consideration

in every single building have isolated buildings

that have a significant impact on spatial character

and significance and where it's reasonable

to consider them as part of the cumulative impact

and which is ultimately a matter of judgement

to which nothing sets a timeframe.

And again, that's just a reasonable,

this is a reasonable question, isn't it?

We can have a debate about whether it's reasonable.

I think we're getting to a broad consensus though

and that is this is a matter of judgement for the inspector.

Clearly the main impact that the inspector has to consider

there is that of the proposal, there is a potential,

you say, to look to the past, et cetera,

and the weight that's at the beginning of that

and then on on the page,

the minimum of the human tendency to approach,

whether that's the first assessor,

the first assessment in relation to those issues,

all the ones that was identified by contact.

New suggestions, it's a disaster to come in.

It's quite normal, and it's going to be a change

...

I'm just going to spend another little time by returning to the church.

That's a great question.

I'm sorry, is that okay?

Is that okay?

Yes, yes.

I'll have a little gawk.

Just last night's meeting is, I guess you could say, the water.

I think one of my colleagues has been messaging me saying that they have been having some

issues with my library in terms of policy, for sound and fish resources. I understand

that might be fixed now, but it's a bit on my mind, so apologies and thank you very,

very much for looking forward to it. Sorry, Mr Harris.

Thank you very much.

Harry, Richard.

Harry, Richard, Charles, there's the new identity

in your own things, okay?

And I've been fed on to the councils

and the witnesses and the councils of judgement.

Harry, Richard, is sensitive to the proof.

Correct?

Yeah, okay.

Your analysis is set out in Appendix 1,

which we're going to go to very briefly.

Can you give me a CD, sorry, just so I can...

I didn't hear that, but I don't get the answer.

A CD?

Yeah, you give him the CD number, okay.

If your analysis overstates the extent of heritage harm,

if it does, then the council has still outweighed,

still come to the conclusion that that's outweighed

by the benefits of the proposal.

They've just taken what you've given them,

and so has Ms. Chambers, and she's come to the conclusion

that the benefits outweigh the harm,

and that would be the case even if we take the view

that you overstate the harm.

That would be the case, wouldn't it?

Yes.

Yeah.

And if I've understood you correctly,

this pre -existing level of harm, which

I call a reservoir.

We've asked about that in townscape terms.

In heritage terms, you've factored that in as well,

have you?

Correct.

Following the process, yeah.

So if an insofar as the inspector thinks,

for example, in terms of World's End or others,

that that's not a harm that makes sense

to play into the balance, then it

would need to be reduced by that as well.

It further follows, doesn't it, that if the harms are

less than you identify, then the extent to which the benefits outweigh the harm is more

emphatic even on the counsel's case.

Sorry, I lost the thread slightly and it might have been the cut out of it.

Sorry, could you just repeat that?

It follows that if the harms are less than you've passed on to her and the counsel

believes formally outweighed by the benefits, then if you've, if you like, gone too far

and the inspector believes that the harms aren't as extensive

as you say it is, then in terms of a council's own case,

that means that the balance in favour of the grant

of permission is even more emphatic.

That would naturally.

Yeah, naturally, good.

So I just wanted to sort of benchmark where you are

in terms of appendix one.

The reporter committee dealt with all of the assets

and all of the levels of harm that it found

in the report to committee, remember.

But in a sort of proportionate way,

they said, look, elected members should have regard

to all of these impacts,

but we're just gonna concentrate on five

for the purposes of the report to committee.

Yeah, I mean, as I said before,

there's a sort of need to be very sort of concise and clear

in committee reports to refer to aspects

that they can then follow up on and so on.

The inspector has a statutory duty

to consider every designated heritage asset

and setting of listed buildings.

I'm not denying that, but I'm just trying to find

a good and easy way of dealing with this really quickly

in the last 10 minutes available to me.

And so if we go to your appendix one,

And we can identify the five that were specifically brought to elected members' attention as being

the ones to look at, if you like.

The first one was Battersea Bridge.

And that you deal with at four of appendix one, page four.

That's Battersea Park, sorry.

You said Battersea Bridge?

It's page four, Battersea Park,

sorry, did I say Battersea Bridge?

It's my fault.

Battersea Park, register the park and garden,

et cetera, conservation areas, et cetera.

They're all listed together.

I'm gonna use the same five chosen by officers.

And very helpfully at page 10,

you've got a summary of who said what when, if you like.

And we've got the GLA low to middle,

Historic England likely low level.

And in terms of the statutory consultees,

therefore we've got the LPA middle range, you're the highest. Out of that range.

Rule 6 are also middle.

Oh did you say that, sorry. Yeah, okay fine.

Okay, then we've got Albert Bridge.

Page 15 you go the same who said what when.

Oh, sorry.

Oh no.

And the inspector will note that Historic England say relatively low level.

Again, you're the highest.

Sorry page fit. I'm just catching up because there's page 15. Yep

Yes, yep and then for Battersea bridge

We jump to page 20

historic England low your middle level and again of the statutory consortese your the highest

Yes.

Good, thank you.

Thames Conservation Area, next.

GLA low to middle.

Historic England didn't have a view.

And again, you're the highest.

I would suggest, historic England sometimes don't take

full views on some of these matters when they've,

at this stage, especially if they're taking quite

a clear position on the application,

but they're obviously not here to speak to that position

at the inquiry, I have that tested.

No, and the last one is Westbridge Road Conservation Area,

and again, you're the highest.

Sorry, what page is it?

It is page 49,

with the who said what when on page 53.

Historic England low level, GLA low level, U middle.

That's right, yes.

Yep, okay, thank you.

I can make submissions on that.

Last please, Battersea Bridge and the existing position.

I don't rehearse the first part

of the cross -examination with you.

Just ask you this.

In the existing building,

as we've seen from the photographs,

the existing present building clearly falls

within the close setting of the listed bridge, doesn't it?

De facto is close in proximity, yes.

Yeah.

It engages the statutory tests because of its proximity.

Correct, yeah.

Benny Hill.

Rather apt.

We have to get the laughs somewhere.

I know we should take it more seriously.

If the inspector concludes, as did your fellow officers previously,

nothing has changed we say, if the inspector concludes that the existing building harms that immediate setting

by reason of its form, lack of quality, etc. harms the setting,

then that's a material consideration relevant

to the statutory duty, isn't it?

So long as it's related to the significance of the asset.

Yeah, well it would be, it's in the setting,

it's an ugly building.

Yeah, and that's clearly articulated

as to why it attracts on the set.

Okay, ask yourself it this way round,

just to make sure this is a heritage issue or not.

If there was an application now to put that building there

when there was nothing there before,

then it would be a material consideration

as to whether that building harmed the setting

of the listed bridge, couldn't it?

Of course it would.

Yes, yeah.

And if the inspector now looking at it

believes that it harms,

then in the same way as we discussed earlier,

there would be an opportunity to enhance the setting

in heritage terms, couldn't there?

Yeah, that's a fair comment.

Okay.

And insofar as the inspector finds

that the immediate setting is enhanced by this proposal,

that can only be a heritage benefit.

No, I disagree.

Well, it can be, but it needs to be articulated very carefully

why it's a heritage benefit and not simply an urban design

benefit.

So for example, if visually it allows you better

to appreciate the bridge, which is one of the tests,

visually it allows you better to appreciate,

it provides a new viewpoint of the bridge, for example.

That's clearly capable of being a heritage benefit,

isn't it?

Not even capable?

Well, sorry, let me continue on that.

I think we need to be careful here,

and I draw Marm you to a couple of examples of cases

that Dr. Mealy and Mr. Harris know well,

one of which, where a very experienced inspector

like yourself talks about this,

actually talks very much to this point where he says there's basically a

difference between adding interests to a view or enhancing elements that

contribute to the significance of the listed structure and it's in that

equation which is ultimately a matter of judgement I accept and we need to be

carefully construed as such. Nobody's suggesting the inspector's not going to be anything.

But you suggested like Alfresco for example I mean my evidence would be very

much that I can think of very few scenarios where alfresco dining would

have any relationship whatsoever with the significance of a functional bridge

that acts as a landmark. You've got an existing building which harms the

setting that is the premise of the question. That's your position that harms the setting.

It's also your council's position as at 2018 and we've not seen anything change

expressed in three places in that letter.

Can we go to CD542 please,

which you drew to the inspector's attention,

which is the GLA guidance on heritage matters.

And I was surprised and disappointed with respect

that you didn't go to this paragraph.

CD542, paragraph 62.

I'm going to take it in stages.

Where a development enhances the significance of a heritage asset through changes to the asset setting, this is a heritage benefit. Do you agree?

Sorry, why are you reading that?

Paragraph 62.

Where development enhances the significance of a heritage asset through changes to the

asset setting.

This is a heritage benefit.

You're okay?

Do you agree with that?

Yes.

Good.

Look at the next paragraph, next sentence.

This is the case, for example, where development provides or re -provides a significant view

of the asset.

You agree with that?

Yes, but I think there's potential need

to clarify that point.

My thing is it needs to be connected back to significance.

I mean, we go back to some evidence I gave,

my evidence, where we talked about views

from high up of the Tower of London,

being the case was made, that was a heritage benefit,

which was rejected by the inspector.

just creating an artificial new view of a heritage asset,

I understand can be capable of being a benefit,

a public benefit, that's perhaps a design benefit

adjacent to heritage, but it doesn't go to the conservation

of significance, would be generally my position,

unless somehow that elevated view was somehow related

to its significance.

So here we've got an area which directly abuts,

In the premise of my question, it's harmful to the setting and the significance. And the

question is, if the inspector agrees that the proposal enhances the setting and that's

the significance, that's a heritage benefit, isn't it?

If it's tangibly related to what elements of setting relate back to the significance

of the asset, otherwise it's more of a general architectural point.

Okay, well thank you very much Mr. Eley and thanks for your patience. Thank you, ma 'am,

for yours. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Harris. So we're now at 11 .40. I don't have any questions for you Mr. Eley,

but just in terms of re -examination Mr. Edwards, how long do you think you'll need?

Mr. Edwards.

About 10 minutes, ma 'am.

Are you happy to continue, Mr. Eley, and then we'll break after re -examination, or would

you like a break now?

Okay, over to you, Mr. Edwards.

Yes, thank you, ma 'am.

For your benefits, that's Mr. Eley and others, in terms of documents for re -examination,

you'll need the local plan, the urban capacity study and we may touch on CD413

which is the English Heritage Historic England for giving me setting guidance.

Just pausing a minute Mr. Edwards. I realised I was remiss in asking

whether anybody supporting had any questions. I'm not sure there is anybody

supporting here in the audience today.

Okay, do carry on Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Eady, good morning.

It's actually three points.

I'd like your help with three topics.

The first of those arises,

first two of those actually arise

from a discussion you had yesterday with Mr. Harris.

The first is really just a point of clarification please

about the location and extent within the development plan

of the mid -rise zone, which the appeal site

comprises.

Can we go back, please, to the local plan, CD502?

And within it, please turn to figure 14 .1, which is PDF.

According to my notes, anyway, PDF page 299.

This is essentially a factual and clarificatory point,

Mr. Healy.

Mr. Harris asked you by reference to what is shown on map 14 .1 about the two tall building

zones that sit either side of Battersea Bridge, Battersea Bridge Road, forgive me, and that

effectively there was a sliver of orange which comprises the mid -rise zone and you have to

look very hard to see that.

Do you remember those series of questions?

I do.

Yeah, thank you.

And we can see, you do have the benefit of an electronic copy, you can zoom in, but we

can see where the two purple areas representing the tall building zones are

and we can see the sliver. Just for clarification please can we go on to

appendix 2 within the document within the local plan and turn please to

internal page 471, PDF page 472.

Tell me when you're there.

I'm there.

Right, I'm not, so just give me a moment.

So this is a map with Battersea written on the top.

I hope so, ma 'am, yes.

Just give me a moment.

It's just me being useless, I'm sorry.

It is indeed a map with Battersea on the top and do we see there the mid -rise building

zone which comprises the appeal site?

Is MB B202 there shown?

We do.

And then when we're talking about the sliver and the appeal site and the mid -rise zone

that the appeal site comprises, is it to this page that the reader should have particular

reference in terms of the identification and extent of it?

Absolutely.

Thank you very much, that was the factual point, good.

Now sticking with the urban design study please, as a point of reference, can we go please

to page 182 internally?

Urban design study.

I'm sorry, forgive me, we're jumping documents.

Would you go to the urban design study please, CD 516.

And within it please, would you turn to page 182?

Is that internal pagination? A PDF would be really useful.

It's PDF, page 182. Section 4, capacity for growth.

Hang on. Sorry?

Page 160 on the corner of the page.

Sorry. My internet is being

painfully slow so you'll just have to bear with me for a moment.

Yes, I'm there.

This is just the point of reference.

You'll recall that again yesterday afternoon Mr. Harris asked you a series of questions

about the analysis and the guidance given in the urban design study about the requirement

for stepping down within the particular context of the question was tall building zone B2 -03,

which is on the west side of Battersea Bridge Road, the stepping down to Battersea Bridge.

Do you remember those questions?

Yes.

And the questions were put with specific reference to the final sentence in the text on the left -hand side of page 182 of the UDS.

The building should step down towards the approaches to the listed Battersea Bridge and Albert Bridge.

Do you see that?

Palatinate sentence?

No, actually. Page 182.

Sorry, I went 182 of the PDF.

Mine is 182 of the PDF, but it's internal page 182 as well.

Okay, let me try and get to the page.

It's a section that we looked at, it's in some detail in evidence in chief,

that sets out the analysis for B203, B204, the two tall buildings out today.

Yeah, yeah. Let me get that one.

Left -hand column of text.

I am nearly there. 182 isn't it? Yep. Yep. Left hand. Sorry. Yep.

Left hand column of text. Penultimate sentence in that left hand column of text.

Sentence building should step down towards the approaches to the listed Battersea Bridge and Albert Bridge.

Yes.

And you were asked a number of questions in respect of this advice concerning stepping down.

You were asked some specific questions in respect of this element of UDS and the focus

of the questions was that the stepping down was related to the protection of the significance

of the heritage asset, namely Batterley Bridge, and not a townscape consideration.

Do you remember those questions?

I do.

Thank you.

Now we'll come back to the UDS, but forgive me for bouncing around, but could we go please

to back to the local plan, which is CD5 .02.

And within the local plan, turn please to policy LP4,

which is using internal pagination page 295.

At least the part I'm going to ask you to look at

is on page 295 and that part is part D. So LP4 part D, proposals for tall buildings should

not exceed the appropriate height range identified for each of the tall building zones as set

out at appendix 2 to this plan. The height of buildings will be required to step down

towards the edges of the zone as indicated on the relevant tall building map unless it

be clearly demonstrated that this would not result in any adverse impact including on

the character and appearance of the local area.

Do you see that?

I do.

Now the urban design study, it's again a matter of agreement, is an evidence base and inform

the preparation of the local plan.

It's foundational to it, yeah.

Yeah, and inform therefore the preparation and the content of LP4?

Of course.

Thank you.

To what extent does what is set out in part D of LP4 indicate that the stepping down approach

at the edge of tall building zones is related only to impact on heritage assets or is it

also a townscape device?

It is both spatial character and heritage.

Thank you very much.

Good.

Can we go back to the urban design study, CD5 .16?

I'm there, yep.

Would you turn within it, please, to – give me a moment.

Internal page 237.

It's part of the text in the appendix which deals with the detail of these

zones that we discussed during the course of evidence in chief yesterday.

Let me get that.

And in my document it's internal page 237 and also PDF page 237.

Yeah, my PDF number is out on this document for some reason.

PDF I'm getting page 259.

Correct, yeah, I've just got there.

I have no idea why mine are different to everybody else's. Hopefully if we can use the internal

It's 237 and it's text that we looked at yesterday.

Do you have that?

I'm at 237.

Page 237 is a continuation of the analysis in the appendix dealing with tall building

zone B203, which as a matter of geography is on the east side of, the west side of Battersea

Bridge Road.

Yeah.

On the same theme, by way of re -examination of the points raised yesterday, can we look

on the right hand column of the text analysis?

Yes.

Could you go please to the third paragraph?

One beginning, should this zone be redeveloped

for the future, in the future, it is considered

to have capacity for a positive landmark building

up to 12 storeys, provided it is located to allow

appropriate stepping down towards Battersea Bridge

and Battersea Bridge Road, Battersea Square Conservation Area

and the West Bridge Road Conservation Area

immediately to the south.

And this is within the appendix that has more detailed analysis, doesn't it?

That's right.

You said that yesterday.

It's not controversial.

Again, what does that element of the analysis in the appendix indicate as to whether the

stepping down is a heritage device or is it also a landscape device?

It is clearly both.

Thank you.

And can we go, please, to the very front of the document?

If you go right up to the top.

The first page, sorry.

Yeah, we can look at the executive summary if you like.

Okay.

on my version is PDF page, it says page one actually,

but it's...

I think that probably can't be the case.

No, it can't be the case.

It's the third page in from the top of the document.

Yes.

This is an executive summary.

It's set out in the body of the text

in exactly the same terms,

but can we look at the first paragraph?

This urban design study has been commissioned

by Wandsworth to provide townscape character assessment

alongside other necessary evidence

to enable the council to deliver a design -led approach

to meeting its housing targets

through the emerging local plan.

Do you see?

No, actually, sorry.

Right, okay.

Find the page, it's got executive summary at the top.

So you said it was internal page?

Well, I've got it as internal page one.

But it's three pages in from the top,

certainly of the version that I've downloaded.

Three pages, page three for me, sorry, is methodology.

No.

Two pages up.

Two pages up, right.

Executive summary, I'm there.

It is my page one.

Yeah, so executive summary is the frontispiece.

And then there's a picture of the river with Montevetro.

And then the next page should have executive summary

in a heading at the band at the top.

Yeah, I'm there.

And the first paragraph on the left -hand side,

this urban design study has been commissioned by Wandsworth

to provide a townscape character assessment.

Dot, dot, dot.

Therefore, to what extent is it the case, Mr. Eley,

that the guidance in this document

is directed at a townscape character?

It's foundational to it.

I mean, it is about townscape character

and as a part of that,

a component part of that heritage assets,

which obviously goes to my evidence also,

which focuses and teases a part of the two.

And is the focus of the document state,

as it's stated to be on townscape character

an indication as to what the advice in the document is actually directed to addressing?

Of course, yeah.

Thank you.

Good.

Right, we can put that document to one side then, please.

Two points, short points arising from today.

There was a debate this morning about whether views were agreed or not.

I'm not sure where this point's going to go or how helpful it is, but can I please just

ask for your confirmation as to what your position is on this and for that purpose can

we take out your rebuttal proof core document 908.

Yes, on that.

And please, using the internal pagination, would you turn please to internal pages 16

and 17.

Yes, on that.

And I'm not going to read that in full, but paragraph 16 in the, sorry, paragraph 14 in

the table on page 16, there's a heading within the table on the left -hand side

suggestions that the views scope had been agreed with officers.

Yes, correct.

And you then provide your response to that suggestion made by the

appellants in their main evidence and your written evidence in your rebuttal

is that a number of suggestions that the scope of visuals provided within the

submitted application was agreed with the RPA, I understand they were not

agreed and is that your position as a matter of fact?

Thank you.

And then you go on to deal with the requests that were made for a view city model and how

that is based both in London plan and local plan policy.

Just to be clear Mr. Ealy, did you ask for a copy of the view city model?

I did.

Who did you ask?

Dr. Mealy.

Was it provided?

No.

Thank you.

All right.

Sorry Mr. Harris.

Can we just confirm that there was such a request but it was only in relation to one

discrete conservation area. Can the witness just please confirm that?

Yeah I can confirm that. I make that clear in my analysis so to be fair we could make

that clear.

And that was replied to and it was indicated there was no visual interlinking and as a result that wasn't needed.

So the request for further was made but only in relation to that one discrete conservation area.

And I know my learned friend wouldn't want to mislead the inquiry on that.

Well it certainly was made in relation to this.

I might have made one earlier but I'm not going to rely on that because I can't remember and I'd have to cheque.

but I know that they were made numerous times

through application stage as I make clear here

and clearly we note Historic England's frustration

potentially in their letter on this subject.

But I would confirm that Dr. Mealy did not reply

to that email that I then sent suggesting

that the views were taken.

Some of the views taken, you will look at this map

from the Three Sisters Conservation Area,

the views that Dr. Mealy provided were taken

from the middle of the Carriageway,

which I suggested was unnatural and which becomes obvious

to an experienced decision maker like yourself,

that if you were to move to the pavement,

you would ultimately see the scheme.

And I made this point and said,

we could draw this out if you were to just please share

with me the view city model, but it was not responded to.

Thank you.

The evidence is there, Marlon.

I'm not gonna get a rabbit hole on this.

Quite frankly, you've got the material,

you've got the views,

and you'll consider the matter in the round.

Right.

Finally, please, this whole debate on cumulative harm.

The point was put to you that there's nothing in the Historic England's analysis to suggest the reservoir of harm approach.

That's the way the question was put. I hope we don't need to go to it, Mr Ely, again.

But during the course of your evidence, and Keith, you referred the Inspector to Core Document 413.

I don't think we need to turn it up, which is the Historic England setting guidance,

and in particular paragraphs 2 and 4 of that.

Again, just would you remind the inquiry what the approach taken within that document is

by Historic England to the need to consider cumulative matters in the context of impact

on the setting?

That is ultimately important to consider whether past changes harm the significance of those

assets as part of making a decision on overall impact on the heritage significance of heritage

assets.

And if past development has caused harm, how is that harm taken into account in terms of

the assessment of proposed new development with similar impacts?

Sorry, so are you teasing apart there, just so I understand the question? Cumulative harm,

that's pipeline.

No, no, cumulative harm, existing, existing development that causes harm to the setting

and therefore the significance of assets,

how is that then taken into account

in accordance with historic England's guidance

in terms of the impact of proposed new development

with similar effects?

It's just simply a matter of planning judgement

and ultimately for you,

Marm, to come to a decision overall.

And do you look at the matter cumulatively

in terms of those existing ...

Correct, yes.

Thank you. Now, if the proposition is

that you effectively take existing development

that causes harm, whether it be to the setting

and therefore the significance of an asset

or to a townscape as a given,

you just treat that as being there,

and you simply look at the effect of new development,

but use that existing development

as some kind of justification for any additional harm.

Would that be sensible in terms of...

I think it would be a wrong approach, and ultimately,

I don't see how you would get to a point

where an asset would become, in essence, lost potentially

or very substantially harmed

if you just kept resetting a baseline.

Thank you very much indeed.

Now we've talked about this in the historic England guidance, is directed at impacts on

the historic environment, on the setting and the significance of heritage assets.

I'll ask you this question in chief, but in light of the questions put in cross -examination

I'm going to ask you again, to what extent do you consider there is any planning justification

for taking a different approach to the one that you take looking at heritage assets when

you're looking at the townscape impact?

I think there is no justification.

Thank you very much.

That concludes the re -examination, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. So we're now at 12 o 'clock pretty much. It seems like a good time to take the lunch break now,

unless anybody has any views to the contrary. Nope? Okay. So if we take an hour for lunch and return at one,

and then we'll be hearing from Dr. Jubb.

Can I just make a reminder about,

now Mr. Eley is not in communicado,

can I make a reminder about the map

for the evening site visit, please?

Otherwise, we're adjourned until one o 'clock.

Thank you very much.

Sorry, ma 'am.

That's an adjournment and so this is outside the inquiry.

We've got those documents that I said would be available mid -morning.

I don't know if you want to admit

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 3 Morning - Thursday 19 March 2026, 9:00am - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 3 MorningThursday, 19th March 2026 at 9:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 3 Morning
Thursday, 19th March 2026 at 9:00am