Glassmill planning appeal - Day 3 Afternoon - Thursday 19 March 2026, 2:00pm

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 3 Afternoon
Thursday, 19th March 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

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

Before we hear from Mr Walton and Dr Job,

can I just cheque whether there's any procedural

or housekeeping matters, any documents to be handed up?

Mr Harris.

Yes, there are the documents I promised this morning

and I think my lone friend is going to pass them around.

They are to sit alongside the document which you received this morning which in inverted

commas is called lease. I don't think we gave that one a number.

I think the lease document I gave the number ID 10 and this document that you've just

had handed to me will be ID 11.

Thank you, ma 'am. Nothing else from us. Okay, no other documents, thank you. Mr.

Edwards, anything? Okay. Oh, change of scene. I understand that in the adjournment there's been a

discussion and an agreement as to the Nighttime Vue document which you asked

about. Okay yes certainly happy to have a copy of that that would be ID 12

correct. Thank you very much Dr. Mealy. So could you use the microphone please Dr. Mealy.

The appellant just wanted to offer the suggestion that in taking in

Thames path between Albert Bridge and Battersea Bridge, if you could do it in that direction.

If that suits you, it may, I realise, not be the most efficient walking route, but thank

you.

So bearing in mind I've got ID12 now, there's nothing from Mr Edwards and anything from

Mr Walton.

No?

Okay.

So, Mr Walton, can I ask you please to introduce

the Battersea Society's witness, Dr. Jubb,

and his evidence.

Thank you.

Yes, I should have added thanks to Mr. Russell.

Sorry, Mr. Harris, I beg your pardon, for those documents.

Right, okay, so I'd like to introduce the witness today.

This is the only witness who will be appearing for the consortium.

So Dr. Jubb, just to go through a preliminary, do you have a copy of your proof of evidence

to hand?

You do.

Very good.

So if I can take you, Dr. Jubb, to the main proof, which I think you call Section B. You've

sort of an executive summary.

But if I can take you to the main proof,

I think on my version, it's page six,

I think it should be the same version of everybody else.

Could you just briefly, if you don't mind,

tell the inquiry who you are and what positions you have

that might be relevant to this public inquiry?

Well, my name's Michael Jubb.

I'm currently chair of the Battersea Society

and a long -standing member of its planning committee.

I'm also the chair of Wandsworth Council's

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee,

and at a London -wide level,

I'm chair of the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies

which represents well over 100 such societies

and seeks to provide intelligence to them

and gain intelligence from them for advocacy

on issues of policy, strategy, on London -wide issues

relating to planning, transport, heritage,

environmental and related matters.

But I'm here today, first of all, as a representative of thousands, literally thousands, of local

people who signed petitions, who submitted objections to the application to build a residential

Tower more than a hundred metres tall at the foot of Battersea Bridge.

They rejoiced when the council refused the application and they are

dismayed by this appeal and the need to hold this inquiry.

And one thing I should stress is that in my

experience over the past 10 years, I have never seen such anger about a planning application

and frustration that it was ever submitted. We've had many tall buildings erected in Battersea

and more widely in Wandsworth over the past decade. Many of them have aroused significant

local opposition, but the degree and the scope

of the animosity directed to this one

is completely unprecedented.

Words which are on the record used in objections

to this scheme, such as grotesque, hideous,

ghastly, ridiculous, ludicrous, horrific, outrageous, monstrous, disgusting, even obscene.

The full gamut of words that you can read in a thesaurus such as Roget's famous one,

expressing negativity and anger.

It's almost a relief when you read through the objections to come across equally damaging

words such as embarrassing, laughable, heartbreaking, or just totally wrong.

Can I say more?

Let me just say more about the reasons for that anger in a moment.

I'm sure that the appellants see such language as the protests of the uninformed, the NIMBYs, the protectors of their own privilege.

But they're wrong if they do so.

They need to ask themselves why this particular building has given rise to so much and so widespread anger.

And I can't overstress that word anger.

But I also stand here as representatives of the six organisations in the consortium.

I'm not going to name them yet again.

But these organisations themselves are not NIMBYs,

as they are often characterised.

We seek to promote sustainable, well -designed buildings

that respond positively to their surroundings.

The right building in the right place in the cliche.

But that doesn't mean pastiche or attempts to replicate what's already there.

We support, all the societies have supported buildings that are assertively modern of the 21st century.

In a recent case, the Batsy Society spoke to architects working with Frank Gehry.

on stage two of their buildings at Battersea Power Station.

We expressed reservations relating to key aspects

of the designs for the second phase

of their buildings there.

And within a few weeks, they responded to our suggestions

with what they themselves said

were significant improvements to their original design.

And this is the kind of thing that we do all the time.

Thank you very much, Dr. Jubb.

Look, I'm mindful, I'm not sure how long we gave

as a budget for examination chief.

Yes.

Oh, right, okay, I think I'm, okay.

All right.

So, can I just take you back to paragraph 19,

just a very brief comment.

Could you just say something about

your academic credentials, please?

Yes, well I have a degree from Cambridge University

in history and a PhD in economic history.

Thank you, and just for completeness,

am I correct in saying that you have a,

you say in here that you have a member

of the British Empire Middle.

Yes.

And that was for, I think, your senior civil servant.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you.

OK.

All right, can I take you, Dr. Jubb,

to paragraph 24 of your evidence?

And can I just ask you to expand upon, to a certain extent,

you might have covered it, but maybe you can reiterate

it or clarify your views on, beg your pardon, why you think the appeal proposal is not a

suitable building in this location?

Well, whenever my society, the Battersea Society, reviews an application, our starting point

is whether it complies with national London -wide

and local policies, and that's how we started here.

And as soon as we saw this proposal,

it raised a number of issues for us.

I'm not going to go through the relevant paragraphs

of the MPPF London Plan policies,

D3 I think is also highly relevant.

And of course local plan policy LP4 on tall buildings

but also other policies such as LP7

on residential buildings on small sites.

The key strategic policy, SDS1,

which identifies categories of areas

for housing development.

And on all those accounts,

we saw reasons to question,

let me put it mildly,

the proposal that was put forward,

and in the end we submitted objections

at both stage one and stage two

after the building had been,

or the proposed building had been reduced in height,

citing those policies for our objection.

Thank you, Dr. Fajab. Can I then fast forward you to paragraph 29? I ought to have said,

actually, I do beg your pardon, that obviously the witness's statement is taken as read by

parties here. So those paragraphs which you're being drawn attention to isn't in any way

to diminish the significance of the content of the other paragraphs. So if I could take

you to paragraph 29 of your proof, could you tell me something about your approach to the

evaluation or the issues raised by tall buildings and their evaluation?

Well, as has already been stated several times,

the tall buildings policy LP4 in the local plan,

those policies are based substantially on Arup's urban design study

with its maps for tall buildings, mid -rise buildings, and so on.

I don't think I need to go into that all again,

given what we were discussing this morning.

But I would like to lay stress on Arup's conclusion

that the heights of buildings in the Battersea Riverside area are at capacity,

increases in height would adversely affect the character of both north and the south banks of the river,

taller buildings would sit uncomfortably between the two bridges,

and would adversely affect views in Battersea Park.

If you removed listed from that quote,

it seems to me that the point would still remain

that that step down of the kind which is later recommended

in the report would still stand.

and whether their listed status is relevant or not.

They recommended, as we've already been through,

seven to 12 storeys in the tall building zone,

but the step down at the foot of both Battersea

and Albert Bridges to be restricted to six storeys

those recommendations were accepted as part of the local plan endorsed by inspectors.

Now, the appellant clearly doesn't agree with those recommendations,

but I have not found, I did not find before this inquiry started,

and I don't think I've really heard since any attempt to argue against those recommendations in the Arup report.

They just say that they don't agree with it, or they say implicitly they don't agree with it.

I'm still waiting to hear why Arabs are wrong.

Thank you very much Dr. Jubb.

And just briefly, we did say in the opening statement that your group,

because you're a member of the Bassey Society, that's correct, isn't it?

And the other five groups have been involved in the local plan preparation process.

So you were involved in that, is that correct?

Yes, as I said, all of the societies, organisations in our consortium, if I can call it that,

submitted objections, most of us at two stages.

First, in response to the 34 Tower building, and secondly, in response to when it was reduced

to 28 slash 29 storeys.

And I should add that I participated as chair

in a meeting of the Council's

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee

when the application was discussed at that meeting.

I stress that that is an advisory committee.

What happens to that committee's recommendations

once it goes back to officers

or to the planning applications committee

is not within our power.

So I was closely involved in discussions and other organisations were closely involved with this application.

Thank you Dr Jubb. If we can just go forward two paragraphs please to paragraph 31 of your witness statement.

You make the point there that the proposed building does not seek, I know you emphasised

the word not, does not seek to optimise, but you say it rather seeks to maximise site capacity.

And therefore, in your view, it fails to comply with London Plan Policy D3A.

Could you just tell the inquiry, please, what your understanding or your interpretation

of the words optimise and maximise are?

Well it's defined

in London Plan Policy D3

which is very clear. Optimising site capacity means

ensuring that development is of the most appropriate

form and land use for the site.

And I might add that

London Plan guidance on optimising site capacity requires public engagement in developing the design vision.

No such public engagement took place in developing the design vision.

But more than that, it seems to me they just haven't, the appellant hasn't understood

that optimised does not mean maximised.

Their argument is essentially that on any site in Battersea or anywhere else, however

small, and this is a very small site, it's less than half the size, the maximum size

of a small site as defined in the London Plan.

However small, a tower block taking up the whole footprint of the site is required.

That obviously, it seems to me, amounts to maximising rather than optimising

the development capacity of the site.

And maximising it in the way that the proposal does

seems to me to be an absurd reaction

to the requirement to optimise development.

It seems to me a development of the kind

that the planning regime is designed to prevent.

It's quite clear that this proposal had a long gestation, long before the application

was submitted.

I know nothing of what went on in pre -app discussions, but I'll demonstrate later on

that at least by late 2020, a design of almost exactly the kind that was submitted was actually in place.

And I have seen no evidence that as is required under London Plan Policy D9 C1D were alternatives

to a tall building properly explored.

Thank you very much Dr. Tipp.

Just on that issue of failure to consider alternatives

to a tall building as you see it,

what do you think might have led the developer

to opt for a tall building?

Well, I can only conclude that

it was for viability reasons

after they had reached an agreement

which is in the public domain,

to pay 45 million pounds for the site

subject to planning permission.

I don't know the full details of that agreement,

but it appears in the accounts at Companies House.

I'm maybe a bit unfair asking this question, Dr. Jubb,

but are you familiar with the concept

of benchmark land value?

Yes, I am. It's a key issue in viability assessments.

And is part of benchmark land value a consideration of compliance with development plan policy?

Yes, and the benchmark value does not equate to the price paid.

Okay, let's move on. If I can move you to Paris 46 to 48. That's under the subheading

of relationships with other tall buildings. Do you see that in your proof?

Yes.

Could you just tell the inquiry please your views on tall building clusters?

Well, this building clearly is not close to any other tall buildings. It's going to be isolated.

The claim that is made by the appellants is that it would establish a successful relationship

with tall buildings to the west on both the north and the south banks of the river.

They even try to claim that it will form a ribbon cluster.

It seems to me that drawing lines on a map or a CGI is a game that a child can play.

Such lines do not establish any kind of coherent relationship between things.

I'm afraid I'd just regard this language of relationships

with other tall buildings, successful relationships

with other tall buildings, and even more of a ribbon cluster

of tall buildings as completely bogus.

Thank you very much, Dr. Jubb.

And then going forward to 49, in progress, 49, 256,

49 to 53, if you could tell the inquiry please, your views, sorry, on marker buildings.

A substantial part of the section of the Divine and Access Statement refers to the Batsy Bridge

lacking the kind of landmark building

that would mark the bridge and celebrate its architecture.

They say that such markers are common

in their partial review of bridges in central London,

down as far as Hammersmith Bridge.

The 14 bridges they look at are all road bridges.

They don't include any of the several railway bridges.

And only five of the road bridges could be described, it seems to me, as having a distinctive

or marker building.

and none of them, none of the buildings that they cite

could be said to celebrate the architecture

of the relevant bridge in any meaningful sense.

I mean that's just pure tosh.

Indeed, none of the other entrances to Battersea

is marked by a tall building.

There's no need for one here.

Indeed, I note that Dr. Miele retreats in his provenance

proof of evidence at Paris 2 .6 from the suggestion that Battersea Bridge needs a tall building.

He argues instead a very different point.

He says the question really is whether Battersea Bridge can, and I quote, acceptably accommodate

a tall building.

I suggest, along with hundreds, probably thousands of others, that the answer is no.

And just indeed, and forgive me if I'm wrong, I think in one of the documents submitted by the appellant

that there is an implicit, if not explicit suggestion that the Shard is a marker building.

I've got the wrong end of the stick then, tell me, but is that correct?

You do understand that the Shard is a marker building for any particular bridge?

Well, it's at some distance from the landfall, if you like, of London Bridge, but I think

any suggestion that it somehow marks the footfall of,

or the landfall rather, of London Bridge would be absurd.

Thank you.

All right, if I can now go back to 38 to 39.

And this was the order you wanted to take these issues in.

We've heard a lot about over the last 24 hours or so from Mr.

Harris and the exchange with Mr. Healy about townscape and

heritage and spatial character.

Can you tell me your approach to assessing townscape and special character?

And I think you do that really sort of in section D of your proof of evidence.

Yes.

First of all, let me say that for ease of speaking,

I'm going to refer to the BHTVIA building as the Montague

Evans report.

Just easier to say if that's acceptable.

The report claims at paragraph 9 .9 that the building's design was refined to improve the

relationship with the riverfront, the neighbouring buildings to the east and to the south and

the wider townscape.

I can't see any evidence to support that claim.

I can't see any evidence about the refinement of the building to achieve those objectives.

Rather, it's clear to me that the design remained in its essentials the same as it was at least back as far as 2020.

Yes, the height was reduced somewhat, but it remained a tall and bulky tower development,

taking up the whole footprint of the existing building.

Now, so in that form it seems to me that it transgresses a host of local London Plan and MPPF and other policies.

I'm not going to go through them all, you have them in my provenience,

But just in summary, with regard to townscape and character,

what those policies require is ensuring that scale,

massing and appearance enhance and relate positively

to prevailing local distinctiveness and character.

They have to respect and enhance special and valued

features unique to the locality.

They have to reinforce local and wider, and I stress local and wider given the discussions

this morning, spatial hierarchy and avoid the creation of substantial visual interruptions.

They have to have a high level of physical integration with local surroundings.

They have to be proportionate to the local environment, designed to avoid creating an overbearing impact.

And finally, in the London Plan in particular, protect and enhance the open quality of the Thames and the Riverside public realm.

It seems to me that the proposed tower, in its height and bulk massing, meets none of

those requirements.

It transgresses all of them.

Could I just add one further point arising from the earlier discussions?

I don't accept that the existing building does substantial harm to the wider townscape.

It is not a distinguished building.

I freely admit that.

And the excrescences on the top of the building are much to be deplored.

But in and of itself, it is an undistinguished modest building that does not substantially

harm the wider townscape in any real sense in my view.

And I take that view having reviewed hundreds, literally hundreds of planning applications

over the past decade and more.

So just to summarise there, at paragraph 34,

and again we've been hearing this in cross -examination

earlier today, am I correct in thinking then

that your view is that notwithstanding whether,

and the court's been quite clear on this,

that policies A and B of D9 are not gateways

to policies C and D, or part C and D.

Am I correct in understanding, in your view,

is that putting that issue to one side,

even just applying part C of policy D9,

is that the building simply wouldn't

meet the design appearance and so on characteristics

that would join the insevery be required in order

to support granting planning permission?

No, they're not compliant. The plans are not compliant in my view.

Okay, if I can move you on, sorry, to paragraph 41.

And if you could perhaps tell the inquiry your opinion on the methodology used for the preparation of the,

what you call the Montague Evans report, the built heritage

townscape visual impact assessment. So I'm asking you your comments on the methodology that was used.

Well obviously the methodology

it follows is

published by the Landscape Institute, commonly referred to as GLVIA3

And I think it's important to make two points about that.

First, as the Institute and Dr. Miele accept,

the methodology involves judgments

and even qualified and experienced professionals can differ.

And second, the second point I'd make about methodology

is that it makes no reference,

or virtually no reference,

to assessing the impact of tall buildings

and none how the methodology might be adapted to that purpose.

So the judgments are simply judgments.

And let me quote another professional judgement

which comes from the Royal College of Art

in its objection to the application.

It says the proposed...

Can I just cut across there? Sorry, I'm not going to...

Just for clarification, can you confirm that that objection,

that's on the record, we're not introducing anything new to this inquiry,

it's a document that's... Okay, thank you.

The College of Arts objection reads,

This is the proposed tower's design lacks the quality,

materiality, and innovation expected for a development

of this prominence with the height of the proposed building

in its current form over -excessive.

It is our view that any proposal for the Glassmoor site

should at least match, if not aspire to excel,

the design quality currently established in the quarter.

It fails to incorporate any distinctive elements

that could contribute positively to

and respect the history and calibre

of the neighbouring buildings.

That's not my view, that's the view of design professionals

at the Royal College of Art.

Can I take you back, I'm not asking you to go back

in your proof but just from your memory palace,

can you, or your mind palace, can you go back

to the comment made by the planning inspector

to the local plan examination about what sort of building

might be appropriate if a tall building were to be allowed,

what the criteria might be?

The inspector said that there was no reason,

let me find my reference,

there is nothing persuasive to demonstrate that it is necessary

to allow buildings to exceed the appropriate height range

within the tall building zones as stated at criterion D

of policy LP4.

Okay, but what did that inspector say about

the basis of, if there were an exception,

how did he describe

what a proposal would have to be like, what sort of characteristic would it have to have in order to be acceptable?

Can you remember?

Well, it would have to relate to important conservation and design considerations.

And it said that the quality of many parts of the borough will be vulnerable to buildings

that are out of place with their surroundings

as a result of their height.

Let me pursue this very quickly.

Did you say anything about, you know,

if you were to give a mark out of 100

for the type of building or the type of design

that would have to be satisfied or have to be met,

did you say anything about how good the building

would have to be in order to satisfy

or be considered as an exclusion to the policy?

Well, it would have to be exceptional.

Thank you. Right, we've done that.

Can we move on to paragraph 42?

And if you could give your opinion please on the, again on the Montague Evans report,

its conclusions and assessments of townscape impact.

Well, their townscape assessments were markedly low compared to those of other bodies.

And I, of course, I'm not a professional planner. I have no professional expertise.

but I have built up experience.

And they're markedly low judgement.

I differ from very, very much.

I believe the building would do significant harm

to the townscape and the experience of residents,

visitors, users.

I hope we can avoid the barberative language of receptors.

these are people we're talking about,

of key features of the local area,

including the embankment and Chaney Walk,

and I would refer to viewpoints 10 and 12,

from Battersea, Albert and Chelsea Bridges,

I'd refer to viewpoints four and 12.

Battersea Park, 15 and 24,

I might add that it seemed to me that Viewpoint 24 was grossly misplaced.

You simply had to move 10 yards to the left to reach a very different view,

which would demonstrate harm instead of a bunch of shrubs.

Battersea Bridge Road, Viewpoints 21 and 22, Battersea Church Road 17 and 24, and many

others.

In my view, as I say, with 10 years experience and literally reviewing hundreds of planning

applications, I think they have grossly understated the harm that will be the result.

I have no doubt that Mr Harris will probably subject you to the same sort of questions

that he put to Mr Healy and remind you no doubt of the test that we dealt with this

morning which would be substantial harm and the other two elements, I beg your pardon.

but you were in the auditorium when those questions were put to Mr. Eley.

Is it your view that the harm that would be inflicted by the proposed development

would be substantial to the point of warranting refusal of planning permission?

They would weigh very negatively in the planning balance.

Thank you.

If I can move you on to paragraph 56 of your evidence.

Again, if I could have your opinion here on the findings, the conclusions, the assessments

produced in the Montagu report.

These are the built heritage.

And also, I'm just wondering if you have anything to say about the Montagu's report.

You dealt with methodology earlier on.

I forgive me if you've made this point.

But the Montague report, we've heard a lot, again,

from Mr. Harris saying that built heritage and townscape

are two quite separate issues.

You'll have heard that evidence.

Sorry, that cross -examination and the responses

this morning, Dr. Jupp.

that build heritage and townscape are two quite separate issues.

Does the Montague Evans report itself deal with them as, are there two reports, or does it make that separation clear?

No, there's one report which follows, as I've said, GLVIA 3, which provides only very general

guidance on heritage impacts as compared to the detailed guidance from Historic England

and from the GLA.

Indeed, the GLA's Heritage Planning Practise Note on heritage impact assessments

and the setting of heritage assets requires an assessment wholly separate from any townscape

assessment in order to prevent inappropriate links between the two methodologies and the

conclusions they reach.

And it seems to me that the report fails in accordance

with that guidance to consistently assess

the degree to which settings allow the significance

of an asset to be appreciated, or to address

the full range of relationships between the asset

and its surroundings, or until we got into a discussion this morning, any attention to

cumulative scenarios.

And therefore, because it doesn't follow GLA guidance, it fails to comply with London

Plan policies D9 and HC1C.

And on the issue of cumulative scenarios, again, the question was put from Mr Harris

that one must discount, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but this concept of

this reservoir of existing buildings, et cetera, that the pre -existing buildings and that they

should not be included in a townscape assessment.

Can you at least say what your understanding

is of the position on various bits of guidance

with respect to built heritage assessments?

To what extent one should or should not discount

the impact of existing buildings,

tower blocks or whatever they are?

Well, Historic England is very clear on the point that harm exists already does not mean

that you can add to the harm.

Indeed, they talk about in very clear terms about not compounding already existing harm.

Thank you very much.

Right, if I can now take you through just your opinion on the impact on certain heritage

assets, built heritage assets, because I think it's, is it fair to say that you don't necessarily

agree, I think as I said in the opening statement, not only do you agree, not necessarily agree

with the assessment provided by, in the Montague report,

but you don't agree with the conclusions

or the evaluations that were drawn from the Montague report

in all instances by Historic England,

who I think did not conduct their own assessment,

or by the local authority, and obviously they didn't

maybe for cost reasons, for resource reasons.

But, so using that as supposed as a framework

for as a starting point. Could you provide me or an inquiry please with your opinion

on the harm that might result from the proposed scheme to the St Mary's Church which I think

is near the Montevetro building?

Yes, I think St Mary's Church is a very good example. The Appellant's report, the

in terms of the buildings surrounding it.

But as the Survey of London,

which was written, the relevant volume of the Survey of London,

written after the Monte Vetro building was built,

it describes St. Mary's Church as having the best position

of any London Riverside Church,

open to distant view at a broad bend in the Thames.

In short, the survey of London describes the setting

of St. Mary's Church as the river.

And the reports claim that the church's setting

makes little to no contribution to its heritage value

is completely up the creek, it is utterly wrong.

So is the claim, I'm afraid, made by Historic England,

that the proposed building would have no impact

on the church's heritage value.

As the survey of London sets out,

the setting is the River Thames.

And this building will clearly have a harmful effect on the setting of that Grade 2 STAR listed building.

And I'm afraid even the Council's Officer's Report concludes that there will be less than substantial harm at a low level.

I cannot agree with that assessment.

At the very least, it should be raised to medium

and I would argue high, a high level of harm.

And in making that assessment, I'd like to actually remind the inquiry,

just taking back actually to the very start of your evidence,

you say I think that you taught urban history at the Oakland University so I

just throw that in because you know just to reinforce the view that this is

something which you do actually have some systematic knowledge and

understanding of is that fair point? Yes I mean I do have experience not

just restricted to the last 10 years in assessing views of heritage assets, what we would now

term heritage assets.

Yes, a list of buildings and conservation areas and so forth.

Right, thank you very much.

Can I now take you to paragraph 69 and your views on the impact that the scheme might

have on the Albert Bridge?

Here the Munchke -Urbans report acknowledges

that the bridge's setting between the embankment

and Battersea Park is a strong contributor to its heritage

value.

But then it goes on to argue that its wider setting is

is defined by the proximity of tall developments.

Vauxhall, Nine Elms to the east,

the tall buildings in Chelsea to the west.

That's nonsense, it seems to me.

Absolute nonsense.

It's hard to credit the judgments

that the building would therefore have a low impact

and only minor harm,

a minor effect on the bridge's heritage value.

And I also disagree profoundly with historic England's

judgement that any harm would be at a relatively low level.

The council officer's report points out that

the building would be seen through the

of cables that form an intrinsic part of the bridge and its heritage value, and it's difficult

to dissent from that, and also the impact that the lighting has at night.

I would argue that, again, its conclusion and the Council's conclusion, that there will

be less than a substantial harm at a middle level should be at the very least a minimum

weighting.

Thank you Dr Jove and just for completeness are you able to tell the inquiry, I'm not

sure if you do in your evidence, I beg your pardon if I've ever looked at it, what is

the listed status of the Albert Bridge?

The current status of the bridge, as most people know, is that the past few weeks it

has been closed to all but pedestrians and so on.

No, no, no, sorry.

Sorry.

I probably, it's my fault, I probably expressed the question inappropriately.

What listed rating does the bridge have?

Grade 2 staff.

And could you tell the inquiry, I know the Inspector will know and Mr Harris will know

and Miss Redwoods and others, but for people in the gallery and watching online, can you

say anything about the numbers of Grade 2 star buildings?

I haven't got the precise proportion in my...

Well, my big problem again is my clumsiness, the percentage perhaps of all listed buildings

at a Grade 2 star.

Oh, it's, I'm sorry, I can't remember,

it's well under 5%.

I can't remember the precise percentage.

Okay, would I be correct in thinking,

let's say that grade one and grade two star collectively

amount to about eight or nine percent

of all listed buildings.

I've got to be careful what I say,

not to put words in your mouth,

but is that close to reality?

That seems to me about the right figure.

And when you made the point that the when viewed from certain vantage points that the building, the proposed building would be evident through the cables I think you said,

this would be, would I be correct in thinking from the north side of the River Thames?

Yes, from the, well, and on the bridge itself,

towards the embankment side, yes.

But those, again, I don't want to put words in mouth,

but those near iconic views of the Albert Bridge,

looking either from the east or from the west of it,

but looking, in this case, from the east

and looking to the west, the building would be,

I would be correct in saying, at some vantage points,

the building would almost punctuate the middle of the bridge?

And again, just for completeness, the bridge is lit at night, is that correct?

Yes.

And so would I be correct in thinking that it is often viewed at night by tourists and

by runners and visitors to the area?

And it is much photographed.

and therefore the impact at night of the building,

of the impact of the proposed building on the bridge

would be what?

Well it would be very significant indeed.

Thank you very much.

And then finally if I can take paragraph 70,

your comments on the possible impact of the scheme

on Batsy Bridge?

I'll be very, very brief.

I mean, the appellant makes extravagant claims

that the building design has evolved in relation to the bridge itself,

that the height is approximately half the length of the bridge,

that the tower footprint equals the length of its biggest arch.

None of those features would be immediately apparent,

or would be apparent even to an expert viewer.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Dr Jubb.

Okay, very quickly, if I can take paragraph 73,

could you summarise your views on the,

just summarise your overall views on the heritage impact?

I think the heritage impacts have been very significantly understated and I would add

by the local planning authority as well as by some other parties including the appellant.

Okay. Right. If we can move on to 81 and 82. You deal there with the public consultation

undertaken by the appellant. And of course we know that there were a lot of submissions

made in favour of the scheme. And of course we heard from Mark Littlewood and others at

at the beginning of the week here who did speak in favour of it.

So we're not saying that everybody, apart from the people over there,

are against the scheme, I'm not saying that at all.

But can you comment on the public consultation that was undertaken

by the appellant in connexion with the planning application?

Yes.

The Appellant's Planning Statement claims that there was extensive dialogue with the local community

which helped to inform the evolution of the proposal.

That is pure bunkum. I can find no better word.

There is no evidence that community consultation or engagement had any influence at all.

I attended a Pre -App meeting with the appellant in 2023 when they refused to answer questions

about height and bulk.

When the nature of the proposal was revealed via the EIA scoping application at the very

end of 2023, the appellant set up a website which sought to obscure the height of the

building.

They issued leaflets which did the same, questionnaires that didn't ask anything about height, a deceptive

so -called Battersea Buzz newsletter, online advertising with a link to a standard letter

to the council, emails asking people to contact councillors to support affordable housing

on a brownfield site.

They conducted leafletting and canvassing campaigns with the same message, and at every

stage sought to obscure the bulk and height of the building.

We have never experienced a PR campaign like this in Battersea, although I'm told that

they are becoming increasingly common.

But it was a deceitful one.

Even if in some senses it was successful,

it secured hundreds of support letters,

many using the standard format,

a fair few from places very far from the neighbourhood,

together with over a thousand pro forma responses,

many of them forwarded to Wandsworth Council

by the consultancy employed for the exercise.

I just hope that we never, ever have to deal

with such a deceitful campaign again.

It was shameful, absolutely shameful,

and it made lots of people very, very angry.

Okay, Dr. Jubb, I suppose I would ask you to restrain your language in some instances

because you're still open to the rules of defamation, etc.

So you've said it now, but be careful, but that's all I would say.

But I mean, sort of tongue in cheek, one might say that this is almost something out of yes,

Minister, as you may remember the episode where the senior civil servant said to the

junior civil servant, well, just go out and carry out another public consultation exercise

and get a different result.

In our view, it was a campaign designed to achieve that result.

Okay, and almost finally, Dr. Jubb, and I apologise if I've overrun, Madam. Paragraph

87, if I can take you to there. There are obviously within this proposal, we have 54

social rent homes, which in London at the moment would be very welcome, no doubt. But

What's your view on the planning balance,

and in particular with respect to this issue

of the social housing element?

Of course it's important.

It's a really important benefit,

but let's set it in context.

As Ms. Chambers' proof of evidence shows,

Wandsworth has a more than adequate supply of sites for affordable housing and large

numbers of affordable homes under construction with several planning permissions, 500 planning

permissions.

Over 100 social rent homes, so twice as many as will be provided here, were completed last year,

less than 400 yards away on Randall Close down Butsey Bridge Road.

No registered provider has yet been identified, so far as I'm aware, and so delivery is not guaranteed,

and it will depend on grants from the Mayor's Affordable Housing Programme, presumably under the accelerated funding route.

So there's no guarantee.

And just very quickly, forward to 89, you talk about community space. Could you just say something about that please?

Yes, improvements to community space, public realm, sorry, provision of community space is a benefit, undoubtedly.

It's far from ideal community space.

It's over three floors.

And I would point out that such space is already provided

reasonably close by on the Ethelberger and Somerset estates.

I'd also point out that demand from community organisations

for such space is not high at the moment.

One local major provider of community services, not far from the site, has been advertising for tenants to make use of the space within its building for over a year now.

And when I talk to community groups around Battersea and Wandsworth, the overwhelming

priority for them is revenue funding for supporting their services, not additional space.

Thank you, Dr. Jubb. You were going to touch on public realm, then do you want to briefly

talk about public realm? I think at 91.

Here I think the weight to be given to the claimed improvements is vastly overstated.

The GLA has expressed reservations about proposals beyond the building's footprint

and insufficient additions or improvements to the public realm,

given the scope and the scale of the development.

There is no addition to space for walkers on the Thames path.

and I have to say that I find Mr. Barbaloff's talk of an amphitheatre simply ridiculous.

Thank you very much.

There's one final point you wanted to make, which I think is a slight departure from your evidence,

but I'm sure you'll be allowed to make it anyway. Do you want to make that point?

Yes, before I do so, could I just comment on the weight to be given to the affordable office space?

By all means.

Which I do at Para 78 of my proof of evidence.

My understanding from nearby residents is that the office space currently available

in the Glass Mill building was occupied until the end, towards the end of last year,

by architects from Fosters and Partners,

who were asked to leave at the end of the year

for reasons unknown to them.

But let me move to my central point.

In essence, what the appellant is trying to do

in this inquiry is to relitigate the results

of the processes leading up to the approved local plan

in 2023.

Exactly 10 years ago, in March 2016,

Wandsworth Council adopted a site -specific

allocations document as part of its then local plan.

It included an area spatial strategy for the area around Ransom's Dock, bounded by Albert

Bridge Road, Battersea Bridge Road and Parkgate Road to the south.

With regard to tall buildings, it's stated at page 194 that the area is sensitive to

tall buildings.

And the height at which your development in this location

will be considered to be tall is nine storeys

along the River Thames frontage and five storeys

on sites facing Battersea Bridge Road and Park Gate Road.

This was after the erection

of the Albion Riverside building.

The owners of the site were clearly pleased when just a couple of years later,

the Reg 18 draught of the local plan was published with a map

showing all the ransom stock areas suitable for tall buildings.

And in response, DP9 in February 2021

supported the Glass Mills inclusion as part of a tall building zone, a new

opportunity, and urged that it should be a size allocation for 150 homes.

They welcomed the then draught LP4 but went on to suggest changes to allow for

a. the taller elements of tall buildings' proposals to be located adjacent to the river frontage,

and b. for tall buildings which are not significantly set back from the Thames Pass.

And they thought further changes to policy on lots of office space, building, housing mix, mixed use, local shops and services.

In short, at that stage, and presumably much earlier in 2020,

they saw the development of the local plan as an opportunity to support precisely the kind of development we're discussing today.

Precisely the same kind of building.

So in January 2022 they must have been disappointed when the Reg 19 version of the plan, supported by the revised urban design study,

removed the site from the tall building zone and we went through the reasons for that this morning.

Saville's letter of February 2022 on behalf of the appellant expressed what seems to have been outrage,

essentially focusing on two points.

First, that the policy LP4C was incompatible with the London Plan in stating that tall buildings wouldn't be permitted

outside tall building zone and Master Brewer case handled that.

Second, that putting the site in a mid -rise zone was not justified by evidence.

They won on the first case with the support of the GLA

and I sat next to them while they were making that case.

So I was present sitting there at the EIP.

On the second point, though, they lost.

The Glass Mill site remained in a mid -dry zone.

And the inspectors report makes clear

that they considered the issue very carefully.

They said that opportunities for tall buildings would be extraordinary rather than ordinary,

there wouldn't be a free -for -all and so on.

They also said, let me remind you of the point, there is nothing persuasive to demonstrate

that it is necessary to allow buildings to exceed the appropriate high range

within the tall buildings zones. So even if it had been moved from the mid -rise

to a tall building zone, any new building will be restricted to 12

storeys. So the appellant lost the case that they presented on precisely the same

arguments that they are presenting again in this inquiry. Now of course I'm not

saying that's illegitimate, of course I'm not saying that, but let's be clear that

That is what they are doing.

They are seeking a new inquiry to overturn the results of the process that led to our

current local plan approved just three years ago, less than two and a half years ago.

So the appellant's case depends on their claim that everyone else is wrong.

The people that I and my colleagues represent, not just the local and civic, local, civic and immunity societies,

but the thousands of people who submitted objections and signed petitions.

The Council, who refused the application, as they were right to do, in my view, in accordance

with both the London Plan and the local plan.

The GLA, which declined to get involved in seeking to overturn that decision.

Arup, whose urban design study formed the basis for the plan.

the design professionals at the RCA, the two inspectors who approved the local plan in the terms I've just reminded you of.

Why are all these people wrong and the appellants right?

For the most part in their evidence, we simply get assertion rather than argument or evidence.

They essentially claim that their judgments are better than ours.

But I submit that they are wrong, not us.

Can I stop you there?

Just one point for completeness, madam.

Madam Inspector, you referred when I asked you about the public consultation.

It is just to remind the inquiry that some of the documents you refer to, like Batsy

Buzz, are included at appendix 2 of Dr. Jubb's proof of evidence.

That completes your examination, Chief, I am sure.

Mr Harris will have a number of questions for you.

Thank you.

We are now at 2 .20.

Is it a sensible point to take a quick break first, Mr Harris?

I think so, ma 'am, yes.

OK.

So if we come back at 2 .30, does that suit everybody?

Is that OK, Dr. Jubb?

OK.

So the inquiry is adjourned until 2 .30.

If you could remember, Dr. Jubb, that you're not

communicate with anybody from your party, please.

Thank you very much.

Excuse me, could you cease? Sir, could I ask you to move away from Dr Job, please?

Thank you.

The time is 2 .30 and the inquiry is resumed. In the break Mr Harris has handed up documents

for cross -examination of Dr Jubb. That is ID13. Mr Harris, over to you for cross -examination.

Thank you very much.

Dr. Jubb, I'm going to start with the animosity and anger that you spoke of at the beginning

of your examination in chief.

Clearly you are a figure that people look up to in the community, correct?

I would hope so.

You're a member of at least one of the societies whose consortium you represent.

Yes, two actually.

I would have thought probably more than one.

You're a member of the Wandsworth Council's Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee,

a post you've held for the best part of a decade.

And so when you say something about a case,

people will listen.

Okay.

I hope so.

So when you tell them that applications are absurd,

risible, deceitful, bumpkin,

they'll take your word for it?

Yes.

Yeah.

And perhaps the inspector is not therefore surprised that having listened to you and

the way in which you expressed yourself, that those that surround you and look up to you

have taken you at your word and have also taken the view that the scheme is risible,

absurd, unreasonable, irrational, ill -intentioned, deceitful.

You can find that if you look at the letters of objection.

Yes, well I'm not surprised because

they'll be listening very carefully to you and others,

for example, who've said that they will be

absolute gridlock and traffic will never move again, etc.

You see, there's a case in planning that says it is immaterial as a consideration that there

are concerns if those concerns are not A, rational and B, underpinned by evidence.

And so all I'm -

Yes, yes I am.

Right.

Okay.

And I'm just going to ask you this.

You were here, I think, when Peter Barbalof

gave his presentation on the first day.

Yes.

Right.

I'm just gonna ask you this.

Did he strike you as an unreasonable architect?

No.

Did he strike you as an irrational architect?

No.

Did he give the impression of being ill -intentioned

or having false views or judgments?

I would make a distinction between ill intentioned.

I would never accuse someone of being ill intentioned

unless I had very good evidence.

Well, I'm going to come to that because -

But I disagree with some of his judgments.

Yeah, of course.

I mean, don't you know, shall I say,

where those of us who inhabit this world

do so in good faith,

and we try to get on with each other,

and we proceed on the basis that the other parties

at the inquiry operate in good faith generally,

but in particular, unless there's very clear evidence

that they aren't.

So using words like deceitful, dishonest,

irregular, as you did in your evidence in chief,

It's strange, you know, I'm just taking a little time out to the inquiry to explain to you that that's not really how we operate

And I'm going to give you the opportunity to apologise

Particularly on the

the way in which the public consultation was done I

Will not withdraw from calling it deceitful. All right

Okay, I've given you the opportunity and we've heard what you've had to say

I just want to deal with heritage very briefly, please.

The way in which it works at inquiries such as this is

where you've got the potential for impact

on designated heritage assets.

The government puts in place Historic England

and it gives its view in terms of levels of harm.

Then those levels of harm are balanced

against public benefits, and that's the job

for the local authority in the first instance

and then the inspector.

There are often disagreements between parties

acting reasonably and rationally as to the levels of harm.

The way it tends to work is historic England

have got their own area to police and protect

and they do so efficiently and effectively.

Developers call upon professional witnesses

and they express their views professionally

and to the best of their ability.

And then there's a balance

and it's up to the inspector to decide.

I just want to explore the way in which

you characterised historic England's involvement

involvement in this case.

Let's start with St. Mary's Church, please.

You set this out in your paragraph 68,

so we don't need to go to the document,

but St. Mary's Church,

they came to the conclusion,

and on this we don't disagree,

that the proposal would be, quotes,

unlikely that the church would suffer any harm at all.

Yes, could you refer me to the document, please?

Yes, it's paragraph 68 of your own proof.

Right.

Thank you.

Now, do you remember when you were asked questions by Mr Ward about this?

You were again rather intemperate.

What do you say about that conclusion that it's unlikely that the Church would

suffer any harm as a result of this proposal? I find it almost impossible to

understand how they could come to that conclusion and let me say I have in the

in other contexts found it rather difficult to understand some of Historic

England's conclusions. Me too, but for very different reasons, but that doesn't mean

I'm rude about them, it doesn't mean that I don't take their evidence at face

value as being their honest position. They can reach a view, I don't have to

I don't agree with it.

All right, Battersea Park, no more than a likely low level.

That is their view.

I don't agree with it.

Albert Bridge, relatively low level.

I don't agree with it.

Battersea Bridge, low level.

I don't agree with it.

OK.

I've spotted the pattern.

Thank you very much.

And can I just stress that there are other building applications that I have reviewed

where I have explicitly disagreed with Historic England assessments?

Yes, I understood that and there are some that we disagree with,

but we're talking about a campus of disagreement which is in, if you like, one click.

So when they say low level for Battersea Bridge,

we are one click beneath them.

When they say low level for Albert Bridge, we're the same.

When they say likely low level for Battersea Park,

we're one click beneath them.

But you fundamentally disagree with all of those,

don't you?

Yes.

All right, thank you very much.

Next heading, please, is this issue of the re -litigation

that you spoke of, which Mr. Waters wrote,

was a complete addition to your evidence. Mr Walton. Sorry. Mr Walton. Mr Walton. I'm

really terribly sorry. Walton. Not Ward. I'm really sorry. Um. Re -litigation of the local

plan. You're very kind enough to put into your evidence reference to the

Hillingdon case and also to quote from it and I'd just like to go that there

please very quickly because we've been to the key paragraphs of this before

because it's really relevant to this issue of re -litigation or not. Sorry, which

document over here. CD 13 7 it's on the list that I handed out to your team beforehand.

Paragraph 84.

Do you have this?

No, I don't have.

I'm sorry, I thought you had it.

The witness wasn't there, which is why I gave it to you.

It's a thankfully short list, Dr Jubb.

Yes, I'm not sure I'd go to all of them.

Sorry, I would have gotten them up.

I'm sorry.

Sorry, that was the purpose of handing it out before the break.

13 .7.

Yes. The Hellingdon Master Borough and Judge.

Yes. Well, I don't think you should be taken by surprise by it because you quote from it

and you've got it as a footnote, et cetera. In paragraph 83, the judge points out that

you don't slavishly follow the development plan in all cases and points out that you

get policies which can pull in different directions. Okay?

Then in 1984, the drafter of policy D9 and the defendant, who is the maker of the plan,

must have been aware of these fundamental legal principles and therefore that it was

possible that the policy in Barrowcraft B3, which is whatever the development plan says

about tall buildings and their location, might not be followed in any particular determination

if it was outweighed by other policies in the development plan, including the C and

D policies or other policies, or by material considerations.

it seems likely that policy provision was made for such cases, given the importance of the issue.

And then, 85, we already looked at, in considering words of grant planning permission for tall building,

which did not comply with paragraph B3, because it was not identified in the development plan

as suitable for tall building, etc. It would truly be sensible and in accordance with the objectives of policy D9,

for the proposals to be assessed by reference to the potential impacts which are listed in part C.

And I add, other parts of the development plan, including the local plan.

So, considerable numbers of objectors,

no doubt listening too carefully,

have written under the apprehension,

perhaps a misapprehension,

that the matter of a tall building at this location

as a matter of a consideration of a planning application

has already been determined by inspectors

through the UDP process.

That's not right, is it?

Look, I am not a lawyer and so I am, although I have read the judgement, I

am not qualified to make any comment about any specific

aspect of it. Right, but you did deliberately make a comment about us

seeking to relitigate that potential

that flowed from the consideration

of the local plan, didn't you?

You do appreciate that there are now,

very clearly, these positions.

You can identify an area as being suitable

for tall buildings, or not.

Yes.

There can be an application for a tall building

in a tall buildings area or outside a tall buildings area.

That not only is legitimate, it's permissible

and appropriate as a result of the Hillingdon decision.

Yeah.

That's my understanding.

Right.

And my understanding too, good.

And both Coosies in the case there

are in the case here as Casey's now.

That's not a re -litigation, the planning application, is it?

it's a consideration on its merits as allowed of

by the development plan.

As I said in my statement, it is quite legitimate

to reopen.

Not even reopening, is it, with the greatest of respect.

Obviously, the inspector will want

to know whether the reasons for it not being in a tall building

are still as they were, but that doesn't stop a consideration

on its merits and it doesn't mean that it's some sort

of inappropriate relitigation, does it?

I apologise if I used the word relitigation inappropriately.

The point I was trying to make is that all the issues

relating to this proposed building

were discussed very fully.

It's just not right, is it?

With the greatest of respect,

the Inspectorate weren't told

that there was the potential for a tall building out there

that the local authority would have

no heritage objection to, were they?

That wasn't before them, was it?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

You know that the local authority in this case are not raising a heritage objection

because they take the view that all the impacts are either low or medium and that is outweighed

by the public benefits of the proposal.

You know that, don't you?

No, I don't know that.

Right.

Because my reading of the officer's report

does I have not seen the word outweigh anywhere.

OK.

So we do know.

What I have seen, and I refer to it in my proof,

is that the benefits flow to balance the harms.

That is not the same in my understanding of the English language.

That is not the same as outweigh.

Then it refers across to the policy in the NPPF and says that that policy has been met.

That requirement to ensure that public benefits outweigh harm has been met.

It says that in black and white, doesn't it?

The MPPF says, includes the word outweigh.

Yes.

I have not seen in the council's case

any use of the word outweigh, not in its written statements.

All right.

Well, you can take that up with them.

We know exactly what they mean.

And it was opened up in that way by my learned friend.

All right.

Flow to balance does not mean outweigh.

in standard English language.

All right, I've understood what you're saying there.

And we know, don't we, that through the local plan process

which you were present at, that in order to reflect

the Hillingdon decision, and it predated the consideration

by the inspector, there was a formal requirement

to create a main modification in the plan.

Yes.

Can we look at CD611, please?

Tell me when you're there, please.

I'm there.

Good.

Then you'll need to go to the non -technical summary.

I'm sure somebody in the inspector would have given

these inspectors a tough time for not having a paginated

document, but here we are.

The main modifications can be summarised as amending LP4

tall and mid -rise buildings to ensure general conformity

with the London plan.

See that?

Right?

Again, all on the basis that this is an allegation

of re -litigation.

and what they did in effect was to remove buildings outside of the tall building zone

will not be permitted, correct?

Yes.

To bring it in line with the London Plan and what the courts have said about it.

And what that does automatically is it means that those seeking a tall building, not in

tall buildings own are free to justify tall buildings on a case -by -case basis as it's

put by the council's planning witness.

Right.

And as to the prospect of that succeeding or not, can we go please to paragraph 112.

Again, this is a point you took up in your evidence in chief and we eventually go to

the extraordinary point.

Paragraph 112 where?

Same document.

Yes.

I've got it.

Right, do you see it says,

in a phrase partially quoted by Melinda Trent

in his opening,

the urban design study is a proportionate

and robust response to identifying tall building zones.

See that?

Yes.

Then it says, and as an overarching policy document,

this is how the sentence continues.

Yes, I'm reading it.

It would be unreasonable to expect

it to provide in -depth and specific details for each site

to cross the borough that is not within such zones.

Correct?

Yes.

Well, that's the application site is not in a zone, is it?

No.

And there was no detailed consideration

of the allocation that was sought for that site,

for example, because the general policy had been amended

to allow such applications to come forward

on a case -by -case basis.

Yes.

Thank you.

And as to the prospects of those succeeding or not.

of course, these inspectors didn't have the present scheme

before them, did they?

No.

They didn't know or understand the potential

for the local authority not to be raising

a heritage objection in the light of a tall building

proposal that actually came forward on a case by case basis?

They didn't know that?

No.

And we'll look again to see why it was

that the site was taken out with,

and whether Heritage had anything to do with that

on any reasonable assessment later.

Can we look please at 116?

The modification will allow a degree of flexibility,

and thus providing opportunities for tall buildings

where one can demonstrate other material considerations,

that must include the D9C points,

in support of tall buildings beyond an identified tall building zone.

However, it must be borne in mind that such opportunities,

right, opportunities is the words that's used,

not buildings, such opportunities are likely to be

extraordinary rather than ordinary, and we're not

persuaded that the borough should be made a free -for -all

in relation to tall buildings across Wandsworth. Now, let's try and understand

what that means, because your advocate was trying to

get you to say it at a number of occasions

and we eventually got there.

It's the opportunity that has to be extraordinary

rather than ordinary, isn't it?

That's what it says?

Yes.

Yeah.

And it's not extraordinary in the sense of being

right at the top of the compass of things

that might be acceptable,

it's deliberately juxtaposed with the other concept

which is ordinary.

So it's likely to be ordinary rather than ordinary

and then put in the context of not making a free for all.

Yep, that's how it's put.

Nothing there about the building have to be extraordinary

and indeed most buildings that are extraordinary

are very bad architecture.

Nothing there about that.

So what we've got is not a relitigation,

it's a perfectly proper and rational approach,

really anticipated by the inspectors,

although the inspectors are saying,

well don't expect a tall building everywhere,

this isn't a free for all, justify it on its merits,

in particular I suspect they'd say,

including having a good look at why

it wasn't in the tall building zone to start with

and whether that is still an appropriate judgement.

Do you agree?

Yes.

Good, thank you very much.

And then let's deal with 117 please,

because you quoted that and read from it directly.

Moreover, there is nothing persuasive before us

to demonstrate that it's necessary to allow buildings

to exceed the appropriate height range

within the tall building zones, as stated in criteria D.

Now this application isn't within the tall building zones,

is it?

No, it's in the mid -rise zone.

Right, but even if it were in the tall building zones,

we'd still be able, applying the position in Hillingdon,

on a case -by -case basis, to establish

that if there was no relevant harm,

heritage harm being top of the list, if you like,

if there was no relevant harm,

then in all of those circumstances a planning permission could be granted consistent with a development plan

even though we were outside of B3 or LP4 zones.

But you...

Is that right?

Let me get my thoughts together. Yeah, yeah, sorry.

And my voice.

You mentioned if there is no heritage reason.

I put that in as one of the components that you'd want to take into account.

The general proposition I put was that even if you were in or outside a tall building zone,

you could still justify on a case -by -case basis a particular proposal

having regard to the balance of policy D9 and TN4

and indeed other material considerations

including public benefits such as 50 % affordable housing,

et cetera, couldn't you?

Yes, of course.

The whole planning system since 1947 has been based

on the weighing of benefits and harms.

Yeah, it has, good.

All right.

Thank you very much for that.

That's the end of that issue.

I've got a couple of small points now, please.

In your paragraph 26D, you refer to spatial development strategy

in the CD502 of the local development plan.

And I think you make the point that the area of the site

is not identified as an appropriate area for housing.

Yes.

Can we just pick it up please?

Page 34 of that document, ma 'am, CD52.

I actually have it in hard copy.

All right, so do I.

Yes, I have it.

Good, thank you very much.

Within the following locations, it says, A1,

reflecting their strategic economic role and or

opportunities for regeneration as defined

through the bonus of the area strategies.

And then you look one line up, new homes are

allocated in the following categories.

We're in SDSA 1H, aren't we?

Wandsworth's Riverside.

So it is there, isn't it?

Yes.

Good, thank you.

Next point is circular economy and whole life carbon.

You need to pick up CD 131, please.

And you make an allegation there that the whole life carbon encircle economy...

In your proof, you make an allegation the whole life carbon encircle economy

process has not been demonstrated to be followed.

Yes, I'm in that document.

CD 131, it's called circular economy statement revision two.

This is all to do with your allegation that no evidence is considered refurbishment of

the building.

Paragraph 78.

Paragraph, so can you tell which paragraph in?

So CD 131.

Yes.

I'm addressing the point which is in paragraph 78

of your proof.

Right.

and I'd like you to go to page 21 of CD 131.

With the flow chart?

Yes, what sort of chart did you call it?

Flow chart.

Yes, appendix A decision tree.

It's a decision tree, yeah.

And this is the decision tree which appears

in the London planning guidance on whole life carbon

that sort of was the centrepiece of the Marks and Spencer

inquiry almost two years ago.

And what happens as a result of that

is that the GLA, who are very keen on this

and take a lead along with local authorities,

require an applicant to go through a very thorough process

of ensuring that it's not wasting embedded carbon,

in effect.

You'll have been aware of it in your general work, that you've told us about hundreds and thousands of planning applications, etc.

Though I would not claim to be an expert in this territory.

No, but you do claim in your proof that there's no evidence that we have considered refurbishment.

And this is why I'm putting this to you. Have you seen this document before?

I think I have read through it at some time in the past, but I didn't refer to it.

I certainly wouldn't be criticising if you hadn't seen it before. That's not the purpose of the question.

But, you see, what this document does is explain in great detail how the issue was addressed with both the local authority and the GLA

and that both the local authority and the GLA

in terms of the decision tree,

is there an existing building on the site?

Yes, we could order this one.

Is it technically feasible and viable

to retain the buildings in whole or in part?

Answer was no, and the local authority and the GLA agreed,

but still required us to look at the next question.

Is the existing building suited

to the new use and requirements?

I'm going to say now that the actual word in the LPG is slightly different from that

which is set out here, but that isn't in front of us as a core document and I'm not requiring

it to be added.

But in any event, both the local authority and the GLA came to the conclusion that the

answer to that, even though the answer before was no, would also be no, and therefore didn't

require the developer to go any further down the decision tree.

Because if you see, if you get a no to either the first

or the second, you end up with repurpose, which

is a strategy which is in place.

Now, I'm going to give the inspector a note and you

a note, so you can search it up.

CD 701, paragraphs 1065 to 1069 of the statement

to Common Ground set all this out.

Thank you very much for that.

Paragraph 87, you say that the provision

of 50 % affordable housing depends on grant.

Where do you derive that from, please?

I have not come across any application for affordable housing that hasn't included, before

it gets built, affordable housing grant in Wandsworth.

I haven't come across a single one.

Are you sure?

I haven't come across a single one.

Okay, well across London, take it from me, it's very, very regular for affordable housing

to be provided without a grant.

Money is not open -ended.

There's nothing in this case, is there, in fact the opposite, that suggests that the

on getting a grant of the type you describe in paragraph 87?

That has not been, no, you're right,

it has not been stated explicitly.

I was just drawing on my own experience in Wandsworth.

Fair enough.

Sorry, Mr. Harris, can I just interrupt?

Yes.

As I mentioned yesterday,

sometimes it's possible to hear others better

than you and the witness,

and I don't need the opinions of others when I'm trying to hear the witness's opinion, please.

Thank you.

It's not your fault at all, Mr. Harris, but I apologise for interrupting you. Please do continue.

Yeah, I'm sorry on our behalf.

All right.

You see, what we've got in the circumstances of this case, as you no doubt appreciate,

is a remarkable opportunity in townscape in other terms.

Let's put that to one side for the minute.

But in terms of a location for a home,

this would be one of the best locations for a home,

affordable or otherwise, in the whole of London, wouldn't it?

All along the riverside there are sites like this.

Well I'm not entirely sure that's right.

It's on the bridge head.

It's in the position that we know it all is.

It would have a view over the two most extensive reaches.

In any event, I don't think there's a disagreement

between this being reasonable.

This would be a phenomenal place to live

and could command values for market homes

which means that it might unusually be able to afford

more affordable housing than other areas.

And it may be that that's the position

a developer would take.

I am not privy to any viability assessment

that's been done.

I don't know if a viability assessment has been done.

Because it's not necessary.

It's not a requirement because we are so far above.

and maybe a scheme architect can talk to this later,

the scheme has been designed integrally

with the assistance and encouragement of officers

to include affordable housing of an appropriate type

and an appropriate makeup, hasn't it?

Although I note that some of the housing is single aspect, which is less than ideal.

Right, okay. I didn't notice that as being one of your issues, but there we are.

But the whole building has been built with the assistance of officers to be a proper community, hasn't it?

It may or may not.

I mean we have no evidence about how successful the building is going to operate as a community.

I have no evidence.

I don't believe you have any evidence either.

Well I think you're wrong on that but I needn't trouble you with that.

Paragraph 95 next please.

For many of us who work in this field, we've heard this many times, you say a benefit is

only a benefit if it goes beyond policy compliance.

Paragraph 95 of your document, in effect.

Sorry, I didn't hear that.

I apologise.

I read paragraph 95 of your proof as in effect

de -scaling the amount of benefit that should be given to a point which is beneficial because

because it was merely policy compliant.

Do you see the point I'm getting to?

Yeah, I've not misread it, have I?

Fortunately for those in this field,

the High Court has recently considered this,

and what it said, this case is called Fairfax,

have a look at it, perhaps I can take you to it,

is that if it's a benefit, it's a benefit.

And the fact that it meets a policy,

that's probably a benefit as well, but it doesn't mean that the benefit is any less

of a benefit. Were you aware of that?

No I was not.

No, alright, thank you very much.

I don't follow legal cases, I'm not a lawyer. I look at legal cases that are pointed out

to me by others.

Well, maybe this one needs to be pointed out to you when you're considering the hundreds

or thousands of planning applications that you look at.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you for your patience.

You're all done, Mr Harris.

That's it, thank you, ma 'am, yes.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Dr Juby, I'll be relieved to hear I don't have any questions for you.

Is there anybody who is supporting the proposal who has any questions for Dr. Jubb?

No?

Mr Walton, would you like to proceed with re -examination?

I don't have any re -examination.

Okay, thank you very much for your time Dr. Jubb. You're free to leave that seat.

You'll be pleased to hear. Thank you very much. Okay, so we're now at 3 .10. So just

wanted to cheque in with the appellant in terms of timing for making a start on

on hearing Mr. Barbalof's effort.

Yes, I think we should start and finish.

I'm taking the view that, if you like,

Mr. Barbalof had a fair crack of the whip

in his presentation.

I'm just going to ask him

some very short supplementary questions.

And having spoken to my learned friend,

we think there's a potential,

I don't know whether he still feels this,

maybe a bit tricky,

there's the potential to start and finish him.

But I certainly think we should do in chief.

Mr. Edwards?

I agree, ma 'am.

I mean, I gave a time estimate of one hour, 20 minutes.

I think, give or take, I'm about still on track for that amount

of time with cross -examination.

So I think if there is time to start cross -examination,

we may finish it.

I'm forever the optimist, but I think we can just plough on.

I would welcome a reasonable break so that we can set the

witness up and I can have a discussion with them. I've not been able to speak to

them all day so far. Okay so a break now. Yes please. Yeah so shall we go for a 15

minute break? Is that okay? So if we come back at 3 .25. Okay the inquiry is

adjourned till 3 .25. Thank you. We are adjourned but I'll distribute my notes for a list of

documents for cross -examination now if I may.

Thank you.

So the time is 3 .25 and the inquiry is resumed.

Mr Harris, would you like to introduce the Appellant's witness Mr Barbalof and his evidence?

Thank you, ma 'am.

Good. Are you still Peter Barbalof?

Yes, I am.

The first heading is Sir Terry Farrell.

And we know that Sir Terry sadly died earlier this year.

I'd like you to explain to the inspector though,

first the role of Sir Terry in Farrell's as an organisation.

Okay, where do I start?

I've been there for 27 years now.

When I started I was just finishing my college

and I mean we call it, it's like a lot of people

have been through Farrell's over all these years

and what we call it's like a Terry Farrell Academy.

People live there.

There's a lot of people who have been there,

have gone to other different places.

But he was a driving force.

He's thinking, and I mean, he was considered

by some genius, but as a maverick

or a different type of architect,

but his way of thinking was,

I've never seen something like that before,

and I kind of grew up with that, in a way.

I mean, I've been there a long time.

So it's a way of thinking, if I have to say something,

always looking at differently at the project,

and always look beyond the immediate site.

He was accused of being an urbanist more than an architect,

but I think a good architect has to be a good urbanist.

Thank you.

Can you hear very clearly, Mom,

because we're struggling on this side,

and I'm just wondering.

Is it, okay, do I need to be louder?

I can hear myself at the back, okay.

Yeah, I think that's a problem.

Like this is better?

That's better for me, yes.

Okay, okay, all right.

I'll project more, sorry.

Do you want me to repeat anything?

No, do you need that repeated, Mom?

No, I think we got more than the gist.

Okay.

That's sufficient.

And when we look at the oeuvre of work that you've presented towards the front of your

proof, and we see Sir Terry there under the introduction, which would you commend to the

inspector as being the most, or maybe two or three of the most relevant ones when considering

the issues in this case, particularly those relating to the River Thames and Sir Terry's

understanding of it?

I think definitely given location would be Chelsea Waterfront, which is 1 .7, page 11.

I would definitely also say that Charing Cross, which is page 9 and 10, are very relevant

given location, given what they do.

And as well Greenwich Peninsula, I'm sorry.

It's like it's all of them are there for a reason.

Number 12 is a master plan project

which have been involved since day one.

So it's a very important riverside setting

and how do you deal with everything effectively.

Thank you.

If you turn to page 15.

Yeah.

You see, Shaping London, which the inspector will not be

familiar with, Sir Terry Farrell's book.

I'm just trying to remind myself of what Bill Bryson

said about it.

When one thinks of London, it is difficult to think of

one person who knows it more comprehensively.

I think it says something like that on the bottom

right hand side.

How important is shaping London to the way in which

which the Farrell organisation looks at context,

shape, and the river?

It's a difficult question because I have been there so long.

It's kind of part of my DNA,

but I think the book is important because it summarised

kind of the spatial thinking about how we see

and Terrace or London, and all the patterns

which developed over years and how the city shaped.

So it's a kind of a summary of a,

I would say not a philosophy about design in London.

Good, thank you very much.

Now we know sadly Sir Terry died,

but I want you to tell the inspector about his engagement

in the big picture of this case please as a matter of fact.

I spoke to Terry when we first started looking at the project.

There was a lot of thinking already about this area,

given the Chelsea waterfront.

So, in the very early days of the project,

I discussed this with him.

We discussed ideas, what's the best way forward

and how to link the pieces.

He also was present to our first pre -app online.

I think you're probably too close now.

Too close, okay.

Good, I think I heard you say that he attended pre -app

or pre -app?

He attended the first pre -app online on Teams.

Thank you, and just characterise his general opinion

of the sort of issues that we're discussing

at this inquiry now?

I think the general opinion was that the Thames

is a very important corridor.

I mean, he writes a lot about it in

Exactly Shaping of London and also The Tangled Bank.

And similar to Chelsea Waterfront,

there is an opportunity here to kind of enhance the area.

London is, and I think he writes somewhere as well,

I've mentioned that here, London is not,

there's not bigger plan about how London develops.

It's incremental, it's based on ownership.

So I think that kind of early discussions about

how do we approach a site of that kind of importance

was very useful indeed.

Thank you very much. Now I've got to ask you this question as a result of what happened

earlier today and I'm going to deal with it really, really quickly. Have you or Farrall's

or anybody in your organisation, and I will ask Dr. Mealy the same, had any requests for

further views or visual aids either from the local authorities witnesses or from any other

members of their team?

The answer is no.

Thank you.

Have you had the opportunity to cheque with your staff

and others the veracity of that last answer

in the time available to you in the last couple of days?

Yes, we checked our email record

and everything else we had.

Thank you very much.

That's the end of that matter.

Now, Tiara Galaini, Towards the Light,

can we pick up the TVIA please?

the one that's got the numbered views on it.

And you've given your factual description of the development.

I'd just like to ask you a few more questions

which involve judgement.

Can we go to view point 11, please?

Yes, I've got that.

Thank you. Just a few words. I think you did cover this in your factual assessment, so

I'll just ask you to summarise it very briefly. But your view of the contribution in architectural

and townscape terms of the existing building to this view, bearing in mind it's part of

a non -static moving process.

I think the existing building is poor,

it's old, it's of its time,

and there have been buildings like this in London,

designed in a similar fashion architecturally,

and I think they owe its time.

And the public realm is bad, I described all that,

but you can just see, even in that view,

the scale is different.

When you say the scale is different,

can we look at the relationship between Albion Riverside

and the building to its right,

in particular the appeal site?

Sorry, on the existing view?

Yes, I'm still on the existing view.

I'll tell you when we move to the proposed.

The Albion Riverside and?

The proposal.

The existing, sorry.

Right, okay.

Well, Albion River Site is quite a wide building.

It's tall.

I think they're just of a different time.

It's a little bit like there's a new world,

21st century I would say, with Albion River Site

working very well with 18th century with the bridge

and then there is this slightly out of date

piece of architecture.

Thank you. Let's go to the proposal then please. What if any part did the scale

our relationship between Albion, Waterside, the bridge and the river play

in your thinking, Beryl's thinking, when it comes to the consideration of the

nature, shape, and height of the building

that we now propose?

I think I discussed, well I did discuss it

in my presentation.

There's a span of the river, there's the bridge

which goes across, and then there is a quite big

expanse of the Albion Riverside.

And our conjecture is that there is a counterpoint

on the point of the bridge, on that nodal point,

which completes the quarter,

which is the Ransom's Law quarter,

works in conjunction with,

they're kind of a pair in my view,

with Albion Riverside,

and they do signify the bridge in both townscape

and I would say architectural terms.

Thank you.

What do you say, if anything,

about the relationship between Albion Riverside

and the proposed tower which we see in this view?

As I said, I think they talk to each other.

I think.

Well, that's what I want you to explain.

Yeah, so they talk to each other in different ways

because one of them is horizontal,

the other one is vertical.

They are nodding to the same

horizontally of architecture,

although using different materiality

and using different type of architecture expression.

but they could be seen, in my view, as a pair,

and I think some famous architects said

when there's one building is architecture,

when there's two it becomes a townscape.

I think they start working together

and they start saying something to the place

which I don't think is there currently.

You've described it.

I'm now going to ask you a different order of question,

which is you say they're working together,

they speak together.

I want you to judge the success of that.

I know it's your architecture,

and I'll be asking others,

but I want you to explain to the inspector

whether you think this is successful,

and if so, why.

I think it's successful because

although design 20 years apart,

they do appear in my perception

that they are part of the same composition.

I did mention yesterday that there should have been,

a long time ago, a master plan for Ransom's

dog quarter, or wolf quarter,

and I think there is a completeness in my book,

in the view, because it kind of stops,

there's an endpoint which works with the

horizontal expression of Albion Riverside.

We're not taking from Albion Riverside,

we are working with Albion Riverside.

And I think there's enough sky and openness

to appreciate that, especially on the other side

of the river.

Thank you.

Could you say something, please, about the relationship

between the horizontality of the bridge,

the even more horizontal river,

and the verticality of the tower?

Well, there's three elements there which are horizontal,

which is the Albion, which is the bridge,

and which is the river.

they come together to a point which is the end of

and of the beginning of Ransom's dot quarter.

And there is a kind of a counterpoint.

It works in a different way to complete

and signify the area.

That's kind of a brief, quick description.

But there are also three curves there.

The curve of the river, the curve of the bridge,

and the curve of Albion.

And then there is a counterpoint.

I think architecture could be about counterpoints,

could be about continuity, could be about different things.

And I think in this particular location,

we were looking at a composition.

I'm going to ask Dr. Miele about impact

on heritage assets, et cetera.

But as an architect, when you look at the thing

that architects love more than anything else, the bridge,

everybody wants to be a bridge architect,

and you look at the set piece between Albany,

Wharf, Albany, Riverside, beg your pardon, and your proposal,

How do you describe to the inspector whether that relationship works, is beneficial, is harmful in townscape terms?

As somebody with your experience in the Farrell organisation, how would you ask her to pass judgement on that in those terms?

Well, I mean, I would say that it's just one view, but there's many views and we showed some kinetics yesterday as well.

and it's about experiencing a place,

the nodality of the place,

because we're all coming together with the Thames Walk path,

the bridge, and the road comes to a point,

and then they work together by very nature

where the tall element is.

It kind of does not overwhelm the bridge

because it doesn't come on top of it in any of the views.

So I think as a kind of a visual composition architectural,

I think they will be very successful.

Of course, that's who I was to judge.

Looking at the bridge and we've got the spans

and this common place that they are elegant

and stately and functional, et cetera.

In architectural terms, using your expertise, et cetera,

Is any of that elegance or stately nature

or expression of function taken away or robbed

by the proposal?

I think it's actually improved by the proposal

because you do appreciate,

these bridges are quite well designed.

I mean, we don't actually design bridges like this anymore,

I think, and they have a lot of level of detail,

but they're also very functional.

So I think what people would, hopefully,

would appreciate is that the marking of that particular

bridge would indicate the quality which it has,

it has actually.

Okay, thank you very much.

Can we next go to your proof please?

And can we go to page 60?

And we can have page 61 open at the same time

if we've got the paper version.

Which shows.

These are the views, right?

718, view from Battersea Bridge proposed.

Just bear with me, are you there, ma 'am?

Thank you.

Are you on paper or on screen?

Good, 718, view from Battersea Bridge proposed.

If you went to 719, you'd see the existing.

Now, I'd like you please to say something

in a more than descriptive sense

about the detail and depth

and articulation, which is apparent,

if you think it is, on this view.

Explain to the inspector what it is you were trying

to achieve through the detail that is shown

on this particular image.

Okay, and we've been through a lot of design on this,

especially the arches and the colonnade.

where we got to and what we're trying to do

is to have a gentle nod to the idea of a bridge

which is there.

It's not a replica of the bridge.

But in terms of the design, we went for simple,

flatter arches, which are the arches,

the bridge has flat arches.

A gentle recess in the metal because it kind of gives

a little bit of depth before you get to the glazing

which is on the ground on the first floor.

Not quite visible in this view,

but they are very prominent in the kinetic views

is the bay windows.

The idea here was to texture by elements,

if I can say that.

So you have landscape, you have the colonnades,

you have the arches, you have the glazing of the facade.

And all of them are elements which,

because they are simple by themselves

but put together in a particular way,

gives a reading which hopefully is gonna be

very interesting and nice for people walking around

with very good materials.

And then there's a next layer of detail

which is the fluting of the colonnades,

this little gentle joint at the bottom

before it hits the ground.

And then this fluting of the colonnade

turns into the fluting of the actual, the colonnade above.

And then we start the residential

which follows a very similar architecture expression.

You have the bands, but they change a little bit

because there's a recessed, slightly recessed band,

which is the lazing line, and then you have

the outside band, which is the, effectively,

the balustrading or the keeping the building together.

So, the whole idea on this particular,

you know, I think, young girl, I'm quoting people,

but he said the first four floors, you know,

it's when you walk down the street,

there's a detail, there's a quality.

There's a lot of architecture which

which shies away from detailing.

And this is trying, well this is achieving, in my view,

a very strong level of detail,

which is very simple as well.

There's very few moves there,

they're just put together differently.

Recessing the balconies,

especially on the southern portion of the building,

also helps with this kind of level of layer

and layer and layer of detail.

So it's a simple form which gets crafted

at every kind of scale.

We work a lot with scales architects,

this is kind of crafted from one to 10 ,000,

which is the long distance views,

one to 5 ,000 say, long distance views to one to one.

Thank you.

Can we look again at the relationship

with Albion Riverside, please?

What do you want to say about that?

Sorry, we're looking at the same picture?

Yes, 718.

Well, again, there is a directionality,

I described it yesterday, and the building adapts again.

So the facade which is getting at Hester Road

is more kind of straight and rectangular,

and then we have this streamlining happening

at this location, and then subliminally even,

you will see that these buildings somehow talk to each other.

They're not the same architecture, they have a different age,

they have a different sensibility,

architectural sensibility, I mean,

we are not high -tech architects, et cetera,

but they talk to each other, and I think it's important

that buildings talk to each other

without replicating each other.

Thank you.

Next please, can we go to 712?

Again, there are other places where this image appears.

712 is the view from Thames Path and Thames Plaza.

Yes, I want you to, well you're probably just about

to do it anyway, I want you to talk about the relationship

to the river, but also the relationship and the ability

to use the public area to see and appreciate the bridge.

Okay, so we, there's a few key elements here

in the actual design of the space.

The first one, which literally was day one,

is how do you actually make it work for people?

And it's people in wheelchairs, prams, bicycles,

and everything like that, because the current space

just doesn't work.

And it's not easy.

Landscape is not easy to make work for everyone,

but that's a challenge and also an opportunity,

we always say.

So what was the key design elements in moves

or how do we make it accessible?

How do we actually bring people to the water?

Because that platform, and I described this the other day,

people just don't go there.

Every time I've been there, people are trying to use the ramp

and go up quickly as you can.

So this place is like a funnel currently.

And if you actually let it go a little bit

and go to the river and then provide alternative routes,

because there's steps on the left -hand side,

there's the ramp on the other side.

And then as you do that, you provide places

where you can stop.

So this is outside the building kind of envelope

or anything like that.

And then there was a very specific desire

from our point of view is to push back

the ground first floor of the building.

And again, this is about when people walk,

they see a particular height in space.

So setting back, the building is on the ground

at first significantly set back from the existing

building line and we were looking at the glass, no?

I called it the glass wall the other day.

When you push this back, you start seeing

unexpected views, both under the colonnade,

in the spill out of the restaurant,

and inside of the restaurant.

And then you have outside public space,

which is, I called it the amphitheatre,

and it is the amphitheatre because it's stepping down.

And then you have the actual platform at the end,

which becomes a working platform as well,

because you kind of move through it and you can stop.

Have I answered your question?

I think so, yes, thank you very much.

Sorry, I can go on forever on my architectural stuff.

No, that's very helpful, thank you.

Next please, can we go to image seven in the TBIA,

which is the junction of Beaufort Street and King Street.

And you explained in your proof, and indeed in the design and access statement, that the

approaches to the bridge, the approach to the bridge especially from the north but generally,

are among the longest and straightest in the whole of London.

Do you remember that?

Correct.

Now, we know from the evidence of the council and Dr. Millet that this row of villas or

of the town mansions is about contemporaneous

with the bridge, maybe the bridge came slightly first.

Is that right?

I think the bridge is before them, definitely.

Okay, so I just want to put yourself in the mind

of the Victorian architects who look at the existing,

please, it's a straight line towards the bridge.

What do you think the Victorian architects had in mind

in terms of the way they frame the route here?

What's the townscape idea?

What's the architectural party here

that those Victorian architects with their frock coats

would have been looking at?

It's very difficult to go into the mind of somebody

200 years ago, but they, landscape and urban design here

over the years has been a lot about vistas.

there's books on that as well,

and sequential townscapes and everything like that.

So I think given that, and I'm not talking about,

I think actually even the current bridge

is probably before these buildings,

but the original bridge, which is the old bridge,

was there anyway.

So I think that what they did was they tried to lead you,

or either to or out of the bridge,

by a very simple rhythm of facade.

There's some linearity there,

although it's not as prominent everywhere.

So I think they were linking to the bridge.

Thank you.

And in terms of the way the street now reads,

I suppose irrespective of the Victorian frock coat concept,

what's the idea of having these two streets

along a very straight route?

What's the idea?

Having the streets.

Two facades facing down the same street.

You mean working together on either side?

Yeah, well, I mean, they work as a,

it's like a perspective thing.

They brought your eye into a location, to a place.

They brought your eye to a location.

Yeah, a place.

And what location is that?

Well, that would be the bridge.

And yeah.

So look at the proposal now.

Does the proposal fight against that concept

or something else?

I wouldn't say it fights.

It's a classic, again, architectural thing

to put something memorable at the end of a vista.

Again, there's many locations like that in London,

both new and old.

I think it just actually tells you where it is.

In your, I want your judgement here, please.

In your judgement, does it in any way

harm the original intention, if that's what it is?

Or does it stymie it, does it get in the way of it,

Does it detract from it or is it something else?

The original intention, if we can speculate,

was that you want to celebrate that you're

coming in and out of a bridge.

It's a major route.

It's important.

These houses are probably very expensive at the time

because they're on that road.

So if the original intention was to be kind of associated

themselves with the bridge because they're great

and it works with the road, a marker like this

would actually even make it better for them.

I would say I think visually I do not

find any problems with that.

Thank you very much.

Good.

Given the time that we spent in chief on the presentation,

I'm happy to finish there.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

One thing, can I just cheque?

The existing view or proposed view 7

that we've just been discussing, so that's

referred to in the HTVIA is the junction of Beaufort Street and King Street. Is that Beaufort

Street and Kings Road at that point?

The amount of time my daughter spends on the Kings Road, I can really confirm that is the

case.

Yes.

Okay. I'll just, just making a note for the decision, if referring to Viewpoint 7.

Sorry about that. It's definitely the Kings Road.

It happens, it's a slip.

Okay, so in terms of starting cross -examination,

are you happy to go ahead today, Mr Edwards?

I'm very happy to start and see how we go.

I think it is unlikely that we will conclude my cross -examination by five o 'clock.

But if Mr Barbalof and the Appellants Team are content to break at some point,

if we need to break the cross -examination

and continue tomorrow morning, I am content to start.

Okay. How are you, Mr. Barbeloff?

Happy to go ahead?

I'm happy to go ahead, yeah.

Okay. Over to you, Mr. Edwards.

Good afternoon, Mr. Barbeloff.

Good afternoon.

Mr. Barbeloff, when was Farrell's appointed to assist

in the formulation of a scheme

for the redevelopment of the appeal site?

Okay.

I'm not sure about the date of appointment.

I know when I started working on it.

Well, I'm not looking for a precise date.

Okay, October 2022.

October 2022.

And is that when you started to work on the project

or when the practise were first instructed?

I started working on the project because I was instructed.

And was the practise instructed before that?

No.

So both the practise and you began to work on the site following formal instructions

towards the back end of 2022.

Give or take, I'm not going to ask for precision.

Yes, yes.

And you've confirmed what was going to be my next question to you.

Were you working on the scheme from the time that the practise was first instructed?

And the answer to that is yes.

Thank you.

And were you the principal in terms of the practitioners working on the scheme at that

time?

Sorry.

Were you the principal in terms of the practitioners?

Yes, I'm a partner at the company.

And you confirmed both in your written evidence and both on Tuesday and today that Sir Terry

Farrell was at least involved to some degree at the early stages of the preparation of

the scheme?

That's correct, yes.

Thank you.

Can we deal with one point shortly, please?

In your proof of evidence, we don't need to turn it up

at this stage, Mr. Barbalov, but for the inspector's note,

at paragraph 6 .0 .6 on page 38,

we can turn it up if you want to,

but paragraph 6 .06 on page 38,

you refer to the pre -application advice

given by the London Borough of Wandsworth in 2018.

Yes, I have the page.

I'm not going to explore with you the details of that advice or its status.

I'd just like your confirmation of one or two matters of fact.

Plainly, from what you have said as to the date in which your practise was first instructed,

neither you nor your practise were involved at the time that the pre -application advice was sought or given, were you?

Which pre -application advice?

The 2018 pre -application advice.

We were not involved.

You were not involved.

And indeed, as I understand it on instructions,

the architects involved at that stage

were Field and Clegg Bradley Studios.

Were you aware of that?

Correct.

Thank you very much indeed.

So plainly, it follows from that

that you were not at the pre -application meeting,

nor would you have any particular professional knowledge

about the details of the scheme

or the discussion that took place.

Correct.

Apart from the letter, of course, which we've all read.

Yes, you've read the letter.

Yes.

And we have all read the letter.

Thank you.

I don't need to ask you any more about that.

Thank you.

Can I just deal with one point, please?

In evidence in chief, you were asked a question about the extent to which there had been requests by the council and council officers for either additional views or additional material in order to assess views and impact.

You said that you have investigated the matter.

You're not aware of the requests.

My instructions are clear that there were requests.

I'm not going to follow that up with you,

or indeed generally, because it seems to me,

as I said earlier, it's probably a rabbit hole

we don't need to go down,

because the inspector has the material before her.

These are kinetic views in which the appeal site

will be experienced, and the inspector can judge that

from the evidence and her site visits.

So far as those matters are concerned,

in terms of how the scheme would be experienced,

no doubt, Mr. Barbalove, you would accept

that it is a kinetic experience

in terms of how it would be viewed

from the surrounding townscape?

Yes.

Good.

Right, I'm not going to chase that one down any further.

Now, can we just set one or two parameters, please?

I'm not going to ask you any details about the application

of either development plan or national planning policy,

Mr. Barbeloff.

That's not your role as an expert in these questions

I'll put to others.

However, you're plainly familiar with the scheme,

and you're familiar, at least generally,

because you refer to it in your evidence,

about what the local plan says in terms

of the identification of the appeal site within a particular zone.

And you are aware of that, at least generally as to well, well.

Yes. Thank you.

The appeal site is and it is a matter of fact, and therefore

must be a matter of common ground within a mid -rise zone

identified in the 2023 local plan for this borough.

Yes. And a mid -rise zone is identified

so far as the appeal site is concerned at Appendix 2

as involving a building up to a height of six storeys or 18 metres.

You're familiar with those?

Yes.

Thank you.

Now the appeal site, appeal development, we know is ground plus 28 in terms of the tower

and that aspect or that part of the development is plainly is therefore nearly five times

higher than the range set by the local plan.

Is that a statement?

So yes.

Well yes, there was a metaphorical question mark at the end.

I'm asking for your confirmation, Mr. Wagner.

Yes.

Secondly, it therefore follows that the appeal site

or the appeal proposal, or at least the tower element

of the appeal proposal, Mr. Barbelov,

exceeds or departs from the range in terms of height

provided for the appeal site in the local plan.

Yes.

Thank you.

And to the east of the appeal site

and also to the west of the appeal site,

there are tall building zones identified in the local plan.

Yes.

And those, like the mid -rise zone

that comprises the appeal site, have an appropriate height

range provided for within the local plan.

You are familiar with that?

Yes.

And the height range for those tall building zones

involves developments between 7 and 12 storeys

and between 21 and 36 metres.

Again, are you familiar with that, Mr. Barbelov?

Thank you.

And the tower element of the appeal proposal, therefore, is almost, almost two and a half

times higher than the height range provided for for the adjoining tall building zones.

Do you agree with that proposition, Mr. Barbalow?

It's a fact, yes.

Thank you.

And therefore, it follows from your acknowledgement of those matters of fact that there can be

no doubt, and the Inspector can recall that your evidence is that the tower element of

the appeal proposal departs from the parameters set

by the local plan in terms of heights of buildings

appropriate for the appeal site?

Is this a policy question?

No, it's not a policy question.

It's a question that follows on from the sessions

of fact you've just made.

I'm going to put it to you again.

Yes.

You accept from what you've just agreed with me

that the appeal proposal,

so far as the tower element is concerned,

departs from the height parameters set by the local plan?

It's a question, right?

Yes, yes.

Thank you, good.

It is also a matter of fact and record

that the appellant was involved in the local plan

examination process and sought to secure modifications

to the local plan in respect of how the appeal site

was identified and dealt with in the local plan.

Were you aware of that, Mr. Boblov?

I was not involved, yes, yes.

Well, thank you, you've answered my next question.

and I know that others in this room were involved.

You were not involved in that process, were you?

I was not involved.

Thank you, good, well I'll reserve those questions

for others then.

Thank you.

Now, I'd just then like to move to one or two timelines.

Just to set some parameters in terms of the questions

I have for you as to the evolution of the scheme.

And the first timeline is related to the local plan

and its preparation.

Now Mr. Barbalove, you've been involved in the scheme

since October 2022, which is obviously before

before the local plan was adopted.

I appreciate that you are not the planning witness,

but I'm hoping that you and I can agree

certain matters of fact that then set the parameters

for the questions I have for you

in terms of matters of scheme evolution.

Let's try.

Thank you, right.

Point number one, the Regulation 19 consultation,

that's the draught plan submitted

to the Secretary of State for examination,

was submitted in 2022, February 2022.

Are you broadly aware of that?

Correct.

Thank you very much.

The urban design study prepared by Arup in 2021

formed part of the evidence base

supporting that submitted local plan.

I don't think that's the case

because there is a 2020 urban design study

which supported the Reg 19 and I have it.

Yeah, right, well, unless I'll be corrected.

The 2021 did not support the 2020 plan.

No, sorry, let's take this in stages.

So it's incorrect.

Hang on, let's start again.

If my dates are wrong, side dates are wrong,

Mr. Barbaroff, I will be corrected.

There is a 2020 urban design study, I have it,

which ERIC 19 works with it.

Yeah, sorry, that's what I thought.

The Regulation 19 draught of the local plan,

that is the version that was submitted for examination

to the Secretary of State, was submitted in February 2022.

Correct?

Oh, actually, I don't know.

It's a fact, I guess.

The 2021 urban design study was part of the evidence base

that was submitted in support of that Reg 19 local plan.

Now, Mr. Bolov, it is perfectly in order.

If you don't know, then just say you don't know.

Do you know that the urban design study of 2021

was submitted in support of the Regulation 19 draught

of the local plan?

I wasn't, no, no.

You don't know.

You have nonetheless read, I assume,

or had at least the opportunity to consider

the 2021 urban design study prepared by Arup.

Yes.

Yes, good, right.

That's good enough for me.

The Regulation 19, the draught local plan,

was the subject of an examination process

before two inspectors,

appointed by the Secretary of State,

and that took place in April 2022.

Again, were you aware of that, Mr. Barwaloff?

I know you weren't involved, but were you aware of it?

Yes, I would say.

Right.

And then the examination in public,

attended by representatives of the appellant,

took place in November 2022.

Again, were you aware of that?

Yes.

OK, thank you.

And then the inspectors produced their report

into the soundness of the local plan in June of 2023,

and the local plan was adopted in 2023.

Again, I assume, Mr. Barbalof, at least in general terms,

you were aware of those dates and those processes.

Correct, yes.

Good, right.

That just sets a bit of a frame for this.

Now, in terms of your client's engagement at both pre -application and subsequent to

the application being submitted, again, can we perhaps deal with some timelines, please?

And it might be useful to have your proof of evidence open at paragraph 602.

So that's core document 8 .02, paragraph 602, which using the internal pagination is at

page 38.

Page 38 of core document 8 .02.

Tell me, do you have that, Mr. Boblov?

Yes.

And I'm using both page 38 and paragraph 6 .0 .2 as a point of

reference because this is the part of your proof of evidence

where you address, at least in part, the pre -application

process.

Do you see?

Yes.

Thank you.

So in terms of the main pre -application meetings,

the first pre -application meeting was in March or April

April 2023, and that is the pre -application meeting

that you referred to in paragraph 6 .0 .2, is that right?

I don't remember the date.

Well, you've got the date April 2023.

Yes, early proposals it says, it doesn't say the pre -app,

but yes, correct.

Okay, thank you.

I agree.

And at that stage, the subject of the pre -application

discussion so far as the tower was concerned

is ground floor plus 35.

Yes.

Thank you.

There were then two subsequent pre -application meetings

with officers of the local planning authority,

and you referred to those respectively

in paragraph 6 .03 and 6 .04,

and they took place, you say, in September 2023

and in October to November 2023,

and those dates are set out in the paragraphs

that I've just drawn to your attention.

Yes.

Thank you.

In terms of what was presented to the local authority

at that stage, paragraph 603, the September pre -application

was a refined massing.

You don't suggest that the height of the tower had changed

at that stage from the pre -application meeting,

first pre -application meeting, and then at 604,

the October and November meeting you refer to

as involving a tower of height of GF plus 38.

Is that right?

That's what I've written, yes.

Thank you very much indeed, good.

So we can see what was the position there.

There was also pre -application engagement

with the Greater London Authority,

wasn't there Mr. Barbalov?

Yes.

And as a matter of record, that took place

in terms of a Teams presentation, as I understand it,

on the 22nd of March, 2023.

Again, do you recall that?

I don't have a date, but I was there.

Yeah, but broadly, around about that time.

What was the date you said?

The 22nd of March, 2023.

I don't know, yes.

That is the date that I've been instructed.

Okay, so it's probably the correct date.

And you participated in that process.

There was also a pre -application engagement

with Historic England.

Yes.

Again, I'll put the date to you.

there was a meeting where a pre -application discussion

took place with Historic England on the 31st of October,

2023, were you involved in that?

I don't have dates on me, so I don't, I can't.

Don't worry about that, Mr. Olov,

I'm not gonna hold you to anything or criticise you for that

but do you remember, as a matter of fact,

that that engagement took place?

I'm not sure I was actually there.

Okay, fair enough, well I'll ask Dr. Mealy about that.

And then there were two meetings or presentations

to the design review panel assembled by the London Borough of Wandsworth in December 2023

and February 2024.

They were two DLP sessions, yes.

The application for planning permission was made in April 2024?

Yes.

And at that stage the proposal in terms of the tower was ground plus 33?

Yes.

And then in October 2024 the application was amended to reduce the height of the tower

to ground plus 28?

Yes.

and to increase the affordable housing provision.

Correct.

Good.

So it follows from that, I think, Mr. Barbalof,

doesn't it, as a matter of fact,

that by the time that you had the second and third

pre -application meetings with the local authority

in September and November 2023,

the local plan had been adopted?

Correct.

And at the first pre -application meeting

that took place in March or April 2023,

the Regulation 19 local plan was in place

that identified the appeal site as within a mid -rise zone?

I wouldn't know whether the dates collide or not.

Fair enough, but it follows from the dates.

We know the Reg 19 local plan was in place from 2022

and the meeting took place in April 2023,

so that seems to follow Mr. Barbeloff, doesn't it?

If the dates follow, yes.

Yeah, and if my dates are correct,

when you met the PLA in March 2023,

the Reg 19 local plan was in place?

If they're correct, yes.

And then by the time you got to the DRP,

the local plan have been adopted?

If again yes, I wouldn't nail the date.

Right, good.

Thank you.

Now that sets parameters.

Again, if I'm factually wrong, I will be corrected.

I'm proceeding on that basis with your agreement.

Now, can we turn to the DRP process, please?

And I'd like you to have to hand core documents 12 .01 and 12 .02.

Just need to bear with me.

I don't have this one printed.

1201 and 1202.

Yeah, 12 .01, 12 .02.

C1.

And you will also need two other documents as well

for the purposes of these series of questions.

So tell me when you found.

I do have the London Plan extracts,

but I'm just trying to find, actually, 12.

Which zone it would be?

I've got the benefit of having them printed out,

Mr. Barbelov, but they should be in the CD12 series,

at least I hope they are.

Okay, yeah, okay, I scroll down, fine.

Sorry, I haven't used that.

Yeah, take your time.

CD12.

CD13, so I must be failed to find 12 then.

CD11.

CD12, designing the panel letter.

Yeah, yep.

It's opening.

Okay.

So if you have those two documents, would you also have to hand, please, just for the

purposes of two short questions, Mr. Elie's main proof of evidence?

I have to go forwards and backwards on documents, so on this version of the world, but let me

try.

Which is CD 9 .02.

Which one is this? The Vanille.

So you've hopefully been given a copy of Mr. Eley's main proof and you will also need the London Plan.

Do I need a specific policy or the whole plan?

You need a specific policy.

You do indeed.

London Plan, CD 5 .01.

Could I ask you to have it open at internal page 117, which comprises policy D4.

So you need four documents, CD 12 .1, CD 12 .2, CD 9 .2, Mr. Ely's evidence, and CD 5 .1.

Did you say D9 policy?

Sorry?

Did you say D9 policy?

D4.

I .e. the policy that deals with desire review panels.

The policy that deals with desire review panels, yeah.

Would it be worth having lighting on now?

It is a bit gloomy at the moment.

It is getting a little gloomy and I think we can probably withstand the heat that the lights provide.

If somebody could.

I need to open the London plan, so you have to wait.

By all means, yes, if there are hard copies available and that would save time, then I

have no objection to that at all. Rightio, Mr Barbalow, let's just do a bit

of a audit. Have you got CD 12 .01 and 12 .02? Excellent. Have you also got Mr. Ely's main

proof, CD D .2? Excellent. And have you got the London plan at D4?

I don't have yet. Right. Which one is London Plan? Oh, you have it here. CD501. London

and plan proof of evidence to these.

Right.

Good.

Right.

Two short points first, please.

As far as the design review panel process is concerned,

and we'll look at this in a little bit more detail

in a moment, you were involved in that process,

Mr. Olmulov, weren't you?

Yes.

Thank you very much indeed.

As far as the design review panel is concerned,

the composition of that panel in terms of who

with the members of it, is set out in page 86,

which is the very last page of Mr. Ely's evidence.

Would you turn to that, please?

That's the last page.

And you'll see set out in the last page

the composition of the panel,

both the names of the individuals and their professions

and the firms that they work for.

Do you see that?

So we know that the design review panel

included landscape architects and architects

and also those who are involved professionally

in heritage matters, isn't it?

That's the list.

Notably, it included an architect

from Field and Clegg Bradley Studios

who were involved in the 2018 pre -application,

coincidentally.

I would not know whether he was involved in the scheme.

I don't know whether he was or not.

I'm just saying the same practise was involved.

Anyway, you didn't express in your proof of evidence

or indeed anywhere in the evidence that you produced to this inquiry any concerns about

the composition or the competency or the adequacy in terms of professional experience of that

panel, do you?

No.

Good, thank you.

Right, you can put that document to one side.

Can we go to the London Plan, please, Policy D4?

If you have it electronically, it's on page 117.

It's 117 internal page and 132 PDF page if you're using the core document.

It is 117 and that is the internal page.

It says 117 PDF here, but which paragraph do you want me to look at?

So 117, I hope, Mr. Barbalof, is the first page of policy D4.

Do you have that?

The PDF, 117 is not that.

Tell me what PDF page it is.

I'm told it's page 132 on the PDF.

I think I found it.

Policy D4, delivering good design.

That's the one.

Correct.

OK.

It's a long policy.

Can we, a relatively long policy,

can we turn to part E of the policy, please,

which is on the internal page 118.

118.

E, you said.

E. Yeah.

Yeah.

OK.

This is the part of the policy that

deals with design review.

I don't need to trouble you too much with it,

but the format of design reviews for any development

should be agreed with the borough

and comply with the mayor's guidance on review principles,

ensuring that.

And then Mr. Barbalov, you'll see there are six numbered paragraphs.

Can we look at paragraph five, please?

That provides that schemes should show how they have considered and addressed the design

review recommendations.

Do you see that?

Correct.

Thank you very much indeed.

You're familiar with design review processes, I take it, from your professional experience,

Mr. Barbalov?

Yes.

Thank you.

And it doesn't come as any surprise to you that the London Plan provides that and you

are familiar with the requirement in policy that schemes should address the recommendations

of the review process?

Yes.

And you would accept that that policy requirement, namely to address the design review recommendations,

is a policy requirement that applies to this scheme as indeed to any other that is the

subject of design review in accordance with this policy?

Address, yes.

Thank you.

Good.

Can we then turn, please, to – you can put the London Plan away for a moment – can

would you turn please to the design review panel's advice

and we'll take it in chronological order.

So would you turn please to document 12 .01 first.

Do you have that?

Yes.

It's a letter of the 11th of January, 2024.

And just to put this in context for a moment,

if we can look together,

I hope without reading it at the first paragraph,

the letter was generated following a review panel meeting

on the 13th of December, 2023.

Yes.

And you attended that meeting?

Yes.

And we can see, we don't need to spend time on it,

but the very last page of the document sets out the attendees

both from the panel and others,

and we can see that both you attended with some colleagues,

as did Mr. of Montague Evans and others.

Yes.

And at the design review panel, you gave a presentation?

I think I did.

Yeah, well, the first paragraph seems to suggest that they were, well, says that there was

a comprehensive and clear presentation.

It may not be just me.

No doubt, no doubt.

But there was, whether it was you or others, a comprehensive and clear presentation.

And we also know that the panel were able to do a psych visit.

Yes.

Okay.

And they gave their feedback in open session, and this letter records formally that feedback,

didn't they?

Yes.

Thank you.

And can we just look, I'm sure those who are involved or interested in it will have

read this document, but can we just pick up one or two points in terms of the observations

that they make.

Can we go, please, to page, the second page, which is numbered page 208.

Sorry, 308, 208.

208, yes.

208, the second page.

If you would please pick up the text on that page in the paragraph above the subheading

in key observations, do you have that?

Paragraphs starting within this framework?

Within this framework, exactly.

Again, I'm not gonna read it,

but you can see that from the first sentence,

it explains that the proposal that was presented

to the DRP was for a 38 -storey building.

I need to read it because I need to describe it.

Yeah, of course, yeah, please, if you want to take your time.

That's all it says, yes.

Yeah, thank you.

And then we see in the key observations, same page,

below that subheading there's some text set out.

And if you pick up the text in about the, within the fifth line,

Mr. Barbalov, in the review the panel highlighted a fundamental issue

with the height proposed and the level of mitigation offered.

And whilst we think the DRP provided a variety of hopeful constructive discussions,

there were some key points.

So there was there recorded a fundamental issue with height, wasn't there?

I think it says and the level of mitigation offered.

Yes, indeed.

Fundamental issue with both height and the level of mitigation offered.

That's what it says.

Can we turn over please to page three of eight.

Three of eight.

The next page.

Can you pick up the text below the second bullet point at the top of that page,

beginning, whilst we're not against height per se.

Okay.

Whilst we're not against height per se, we're not convinced on the need for height in this

location and do not think the narrative presented is clear and robust enough.

That's what it says.

That's over, yep.

Penultimate reference I'd like your help with please.

At the bottom of that page you will see two bullet points.

The first of those has the word marker underlined at the top front.

Do you see that?

Sorry.

Same page.

Bottom of the page.

Policy.

You'll see a bullet point that says marker.

Oh yes, okay.

and we look at the text above that,

the panel is concerned that the height of the building

has not been properly considered

and in its heritage and visual impacts.

The proposal would be considered the departure

from the adopted local plan,

which has only recently been adopted,

and further testing is required to demonstrate

that there are no alternative solutions to the site

that would cause less harm.

Again, you recognise that, sorry, I'm not following the text.

Sorry, the panel is concerned.

Okay, fine.

Just read that paragraph to yourself for a moment, Mr. Boblov.

We can see there, and perhaps you'd agree, that part of the advice was that it was a departure from the adopted plan

and that there's a requirement to demonstrate there are no alternative solutions causing less harm.

And further testing.

Further testing is required, forgive me, to demonstrate there are no alternatives.

And then we see the paragraph dealing with marker.

The idea of a tall building in this location could be plausible, however we find the reasoning

for the need to mark Battersea Bridge with a tall building is limited, as other examples

cited along the river are not always tall.

There are plenty of examples in London that demonstrate that achieving legibility can

be done in a number of ways through a building of exemplar design quality, not necessarily

just through height, for example,

and therefore a stronger justification is required.

Again, part of their advice you're familiar with,

Mr. Pavlov.

Can we then go on, please, to the very end of the documents

at page seven of eight.

And you will see on that page,

a subheading moving forward.

Do you see that?

Can we look, please, together at the second paragraph

under that subheading.

So the seventh paragraph.

The second paragraph under the subheading.

At this stage, we strongly question whether a building

of such scale, height, and mass is appropriate

in this location as we fail to see

an adequate justification for it.

Whilst much more work is required on mitigating

the impact of the building through identifying

a more substantial package of public benefits,

the scheme should seek to reduce its harm

by a more careful study of visual impacts

from different building heights,

from not being visible, to be invisible,

and to understand more fully the impact

on the significance of the setting

of sensitive heritage locations

such as the Royal Hospital, for example.

You see?

So Mr. Anbarbalov, pretty emphatic advice there, isn't it?

Strongly question the scale, height,

and mass of the building.

It's suggesting ways we can work on it.

Yes, it is.

But doing it, having strongly questioned,

the scale, height and mass.

Emphatic advice, Mr. Barbalof, isn't it?

I can't say yes or no to what you're saying.

It's your words.

Well, Mr. Barbalof, like me, like many in this room,

you've probably seen quite a lot

of design review panel reports.

To say that there is, in their words,

a basis for strongly questioning height, scale and mass,

I would suggest is emphatic advice.

do you agree?

I can't agree on your words, I can't say that.

It says what it says.

Now, in accordance with the requirement of the London Plan,

essentially, you were enjoined to go away

and to consider that advice and to seek to address

their recommendations, weren't you?

That is correct.

Thank you.

And you went back to the design review panel

in February of the following year.

And that led to the advice that is set out in writing at CD 12 .2.

Can we turn to that, please?

Thank you.

Again, we can see the basis of this advice.

It was based on a presentation that took place

in February of 2024.

And there was basically another comprehensive and clear

presentation.

Their words from the first paragraph at that meeting

and feedback was given in an open session.

So it's actually the same process, Mr. Barbloff,

wasn't there?

Yes.

And again, in terms of attendees,

you were there with a colleague from Farrell's.

We can see this from the last page.

And Dr. Mealy was there too on this occasion.

You see the last page?

I see the last page, yes.

You were there with a colleague.

I was there.

Dr. Mealy was there.

Good, right.

Can we then just turn to page two of six?

And we can see if you would orientate yourself on that page, Mr. Barbalof, to the paragraph

above the subheading key observations.

The paragraph beginning the amended proposal.

And again, without reading that in full, the amended proposal as described in that paragraph

was or included a tower to the north of ground plus 33.

Do you see?

So effectively it was a five storey reduction

from the scheme that was submitted for consideration

by the DRP at the end of the previous year.

Among other changes.

Fair point.

I'm focusing on the tower for obvious reasons,

Mr. Barbanoff, but yes, there may well have been,

there were other changes.

It's one project, right?

But the tower had been reduced by five storeys.

That is correct, isn't it, Mr. Barbanoff?

The height was reduced.

Yes, you?

Among other things.

And if we can look, please, again,

and we'll deal with this briefly because others

no doubt will have read it already.

Key observations on the same page, benefits, harm.

Do you see that, benefits stroke harm?

Yes.

Can we pick the text up please?

Actually we'd better pick it up

at the end of the second line.

We're conscious of the tight time scales

the team is working to and are aware of the complexities

of the development of such scale and impact in this context

as well as the difficulties of meeting economic challenges

with the council's expectations for the site.

And then this, but we feel that many of the fundamental

issues we raised in the first review have not been addressed specifically around this

height.

We would expect the building of this scale to achieve a level of mitigation which is

proportionate to its impact on the context of the area.

Unfortunately we are not convinced by the public benefits offered as mitigation are

sufficient and we still feel it seems over development on this tight and constrained

plot.

Do you see that?

I've read the sentence, yes.

So it seems to follow from that that, and they say in terms,

that the fundamental concerns that they raised previously,

including as we've seen, the justification for the height,

had not been addressed by this further submission, had they?

No.

No, I don't agree with your statement.

Sorry?

I don't agree with your statement.

All right, well where did I go wrong?

Because it says that the mitigation is the proportion

to the impact, that's the key statement.

Well what it says is we feel that many of the fundamental

issues we raised in the first review have not been addressed specifically around height.

My reading of this paragraph, it says mitigation, which is not proportionate to impact. So I

don't agree with your statement.

We'll go on in the document and see who's right about this, Mr. Barveloff. But when

a statement very clearly is included in a response of this nacre, we feel the fundamental

issues we raised in the first review have not been addressed specifically around height.

I would suggest to you that that is making it absolutely clear that those fundamental

issues that we've just explored set out in document CD 1201 had not been addressed. That

is what they are saying, isn't it, Mr. Barbalov?

I don't read it that way.

Well, that's a very peculiar way of reading it, but there we are. Can we then go on to

page three of six, please?

Page three, six.

Three of six, the next page of the document. And you will see a subheading, height and

views. Do you see that subheading?

I see heritage and views.

Sorry, forgive me. Yes, heritage and views, forgive me.

And you will see a bullet point headed height underlined.

Do you see that?

I can read it. I can see it, yes.

Whilst reducing the height of the tower is positive,

the justification for the 33 storeys proposed contrary to zoning

is still not convincing.

We acknowledge how the height is now reduced by 15 .5 metres,

bringing the building to ground floor plus 33 storeys,

but we remain unclear as to the narrative

and the reasoning behind the five -storey reduction.

The reduction appears to be arbitrary and not backed

by a clear rationale or justified by its relationship

to other nearby buildings.

Now, we, you can argue, Mr. Bobeloff, by reference

to the previous paragraph that I took you to

that maybe that's all about mitigation.

I don't agree.

You say that.

But the paragraph that I've just taken you to on page three

of six is clear beyond per adventure.

Absence of a clear justification and the reduction

from 38 to 33 is arbitrary and unexplained.

That was the advice that you were given, Mr. Barwa.

Sorry, I can't read justification.

I can read the word justification there.

We acknowledge that the height is now reduced by 15 storeys.

Yes.

The building to ground floor, we remain unclear

as to the narrative and reasoning behind the

a five storey reduction.

That's what it says.

They're unclear about why we did it.

Yeah, they're unclear about why you did it,

and they go on to say that the reduction is arbitrary

and not backed by a clear rationale

or justified by a relation to our defence.

We didn't explain ourselves well, yes.

There we are.

Okay, and then can we go to the conclusion

in this paragraph, this document, please,

which is page five of six.

Sorry, five, moving forward again, yes?

We're going towards the back of the document,

And so go on towards the end,

and you will see a page number five of six.

Moving forward, do you see that subheading?

Yes.

Can we look, please, at the first paragraph

and the first and second sentence of that paragraph?

The panel welcomes the many refinements to the scheme,

and particularly the reduction in height of the tower,

though this has concomitant implications on design.

However, we feel the proposals for a tower in this location

still have not been justified,

and a far stronger narrative about height

and impact on significance of the many

and varied heritage assets is required.

You see that?

Yes.

So, same point as back in December and the January letter.

Sorry, I'm not sure the same point.

Just no adequate justification for the height.

It does not say that.

Mr. Babalov, we can all read it.

The proposed - Stronger narrative, it suggests.

Forgive me, Mr. Babalov.

We feel the proposals for a tower in this location have still not been justified

That is what it says and that is the same as the advice that you were given back in December, wasn't it?

The advice was that

It's not been justified and we need a stronger narrative about height and the impact that has on the significance of the many and varied

heritage assets as required. Yes, that's the advice. That's the advice and that is I suggest you mr

Mr. Barbalof, precisely the same advice

that you were given back in December, wasn't it?

I need to compare.

Can we just go on, Mr. Barbalof, please?

The next paragraph, we acknowledge the tight timescale,

but despite progress on many details,

more work is required on finessing

the architectural detail of the tower,

particularly the crown and ground floor.

The latter will need to work for all of the proposed uses

in a way that the internal and external spaces

are working together in a harmonious and inclusive way

that instils a high -quality environment.

but we would recommend you revisit previous comments

and address these in design of the apartments,

including single aspect units, et cetera.

And then the next paragraph,

in light of our comments and the need to address

the outstanding issues,

we suggest that the team need to be given further time

to fully address all matters raised

in order to produce the high quality development

that the council and the site demands.

Do you see that advice, Mr. Bobloff?

Yes, thank you.

What did you then do?

Did you go back to the DRP?

Can I explain what we did with the advice?

Can you ask my question first, please?

Sorry, what's the question?

Did you then go back to the DRP with a revised scheme

or with the narrative that they were requesting?

We only had two DRP sessions.

The answer is no.

No, thank you.

Good, thank you.

Right, what you did do, Mr. Barbalov,

is to submit a planning application in April 2023

for a development that included a tower

with Brown Floor plus 33, didn't you?

Yes.

Which is precisely the form of development

that the DRP expressed their reservations about

in their second letter, and which they said

had not been properly justified.

That is what you did.

That's what, sorry.

Thank you very much indeed.

Yes.

And you did not, in those circumstances,

go back and address the concerns of the DRP,

certainly in the form of any modification or refinement

of the scheme to address those concerns,

at least so far as height is concerned.

This is not correct.

Because we, can I refer to one of my documents,

because it's fundamental.

By all means, if you think that would be helpful,

please refer to whatever document you wish to.

Yes, part of the application, and it's a document.

CD 802, which is the design, no, DAS CD 107.

CD 107, is that the design?

That's the design statement as submitted.

This is the October design and access.

Right.

Page 23.

24.

Yeah.

25.

Yeah.

We are asked by the local plan to address and we have addressed their concerns in my

design.

We can go through it in detail if you want.

Well, I thought you might go there.

Well, I don't want to leave five pages to everybody.

I'm saying the documents are there, anybody can look at what we did and why we did it.

Mr. Barbalof, I've read, as you would expect, with SunCare, what is set out on pages 23

to 25 of Core Document 1 .07 that purport to be, in tabular form, an identification of

the DRP key feedback and the design team's response.

What I struggled with looking at those paragraphs and indeed looking at the design and access statement generally

is where you provided the clear justification in response to the DRP's guidance for the 38 or 33 storeys.

And do I look at these paragraphs to find that?

No, you see we have addressed their concerns.

The DRP has advisory role as far as I understand.

So this is where you address their concerns, is it?

In the design overall, in and around. The design was

significantly changed between the second DRP

and the submission. Well, I'm sorry, I interrupted you, I wasn't intending to. Please

carry on Mr. Boboff. So we changed the design quite significantly in the process and

And this is a summary of how we have addressed points.

Right, so let's take this in stages,

because I will need to make submissions

to the Inspector in Due course on this matter, Mr. Barbalov.

Your response, your response, the design team's response

to the DRP advice given in December and February,

I think it was, December and March,

December 2023 and March 2024 is set out

on the three paragraphs that we see,

pages that we see between 23 and 25 of the design and access

data.

Is that correct?

This is a response, not an answer.

Thank you.

It's a response.

All right.

So I will.

OK, it's a response.

And in terms of changing the scheme,

when you submitted the planning application for the scheme

in April 2024, the scheme was, in terms of the tower element,

ground plus 33, wasn't it?

And that was precisely the height of development that the DRP expressed their concerns about,

wasn't it?

As a matter of fact.

If you say, yeah, I can cheque that, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Good, right.

We'll come back to that in a moment.

Now, while we're on the design and access statement, please, just help me with this.

Where in the design and access statement, first of all, do you consider the urban design

study prepared by Arup that had been in the public domain from 2021?

We have considered the UDS in our design of the scheme.

Where is it in the design and access statement?

Because let me help you Mr. Barbalov, because I and those sitting behind me made a thorough

cheque of the design and access statement both in its original purpose and in its...

And it's not mentioned.

I know.

It's not mentioned.

I know.

Thank you.

Where in the design and access statement, either as originally submitted or as revised

in October 2024. Do I see any schematics, any drawings, or any design of a form of development

that conforms with the height parameters set out in the then adopted local plan and behind

it the UDS? Where do I see any design of a building or a mock -up of a building that conforms

to the parameters of the flag for a mid -rise zone.

Can I come back to that?

Please, yeah.

29, I think.

So it would be nice to design an access statement.

It's page 30.

Page 30, all right.

Page 30.

Three zero.

Page 30.

Three zero.

Yeah, three zero.

Okay, well I've got that as existing building capacity.

Yes, and there's a study there which we didn't take further for the reasons outlined earlier,

which is within the building height of the zone, the height zone.

Yeah, but this is dealing with capacity matters.

I'm talking about height matters.

Where is there any assessment of the impact in townscape or heritage terms of a building

that's informed?

And that's what I'm saying.

we tested the capacity which is within the mid zone,

which is shown there, and this is what we can get.

So this is what we did.

But this is dealing with the existing buildings, isn't it?

No.

On the right hand side, it's a conversion,

it's a new effectively building with a deck axis

and two stairs, which fits within the existing height.

Because it would not give enough numbers,

and as discussed earlier in the circular statement,

this was not explored further.

Let me cuddle up with you, Mr. Barbeloff,

for a moment, please.

So, sorry to interrupt, but, so are you effectively saying

because the existing building is approximately six storeys,

which is the mid -rise zone figure of six storeys,

or 18 metres, the fact that you called it

existing building capacity, you're also looking at

retrofitting it, changing it, and reusing it for?

Correct, and this was explained pre -apps, et cetera,

because if you look at the right column,

there's actually a deck access proposed,

which the current building doesn't have.

I've done this in other projects.

You keep the floor, the kind of the levels,

the concrete levels, and then you put a deck access,

but the height was the height which is given

by the local plan, giving you 30 new homes.

So it was dropped as an unfeasible scenario.

So what you're doing there is you're looking

at the existing building and you're looking

at opportunities of retrofitting the existing building.

No, what we did here as I just explained,

if you look at the plan in the middle,

it's a deck access building which keeps the existing

floor levels, the concrete floors,

puts a nice little deck access at the back,

pretty much like the building on Hester Road.

And we hit a hide zone, which is a mid -derized zone,

and that gives us 30 units.

And that's why we dropped it.

So it's basically, because it delivers 30 units,

that's why you dropped the scheme effectively.

This is a third, it's a non,

there's no reason to develop a plan like that.

So that's why we didn't test it further

in any shape or form.

Right, so there's nowhere in this document,

Mr. Barbaloff, and I think I'm right in this,

where you have tested a scheme that involved

demolition of the existing building

and the redevelopment of the site to a parameter

that meets the identification of mid -rise heights

and zones, save for the paragraph that Pagely

are drawing the inspector's attention to.

We put it there, and as we discussed this earlier,

if you get kind of the second hit, it doesn't work.

You don't develop it further.

So we did this study, which I have in my office

more detail on this, which explains if you take the height,

which is the existing building,

whether you keep the existing floor plans,

when you don't keep the existing floor plans,

whatever you do, the height gives you a number.

And because at that point it's not feasible,

as discussed earlier, we did not pursue it.

Right, I understand your point.

So the answer to my question is beyond

what's set out in that paragraph, which is looking at what the capacity of a building would be at

a height that would be equivalent to the mid -rise zone,

there was no further testing in terms of

townscape impact of a development that conformed with the parameters in the local plan.

And as discussed earlier, we did not do it because there's a clear guidance when you do that.

What clear guidance are you referring to?

We were discussing about circular economy earlier.

Thank you. I understand the process. I'll make submissions on that in due course.

Now, beyond that, what you set out in the design and access statement very clearly,

both in its original form and its revised form, Mr. Barbalof, is effectively the series

of concepts that were prepared in the evolution of the scheme.

And you do that in a number of places in the design and access statement, don't you?

There's lots of concepts, yes.

And if we just take a point of reference, can we go to page 39, please?

Sorry.

Okay, now just pause for a moment.

Can we go to your proof rather than the design and access statement for present purposes?

Go back to your proof, please, and turn within it to figure 1 .72, which is on page 39.

So your proof is on page 39.

Yes, and you'll see on page 39 this figure 1 .72 and 1 .73. Do you see those?

The black and white drawings at the bottom, yes.

Yeah, so there's a coloured one at the top, black and white one at the bottom.

Figure 1 .72 sketch diagram showing early massing studies of the proposal. You see?

Yes.

And then the lower one is sketch diagrams showing

the proportions studies of the proposal.

Now when I look at these sketches,

and indeed various other figures and sketches

at various stages of the evolution of the scheme

that are set out in your proof of evidence,

they all, all involve a tower element, don't they?

No.

Well, there is a sketch just above this sketch

which is not a tower element.

There is also a whole sketchbook

which is part of the planning application

which shows completely a lot of explorations we've done.

So not all diagrams and sceptical concepts show a tower.

Right, well let's take it and say,

let's take your proof of evidence first.

Yes.

We can see in your proof of evidence, figure 7 .12,

which is sketch diagrams showing early massing studies

of the proposals.

Can we agree that all of those early massing studies

of the proposals show a tower element

as part of the development?

once we've settled on that form.

This is the development of that iteration of the design.

So what stage are we talking about

that these sketches were produced then?

Which ones?

Sorry?

These ones or which ones?

Yes, well these are, you say they are showing

early massing studies.

Yes, early, after we settled on a concept.

Let me explain.

So we do a lot of studies which are different things

and they're in my sketchbook and I can show you,

I showed some of them the other day.

Some of them involved keep the height,

Some of them involve different iterations.

But once you settle on a concept,

it's still early massing of that concept

because we settled on that concept.

Can you answer my question?

At what time were these concepts,

we've just looked at at page 7 .7, 1 .72,

what date in the evolution of the scheme were these from?

Effectively, our first, well, I think it's the first,

second pre -op or third project, our first pre -op.

This is when we settled the concept of a tower.

So it's anywhere between October when I started and March.

Okay, so that's before you went to pre -app,

you'd settled on a proposal for a tower element.

We settled on what we believed

was the right response to the site.

And subsequent to, therefore,

settling on that proposal for a tower,

you had the pre -apps with the local authority.

Correct.

You had the pre -app with the GLA.

Correct.

You had the pre -app with Historic England,

or at least we think you had a pre -app

with Historic England.

and you have the design review panel.

All of whom, all of whom raised issues

about the acceptability of a tall building in this location.

Didn't they, Mr. Barbalov?

They did not say that.

They said we need more justification.

Well, the inspectors got the documents and read them.

But by that time, you're saying that you had settled

on a concept that involved a tower

and you stuck with that concept

all the way through the process

to the position we're in now, didn't you?

I didn't stuck to it, we designed it.

Well, the development all the way through

has included of either 38 storeys or 33 storeys

or 28 storeys, or ground plus 28 storeys, a tower element.

Once we settled on the initial concept, yes.

Yes, and therefore, notwithstanding the advice

that you got both from the local planning authority,

from other statutory consultees,

and from the design review panel,

you stuck to that concept without variation.

I'm not sure what advice from the planning authority I got.

Well, you got pre -application advice,

and the pre -application advice clearly was raising concerns

about the height of the building.

I'm not aware of this.

Well, that is the position as a matter of fact.

There is no written record of the pre -application advice

because the fee wasn't paid,

but my instruction very clearly was that the council -

This is not my recollection.

I've been to all of them.

It was never said.

Let me give you a free hit on that.

I don't accept that as a matter of fact for a moment,

Mr. Barbalof.

Leave the council out of it.

You've got the DRP, you've got Historic England,

you've got the GLA all saying that they have concerns

about the justification for a height,

but you had settled on a particular approach

to the development and you stuck with it notwithstanding.

I was told they have a concern with the justification

and the balance and everything else,

so we need to work really harder

and sharper pencils to make the best building,

to get the best offer, kind of public benefits,

and to manage all that.

So the question, especially from the GLA,

because I was at that GLA presentation as well,

and also it's not appropriate,

everybody said we need to work harder,

and that's what we did really hard on this

to get it to a point where we are.

And we ended up in a position, Dr. Mealy,

at this inquiry whereby following the submission

of the planning application and the formal statutory consultation both of the GLA and

Historic England.

The GLA expressed their concerns about the height of the building, so did Historic England,

didn't they?

That's where we ended up.

I'm not sure the second GLA report says that.

Well, we could look at it later on or tomorrow as we need to.

But the position then is that there was in the evolution of the scheme, you say, settling

on a tower element of the proposal that was in an earlier stage of the process before

you went through the consultation, the DRP process, and you essentially stuck to that,

notwithstanding the advice that you were given.

I did not use the word stuck.

I used the word stuck.

You did stick to it, notwithstanding the advice you were given, Mr. Pavlov.

We showed our design development to everyone.

Thank you.

Right.

Before we move on, we'll probably finish for the day, can we just have a look at some of

your sketches then please so I can understand

what they show and what the inspector can draw from them.

Now in your proof of evidence at appendix one,

give me a moment, yes appendix one that begins on page 84.

I'm using the internal pagination.

Okay.

Do you have that?

I did.

Section 11, it's headed design development.

11 .0 .1, the following three pages illustrate

the design evolution through a series of early 3D sketch

studies and plan explorations.

These diagrams capture the formative stages

of the project demonstrating how initial massing

concepts, spatial arrangements, and site responses

were tested and refined.

Do you see?

I've written that, yes.

And is this an element of your sketchbook?

that we see here.

This is, I presented it the other day.

Yeah, exactly.

And is it an element of your sketchbook?

Yes, and it's part of the DAS.

And is this showing the evolution of the scheme

from the very beginning or from a particular point in time?

It's also selection of sketches through the design process.

From the beginning?

I don't know whether it's the beginning or not.

It's, we keep sketches and we put them together.

It wasn't a trick or difficult question, Mr. Bolov.

I just want to put this in a degree of confidence.

Yes, from early days of the scheme.

In early days of the scheme, right.

Now I've kind of looked at as best I can these sketches

and they all, I suggest to you Mr. Barbalov,

do demonstrate an approach that involves a tower

or a tall building as a component to the development.

Certainly those that show the building

in any kind of elevational treatment.

If you look at the same page, to the right,

the sketch in the middle is your maximum parameter.

Can you just, which one is that please?

Well there's black and white, then you go down,

then you go down.

Yeah, well those three on the right seem to,

and we can look at this in detail,

but these seem to show all tall buildings as far as I know.

The one which is cut, this is a seven storey building.

The one which is, there's a tower.

I can't be more clear than that.

Well, Mr. Marbloff, the inspector can look at this for us.

I'm not gonna take up a huge amount of time

on this at the moment, but it's the position this,

that these sketches, I would suggest to you by and large,

show a tall building as a response to the site.

But from the answer you gave earlier, from a relatively early stage in the process, you

had decided that this development should include a tool building and that is then the way that

the scheme evolved.

And the advice that you took and the requirements for justifications that were expressed as

part of that advice all followed from a firm decision that was made to include a tool building

as part of the proposal.

So, was that a question?

Yes, it was.

So, what is the actual question?

The question is, the position was that from an early stage in the scheme evolution, you

you had decided that a tall building should be included,

a tower should be included within the proposed development,

and you stuck with that throughout the process?

I did not decide that.

I'm not a decision like that.

It's we, there's a team, there's a group.

It's not like I said, there's gonna be a tower there,

and the tower happened, but we designed the tower

because this is the right approach to decide.

Okay, and then.

After exploring other opportunities.

You stuck with that notwithstanding the advice that you got?

None of the advice suggested otherwise.

I've heard from anyone.

The inspector can read the advice for herself and respect those matters.

Right.

Can we then just carry on a little bit just to complete this exercise?

As far as the pre -application advice that you sought from the local authority, there

were three main pre -application meetings, Mr. Barbalov, we've looked at them together.

The first of those was in March and April 2023,

the second was in September,

and the third was in October, all of 2023.

I do not have the documents in front of me,

so I can take your word.

Those are the dates that you set out in your proof.

As part of that pre -application advice,

the scheme that you presented to the local planning authority

was ground plus 35 and then increased to ground plus 38.

Correct?

Yes.

So at no point when you were discussing matters

with the local planning authority,

did you present to the local planning authority

a scheme that conformed to the parameters

that were set in the local plan, do you?

We presented the study I mentioned earlier.

And that was it?

Because it was not viable.

Well, we'll see if there's any viability evidence

before the inspector on that respect.

But there was nothing at all in terms of any schematics

or anything of that nature that tested

from a townscape perspective or a heritage perspective,

a development that conformed to the local plan parameters,

was there?

Because it's the base condition.

Thank you.

And likewise, as you say, in the design and access statement,

you don't present any diagrammatic evidence

or any other assessment of what in townscape

and heritage terms would be the impact of a development

that conformed to the local plan parameters, do you?

Heritage is not part of my speciality.

But nowhere in the design and access statement, as we've examined,

beyond the page that you took the Inspector to a short while ago,

that looked at the existing building and the effect in terms of capacity

of any conversion of that building, do you carry out any townscape

or heritage -based assessment as to what the effect of a building

would be in this location that conform

to the development plan parameters?

So the answer is yes if I agree with you or?

I'm asking you, is there anywhere beyond the page

you took the inspector to that sets out that analysis?

So no, we didn't, but because the existing building

is the capacity of the meteorite zone.

So there was no point.

Right, let's take a stop for a moment.

Mum, I haven't finished, I've got a little bit to go.

If we go to break now is convenient time.

Probably around about half an hour to go.

In terms of continuing, are you okay to continue?

Oh, I'm certainly okay to continue.

You're fine.

Mr. Barbalof, how do you feel about continuing?

Would you prefer to...

I'm fine.

If it's half an hour, it's half an hour, so it's good.

Any other views, Mr. Harris?

I'm happy.

Mr. Barbalof's happy.

Okay.

Anybody else content, Mr. Walton?

Larry.

Thank you.

Good.

Right.

Do carry on.

On we go then, Mr. Barbalof.

Right.

In terms of the GLA position, you've confirmed that there was a pre -application meeting with the GLA that took place in March of 2023.

I think you said you were involved in that, weren't you?

I was there, yes.

Yeah, okay. And the scheme before the GLA at that stage was a scheme that was, or proposal, between 26 and 37 storeys, I think, wasn't it?

I can't remember the numbers.

But are we talking a roundabout?

We're talking about 30 storeys, give or take.

30 storeys plus, thank you.

And the engagement with the GLA, there was a,

was it held on Teams or was it?

Sorry, no it was in person.

It was in person.

You were there with one of your colleagues

and also Dr. Mealy was there as well, I think, wasn't he?

Yes, I think so, he was there.

Thank you.

The GLA pre -application advice in its written form

is not before the inquiry, but what we do have

is the GLA stage one report.

So can we just turn to that briefly for a moment please,

which is core document 11 .8.

11 .08.

Sorry, it's a series again?

Yeah, it's core document 11 .08.

Yeah, okay. Just bear with me.

Get there.

Eleven.

I have the document here.

Yes, thank you very much, indeed.

This is the stage one report.

Can we look, please, together two references that I'd like your help with, please?

Firstly is paragraph nine.

How do I get to paragraph nine?

Oh, sorry, they have numbers.

They do have paragraph numbers, certainly, yes.

Sorry, didn't see that.

And you'll see ahead in case history.

Do you see that?

There's a case history.

Paragraph nine?

Yes.

We can see that on the 11th of April, 2023,

the GLA issued a pre -application advice note

for the proposed development.

Note advised the applicant proposed a redevelopment

to the site to deliver a mixed use retail office

residential development accepted in line

with their identified policies,

subject to providing a full justification

for the loss of the existing office use

and demonstrating that the retention of the building

had been explored, dot dot dot,

and providing a robust rationale for any demolition.

further justification on the principle of tall building on this site should be provided as part of any future submission.

Do you see that?

Correct.

So, although we don't have that formal advice before the inquiry as a core document,

it's there recorded in a document that we do have that the advice included,

the requirement for a further justification of the principle of a tall building on the site.

Do we see?

And that reflects what you remember

as being the GLA's advice, do you?

It was more nuanced than that, I think.

Well, that's what they say in that letter.

And we know that the GLA were then formally consulted

at stage one, indeed stage two on the application.

And if we can just then move forward in the document, please,

to page eight.

Of the same document?

The same document.

And can we look please together at paragraphs 37 and 38.

And just pausing for a moment,

this is in the second dealing with scale and massing,

and it records that the proposed building

is 34 storeys in height,

and we can see that recorded at paragraph 35.

Do you see?

I can see 37, yes.

Paragraph 37.

Yeah, I was just putting it in context, Mr. Barbalov.

At this stage, the proposal was a 33 -storey building

plus ground, wasn't it?

Yeah, and we can see that at paragraph 35,

because the GLA become involved at stage one

when the application's submitted,

so at that stage, this was 33 storeys.

So if we look, please, together at then

where the GLA landed on this,

paragraph 37, a pre -application stage,

the GLA officers consider that a landmark

for the river bridge could be an appropriate design

principle to apply when redeveloping the site.

However, as outlined at pre -application stage,

this does not mean that a building of significant height

is considered appropriate on that basis.

In terms of visual and cumulative impact,

the GLA officers note that the tall building proposal,

while slender and architecturally elegant,

would represent a stark new urban typology

in its immediate setting.

Do you see?

So we know that a pre -application, the GLA,

certainly in terms of how the pre -application advice is

recorded in this document, advised that a further

justification was required.

And in terms of what they then advised when the application had

been submitted and was formally referred to them,

is that the landmark may be appropriate,

but that doesn't mean a building of significant height is

appropriate and it would represent a stark new urban

typology in its immediate setting.

So that's where the GLA ended up, didn't they, Mr. Boblov?

I'm reading paragraph 37 and it says what it says there.

So it appears that certainly the justification that the GLA

was seeking when they were asked about a building

at pre -application stage in the 30s

had not satisfied their concerns.

I don't read it like that.

OK, well there we are.

Certainly, how do you read the representation of the GLA that the building does not need

or it doesn't mean that the building has to be of significant height or the height is

appropriate and that it would be a stark new urban typology in the setting.

How do you read that?

Do you read that as positive?

Yes, it could be read both ways.

There we are.

Okay, well I'll leave the inspector to form a view on that.

Thank you.

And then just to be clear on this, the GLA having given pre -application advice in respect

of a building in the 30s, you then submitted an application that broadly conformed to the

building that they gave their advice in respect of, didn't you?

Sorry again, what's the question?

When you, at pre -application stage, a building in the 30s, 30 storeys, was the subject of

the pre -application engagement with the GLA where they indicated that it required further

with justification, the scheme that was actually

then submitted as part of the planning application

in April 2024 was 33 storeys.

With more justification.

Okay, here we are.

Right, as far as the design and access statement

is concerned, I think we've dealt with that

in the sense that you accept that it doesn't deal

with the urban design study at all in the document.

I do not say it does not deal.

We do not mention it.

Forgive me, I mis -put that question.

It doesn't refer to or address the urban.

It refers to supplementary planning guidances,

which we do not list all of them.

And we have read it.

We do not mention.

That's the wording.

Thank you very much indeed.

Right.

Next point, please.

Can we go to your proof of evidence, paragraph 1 .2 .9?

Can you give me a page, please?

Yes, of course.

It's page six.

Page six.

In your proof.

Paragraph 1 .2 .9, options are rigorously tested against national, regional and council policies

and codes, against our analyses and against developers' requirements.

Do you see that?

Where are the developers' requirements set out in your proof of evidence?

Developer requirements is a brief.

It's the brief. That's the brief.

Where is the brief set out?

You can probably find it in the DAS, but it's not in the proof of evidence.

Well, I'd like to know where I look to see in the evidence before the inquiry

what the brief was that you were given by your client.

We call it the vision for the scheme. That's the brief.

Where do I find the brief, as you refer to it?

It is, sorry, let me just try and find the relevant page.

Optimise, vision for, I think it's 33.

You can see it on page 56 and...

56 of what document?

Of the DAS.

The DAS, right.

And you can see it on page

Well 52 the opportunity. Well, let's take it in stages. Yeah. Let me just get you the right one

So I give it the right one I

I would go with 33, 32, sorry.

Let me just make a note of this.

So we look at page 56, do we?

So then page 30.

No, I say page 32.

32, all right.

Because page 56 talks a little bit more

about how the residential works,

it's not the overall scheme.

So page 32 is headed,

the opportunity for one Battersea Bridge.

The following land use and quantum and mix of uses have been proposed for this application

as developed with LBW over the course of the pre -application process and then it identifies

both the number of new homes, the number of, proportion of affordable housing and various

other components of development.

Which page are you looking at?

Is that what you're looking at?

Page 32.

Three, two of the DAS.

The opportunity for the Battersea Bridge?

I think I've got the right page.

Internal page 32?

It's the documents page 32.

That says the opportunity for one Battersea Bridge.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's what I thought.

I'm on the right page.

So just so we understand, this is 32 is the brief and the brief was evolving because we're

consulting.

So there was not like you show me that to get that.

So this is the brief.

Maybe I'm just being a bit slow on this, Mr. Babalov.

But page 32 of the design and access statement

of October 2024 is headed The Opportunity for One Battersea

Bridge.

And it sets out the following land use quantum and mix

of uses has been proposed for the application.

And it sets out effectively the components

of the revised application, doesn't it?

This is the brief.

We are trying to achieve mixed use development,

optimise the number of units, create a lot of affordable.

This was the brief.

Well, sorry.

Does that how it works, Dr. Mr. Boboloff?

Because normally when I either work with

or ask architects questions as I'm doing now,

there's a clear explanation as to what it is

that their clients have indicated

that they are seeking to achieve

from development of the site.

That includes either quantums or ranges or parameters.

Where do I sit?

Were you given that kind of instruction by your client?

When I started on that I was told to look at the site and consider what's possible on the site given my experience

And it evolved

Well, sorry, Mr. Boblov, to take it in stages. Were you given clear

Requirements by way of instruction from your client. I was not given a definitive numbers or anything to work with

That was the openness of the brief. Some clients do that. They ask an architect

Can you tell me what you think about the site?

What were you given or instructed in terms of the

developer requirements that you referred to in your evidence,

please, Mr. Barbalov?

Well, it's look at the site.

Look at, we want to do affordable.

We have to do affordable on the site.

We want to have active use.

There was discussion about commercial on the site.

So it was an evolving thing.

Is there a document that sets out your requirements?

I don't think there was a document.

There is a document. I'm going to invite you to produce it to the inquiry in due course because I just simply don't understand

what you meant when you refer to in your evidence to the development

being tested against the developers requirements.

So there must have been requirements that were set out, Mr. Barbalof, were there?

This is a text which says people require things.

They don't necessarily are well defined.

Some clients don't define very well what they want, because

they don't necessarily know what they want or what they

can actually get on the site.

So they ask us for our opinion, if you see what I mean.

Well, I'm giving you the open opportunity to explain this.

So what was the process that went through, that was gone

through, in terms of your client, the developers,

setting out what they required you to produce?

There was no requirement.

Well, you refer to a development requirement, Mr. Barbalov.

You refer to a developer's requirement in your evidence.

No, I refer to our design process.

No, sorry, Mr. Barbalov.

Paragraph 1 .2 .9, in your proof of evidence on page 6, you refer to options being rigorously

tested against developer's requirements.

What were those requirements?

Can I just say, this is our design process.

So when you have requirements which are specific, you stick to them.

I have clients which you have to have exactly such a number of units or whatever it is.

This was not like that. This is the process, not the actual project.

So what was the process then? What did you mean when you referred to developers' requirements?

In our process, we look at all the pieces of the puzzle. One of them is development requirements.

In this particular case, the development requirements

were very fluid.

What do you mean by fluid?

I did not have a number which had to be achieved or else.

It was, let's see what we can see on the side.

Let's consider it, et cetera.

OK.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I'll make submissions on that in due course.

Right.

Final point then.

Penultimate point, forgive me.

As far as the way in which the scheme has resolved,

We know that at the start of the DRP process,

the proposal that was put to the DRP involved a tower

of a ground floor plus 38.

Wasn't that right?

When you then returned to the DRP,

the development of the tower had been reduced

to a ground floor to plus 33, as a matter of fact?

Did nobody discuss this already?

We did, yes. I'm just setting the parameters.

The sub -planning application was submitted for a ground floor plus 33,

and then on October 2024 it was reduced to a ground floor plus 28.

So there effectively, there was a, throughout the process,

from the beginning of the DRP to the amendment of the planning application,

there was a reduction from 38 to 33, then 33 to 28.

That's the sequence, I think, isn't it, Mr. Barbeloff,

in terms of how the tower was downwardly adjusted?

It did change.

Okay.

If we can take the first of those changes,

that's from 38 to 33, 33 being the number that,

or floors in the tower that was then the subject

of the planning application.

I was seeking to understand what the rationale was

for that change, the justification for it.

And we've seen already that the DRP referred

to that change as being, in their words, arbitrary.

Sorry, we're talking which change?

From 38 to 33.

Do you remember?

I do not remember exactly the process

of why we changed the height,

because it was a design process,

and we worked with Chris Mealy and his team

to test the views.

We also had pre -ups.

That's very helpful, thank you very much indeed.

Now I was trying to understand what the rationale was for it

and the best that I could come up with

in terms of finding the evidence about this

is what you say in the design and access statement.

So can we go back to CD 1 .7 please?

Which is my design and access.

The design and access statement, CD 1 .7,

and turn within it to page 24.

Page 24.

Yeah, 24.

Yep.

And this is part of the response, as it were,

to what the design and DRP had said.

But on the right -hand side of page 24,

you'll see a diagram that says Tower Heights.

Tower height development, do you see that?

Yes, yes.

And that involves, on the left -hand side of that diagram,

the ground floor plus 38, and the right -hand side,

ground floor plus 33.

And there's some text beneath that.

The design has evolved to respond to the longer distance

perception of the tower height, of the tower.

Tower height has decreased of five levels to reduce the visibility from the surrounding context.

This is what I said earlier.

Yeah. So effectively, the reason for reducing the height from 38 to 33, which is pre -application, during the DRP process, was to reduce its visibility from the surrounding context.

One of the reasons, yes. Probably the key reason, yeah.

Probably the key reason.

Thank you.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

And did you say a moment ago that this was,

at least in part, as a result of advice given to you

by Dr. Mealy?

Sorry?

Did you say earlier, or a few moments ago,

that this was a result of some advice given to you

by Dr. Mealy?

No, it was not an advice given by Dr. Mealy.

Okay.

There's a teamwork, we work together.

Well, Dr. Mealy was part of the team.

Well, but it's not like I'm waiting for doctor's advice.

It's a discussion, it's a design process.

There's no linear process, this thing.

I don't just do, he tells me something and I do it.

It doesn't look like that.

No, I'm not suggesting it does, Mr. Barbalof.

I'm not gonna chase that point.

I'm claiming it was a team decision.

That's more comfortable for you.

It's a part of the process.

To reduce the visibility from the surrounding context.

So it follows from that.

I think, Mr. Barbalof, doesn't it?

And this is not a tricky or difficult question,

that there was obviously a recognition

that the visibility of the development

from that surrounding context was a material consideration

and that justified losing five storeys of the development.

Well, height is material consideration,

so we looked at the height.

And it was the sensitivity of that height at 38 storeys

in terms of its visibility from the surrounding context

that led to a team decision to lose five storeys off the tower.

Mr. Barbeloff, is that right?

I'm not sure it's the only reason.

It may not be, but it is a reason.

Thank you.

And of course, this is a commercial -led development.

Your client's a commercial business, isn't it?

It's seeking to exact value out of this development.

It doesn't lose five storeys unless there's

a very good reason for doing it.

I'm not gonna comment on that, I don't know.

Well, it's a statement to the blindingly obvious,

isn't it, Mr. Balblom?

No, but that means they had a,

see, this is where you're kind of crossing paths,

because the brief for the project evolved

because exactly these things.

We didn't know how tall we can go or anything like that.

It's a journey.

Thank you.

Right.

Can we then go on?

I understand what, at least in part,

was the justification for the reduction from 38 to 33.

In terms of the reduction from 33 to 28

in terms of the tower, that took place, I think,

in, I know it took place in October 2024.

Was that again the same real reason that essentially

because of the visibility of the site

from the surrounding context it was felt appropriate

to then reduce the height of the building further?

You said without reason, I think it's a strong reason.

You did say without reason.

Let me put the question again.

Was the decision taken in October 2024

to reduce the height of the building from 33,

the tower from 33 storeys to 28 storeys.

Again, motivated, driven in part because of the visibility

of the development from the surrounding area.

That was one of the discussions.

The other one was discussions with the planners.

We discussed this with a number of.

I'm not sure that's certainly my instructions.

I think this came as something of a bolt from the blue, this reduction.

But nonetheless, I don't think we need to chase that point down.

Be it as it may, the reduction from 33 to 28 was in order to reduce the visibility of the debate,

at least in part to reduce the visibility of the debate.

I can't agree it's only one reason, because as I said, there's other reasons.

And therefore, that follows, I think, Mr. Barbaluff, doesn't it,

that there was a recognition on the part of the team

that the extent of the visibility of the building

from the surrounding context was an important

and sensitive matter.

Since day one.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, just give me a moment please, Mr. Boblov.

Yeah, one last point please.

Can we just go back to your proof of evidence

and turn within it to internal page 2020.

So page 2020.

There's been a lot of talk thus far, a lot of evidence thus far at this inquiry about

landmarks on bridgeheads, landmarks generally, and what quality amounts to giving a building

becoming a landmark.

And you've heard the evidence that's been given already on that.

I just want to be clear as to what your position is on this, Mr. Barbalof.

If we can look, please, on page 20 at your evidence of paragraph 2579, which is the middle

column of text on that page.

Do you have that?

I am familiar with the text.

And you've set out some very interesting evidence derived from the works of Lynch and others,

and you say that landmarks per se

do not require specific height.

And I'm taking it that's your view

as well as a view that you derive

from the analysis of the work by Lynch, is it?

It's urban design principle.

Yeah, thank you very much indeed.

So your position in that respect

is broadly the same as the view of other commentators

that inspectors got evidence about,

about the GLA, the DRP, and indeed historic England,

that in order for a building to possess a landmark quality,

that does not require either height or a specific height,

because those qualities are capable of being secured

by other design means.

I want to take you back to Lynch,

because you referred to Lynch,

and he talks about what defines a landmark.

It's something which is,

And I can find you the real quotation if you want.

Do you want that?

It's in the document.

I'm not gonna ask you to start referring to evidence

Well, it's in the document

because this is the answer to my question.

Is this 2 .523 about landmarks?

So if I read 2 ....

I can read it for you.

2 .523 is what defines a landmark.

Okay, carry on then.

I have read it, but if you want to draw attention to it.

So it needs to be different.

It needs to be different.

But that's what it says here.

Thank you.

I don't exactly know the words, so I'll read it now.

So landmarks are another type of point reference,

but in this case the observer does not enter with it,

they're external, so that's external landmark.

They usually rather simply define physical object,

building sign stone mountain,

they use involves the singing out of one element

from a host of possibilities.

Some landmarks are distant ones, et cetera.

There's quite a lot of theory on that,

but it's to do with singularity, you can see it.

Absolutely, so if I come back to probably

my rather inelicantly put question,

you accept, as indeed have others who have

made representations, made comments on this proposal,

that in order for a building to have a land,

to possess a landmark quality,

that does not necessarily require height

or any specific height.

It is singularity, it's something that stands out

in terms of the form, appearance, quality of the building

that can give it that landmark status.

And that's why not all landmark buildings on the bridges are tall buildings.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Happy note of accord at the end of this exercise.

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Barbalof, for answering my questions.

We're done. Thank you.

What happens now?

Thank you, Mr Edwards. Just in terms of moving forward,

So Mr Barbeloff's got the joy of being sequestered overnight.

We can't talk to all of these people. I'm sure that will come as a pleasant surprise after a long week already.

But because we've still got to hear from Mr Walton on behalf of the Rule 6 party tomorrow.

So we have made up a little bit of time but we're still a little bit behind.

I just wanted to understand from the appellant's viewpoint, obviously, hopefully, based on

timings, we should get through Mr Barbeloff's evidence fairly early on tomorrow morning.

Would you want to start Dr Mealy's evidence tomorrow on the basis that he would then potentially

not be available over the weekend?

Well, I think we'll start and finish him tomorrow. I'm really clear on that. Okay

That's fine

That would be good news

Okay, and is there anything else procedurally or housekeeping wise before we adjourn for the evening?

Indeed that we've got mr. McGivern is it first thing in the morning? Yes

So we won't be starting absolutely straight with

with Rule 6 questions, but I can't imagine it's going to change anything that I said

earlier about finishing Dr Mele tomorrow in a reasonable time.

Okay. Well, I have asked Mr McGinn to keep his submission brief. I think he's tried it

on for a 25 minute window, but I did say five. He's not here now, so we're not in a position

to suggest starting any earlier tomorrow morning. I don't think, I think it's a 10 o 'clock start.

but yes noted and it's on my programme so I don't forget either thank you.

Anything further from you Mr. Edwards in terms of anything procedural or housekeeping wise?

Nothing from us mum.

Okay Mr. Walton?

I'm going to correct and assume it's 10 o 'clock start again.

Yeah okay.

Can I keep my stuff here?

Because I believe you are able to keep your stuff there.

I can't talk to anyone, so 10 o 'clock, yes? I can leave it.

Yes, I do suggest you go home though.

They don't look that comfortable for sleeping.

Okay, so we're now at 5 .27 and it looks like I've got an evening of wandering around Battersea,

so I'd better get on with it. Thank you very much everybody for your contributions.

The inquiry is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10.

Thank you.

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 Afternoon - Thursday 19 March 2026, 2:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 3 AfternoonThursday, 19th March 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 3 Afternoon
Thursday, 19th March 2026 at 2:00pm