Glassmill planning appeal - Day 4 Afternoon - Friday 20 March 2026, 2:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Glassmill planning appeal - Day 4 Afternoon
Friday, 20th March 2026 at 2:00pm
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.
The time is 2 o 'clock and the inquiry is resumed.
Before Mr Edwards starts cross -examination of Dr Mealy, I wanted to cheque whether there
are any procedural or housekeeping matters to pick up.
Mr Harris.
Nothing from us.
Thank you, ma 'am.
Mr Edwards.
Nor from us, ma 'am.
Mr Walton.
No?
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr Edwards, over to you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Good afternoon, Dr. Mealy.
Good afternoon.
Dr. Mealy, I hope there has been provided
to you a list of documents that you need to have available.
There's one addition to that list arising out
of some answers that you gave in response to questions
put by Mr. Harris, and that is the local plan, CD 502.
Just give me a moment.
I'll get it.
Thank you.
One moment.
Got it.
Good.
Dr. Miele, can I just begin by identifying what I'm not going to ask you about by way
of cross -examination?
Save in one respect a rising answer that you gave in examination, Chief, I'm not going
to ask you about the application of planning policy to this development nor the planning
balance.
I regard those as matters within the purview of expert town planners and I'll deal with
that through the witnesses the inquiry is going to be hearing from next week.
Secondly, in section 7 of your main proof of evidence, you set out in some detail your
assessment of townscape impacts and you've added to that entirely properly in your oral
evidence this morning.
The inquiry is heard from Mr. Ely earlier during the inquiry about his views in respect
of those impacts, but as you quite rightly and properly say in your evidence, these are
matters of planning judgement on which views may differ.
and ultimately I'm not going to cross -examine you
about those matters, it won't be helpful to the inspector
and in the final analysis it's the inspector's judgement
that counts which will be exercised having regard
to all of that evidence.
So you'll excuse me for not going through each
of those particular points in detail.
Now in terms of what I would like your help with please,
there are four topics which I set out by way of a route map.
The first and briefly is your description of how
and over what area the development will be experienced.
How and over what area the development will be experienced.
Secondly, there is the position of statutory
and other principal consultees.
Thirdly, the local plan preparation process
and the appellant's involvement in it.
And fourthly, the context for the assessment of impacts on character and appearance, particularly
the north of the river and Battersea Park.
So those are the topics.
In respect of the first of those topics, how and over what area the development will be
experienced, this is a short topic and I'd like you please to take up your main proof
of evidence and turn using internal pagination to pages 68 and 69.
Tell me when you have that.
Do you have that, Dr. Miele?
Oh, yes.
Sorry.
I beg your pardon.
I will tell you when I've got it.
Page 68 and 69 are within section 7 of your main proof of evidence, begins on the previous
page, and the subject of section 7 is impact and effect on the character and appearance
of the area. Can we pick up please the third column of text as it appears on page 68, beneath
a subheading, visual amenity. Do you see that? Yes. Thank you. The proposals would be a prominent
addition to this part of London. That was your written evidence, that remains your
evidence. Correct. The scheme design seen in context is therefore the main
issue before the inquiry. But pausing there, we agree. Yes. Those enjoying and
using the river are not just sensitive receptors, they're a weighty policy
designation seeking to protect the visual immunity it provides to many
people across a wide catchment area. See my earlier discussion on Mr.
Just on that point, I take it that still remains your evidence?
Is that what's said out there?
Yes, it does.
And when you were referring to those enjoying and using the river, I have taken that as
including those who are using, for example, the embankment on the north side of the river
and those who are using the bridges as they cross the river?
Yes.
Thank you.
Good.
And you recognise there that these are sensitive receptors and there are, as we will discuss
in due course this afternoon and next week, weighty as you call them, policy designations
protecting their interests.
Yes.
Thank you.
Paragraph 7 .18 then please.
The scale of the development means that it has wide impacts including from sensitive
land enjoyed by many people.
Again, that's your written evidence, it remains your evidence as you give it to the inquiry
today Dr Mealy.
Yes.
Thank you.
And as far as those sensitive areas are concerned, the sensitive land enjoyed by many, some
Some of these you say in the next sentence,
Battersea Park and the embankment opposite
in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
and the Royal Hospital are subject to
heritive designations which increase,
increase their townscape sensitivity.
Correct.
So you recognise there, Dr. Mealy,
and in that respect you are aligned with Mr. Ely,
that there are sensitive areas of land
where the development will be experienced
in terms of its impact and those include
the park and the embankment, don't they?
Did you say, may I ask, parts of the embankment was the last?
I just didn't hear the last part of that.
I said, as aligned with Mr. Ely, there
are sensitive areas of land where
the development and its impact will be experienced.
And those include, I said, the park, I mean Battersea Park,
and the embankment opposite the appeal site,
effectively the north side of the river
within the Royal Borough.
Thank you.
I simply didn't understand the last part of that sentence.
I didn't want to hear it.
Thank you.
And then as you go on to say, those sensitive areas have a heritage designation, a heritage
value.
Yes.
They also have a townscape value.
Yes.
And they are sensitive in townscape terms as you recognise in the last sentence of paragraph
7 .18.
Correct.
And their overall value, because you have to look at these things cumulatively and in
the round, their overall value is increased because they have a sensitive townscape value
and a sensitivity or value in heritage terms.
Yes, that's my evidence.
Good.
Right.
That is a happy point of common ground.
Can we then just pick up one other reference on the topic of how and over what area the
development will be experienced?
Could we go please towards the front of your proof of evidence where you set out beginning
on internal page for a summary?
Can you tell me when you get to page four, please?
I'm there.
On page four, the third column of text.
Yes.
And the first paragraph in the third column.
In my opinion, the main consideration in this case
is the impact of the proposals on the appearance of the River
Thames and extensive long and medium distant views
from the embankment in the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea and from the Chelsea and Albert Bridges, including the setting of the same and from
upstream points, the new river walk constructed at Lots Road, which is shared between RBKC
and Hammersmith in Fulham.
Just pausing there, Dr Meade, that's effectively the north side of the river, isn't it?
Talking about that.
Yes, it is effectively the north side of the river.
And then you go on, please, and this is what I'd like your help and confirmation on.
I do not seek to diminish local impacts, but simply observe that the proposals will be
prominent across a wide expanse of this part of the river,
Battersea Reek.
The river is obviously a feature of great amenity value.
So you've confirmed both on pages 68 and 69
the position in terms of views,
which are sensitive in townscape terms,
from the north side of the river and the park.
You're also recognising in this part of your evidence
that there are more local impacts
and the development will be prominent
across a wise expanse of the area,
including away from the river.
Those are those more local impacts.
Yes, yes, thank you.
Good, thank you very much indeed.
Good, right, we'll come back to that in due course.
Topic two then please,
and you can put your proof of evidence away
just for a moment.
The position of statutory and other consultees.
Dr. Mealy, as a matter of fact,
matter of law actually,
the local planning authority,
the London Borough of Wandsworth
were obviously required to consult a number of consultees, including Historic England.
Correct.
And they are a statutory consultee in an application of this nature.
Yes.
And their views as a matter of law generally require and attract considerable weight and
importance.
Yes, that's my understanding.
Thank you.
That doesn't bind the decision maker, obviously.
Of course.
Of course.
But in terms of the starting point, a particular weight has to be attributed to the views of
organisations of that nature.
Similarly, and we're going to cheque this, Dr. Miele, but we think as a matter of law
the council were required to consult the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as a neighbouring
authority who was affected by the development.
Be that as it may, they were consulted and again he would accept the views of that neighbouring
authority should attract considerable weight.
Well I wouldn't put them in the same category.
I don't understand their status relative to a statutory constituency so I can't really
I give that, but I would certainly agree with the proposition that, you know, some significant
way to be given to what they say, yes.
Thank you, that's good enough for me.
Thank you very much indeed.
We know that the proposal was, as a matter of policy, required to be made the subject
of review by design review panel.
Correct.
And we've looked at the response of the design review panel at some length already in the
query.
Again, I would expect, Dr. Mealy, that you would accept that the observations and the
advice given by the design review panel again should attract some considerable weight?
No, I wouldn't accept that proposition. I think that their comments are certainly relevant
and they're material but they don't fall into the same category as a statutory consultee
by any means.
Okay, well I didn't suggest that they did Dr. Minnan, that wasn't the question. Do you
accept that the views and advice given by the design review panel, you accept they are
material, do you accept that they should attract considerable weight?
No, that would put them on the same footing as a statutory consultee.
Local authority does not need to give significant weight to their advice and the decision -making
process.
It's my understanding.
What weight are you inviting and advising the inspector to attach to the views?
Sun weight.
All right.
Thank you.
And also, because of the nature of the scheme and the scale, both in terms of height and
quantum of development, the scheme was referable
to the Greater London Authority
and thereby to the Mayor of London.
Correct.
And it was referable at stage one and stage two.
Dr. Mealy, you will obviously read the stage one
and stage two letters and the accompanying report.
Again, would you accept that A, the views
of the Mayor of London and his officers are material?
Yes.
And would you accept that they too should be given
considerable weight in the current balance?
Thank you.
Good.
So we're off to a good start, Dr. Mealy.
Right.
Can we just pick up please just so we can navigate it,
what each of those consultees had to say
about the application.
I'm going to deal with the DRP quite lightly
because we've been through that yesterday.
With whom quite lightly?
I don't miss them.
I'm going to deal with the DRP quite lightly
because we've dealt with it yesterday
but I'd like your help in terms of navigating
the views expressed by other consultees
that we've discussed.
Can we begin with the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea please?
Now just pausing for a moment before we look at what they have to say, we've been through
already one or two references in your evidence and your evidence, if I might say so, quite
rightly and non -controversially indicates that the development will be experienced from
the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, particularly on the other part of the borough
on the other side of the river and that is one of the most important impacts of the development
for consideration, isn't it?
Yes from parts of the Royal Borough.
Thank you very much indeed.
So they, as it were, have got a particular skin
in this game, haven't they?
Give it that way?
Right.
In terms of what they then,
that's the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,
observed so far as the application is concerned
and how they expressed their observations.
Could we go, please, to core document 11 .13?
I'm sorry, I'm so sorry. Unless I say I'm not there, then I'm there.
There's a little stand off here, Dr. Mealy. If I'm quiet for a moment, it's probably better for you to get a document.
There we are.
So 11 .13, a document in terms of its form on the core document library that comprises
essentially two letters, and there is an attachment to each.
If we just navigate the document for a moment, on the first page, which is PDF page one,
do you have, Dr. Mealy, a letter dated in the, broadly the top right hand corner, the
21st of the 11th, 24?
Let me just cheque because there, make sure I got the right one up.
21st of 11th, 24.
Yes, absolutely.
And if we can just look at that letter for a moment, put it in context, you'll see halfway
down the letter there's a subheading schedule.
Yes.
And there's the description of development then identified and we can see from the third
line of that description that the development which is the subject of this letter is the
appeal scheme but are 28 storeys.
Correct.
So this was effectively the RBKC response following the amendment to the scheme in October
2024.
Correct.
And there then follows on page three, appendix one, that essentially sets out the reasons
for the RBKC as it is an objection.
The essence of their objection.
Indeed.
If we just go on in the document, please, again by way of navigation of it to PDF page
page nine, which I hope is a letter dated in the same place the first of July 2024.
I'm with you.
And we can see the schedule, halfway down the letter, refers to a 33 -storey building.
Yes.
Obviously the scheme as originally submitted for planning approval in April 2024, and then
And it follows the same approach in the sense that if you turn over the page, there is beneath
the name and position of the officer who produced this letter a summary report on the application
that said it's at the main basis of their reasons.
Yes, so those are the two letters, one in response to each of the amendments and then
the original application.
Thank you.
Right.
Can we go back, please, to the up -to -date version then, please, or the up -to -date position
of RBKC?
so back to the front of the document,
the letter of the 21st of the 11th, 2024.
Yes.
We can see from the first substantive paragraph
of the letter after the reference to the act
and the location of the development,
I refer to your recent letter requesting observations
from this council and the proposal set out
in the schedule below.
The proposal has been considered
and I would like to inform you
that there are objections to the proposal.
You see?
Just to be clear, give me the digital page.
No criticism.
Acoustics combined with the speed of the question.
I make no criticism.
No, you're perfectly entitled to criticise if you want.
So just please give me that digital page reference again.
Page one of the page.
Page one, okay.
Page one.
Yep.
Back to the front.
It's the 21st of November 2024 letter.
Thank you.
And I was simply asking you to note,
record the first substantive paragraph beginning I refer.
So just reread that for yourself.
And we can see there that the council, RBKC,
informed Wandsworth that there were
objections to the proposal.
And we can see at the bottom of that page,
the full reasons are attached at appendix one.
Do you see that?
Yes.
Okay, we'll come to appendix one in a moment.
However, if you turn over the page,
we can see the reasons that are given
for that objection.
Correct.
The proposed development by virtue of its sighting,
height and form would result in a discord
and dominant and oppressive building
would harm the special interest of the Thames
and Chaney conservation areas,
which are defined by open character
and special relationship with the river.
Further, the development would disrupt
the established trajectory of height,
which increases only to the west of Battersea Bridge.
And there's a reference there to RBKC policies.
Do you see? Yes.
But just pausing there, as we'll see in a moment,
it's clear, isn't it, from the reasons for refusal
and more particularly from the explanation in Appendix One
of the basis of those reasons for refusal
that RBKC had two substantive objections.
One was related to heritage,
particularly conservation areas and listed buildings
within the Royal Borough,
and the second relating to townscape.
Correct. Thank you.
And just before we look at the basis of those objections,
we can see on page two of the letter
that the letter was sent by Amanda Reed,
who is the director of planning in place.
Do you know Miss Reed?
Yes, I know her, yes.
She's essentially the head of planning.
Chief planner, yeah.
Chief planner, thank you very much.
Oh, she's not?
Oh, I haven't caught up with that.
Anyway, she was there when she wrote the letter.
I know who she is.
Okay, good.
Absolutely, yes.
Good.
Appendix one, then please, we can see the reasons.
I don't want to take time on this because the Inspector in Abroad has had an opportunity
to consider this and will again if necessary.
But could we go please to, briefly, to PDF page 5, which should contain section 4 of
appendix 1, which is evaluation.
Correct.
Thank you.
And we can see in paragraph 4 .1 below the heading, subheading evaluation, the decisive
of issues are one, whether the proposals would have
an unacceptable impact on views into and out
of the Royal Borough and on neighbouring conservation areas.
And issue two is whether the proposal would safeguard
the setting of the listed building,
should be probably listed buildings, I think,
within the Royal Borough.
And that's, again, restates the point I put to you
and you accepted a moment ago that the objection
by the RBKC related both to townscape and views
as part of the townscape and heritage.
And the listed buildings being
in the named conservation areas, I believe.
I believe so, Dr. Meade.
I don't see any other mention, but just to be clear.
And that would be unsurprising, really,
because RBKC are obviously objecting
in respect of the impact of the development
on the Royal Borough, and you'd think their focus
would be on listed buildings in their patch, wouldn't you?
Yes, my reason for asking was
it doesn't identify the Royal Hospital or the conservation
comprising the Royal Hospital.
So just to make it absolutely clear where their objection
lies, it lies on those two conservation
areas and any listed structures and buildings within them.
Right.
Just give me one moment.
You may, I'm just pausing, Dr. Meade,
because what you've just said, I think,
I've got a feeling may be addressed elsewhere.
But anyway, we'll come back to that.
I looked, and I don't think it does.
Well, the only pause is there's certainly
a reference to the Royal Hospital gardens most certainly.
That's a 4 .6.
Exactly.
Which are in a different conservation area.
Yeah, but they obviously was.
I mean, you are right Dr. Mila, I think.
And I'll be confident from behind if I'm wrong.
There's no reference to the Royal Hospital itself,
but there certainly is to the gardens.
Or the conservation area it sits in.
Just be absolutely clear, because these
are very important assets we're talking about.
All right.
Anyway, right.
Now, in terms of impact on character and appearance,
I don't want to take up a huge amount of time reading this,
But would you on page five just look please together
at the section of the evaluation as it addresses
character and appearance and the safeguarding
of setting of listed buildings at paragraph 4 .5.
Yes.
And we can see there that there's a reference
by Miss Reed, director of planning,
to the overall height of the building is important
from the perspective of the riverside environment,
townscape and the conservation area settings.
As previously set out, the site is a sandwich of development between the two bridges.
Relative building heights in this clearly defined area are low with a maximum height
of 11 storeys to the southern embankments Wandsworth and 6 to the northern RBKC.
I've taken it Dr Mealy, and perhaps you'd be so good as to confirm it's your understanding
as well that the 11 storeys is talking about Albion Riverside there I think, isn't it?
Yes, I've assumed that from the drafting.
The importance of the low -rise nature of the development of the north and south embankments in this location is to provide an open environment around the river frontage for pedestrians.
Further, it provides visual relief to, and it says statistically, I'm not sure what that means, but I think it might be strategically important open spaces represented primarily by the Royal Hospital Gardens, the Chelsea Embankment Gardens and Battersea Park.
The proposed height of 29 storeys would have a clear and distinct impact on the setting
of these areas and would dominate the immediate skyline and river environment.
The dominance and oppressive character that would be introduced by a development of 29
storeys would be further emphasised by the glazing fabric of the proposed building.
Just yes, it says that, but just to be clear, that just is an inaccuracy in the description
because the predominant material in the façade is not glass.
Just to be absolutely clear.
Right, well, there we are.
and the word's monolithic, well generic,
I don't certainly accept.
Well, Dr. Mealy, I should make it clear,
I accept and understand that you don't accept much,
probably most of what Ms. Reed sets out in this letter,
but as you've agreed already,
this is the view of the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea on an important planning application
to which considerable weight should be attached.
Well, I think earlier I wasn't able to agree
to considerable, because I don't understand the status
of a statutory, of a local authority consulted,
but I mean if as a matter of law that's correct,
then it's correct.
No, I talked to Mila.
I don't want to take a bad point on this.
I took quite a careful note of this.
I'd understood that when I asked you
about your acceptance of the RBKC
of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
as a consulty and asked you your weight,
I'd understood that you said
it should attract considerable weight, not pass as much as -
Well, if I said that, I won't resign from it.
Yeah, well, there we are.
The inspector has a note of it in any event.
And then if we can just complete the exercise
of paragraph 4 .8, please, which is on page six.
As previously identified, the application sits within the setting of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
and its associated heritage assets and townscape.
The application site location to the southern embankment of the River Thames
would place the proposed development directly in the well -valued river setting of RBKC on the northern bank of the Thames.
Great weight is applied to the riverside views and vistas, architecture and special context.
Do you see?
Yes.
And then it goes on, and I'm not going to go through this
in any more detail to deal with the particular
conservation areas that sit on the north side of the Thames
broadly opposite the appeal site.
So if my note of your evidence is correct,
and it's certainly our submission,
these views given by the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea are views of a consultee
and an important one at that,
and should be given considerable weight by the inspector
in the overall balance.
Yes, and on the same basis as my comments in relation to historic England and other
statutory consultees, that's not binding on the decision -maker and wouldn't be binding
on an authority in general terms.
It's taken into account, obviously, given considerable weight, and then planning judgement
is formed.
Mindful of that.
So it tracks considerable weight in and of itself, Dr. Meele, and you are quite right
as a matter of law, and you'll certainly encounter no resistance from me in this respect, that
the inspector has to exercise a judgement
and carry out a balance,
and she is not in any way bound by the views of RBKC,
the views of historically and the views of anybody else.
Nevertheless, they attract weight in the balance.
But of course, it goes a little bit further than that,
doesn't it?
In the sense that where you have a position taken
by the London Borough of Wandsworth as a local authority,
and the view of Wandsworth is that the development
will cause an unacceptable effect on townscape,
and that view is shared by others,
including by a neighbouring authority.
It rather elevates the point, doesn't it?
It's expected to be.
Well, they both come to the same position, conclusion.
Yeah, so you've not, it has, to borrow a phrase
from the criminal jurisdiction,
it has a corroborative effect to some extent, doesn't it?
Well, I'm not able to comment on a jurisprudential point.
Well, I mean, you can surely be so good,
that Dr. Meade is to comment on a straightforward matter
of common sense.
If you have to.
Yeah, no, I'm happy with that.
It does actually emphasise the point.
Thank you very much indeed.
Which is only consistent with my evidence in general terms,
which is that these are very sensitive areas.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but the position
was put on the basis that two local authorities have
formed a view on heritage impact, which is unacceptable.
Well, of course, that's not the position of the local authority.
Well, you did.
I wrote it down as you said it.
The local authority in this case has taken the view that overall the impact on heritage
is acceptable because of the balance which of course Kensington Chelsea didn't undertake.
I apologise if I misunderstood the way it was put but I thought you said it's a corroboration
that two local authorities have formed the same conclusion as to the unacceptability
of heritage impacts.
And if I was incorrect, then I will metaphorically sit down.
Can I just put this point to bed?
If I said heritage impacts, that was a misstatement.
Certainly we are dealing here so far as this local
planning authority is concerned in respect
of townscape impacts.
And if I put the proposition again, and it will admit
of the same answer I expect Dr. Mealy,
if you have two local authorities who are both identifying the same issue in respect of unacceptable
townscape impacts then that does
corroborate or otherwise increase the weight that you attach to the that objection.
Well, it means both of them are forming the same conclusion, but I think it's important
Inspector when you read this to look at their reasoning
as against the evidence that's in front of you.
Thank you very much.
I'm sure the inspector will perform that exercise.
Just before moving off the point,
one of the real, as I'm really reading this letter,
one of the considerations that they put
is an identification of a particular requirement
or character to taper down from Battersea Bridge.
And they see the height proposed at Battersea Bridges,
you know, contrary to what is the right solution
for this site.
So that's a particular point.
I don't know that Wandsworth has put that point.
So I think if a comparison is going to be made
and way to tribute it, I think you have to,
I mean, I haven't done that exercise in fairness,
but I think you just need to look very carefully
what each one of them says and test whether it's consistent
or whether there's merit in it.
And I make no further point than that.
All right, thank you very much indeed, Dr. Mealy.
We can put R .B. Casey and Ms. Reed to one side
for a moment, please.
Can we pick up briefly,
I hope, Historic England, and for that purpose,
core documents 11 .10 and 11 .11.
Mm -mmm.
Just tell me when you have both of those documents.
I have them.
Good. Excellent.
So they follow chronology.
11 .10 is a letter of the 19th of June, 2024,
and 11 .11 is a letter of the 6th of November, 2024,
both from historic England, both from the same officer
of historic England actually.
Alistair Young.
Yeah, Alistair Young, who's Inspector of Historic Buildings
and Areas.
And the fact that there are two letters, same with RPKC,
is historic England were consulted on the application
as submitted and then consulted on the application
again following the October Amendment.
Dr. Meaney.
Correct.
Good.
Thank you.
Now obviously, the position of historic England
is one that in terms of its formal statutory remit
is directed at the impact on the historic environment
and in this case heritage designated
heritage assets, isn't it?
That's right.
Thank you very much indeed.
But in terms of how they describe
the proposed developments and its impact,
could we please take up CD 11 .10 first?
And just to record where Historic England land
and so far as the proposal is concerned, can we go to the very last page of that letter
which I have as PDF page 7?
And it's at the last page of the letter with the signature, because I have a paper copy
as well.
Yeah, I've got a paper copy as well, it's the one that's got the recommendation on it.
Yes, I'm with you.
Okay, I've written it down as PDF page 7, looking at it electronically, and we see the
recommendation and it says Historic England has concerns regarding the application on
heritage grounds.
If we look at the paragraph above the recommendation, it says therefore we are unable to support these plans
and strongly recommend that the tall building is lowered significantly to reduce or remove entirely the harm to the historic environment on both sides of the river.
You've obviously read this document.
I have, absolutely.
I've recorded it.
And we can see there that the position of RBKC, historic England, is that they are unable
to support and they make a recommendation as to how their concerns could be addressed.
And after that the scheme was lowered.
After that the scheme was lowered, quite right.
If we look at core document 11 .11, and we'll come back to 11 .10 in a moment, but 11 .11,
The scheme was lowered.
And we can see that as far as the recommendation is concerned on the first page of CD 11 .11,
Historic England remains concerned about these amended plans for 1 Battersea Bridge.
Whilst the reduction in height is welcome in principle, the tall building would remain
a visually intrusive and incongruous addition to the townscape with wide reaching harmful
impacts on the historic environment.
and we therefore rest on our advice set out in our original consultation response.
You see?
Yes, I read that.
So we can see that there was plainly as a matter of fact a reduction in height.
Historic England was re -consulted and having acknowledged that reduction in height they
remained in the view that the development was visually intrusive and incongruous as
an addition to the townscape, wide reaching harmful impacts and they rest on their original
advice.
That's right, which is not an objection. It's an expression of concern.
Yes, Dr. Meade, I thought you might say that. It's not an objection, but it's quite clear
the unexpressed statement of inability, unable to support, and a strong recommendation that
the scheme is amended.
Yes.
Good. If we can then go back, as I indicated, to 11 .10, please. And would you turn within
it to PDF page 3 and you will see on page 3 a subheading impact.
Yes.
And can we look at the second paragraph under that subheading?
The impact of the proposed development on the historic environment is assessed in the
built heritage, the landscape and visual impact assessment of March 2024.
The HTVIA indicates that the proposed development would be a very bold architectural statement,
especially in river views, starkly contrasting with its
townscape due to context, due to its enormous height.
I think actually in fairness,
the HTVA doesn't actually say that.
That's what Historic England say, isn't it?
I'm sorry?
But that is, the HTVA doesn't say that in terms,
but that is what Historic England
have taken from that document.
Yes, no, that's right.
It's a trick of drafting, isn't it, that?
All right, good.
Anyway, and they go on then and deal with,
We're just pausing there for a moment.
I mean, what they are describing there,
and it's probably essentially part of the process
that then leads on to their assessment of impact
on designated heritage assets,
is effectively a townscape observation, isn't it?
The very bold architectural statement,
especially in Riverview,
starts to be contrasting with its townscape context
due to its enormous height.
Well, that's right.
And they do themselves sometimes blur these two categories.
They don't say historic townscape,
because I think the townscape you see from the river,
from the north side of the river is actually quite mixed
as we've already discussed.
So they're not, they are offering their view on townscape.
They are indeed.
Thank you Dr. Meeley.
Thank you.
And as I said, sometimes this distinction is blurred,
sometimes that's blurred inadvertently,
sometimes it's intentional because there is obviously
an overlap to an extent between these two matters.
Well we've no idea what was intended there.
Well we know what they say Dr. Meeley.
Then to save coming back to this letter,
and I just want to pick up two other references if I may.
The first reference is the next paragraph,
the one we've just looked at,
third paragraph under the subheading impact.
Perhaps the most notable juxtaposition in scale
illustrated in the ATVIA would be from Chaney Bridge
towards Battersea Bridge where the tall building
would rise significantly above the riverfront townscape
as set out above the significance of Battersea Bridge
largely relates to Baseljets design and innovation,
which would continue to be appreciated
despite the imposing nature of the tall building.
Taking this into account, as well as the low -lying position
of the bridge and its mixed -hascope setting,
we consider the harm caused to the listed bridge to be low,
despite the significant, significant visual impacts.
So a point, I suppose, airing towards you and your favour
here, impact on the bridge itself,
in terms of its significance, is indicated to be low, I think.
Well, that's right.
and effectively what they're saying
is that there's no impact on that significance, which
is what they're saying.
And they perhaps are blending a townscape point.
Yes.
Sorry, Dr. Meade, I wasn't intended to interrupt you.
You carry on.
No, I've made my point.
OK, good.
You've actually made my point for me as well.
There is plainly a recognition in that paragraph
and elsewhere that there is a particular level of impact,
in this case, low in historic England's view
on the significance of Battersea Bridge.
but there is, as they say, a significant visual impact
and that seems to be more towards the townscape type point.
Well, and we agree, I'm sorry to cut across you, we agree.
There is significant visual impact.
Thank you very much, good.
We put that then to one side, but before we do that,
Historic England, again, I think it's agreed between us,
they are a statutory consultee
and their views have to be given at significant weight.
Thank you, good.
The DRP we've discussed, again,
I'm not gonna go over that ground with you again,
but we know what their position was and the inspectors very well aware of it from the examination of documents yesterday
finally pleased the GLA
My cloak may close the
DRP material now on my screen. Yes, you can't remember. Okay, because I got it
I just did I got it especially hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Just think about that for a moment
No, just keep that open if you would we may go back to it in the moment
That's either a threat. I'm right. It's not a threat
I don't like the opportunity to comment on it.
Right.
Kia ora, please.
CD 1108 and 1109.
Just to cheque, are we going to be going back
to the Historic England document at all?
No, we are not.
Brilliant.
So we're going to the GLA.
I'm sorry, Matt.
I'm sorry, Inspector.
I'm probably going to come to regret saying that now,
but I don't think so, man.
I'll put it that way.
Right.
And Kia ora, Dr. Mealy.
So, 1109 and 1108.
Yes, I have those documents.
1108 is a report, top right -hand corner,
1st of July, 2024.
And that is what's known in the jargon
as the Stage 1 report.
Correct.
So you're aware, as you confirm,
the Stage 1 report are essentially the initial views
of the GLA on an application,
and they are given in very short order
after the application is made
and is formally referred to the GLA?
Yes.
Good, thank you.
And we can see if we can look please together
at the stage one report.
Can we go to internal,
I'm using the internal pagination page eight.
The pagination, I've got it printed,
is the bottom right hand corner of each page.
Okay.
Thank you.
and we can see that on page eight there is a subheading
within the stage one report,
scale and massing brackets tall buildings.
You see, and this there then follows a series of paragraphs
between paragraph 35 and 41
where scale and massing is addressed.
And can we pick up what the GLA had to say
at paragraphs 37 and 38?
At pre -application stage,
GLA officers consider that a landmark for the river bridge
could be an appropriate design principle to apply
when we're developing the site.
However, as outlined at pre -application stage, this does not mean that a building of significant height is considered appropriate on that basis.
Sure, I mean that's right. They're not ruling it in and not rolling it out on that basis.
Well, they're not saying it's inappropriate on that basis. They say it doesn't mean that a building of significant height is appropriate.
Yeah, it still needs to be tested.
Does it say that Dr. Meaney? Oh, that's implicit I think in fairness.
Yeah, it must do. However, an app line does not mean a building is
student -organised because it's approved on that basis.
Well, there we are. I'm not sure I would necessarily...
Okay.
The Inspector can read this for herself and form a view on it, but I think we've reached
a degree of consensus, at least in terms of the approach with regard to landmark qualities
of buildings and what can and can't achieve that.
I mean, the paragraph says what it says. I read it slightly differently because it's
two sentences together, but, you know, it's a matter for the Inspector really to construe
them.
Well, Dr. Mila, I'm not going to take time at this time
on a Friday afternoon to go over that ground again.
We've done landmark qualities to death, quite frankly.
Paragraph 38, in terms of visual and cumulative impact,
the GLA officers note that the tall building proposal
while slender and architecturally elegant
would represent a stark new urban typology
in its immediate setting.
The submit the HDBI also demonstrates the proposal
would have quite a high degree of wider task visibility,
often in juxtaposition with the height of development
in its context.
This is apparent in many HTVI views,
but particularly in view 15 from Battersea Park,
where it's the only building obviously visible
above the tree line, and in views 10 and 11,
where its dominant scale is clearly indicated.
Yeah, actually that is actually incorrect,
because from that area, you see two tall buildings,
well, one tall building at least, above the tree line.
And obviously, that was when the building
was five storeys taller.
Dr. Meade, fair point, it was five storeys taller.
I'm not gonna go in at this stage.
We will come back to it, I promise, View 15,
because it's one of the views I wanted your help with,
but we can see what the GLA say there.
And I think what we can perhaps agree,
leaving aside the point about what can and can't be seen
and at what stage of the evolution of the development,
is the GLA picked out in particular at View 15
from Battersea Park for a comment in their letter,
no doubt recognising in their view
it's sensitivity and importance.
But anyway, we can see how the GLA described the building there, a stark new urban typology
in its immediate setting, quite a high degree of wider landscape visibility, and then a
particular point about its dominant scale in views 10 and 11 and subject to the points
that you make in the inspector's resolution of them.
View 15.
Yes, while slender and architecturally elegant, which they accept.
Again, you would invite the inspector to place material weight on those views of the GLA?
You might not agree with them, but they attract that weight,
don't they?
But they need careful consideration.
Thank you.
That's right.
All of what they say.
Thank you.
And then we don't need to look at it,
but they go on and deal in detail
with some heritage matters in a series of paragraphs
beginning on page 10.
And then they reach their overall conclusion.
If we can look at that together, please, on page 22.
So we, sorry.
Page 10.
Yes, I understand the structure letter.
I just, I mean, we skipped over architectural quality,
which I thought was important,
where they elaborate their views,
but then on page 10, they start with heritage.
Sorry, I was just, Dr. Milne,
I wasn't going to propose to take you
to the series of paragraphs
that analyse impact on heritage assets.
I was just noting that that was addressed by the GLA
in some detail in their letter.
And if we go to the end of the letter, please,
which is page 22.
Page which again?
Page 22.
Thank you.
We can see the conclusions.
Again, pausing there, these are conclusions
following the stage one.
So they're their initial views on the application.
We can see the third bullet point, urban design
and heritage.
The site has not been identified as suitable for a tall building
and visual environmental impacts would
need to be robustly addressed.
That's the advice given to people.
Yep, that's the D9C test.
Yeah.
And then it goes on to deal with heritage assets
and the public benefits balancing exercises.
Again, in D9C.
And we can then see that the officers at the GLA
responsible for the letter are then set out,
starting with the case officer, the team leader,
and then the higher cohort of officers,
Alison Fike, the deputy head of development management,
John Finlayson, the head of development management,
and then Lucinda Turman, the assistant director.
Sure.
It's the GLA's corporate view.
Thank you.
Good.
Then to complete the exercise, please,
could we go to 11 .09, which is the stage two letter.
And this, as the inspectors are aware,
is the referral to the GLA after there's
been a resolution by the local planning authority
one way or the other on the application,
this case to refuse.
And it's the stage two referral that
gives the mayor the opportunity to intervene
on the application, isn't it?
Of course.
And the Mayor is entitled to intervene on an application in one of two ways, either
to direct refusal, which obviously isn't in scope because the Council here had already
resolved to refuse, or to make himself the local planning authority, i .e. call in the
application?
I'm very familiar with it.
Yep.
Good.
Yes.
Sorry.
And then we can see that, well, as far as the Mayor's position is concerned, if we can
go please to internal page 10.
Yes.
We can see that he sets out at the bottom of page 10,
Article 7, his powers and his powers of intervention
arise if A, there is a significant impact
on the implementation of the London plan.
This is paragraph 15 by the way, Dr. Miele.
Yes.
Secondly, significant effects on more than one borough
and thirdly, sound planning reasons for intervention.
Yes.
You've read this report, Dr. Miele.
I have, yeah.
And we know therefore that as a matter of record,
the mayor did conclude the development
had a significant impact on the implementation of the plan.
He did conclude because of the impacts on RBKC,
a significant effect on more than one borough,
but he did not conclude there were sound planning reasons
to intervene.
That's what happened.
And in terms of how at stage two,
he addressed scale and massing,
could we go to page 15 please?
We can see tall building scale and massing.
It's addressed in a series of four paragraphs.
Paragraph 42 refers to the consultation stage response.
That's the stage one report highlighting a landmark building could be an appropriate
design for the site, but recognising that the tall building proposal, while slender
and architecturally elegant, would represent a new urban typology in its immediate setting,
would result in heritage impacts.
and then it records in paragraph 43
the council's resolution.
So you drew my attention to paragraph 43 there.
Yeah, 43 is,
40, I just want to read it, that's all,
because you're reading it very quickly.
I'm so sorry.
Would you read paragraphs 42 and 43?
Thank you.
Just to re -familiarise myself with them.
Yes, new urban typology,
while slender and architecturally elegant.
Yes, heritage impacts.
Yes, understood.
Yes, it says that.
Yeah, essentially Dr. Mealy at stage two, the mayor is simply essentially in summary form restating the view that he'd expressed previously
Correct. And that view as we've looked at was that
the developments would have represent a stark new urban typology and a dominant scale in certain views and he
notwithstanding
The development would have a significant effect on the London plan
had on more than one bar, I decided not to intervene.
I mean, I don't agree with the stark new urban typology.
Because after all, it's right next to Albion Riverside,
which is a dramatic piece of architecture, which
includes both social housing and private market housing,
as well as commercial development,
albeit it's in a precinct scheme.
So in fact, the forms, the type and character of the development
is complementary to what Albion -Brucite does.
So I don't agree.
It's a tall building, this is a tall building.
Thank you.
Dr. Meaney, rest assured I understand,
I'm sure the inspector will understand
that you don't agree with the judgments expressed
by the Mayor of London and his team in these reports.
You don't agree with what Historic England said,
you don't agree with what Amanda Reid said at RBKC.
I understood that entirely, but these are,
you accept material considerations
of varying degrees of weight,
at a considerable weight, and they do, to use a phrase,
but to borrow a phrase I've used previously,
tend to corroborate, in terms of townscape impact,
the views of the officers and elected members
of this authority, don't they?
In different ways, yes, they make different points,
but I would agree with the broad point.
So you've got, as far as the inspector is concerned,
the inspector has your view,
very clearly expressed as it is.
He has the view of Mr. Ely.
Yes, mm -mmm.
And he also has the views,
he also has the views, forgive me,
of, he also has the views, I'm so sorry, Mom.
I did pick that one, sorry.
Also has the views of,
of, of RBKC.
Correct.
In townscape terms, aligned broadly with the council.
The views of Historic England,
insofar as they express townscape views,
broadly aligned with the council,
and the views of the officers of the mayor of London.
Yes.
Good, thank you, right.
We can move on, please, to topic three,
which is the local plan process.
Now, Dr. Miele,
the document of the local plan in 2023
was obviously preceded by the normal statutory processes
carried up to it.
The local plans evolved from Reg 18 to Reg 19,
and Regulation 19, that is the proposed submitted draught
of the local plan that the local planning authority
is required to do and in this case does submit to the Secretary of State for examination into its soundness.
And you understand that part of the process?
Perfectly well.
You
professionally became involved in the proposal at this proposal and those behind it
at or about the Reg 19 stage of the process, didn't you?
Yes, I explained that in chief.
Thank you. And without going to it, and I really don't think we need to go to it, the Regulation 19
submission draught version of what became the local plan
included a policy on tall buildings, which was policy LP4.
Yes, I haven't looked at that recently.
No, no, I don't think you need to, Dr. Meenings.
I don't think there's any factual dispute between us.
If I need to be taken there, I will be.
And at regulation 19 stage, LP4 was in the same form
as it became in the adopted plan, save for parts C and G,
where there was a modification made by the inspector
which effectively changed the text
from will refuse to will resist.
Other than that it was the Reg19 version.
Yes, and I should just add, I do recall as well
that I don't think the supporting text
changed materially either.
I think it was a simple phrase change
rather than go through the whole rigmarole of changing.
I don't think.
Because there is some inconsistency between the guidance part of the policy and the new text.
I just point that out in case someone asks about it.
No, it's a fair point, not to merely...
I don't think, I'll be told otherwise in the inquiry, I'll be told next week if the position is different,
I don't think the text changed materially either.
So the principle change was through the main modification made by the inspector to part C and G of the policy.
And we'll come to that in a moment.
Correct. No, no, we're agreed entirely on that.
Thank you.
And the appellant with a professional team
sought to and did make representations
on the soundness of the Reg 19 local plan.
And the professional team that was supporting
the appellant in that respect included you and your firm.
Yes, well me principally for my firm.
We didn't provide any other service.
I see, thank you.
You effectively took over some representations
that had been prepared previously
and written form by the Taverner consultancy.
Correct.
Right, yeah.
It was too late in the day for us
to add any new documentation.
Understood.
And the appellant was given an opportunity to,
as it were, go to the table of the local examination
and to be represented and to make oral representations
before the inspectors.
Oh, yes, yeah.
And as part of that.
Well, there were about five or six parties
commenting on that, yeah.
Quite possibly.
But in terms of the appellant's team, it was you,
It was Mr. Buzzer on behalf of Savills
who were the town planners at that stage
presumably before DP9 were fully involved
or involved at that point.
And you had legal representation with King's Council.
Yes, with Mr. Murci.
Mr. Murci, thank you.
And essentially the appellant sought
and invited the local plan inspectors
to conclude that the Reg 19 plan
and particular policy LP4 was not sound
and that modifications needed to be made to it.
Correct.
And can we look please just at the nature of the objections and therefore the exercise
that we, the local plan inspectors, were invited to undertake by reference to appendix 7 of
your appendices.
Yes, I reproduced the whole of that, Rip.
Let's go to appendix 7, please.
Can you tell me where it begins?
No, this is going to be trouble because I have got a printed version, not a media version.
I'll get there quicker.
I think it starts
And there is some pagination
Begins on page 74. That's right. I
Mean, it said that it's just to be clear. It said Montague Evans submission. That's obviously not correct. It's the one we adopted
Just to be clear
Thank you.
If we just use page 74 as the point of orientation,
on page 74 there's what looks like a submission, a statement,
from Savills 27th of October, 2022.
Do you see that?
I certainly do, yes.
And we can see that's directed at local plan examination matter 13 hearing statement.
Yes.
If we look at paragraph 1 .4, we can
see what the elements of matter 13 were,
that the statements and therefore the appellant
was engaging with.
First of all, are the requirements
of achieving high quality place policies
justified by the appropriate evidence having
regard to national guidance, local contest, and London Plan?
LP4 tall buildings is the policy consistent with D9
of the London Plan.
And thirdly, do policies LP1 and LP9
provide clear direction as to how the decision maker should
React to Development Policy proposals.
Correct.
You see?
And Saville set that out.
Some evidence on that.
And if we turn over the page to page 76.
With the suggested modifications.
Yeah, exactly.
Some suggested modifications.
And then if we turn on in the appendix,
just by way of orientation, please, to page 84.
We can see appendix two, and this is appendix two to Saville's matter 13 hearing statements.
Correct.
Some representations prepared by the Taverner consultancy.
Yes, in February 2022.
Exactly.
And so appendix seven is, as I understand it anyway, the full complement of the written
submission made by the appellant to matter 13 and then that was backed up by
oral submissions afterwards? No, the other content was the Hillingdon
decision which follows on. That was attached, let me just make sure, because I
tried to reproduce the whole thing because it was directly pertinent to the
second of those matters. There was, you know, Tesco, the famous, the well -known
testicle case. Suffolk Coles. Anyway, there was a chunky submission.
Perhaps I put the point too shortly. The entirety of what you have reproduced in
Appendix 7 was the written submissions that were made by the appellant to Main
Matter 13. I'm sorry if I misunderstood the question. I beg your pardon.
No, I put the question badly, Dr. McNary, for you to apologise. The full
complement of what the written submissions were to Main Matter 13 you
have produced in your appendix seven.
Correct, that's the full submission.
Good, now without going to this in boring detail,
Dr. Mealy, there were a number of elements,
as I understand it and from what I have read,
particularly from the Saville submission,
that comprise the appellant's representations
on main matter 13.
Firstly, and again we don't need to read it,
but as a point of reference for the inspector,
on page 74 of your appendix seven,
at paragraph 3 .2, the second column of text,
there is a reference to draught policy LP4
and the tall building height parameters.
Do you see that?
3 .2?
Yeah.
Let me just.
Please read it to yourself if you find that more helpful.
Just a moment, sorry, I'd orient myself to document.
Yes, I've read it.
So there was, first of all, one strand of the objection
was effectively the height parameters for tall buildings
were too restrictive.
Yes.
And there was a submission made that the plan was unsound
in that respect and should be modified.
Yes.
Secondly, at paragraph 3 .3,
let's reread that to yourself, please.
Yes, that refers to the fact that the existing building is already at the mid -rise height
and even at that stage my understanding was, although it's not my expertise, that effectively
sticking to that height would prevent any development happening on the site because
there would be effectively no value in bringing forward a development that's exactly the
same size as is there in the moment.
Well, I'm not sure if quite goes that far, Dr. Mealy,
perhaps we can agree.
Well, let me reread it.
Let me just reread it, because that
was my understanding at the time.
So just give me a moment, sorry.
Mid -rise buildings.
Six storeys.
Yeah, I mean, I think actually that paragraph
is consistent with the information that
is before this inquiry now in relation to these proposals.
So information that Mr. Barbalov spoke to yesterday
about the optioneering that was done
within the existing envelope of the building
retained or knocked down.
And I also understand, although I haven't studied it,
that there's similar viability.
And there's other viability information
before the inquiry as well by a development surveyor.
Dr. Miele, can I help on this?
First of all, let's see what we can agree on this.
What paragraph 3 .3 says in a pretty carefully drafted
representation by Mr. Buzzer from Savills at the time
is that the effect of the appeal site being located
in a mid -rise zone was to use his words,
sterilise the site.
In fact, he wasn't using the site to it,
giving the opportunity for the site to be used
to meet wider or contribute to any of the objectives
of the draught plan, as we say.
Yes, I think in different terms,
I express my understanding of what that means.
Yeah, well, and Dr. Mealy, again, I hope we can agree this,
that by what is said in paragraph 3 .3,
a further strand of the appellant's case
at the local plan examination is the site should not be,
wasn't sound for the plan to be included in a mid -rise.
Well, because it wouldn't be deliverable on that basis.
It's one of the soundness tests in the NPPF.
No, no, I'm simply not going to accept that, Dr. Mealy.
First of all, it doesn't refer to deliverability anywhere
in that paragraph, does it?
Does it, Dr. Mealy?
Well, I'm sorry.
I mean, sterilise the site.
I mean, that's the way I interpret it.
I think that interpretation is a fair one.
And that was my understanding at the time in any case.
There is a reference to a document that was uploaded
that we don't have in front of us,
which might have been a viability analysis,
but I don't know, I haven't checked that link.
I don't even know if it's live,
but I'm afraid that's why I read that part of the submission.
Dr. Miele, can you answer my question?
Is there any reference to deliverability
in paragraph 3 .3 of this?
We're getting off on a tangent, by the way,
I'm going to give you the opportunity to answer that question.
I'm going to answer fairly.
No, not in terms, but that's the way I construe it.
Right. Now, can we get back on point, please?
One of the other strands of the objection to the local plan raised by your clients
was that the site, for whatever reason, we say,
straightforwardly expressed in paragraph 3 .3,
because it wouldn't deliver objectives, should not be identified as a mid -rise zone.
That's part of the objection, wasn't it?
Well, that was, as you fairly summarised, Inspector, it was about the zone and it was
about the soundness of the evidence base for the identification effectively.
Very much indeed. And then can we look, please, thirdly at paragraph 3 .9?
Mm -mmm.
Just reread that paragraph to yourself, please.
Let me just remind myself of it.
Hopefully it will stop reversing soon.
I've read it now.
A third strand of the case was that the appeal site should be identified as being in a high,
right, a tall building zone?
And then fourthly please, can we read,
could you read paragraph 3 .12?
Yes, and this is the concept that's been aired already.
Exactly, and paragraph 3 .12 then chimes with
some oral representations that you made
at the examination session, Dr. Mealy,
which was the building of the site
had a particular prominence, there was effectively
an opportunity for a landmark building
to achieve wayfinding outputs
or a wayfinding function on a major route.
And again, there was an attempt, wasn't there,
to include an allocation of the appeal site.
In the plan.
By Savills, that was not the substance
of my address to the examination at all.
That was not my evidence.
My evidence was purely about the urban design study
and the need for flexibility.
I did not promote in discussion with the inspectors
that it was wrong because it required a landmark building.
I simply didn't do that.
Because there wasn't a reference scheme
that was presented to the examiners
and my brief really was to look at the UDS
and to seek to get some flexibility into it.
Forgive me for interrupting you.
I wasn't intending to do.
I don't really much care whether it was you or Savills,
but there clearly was, as part of the case that was put
on behalf of your client, the local plan examination,
an element of that case that the plan was not sound
in order to make it sound there should be an allocation
of the appeal site.
I apologise.
You used the word you, and I think probably you meant
the appellant.
Well, I...
Yeah, and I apologise for that.
Yeah, but can you confirm that that was part of the case?
Yeah, that was part of their case,
and they included, I think, the 2018,
I mean, I can't remember if they did or not.
I don't, please, in there.
And that's good enough for me, Dr. Meer.
The reason I did actually say you,
and I did say you intentionally,
because I spent an interesting evening,
one night last week, looking at the recordings
of the hearing, and what you said of the hearing.
But anyway, be that as it may,
I don't need to chase that down.
This one is to Harris's phrase,
don't need to chase that down,
because effectively, it's common ground between us
that an allocation was sought
through the local plan process,
whether it be by ourselves or others.
Right, so let's just see where this all ended up then please and we'll come to your point about flexibility in a moment
So can we just go to the local plan inspectors report into the soundness of the plan, please which is called 611
Yes, this is we looked at this in my achieve we did
And we'll just have open please
the section of the report that's dealing with
policies LP1 to LP9, including LP4,
which actually begins on just above paragraph 106.
Again, I've got a printed copy, so forgive me
not being able to give pagination.
Do you have that?
Yes.
Yeah, and issue three, whether the development
management policies of the ones with local plan
are justified in general conformity with the London plan
or are likely to be effective, you see?
And the inspectors are there above paragraph 107
looking at policies LP1 to LP9.
Okay, and then the main body of the text
that concerns your client's objection
and indeed, as far as is relevant to it,
the matters to all this inquiry,
I'm gonna essentially begin at paragraph 109, don't they?
Yes.
Okay, and we're not gonna go through
each of these paragraphs in detail,
but I just want to see where the nature
of your client's arguments then landed
so far as the output of the examination process
is concerned.
Firstly, as we've discussed by reference
to the saddle's representation on main matter 13,
one element of the case was the tall building zones
were too confined, too restrictive
in terms of the height range.
Can we just look please at paragraph 117
of the inspector's report, please?
Yes.
And we can see out there that they conclude
there's nothing persuasive before us to demonstrate
that it's necessary to allow buildings to exceed
the appropriate height range within the tall building zones
stated in criteria in D of policy LP4.
That's correct, because there was no reference scheme
presented even as a base scheme.
Well, Dr. Mealy, we know and we've seen
that the attempt or the representations made by Savills
was the tall building zones provided in the Reg 19
local plan were too restrictive and too restrictive so far as the appeal site is concerned, that
did not lead the inspectors to find that the plan was unsound nor to make any modification
to it, did they?
Correct.
The second element of the case put forward by your client is that the plan was unsound
by reason of its identification of the appeal site as being within a mid -rise zone.
And we've looked at that together by reference to the Saville's representations.
Correct.
And again, the inspectors did not accept that representation,
nor did they find the plan unsound
by reason of its inclusion of the appeal
site in a mid -rise zone.
Thirdly, the inspectors did not accept the submission made
by your clients and through Savills on its behalf
that the appeal site should be rezoned as a tall building
zone.
Correct.
And fourthly, nor did the inspectors
accept that the appeal site should be the subject
of its own discrete policy allocation?
Correct.
Thank you.
And therefore, if and insofar, Dr. Mealy,
I don't accept this that is evidentially correct,
but if and insofar is part of the case being advanced
by your client, the local plan examination,
is that it was simply not deliverable to,
would not be deliverable to provide
provide a tall mid -rise building on the site,
that did not find favour so far as the inspectors
are concerned in terms of any change to the emerging policy.
Did it?
No, I don't recall the viability point was aired
in the examination.
I thought you said there was something to do
with deliverability as far as you're aware.
Well, yes, which is just another form
of explaining viability.
Okay, right.
But what was achieved was in the Saville's
First page letter, the second bullet point, policy LP412 buildings is a policy consistent
with policy D9 of the London Plan.
Absolutely.
We will come to that in just a moment, Dr Mealy, but just let me finish the point I
was putting to you.
My bigger part.
You were suggesting when I asked you about the reference in the Paravits report to sterilisation
because of the mid -rise zone allocation of the site, however that was put and however
that point was deployed before the local plan inspectors, it did not lead the inspectors
to conclude that the identification of the appeal site in the mid -rise zone led to the
planning and sound and therefore requiring a main modification, did it?
No, that was the point that was put to me previously about it wasn't taken out of the
mid -rise zone, correct.
Good, thank you.
Now, what we know the inspectors did do is to make a modification to part C and part
G of policy LP4 to remove the reference to buildings that are outside tall buildings
that are outside tall building zones will be refused to one where it says they will
be resisted and the same substantive modification was then made to parquee of the policy in
respect of mid -rise buildings outside mid -rise zones.
Yes, seek to restrict and we'll resist. Exactly, yeah. And we can see that the reasoning
given by the inspectors for making that main modification is set out in paragraph 116 of
the plan of the report, forgive me,
that we've looked at together.
Yes.
Thank you very much indeed.
Good.
Yes, and it makes the point about the need for flexibility
in line with D9C.
Now, yeah, exactly.
And the case law, obviously.
Thank you.
Now, Dr. Meili, I'm gonna come back to one or two things
relating to the evidence base underlying this,
the emerging local plan for a moment,
but I'm going to go on a little divergence
that picks up a point that you raised, and Chief,
because I genuinely want to understand
what you and your clients say about this.
So don't put the local plan inspectors report away, but could you go to the local plan itself, please?
Is this lp4 or another part of the no no it's with CD five point zero two and I'd like to start please
Not an LP for but the strategic policy p .m. Nine
Yes, which is the other policy? Yeah internal pagination is page two four zero
Let me just, I have a paper copy, but let me get the digital one as well because it's
text.
Sorry.
So it was five, can you give me the CD reference?
I have tabs here.
5 .02.
And internal pagination please?
Or digital pagination?
I'm afraid, I'm sorry, I've got a printed copy.
Give it a go though.
The PDF, it's 241.
241.
Thank you, Inspector.
I'm so sorry, Dr. Miele.
No, no, no, it's fine.
I have a mixed kind of format here.
Yes, this is in the section just to get a sense for the context on the vision for Battersea,
I think?
Yeah, it's in the, it should be this.
Wandsworth Riverside, I think, is the policy topic area.
Area strategy for Wandsworth Riverside.
Yeah, it should be PM9, which is Wandsworth Riverside's strategic policy.
Yeah, and I'm just contextualising it, that's right.
So there's a long section that is an introduction,
just to set a context to it.
Dr. Meade, I'm going to ask you to pick up
one part of PM9 in a moment, and then we'll
go to more familiar territory of AP4.
But I just want to just see where things stand.
See, there is a plan -led system that
applies to planning decision making.
Strike point.
Yes.
That's an important one.
Secondly, any local plan produced by a London borough
has to be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the London Plan here, the London
Plan 2021. Part of the London Plan is obviously policy D9 and policy D9, we don't need to
take that because you were very familiar with it as are others, has a number of elements
to it, one of which requires the local authorities to identify what amounts to a tall building
so far as the borough is concerned. And the second is it requires local planning authorities
in their local plan to identify areas
where tall buildings would be appropriate?
Yes.
Okay, and then it goes on to deal
with the specific criteria that are required
to be applied to a tall building proposal
in terms of its visual and functional impacts.
It's part C and D of the policy.
Yes, which applies to all tall buildings,
irrespective of whether or not they're in an identified area.
That is the Master Brewer case.
Great success by Mr. Harrison.
Me, I suppose, to an extent, of course.
That's the structure.
But of course it is important to bear in mind
that it is part of the London Plan policy,
A, that there should be,
the heights of tall buildings identified
and locations should be identified in the local plan.
That forms part of the London Plan.
Correct?
It does, yes.
Yeah, okay.
Right, so I just want to understand.
But the London Plan also allows for,
as does the amended policy,
another way through the policy,
which is in the development plan.
I'm not going to stray into Mr. Bargenson's evidence
about conflict with policy or weight and so forth,
but I just make the observation
that the plan contains these alternatives.
Dr. Mealy, I appreciate that next week
the inquiry is gonna hear from the expert town planners,
but you strayed into some of this territory
in examination, chief, and I just want to see
how much common ground there is between you
and the local planning authority on this before we move on.
So I can understand the structure of the London Plan.
Now as far as the Wandsworth policy is concerned,
which was prepared in the context of
and in general conformity with the London Plan policy D9,
wasn't it, because that was in place.
Policy PM9, which applies strategically
to Wandsworth Riverside, can we look at part four please
on page 240 internal.
Development proposals for tall buildings
or mid -rise buildings in Wandsworth Riverside
will only be supported in zones identified in Appendix 2.
Any proposal for a tall or mid -rise building
will need to address the requirements of LP 4
as well as other policies in the plan.
Correct?
So at a strategic level, the plan, as adopted,
retains a requirement or a policy
that development proposals for tall or mid -rise buildings
will only be supported in the zones
and then a requirement to look at LP 4.
Yeah, but that is, strictly speaking,
similar to the wording in LP 4.
It is. Now let's have a look at LP4.
It's expressed differently.
Resist only be supported.
I read them in a similar way, as complementary.
Maybe nothing turns at this stage on this, Dr. Mealy.
Can we go to LP4 then please?
Which in the printed copy is 294 to 295.
Seek to restrict.
Do you have that?
Yes, I have paper copies, yes, I'm sorry.
And again, familiar territory, LP4A, buildings which are seven storeys or over 21 metres
from the ground to the top of the building will be considered to be tall buildings.
Part A of the policy?
Yes.
And that is meeting the requirements of D9, part A itself?
Yes.
B proposals for tall buildings will only be appropriate in tall building zones identified
on tall buildings maps included in appendix 2 where the development would not result in
any adverse visual, functional, environmental,
cumulative impacts, planning applications for tall buildings
will be assessed against the criteria in C and D
of London Plan Policy D9 and those set out below.
Again, that, at least in part,
meets the requirement of D9 Part B,
which requires the boroughs in their local plan
to identify locations where tall buildings are appropriate.
And then there are then set out the various criterion
against which a tall building proposal
should be assessed as far as the local plan is concerned and these broadly follow part
C of D9.
I don't need to trouble you with that.
And then we get to part C, the council will seek to restrict proposals for tall buildings
outside the identified tall building zones.
Do you see?
Now I just want to be clear what you say to the inspector is the position Dr Mealy.
The London plan does require the heights of tall buildings to be identified by the boroughs
and their locations.
it also sets out various criteria that have to be applied to individual proposals.
I mean, if the position is that a proposal is outside a tall building zone
and exceeds the parameters given for tall buildings,
you would accept that that has to be given weight in any planning decision, don't you?
That's not my area of evidence. I haven't considered that point.
That's a point for Mr. Marginson about the weight
to be given to a proposal which is outside those parameters.
I'm afraid I really don't want to mislead the inquiry
by giving evidence that I haven't prepared.
Well, I'm surprised at that, Dr. Meade,
because it is a matter that you strayed into very clearly
in your evidence, and, Kief,
but are you effectively batting this off to Mr. Marginson?
No, well, I'm passing that particular question
to Mr. Marginson.
I stay by the evidence I gave in writing and orally that the effect of the main modification
was to enable a development plan basis for us to continue having conversations with the
local authority.
And that was the basis for the engagement after the publication of the main modifications
report in June 23.
I'm not going to ask you to go into territory that you don't think is within your professional
expertise.
I haven't considered that point.
However, Dr. Mealy, you do say one or two things in your written evidence about the
consequences of the amendments, the modification the inspector made.
So can I invite you please firstly to go back to the inspector's report on the soundness
of the plan, which is CD611.
And can we have a look please, just remind ourselves
of paragraph 116 within that report,
second you went to earlier, well in evidence and chief.
Yes.
Modification will allow a degree of flexibility
thus providing opportunities for tall buildings
where one can demonstrate other material considerations
in support of a tall building beyond an identified zone.
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.
And that's first to the approach being
in accordance with the London Plan, do you see?
And then just before we pick up your written evidence
on this, can we just turn over the page to paragraph 118?
Furthermore, although the London Plan D9B3
states a policy D9B3, forgive me,
that tall buildings should only be developed in locations
that are identified as suitable in development plan,
material considerations may indicate otherwise.
Thus, where opportunities exist to develop at all
a mid -rise building outside the identified tall
and mid -ride zones, the modification to C and G,
the policy, so the modification 146
6 modifies criterion C and G of the policy, policy LP 4,
to ensure that the policy is effective
and is in general conformity with the London plan.
So what that seems to be suggesting, Dr. Meale,
again, perhaps you'd be so good as to confirm
if you're able, that the inspectors really indicating
that the modification allows,
if there are material considerations that are generated
in the context of an individual planning application
for a tall building to be approved,
not withstanding it being outside a tall building zone
and in conflict with policy LP4?
Is that your understanding?
Can that question be repeated to me?
It was a complex question, sorry.
It was, forgive me.
No, it's all right.
If you just break it, please break it down.
It makes it easier. Is it your understanding
that what the inspectors are really confirming there,
that the effect of the modification would allow
when an individual planning application comes forward
for a tall building, for that to be approved
outside a tall building zone where material considerations
indicate that that would be appropriate,
notwithstanding a breach of the local plan policy?
No, I'm not sure I've, I don't,
look, I don't think this is my evidence to give,
only because I have not prepared evidence
on the status of the London plan
and whether it's drawn into that
material considerations point.
I'd understood it was the Statutory Development Plan needs to be in conformity with that
and that the basis of achieving the modification of the suggested modification was to ensure
conformity with a number of things including London Plan but I don't want to mislead the inquiry
by blurring the Statutory Development Plan with the material consideration. I haven't
prepared everything. Dr Mealy that's a fair point I will deal with it with another witness in due
course but can we go back onto things that you are able to comment on because it arrives from
for your main proof.
Can we go back to your main proof on page 31, please?
Sorry, page please?
31, 31.
Thank you.
Tell me when you're at that page.
I am.
Can we look, please, in the third column
of the text on page 31 at paragraph 475.
And I'm gonna read this out, Dr. Mealy,
it's a short paragraph.
After you've referred to the inspector's report
into the soundness of the plan, paragraph 116,
which you do at paragraph 473.
At 475, you say this, I observe additionally,
the observations that such opportunities
for tall buildings outside identifiers
will be extraordinary rather than ordinary.
I understand the word extraordinary in this context
to mean very unusual.
It's normal dictionary definition
and therefore not ordinary.
Now that is something, it's kind of strained a bit
into planning, I think Dr. Mealy, but nonetheless.
I missed that, sorry, I missed that.
It is straying a bit into planning, Dr. Mealy,
but it's something that you've set out in your evidence.
Your approach to what the inspectors were indicating
in paragraph 116 when they said that really
the opportunities for tall buildings outside
identified zones are likely to be extraordinary,
you're taking that as being very unusual.
That's what you're saying.
Well, that's what it means, and in the context
of the drafting of that paragraph, not ordinary.
So there's, you know, I think the inspector's meaning is clear applying the normal English meaning.
And also looking at the context for his use of the word, which is what you have to do.
Thank you. That's very clear, Dr. Mealy.
And you'll... That's very clear. Thank you.
And I'll make submissions on that in due course.
Right.
You can put the policy, the proof away for a moment, and you can put the inspector's report, 611, away for good as far as I'm concerned.
Can I just deal with one or two points relating to the Urban Design Study of 2021?
First of all, Dr. Meeley, I at least infer from your evidence that you accept that the Urban Design Study 2021 is a material consideration for the Inspector in the determination of this appeal.
Yes.
It was prepared by Arup, who are a firm,
well they're a big firm, but they do a number
of these kind of studies for London Boroughs,
and indeed one of the last times you and I met
was in Richmond where they'd done a study
in Richmond as well.
That's right, happy memories.
For some anyway.
And then as far as the 2021 study is concerned,
it is, as you agree, a matter of,
it's part of the evidence base that the inspectors,
again, switch the inspectors, examine the soundness
of the local plan that was then adopted.
Correct.
And we don't need to turn it up, Dr. Mealy, I hope.
But as far as the urban design study is concerned,
in the original HTVIA that you produced,
again, I'm going to give the CD number and the reference
because I don't think we need to turn it up.
It's core document 102.
And in paragraph 3 .12 on page 21,
you say that the local plan was supported
by a comprehensive urban design building studies,
One of which is the UDS pursued but produced by Arab. Yes and to which we had regard in preparing our HTV
I am so the inspector can record that your evidence was and remains that the local plan was supported by a comprehensive urban and
design
Urban design and building studies including the urban development study itself
Yes, that's right
But equally there were criticisms levelled at that during examination
about the level of detail in respect of specific sites.
And so those comments about robustness
have to take into account it's covering
the whole of the borough.
It doesn't mean every single thing it says
is correct and accurate.
There are some things, sorry, let me finish.
There are some things based on opinion
and there are other areas where it hasn't undertaken
which is not a criticism of its robustness.
It simply isn't possible for local authorities
preparing these evidence bases
to seek to implement D9B to do really a comprehensive job
for every single site that might come forward.
And so I endorse it with that caveat,
which is not meaning to disrespect it in any way
for the reasons that have just been canvassed
from my written material.
Thank you.
Dr. Miele, I've referred you to the HTVIA,
again, to save time without going to it.
At paragraph 3 .24 of your proof of evidence,
you concur with the views expressed by the inspectors
in their report that it was a robust study?
Yes.
And you also, in your proof of evidence,
paragraph 581 say that you agree
with the baseline characterization contained within it?
Yes.
Thank you indeed.
And Dr. Mealy, you of course say
that there was a challenge made
before the local plan examination
as to the extent to which the Arab study
You know could be applied
To confidently indicate what the appropriate characterization is on a site -by -site basis and that form part of the
Representations made on behalf of your client to the local plan examination. That's right
Yeah
and as we've already explored those representations did not find favour with the inspector either in terms of moving the site out of a
Mid -rise zone putting in at all buildings on all including an allocation
Well, yes
And that was because the issue really and I understand the reasons for this was sort of set to one side by the examiners
examining inspectors, and it's in the report,
because practically they thought it wasn't feasible
or possible to go into that level of detail
for every site, which, you know, I agree.
I think that's a fair observation.
But obviously if you're promoting a site,
you take that breadth of study into account
and you draw attention.
I understand entirely why the examiners
in that situation have to put to one side
or just simply note the particular criticisms.
But to bear in mind, those particular criticisms
led to the modification.
And that's the important point.
And the modification being the modification
that was intended to cater for extraordinary
circumstances, opportunities that made the world
and the nation basis. No, no, no,
the modification, sorry, I beg your pardon,
I do beg your pardon.
The modification intended to bring it into, quote,
one eighteen of the report, general conformity with the London Plan, brackets, thinking of
D9.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Mealy.
Can we move on then, please, to the next topic, which are the context in terms of some of
the views with regard to impact.
So can I begin?
I'm conscious of the time.
I've probably got another half an hour or 40 minutes to go.
I'm happy to take a break or to continue.
It might be a good time to take a break.
Right.
Yeah, we're moving on to another topic, so now's a good time for me.
Okay, shall we take a 10 minute break?
Yep, okay, so if, well, just over 10 minutes,
if we come back at 3 .40.
Okay, the inquiry's adjourned to 3 .40, thank you.
.
Thank you.
We had a longer chat when we were at early.
.
.
.
Thank you.
.
.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
Thank you.
.
Thank you.
The time is 3 .40 and the inquiry is resumed unless there's anything procedural or household.
No?
No?
Okay, Mr. Edwards.
Thank you.
Over to you.
Thank you, ma 'am.
Dr. Milly, moving on to the next topic,
which is the context for the assessment of impacts.
And I'm going to reiterate what I said
at the beginning of the exercise,
which I'm not going to go into
in kind of detailed debate with you
about whether something is harmful or not.
That's a matter of planning judgement
and the inspector will have to form
who view exercising her own professional judgement
on those matters, having regard to your evidence
and that of Mr. Eley.
So the purpose of these series of questions
is just to set a little bit of context
in terms of some of the views.
And I'd like to begin please and principally focus
on views looking south from the embankments
on the north side of the river
in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
And just by way of reminder,
and without the necessity of returning to it,
in your proof of evidence, at paragraph 718,
we looked at that at the very beginning
of cross -examination, you identified the embankment
in RBKC as one of those sensitive areas of land enjoyed by many that has both a sensitivity
in townscape and in heritage terms.
Can you remember that?
Thank you.
And we've got a couple of views, a number of views actually helpfully produced in the
CGI's of views looking towards the appeal site and the appeal proposal from the north
of the river.
Can we just have as a point of reference open, please,
in the HTVI addendum, view 11.
Yes, and in the, that's helpful folio of additional views.
It's the one that's got the long list at the very beginning.
view 10C, which is from Danvers Street,
and in both cases, if we can have the proposed,
the view with the proposed development,
and indeed any cumulative schemes open.
Yes, 10C, I have that.
Thank you.
And just to orientate ourselves,
I mean, Spectra actually is very familiar with this.
View 11 is easy, that's just to the east of,
on the embankment, just to the east of Battersea Bridge.
Is that right?
Yeah, are we looking at existing or proposed?
It is right. Sorry.
Yeah, we're looking at proposed in all places.
Thank you. That's fine.
Forgive me.
And then 10C Danvers Street, which is one of the new ones.
Danvers Street is in a broadly similar location.
Danvers Street is the street that proceeds northwards between, is it Crosby Hall?
Yes.
The Great Two Star sort of manor house?
It's near Chelsea Church.
And then Brookside Garden. Sorry?
It's near Chelsea Old Church.
Near Chelsea O 'Church, yes, about 250 metres away.
Thank you very much indeed.
So just in terms of the north side of the river,
where these two images and indeed others are taken from,
there is essentially a sort of interesting layering
of conservation areas, isn't there,
on the north side of the river,
in the sense that immediately on the riverbank
and for at least part of the embankment,
and indeed extending up, I think,
to the midpoint of the River Thames,
there is a conservation area designated by RBKC,
and that's the Thames Conservation Area.
And then immediately abutting into the north of that,
at least over part of its northern boundary,
that's the northern boundary of the Thames Conservation Area,
is the Cheney Conservation Area.
Correct.
They have a long boundary they share.
They do.
Thank you.
And I'm going to go to it in a moment,
so we might as well take it up now just
to illustrate this point.
Could we go to Core Document 519,
please, which is the Thames Conservation Area Approisal?
Yes, sorry, I had that open in another time.
Sorry.
Yes, I've got that.
Thank you.
And this is a, just to introduce the document, it's an RBKC Conservation Area Appraisal February
2020.
I mean, RBKC have produced a lot of, a number of these conservation area appraisals within
in the Royal Borough and I think they all generally follow
the same format, don't they?
Yeah, we talked about this one in another context,
didn't we?
We did, yes, yes, we did, yes, not so long ago.
Sorry, yeah, but that's right, yeah,
it's got that cover of the boats and the world's end.
And I mean, you don't take any issue, Dr. Mealy,
in your evidence and I don't think you have
on other occasions that you and I have looked
at these type of documents with the scope,
the preparation or the thoroughness of these kind of.
No, no, not at all, they're prepared
according to best practise.
Thank you, good.
And just on this issue about the relationship
of conservation areas, can we turn within the document,
please, using the internal pagination
to page six, top left -hand corner, and figure 1 .1.
Sorry, figure six.
Page six.
Page six.
Oh, 1 .1, that's the boundary of the conservation areas,
isn't it?
Yeah, figure 1 .1, you can see there,
Dr. Mealy, perhaps you confirmed
the Thames conservation areas there,
and there's like a mauve colour.
and it extends, I think, to the borough boundary,
which is the midpoint of the river,
and includes, I think, at least part of the embankment,
doesn't it?
So.
It does indeed, yeah.
Yeah, and then we can see the relationship
to the Chaney Conservation Area immediately to the north.
Yes, that's very helpful plan.
Good, thank you.
Right, so orientation resolved.
Can we turn, please, within this conservation area appraisal
to page 42, that's 42, and figure 4 .1.
This is the views plan.
Exactly, yeah.
And actually, helpfully, we can see perhaps
with a little bit more refinements on this,
what the northern boundary of the conservation area is,
and it includes the embankment wall
and at least part of the the carriageway,
the pavement in the carriageway.
Do you see that?
I do see that, sorry, I didn't realise there was a question.
And then we can see there, it's a simple point,
I just like your confirmation of Dr. Mealy,
we can see that there are a number of views identified,
the views are blue with arrows,
and we can see that over the entire length
of the extent of the conservation area,
there are these sort of views that are in a sort of,
dogtooth that are views, basically looking from various
points within the conservation area of south towards
the south embankment, can't we?
Correct.
And those are identified as being,
well they're singled out on here,
so one assumes that they are of some importance
in terms of the recognition.
Yes, absolutely.
They take in the setting and the whole of the,
part of the conservation area,
the setting of the conservation area, absolutely.
And it is fair to say, Dr. Mealy, plainly,
we're dealing here with a document that is directed
at the conservation area and therefore its significance
as such as a historic designation of that type.
But plainly, as you've already acknowledged
in your evidence quite properly,
there is also a townscape sensitivity
in these kind of locations and those views also are
perhaps of some importance so far
as townscape is concerned as well.
Thank you.
Good, so we can see those identified
as being important views.
We can also see while we are here,
a number of views that are shown by blue arrows
extending southwards along various of the roads
to the north of the northern boundary
of the conservation area.
Do you see?
So within the Taney conservation area looking south.
Yes, I do.
I do see that, yes.
And those, at least in some respects,
will be views that then afford views
over the Thames conservation area
and onto the river.
Correct.
Thank you.
Good, thank you.
Then can we go on in the document please
to look at page 45.
And page 45 is in section 5 of the document,
which is identified as negative elements and opportunities
for enhancement.
And you can see that subheading at the top of page 43.
It's got a picture of a bench with some tape over it
and a cabin shelter, I think.
And then if we go on, please, to page 45,
paragraph four point, sorry, five point 11.
You see that?
Yes.
We just look at that together.
The conservation area's general openness
and key importance of views in and out of it
mean that surrounding development
can have a negative impact on its character and setting.
Recent developments of the new tall buildings
of the Lots Road power station
are adversely affecting the panoramas of the Thames
by protruding visually into the centre spans
of Albert and at Battersea Bridges.
Just pausing there, Lots Road's power station,
and that's Chelsea Harbourside, isn't it?
Correct, that's just at the end of the,
quite close to the conservation area, the West End.
And then the views of bridges in the downstream direction
is adversely affected by the recently built
cylindrical Vauxhall Tower, again protruding
against their central spans.
This detracts from their design and river dominance.
And then this, development on the south bank of the Thames
can also affect the conservation area,
and the large blocks of sinuous glass riverside flats
adjacent to Albert Bridge is not representative
of the finer grain of the conservation area opposite
on the delicacy of the structure of the bridge.
You see?
Now, the large blocks of sinuous glass riverside
adjacent to Albert Bridge is probably talking
about the development to the, what is it, the east of?
Yeah, I mean, it's Albion Riverside, right?
Albion Riverside, yeah.
Yeah, it must be, yeah.
But what, perhaps the inspector,
and I'd invite you to confirm, Dr. Meade,
you would agree can note from this
that there is a recognition
in this conservation area appraisal
about A, the relationship in terms of the conservation area
and development on the south side of the river
and also identifying that some of that existing development
is not positive.
That's true, there is that recognition, absolutely.
And the issue, sorry, the issue is really about
the impact on the general openness of the river
and there's a criticism of not representative
of the finer scale of the conservation area.
I don't really understand that reference.
And in any case, this is a view out
from the conservation area.
And historically, there's always been a contrast
as between the land here within the Royal Borough
and land to the south.
So I find it a strange criticism really.
It seems to imply the Royal Borough thinks
that anything other than buildings
like there are in the Royal Borough at the moment
would be intrusive.
and that seems to me to be a very,
well I don't agree with that judgement.
I mean it's not in the conservation area is it?
And it has a different relationship equally
to the Chelsea Harbour or the Lots Road,
or is it the Lots Road development
which is right at the end of that conservation area.
Well Dr. Mealy, this obviously is in a adopted
conservation area of prairies in the world borough,
a relatively recent one in 2020,
but can we see if we can just agree
one or two parameters arising from the observation
raised by here in here.
First of all, there is a recognition
that development on the south bank of the Thames
can have an effect on the conservation area.
Well, that is true, but on views out from it,
not of its intrinsic character.
Well, so what?
And just to make the point that the cover of this document
has the world's own development featuring,
in contrast with those Georgian buildings
and the houseboats, which are such an important
character feature of this area.
And the same criticism doesn't seem to be labelled
at those buildings, even though they're
a really important part of the setting.
So I, notwithstanding it's prepared according
to best practise and professionally,
which doesn't mean that all parts of it are,
I would agree with all parts of it,
or all parts of it are valid observations.
Dr. Milley, the Inspector has your observation.
Again, I would like to persist in the point I put to you
to see if we can agree at least certain elements
of what arises from this.
First of all, there is a recognition
in the part of paragraph 511 I've just taken you to
that the conservation area is affected
by development on the south side of the river.
That's what the last sentence of paragraph is directed at.
The views out from the conservation area are affected.
All right, fine, you can have that.
Which is an important difference
because the conservation area includes important,
You know, it doesn't extend outside of the boundary
of the Royal Borough, obviously.
Dr. Mealy, I'll give you that point,
views out of the conservation area,
and as we've looked at a moment ago,
elsewhere within the same document,
views out of the conservation area
and towards the South Bank are identified
as being of some importance in terms of identified views
within the document.
Sure, because they're out over the river,
and the Thames Conservation Area is a conservation area
because of the river.
I mean, I just don't, you know,
with all due respect to the Royal Borough,
comments about areas in neighbouring boroughs
on the south of the river, well outside their boundary,
seem to me to be just a little bit odd,
given the nature of the development that exists there,
and has always, has been there for a very long time.
Well, isn't, Dr. Milley, isn't this very, very simple,
that the conservation area appraisal is identifying views
out of the conservation area over the river
and towards the South Bank as being of some value
in terms of the conservation area designation
and including in townscape terms.
And the developments on the South Bank of the river
can have an effect, and in this case,
a negative effect on the value of those views.
It's as simple as that, isn't it?
And yes, and my point back is equally simple.
Notwithstanding those comments,
there's no adverse comments made in connexion
with World's End, so it's not really a consistent approach.
I don't know why that is, particularly.
Thank you, Dr. Milagro.
Because they are much more prominent in the setting of this conservation area than those
buildings at some further distance, including at Vauxhall, which is some distance away.
Thank you.
Dr. Milagro, before we leave this document, can I pick up another point, please?
Could you go forward in the document to what that means towards the front to page 40, internal
pagination?
One, four.
Four, zero.
Thank you.
Back to the view section again.
Dr. Meade, there's a matter of geography,
matter of fact, in the conservation area,
there is the open space known as Cremorne Gardens,
isn't there?
Sorry, I'm just at page 40.
Yes, there is an open space known as Cremorne Gardens.
It's not one that there's any CGIs in respect of,
because you mentioned the presence of trees.
You've obviously been to Cremorne Gardens.
I have been to Cremorne Gardens, actually.
And there's a pier, isn't there, effectively,
that juts out into the river,
which on any basis does provide pretty expansive views.
both upstream and downstream.
Those are in the, that sequence is in the animated.
It is in the movie, yeah.
So we're not shying away from that.
Well, yeah, is it in the movie?
I think we pass by it.
Maybe we don't go out on the pier.
No, I don't think you do.
I think you pass by the outside of the gardens
and then go follow the embankment area.
Nothing turns on that for my part.
But you would accept that first of all,
that as an area of open space
and a riverside area of open space,
where they project in pier
is of some importance and sensitivity.
Well, I wouldn't say it's a protected view.
I'm not sure it's protected.
I didn't say it was protected.
I misheard you then, I do apologise.
That is a, let's start again.
Cremorne Gardens as open space is a sensitive location.
For amenity reasons, absolutely.
And part of the amenity reasons,
no doubt Dr. Mealy you would accept,
is the opportunity presented from views
up and down the river from it.
Correct.
Good, thank you.
And we can see that confirmed, can't we,
in paragraph 4 .16 on page 40 of the conservation area
appraisal, the series of bullet points.
If you like please, on the fourth bullet point
up from the bottom, views from the Riverside promenade
of Cremorne Gardens back to the bridges, houseboats,
and the river.
And that you would accept is a view of some importance.
Yes, the view of the bridges and the houseboats
and the river.
Doesn't mention the South Bank.
Can I just interject, but only in the daytime?
Because it's shut at dusk, as I discovered yesterday.
Oh, I see.
There we are.
OK.
Good, right.
Importance and sensitive in the daytime then, Dr. Mealy.
Good?
I haven't been there at night.
Right.
Right, you can put that document to one side, please.
Can we just have a quick look, please,
at the urban design study, really on the same theme,
about the relationship of development in Wandsworth
on the value and sensitivity of the
townscape to the north. So would you go
to the urban design study?
Which is... CD 516.
Yeah, it's 516. I've got it open and I now
can't find the window. Bear with me
please. Yeah, CD 516, thank you. And can we,
as a couple of references I'd like your
help with this. Can we save time just go directly please to page 293 in the PDF.
Which I think is internal 2932 isn't it? Sorry isn't it also internal? Can you give
me the internal page reference because I have it as a hard copy. I'm not sure
that's right. I think that's the wrong... Just give me a second Dr. Meer.
No, of course.
I moved from paper to electronics.
So you'll have to excuse my.
No, that's not right.
That is not right.
That is the wrong reference.
Give me a second.
Yes, I got the numbers wrong.
It's 239, forgive me, not 293.
Thank you.
Yes, and with the same internal pagination as well.
This is a part of the document that the inspector was taken
to as part of Mr. Eley's evidence.
It's some of the detailed analysis in the appendix
to the UDS dealing with tall building zone B204.
Do you see that?
Yes, yes it is, that's right.
It's the analysis of the Ramsham's Dock.
Exactly, and if you can look please with me
at the text underneath the subheading analysis,
do you have that on the right hand side?
I have that, yes.
Yeah, if we can pick up the text about halfway through,
the heights of buildings generally along the riverfront
here are considered to be at capacity.
Increases in heights would risk adverse effect
in the character of the River Thames,
including the North Bank, which is designated
as a conservation area by RBKC.
To all the developers, we also sit down comfortably
between the two listed bridges,
and would affect views from within Battersea Park,
registered park and garden.
You see?
Yes?
Oh, sorry, yes.
Yeah.
Says that.
We've looked at what RBKC say about this.
We've obviously got the urban design study here,
which is kind of raising the same point, Dr. Mealy,
isn't it really?
It's saying that in terms of any developments
within this tall building zone,
which is B204 on the south bank of the river,
in the Wandsworth side,
care needs to be taken in terms of increasing heights
affecting the character of the Thames
and including the North Bank.
Which is the point I made in my written evidence
I was taken to at the start of this cross -examination.
Exactly, and therefore -
So we don't differ.
No, and it is recognising, A,
that there is a relationship between developments
in tall building zone 04 and on the south bank
with the Thames itself and the north bank of the Thames.
And that relationship can be affected,
but adversely by the height of development
within the tall building.
It would risk adversely affecting the character
of the River Thames, exactly.
So it's establishing again,
and perhaps restating the relationship
that was recognised within the RBKC document
we just looked at about the relationship
of the two and the potential adverse effect of height in terms of disrupting that relationship.
And which is the point I made in my evidence, yes.
Thank you, good.
And it's a point that the Inspector is entitled to and indeed you would accept should take
into account?
Yes, it's in my, well, in respect of my evidence, it's there, yeah.
Thank you, good.
Just bear with me for a moment, I hope we can take this quite shortly in terms of the
other references.
Okay.
Can you give me for a second please?
Yeah.
Yeah, good, right, we can leave that there, thank you.
Right, can we just then,
you can put the urban design study away please.
Could we pick up core document 521, which is the Cheney
conservation area appraisal.
The Cheney, yes.
And turn within it to using the internal pagination page 90
or 90.
Tell me when you're there.
I marked this page.
And again, it's the same type of document
is an RBKC conservation area appraisal.
It follows the same format, and it's January 2017,
but essentially Dr. Mealy, it follows essentially
the same methodology and approach
as was taken in the Thames conservation area, doesn't it?
Yes, it's part of the same series.
And we can see on page 90 the matter of views
into and out of the area.
And the Chaney conservation area obviously sits behind,
or to the north of the Thames Conservation Area,
if we look at the views map,
the views are identified by arrows
and we can see the same views across the river
towards the South Bank and back again, can't we?
I see that, yes, it's effectively the same point.
It's views from one conservation area into another.
Thank you.
And across the river.
And across the river.
And also, can we pick a -
I mean, but bearing in mind, of course,
that there is a pretty substantial line
of mature plane trees along the embankment.
I'm not saying there aren't views,
but I mean the Cheney conservation area on this side
is relatively enclosed.
Of course, the views of the river
do contribute to its significance,
but the focus of the conservation area
is the built fabric within it and an appreciation
in that context of the river and that the views out from it
in obtaining those, necessarily you're not
looking at the buildings in it.
So I see it as having a very different sort of experience
and special interest and townscape character, in fact,
than I do the embankment,
which is obviously a piece of infrastructure
with a busy road on it,
and has a different setting.
Okay, well we can see what's shown in the views plan,
and obviously the views are identified
in this Chaney Conservation Area appraisal document
as extending across the river for a reason,
and it's obviously the authors of the document
considered they did have some value
in terms of the area.
Yes, I don't dispute that.
If we look at paragraph 414 please,
within the accompanying text of the plan,
it's on the same page of the document.
Finally, the River Thames has an important relationship
in every area of the Fuse Unit of Sunset.
Both sides were as well known and to two bridges.
The River Thames is a very important part of the community.
Tech techs are divided by the local plan by its needs
and they remain committed in the text.
Tech techs have also a relationship in every area.
Now, now, industry's been scripted, and we'd like to add to that some services.
We may have now known as a blind -bonded stream, which, with me, had invented Tuskas Park.
Now, now, now, just one last thing to conclude,
I hope this customer can run on this respect to one of the VVU systems discussed in the memory of ISV3D.
So, as I said, we're going to VVU3D, into this infrastructure, so we're going to use it in the year you exist, eh?
And then we take it to a full member, which is in the
patrimentary of the -
And then the new material.
The new material, exactly, yeah.
I think it's in the first three pages, which is nearly
three pages in four forms.
We just take that up a little bit.
Just a term, sorry.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, we got it.
It's in the early end of time.
It is.
It's the first three pages, because it goes to the
early pages, which is the - for the very end, it's just
I think it was actually a cumulative.
And then,
to deal with that question,
this is a take in the form
as opposed to saying more evidence
of being the
shelter in front.
Looks like
it's taken more or less this time of year
and we're not seeing any more forms.
The characteristics are
these are the same preservation shops
so it's only got about...
so these are the same name.
I think this is a screenshot.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, we're in room early.
Okay, so there was a few wheels there, so we tend to do something that I've done a lot of times on that, so...
As far as I was being too certain, you really would accept immediately that the ship ships ourselves on the other side of the ship,
so you do do have to make the intention that you have to have a lot of the...
It's always in the west direction, in the rest of the area.
which is not our success with the militant.
And as we move into that, just like the ancient chief,
the scale of the Pepe and the Langer,
we need to adopt those more and reduce
the potential for any of its visibility,
as well as receive some further into the scene.
In the impact of these uses,
which I would like to explain in my evidence.
It's been expected to be there,
and we'll be aware of that.
But nobody would accept that view
of the long harbour of the society of shelter
is a view that against some things we expect to have a pattern to exist, some significance
and some significance.
But about the digital history, it's a pleasant one.
It's a lifeline of life.
Yes, it's a very good one.
Indeed, without going back to the stock, maybe, this is a kind of quantitative view that identified
by the L .A. and the MSA stage one board members, your well -rusted time -passed us to the 8856
and it's also a new view that's been used to assist attention to the event, to the one
and it's not a storey that's been put forth
in this pre -creative stage,
making it a success in CC's view
that it's taken from the other society,
and that is simply what I've done here.
It's the same reason that
that's since it's been really like vice -president.
Sorry, I'll read the reasons I've explained it.
That is really a misunderstanding
the way the way the angles of living would work.
The building scene would have created more of it
than you would have been supposed to do it
and interpret those in features such as landscape
or build this view view which shows the benefit
of you view sitting model for what you would want
as possible, you would use this, I mean,
I feel very clear and confident about that.
This is, it starts to work in a sense,
something else, but I disagree with them
based on some experiences and the work
that you do to establish this.
So there's a difference between them,
I know there's a difference in more and more
in particular too, and in any way,
and you really can have it in three trees anyway.
The focus is also the head of the use of stuff
like the other tree trees.
So I disagree with the suggestion
by this first argument.
As I say, it's a human -based system,
and it's a constant tree use.
We include those as the part that's
becoming more and more important in things that we see.
And the community inspector's goal
is to get a little lower.
The inspector's key means of structure,
and we've been doing that in the last 22 hours.
So the community inspector can see
the other.
In terms of looking at the impact of AI decisions on tool -based and QQs on the basis of firstly,
do you have any thoughts on your evidence, if you would express it to the polynomials
that you see really, which is that you don't use haps and haps to justify the future haps?
I don't dispute that my evidence is correct around my senses.
I simply observe that I don't come across the belief, I have come across an example
in that context, and this is an example in a lot of areas where there is incremental
corruption which all the bills are expressed in, and credit rating and a lot of dogs and
so forth.
When you've set up your experience of what the system is, you've set up that much principle,
as indeed, as perhaps from the only evidence to get, I have never had evidence since the
Ferrari, when you're dealing with an independent or a heritax asset, and you have some existence
to a building that are not already
this cause for all the significance,
they may have done themselves a press presence in that setting,
and you look at the effect of the issuance
of these rights on human devices.
That's right, and I explained the issuance
of the Arch -President Limited,
which such a set of sessions should be undertaken
and the United States Department of Justice
can review it.
It sets out to be the content of that
as an appropriate judgement in this case.
Under that, then, the Council will continue
with these items, and if you say
You say that you experience the EU's constant terror space going on, but how can you appear
here in some different place?
And what are the huge signs that the standard EU rate makes by the way of a certain amount
of airframes?
Well, you have to sort of go back into a series of existing tour de place and listen to
the systems, to the systems, to all those most talented practitioners.
Is that what your concern is?
No, my concern is really about the principle that establishing weather warnings on something
is harmful and also an adjutant to take as the baseline
in that circumstance.
And it's very, very hard practically
to establish where the baseline from which you
can measure the auto -harmonies and acquire as practically
a very, very elaborate and I think artificial exercises
in relation to every single building by month's
in what is a very, very personal scene.
I think, I think, I might say a fair amount
that this is, and it is one that can be taken
in a sort of, sort of, sort of,
I think the example of the industrial features
that have been clearly harmful for my perspective,
but, you know, there are extensive independent
and that would be right to do that.
But I don't think it's a general,
and sincerity and a precision.
But there are other parts that simply have become
a cross -continent.
And there are all kinds of value judgments
that can be difficult to do
because there will be bills that divide the union.
In the past, they could have, you know,
from the familiar parts, church, church,
those who seemed to accept the point,
they'd take bill back to our justice,
to see how this is,
which at the time, with all kinds of great consternation,
becoming come to be valued.
They're directly protected.
So it's a highly complex area.
I don't think for the suspect that takes place.
That's the suspect.
Can he be reliably on the order of non -context?
I'm not saying it's not possible.
I also don't know if there's plenty of them.
But those are my reservations.
and we didn't get the same thing.
Because their variables are more and more strange.
You're looking at very narrow distances,
specific infinitesimals of each region of it.
And in the case of the world of the entire world,
it's sort of hermetic or kind of clever,
but it's just a well -defined environment.
And as I explained, Chief,
there's certainly within a decade of guidance
and knowledge that's been part of the impact
of these very small buildings,
It's also worth pointing out that I'm not practising.
It's best to have that.
When dealing with a tall building,
those are the sorts of things that I should say,
and potentially showing visibility
to the world water resource site.
It isn't even a theory, in a sense,
to show visibility that requires this kind of consideration
and inclusives.
It's just generally when the build is very, very close
to the typography of the older system.
There's another way that's written in the system.
It's been intrusive.
So that's a special case, it's a different statutory
issue.
And the test counts because that's not very quite
significant since it's not essential in the immunity.
So I'm not really in it now.
I'm just sounding in the caution.
And then I can't recommend it on the public's
So I can be prescriptive on that advice.
This is this way.
I think that you're right, Gary.
So this is basically what I was asking
in the last class, really.
The exercise that Mr. Meadey indicates,
advice to inspectors who are going to undertake,
is to simply ask the inspector to exercise
what he or she judges about what the effect on the task
is if these exist until they're on business.
And if the inspector fully believes
that that is harmful, what would be the effect
be the original storey of the fourth century,
so it seems to be more so,
so does it go back to the same sense?
Well, I mean, it's back to the main features of so -so,
so it's not very similar to that.
I don't think that it's an appropriate
so -so in a sense, it's a big causes
of the very nature of the underworld
in terms of the character of the area
is this now function of common consciousness scale.
And some of those buildings are not entirely attractive,
and they might much be true immediately
in terms of perceptual, there's a way
beyond our intent to quite attract them.
And I think they do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do,
for the reason that this design,
reversal design, and so forth.
So I think this is a very problematic,
for me, in any way, as a professional,
I find that I'm very problematic
in a narrative, deep, even incontinent approach.
But I can't say any more than that
in answer to the question.
I firmly disagree with the approach it's taken.
That's clear.
But obviously, I can't be prescriptive in my advice
to a decision maker on planning judgement.
Thank you. Dr Mealy, that is all the questions I have for you. Thank you for your assistance.
Thank you, Mr Edwards.
Dr Mealy, do you need a break before we start with further examination?
Mr Walton, are you happy to make a start?
Good afternoon, Mr. Walts.
Good afternoon, Dr. Harris.
Good afternoon, Mr. Ward.
It was me that told us to hurry.
You were Mr. Ward, actually, so I take the blame on that.
I'm sorry.
I apologise.
Okay, fine. I'm sorry.
It's Friday afternoon. I beg your pardon.
So please, good afternoon.
It's not an issue.
Just on a starting point, your client and I think yourself and sorry, your colleague,
beg your pardon, so we're all late in the day, you put quite a good deal of store in
any advice that you had, the pre -application advice
that you had from the council about a landmark building?
So I think that's two questions with respect.
I think I do because I felt we were in a process
that responded very positively and constructively
over a period of time.
We did discuss the landmark opportunity
of the site of the council as well.
I have formed my own judgement about that.
I just wanted to break that apart.
It's not a criticism of the question.
I think it's just important to differentiate.
Okay.
Sorry.
Would you accept, though, it was put to you by Mr. Edwards that there had been a number
of what sound like quite critical or certainly not particularly positive comments of my other
consultees, including statutory consultees such as the neighbouring local authority,
Historic England and the GLA.
Would you accept from me that actually the status of their comments are just as important
as those made by ones with – in respect to the pre -application?
One's worth his comments. I will try to answer that, yes or no. They're different. I'm sorry
not to answer it, yes or no. And the reason they're different is that the comments from
of the officers were part of a discussion that
led to an outcome which we felt, actually, officers
could support.
And I'm not saying it any more than that.
The comments from other bodies reflect that.
And those comments from officers are taking lots of things
into account, a whole range of policies.
I'm not referring to land use policies,
but all many attributes of design,
many design policy topic areas.
The statutory expertise are looking at these things
from a very particular perspective.
The GLA, of course, has an overview.
So I don't, again, mean to prevaricate.
I think they just need to be broken down in that way.
Okay, but when your client came away
from a meeting with the, with Wandsworth Council,
Obviously, it must have realised that the advice given by the officers at that time
did not prevent the council's elected councillors coming to a different meeting.
Oh, of course.
No, I understand that.
Of course.
Okay.
Okay, can I first of all ask you, on a slightly different point, sorry, ask you as to what
your role was in the preparation and the drafting of the built heritage townscape?
I was the partner reviewer.
It was drafted by others.
Alejandro took a review.
That's pretty typical.
I don't recall writing any, I recall reviewing it
and discussing it with my colleagues.
So that would mean, sorry, I apologise,
I'm supposed to turn the microphone off between questions.
That would mean that you signed off the eventual document?
Yeah, absolutely, I say in my evidence
that it was a fair and reasonable assessment.
It's not my evidence, but you know,
I obviously, I'm the partner in charge.
Okay, I know that there are a number of places in that document of the HTVIA where you refer
to a marker at the foot of the Urbazzi Bridge.
Yes, I'm – yes, I accept that.
Yeah, and there's paragraphs 9 .10, 9 .11, 9 .44, 10 .1.
Yeah, no, I'm sure it's mentioned a number of times.
No doubt about that.
I think you talked there about the need for a mark.
Well, if the BHTBIA says that, then I will vary from it in evidence.
Can I actually be taken to a reference?
I mean, it's not a concept really I would endorse as is clear from my evidence.
Okay, well, I hope I haven't misstated, but I'm referring to paragraphs 910, 911, 944,
and 1015.
Hold on a second.
Do you need one of those references again?
Yes, 9 .10.
Okay, thank you.
I'll just pick up the one.
It's easier to do that singly.
Is this the original HTVIA or the addendum?
No, it is the main one.
9 .9.
Inspector, I'm sorry.
Which is for the acquirer's benefit.
The CD reference.
Yeah.
So what it says there, and thank you for giving me the paragraph reference, is, do you have
it, Inspector?
Yes.
Thank you.
9 .10, internal page 100.
The proposed development would form a visual marker at Battersea Bridge, a key entrance
into Wandsworth from Chelsea in the west indicating a destination in itself, an aiding wayfinding
in the wider townscape, and it makes some other views.
So it actually doesn't say it needs a marker.
It says it would form one, which is a different concept.
I don't know.
It doesn't say that.
It might say that in another place,
but I have to say, what's written in 910,
I would endorse it.
I don't want to resile from that.
But it doesn't say it needs it.
OK.
If I've misstated them, I apologise.
But in your own evidence, in your proof of 2 .5 and 2 .6,
you say, question somebody whether it needs a marker,
but whether it can accommodate a marker building.
Yeah, that's right.
I take that point head on.
Because I was aware when I was writing
that proof of allegations made by, I guess, yourselves,
that the applicant was promoting something
on the basis of some sort of urban design requirement
or policy requirement, which has never been,
I think, either the appellant's position or my position.
It merely presents the opportunity for one,
and that's the point about accommodating one,
being able to accommodate one, which
is about the ability of the receiving environment
to accept a building of scale.
Okay, let's move on to the methodology involved in the preparation of that document, the BHT
document.
Is there any reason why in that document you don't cite the guidance from Historic England?
Well, I knew this question was coming from Euro -Verlinden, for which I'm grateful.
It is actually cited in that document.
That's incorrect.
And it's also a reference, I think, in openings
to it being not compliant with GLA guidance on setting,
I think you say.
Is that right?
I shouldn't ask you the question, sorry,
but I want to take the points together.
Well, no, no.
But that is just simply wrong, I'm afraid.
The BHTDIA is very clearly divided into topic sections.
The heritage section is prepared according
to the Historic England Best Practise
guidance, which is cited.
And it follows in the heritage sections
the relevant methodology, which is define
the significance of the asset, assess the contribution
of setting to significance, and then assess the impact on the appreciation of significance
in setting.
That is all very clearly laid out.
The GLA's setting guidance, which is adopted in January 2016, seeks documents which clearly
differentiate the methodology between the two.
And I can just add on this if it helps briefly
that in about 2023, 2024,
the GLA became concerned about work produced
by some consultants, I have to say,
I'm gonna say it, not us,
which didn't differentiate sufficiently between the two
and hence their desire to have discrete reports.
But I can tell you also at the moment,
on a case by case basis,
we are still producing combined reports,
albeit always being very careful to distinguish
the methodologies in the relevant sections.
So with respect, I don't think that's a fair characterization.
And in any event, the GLA who reviewed the document,
Wandsworth who reviewed the document,
did not identify any methodological failing
or ask, for example, for clarification
in the event that one topic had been confused with the other.
Okay, so the question, next question then would be, did you include, we've heard again
from Mr. Edwards and from yourself, about a cumulative consideration.
consideration.
Yes, cumulative is as defined in the normal VIA sense, which is as defined in London Plan
D9C, which is simply the normal environmental, but wasn't, you know, not okay, but what you
do in environmental impact assessment, which is, in policy to hand, but it specifies that
you have to assess schemes which have been consented,
implemented, or implemented in combination
with the effects of your development.
So it was prepared with reference to cumulative.
And those cumulative schemes that we assessed
were agreed with the local authority.
Yeah, okay, so in other words, it has to be,
the cumulative assessment has to have regard
onto what Michael pipeline schemes, pipeline schemes.
Well, I mean, it depends on the state of their,
where they are in the process, but you consented,
stroke implemented, become part effectively as well.
Implement becomes future baseline, then there's consented,
it gets complicated.
And then in certain authorities,
you're asked to assess pipeline schemes.
For example, in Tower Hamlets, where there are frankly,
a lot of tall buildings coming forward in the Isle of Dogs.
And they do want to know sort of the direction
of travel in the area.
and you do even broader assessments,
things that are not formally cumulative in ES terms
or in traditional TVIA terms.
So it can be done, but it was never specified in this case.
So as far as I'm concerned, we've correctly
included cumulative and undertaken
the appropriate assessment of them.
OK.
Now, you make quite a bit of play in the fact
that you mentioned a few times that tastes in architecture
change over the years and that people's appreciation
for buildings may change over time,
and indeed there are some buildings which were thought
initially to be of poor quality or were disliked
for whatever reason, but later on,
they gain, people sort of fall in love with them
over a period of time, or if not fall in love,
they begin to accept them and are more positive about them.
Yes.
And you mentioned, I think in your evidence,
You mentioned Centre Point just a few minutes ago,
and New Zealand House has been examples of that.
And I think there was a third one,
which I don't have a note on.
Norbank Tower I mentioned is another one
that has come to be much loved.
So by extension, in principle,
that could happen to the building
that's currently on the site?
Well, I don't think so, really,
because in those cases I've just cited,
the level of architectural ambition and refinement,
they were executed by major practitioners of the time.
You know, it's Richard Seifert,
and I can't remember Milbank Tower now,
but he's well known.
But, and the third one, New Zealand House,
as well, name got out of my mind.
But these were all designed by people
who were lead practitioners in their day, actually.
What's been, you know, I just say it,
what's been done in that location is what you'd expect to find in a marginal location
from the 1980s. You could find it in Woking, for example, or in parts of Reading, is a
speculative office building. I don't think it has any positive characteristics. It's
very much of its time. I don't think it rises above the standards of its time. So I think
that's highly unlikely. And anyway, this building has been, you know, this site has been the
scrutiny and no acknowledged expert has come forward to say this is a fabulous
building from the 1980s.
But the same was, was it not said at one stage about Trellick Tower?
It was an example of a building that was much despised. Park Hill Flats in
Sheffield, another example.
Yeah, but they were really, I mean, it's of use. I mean, Erno Goldfinger
who designed Trellick Tower was absolutely
at the cutting edge of British,
European influence, modernism.
And Parkhill at Sheffield's a massive undertaking
by the city council architects working within the framework
defined by great European modernists of the 1950s.
I mean, it's just not comparable, I'm afraid.
But there are buildings, aren't there,
that are structures that are listed or become listed
and there are eyebrows raised
and English Heritage or Heritage England will turn around
and say well we've now got a new chapter
or we've now got a new gender
of listing different types of buildings
and this is an exemplar of its class
and it might well be that one day
the current building at Bassie Bridge Road
is regarded as an exemplar of a 1980s office building.
Well, anyway, look, a lot of time,
these judgments usually emerge over a period of time,
and there's a reevaluation of 1980s office development.
I've dealt with a lot of listed 1980s office buildings now
for clients.
Nobody has raised this as a possibility,
and I've explained in my evidence
why I don't think it's really of any particular quality.
It has no refinement in the detailing, really.
It is just, you know, this sort of office that you built
in these marginal locations all across the country
and including in London.
Okay.
You, uh, um, I think it was in the examination chief, uh, from Mr. Harris that was put to
you that, did you agree that the approach taken by Mr. Healy to assessing substantial
harm, you do remember that, substantial harm to towns like -
Oh yes, because it's a test in the framework, isn't it?
It's a test in the national planning policy framework
that arises from the fact that the site is a brownfield site
and I think Mr. Harris asked you whether
you thought Mr. Healy's approach,
which was to essentially aggregate harms
from a number of different perspectives,
I hope I've not misunderstood what Mr. Harris said,
was the correct approach
or whether an alternative approach would be to say,
I think you said, I think Mr. Harris put it to you
that that's not really, doesn't accord
with one's experience, the experiential aspect.
And that I took from what you said an answer
that the experience could be a far more singular event.
No, I think, well, if that was the impression I gave,
I'm sorry for that.
I think what I said was that there are,
in the experience of any large building,
there will be individual scattered points
and or areas from which you'll see it,
but your experience of those areas
will be very separate to another
because they're not connected in any sort of way.
In the case of the embankment and the bridges,
well sure, those are viewing areas,
but always bearing in mind also
that as you move through those viewing areas,
there are a lot of other influences
that are affecting your appreciation
of the quality and the amenity of the scene,
some negative, some positive.
So it isn't as if in addition to that experience,
even one of the kind that's being discussed here
is going to be the only thing that you notice in the scene.
You would continue to notice lots of other really
interesting things, some unpleasant, you know, traffic,
some really beautiful, like the buildings in Chaney Walks.
Yeah, I just didn't feel you could just
ascribe a number to each, and at the end of the exercise,
I'd tote those numbers up and get to a,
if it was a numerical calculation.
That's the point I was making.
Okay, I suppose the question that follows from that then is,
at what point does one experience a building?
Well, I mean, it's such an open question,
I'm not sure I can help the inspector with it,
except to say, there's information in front of the inquiry
that demonstrates on the facts of this case,
is I think reliably where the building can be appreciated,
seen, experienced.
But we need to know that, don't we,
in order to make an assessment
as to whether there's substantial harm or not?
Well, no, I mean, again,
that's a kind of mashed together question.
I don't say there's substantial harm.
I think you need to,
all I'm gonna say is I don't think any,
I don't see as credible the allegation
that the information is insufficient.
There is sufficient information in front of the inspector,
I believe, to understand the effects of the development,
the impacts and effects of the development.
Well, just for the avoidance of doubt, Dr. Mealy,
I'm not alleging, and nor is, well,
I don't think nor is the consortium,
that there is a deficiency of information.
I think what really all I'm asking you is,
or putting to you, is it possible then
that one could look at one particular vantage point,
let's say runners, and there are many hundreds of them,
if you go along the North Bank on a nice day in the weekend,
I'm sure you've done that.
Runners running along the North Bank
between Battersea Bridge and the Albert Bridge,
they will see the proposed scheme very visibly,
wouldn't they, or they would if a sewer was built.
So if they consider from that,
just that sort of 200 metre, 300 metre run
along the north banger, it would cause,
it would cause substantial harm.
That's the view they come to, they just think
it's ugly, out of place, et cetera.
Would that be in your view, well, let me get
to the end of the question, would that be in your view,
just simply that one view, would that be enough,
potentially, could that theoretically be enough
to convince the inspector that that view
in its own, on its own would be enough,
obviously having regard to the planning balance,
to lead her to refuse the appeal.
I mean, I've already given evidence in chief
and written evidence that these are very sensitive
and important areas.
It's the inspector's judgement, obviously.
It's not for me to say, of course.
Of course that's an outcome.
That could be, inspector, what you find.
Okay, just one, I think, one final point.
It's really, it is on transport and I'm not sure whether you feel capable of answering
these.
Well, I'll tell you, if you just ask me, I'll tell you.
Well, I think it's a factual point.
I'm not sure whether the factually inaccuracy comes from your own evidence or elsewhere,
But there's a reference, I think,
to Bassie Bridge being the most heavily used.
I think it's in connexion with the argument
that there's a need for a marker building.
Well, I mean, sorry, there is no argument
that there's a need for a marker building.
Okay, all right.
Not a need.
Wouldn't it be great if there were a marker building?
No, there isn't even that.
But anyway, I understand the point.
Okay.
Because there was a little bit of to and fro
in the rebuttal evidence of Mr.
which is, no, criticism.
Simple point is that the urban design study
identifies Battersea Bridge Road
as superior in the hierarchy of road networks
that connect this part of Kensington and Chelsea
to the strategic road network, which includes the A3,
and that's in the urban design study,
and I'll be darned if I can find it,
but there is a page in the transport section,
which is the part of the document
that deals with all the baseline information. And I think it is worth
me drawing, Inspector, your attention to this.
And if you please bear with me, I can give you the reference
in a moment. This will be irritating. Sorry, just please do, I'll just
take a second. It's under the heading Transport.
Oh yes, sorry, it's one of those plans that eludes you and it's looking at you in the
face. So page 24 of the ARUP study, which is as we've seen CD 5 .16, and I don't know,
Mr. Walton, if you can get that up.
Well, I'd like to close.
Yeah, sure, no, just give a moment. And for the inspector, you probably
haven't. Do you have that? I think the digital and the internal pages,
the number's really small, the bottom right.
and it's headed Transport Network.
It's all right, just take it.
That's fine.
So that's internal page 24 and PDF page 46.
Correct, correct Inspector.
And just what it shows is under the heading National Road
and that may or may not be a formal designation, okay,
but it's making, the point stands,
as whatever the designation.
It's a red route, it's an A road,
but it shows Battersea Bridge as a main connexion
from this part of London to the north of the river
down into the strategic road network
that actually runs past the front door here
and down to the south coast.
So that was what I meant when I said,
and it is the only such road
in the whole of the borough frontage.
And the status of that really only goes,
or as this reflects, almost a historical reality
of the crossing at this point,
which was that it's always been a really important crossing
because for many years the only crossing was,
as we know, at London Bridge, then Westminster,
and then this was the next bridge that was constructed.
I guess in the area we think today is London,
central London, but then you didn't have any more
from the late 18th century
until you got right out to Richmond.
So that's what I was referring to.
Okay, it may be a minor point, but all I'm saying
is that I've been informed by Dr. Jubb
that actually Bassey Bridge is fourth most significant
in terms of daily vehicular traffic crossing
between Wandsworth and the other side of the Thames.
Well, just let me go through the figures.
Yes, Wandsworth Bridge has 45 ,000 vehicles per day.
I stated earlier on today that I thought that was
Bassie Bridge, apparently that's Wandsworth Bridge.
Putney Bridge has 37 ,000 vehicles a day.
Chelsea Bridge has 29 ,000 vehicles a day.
And Bassie Bridge has 23 ,000 vehicles a day.
So as a sort of entrepot to the borough,
it actually ranks quite lowly compared to other
crossing points across the river.
That may be. I based my analysis on what the urban design study says.
Thank you Mr Walton. Does anybody opposing the scheme have any questions for Dr Mealy?
No? Okay. I don't have any questions for you Dr Mealy.
So Mr. Harris, would you like to re -examine
if Dr. Mealy can cope with a few more minutes?
Yes, and it won't be more than that, ma 'am.
A few more minutes.
Okay, thank you.
I've got six points.
I don't think we need to get any documents out
apart from perhaps CD 1113.
CD 1113, the first heading is the views of others.
The views of others.
Can we go to CD 1113, please?
Mr. Harris, can you remind me?
Yes, that's the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea's response.
Oh, yes, sorry.
Remember, there are two letters and two documents
and they identify character, appearance,
and heritage and transport.
They're their two headings, if you like.
Yep.
In terms of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
and the weight to be given to the evidence that they give,
Do you give universal weight to a document
by reference to who's written it
or by what the quality of its contents are
and whether you agree with it or not as a decision maker?
Well, it's the second, it's the contents
and whether or not they're internally coherent
and are they accurate?
Because inaccurate comments really would undermine
the materiality or weight to be given to them.
Thank you.
So in terms of what Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea say, we know that the vast majority of it, look at it, relates to
allegations of heritage harm.
We all in this room know that if you are going to make allegations of heritage harm
there's a duty on you to identify whether it's substantial or less than substantial and to identify
where within the range of less than substantial that harm is alleged to be.
Correct.
The Royal Borough of Kensington Chelsea,
and I know you've looked at this really carefully,
in relation to the conservation area harm
that they identify, or any other
heritage harm, identify where within the range
they set the harms that they identify.
No, they don't.
So when you come to do the balance,
which is a required element of dealing with heritage harm,
how is the inspector to judge the pitch
other than her own judgement,
which may or may not be the same,
where the harm is to be pitched in terms
of the Royal Borough of Kensington Chelsea?
Well, the letter is of no assistance in that regard.
And does that increase or decrease the weight,
as my lonely friend put it,
to the objection from the Royal Borough of Kensington Chelsea?
I think it must decrease the weight.
Right.
And in terms of corroboration,
what we've got in this case is a local authority
that finds only low to low to medium levels
of heritage harm and that those are all outweighed
by the benefits of the proposal.
Now, looking at the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea letter, there is a heading called
Issues and Balancing, do you see that?
Yes, that's evaluation, it's towards the end,
I think, isn't it?
Yes, 4 .24.
4 .2. And is there any consideration of benefits at all or indeed any balancing at all undertaken
on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea?
No, there's no reference to that.
So in terms of what the Court of Appeal rather pompously calls the fasciculus of policies
that inspectors have to take into account to pass the statutory tests applicable to
heritage assets, is there any assistance from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
in relation to that balancing exercise?
No.
Okay, thank you.
Next please, Historic England.
I don't think we need to get this up, but it's CD 11 one if you do need it.
One of the things you said to my learned friend was, this is not an objection from Historic
England.
Do you remember that?
Yes.
And he said, well, I wasn't surprised to hear you say that.
I just want to explore with you please why you said that.
First, they say they have concerns.
Yes.
Then they say, we do not support, we cannot support.
For Historic England not to lend support to a scheme
where they identify heritage harms,
is that the same as an objection
in the way that they write their letters?
No, it's simply saying they don't support it.
Right.
Now, if they really want to object,
what do historic England do?
Well, they say in terms they object
and it would be on the basis usually
of quite a high level of harm,
either high level, less than substantial or substantial.
So we all will have seen conclusion,
historic England and then usually emboldened objects.
Then there's a sort of level beyond that
as we all know where they strongly object.
Yeah, and even suggest an application
should be refused on occasion.
Yes, and then there's a level beyond that
where they strongly object
and seek the Secretary of State to call in.
Correct.
Right, where on that continuum are we in this case?
It's not, this letter does not,
in my considerable experience of these,
signal very serious objection,
or does not signal objection,
or indeed even serious concerns.
They simply say they have concerns.
Thank you.
Now we know that any level of harm identified
is to be given considerable weight and importance,
but in this case, in terms of historic England,
we went through with Mr. Ely what their position was
in relation to most of the most important assets
in cross -examination yesterday.
And the inspector has the benefit of that.
How would you characterise that overall level of harm
that they identify in relation to those key assets?
Well, I mean, it's not,
well, it's relatively limited, actually.
Relatively low is the word they use in some instances.
And actually, Inspector, if you want a sort of
ready reckoner of who said what,
the Heritage Statement of Common Ground
records very carefully in columns
what different parties identified.
Okay, then we know Historic England are there
and governments have given them responsibility
for heritage advice.
We also know that, because my learned friend
put this to you, that on occasion in this response,
they trespass into non -heritage townscape weight matters.
Now, in terms of their expertise,
is that to be given the same weight
as their evidence on heritage?
heritage, no.
Thank you very much for that.
Now, historic England's advice has been fully taken
into account, can we assume, by the local planning authority.
Yes.
And what is its overall position as to whether there is
a sustainable heritage objection in the circumstances
of this case, having regard to what the NPPF tells us
is the appropriate approach?
Well, the local authority don't take a point on heritage,
and therefore they think that the benefits of the scheme
outweigh any potential for harm.
Thank you very much for that.
That's the end of that matter.
Next matter, please, is the major modification
that was made as a result of the examination process.
You said in your evidence in chief
that if you like your primary position in order,
in oral submissions was to enhance the flexibility
in the policy to give full regard to D9C
and the case law on it.
Do you remember that?
Yeah, that was my recollection.
I don't have a printed speaking note, unfortunately.
Thank you.
But, you know, that's my recollection.
Mr. Ealy accepted this yesterday.
The way that's characterised by the council themselves
in the evidence of this inquiry
is that the major modification introduced some flexibility
into the policy, allowing for consideration of a scheme
against LP4 criteria at the application stage.
That's I think the planning witness's evidence.
That's their formal position set out in the proof,
which I'm reading verbatim.
Do you agree or disagree?
Well, I agree, that's my understanding of what happened.
Thank you.
Now, all of the Saville's points that were put to you
by my learned friend, remember you went through 3 .2,
which is the more flexibility,
3 .3 should not have gone into the mid range,
and 3 .12 the potential for the site to be identified.
All of those were made at a time
when there was no flexibility,
no flexibility in the policy.
The policy said will not be permitted.
Correct. Now, once the flexibility had been added by the local inspectors, looking at the policy in the round, as a major modification, and the requirement to refuse had been removed,
How reasonable or unreasonable in your judgement was then their position that having introduced
the flexibility, they could leave the decision on individual sites which were not in tall
building zones to policy D9 and the criteria in LP4?
Well, I mean, I think I'll try to bundle that, my answer to that. I think essentially, once
once the policy flexibility was introduced,
the question of did it need to go into a different zone
and should it be allocated in effect fell away
because the main change had introduced the flexibility
which meant you didn't need to pursue
those other two options.
It was a multi -pronged sort of submission really.
Thank you very much.
Was there anything before them
or was there in fact any specific consideration
of any development on this site,
or indeed any other sites which were not
in a tall building zone?
No.
Thank you very much.
And I suppose this is -
Oh, just to correct,
the gas work site to the north,
they did have a copy of the application or drawings,
because that was actually during the examination,
as I say, in written evidence,
the point made by their representatives was
the height allocation on this site is lower
than what we're openly negotiating successfully
with your officers by some measure.
And that was why they were agitated.
Was there any such evidence or case made
in relation to this site that was before them?
Thank you very much.
And I suppose it's an exercise in the bleeding obvious,
but were they or could they have been aware
that the local planning authority would,
within a year or so, have taken the view
that a tall building on the site
would be acceptable in heritage terms?
No, the examiners would have no idea.
Thank you, that's the end of that issue.
Yes, and I think the last issue,
this inspectors report which deals with extraordinary,
not ordinary, remember that?
In townscape and indeed in heritage terms,
given we know what the local authorities' position now is.
Is the opportunity at this site an ordinary one
in the terms of the borough?
Is it an ordinary site, or is it something else?
No, it's not an ordinary site for many reasons.
It's by the river, and it's by a major piece
of road infrastructure.
It is an extraordinary site in the terms
that the inspectors were using that word, in my opinion.
Thank you. That was my last question. You've answered it before I've asked it. Thank you very much
Those are the questions I ask in reexamination mom. Thank you
Thank you and thank you dr. Miele and
Just in terms of housekeeping it was mentioned earlier today. I think by mr. Edwards
That the it would be preferable to have some discussion of next week's timetable
Who wanted to make a start on that?
I have a go mom. There was some discussion before we started this morning in terms of making the most efficient use of next week
Now we've got the the planning evidence. So essentially two planning witnesses to hear next week conditions in 106 closing
Mr. Harris and adventures suggests earlier in the week. We might be able to finish on Thursday
And I think that is looking certainly possible as far as we're concerned
and what we
discussed and what we were going to suggest, Marmee, if it's convenient to you,
is that we hear the planning evidence obviously on Tuesday,
beginning with the council's witness, followed by the witness for the appellant.
That will probably take us, will take us into Wednesday morning, I think.
But we should conclude that evidence
during the morning or at latest by lunchtime on Wednesday.
Whether, Marmee, you would then be prepared to carry out the roundtable
session on conditions and 106 on Wednesday afternoon,
with a view then to closing submissions being given on Thursday afternoon,
which would then give Wednesday evening and Thursday morning to prepare those submissions
and then either a journal or a closing,
probably depending on where you are in terms of the 106 on Thursday,
which would mean finishing a day early.
I think I can say on behalf of Mr Harris and the Royal Six Party
that we've discussed that and we think that is achievable,
but I would say it might not entirely matter for you.
Okay, certainly in terms of hearing the Council's planning evidence on Tuesday, that seems
achievable, then we might make a start on Mr. Marginson, complete hearing from him on
Wednesday, I have already done my prep on conditions and obligations. So apart from
a little refresh on that, which I can do early in the week, that's absolutely fine to do
on Wednesday. And given that I've done the site visits and if I think about it over the
weekend and perhaps go back on Thursday morning, you know, there's nothing to stop me doing
that I don't have a problem with finishing on Thursday afternoon. I think
I was just being nice to all of you in terms of giving you an extra day to
prepare but it's absolutely fine. I agree with what my learned friend says but
further than that I support it. These are expensive things these inquiries and
having just an extra day and the public persons, if it can be avoided without
and do prejudice to anybody, then we think that should be done.
No, that's absolutely fine. Just in terms of further housekeeping points,
it's something that I was probably going to raise at the beginning of next week,
but I'll raise it now anyway.
The parties had all indicated that they weren't in a position to say whether they were submitting
costs applications earlier in the week when I spoke about it. Has that changed
in any respect Mr Harris? Not on this side of the room no. Mr Edwards? No.
And Mr Walton? No. Okay well please do tell me if and when that changes but
otherwise I'm happy to run next week on the basis that we've just agreed. So in
of Tuesday my programme had that down as starting at 9 .30 is that still
acceptable? I think it's precautionary appropriate. Yeah. I agree mum. Okay any
problem for the rule 6 with the 9 .30 start? No the only thing I would report
is just to remind you what I said at the start that I will not be available on
Tuesday afternoon. Right, so if that were the case we've got... so if we start on
Tuesday morning at 9 .30 hearing evidence in chief for Miss Chambers that's
timetabled at an hour then we've got cross -examination of Miss Chambers by
the appellant for two hours, give or take?
Yes, certainly, I would say.
Might be less than that, but I don't make a promise.
Okay, and then reexamination,
and then it would be evidence in chief
for Mr. Marginson for an hour.
So it's possible that cross -examination could start
for the council at that point.
Would that, would it be acceptable to you that you're potentially missing that on Tuesday?
Well I'd be reliant upon my colleagues here just making notes of what is said in evidence
in chief by, for Mr. Marginson and so, and also if, assuming that we get on cross -examination
by Mr. Edwards, again I'll be reliant upon the notes taken by my colleagues, yeah, the
they will be here.
And I will inherit those notes on Wednesday morning if I can then, I mean my cross -examination
is not going to be long anyway, but if I can do that on Wednesday morning that would suit
us fine.
Okay.
Well, I'm sympathetic to that approach and if Mr Walton were to make an application for
a little more time on Wednesday morning I'd be sympathetic to that as well if he needs
to catch up with the notes.
All in all, I think there's a fair way of doing it.
And if Mr. Walton wants extra time on Wednesday morning
for any reason, he should ask,
and it's a matter for you, of course,
but we'd be sympathetic.
Well, we can open on Wednesday morning and always adjourn.
That's not a problem.
At this point, I don't feel aggrieved.
If I can just add on this,
what I've been told from behind is that the recordings
that are taking place live are then put up
on the website that evening.
So you will be able to see that part of the recording
on Tuesday evening.
Well, you now know what your Tuesday evening has in hold,
Mr. Walton.
That's five hours of Mr. Walton's life he never gets back.
Wasn't I?
I wasn't suggesting we're inviting it,
but it's there if you want it.
I find it very useful to do other things at the same time.
Tidy your office, that kind of thing.
Okay. Is there anything else?
No, thank you.
Okay, well it's now 5 .04 and the inquiry is adjourned.
I hope everybody has a good weekend and doesn't spend too much time working on this.
Thank you.