Glassmill planning appeal - Day 4 Morning - Friday 20 March 2026, 9:00am - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Glassmill planning appeal - Day 4 Morning
Friday, 20th March 2026 at 9:00am
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning. The time is now 10 o 'clock and the inquiry is resumed. I'm Joanna Gilbert.
I'm a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to hold this inquiry. This
is the fourth day of the inquiry. Yesterday we heard the evidence of Mr Ely, Dr Jubb and
Mr Barbeloff. Before we hear from Mr McGibbon, one of the interested parties, and we continue
to hear Mr Barbeloff's evidence, I'd just like to go through a few housekeeping matters.
So if you could please make sure that mobile phones and other devices are either off if
you're not using them or on silent. In terms of fire evacuation, the fire alarm test for
this week has already occurred, so if you do hear a fire alarm, please take it seriously.
please leave the chamber in an orderly manner, proceed down the main staircase, out the doors,
and out under the archway and around onto Ram Street where there is a collection point.
In terms of temperatures in the room, it was generally better yesterday than the day before,
I would say, thanks to doors and windows being open and the lights being off for most of the day.
we'll continue to monitor that. We've got lights off at the moment, if anybody is
struggling with the lighting please do say and we'll switch the lights on.
Hopefully they won't be needed until late afternoon. I'd just like to note
as well, thank you for ID 12, the site visit itinerary for the nighttime site
I just want to confirm that I visited the area around and at the appeal site yesterday evening.
That can be attested to by a member of the Royal Six Party who saw me on the bus.
I did visit the Cherry Blossom Avenue in Battersea Park shortly before full darkness.
I did see that it was popular and photographs were being taken as I was advised by Mr. Ely.
I then walked the advised route after dark going in the direction
requested
Are there any procedural or housekeeping matters before we move on mr. Harris except to say thank you very much for doing that
No
Thank You mr. Harris mr. Edwards
Not at this stage
But could I ask that we just have a discussion perhaps towards the end of the day about the shape of next week in particular
programming. There's been some useful discussion between the parties and we
would like to I think present a suggestion to you in terms of completing
the inquiry next week at some point later today. Okay thank you and Mr.
Walton. No okay thank you. So Mr. McGibbon you had requested the opportunity to
give a statement. Would it be possible for you to move down to this microphone
here yeah please just so that we can ensure that anybody who wants to hear
you on the live stream yeah this after my opening yeah not mr. Barbalof yes
absolutely. Yes please. It's helpful if you can, thank you. So that document is ID 15.
Thank you very much Mr. McGibbon, that's helpful. If you could switch the microphone on please.
And could you just remind me Mr. McGibbon, just in terms of answering questions, you
are willing to answer questions if Mr. Harris does have questions?
Possibly. Am I able to ask him a question as well? I think that would be a fair exchange.
It doesn't quite go that way.
I have an important question to ask.
Put the question, it's up to Mr. Harris whether he chooses to answer it, but do remember that
he is the appellant's advocate, he's not giving evidence himself.
The only reason I have slight resistance is the last two years I've been trying to engage
with Rockwell as a journalist, requesting interviews and further insight, and they've
not been exactly helpful. I've had a few very small, measly press releases, so to give
myself open to cross -examination seems quite generous. But yeah, I'll take some questions.
As I said, you can ask the question whether the appellant chooses to answer the question
is completely up to them. So over to you.
Okay. I've tried to condense two years' work into five and a bit minutes, depending
how quickly I can go. Okay.
Before we get there, can I just say, just looking at my Code of Conduct and various
other documents published between PINS and the PIBE, Planning Environmental Bar Association,
I can tell you now I am not in a position to answer questions. So save your breath.
As suspected, but thank you very much.
Alright, I'll give him a right of reply at another time then.
Okay, my name is Rob McGibbon.
I've been a resident in Chelsea since 1995.
I live near the appeals site, although I cannot see it from my home.
I've been a journalist on national newspapers for 40 years.
I'm also the founder of the Chelsea Citizen,
an online local newspaper dedicated to public interest journalism.
Most importantly for today's purposes I have been the lead campaigner fighting
to stop One Battersea Bridge for the past two years. I've spent a great deal
of time researching and writing about this planning proposal and more
importantly the companies behind it. Obviously I can only sketch out what
I've learnt here at this moment but I'm happy to supply you Inspector with links
to the relevant articles that may inform your decision. I make this statement
today simply in the hope that some of the work that I've done will help your
vital work. For context, may I add some quick background. I started a campaign
for road safety on Battersea Bridge in 2021 after witnessing a fatal traffic
accident. That campaign drew massive support, not least from Transport for
London. Today there are four pedestrian crossings on the Chaney Walk
Like everyone, I was horrified when Rockwell first made its plans public.
Due to the success of my road campaign, which was then still ongoing, I was encouraged to
step up again.
I was reluctant to do so.
Campaigns are hard, distracting, unpaid work, but I started a petition and did all the things
you need to do to galvanise action.
Posters, publicity, endless emails.
And this is exhibit one, one of the posters.
I also look closely into the companies behind the big deal, Prometoria, Battersea, Rockwell
Property and an American investment colossus called Cerberus, named after the mythical
three -headed guard dog of the underworld.
I'm happy, Inspector, to provide you with details of the companies involved in this
deal and the alarming financial realities.
I only suggest this because it's a bit like sending your favourite grandchild to stay with
family abroad. You'd like to know a bit about that family first, wouldn't you?
Not long after starting my campaign, more than 5 ,000 people had signed the Change .org
petition and the cause had a high profile. More than 1 ,400 people went on to file meaningful
comments to Wandsworth Council's planning portal. I urgently draw your attention, Inspector,
to those early comments. These represent the very heartbeat of an anxious community and
and they reveal far more to this inquiry than any CGI poster or lofty ponderings about receptors
and the kinetic experience of this area.
These people live here. Many will have their homes blighted by this tower. Equity will
evaporate. Lives will be wrecked.
For contrast, I implore you to look closely at the letters of support posted by Rockwell.
I exposed their sudden arrival at the time. I even charted it all contemporaneously on
my change .org petition blog.
270 were dumped on the Portland one day alone,
including notes from people in Stoke and Rochdale.
The exercise deployed by Rockwell says a lot
about the company that could own this land.
I can send you the links to the specific posts
which reveal the process in detail.
My blog currently has 49 updates
and could in itself be a useful guide for you.
I would also like to direct you to my interview
with Councillor Tony Belton,
which was published two weeks ago.
Councillor Belton is the chair
of the Planning Applications Committee
and has served on this council since 1971.
His observations on Rockwell's stance
during the entire process is quite scathing.
Again, I can send you the link to that interview.
Affordable homes.
Rockwell is making the delivery of 50 homes for social rent
the main reason for this scheme being granted consent.
Without any binding legal contract in place, we all know that this is simply a promise made with fingers crossed behind their back
by a company that willfully skewed the democratic process of something as innocent as a planning comments portal.
That promise must be treated with caution.
In closing, Inspector, may I quickly refer to Chelsea Waterfront.
Now this was written before I knew that you'd gone on your trip. I thought that was later in the week.
Anyway, when you go on your night time walk, please visit this development.
I have witnessed its manifestation up close during the past 20 years.
It is a living embodiment of the power that rests in your hands.
That development, and most importantly the towers, were not wanted by the locals or by two councils.
We fought tooth and nail to stop it.
It went all the way to the Secretary of State who signed it off with a swish of his pen.
That man was John Two Towers Prescott.
The towers are despised locally.
Sir Terry Farrell designed them and he described them,
he described his creations quite laughably
as two dancers in the sky.
Some things look better in CGI.
You will notice that those dancers are predominantly in darkness.
Foreign investors parking their money?
Who knows?
Who knows for sure but it simply seems likely.
It is wildly ironic that Hutchinson,
the giant Hong Kong developers that made a mint out of the waterfront,
has objected to Rockwell's Tower for the same reasons as the residents.
Their offices are in Hester Road.
Finally, when the council refused planning a year ago for this development,
I gave a quote to a newspaper.
I said, this was the Donald Trump of planning proposals, cold -hearted and vain,
driven by ignorance, arrogance and avarice.
I stand by that comment today.
One Battersea Bridge is wrong on every level.
It has more flaws than flaws.
It's the Emperor's clothes.
We can all see it for what it is except those to my right who will have you believe otherwise,
and we all know why that is.
Inspector, your decision is critical for the future of Battersea Riverside.
I hope that you dismiss this appeal and not gift this precious, historic piece of land
to a developer simply so it can make money for its tax exile owner.
Thank you.
Mr Harris, do you have any questions for Mr McGibbon?
No, thank you.
Okay, thank you very much for the time you've taken putting this together
and thank you for the time you've taken presenting today.
Well, thank you for letting me have the time to prepare that
and also if you do need links to anything...
Thank you.
Please let me know.
Okay, so just in terms of what happens next, Mr Barbalof,
You are ready for cross -examination by Mr Walton.
Mr Walton, over to you.
Yes, ma 'am.
Hello.
Right, who is working it?
Morning, Madam Inspector, and good morning, Mr Barnbluff.
I don't know how long this will be, maybe 30, 35 minutes.
Probably not.
Firstly, Mr. Barblov, I understand from what you said yesterday to Mr. Edwards
that your firm, Farrells, took over the instruction
or were instructed after the company called Field Clegg and Bradley Studios
had been instructed, is that correct?
It is not correct, we did not follow
Field and Craig Bradley.
Sorry, I'm sorry.
We did not follow Field and Craig Bradley.
Right, I did not say that.
Well I did say, I thought you said,
but so can you tell me then in that case,
what did happen?
Field and Craig Bradley have done a scheme,
way before my time, different client.
Sorry, I didn't hear what you said.
They were involved?
They did not do a scheme for Rockwell.
Right, okay.
Can you tell me what the nature of their involvement was?
I wouldn't know.
It's not my client.
Okay, did you receive,
when you became instructed,
did you receive any documents that had been produced
by Field,
After my initial design was prepared, I got the pre -app document which was presented to
the council. So you did receive some?
After my design proposals were prepared. My client did not want to be influenced by anything,
so they said what can you do on the site? Right, okay, so you approached the design
with an open mind or a fresh perspective. Yes.
design that Clegg, Phil Clegg and Bradley had produced?
They had different options.
They had, I think, two towers.
They had a tower.
They had an extended side coverage.
They had different options.
I think there were two or three, I can't remember.
I didn't really study the document
because it was not part of my design.
But they did include towers.
They did.
That was the pre -app response.
Yeah, okay, alright, thanks very much.
It's a fact, yeah.
And the terms of your instruction for Farrell's,
can you say something about that again, please?
Sorry?
Can you say something about the terms of the instruction?
What is the question?
The question is can you say something about the terms of the instruction?
I can say things about the appointment.
All right, I'll be more specific then.
You were instructed by Farrell's to produce...
Rockwell.
sorry you were instructed by Rockwell to produce a design scheme for the site is that fair?
okay were you given any parameters as to what those designs could be?
I think that's the point I think they wanted to see what because of who we are and how we design and our involvement in Chelsea Waterfront
they wanted to see what our response would be so there was not really parameters
It was, can you have a look at the site?
And I have a lot of clients like that.
So they didn't actually lay down any parameters,
they just said come up with a scheme.
Have a look at this, tell us what you think.
That was my initial instruction from them.
And then the scheme started developing,
then numbers started coming because of what I did, et cetera.
So it's a process as I described yesterday.
Were you informed at any time how much Rockwell
had paid for the site or had entered into a conditional
contract.
I was not informed.
Sorry?
I was not informed.
You were not informed of that?
No.
It's not part of my, what I do.
Okay, but would it then be correct to say that it was clear
to you that what they wanted or expected was quite a large
residential led scheme?
It was not clear.
It was not clear?
It was not clear what, that's what I said yesterday.
It's a fluid design, it was do we keep the office,
do we replace the office, do we do top building,
do we do extrude, slap, there's options of what can you do
on the site given that we have worked in the area before.
What is our feeling about the site?
This, I do get quite open briefs a lot.
Okay, were you given any instructions
as to a quantum of residential apartments?
As we developed the scheme, numbers started coming
and then we started discussing numbers, of course.
This is part of the process.
OK, all right.
And when the numbers started appearing from your client.
No, I did not say that.
Well, I'm sorry.
I'm struggling to know what you did tell you.
I thought you said numbers started coming.
Because I started designing something.
When I design something, I measure it.
And I tell them, this is what you're getting.
This is how many numbers we can get.
So the numbers, essentially, are generated by you,
not by the client, is that what you're saying?
On this particular case, it was an open brief.
I sometimes have clients who are very specific
about the numbers.
This was not like that.
Numbers of the affordable, numbers of office space,
everything.
As I said in my design and access statement,
we wanted to create something public.
There was going to be commercial,
and there's going to be residential and affordable
on the same site.
How we get there is a process.
But there is, if not, or perhaps there was explicitly,
was there any explicit reference to financial viability?
Not to me, at the beginning of the scheme.
Of course, when we started developing the planning scheme,
viability is always a concern.
Yes, it's implicit if it's not explicit.
Correct, in the planning scheme, yes.
Hence the affordable numbers.
I mean, you did say yesterday to Mr Edwards
that the possibility of retrofit was explored,
but not pursued because it would only produce 30 units.
Is that correct?
Have I gotten that correct?
We studied an option where within the current building
envelope, whether you keep the floors,
the structure as existing, or you amend it,
can you get X number of residential,
not X number, what can you get?
And we got a number, and there's a plan there.
That number wasn't high enough, is that correct?
It was not high enough to provide a lot,
about 35 % affordable because this was our stunting point.
Right, so it was not high enough, sorry, a big pun,
it was not that the retrofit was not large enough
to provide the viability.
I am not a viability expert.
No, but it's a little bit like the questions
that Mr. Harris asked yesterday to Mr. Eley.
You might not claim to be an expert,
but come on, you must have a reasonable understanding.
You're an architect.
Yes, and I provide...
You were the lead architect on this.
And I provide numbers and everything else to my client.
You're not ignorant of numbers.
I provide numbers to my client and they see what's viable.
I'm not to the viability.
I don't look at the site and say, oh, this needs to be viable.
They, it's viable for a client, not for me.
Okay.
All right.
Let me move on.
It's on the same issue or developing the same issue.
Can you have a look at document CD129?
I'm not sure if we've looked at that document yet.
They're the design proposals or the floor plans.
So CD129.
CD, core document number 1 .29.
Proposed plans.
Yes, proposed plans.
I have them here.
You have them?
I have them.
Okay, just wait for the inspector and other parties
to ensure they have them.
That's quite a big list.
Yeah, if you go, certainly on the computer version,
and that's what my colleague has to my right,
if you go further down, what I want you to look at,
Mr. Barblov, if you don't mind, are the floor plans.
Yeah, can you give me a specific reference to the floor plan?
They're all different pages.
I understand that Mr. Barvelov, I am trying to help you.
I'm looking at the floor plan which shows floors on the tower, floors 12 to 18.
Can you refer to the drawing number please?
It's about two -thirds of the way down in the computer version.
I do apologise Mr. Barvelov if I didn't make a note of the...
Which one do you want? 12 to 18 you said?
Yeah, floors 12 to 18.
Okay, that's the drawing number for those who...
5 -1 -1 -2 is the end.
I apologise, madam, I didn't make a note of the specific drawing.
And this is the planning set you're talking about here.
I have the 8 to 10, sorry, on the next one.
Yeah, I think what I'm looking at are, and you can help me here, Mr. Barblod,
because you obviously know the scheme better than I do.
I'm looking essentially at the slender component.
That's the?
Slender component.
Yeah, okay.
So what we have is, as I understand it,
from what I've looked, saw the plans,
when I was looking at them,
is we have three plans showing the configuration of flats
from floors 12 to 18,
and then the next one after that is floors 19 to 26,
and then floors 27 to 28.
And what it's showing is, as I understand it,
and again, you can correct me if I'm wrong,
floors 12 to 18 is three flats on each floor,
one of which is a three bed, two of which are two beds.
The smaller ones tend to be, as I see it,
at the southern end of the building,
sort of looking due south, rather than looking over the Thames.
And then floors 19 to 26, they have two flats and they're both three
bedroom. And then floors 27 to 28, they're the apartment, I guess they're
the penthouse flats and there's one flat on each floor, four bedroom.
Is that, I mean, just to sketch out the parameters, is that broadly, is
that correct?
Just the correction that the tower has views to the river 30 to 60, so all
and lots have views of the river.
You said?
I stand corrected, of course,
and of course the river isn't east -west in all places,
it's going south to understand that.
Now again, I'm not, again,
it's not trying to catch you out,
it's just trying for clarification.
I couldn't find, I could see a scale,
but of course it's difficult to scale off
when you're looking at a computer.
Would I be correct in thinking
I looked at the door widths, et cetera,
my impression is that each floor
is about two and a half thousand square feet.
Forgive me, I'm a little bit imperialist in that view.
If you want me to go metric, I probably in the region
of 235, 240 centimetres.
I would not know on top of my head the square footage.
My team would know if you want that number.
Does that sound plausible?
I think it's bigger than that.
Bigger? Bigger.
Okay.
What I was interested in, again it was something
that Mr. Edwards said yesterday, is that the number
floors was reduced on two occasions as the design was revised?
That is correct.
And I'm assuming that the reduction in the height of the slender part of the tower doesn't
have any effect on the lower 11 floors.
Would that be correct?
If that's a constant?
It is not constant.
It is not constant?
No.
Right.
Well, in that case, can you tell me what the impact is of reducing the slender part?
what effect does that have on what the number of floors,
the number of flats in the floors,
on floors one to ten or one to ten?
The scheme is the balance between private and affordable.
Yep.
Both private and affordable generate
what is called habitable rooms.
Yep.
So if you change anything, habitable rooms change.
So it's a, there's a word for it when things are connected.
So changing anything changes everything.
Okay.
because you have to be at the number of habitable rooms
which you're targeting.
We started with 35, we got to 50.
So nothing is fixed.
No, I understand what you're saying
and that makes sense.
That was an incorrect assumption on my part.
But would I be correct in, again it's an estimate,
that when you reduce the height by,
altogether by nine floors, it looks like you would have
probably lost around two and a half flats per floor.
I, that's what I'm trying to say.
It's a balanced scheme.
I don't count flats.
We had more flats during the life of the scheme.
We have less flats currently.
Okay, all right.
I suppose it comes down to what Mr. Edwards put to you
that you would have lost a lot of money.
The capital value would have depreciated very significantly.
I would not know that.
It's beyond your remit, is it, that if you reduce the size of the development, the capital
value must fall.
Is that something you're unaware of?
The scheme has lived through many years and cycles so far.
No, but I'm asking you a simple...
And I do not know the calculations which make the scheme viable for the client.
I'm not asking you that, Mr. Bablov.
I'm really asking just the principle that if you reduce the number of habitable rooms
and reduce the number of...
I'm saying something that a 30 -storey tower
is more expensive than a 28 -storey tower.
To build construction.
Correct.
So there's a balance of not just area,
it's a lot of balances there,
which are not simple equation.
You take two floors and that means you lose value.
You might actually gain value.
Again, it's a complicated process.
Okay.
I suppose, just these are back of the envelope calculations
and I accept the points you made about
that the reduction in the height of the cylinder part would impact upon the configuration and what was included within the lower ten floors.
But just on a... It looks to me as if you're losing around, as I say, around twenty flats, nineteen, twenty flats.
I don't have these numbers on hand.
All right.
And looking at the sort of the retail value of a penthouse flat or a flat overlooking
the river, you could be talking in terms of a reduction in capital value of somewhere
between say 35 and 50 million pounds.
So is that a question?
Well, yes, it's a proposition put to you and you can either, no doubt you're just going
to say, you can shrug your shoulders and say, I have no idea.
Okay, all right, no idea.
Just to add, a reduction of flats reduces the number
of bicycles, waste requirements, and everything else,
so that also has capital value implications.
Well, I'm not gonna ask you about bicycle racks.
Well, they are a fact of life.
And of course, we mustn't forget in this that Mr. Harris
said to Miss Dr. Jubb yesterday when he was cross -examining.
I think Dr. Jubb, you're in the room, I think,
when Dr. Jubb, of course, in his evidence,
made the point that he was sceptical about the social
housing because there was no grant in place.
And Mr. Harris put it to Dr. Jubb that
this might not require a grant because it was such
a phenomenal location, I think, with a,
I don't want to misquote Mr. Harris,
but he said something to the effect of this would be
one of the best locations for residential accommodation
in London, given the views, the location, et cetera.
Again, is this a question?
Well, it's a proposition for you.
Okay, maybe you don't agree with it.
No, I agree it's a great location.
It's a great location, and anybody who lives there,
either affordable or private,
would benefit from fantastic location.
And what I'm saying to you is that therefore probably these are going to be very expensive flats. Nothing wrong with that
But they're gonna be very expensive. Yeah, I would imagine that yes, right and
And that was done as mr. Abe was pro do he said he?
When he asked you why that was done
He pointed I think to the design access statement and and he found a reference there to trying to mitigate or reduce a visual impact
Yes, well one of the reasons.
And you said that was part of the reason.
Part of the reason, because I actually believe
our habitable rooms can't, all that,
it's an evolving scheme till you fix the scheme.
So it's many reasons why you do things.
Okay, I mean it prompts a sort of question I suppose
on going back to policy D9 of the London plan.
D9?
I don't have the document number, I'm afraid, but we've referred to it about 23 times in
the last two days.
I have D9 here.
CD5 -01.
Do you have that, Mr Babla?
I have the policy D9.
Do you have it, madam?
So, just to, again, we're going over old ground, I acknowledge that, but on D9, C, subsection
D, just a bit about demonstrating that alternatives have been explored.
Now, obviously, that's in the context of heritage.
I acknowledge that.
But your alternative to essentially retrofit and 38 storeys, 33 storeys and 28 or 29 storeys,
is that broadly correct?
Broadly correct, yes.
Yeah, okay.
So all I'm asking, inviting you to confirm is that you didn't ever look at the possibility
of the tower that's somewhere between 12 storeys
and 15, 16, 17 storeys?
No, we looked at a step building,
which could have been done differently.
A stepped building.
Well, that's what architecture, yeah, a stepping.
If you look at Monte Vetro,
if actually you can do Monte Vetro as a bar and a tower.
So we have looked at options like that as well.
But we felt it was too overwhelming onto the site.
Okay.
And I believe that options meaning here
does not necessarily mean height in policy D9, C, D.
It says options, it doesn't say height necessarily.
Sorry, say that again, Mr. Bogle.
Alternatives have been explored.
It's not specifically avoiding talking about height.
Alternatives also are designed for the base.
Alternatives are designed of the facade.
but alternatives are many design alternatives.
No, I accept that.
The word alternatives does not.
It feels like there's a C there
which says only height, but it isn't.
But I, all right, that takes me to a question
I was going to ask you later on, but we can ask it now.
There's been a lot of talk about,
and I think you referred yesterday to mitigation.
You also referred to having to work harder
when you had these meetings
with the various design review bodies,
and you were getting your responses
which were not particularly positive
of your development, although I think your interpretation
was perhaps somewhat different, but you said,
you took it almost as having to work,
I think you said you would have to work harder
on a revised idea.
There was not just hard on a revised idea,
our justification, mitigation, all these things.
It's not a one item, no project is one thing.
There are about 20 things, and 20 different consultants
which you work with.
Okay.
I was just going to ask you then, and I'm curious on this,
what is mitigation in the context of a tall building?
What does it look like?
Mitigation is if you have anything which is harmful
or affecting somebody, what do you do not to affect somebody?
That's how I understand the word.
Well, no, and I understand the word,
and I think probably everybody in here understands
what the word mitigation means.
I'm just asking you quite openly as to how does that,
What does that look like in practise
in the context of a tall building?
Does it just mean reduction in height?
No.
Right, okay.
It means designing the roof garden
so when you stand in the roof garden,
you don't actually look,
there's very limited, say, light spillage
or visual impact to other people.
So there's a lot of, okay, wind mitigation factors,
it's part of our submission as well.
There's a lot of things you look at.
Mitigation is, any development affects something.
So how do you make it affect less?
Although as Mr. Ed was putting it to yesterday,
the design review panels were quite explicit
and quite direct, weren't they?
What they wanted was a reduction in height.
This is not correct.
No?
No, it doesn't say reduction in height.
It says, the second design review panel,
which we go back to the documents,
they say they welcome the reduction in height
and our justifications and mitigations, et cetera,
needs to be well explained.
They welcome the reduction of height.
Yeah, OK.
All right.
I think we're dancing on pins.
And I think we can discuss later with Dr. Chris Miele height,
et cetera, anyway, views.
All right.
Perhaps going back to what I asked you a few minutes ago,
looking at the issue of value evaluation,
and I mentioned yesterday to Dr. Jubb, benchmark land
Again, this is a sort of open question.
I don't know the answer to this,
but can you tell me if a valuer or a valuation expert
or a viability expert was involved in the project
at any stage or from the beginning,
and if so, or if not at the beginning,
from what stage onward?
I think Jonathan Marginson is gonna talk about this.
Jonathan Marginson, DB9, can talk about this.
Sorry?
Jonathan Marginson from DB9.
Mr. Marginson can discuss that,
because he's got the documents and the knowledge of that.
Okay, all right.
I don't.
If I have all the two problems, Mr. Barbelov,
it's me, it's not you, so I apologise.
I would also direct you, Mr. Walton,
towards Pascal Levine of DS2's document,
which is provided by Mr. Marginson.
Okay.
Thank you, ma 'am.
Thanks.
Right, okay, so I'm going to move on just briefly, and I don't want to impose too much
on the inquiry, but just to other matters.
So they're not, I guess these are not main issues that have been identified by the inspector
at the start of the inquiry, but nevertheless I've been asked to raise them by the consortium.
These, I suppose, go to the issue of living conditions for the people who will live in
the development if it's granted and built.
So how much private open space would there be for the occupants of the open market housing?
Sorry, well, they have internalised the amenity.
That's the policy.
That's what we have.
Yeah, I've seen on the plan.
So they have a winter, what they call a winter balcony.
A winter garden.
A winter garden, OK.
The 11th floor open space roof level, is that available?
Would that be available to all occupants?
It's affordable only.
Affordable tenure only.
Sorry, this is a microphone.
Affordable tenure only.
Affordable tenure only, thank you.
Yeah, I think you might be actually too close
to the microphone.
Yeah, I'm a bit closer to the phone.
All right.
Was any consideration given to, I understand there are two basements of car parking, is that right?
It's not two basements of car parking. There's two basements, they're not two basements of car parking.
There's car parking on two levels, there's a lot of other things in the basements, that's what I'm saying.
There's parking on two levels?
There's cycling on two levels, parking, plant, waste.
What was any consideration given to reducing the amount of car parking?
We have a reduction from the existing condition.
Okay, alright.
And then another question on the construction process.
Was any detailed consideration or any detailed investigation made of the possibility of using the river for the delivery of building materials and the removal of spoil and debris and...
I've used the Uber boats recently.
I'm just going to go back to a project which I've worked on.
It was on the Royal Albert docks, which are non -tidal.
When you have a non -tidal position, we actually had a barge, which was with a crane.
The Thames is very difficult to unload and load because of the...
So it's difficult. I think it may be explored, but I think it's just next to impossible unless you have one of those floating jetties.
Okay, but I'm not a specialist in that by the way. No, no, I don't expect you to be you know
a marine a marine specialist, but I've worked in what you're saying is is that
consideration some consideration has been given because you've you've obviously got
You seem to know more about this than you do about value you you do seem to because I'm interested in the construction of buildings
Not okay
Then all right of what makes the class stretch sheets work
If I could now ask you some questions on the design and the issue of shadowing of the neighbouring building at Thames Walk Apartments, if you don't mind.
So I think probably just your own proof of evidence, just one of the images in there.
Please refer me to a post.
Mr Walton, why were these questions not asked during the round table?
I didn't think that we were party to the round table, madam.
Everybody was party to the round table.
It was made clear.
I asked a number of times during the round table,
Mr. Walton, would anybody like to say anything?
How much clearer can I be?
Okay, well am I allowed to ask the question now?
You can ask the question whether it's within
Mr. Barbeloff's purview because he is an architect
and he's a very experienced one,
but he's not a daylight and sunlight specialist.
So if it strays into that, he may have to say he can't answer.
These are not daylight sunlight questions.
Right, OK.
You said, Mr. Barblov, yesterday that the design,
in terms of the design, you said that the tower talks
to the Albion riverside.
That's in my note.
Architecturally, yes.
Architecturally, yeah, OK.
And we saw an image and I think it was of the front of the scheme,
looking east, and we saw in the background the Albion Riverside.
We saw lots of images. Can you refer to a specific one?
Yeah, sure. Okay, do we have that?
I think it's just, sorry, the image I have, Mr. Barbalove, is 7 .3, the view from Bassy
Bridge proposed.
It's in your...
My document, right?
Yeah, it's that image.
Does that help you?
7 .3.
Yeah.
It's the view from Battersea Bridge proposed.
That's it, that's the image, yeah.
I was just taken by your metaphor of conversation.
conversation, you said it talked to the
Albion Riverside, it's one of those conversations
where you talk over somebody else, isn't it?
I disagree with that, I think they work
really well together.
Well Thames Walk Apartments are sort of sandwiched
in between, is that fair to say?
They are in between, they're not sandwiched.
There's a big gap between Thames Walk Apartments
and Albion's River Wolf, Albion's Riverside,
and there was always a building next to them.
So it's the same condition as before.
Okay, in the design of the scheme,
and I hope this isn't straying into area
that we had the round table discussion on,
did you have regard to the issue of privacy,
and the impact on the privacy of neighbouring buildings?
We always do, yes, we have regard.
Okay, so would there be any privacy in your view of the occupants of Six Hester Road, the people you trust buildings?
We're not affecting Six Hester Road in my view because of the very nature of the building is a deck access building
Which they have dual aspect
Six Hester Road and we're not affecting them and we are just actually stopping short before them anyway when they turn the corner
So they have dual aspects those flats as I see them
they have an aspect to the west,
which is obviously towards your client's building,
or your client's site,
and they have an aspect to the east,
which is the back of the Albion Riverside.
Is that broadly correct?
It's not the back, it's the side of Albion Riverside,
and they have deck access.
The side of Albion Riverside,
I do apologise, Mr. Barbeloff,
I think we're, but it's the back or the side?
It's the side.
And then they have the deck access
on the secondary, effectively, aspect,
which provides shading,
and if you're inside the building,
you probably can't see much anyway.
How far will those flats in the Peabody building
be from your client's development?
It's the same as the current condition.
I can measure it on the map if you want.
Okay. Of course, the current building
is an office building, isn't it?
Correct.
So they're not occupied at night, generally?
Generally.
Yeah. So the issue of privacy is actually relevant, isn't it?
It's relevant if it's overlooking.
It's relevant if it's overlooking.
Okay, so the distance is the same.
What about the sort of annex to the Peabody building?
What would be the distance there?
Sorry, I can measure this.
Is this something I'm supposed to?
I can measure the numbers.
Well, I thought you might know because you were the lead architect.
It's not unreasonable, is it?
It's fine, so we just have to bear with me.
I'm told it's about 18 metres,
but I could stand corrected, no doubt I'll be told that that's wrong.
I have to get to the drawings.
Do you see the area, I'm talking about this sort of, say the annex to the Peabody, it's
It's a slightly L -shaped building, isn't it?
Yeah, it's an L -shaped building, yeah.
I'm not sure I have a roof plan at that, actually.
So I would not be able to tell you immediately that.
I have to the bottom of that building, I have this drawing
here.
Let me just see what I have in my roof plan.
This information can be made available if required.
Well, I'm told, Mr. Barblov, that the distance is about 18 metres.
Which, if it's correct, then it's usually the overlooking distance advised by many boroughs
and generally.
That's quite a short distance, isn't it?
It's the standard distance in urban living as a minimum.
And as for, do you have anything to say, maybe again it's not a direct question, it's
just inviting to comment, but then I can rephrase
this question, the residents in Thames walk apartments,
and they have dual aspect and they have aspect
looking south through what is currently a courtyard,
is that correct?
So they're looking back into the road and the river,
that's the aspect.
Yeah, you say looking back, if you want me to pick holes,
I'm looking south, which use a cardinal compass point,
but I take the point.
It's a secondary road, which is the service road
to the back.
That's what we mean by that.
Where there might be bedrooms and bathrooms at the back,
I guess.
Potentially, yes.
I think this has been assessed by rights of light,
daylight by our, I mean this would.
I'm not talking about rights of light, Mr. Barblov.
We've had that discussion with the inspector.
And daylight and sunlight.
I'm talking about privacy.
Well, hold on.
There's no aspect from Thames Walk Apartments
towards our building.
On that service road.
it does not exist physically.
You have to look obliquely if you want to do that.
And it is a deck access building as well.
So usually these things are measured in a straight line,
50 degrees.
Does that hold even when the,
I take your point about the looking obliquely,
but as you approach the 90 degree angle,
The level of obliqueness is reduced, isn't it?
Sorry, I'm not quite following what was the question.
Well, I put it this way.
As you get closer to the,
well, let me ask you the question, Mr. Babov.
As you get closer to the building
that is to your left -hand side,
so for people in the proposed scheme,
looking out those flats that would be close
to the rear of the Thames Walk Apartments,
they wouldn't really need to crane their neck very far,
would they, to start looking into the windows
of the other apartments?
But that's why we have recessed balconies as well.
My assessment is that there would not be any issues there.
But again, this could have been discussed before.
Okay.
Final question, Mr. Barbelov.
The scheme is, and again this may be outside of your scope,
I don't know, transportation issues.
This is a P -TAL -3 level site, is that correct?
I believe so, but again.
And I understand that Bassey Bridge is the most widely used
crossing point within the relative area.
Sorry, can you repeat that?
I understand that the Batsy Bridge has the highest level
of daily crossings, vehicular crossings,
I think of bridges within that area.
So Chelsea Bridge, I know Albert Bridge is shut.
I wouldn't know that, I'm sorry.
It's very congested, would you accept that?
On a bad day probably, especially with Albert Bridge closed.
And we just heard from, I beg your pardon, I'm sorry.
We heard from Mr. McGibbon, I do beg your pardon Mr. McGibbon,
a few minutes ago that he saw a fatality there and that's what induced him,
or that was a catalyst for him to get involved in trying to address the issue of pedestrian safety on the bridge.
So as a location for a tower in transport terms, do you think it's less than ideal?
Sorry, are we talking traffic, are we talking public transport, are we talking cycling, what do you mean by traffic?
I mentioned the word vehicular.
I don't think there's any relationship between vehicular access and towers in any meaningful
form.
Well your development, I know, I'm not sure if there's been a traffic study, your development
would generate presumably some level of traffic otherwise you wouldn't have...
Again, this has been discussed at the round table with our traffic consultant and you
could have asked those questions.
All right, Mr. Barbelov, I thought that you as a designer and an architect would have
some view on that.
We are conductors, not a jack of all trades.
Right, okay, you're not a jack of all trades, all right.
All right, Mr. Barbelov, that's all I have to ask you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Walton.
Does anybody have any questions for Mr Barbeloff? Anybody who is objecting to the proposal?
Mr White? Yes, certainly. Do you want to use a microphone please, perhaps? Thank you.
Good morning.
Again, just briefly in terms of traffic,
as I understand it, most of the construction
or demolition and construction is likely to be
constricted in significant ways.
Has any approach been made to the private ownership
of the land adjoining in respect of that use
during the construction period on the principle that you will not be able to frustrate traffic
on Battersea Bridge Road?
I don't have an answer for this question.
That again is the matter which should be discussed at the roundtable.
I wouldn't know.
Thank you.
My recall of discussion at the roundtable was that certainly this would be something
TfL have made no objection to it but it would need to be the subject of ongoing
discussion with the local planning authority and the local transport
authority, effectively the highways authority, in terms of what then happens
in construction management and that's something that would be dealt with
through condition and 278 agreement. I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.
No, there are two points here, ma 'am. The one is dealt with in our note that we handed in, which is
at present the agreed position with the local authority is that route is simply
not going to be used for construction. The second point is the point that you've
just made, which is also correct.
Thank you. Okay, thank you Mr. White.
There's a hand up behind you. Could you pass the microphone back again please?
And if you could just say your name and ask your question.
Good morning, ma 'am, Amanda from Thames Walk residents.
I just wanted to know,
was there a reiteration of William's point?
Was there any consideration of the design
in relation to the Thames Walk residents'
association apartments next door,
sharing party wall with a glass mill,
rather than Albion Riverside,
and also the waterside point and other buildings along going towards Battersea Park,
all low rise. No, sorry, I curate that. They're all mid -rise.
But there seems to be no correlation with the Thames Walk apartment that shares the party wall.
Secondly, I'd also like to ask Mr. Boboloff -Reyes that the current ramp and walkway
in front of the current glass mill in Thames Walk Apartments is dangerous, but there hasn't been
any indication of that. There is a ramp for wheelchairs that is now being used by bikes
and it actually slows down the bike traffic in the area where people are using it in wheelchairs
and also for fall. Is there a question there for the... Yes, I wanted to know what he considered
was dangerous as it currently stands.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Barbeloff?
I can answer that question from my personal experience.
I was there at the other site and there was a cyclist
who tried to run me over, effectively, on the ramp.
So I imagine, and I'm quite okay, I'm okay with my,
I can imagine an older person or somebody with a pram
or a little kid.
So cyclists are quite, what's the word,
aggressive in this particular location
because they need to get somewhere.
So it's a very narrow and it's actually not accessible.
It's not accessible.
Mr. Barbeloff, I use that every day.
And people are very respectful.
Could you please let Mr. Barbeloff finish
because you asked two questions.
Okay. Let him finish.
And then if you need to ask another question,
I will let you ask another question.
Thank you, ma 'am.
But you're not giving a statement yourself at the moment.
So I was referring to my personal experience
and also the platform in the front,
which is a bit, in my personal view,
a bit dangerous at night as a location.
Thank you. And in terms of the first question, the consideration of Thames Walk.
I didn't quite understand the question. Did we consider it in terms of...
I wasn't sure what the question was about Thames Walk.
Did we consider it as in... What is the question?
Would you like to reframe the question for Mr. Barbeloff and see if that assists, please?
Yes. Thank you, ma 'am. So far there has been discussion about the relevance of the new build
with Albion Riverside, but no respect or relevance
to the Thames Walk apartments with shits in between
and shares a party wall.
Has there been any thoughts on design
with respect to the Thames Walk apartments?
Thames Walk apartments is an existing building on site,
which has a relationship to an existing office building.
We are replacing the office building with a new building.
I think that's the level at which we are at this point.
Whether Thames Walk apartments can be redeveloped
in the future, I don't know, maybe.
But it's like London, you slowly replace buildings
with new ones.
I'm not quite sure how to answer more than that.
Thank you.
Did you have any further questions at all?
You had started speaking earlier, Ms. Henrichs.
this point then. Okay thank you very much. Any further questions? No? Okay. Mr.
Harris are you okay to start re -examination? Yes and to finish probably I've got
three points. You'll need the following documents ma 'am. The witnesses proof
which you should have open. CD 808 which are the appendices to Mr.
Marjanson's evidence, the statement of common ground, CD 701, and CD 129. All of those documents
were referred to in cross -examination. I've asked that the statement of common ground
be passed to Mr. Marginson in hard copy. Save him. To Mr. Barbello. Sorry. May it please
you, ma 'am. Can we go back to questions that you were asked by both advocates? I want you
to look at two documents simultaneously, if you can. Appendix B to Mr. Marginson's proof
of evidence and also your proof of evidence at page 38.
And I want to look at this in the context
of questions put to you.
Sorry, Appendix B is the common ground,
statement of common ground?
No, it's Appendix B of Mr. Marginson's evidence,
which is the 2018 correspondence that both
my learned friends asked you about.
If I can have a copy please, yeah.
Otherwise, I'll be here forever.
So I have appendix D. Now appendix.
And then we need your proof.
Correct.
At page 38.
I'm asking you these questions in the context of questions
put to you about this pre -app by both advocates.
I'm going to try and do it in one go so I don't have to do it twice.
Then I want to look at the timeline that you were asked about by my friend Mr. Edwards.
Do you remember?
Yes.
Carefully track the timeline.
All right.
Shall we start please with Appendix B and with some of the questions you were asked
by Mr. Walton and also some of the questions
you were asked by my lone friend, Mr. Edwards.
This is the pre -application letter dated the 9th of November
from the London Borough of Wandsworth.
I want to look at this in the context of what
came later in pre -application meetings
with the local authority.
So let's look at it first in broad terms.
Remember you were asked by Mr. Walton,
what was the nature of the application back then?
Were the other architects involved?
Yes.
And you said, well, I didn't see any of it
until I'd done my early work and I'd
come up with a broad proposal.
Do you remember that?
Correct.
Good.
All right.
So we've got that much in the timeline.
But just for Mr. Walton, because he was interested,
if you look at page nine, there is a description
of the proposal there, isn't there? Correct.
You didn't have this to begin with, but later when you looked at it we can see there
were actually a 26 storey building fronting the River Thames, Battersea Road and an 8
storey building fronting Hester Road. Sorry Mr Harris, sorry to interrupt. Could
somebody from the council please go out and ask people to keep it down outside? It may
not be affecting that side of the room as much but I can certainly hear it in
this ear. Close that door. Yeah thank you. Sorry Mr. Harris. Not at all. I mean of all the
people, you're the one that needs to hear this more than anybody else.
Page nine we've got the proposal there set out and if Mr. Walton wants to look
to that there it is, correct? Yes there is a number there. And then at page 10 officers
notice the site is within the Ransom's Dock focal point and the Thames policy area where
mixed use development with appropriate Thames Centre uses would be encouraged.
Then over the page, we've looked at this previously, page 11, bottom, the existing building is
a dated 1980s office block clad in reflective glass and with a significant amount of unattractive
visual clutter at roof level. The building detracts from the setting of the listed building
and the Battersea Road street scheme.
The proposal, that proposal, offers an opportunity
to replace it with a building
of much greater architectural quality than this.
During the pre -app discussions,
the massing of the building has evolved and shifted.
It was generally agreed that the site
should contain two blocks with a taller element
fronting the river and a reduced height
facing Hester Road and Battersea Bridge Road.
See that?
Yes.
Now, I'm gonna look at that in the context of the timeline
that you were then asked about by my learned friend.
Next paragraph, a tall building in this location
next to Battersea Bridge, a gateway to the borough,
would act as a landmark and a reference point.
This location is therefore considered appropriate
for a tall building.
Now, we know that you came to your conclusions
for the site independent of and without looking
at this document as you explained,
but when you then did look at this document,
did that judgement, that expression of the ability
of the site to be marked by a tall building
for the reason set out come to you as a surprise or not?
It was one of those things when you do something
and you realise somebody has thought about it the same way.
So yes, it was a good feeling actually
when I read this letter at some point.
Then the next sentence says this,
the proposed 26 -storey height of the building
is significant in the existing context,
with the tallest building at 11 storeys, Albion Wharf,
oh dear, they got that wrong,
it is noted within the wider context
that there are taller buildings,
notably the Montevetra building
and Chelsea Waterfront opposite.
Again, when you looked at that, did you think,
well, what did you think?
What I thought was that,
and there's a diagram in my dance which is going everywhere
which talks about tall buildings in the area,
it's exactly this idea.
Yes, so it was a, yeah, okay, somebody thought about it.
I felt good.
Right.
And then if you go down to the,
there's a very famous member of Malone and Friends chambers,
and he would call it the anti -pre -penultimate paragraph.
The setting.
That's three from the bottom.
The setting.
Is it the setting paragraph?
It's the setting.
Yes.
The setting of the listed building
is currently diminished by the presence
of the existing building, the proposed building
even with greater height than the existing,
if well designed, together with enhanced public realm,
could improve the setting of the bridge.
Again, what did you think about that?
Look, I mean, this is what I thought, effectively.
So, there's a word there which aligns with my thinking.
Okay.
If the proposals were found to cause harm
to the listed building or any other heritage asset, then the degree would lie within the
less than substantial spectrum for that building and would need to be weighed against the public
benefits of the proposal in accordance with the relevant NPPF tests.
Now, that exercise has been done with your building by the local authority and the conclusion
we know is that there's no heritage reason for refusal.
Yes.
I did look at this and in any event,
this idea of a tall building at this location
repairing the setting of the listed building
of a significant height, but bringing significant benefits
to address any harms that the council might have seen.
Was any of that new to you?
No, the whole idea was if you do something like that,
it has to have public benefits,
it has to do all the good things.
Okay, because I think the sort of point put to you
yesterday, although Malone and Friend did step back
from it, was why on earth were you progressing
with this position when everybody was against you?
Remember that line?
I do, and I disagreed with that.
Yes, well we're going to see whether you're right
or not on that in a minute.
Can we go to your proof now then, please?
Because Malone and Friend carefully charted you
through the dates of the, this is page 38 of your proof.
I'm going to denote the chart of the dates, the timeline.
And you were taken to page 38.
And by this stage, this is pre -engagement,
pre -application engagement with a local authority.
And you explain in full in the design access statement,
but also here, your understanding of how all this works.
You say it's 601. Since the start of the process, the design team has undertaken extensive engagement with the London Borough of Wandsworth and other statutory bodies,
12 pre -application meetings and design workshops with officers at the London Borough of Wandsworth, and you started 6 .2 early proposals. See that?
Yes. The initial scheme comprised a ground floor plus 12 podium with a ground floor plus 35 tower element
positioned towards the river.
The proposal included two levels of office space, Riverside restaurant and a community space activating the Heston Road corner.
Then this and you weren't challenged on this at all and I want to ask you about your recollection of this meeting and I'll ask
Mr. Dr. Millet too, officers acknowledged
the site's strategic position as a gateway to the borough
and recognised that a tall building could be justified
in this location.
How clear are you, my learned friend said
we don't have the minutes of that, well fair enough,
but how clear are you that that recollection
identified in your proof, not challenged by my learned
friend is an accurate one?
It's almost three years ago.
It was probably written when we wrote the design and access and all that kind of stuff.
It's based on some notes which we had in our books.
So I would say it's pretty accurate in my understanding of the meeting.
Is it consistent or inconsistent with the analysis that's set out in the appendix B
letter that we looked at a few minutes ago?
It is consistent.
Thank you.
and then we go to September 2023.
I don't need to go to the timeline
that you went through with my learned friend,
but we knew, we know where the local plan
had reached at this stage.
In response to the, in response,
the podium height was reduced to better align
with surrounding context,
and the Battersea Bridge road frontage was split.
The tower form was unified and refined,
with the top portion adjusted to improve its proportions.
Initial facade ideas were presented,
including arched ground floor elements,
referencing Battersea Bridge Road,
a horizontal facade language and warm brick materiality.
Officers welcomed the massing amendments
and the use of arches,
but queried both the horizontal expression
and suitability of brick for a building of this scale.
I do remember that clearly, yeah.
Now we've got a total of 12 pre -application meetings.
In any of those pre -application meetings,
or at any other time, were officers telling you
that the essential architectural party here,
which was a tower marking the bridge,
was an inappropriate one that you should rip it up
and put it in the bin?
I was never told that.
Thank you very much.
We'll hear more from Dr. Mealy in relation to that later.
Thank you very much for that.
Just bear with me, my computer's gone to sleep.
Good, thank you.
Next question, please.
At any point during any of this constant engagement,
did any of the offices say that you needed to come forward
with a six -storey or mid -rise building
in place of that which you'd shown them
at that early proposals meeting in April 2023?
No.
Thank you.
You did, however, and explain to the inspector,
consider a scheme which was retrofitted, recast,
and amended the six -storey capacity which is on site
and which would fit within the mid -range height set for it
as a result of the urban development study.
Do you remember that?
Yes.
Yeah.
And you said it didn't work.
I said it didn't generate a lot.
Yes, and you pointed to the assessment of the GLA
and also of the local authority in relation to that
decision tree that we looked at with another witness
yesterday and they both taking the view that it simply
wasn't feasible.
Right.
If that wasn't feasible, do you need a full financial
viability assessment in order to conclude
that it wasn't feasible.
Not that, my understanding is no.
Right.
And the GLA, and we gave the reference to the inspector
yesterday, and the local authority,
as that first decision tree, yes or no,
is the existing building feasible to amend,
was that they took the view that it wasn't.
Yes.
Right.
Just in architectural terms, if you were to demolish
the existing building and to recreate the existing
bulk height, mass, et cetera, as opposed to retrofit,
just in a common sense way, would that be more or less
expensive to produce the 30 flats?
Building a new building, I'm told usually,
works cheaper because you can do it faster,
demolish and build.
because retrofitting existing in any shape or form
takes longer.
Thank you very much.
Go ahead.
No, no, I don't need to say more.
I'm just saying that the concrete could be bad.
There's all sorts of things there.
It's literally forever.
Understood entirely.
And in any event, we know that we've got
an analysis of the costs of retrofitting
and the viability prospects of there being
a retrofitting from Pascal Levine.
Yes.
Right, okay, I'm not gonna ask you about that.
Next question on the last one, please.
Maybe penultimate.
You said of the design review panel
that they advise, they don't decide.
Remember that?
It's advisory.
And you were asked about the policy requirement
to explain and address how you had looked
at their recommendations, and you said,
well, yes, the requirement is to address,
not to agree, remember that?
Correct.
Okay.
I said that, yeah.
So can we look at the statement of common ground please,
because you're asked a lot of questions about the process.
And can you turn to paragraph 10 .36 in that document?
Paragraph 10 .36, it's CD 7 .1.
My learned friend actually took you to policy D4 yesterday, do you remember?
Yes.
And it sets out a process which requires schemes of this nature to go through the DRP process.
Yes.
Right.
and the process includes explaining, addressing,
but not necessarily agreeing.
Paragraph 1036 says this,
the parties, that's the local authority and the appellant,
agree that the DRP process accorded with D4 parts E1 to six.
That's what it says.
Now, Mr. Barber, if you worked all over London,
how regular is it for planning permissions to be granted,
notwithstanding DRP reports which are not wholly supportive?
As I said yesterday, the advisory board,
it's not designed by committee,
you listen with other professionals,
you discuss the scheme,
and they were created to actually improve
the quality of design in London and just in the country.
So it's very common.
And also, can I just say one thing?
It's very common, which is very clear
on this particular project, that sometimes
GLA views, offices there, design review panels,
and even the borough, the views
could be completely different.
So we are leading the design, so we take decisions
and we will philtre all this to create what we're creating.
So there's not a black and white, thou shall do that.
It just doesn't work like that.
Thank you very much.
Last point.
Can we go to CD 129, which are the selection of plans,
which you were taken to by the rule 66 party.
It's a very short point.
We've spoken to the relationship between Albion Riverside
and the appeal scheme, and indeed,
the whole of the Ransom Walk focal area of activity.
Can we look at the proposed site plan, please?
Because although we've looked at this experientially,
and we will again with Dr. Miele in terms of the kinetic
and static views, I just want to explore,
if you like, the numbers on the ground a little more.
These are to scale drawings,
and they are real elevations that I'm looking at.
Are we talking about drawing 4011?
4011, and then I'm going to ask you
to look at the next one down, which is the real elevation.
And of course, all of the issues to do with real elevation
are at play here.
In fact, you can only see where the elevation is kept.
So bear all of that in mind.
And for the sake of completeness,
we can look at any number of others if necessary,
including the next one down.
But I want you to say something please
about this relationship in scalar terms,
which would be experienced,
but also in sort of factual number terms.
Looking at Ransom's Wharf focal point area,
and particularly Albion Riverside,
and its relationship as it's shown
in the first two or any other plans that you want to look at.
I want an architect's view about the comfortable or uncomfortableness of the conversation between the buildings that you can see in the plan and on the elevation.
I said this earlier, we have a quite large linear presence which is actually quite a big scale building which is the Albion holding an internal space and a podium.
Then you have the smaller addition of Hester Road,
which was the affordable, incidentally,
for the big development, which is the Albion.
And then you have kind of an L shape, which stops there.
So we have actually very small scale
as a footprint compared to Albion.
And I think it fits there with the point,
which we discussed yesterday and the other day,
which is the Thames walk path, the bridge, the road.
And it kind of finishes the whole,
if you look at the, actually, the party,
the size of buildings around the Ransome Stock area.
There's quite a lot of historic buildings,
but everything new is actually much larger as a scale
and as a footprint than anything we do.
So I think it's quite comfortable personally,
if that's the question.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sorry to cut across you.
Those are the questions I ask in reexamination.
Thank you, Bob.
Is that it?
Thank you very much, Mr. Barbalof.
That's you finished.
You'll be pleased to hear.
And thank you very much, Mr Harris.
So before we move on to hearing from Dr Mealey,
it seems like a good time to take a break.
Yes, please.
15 minutes.
Yes, could I ask for 15 minutes?
So Dr Mealey can set himself up.
Yep, certainly.
So if we resume at 11 .35.
Thank you.
The inquiry is adjourned till 11 .35. Thank you.
couldn't say at this point.
State Macomber, bring it back.
Thank you, Mel.
Can you, Chris, Chris, Chris, could you just have a go with the microphone just so we can
do a test?
Testing?
Is that reasonably good?
There's a bit of reverb.
I think it's okay.
Well, inevitably my head will move when I'm doing this.
Do you want to recreate your, I can take a photograph.
I didn't want to do it while you were doing it,
Just, we're still on my stream.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
.
.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
Okay, the time is 11 .35 and the inquiry is resumed.
Dr Mealy, are you all set up?
Yes, ma 'am, thank you.
Mr Harris, would you like to introduce Dr Mealy and his evidence, please?
Before Mr Harris does that, can I just raise a matter of housekeeping?
In terms of the noises outside, some investigations have been made.
Apparently, Friday is the day that the registrar conducts wedding ceremonies downstairs
and people gather on the stairs for photographs.
There's not a huge amount that council officers can do to tell people to keep a lid on it as it were.
So we'll keep a lid on it via the doors.
Yeah, fair enough.
I don't want to go out and be grumpy to a wedding. That would be really bad form.
Yeah, yeah, it's going a bit far. But thanks for checking, that's much appreciated.
Sorry, Mr Harris.
Thank you very much. Can I introduce the inquiry to Dr Miele?
Dr. Miele's evidence and qualifications and experience
is sent out to page 10 of his proof.
Can we take the proof entirely as read
and the rebuttal entirely as read?
I'm just going to deal with five or six issues
which have arisen during the course of the inquiry
if it pleases you.
Dr. Miele, I want to just spend a little time
with your relevant qualifications and experience.
You tell us in your proof that you've been 35 years in the sector, first and for a considerable
time working at what was then English Heritage and since 1998 in private practise.
Is that correct?
Yes.
You are a chartered planner and an accredited member of the Institute of Historic Building
Conservation.
Is that correct?
Yes.
You're a senior partner at Montego Evans and over 20 years have built a team of more than
30 experts working as part of a much larger planning team.
You have a doctorate in architectural history,
your academic work taking you to New York University
and Columbia in the United States,
where you also worked at the Museum of Modern Art
in the architecture and design department.
Is all of that correct?
Yes.
You have a long list of publications
they set out in the proof.
You've been advising on tall buildings since 2004 and you were the principal author of the London Plan
London View Management Framework
I was going to say
of the London Plan London View Management Framework, LVMF, shorthand.
You were working as a consultant for the Mayor of London at the time and as the Inspector will know the LVMF
identifies protected views in London, other views in London.
There's an entire category called river prospects, correct?
That's right, yes.
And panoramas, which include some river prospects.
And your role was to identify within that document
the ways in which local planning authorities and decision -makers
should approach impacts of proposal within those various categories of view.
Is that correct? That's correct. You tell us and we'll look at some of them in a
minute that you've since 2004 worked on a host of toll building proposals and
given evidence at many inquiries such as this. I just want you to go to your proof
please, and to identify as many as you like, but two or three probably, of those that are
particularly of relevance to the issues at large in this case.
Well, Inspector, just on page 11 of my main proof, you see a series of photographs which
relate to tall buildings projects where I've given evidence, including two Secretary of
State call -ins on the left -hand side in connexion with the Royal Botanic Garden queue, World
heritage site. Turning the page, a selection of projects, recent and historic
in the lower left for what I think would be the third tallest
tower in the eastern cluster of the city in Bishopsgate, recently resolved
a grant in RBKC and Hammersford and Fulham, a very significant development
at Earl's Court and next door in the Ram Brewery. I've been working
for about 15 years. And then just briefly on page 13, relevant projects in
Ronsworth, including by the river, I explained in my main evidence I've had a
lot of exposure working in significant projects in the borough. Again, some
historic and some recent. And then finally on the last page, page 14, I
guess maybe kind of postcard projects if I can call them that. So relevant to
case, particularly Chelsea Bridge, I advised the Rothschild Foundation on the Illuminated
Rivers Project and got all the planning consents for the artistic illumination of, I think
it's 15 bridges in the central area, and that won an RTPI prize, as well as working on the
British Museum and the Holocaust Memorial for HM Government, where I gave evidence of
the call and inquiry.
Thank you. You also say in your proof that while you were at English Heritage,
historic England as they now are, you actually reviewed and rewrote all of the
listing entries for all of the bridges in Greater London, is that right?
Yes, on a bicycle. Well, I parked the bicycle and then...
So when we look at the listing entries for Albert Bridge and also the listed the
entrance for Chelsea Bridge and also the listing for Battersea Bridge in the circumstances
of this case.
They're your words?
Well, and some of them have been revised, but I took that project in the mid 1990s and
some of those are still intact.
Thank you.
Well, that's the first heading, you and your experience.
The second heading is your involvement in this case, and I want to ask you first about
your involvement in the examination in public, which I think was in this very room. Now,
at that stage we know from the Learned Friends timeline that Farrell's weren't even involved.
You please tell the Inspector how your instruction came about, what your role was, and what outcome
you sought from your involvement. Because you were here, I don't think anybody else
in the room was giving evidence at least was.
Yeah, so Inspector, I was approached in October 2022,
as I explained in my evidence,
by the now appellant to step in really
for Professor Robert Tavener,
who was at that point sort of slowly retiring
and he has a small practise.
And I was asked to review and see if I could endorse
the Regulation 19 submission,
which I think you've seen parts of that submission
before to the local plan. And on that basis, I had then to familiarise myself with the
UDS because I was going to be addressing the examination inspectors on that matter. And
it was pretty rapid introduction to the site and the plan. And so I visited the site obviously
and then sat over there and addressed the examiners.
Essentially, and the appellant was represented by Queen's
counsel at the time, and I think ours was the first submission
that was heard orally, and the purpose of the submission,
from my perspective, was not to speak to any allocation,
not to promote any particular form of development,
because I didn't have a scheme that I was asked to comment on,
particularly at that point, but simply to address,
I'll call it the binary wording of what was then
the emerging policy, which said in effect that
tall building proposals outside the zones
should be refused.
And the point we made to the inspector
with reference to a lot of the detail in the UDS,
acknowledging that heritage was a significant consideration,
was that simply in line with D9C and the law,
which QC presented on,
to introduce some degree of flexibility
into the wording of the policy.
Obviously, we were promoting this for the appellant,
whose site had been excluded from a tall building stone,
so that's the context, that's obvious.
And so the discussion that has been,
or rather the parts of the, sorry, can you hear me?
Yes, the parts of the examination
or the inspectors report that go to this
reflect I think quite fairly the discussion
that was had at that point.
And I think in summary, I would say that we felt,
although the inspector didn't take the recommendations
for wording made by the appellants,
the applicants as well, the appellants now,
that the point had been taken about bringing the policy
into line with the law and D9C,
which as we've heard is the sort of criteria basis
of policy.
So I mean we considered it a success to that extent
when we read the report in June.
And if I could just comment briefly on timeline,
I don't remember exactly but I think the first time
I discussed this project with the local authority was early in 2023.
I recall Terry Farrell was on that call.
It was virtual.
You don't really forget a meeting that he's in.
There was an interim meeting, Inspector, as between the November hearing and the publication
of the report sometime in the spring.
And then once the report was published, I think more formal, I think it's fair to say
more formal pre -apps commenced.
And I will also say that there had
been a delay or a pause in pre -application discussions
whilst the final form of the policy was being settled.
And so that when we resumed discussions
with the local authority in July,
we understood the policy basis that we
were going to be promoting the application on.
And from that point on until submission, I attended a number.
I don't remember how many.
certainly a few more meetings with the local authority,
and many meetings with the architects.
And in fact, when I wasn't at a meeting
with the local authority,
there was always a sort of debrief afterwards
and a design review consequent
on the local authority comments.
And I also took part obviously in pre -application discussion
with English Heritage, the GLA,
and one of the DRPs, the second DRP, not the first.
Thank you very much. Can we please pick up CD611 to just put a little bit more flesh
on those bones?
I will look to the non -technical summary first.
The main modifications that the Inspector had thought were necessary in order to make
the plan sound included, and I summarised here, amending policy LP 4 to ensure general
conformity with the London Plan, as had been identified as to what that meant through the
Hillingdon case, along with ensuring that the area strategy and site allocation policies
are consistent with this approach.
In summary, how did your outcome sort compare with the outcome received in the circumstances of that case?
We put the point, Madam, that the best way to identify and optimise site capacity was through design studies.
And that because the local UDS, the evidence base, had not done it for all potential tall building sites,
It was, restrictions were, what we didn't think necessarily evidenced properly.
And there was a big debate then, which was very interesting I thought,
and I think relevant to you, where the local authority said,
and Ian Specker echoes this in their report rather,
that well, you know, of course it's not possible for local authority
to do capacity studies of all sites, and that's true.
In the room also, the examiners were reflecting on very strong
representations made by residents and third parties.
And in fact, the word free for all, which is used in the inspector's
report, is one that was used by the third parties.
And as I read that report, it seems to me that the policy wording we
have has come out of a sort of dialectical or interaction between
in these two considerations, where both points of view
were I think reconciled in the policy.
That's the way we interpreted the policy wording
when it came out and I think that the inspectors report
and the narrative in those paragraphs
does fairly reflect that.
And of course then we had a change in the policy,
which I said wasn't the wording that had been sought,
but it was wording that the development team
on this project felt we could work within
with the local authority.
Thank you, can we look to the document itself
and to paragraph 112 please?
It says, well first, before we go there,
the main modification and the effect of the main
modification is described by the local authority
in Ms. Chambers' proof in the following way.
It introduced some flexibility into the policy,
seeking to restrict tall buildings
outside tall building zones,
as opposed to not permitting,
and thereby allowing for consideration of a scheme
against LP4 at the application stage.
Do you agree with that summary?
Yes.
And is that consistent with the case
that you and Mr. Marici, Casey, as he now is,
were putting at the time?
Yes.
Look at paragraph 112 in that context.
We looked at this a number of occasions.
It's the second sentence in the paragraph.
The urban design study is a proportionate and robust response to identifying tall building
zones and as an overarching policy document, it would be unreasonable to expect it to provide
in -depth and specific details for each site across the borough that is not within such
zones.
Correct.
Now, how does that fit with the requirement, therefore, for consideration of a scheme on
a case -by -case basis against LP 4 at the application stage?
Well, I think, effectively, what that's saying is that the policy document couldn't anticipate
all circumstances of sites that might be acceptable on an impact basis, or on balance, frankly,
as well.
I look at 115 next where there is an identification that a number of respondents raised concern
that the modification had been regarded as a watering down, which you've just mentioned.
And then 116 please, the modification will allow a degree of flexibility and thus providing
opportunities for tall buildings where one can demonstrate other material considerations
including, now we know policy 9C etc.
However, it must be borne in mind that 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.
How do you ask the Inspector to approach that, please?
I think Mr. Ely, in his evidence, correctly observed that the urban design study at the
beginning defines the overall character of Wandsworth as being, for want of a better
the word suburban, relatively low density, traditionally
scaled housing, which is true.
And there was genuine, and I understand,
the reason for it concern that some sort of restriction
should be made clear in the plan to address
the concerns which were expressed by local residents.
And that's how I see that.
In my evidence, I explain, Inspector,
and again this was in the oral evidence a couple of days ago,
that obviously that's only very limited areas of the burr
that are actually identified for larger development in any case
and that's both mid -rise and tall.
Thank you.
Next please, and again you were in the room.
I want to ask you this.
The role of heritage constraints as the basis
for the mid -rise designation of the application site,
present application site, the role of heritage concerns
as a basis for the mid -rise designation
as opposed to the earlier being in a tall building zone.
How would you judge whether heritage concerns
were the sole or a major or a substantial part
of the reason for the change between regulation 18
and regulation 19?
Well, to answer that question,
they were a substantial part of the change
because if you compare it, and we don't need to,
but I had to as part of this work,
the 2020 study with the 2021 study,
there's a lot about heritage in it,
and some of that has been cited in my evidence
you need to go in there.
So that was the principle reason that was given.
Thank you.
And insofar as the application site were concerned,
in looking at the recommendations of the urban design study,
were or could the inspectors aware,
or could they have been aware,
of the potential for a tall building
to be provided on the site,
which would be acceptable to the local authority
in heritage terms in the future?
Could they have known anything about that?
No.
There was no reference scheme presented for the site.
I mean in terms, as you often do sometimes in examination.
Thank you very much.
Again, on the same broad heading, all of that
took place as part of the EIP before Farrells came on board.
I want, please, you to.
There are thereabouts. I don't quite know when they're about.
Whereabouts.
Yeah, okay.
But I mean I wasn't in conversation with them because I was busy reading in for the examination.
I don't recall having any meetings with them before the examination.
I don't think that particular part of the timeline is critical, but certainly when you were addressing the inspector,
you weren't doing so with ferrules on your shoulders.
No, there was no scheme from ferrules as far as I was concerned. None that I'd seen.
Good. Now, can you please explain to the inspector how ferrules were chosen, what your role in that was, if any,
and then what the position of officers was
in relation to this proposal post the hearing
and the adoption of the development plan.
Yeah, I just simply say that our client
advised us they were appointing Farrells.
We then had an early briefing with them
to give them the benefit of our understanding.
Some initial view testing work, viewpoint identification
had been done by Professor Tappener and his team.
we looked at that and produced our own visual impact map,
potential viewpoints, early stab at it anyway, which we then refined.
And just to answer that second part of the question,
I think after the plan was published,
the report came out in June, I should say,
and it was clear what the policy position was,
we then worked...
I would describe it as a constructive professional and positive relationship
through various scheme iterations that went from...
I looked at all aspects of the scheme from a design and heritage perspective.
And we had the benefit also of view modelling,
as I explained in my evidence, both view city,
from... I can't remember the exact number of viewpoints, but a lot,
you know, 15, 16, 17,
which we shared with the local authority
before every pre -app I attended, certainly,
and had a full discussion about the building
in each of those views.
And that took place on at least two occasions,
I can remember.
Thank you.
Then in terms of the policy approach,
bearing in mind the major modification that had been made,
what did you understand the position of offices to be
as to the approach that ought to be taken
in relation to an application for a tall building
on this site?
Well, it would be considered on its impacts and effects,
with the judgement obviously taken on overall planning balance.
That was expressly what we were told in different meetings,
and it's sort of an obvious point, of course.
That was the policy position we were in.
And what was to be the role, if any, in that analysis of policy D9C
and the criteria of policy LP4?
Well, they're parallel policies,
So it's effectively the same sort of set of tests.
Thank you very much.
That's the end of that issue.
I now want to deal with the issue of approach
to heritage benefit.
I want to deal with it in the abstract,
but then also in the concrete.
So we're going to use as an example of this Baddisi
Bridge.
So I think we're going to go to the addendum visual impact
assessment October 2024 and to view 10. And at the same time, can we have please the architect's
proof open at I think it's 7 .12.
I think it might be view 11.
That is view 11. Thank you very much.
And I think it's 7 .12 we were going to go to.
View 11 and 7 .12.
Now, I want to explore with you the existing building and its public realm and its environment
as a whole and what you think its contribution is to the setting of the grade 2 Battersea
Bridge.
So in the existing condition, Inspector, I'll start with the building.
The building doesn't have any feature that obviously orients towards the
bridge. And so I'm sure from inside you can see the bridge, and I have
been inside the building, you can see the bridge. But if you're passing
the building, it sort of turns its back to you, and that seems to me
it's harsh. And the network of ramps and walls and places to sit out are all kind of disconnected
from one another. And since you've been now, you may have noticed that there's a lot of
pedestrian and cycle conflict on the ramp that heads down from Battersea Bridge Road.
And so it's a bit confusing, I say chaotic, it's not a particularly high quality scheme.
I mean there is an attractive bronze sculpture there.
It's not a high quality scheme, it's quite a hard scheme.
And it's not a design which invites you, I think, to appreciate the view of the bridge.
As you look along it obliquely, and I stress that because,
I mean I guess there are lots of different ways you can look at something,
but when you think about appreciating a bridge,
you want to understand it from a distance
where you see it span a river.
That's one way of understanding it.
Another really good way to understand it
from an engineering perspective
is to sit right beside it at the abutment
where you get a wonderful foreshortened view
of the arches going off into the distance.
And that open space now at the moment
is exactly where you can get that very good view
because you can appreciate the overall geometry of the bridge
and you can appreciate the detailing of the bridge.
So I think it doesn't really invite an appreciation of the significance of the,
certainly the architectural design of the bridge, or indeed its engineering interest as reflected in the rod and cast iron elements.
Thank you. Can we then look please to the proposed, so that's view 11,
and if it's at all possible for those working on the screen,
to also have in mind 712 in the architect's proof, please.
Let's deal with them one at a time.
Please, I want you to say something about Vue 11,
in particular about the various scalar relationships
that we see in that image, and in particular,
draw the inspector's attention to the effect of that
on the true ability to understand the significance
of the bridge.
Is this in the as proposed condition?
Yes, as proposed, please, yeah.
So I just make a few points about view 11, therefore,
in the as proposed condition.
I start with the architectural interest of the bridge, which is the product of some very significant spans.
The engineering component of the design generates that strong geometry.
and it has a very subtle camber as well.
And the bridge is more or less of the same period of design
at the embankment that you're looking at it from.
So what you're aware, what I'm aware of anyway,
is a really major piece of infrastructure investment
during the Victorian period that's about amenity and functionality.
And this view communicates those two things I think very powerfully.
because the upgrading of bridges is part of the same road improvements
that were undertaken along with embankments and so forth.
And I think Mr. Eley agrees with this point.
From this position certainly, the building whilst it's tall
and very obviously so, is about half the width
or its height is about half the length of the bridge.
And when I look at it, I see the bridge with its setting interaction with the river, and
I have an awareness of all the traffic on top of it, which again is part of its purpose
and function and interest.
And I see this strong and clear vertical form, and I think even over this distance, one would
appreciate that the building has been lifted up slightly
on the columns at the foot of the building.
And I draw attention to a number of things,
and they were in the design team's mind,
was the curving front of the building,
which was done for a number of reasons,
but one of which was actually to express
the bend in the river at this point,
to have some sort of sympathetic arrangement
with the arches of the bridge,
and likewise of Albion Wharf.
So that component of the scheme was, we felt, I feel, contextual in that sense.
And I just make a further point, which is about the predominant quality of the bridge.
This bridge in particular is a big horizontal piece of infrastructure.
I mean, that's its aesthetic character, amplified in the way I've just described.
And of course then there's something of completely contrasting form, which is vertical.
And I mean, this is a subjective, it's a judgement,
I admit, or accept, but seeing things
that have contrasting orientations together
often make you more aware of what is unique
about each of them.
And I think the idea of a vertical form
next to a horizontal bridge is just, I think, pleasing
and it improves overall, I suppose,
the immediately of the scene, if not the heritage benefit.
And I do draw attention in my appendices to,
I think the Lombard Wharf proposals.
We don't need to go there, but in my opinion.
Well we will go there I think,
just because the inspectors been on the walk around
and might appreciate it.
But let's not go there directly now.
What I'm asking you next is to look at both viewpoint 11,
and in particular the structure, the engineering,
the effect of the piers, the way in which you see the underneath of the arches, all of that.
I really want an appreciation from you, I know it's a subjective matter,
but an appreciation from you as an expert as to whether the proposal affects the ability to understand
and to appreciate any of that Baseljet magic, if you like.
Yeah. So, I mean, Inspector, the setting test is whether or to what extent
a building development detracts from the ability to appreciate the essential
significant characteristics, whether they're architectural or historical.
And as I've discussed earlier, I think the... I described earlier,
I think the bridge is such a striking strong
form so well defined in its different parts,
it's all amplified by its function,
that I don't think seeing a building of the kind proposed,
and scale proposed, and design proposed,
in any way diminishes your appreciation
of those characteristics.
I don't say it enhances those characteristics,
but I don't see how it changes your appreciation
of what it is and why it's special.
Thank you.
Now the setting.
Now the setting.
We've heard what you said about the original setting.
Is there any doubt in your mind whether the existing building
lies within the immediate setting of the bridge or not?
Yes, it does.
Right.
And the effect of the new proposal on the setting, please?
Well, it's beneficial, I say, and with reference
particularly to the view 7 .12 in Mr. Barbalaw's evidence,
CGI I should say, which I think shows a more,
a place from which you will enjoy better
those characteristics I've just described.
Because of the arrangement,
because it's got a more inviting character,
because I think it will be more usable.
and so it replaces a place or an experience
that doesn't or isn't conducive to,
as conducive to appreciating the significance
as the bridge, as this proposal would be.
And it's for that reason.
And I think there's another point here
that I make in evidence, which is that the form,
the lower form of the building has an arcaded,
or a colonnade, an arcade of sorts,
which is deliberately referencing the shallow arches of the bridge.
And I think that adds to your appreciation of the form of the bridge
as you move across the area over a short distance.
And I appreciate, again, this is a point of judgement,
but that was what was in the mind of the team
when that part of the proposal was being developed as a design.
Now, this concept of the existing building detracting
and the new proposal of height being appropriate to this location and enhancing the bridge,
which you've just explained. Are you alone in that view, bearing in mind the correspondence
that we've looked at just a bit earlier?
Well, no, I mean the 2018 correspondence that we've looked at earlier confirms that there
was at least the potential to achieve an enhancement through it. But they say a better design,
but it would encompass the characteristics or the aspects that I've just described.
Good, thank you very much. Now, I will ask you, particularly bearing in mind the inspectors
gone to the trouble, have multiple site visits during the course of the inquiry, to go to
your appendix 6, please, which is in your appendix 6 of your proof.
What's the CD reference?
CD8.
And I've got it at, is it CD809?
809 for everyone, yeah. It's on the document.
And we've got there a decision in relation to Lombard Wharf.
Yeah.
Which paragraph do you want us to look at?
Well, internal pagination, or through pagination of the appendices, page 68.
And for your reference, and if you have it open, Inspector, paragraphs 2 .29 and 2 .30.
Which is the internal pagination at the top right, please?
Top right. Oh, it's paragraph number. I can't find any, actually. Well, internal pagination, 68.
Paragraphs 229 and 230 of the report. And I'll just read,
the proposed building would be a tall element close to a grade 2 star listed Cremora Bridge.
Okay, just pause there so we all know what we're talking about.
This is a decision by the local, the same local authority.
Yes.
This is a committee report.
Yes.
It's in relation to a building now known as Lombard Wharf, which the inspector will have
had to have walked past.
We can point it out on the bigger scale map if necessary.
But let's look at the reasoning in the circumstances of this case and how you say, if it is, that
it's applicable to the decision the inspector has to make.
Shall I?
That 229 I was citing from it says the building would be a tall element, etc.
Despite its proximity to the listed bridge, the development would form a distinctly modern
and vertical building, providing a clear and dramatic contrast with the historic horizontal
bridge.
The bulk of the tower would not threaten the dominance of the bridge that it had ... The
dominance the bridge has across the Thames.
It would not, by virtue of its height and design, harm the setting of the listed building,
listing bridge. The development offers enhancement to the structure and setting
of the bridge at Lombard Road where ugly intrusive walls would be removed and the
brick arches would be opened up and revealed. The development would overall
enhance the Cremorne Bridge and townscape in visual terms and it goes on
to say and is considered at least to preserve the setting of this listed
building which it seems to me to signal that you know the local authority at
least accepts that there could be an enhancement but I draw attention
particularly to the setting impact part of 229.
Different local plan and different circumstances
at the time, but...
And paragraph 2 .30 elaborates the point we don't need to...
Each case on its own merits, of course, each case is different, but the approach
of this local authority to that grade two star listed
building, is that broadly applicable to the circumstances of this case in your
judgement? Well, I mean, it's a similar set of facts. Obviously, there's a point of
judgement as between the two, but you know, it's a similar set of
relationships and it's effectively the conclusion I formed in this case. Thank
you very much. That's the end of that issue. I want to turn to another conceptual
issue but with a concrete example. I want to explore with you in townscape terms
Mr. Eley's baseline accumulated harm, what you call a reservoir of existing harm and
how robust or careful the inspector should be with that.
Should we start with 712, please, which is the document, the page in the architect's
document that we already have open?
A couple of things about that that we have to look at.
The first is, if you like,
where an understanding of the beginning of the bridge is.
I'm just gonna loop backwards a little here.
But if one looks at the proposal,
the tall building proposed,
and the actual starting point of the bridge,
or the termination of the bridge,
which depends whether you're going one way or the other.
A, where is it?
And B, is that of relevance to impact and setting?
Yes, I think it's the best place really to understand
the setting impact.
This, the close setting impact.
Good, thank you.
Let's put that to one side.
Then we've got a number of the tall buildings
that Mr. Ealy explains as always being intrusions.
Yes.
I want to come to that slightly separately,
but just with this image in mind,
is that how you read those buildings?
In townscape terms?
Well, in townscape terms,
they are part of the existing condition.
Yes, I mean, they're part of the existing condition.
I also explain in my evidence why I think they are
part of the now established character of the area
at the present time.
Thank you.
Is that consistent or inconsistent
with what we saw as the officer's position in 2018?
Yeah, I mean, that's the same point.
Now, what Mr. Eley does, and we can see whether anybody else does it this way, is in effect
he takes the view, look at paragraph 344 for example of his proof, where he's dealing with
of buildings is seen as always an intrusion.
And he names the number of buildings throughout his proof.
And that that intrusion is harmful
and constitutes, if you like, a reservoir of harm
which he starts with by elevating an existing baseline
with that baseline harm.
So if you look at 344, clear that the height
and scale of the appeal scheme would further the encroachment
of modern urbanising development above an integral tree line
horizon, this is in Batsy Park.
It would be a prominent intrusion
detracting from the park's preeminent secluded nature
and the sense of being set apart from the city.
And then in a paragraph that is repeated four times in relation
to other contexts, he says the visual impacts
of the development well seen from within Batsy Park,
or you can delete that and put one of the other contexts,
would cause harm to its character.
This harm would compound that of baseline harms
which have undermined its spatial character
and he refers to every tall building that he identifies
as an intrusion which is harmful.
Well that's the main difference
between his evidence and mine.
I've asked him about that.
How safe is it for the inspector
to treat every single tall building
as an intrusion which is harmful
in the circumstances of this case, please?
In townscape terms.
In townscape terms.
I would say first, obviously,
it's a matter of planning judgement
and I'm not telling you, Inspector, how to approach it.
But I just think in terms of the way
you approach the situation, just methodologically,
before you could come to that as a sort of,
from an assessor point of view, a secure position,
there would have to be widespread agreement
about some intrusive feature in the townscape.
I've never actually seen it applied in my experience in a townscape context to existing tall buildings.
It is applied, I know, when you're dealing for example with industrial installations
and where you're expanding them and there's already an adverse impact
and you're increasing that impact in certain instances.
In any event, if it is to be an approach which can be relied on,
it has to be scoped in some form and agreed with all relevant parties.
Because otherwise the assessor has to form, in a way, rerun every single planning argument that was had in relation to each one of those buildings
and in connexion with an effect where there are actually different judgments.
And there are judgments which vary over time.
So for example, the World's End estate started out by having some supporters
and by not having some supporters because it was deemed to be alien.
And now I'd like to think it probably has more supporters than not
because it's recognised as an important example of social housing designed
by an important architect, Eric Lyons, an association with another.
So I think it's a very hard, conceptually I have a hard time understanding that.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but from my perspective as a professional, I've never
been asked to do it.
We weren't asked in this case by anybody to do it, and it presents a lot of pitfalls,
I think.
Thank you.
Now, we've got Historic England's position on this case.
We've got the GLA's position on this case.
We've got the reporter committee, and all of those refer one way or another to direct
impacts and impacts in combination with other buildings. Do any of them come close to approaching
this reservoir of harm from any intrusion in the way that Mr. Eley has?
Well, the GLA don't raise it. I don't see it raised as a discrete topic in the committee
report. And if we sort of move across to the heritage application, which I think was discussed
at length in Mr. Eley's oral evidence.
It isn't raised as a point by Historic England,
even though they appreciate it very well.
For example, in their discussion of Albert Bridge,
that there were other tall buildings
in the setting of Albert Bridge.
So if a cumulative past adverse impacts case
or assessment was required,
I would expect Historic England to have said so.
And I will say though,
where I have come across this before, is in relation to Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew.
I don't know how familiar you are with it Inspector, but there's a 1960s estate called the Haverfield Estate.
And for really the last 10 or 15 years there have been two management plans for the World Heritage Site.
Everyone has agreed that these buildings have harmed the attributes, OEV attributes,
certain ones of the Royal Botanic Garden World Heritage Site.
And so when you carry out an assessment, quite fairly, one of the questions you ask on those specific facts where there's wide agreement is whether you're adding to any of that pre -existing harm.
And it's often debated at public inquiries. I've had experience of that. But that isn't the case here. There's no consensus on that point.
Just a couple of other points which might point
to the safety of taking this approach or absence of safety.
If you're looking at a building and judging
its harmful impact, not the application,
but something that may have been granted
planning permission 30 years ago, 20 years ago,
or even 10 years ago, how is the decision maker
to judge that impact of that building
without knowing what was there before.
Well, that's one, that's always a relevant consideration.
And also, you'd, in effect, have to backtrack
through some discussions and decisions made
in relation to policy, and at the same time, in a way,
take into account changing tastes and perceptions,
because views of these buildings do change quite radically
over time.
So World's End, for example, the name says it all,
was a massive selection of gas holders
and various other industrial features of height,
as we know from some of the photographs in the case,
and the judgement as to whether there's a harm,
can it be made independently of that which was there before?
Well, I mean, it's one consideration,
but the other consideration is at what point
you strike the baseline, which is not harmful, I think.
Because it's an impossible exercise.
As in, unless it's been defined in some way
by which everyone can agree,
and that's a rational identification.
So how far back does the reservoir go, if you like?
I'm mixing my metaphors terribly,
but we know that both Chelsea and Battersea
had very large and tall buildings to do with industry,
and we know also that there were very sylvan
and rural parts.
How far back do you go in this analysis
in order to fill your reservoir, if you like?
Perhaps more opposite, I mean Monteveter replaced
quite a large industrial building,
which I illustrate in my evidence at one point,
which you probably have seen.
So that provided the condition against which
they were designing that building.
And it's actually important to understand
from an architectural and tasking perspective that,
I mean if it's your business and interest
to inquire into those sorts of things.
And my learned friend in reexamination
remade the point yesterday that
A, there is guidance that this is a permissible approach in terms of settings of listed buildings.
Do you remember that?
First, is there any requirement to use this approach, cumulative reservoir if you like,
even in heritage terms?
No, there's no requirement, but what the setting guidance does warn against, which I think
Mr. Edwards, you know, I think fairly summarised was that you mustn't use past harm as a justification for future harm
Yeah, and it's very clear on that point
It simply says every application requires a freestanding assessment and in certain instances. It's fair to accumulate. Yeah
What it says is it might be depending on the circumstances now
Just just just just remind ourselves of the difference here, please
Should
townscape and character, particularly character and townscape impacts which have been there
for many years, decades, scores of decades, maybe more, should that automatically be treated
in the same way as a statutory protected setting?
No, I mean the restrictions and the sensitivities are much higher and connexion does it make
sense.
Thank you.
proof of evidence then, you judge the impact of the proposal by reference to four character
areas in your proof.
That's right.
You do that at 7 .19.
My learned friend used that, if you like, fairly and correctly, as the basis for the
examination in chief of Mr. Eley.
To assist the inspector, I'm going to ask you to do the same exercise, but with your
evidence in relation to those four contexts. Over to you.
Yeah. So before just, and I hope swiftly going through these, Inspector, I just want to observe
that I identified these four areas of assessment deriving from the character analysis effectively.
And there is nothing between the parties, the main parties in this, I think probably
all parties in this really, where there's disagreement
about the way the urban design study characterises Battersea
as a whole and the different sub -areas of Battersea.
So we agree on what its characteristics are.
And I think the contexts do flow naturally from that,
but that's why I did them in any case.
And if I can just very, in brief terms,
as an introduction to the remarks I'm going to make shortly,
explain to you how I understand the character of the area.
It's entirely consistent what I'm going to say,
I believe, with the urban design study.
And I think that understanding that character
as ever starts with the history of the area.
After a sort of 18th century market, garden,
suburb and period, which is very little that remains,
that's obvious anyway apart from Battersea Church but it's off to one side.
I would describe just the following phases of development
and each one of them is left a legacy so I put it in that way.
There is obviously an industrial late Georgian and Victorian legacy
of industrial sites along the river.
And that, beside that, and associated also with improved transport, you get
speculative terraced housing, generally modest scale, not entirely but generally
modest scale, in what I would call the hinterland or the land side sitting next
to one another. You then get the Victorian improvement of the embankment
and the bridge, which are highly relevant.
And the bridge of course replaces an 18th century bridge.
And that history goes to explaining or reflecting the importance of this as a crossing.
I think you've read and you will have seen in the evidence that reputed, asserted, alleged
to have been a very ancient from Roman period crossing.
But in terms of real history that we can be documented, it's from the 18th century.
And I think you have to take into account also the topography of the
bend in the river and the scale of the river and so forth.
I think you scroll ahead then to look at what happened after the Second
World War.
So there's deindustrialization which is a well documented
phenomenon.
These big industrial sites become redundant and they become big
residential developments more or less or extensive ones anyway.
Morgan's Wharf is the example, it's not tall, but it's pretty extensive.
Albion Riverside is being another example.
And there are others right the way along this part of the river
and in Upstream II and in Hammersmith and Fulham as well.
Same kind of pattern and history of development.
Actually, the area isn't so badly affected by bombing as others are,
but in fact then what happens is obviously
the provision of social housing and slum clearance.
And the consequence of that is two large,
well more than two actually,
a number of large post -war estates,
the most obvious signs of which are the tower blocks
of this Surrey estate from 1960s.
And I always forget the name of it,
but some slightly later LCC blocks,
which have this sort of cranked, highly articulated form
that you see in a lot of the views from the 1970s.
And so what you have at present
is what I would call remnant Victorian townscape.
In the immediate area, you've got bits of old Battersea
upstream, which I don't think we affect really particularly,
but that's what you've got.
And even that old Battersea village is set within a swathe
of modern development, so you're aware of it at many points
when you're in Battersea Square Conservation Area.
You've got the layer of, call it,
Victorian public health modernization infrastructure improvement. And then
you've got this post -war layer, which involves social housing and then a
later phase of market housing. And I'm thinking about both stretches, both
sides of this stretch of the river, which navigationally is called Battersea
Reach. It begins more or less at Albert Bridge, goes right the way down to
and the main crossing there, taking in Cremor railway bridge.
And the UDS fairly describes this character as varied
and comprised of three different sorts of buildings,
low scale, mid -rise, and tall.
And sometimes there's a kind of, how can I put it,
regret about the lack of continuity and consistency
in an area that results.
That's one way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at it is it's hugely interesting
from a historical point of view.
And one of the interesting things about it
is you do get obvious changes and juxtapositions.
Those very same juxtapositions in a different part
of the city would be deemed inappropriate perhaps.
But that is the underlying character of this area.
And you find it in other places in London
that have gone through the same thing.
Hammersmith and Fulham,
Bermondsey is a really good example of this as well.
So the UDS sees that as its character. I agree and I would draw into that character the other side of the river
which has produced a townscape of exactly the same, very similar character for very similar reasons on both sides of the river.
So with that in mind, I look at the first context, which is the river context.
And if I could invite the inquiry to take up the...
There were some fresh high resolution renders that were prepared.
This is CD 1303.
1303. And I circulated... I think all the main parties anyway have a copy of this.
And I just wanted to go to view, to talk about the river context,
to go to a different view from the river, which is,
it's rather unhelpfully named VM 1 .11, but it's actually view 10b.
And I'm just going to hold it up. I know that...
View 10b.
View 10b, but if you're working from digital files, it's VM 1 .11.
That's it. Thank you.
That's it.
Just to set a context, in preparation for the inquiry, I advised the appellant that
it would be good to do more views in the kinetic sequence along the river, because that's
the way you experience it. And that it would also be helpful to have a higher resolution
render than the one that was prepared for the application, which is absolutely standard
in inquiry context. And I just will note here additionally that we did also advise our client
to commission those videos, the animations,
which I'm not going to play
because it interrupts things quite a bit,
but I do commend them to all the parties that are to this
and obviously to you, Inspector.
So the context here that I want to draw attention to,
the context of the river,
is a broad and extensive spatial context.
It's obviously the width of the river,
but I think the scale of the river is amplified by the fact of its curve at this point,
which I think enables longer views along it from multiple points of view.
And I think measured against that scale, given the dimensions of the building and its proportions,
I think the proposal doesn't overwhelm the scale of the river.
Bearing in mind that scale is perceived not just as a function of height, bulk, mass,
but an important component of the perception of scale is the space within which you see
something and that's a principle recognised in the National Design Guide and is relied
on.
Looking at the proposals from this, the other context that's highly relevant to us is Albion
Riverside and you heard Mr. Barbalov explain that that being we thought I
certainly think still the strongest and best piece of architecture in this
immediate are very very striking in this view and having a very substantial scale
so whilst only when there's 11 or 12 floors it's got quite a broad extent and
And it's massive, actually, in its scale.
And in fact, although the proposal is taller than that,
by about two times plus six floors,
in fact, its footprint and grain is actually less.
So when I look at this view and the river,
I see the proposal complementing Albion Wharf
and in a way drawing the height of it
taken together with the rear lower part of the building
into a point of finish or conclusion,
which because of the long orientation of the building,
actually expresses the alignment of the bridge as well.
And in that sense, the proposal is,
introduces legibility in the scene.
I just make one short set of observations
on the design of the building itself, which I discuss in my evidence and you
have that. I would just say that the form finally arrived on after a lot
of study, many, many iterations of this sort of lower part tower component
composition is I think simple, it's cohesive, it's colour we deliberately
decided on in the end to be light so that it would have a kind of attractive
appearance against the sky dome and not be strong and assertive in the way a
brick tower would be. And I'd also just draw your attention here to the vertical
slot, I just make the point that that is not positioned in the centre of the building.
That's positioned slightly to the rear third of the building. And the reason for that is
twofold. First of all, the verticality deliberately intended of that slot to be read against the
breadth of the side of the building. And the reason it's not symmetrical is not functional
at all because there's a degree of latitude
where you could have placed that slot,
was to make the front half of the building,
the north half, deeper than the rear,
and so to give the building a sense of direction
and orientation whenever you saw it.
And we thought that was important
because if the front part of the building
is more visual weight, well that's the part near the river,
that's the important component in the scene.
So when you see this building from different distances,
And you look at the silhouette and you sort of have an understanding of it anyway because you've been there, you'll know, oh well that's where the bridge is, that's where the river is and the river is there on that broad edge of the building.
Which you think well that's obvious isn't it? But in London it isn't obvious where the river goes. You know it's not like central Paris where the Seine is not so sinuous as it is in New York for example.
So seeing these tall buildings next to rivers in the central area and in other areas in slightly surprising contexts and ways makes you more aware of the river,
which is obviously the raison d 'etre of London and its most valuable asset really in many respects a defining characteristic.
So that's that context. I'll just finally say, and I sort of blended the architectural discussion with the townscape session but I think fairly,
Obviously there is a very substantial change in scale
between Morgan's Wharf and the proposal.
I'm sure you will have noticed it,
but I just for the, to assist the inquiry,
because I know this is a point of concern to people,
but you see in this image how the Morgan's Wharf,
the corner of it is pulled back
and there's a relatively large open area
which you will have seen at that point.
And I think this creates quite a,
taken together with the river,
it creates quite a large spatial envelope for the building.
Not just relative to the river,
but relative to the road as well.
And just to finish the point,
because it did come up yesterday,
and I think there was some misunderstanding
maybe within members of the public attending.
I think the point was put that Morgan's Wharf
doesn't orient or face Battersea Bridge Road.
There are of course some windows
that face Battersea Bridge Road.
I think the reference is to where its entrances are
and how you enjoy the inside of the building.
Its boundary with Battersea Bridge Road
is a planted verge in parts with some pretty, I guess,
almost defensive structures.
Because it's clearly oriented away
from the road, which was deemed to be
a sort of harsh environmental influence.
So although it's got a low and traditional scale,
it doesn't have a traditional street relationship.
And it's the case that the length of the site,
more or less is about as deep as that splayed cutback.
So it isn't a case of a tall building,
and I know you know this, but again,
for the benefit of the inquiry,
and I could sense there was questions about that,
it isn't a case where a building of this scale
is directly facing terraced development
of three and four storeys, for example.
That's not what it's doing.
There is some of that further to the south.
It's actually facing a space defined by a building
which peels away from the space.
The second context I wanted to do was with reference to, again, a view that was looked at yesterday, and that's called the approach context.
And for that, if you go to the BHTVI addendum, and it's view 7 from, as you rightly say, the junction of Beaufort Street and Kings Road.
And I'm just looking at the as proposed.
Now just to summarise, it is, I would say, unique but noteworthy that the approaches
to Battersea Bridge are pretty long and straight, actually, from both the Wandsworth side, and
I won't go there, we looked at the image yesterday, well I think I will go there, but, and also
from the Royal Borough. And to make the point, I think, I wasn't sure it was said
in these terms yesterday, whatever the intention of the Victorian speculative
developers who laid this out, the facing buildings on the corner are more or less
identical. So whoever laid it out knew that this was an important approach. It's
buildings which have a kind of substantial townscape presence. The pair
of them is in the Cheney Conservation Area. As soon as you walk into
Beaufort Road, it's no longer in the conservation area,
but they are quite large scaled, I call them sort of philanthropic mansion
flats, five, six floors or so, of a kind you typically associate with
intensive residential development in the Royal Borough, typically also in
Westminster,
from about the 1870s right the way through the First World War.
And they're very distinctive.
So I see this as quite a well -defined, strong, highly articulated
townscape. So I don't see the contrast there in any way as confusing,
A, from a heritage perspective, because you can still appreciate all of what
I've described just then. But from a townscape perspective, there are obvious
points to make about legibility, sense of arrival, creating a sense of destination through
what is, yes, a dramatic change, and looking at the building at its narrow end, which is
the sort of way you see some tall buildings in London which are acknowledged as important
from this period. You know, Centre Point has a similar kind of proportion and configuration
where you see the narrow end from lots of different places, then you see the broad end,
and actually when you look at the broad end you know that you understand that it's part of the single feature.
And there's a similar event on the other side. No, I did use emotive language in my
evidence which was drawn attention to yesterday and that's why I just gave my response
because I feel strongly that this is quite a remarkable thing that's being proposed for this
approach to a major piece of infrastructure. It is, I think, the most
important road that goes into Wandsworth from the Royal Borough, if not the most
important, then one of two. And so, therefore, functionally, it's a piece of
infrastructure that warrants marking, land marking. I think we've looked at
those concepts. The third, getting to the end of context that I wanted to
discuss with you was, again, looking at it
from the Wandsworth side, some similar remarks.
I go to view 21, please.
Same document, view.
Yes, so the BHTVIA addendum, it's CD1 .03.
And I think I start with the as existing photo
because I think it's fair to say that the existing building doesn't really have any kind of presence
in the townscape at this point, and if and to the extent it does as you approach it,
we can all agree there's some unattractive clutter on the top.
Of course, that's not the justification for a building of this scale, but, you know, that's what it is.
And the proposals in this context,
on the land side, demonstrate
some of those positive,
well all the positive architectural characteristics
I described earlier in connexion with view seven.
And I think there's an important point to make
about the new RCA building,
which is the Herzog de Muron design building
in the foreground with the,
middle foreground with the sawtooth
kind of industrial style roof.
I mean, and other buildings in the RCA campus,
they're very powerful buildings.
I mean they're really quite different,
fairly because they have an institutional use
to what's around them.
But there is already a change in effect of scale and character
that they've introduced and we know that that corresponds
to the ransom doc focal point of activity.
The point I make in evidence is that the stepping down
in relative scale terms,
I think creates a comfortable relationship
with the RCA in the foreground.
I mean, in the render, it's hard to appreciate it,
but of course as you stand there,
you would see the setting depth
that differentiates the lower element
from the taller element.
And then the taller element then has that same sense
of marking the bridge and creating a sense of arrival.
And I think from this side, the colonnade or arcade,
as you pass it, which has been shown in some of the CGI's, we don't need to go there,
would I think add to the excitement and experience of crossing the bridge, which is a really important event in any urban environment.
And I think finally, the fourth context which I thought was relevant, is Battersea Park.
And in the same document, if you go earlier, or I think earlier,
to view 13, which we've looked at before,
again, we're trying to use the same views that Mr. Eley used.
I just will say here about the viewpoint selection,
because the point has come up, and I don't know the point's going to be taken really,
but with Mr. Sellers, we looked at a number of viewpoints
along this promenade by the river
from which we thought it was important to model the scheme.
This position was agreed
because it was felt to be the most sensitive
because as you walk along here, the Peace Pagoda,
which is a recent building, is a real sort of event
and it adds greatly to the pleasure
of walking along the promenade.
And likewise, you know, the Festival of Britain landscape just south of here.
So if you kind of snake around the pagoda, you'll see the Festival of Britain stuff.
The proposal is completely obscured.
Well, it's largely obscured, I beg your pardon.
So even in winter by trees.
And Mr. Eley made the point, well, of course, if you move past this point, you might see it.
Well, I don't agree because as you move past this point, there are equally big plain trees.
And it's a well -observed phenomenon.
as you get closer to a tall building and there's a large tree or even a small
building in front of you, the angle of vision changes such that it's not
prominent or even perceptible. And of course in summer there's a nil impact
because of the foliage. And I think the point's already been made that the
ZTV published in the, and I've checked this, in the original BH TVIA is done on
on a bare earth basis, which I don't think is set out in the document.
And that's probably an omission, but it is generally best practise
to do it on a bare earth basis because when you do ZTVs
with the fake trees and LIDAR or View City, they're just not accurate.
You can't rely on them. You use a ZTV as a rough cut.
And the final observation on this context of the park
is in connexion with View 15.
And this is made from a position, and again as proposed.
I think actually there is, we don't need to go there,
it would take too much time, but there is in the new pack of views,
a rendered view, actually.
Maybe we should go there because they are high resolution shots.
And I just take you to...
So, back to CD 13 .3.
Correct.
And I think it's Vue 15, full render.
Vue 15, full render. Sorry, I've lost my place.
Yes, I beg your pardon. It's Vue 15, full render.
And for those who don't have the hard copy, it's VM 1 .102.
So this is just, again, a high resolution render of the proposals
which were previously shown in wireline.
This position, just so you know, was selected
selected because we felt it was an important moment
of orientation.
Sorry, yeah, yeah, that's all right.
Yeah, yeah.
So you, I think you went there.
Anyway, you'll remember that there's a all weather pitch
just behind you.
It's rather enclosed and you step out
and this is the first point where you can look across
the wide open expanse of this part of the park, which is now basically laid out for
sports activities, informal leisure, that kind of thing. And we felt therefore from
an amenity perspective particularly it was important to study that. The proposals as
revised are I think within the tree line there or thereabouts and I think because of distance
here which is considerable. It's getting on for 900 metres. Because of the enclosed
nature of the park, which means I think you focus on the space in front of you, I don't
think really will be intrusive or detract from your enjoyment of the scene. And if and
to the extent one notices it or contemplates it, then the revised design of the proposals
with the flat top and the light tonality, I think, is a very low key sort of
architectural treatment, which I don't think would draw attention to itself.
Again, some may think it's strange to say, well, you wouldn't notice it, but I
think someone going about their business mostly here wouldn't think that that was
intrusive or even particularly notice it as a skyline change. Others who perhaps
more sensitive to it or aware of it, I don't know, they might. But I just think
this is a negligible impact.
One methodological issue I want to trouble you with, please.
We know as a result of the NPPF, et cetera,
well, first of all, first of all,
to strike that for a minute,
in terms of townscape spatial character and impact,
we know from your evidence,
and you've just re -expressed it,
that you don't identify harm to these character areas
or that which sits within them.
We know from the NPPF that because this is a development
on Brownfield land, et cetera,
that there is a requirement for it to be granted
planning commission unless there is substantial harm
to Townscape's spatial character
or some other substantial harm.
Now, what Mr. Ealy said in relation to that was,
I'm not identifying substantial harm in any of these individually,
but what you do is you add them all up and cumulatively,
that constitutes substantial harm.
Now, from an experiential point of view,
is it appropriate to add up all of the alleged harms
that are identified and to say, therefore,
when you accumulate them, it's substantial?
Is that how the human experience operates,
in townscape terms, please?
I think no, and in an urban setting,
it is perfectly fair to think about the impact
of a development from a single walking experience.
So it might be the pavement of a bridge,
or it might be a promenade.
So that is a single experience that you
have to take into account.
And that's why we provided the kinetic views.
But I don't think as a matter of approach you then go to an entirely different and unconnected area, identify harm there and add that to the impact.
I think that's a discreet experience from the point of view of assessment and I think real human experience because for example someone using the park might never actually have walked along the embankment either.
and townscape is about what the individual sees and experiences,
not about a sort of abstract idea of all these different impacts
that somehow are aggregated.
That isn't the approach we would take.
We would tend to treat moving single experiences, one,
that's fair enough because it's part of a continuous sequence,
but then to jump to another isolated experience
and then see that as harmful to,
I just wouldn't do that from a methodological point of view
and I don't think that it reflects the way you see
and experience an urban environment.
There might be different considerations
in a landscape context, I accept,
but even there, you're looking at particular points of view,
public rights of way and so forth.
Thank you.
Two very quick points before we finish.
Picking up on Dr. Jabb's view of the difference
between Historic England's position in relation to St. Mary's Battersea, which was they couldn't
identify any meaningful harm, and his, which was at least medium less than substantial
harm, if not more. Help the inspector with your view on that, please.
Well, I think it's a finish on this point because it is a really important asset in
Battersea Riverside area, which is B2. If you go in the same document to view 19,
which is the, it's called View from Chelsea Harbour, I mean from that area.
And of course there's an animation from here too, which we don't need to play,
you will have seen. So if you're there, inspector.
When you say the same document, do you mean the TVIA as amended?
Yes, correct.
I think we were in 13 .3.
So now we're looking for Voo 20, is that right?
Correct.
Good.
Thank you.
It's 19, I think, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's 19.
It is 19.
It's quite a good view to reflect on because, and we don't need to go there,
but this is quite close to a view which is in the urban design study,
which for your note, Inspector, is, well as you know, CD 5 .16, it's page 54,
and it's figure 61 and I'll just read what it says in the caption of this view
slightly broader panorama but of this view it says Battersea's mixed riverside
frontage illustrating new and old landmarks in close proximity but as for
the impact of the proposals I don't consider this to be harmful in heritage
terms because the principle setting relationships from this and related
views are with Monte vitro and with that 1970s, I call it cluster, London County
Council style apartment blocks to the right, that pair there, which are very
typical of work from that period across South London. You see a lot of these
across South London.
And I understand that, you know,
in the position of Monte Ventro was this large mill.
Now the proposal appears, obviously to the left of Monte Ventro,
but there's a separating distance which is significant.
It's at least 300 metres there or thereabouts.
So in fact, you know, you would appreciate,
the human eye and brain would appreciate very clearly
that there's a distance separating these two things
and that the building to the left of Montevitro
is associated with a different part of the scene.
And with some knowledge and understanding,
prior knowledge and understanding,
you might associate that building with Battersea Bridge,
which you see in the view.
So I don't think that the ability to appreciate the church,
and it's important, and I agree with Dr. Jubb,
it's really important,
and an unusual setting relationship with the river
and trees around it,
which relationship is set out clearly in my evidence,
is undermined in any way.
And I don't think even the scale
and dramatic form of Monte vitro that in this case,
the proposals would make any difference at all
to your ability to appreciate the church.
Thank you. And finally, with two minutes to go, and I think we can do it within this time,
you've got a small schedule of addenda and corrections, I think some of which you've
already drawn to Mr. Edwards' attention, and we've got the schedule here which we'll hand
in, and we can give you a copy if you can't find one.
Yeah, that would be good if I could have a copy.
And this is the last point, Marm, so if you bear with us, we might just stray over lunchtime.
It will really just take a moment.
If we could go to my evidence.
Brilliant, I lost my copy.
Thank you.
So that's ID 18.
Thank you.
18.
So first correction is para 4 .61.
I say in the original drafting the appeal site is identified as mid -raise area etc.
on the map, the Battersea Mid -rise building zone, local plan etc. and reproduced here.
This being the appeal site is the only portion of the ransom stock focal point of activity
excluded from the taller height zone. Mr. Ely pointed out that that was not correct
and I'm grateful to him.
And in fact, if you take the trouble to look at the map,
Albion Riverside is excluded,
and so is the Southeastern Park,
a part of Ransomstock, focal point of activity.
So I think make a note to that effect.
Second correction is at 5 .113,
which is page 46, internal in the document.
And this refers, Inspector, to the animations.
And when the animations were prepared,
cumulative weren't put in, and it was my mistake.
There is a modern development visible in the animations,
particularly from the one along the Thames Path,
which I wrongly identify as Earl's Court.
In fact, Earl's Court would be visible from there,
but it's off to the right,
and it's the Fulham Gas Works redevelopment,
and so just so there's no inaccuracy.
And finally,
if you turn into section seven,
on page 78 internal,
figure 720
mistakenly reproduces the previous scheme,
not the current scheme before you.
So there's an error there.
So just to make that note.
But you've got the current scheme in VUE 26?
Yes, correct, in the BHDVI.
And none of those corrections
changed my evidence of the inquiry.
And that, mum, is our evidence in chief, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, we're now just past one o 'clock.
Is everybody still okay to take?
Just under an hour now.
Yep.
So it's 1 .01pm, we're adjourned until 2pm.
And Dr Mealy, I'm sure you're very experienced and I don't have to remind you to not communicate with your party.
Thank you.