Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 Morning - Tuesday 24 March 2026, 9:00am

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 Morning
Tuesday, 24th March 2026 at 9:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

The time is 9 .30 and the inquiry is resumed. I understand you're probably having a few

IT problems. It's all right. Do you want a few minutes to get it all sorted?

If it helps, I'm a learned friend and I've discussed timetable. We think we're even more

optimistic than we were on Friday, so we shouldn't rush if mis -change is not ready.

And just so that you know, and I think this probably is the right time to say it, we take

the view, both of us and learned friend will speak for himself, but we take the view that

there is a prospect of us, if you like,

finishing, I say in inverted commas,

without a terrible thing.

Mr. Marginson, quite reasonably early today,

I spoke to my lonely friend about that.

The difficulty, of course, is that the third party advocate

is not here, but will need to cross -examine.

And we are thinking, consistent with the barcode of conduct

and the Piva rules, et cetera,

that it would be perfectly appropriate, if you were happy to do that,

for Mr. Marginson to give his evidence in chief for him to be cross -examined

and for me to re -examine on those questions, if any, that need re -examining

so that we make the most of the time, with Mr. Marginson then coming back tomorrow

to be cross -examined by the Rule 6 party, with any re -examination relating to those questions,

brackets if there are any, to be done then.

I'm very happy to give an undertaking not to speak to Mr Margilson about the evidence until he's finished giving his evidence

tomorrow, but we can't see any issue with making the best use of time by doing it that way and hopefully now

Mr Chambers, you're in a position to start

But just to let you know that's what's coming. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you and Mr. Edwards are you content with that?

Absolutely, ma 'am. This is the added advantage that Mr Munson, I think, may need to speak

to Mr Grainger about conditions overnight to ensure that that session is discharged

efficiently tomorrow and the approach that Mr Harris indicated would be consistent with

that objective.

Okay. Dr Job, is that all acceptable to you?

That's fine.

Thank you. Okay. You're all okay, Ms Chambers?

Times 9 .33, the inquiry has been resumed.

My name is Ms Joanna Gilbert and I'm the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to hold the inquiry.

This is the fifth day of the inquiry.

The usual reminders, please.

In terms of mobile phones, if you could please turn them off and other devices or turn them to silent if you're using them for the inquiry.

In terms of fire alarms, we're not expecting a fire alarm today.

So if the fire alarm does go off, please take it seriously, leave the room in an orderly manner,

proceed down the main stairs, out of the main doors and

across and out onto the main road and round to Ram Street where there is a collection point.

In terms of

procedural matters, we've already had a little discussion of procedural matters today. Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I just wanted to confirm a couple of things. So one was

I couldn't resist another site visit yesterday.

It was just too nice a day.

So I wandered off to Battersea Park

and had another walk around the viewpoints there,

mainly because the last time I was there was early evening

and it was starting to get dark.

So I thought it was good to take the opportunity

to do it again in daylight,

having heard from everybody

on character and appearance and heritage.

In terms of the other issue I wanted to raise,

the Environment Agency got in touch yesterday afternoon via my case officer and they have

asked if they can provide amended conditions. Now I don't know whether they will provide

amended conditions but I have asked if they are to do so, can they provide any revised conditions

by 10 o 'clock tomorrow morning at the latest and if we need time to look at those

in advance of the conditions session, we'll obviously discuss that in due course.

Is there anything else procedural or housekeeping wise before we move on? Mr Harris?

No, I've got no objection to that course and nothing otherwise.

Thank you very much. Mr Edwards?

Just one point from me. In terms of the draught planning obligation, I understand from Mr Moore,

my instructor and solicitor who sits behind me, that there are going to be some tweaks to the document you've got,

I think largely relating to matters concerning the environment agency.

As I understand it, there are discussions taking place between the Planning Authority

and the appellant on that, and I've impressed upon Mr Morse that you need to have a revised,

ideally tracked -changed version by the end of the day today, so that you can see the

shape of those changes before the session tomorrow.

Yes, and if the tracked -changes version can be a paper copy as well as an electronic copy,

that would be very helpful to me. It can be double -sided, well, track changes, maybe single,

double -sided but one to a page. It's fine.

Q. Dr Job, anything from the Royal Six Party?

Q. Mr Edwards, could you introduce the Council's witness, Ms Chambers, and her evidence?

Thank you very much indeed, ma 'am. Good morning, good morning, Miss Chambers.

So far as Miss Chambers is concerned, you have a proof of evidence,

which is Core Document 9 .03 and a short rebuttal proof, 9 .07.

You were provided, ma 'am, this morning with a list of documents for evidence in chief,

and there is one additional document, ma 'am, which I'd be grateful if you would have to hand,

and that is Mr. Barbalov's proof, Core Document 8 .02,

and there's just simply a plan in that proof that I'm going to ask Ms Chambers to look

at as a point of reference.

Okay, that document list is ID 19 and just to take the opportunity, there is a slight

error on the Council's website, I think they've missed an ID 17 out, so this is ID 19 even

though there is currently an ID 19 on the website.

Right, thank you, we'll see that that's corrected then.

Thank you very much.

Mum, in terms of additional documents, there's a very short errata to Miss Chambers' proof.

That's been provided, I believe, to the Appellant's team already this morning,

and perhaps I can invite you to receive that now.

It's a shorter rata and it's simply just correct to cross references in the proof and in the

rebuttal.

Unless you wish me to do so, I'm not going to take time going through that now.

Okay, and the appellants already had sight of this?

Okay, thank you. That's ID20 for that. Thank you.

Thank you. Good.

So, Mum, if I could then begin by introducing Miss Chambers by reference to Section 1 of Miss Chambers' main proof.

Miss Chambers, do you have Section 1 of your proof which sets out your qualifications and experience?

That's correct.

Thank you, good. So you're Miss Joanna Chambers, you're a Chartered Town Planner, you hold

a Bachelor's Degree in Geography and a Bachelor's Degree in Town Planning, and you've been a

Chartered member of the Royal Town Planning Institute since December 1983, is that correct?

That's correct.

You set out your professional experience which extends over 45 years in both the public and

private sectors, and you set out the roles and the authorities that you worked for within

the public sector and also within the private sector in Atkins, Arup, AECOM and Broadmoor

Walyon before establishing your own planning practise, Changing Cities, in 2012. Is that

correct?

JW That's correct.

CB In paragraph four, unnumbered on page three

of your main proof of evidence, you explain your professional involvement in assisting

the planning team at the London Borough of Wandsworth, and that has involved

assisting on major applications in Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea, and also New Covent Garden

Market and the Power Station development. Is that all correct?

MS. That's correct. I've had a long association with the London Borough of Wandsworth,

which has involved me working with them on strategic development sites, and

estate regeneration projects. I also worked with the Borough Council on the local plan,

working on one of the area strategies for Clapham Junction, and attended a number of sessions of the

examination, including the session relating to LP4 tour buildings. Thank you. Does it follow,

therefore, Ms Chambers, that you were present during the examination hearing session when

the appellant put forward their representations as to the soundness or unsoundness as it were of the plan?

I was, I listened to that evidence and the questioning that took place.

Thank you very much indeed. You were not involved in the preparation of the

officers' report into the current application, is that correct?

I wasn't involved in preparation. The preparation of that report was led by Mr Grainger,

who is the team leader for the East team in Wandsworth planning department, and who has

actually been involved and advised me at each stage of the inquiry process.

Thank you very much indeed. So far as your involvement at this inquiry is concerned,

you were appointed to give planning evidence in support of the Council's reasons for refusal

and in support of its resistance to the appeal. Can you just explain to the Inspector why

it was that a consultant such as yourself was appointed to give that evidence and not

it was necessary to bring in external support for the purpose of the inquiry due to resource

issues. Mr Grainger has a team to run and to continue to deliver the development management

functions of the council over the course of preparation for the inquiry.

Thank you very much indeed. Good. Thank you, Ms Chambers. Well, I propose, as with other

witnesses, to take the written evidence as read and then just to deal with some supplementary

points, if I may. Thank you. So, we're going to take the evidence as read, Ms Chambers.

there are a number of supplementary points, essentially six topics, and we'll take those

in turn. First of all, could we go, please, together to your main proof of evidence and

turn to paragraph 4 .5, which, using the internal pagination, is internal page 9. Tell me when

you have that, please. Do you have that?

I do.

Thank you. And at paragraph 4 .5, you set out the position with regard to the partial review

of the ones with Local Plan 2023 as it was at the time that you prepared and submitted

your proof of evidence. Can you just update the Inspector briefly as to where that partial

review has now got to and then confirm to the Inspector the extent to which the adoption

of that partial review changes any part of the case set out in your proof?

Yes, certainly. In doing that, ma 'am, I'd refer you to the Council's update position

statement at CD 5 .44.

The partial review was adopted at full council

on the 4th of March, 2026, and now carries full weight

as part of planning decision making within Wandsworth.

The objective has been to ensure more genuinely affordable

housing with a focus on social rent

and securing provision through small sites

and other forms of development, such as student housing

and co -housing.

In regards to changes included as part of the local plan

partial review, policy LP23 continues to refer to London Plan policy H5 in regard to the

35 % affordable housing threshold applicable for the fast -track route. The ten -year split

required within policy LP23 is 70 % social rented to 30 % intermediate ten -year. Given

the application seeks to provide 50 % affordable housing on the basis of 100 % delivered as

social rented housing, the proposal continues to be above local plan policy requirements.

The Council can confirm that the adoption of the local plan partial review will not

require a reassessment of the wider planning balance. The policy also continues to support

the strategic target of 50 % affordable housing, which is in line with London Plan Policy H6.

Thank you, Ms Klamas. So put shortly, is the partial review in

conformity with the approach in the London Plan in terms of affordable housing delivery

and quantum?

HENRY -GAULT -MALLIS It is in accordance with the London Plan.

Q. Is the strategic target within the partial review plan aligned with the London Plan at

50 % of all new houses being affordable tenure?

MS.

HENRY -GAULT -MALLIS It is aligned with the London Plan's strategic target.

Q. And is the application of affordable housing policy on a case -by -case basis one that requires

in practise 35 % affordable housing and less viability testing indicates otherwise.

That is correct. The council did try through the partial review to increase the threshold

but that was not considered to be sound and not in keeping in alignment with the London

plan.

Thank you very much indeed. That was that point. Point number two please. Can we go

in your main proof of evidence to paragraph 4 .13, which is on page 11.

Do you have that?

Yes, I do.

And in paragraph 4 .13 you deal with policy D3 of the London Plan, and at the end of that paragraph

you say that you're advised by officers that limited consideration was given to design

options and other options other than a tall building of 29, 30 plus ground or 38 storeys

in height considered no design solution other than a very tall building in excess of 29

storeys in height has been considered for this site.

Miss Chambers, have you seen any evidence produced by or on behalf of the appellant

that demonstrates the testing and the analysis of a building that conforms in height parameters

to the mid -rise range provided for in the local plan?

I haven't seen any evidence,

and it was discussed in detail

during Mr. Barbaloff's evidence

with regards to the options that have been considered.

I don't believe the applicant

has tested lower height options.

Certainly the council hasn't seen those lower height options.

The only option that has been considered

is a retrofit of the existing building,

which would not have provided an efficient floor plate.

So I don't think it's directly comparable to a new build

development on that site within the parameters set

in the local plan.

I don't think the retrofit option provides

a reliable indication of viability of the mid -rise height

option.

The only options that have been tested,

and this is shown on page 30 of the DAS,

has been a very tall building, which far exceeds the parameters

set in the local plan.

that is ground plus 38 storeys, ground plus 33 storeys, and ground plus 28 storeys.

If you go to page 30 of the DAS...

So we go to the DAS, which is core document 1 .07, is that right?

That's correct.

And you're referring the inspector to page 30 in that document,

and that's a page that Mr. Barbalof referred to during the course of his evidence, is that right?

That's correct.

ALFIE STEELE -MARTIN Thank you. And can you just assist the

inspector with whether you consider what is set out at page 30 of the DAS to be a testing

of a building that accords with the parameters set for the site in the local plan?

JG. Yes. If you look at page 30, it is talking about existing building capacity and looking

at the conversion of the existing building to residential use. It resolves in a very

inefficient floor plate with single aspect units. And I think we are, as Mr. Barbeloff

said, one would anticipate that with a retrofit project, the building costs would be higher

than a new build. So I think there would be implications for that. But there is no evidence

in the design and access statement or any evidence presented by Mr. Barbeloff that an

option which would meet the requirements of the local plan was tested.

Given that the height parameters for the appeal site as a mid -rise zone was set based upon

the analysis in the ARUP UDS, which is addressing both heritage and townscape considerations,

to what extent would you have expected, in the context of a scheme of this nature, an

analysis of the heritage and townscape implications of a building that conform to the parameters

set in the local plan?

I would have expected it to have been a starting point. As was said in the evidence presented

by the appellant, on behalf of the appellant by Mr Barbalov, the local plan policies and

the urban design study informed the development of proposals for this site. So I would have

expected it to have been a starting point to be presented to the council as evidence

that the parameters within the local plan would not result in a viable development.

Thank you very much indeed. And have you seen any testing of a building on the appeal site

that conforms to the parameters set for the adjoining tall building zone?

No, both. The proposals are well in excess of the maximum appropriate height for the

adjacent tall building zones, which is 12 storeys. So at 29 storeys, that's in excess

of almost two and a half times as high.

Thank you very much indeed. Good. Third point then, please. Can we go to Mr. Marginson's

main proof of evidence, which is core document 8 .04.

And turn within it, please, as a point of reference to paragraph 5 .97,

which is on using the internal pagination page 59. Can you tell me, Miss Jamies,

when you have that paragraph in front of you.

I do.

Thank you.

In paragraph 5 .97, Mr Mardison is addressing policy D9 of the London Plan, and he says

that in relation to London Plan policy D9, the proposed development would not comply

with part B3 as it is not in a location identified in the local plan for a tall building.

However, I have carried out an assessment of the proposal against part C of policy D9

of the London Plan in Table 5 .5, and I find that the proposed development is in compliance

with Part C. As the proposed development complies with Part C, I consider that when read as

a whole, the proposed development accords with Policy D9 of the London Plan. Do you

see that?

I see that.

Now, to put this, that paragraph in its context, of course the case for the Local Planning

authority to which you speak, is that there is agreed to be a conflict with London Plan

Policy D9 Part B3, because the appeal site is not in a location identified locally as

appropriate for tall buildings, and there is also a conflict when the proposal is assessed

against the criterion in Part C. That's the local authority's case.

But just help me with this, Miss Chambers. The last sentence of paragraph 5 .97, if, underlined,

if the Inspector were to form the view that there is compliance with part C of D9 but

not with part B of D9 in terms of the locational requirement, do you agree that the proposed

development should then be regarded as according with D9 as a whole?

I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Margerson's position. I think he has accepted in 5 .97

that the proposed development doesn't comply with an important part of the policy D9b3.

And I think it must therefore be incorrect that if the proposal for a tool building were

to meet the criteria in policy D9c, that this would imply full compliance with policy D9.

And I think that was established at the Master Brewer inquiry.

My view is that there could only be partial compliance if the location of the criteria

in D9B3 were not met.

And in the absence of this, there could not be full compliance with that policy.

It would clearly be a matter of planning judgement if the proposal were to be shown to be in

accordance with the criteria in part D9C.

whether it was in compliance with the development plan when read as a whole, which was again

as in the Master Brewer case. Without the requirement for compliance, there'll be absolutely

no point in having that policy. The policy seeks to manage the location and development

of tall buildings following a formal government direction on the London Plan. And our view,

any event, is that the appeal proposal fails to comply with either Part B or C of Policy

D9.

Thank you. Just exploring that latter point for a moment, please, Ms. Chambers, it is

as a matter of record the case that Policy D9, particularly Part B of that Policy B3,

that includes a requirement for the London boroughs in their local plan to identify locations

appropriate for tour buildings. That followed from an intervention by the government in

response to the draught London plan, is that right?

That is correct.

And I mean the inspector has seen the evidence about this.

There was a letter that was sent to the mayor of London

by Mr. Jenrick, who was then the Secretary of State

for Housing and Local Government,

I think it was in those days,

instructing, directing the mayor of London

to amend policy D9 to not only include height parameters

for tall buildings, but also to include a requirement

that London boroughs should identify

where tall buildings were appropriate.

Is that your understanding?

CBF That is my understanding.

JW If Mr. Marginson's approach is correct, that

well, on a case -by -case basis, if you meet, if a developer is able to demonstrate to the

satisfaction of a decision -maker that they meet, the proposal meets part C of the policy,

then there's full compliance with the policy, what would be the point in those circumstances

of including, as directed, a requirement for the boroughs to identify locations?

CBF There would be no point at all, and I think

policy would be undermined in the process.

Thank you. And again, on this hypothetical, which is not the council's case, if the inspector were

to form the view that there was compliance with the criterion in part C of policy D9,

but the development is, as it plainly is, outside a location, would it automatically follow in those

circumstances that there would have to be a conclusion that the proposal complied with

the development plan as a whole, or would it depend upon a range of factors within a planning balance?

MR. HENRY -LOU PARDON It would be dependent upon the planning balance

and be a matter of planning judgement, taking into account other relevant policies in the

plan. And again, I think that is the approach that was established in the Master Brewer

example. DR. HENRY -LOU PARDON Thank you very much indeed.

On the same topic, please, can we go through the same exercise so far as LP 4 is concerned,

which is the local policy, and can we go, please, together to Mr. Marginson's proof

of evidence at paragraph 5 .95, which is at the bottom of page 58 on to page 59.

And I'm not going to invite you to read the whole of that paragraph again, nor am I going

to read it, but the approach that Mr. Marginson adopts in respect of paragraph LP4 in that

paragraph of his evidence is essentially the same as the approach on DP9, or sorry, on

D9, which is that if there is compliant with the criterion within LP4, albeit the proposal

is outside an identified tall building zone, there is compliance with LP4 red as a whole.

Miss James, do you take the same approach in terms of LP9 as you take to LP4 as to whether

there would be full compliance with that policy in the circumstances addressed by Mr. Martinsen.

MR. MARTINSON I think the approach is generally the same.

Obviously LP4 was modified to reflect in particular the Master Brewer decision, but the approach

to be taken to LP4 must be generally the same as D9 regarding partial non -compliance. That

is if it's demonstrated that a proposal for a tool building complies with the criteria

in policy LP4, it can only be partial compliance with that policy unless it is also in a designated

tool building zone. And then it would have to be a matter for planning judgement whether

it complied with the development plan as a whole.

Thank you very much indeed. Good. And then finally, please, on this topic, can we turn

please to your proof of evidence and turn within it to paragraph 4 .61 on page 27.

And again, I'm not going to invite you to read, nor am I going to read paragraph 4 .61,

but in that paragraph Ms. Chambers, you are responding to what was, I think still remains,

part of the appellant's case, that the appeal site should be treated as an exception. There

are exceptional circumstances that would justify a tall building on the site. And you'll recall,

Miss Chambers, from the evidence that the inquiry heard last week, particularly that of Dr Mealy,

that in accordance with the approach taken by the inspectors in their report into the soundness of

the now adopted local plan, they referred to the opportunities for tall buildings outside the zones

as effectively being extraordinary in terms of when they would arise.

Can I just please invite you just to summarise your position to the Inspector

as to whether you consider there is any exceptionality or anything extraordinary

about the opportunity presented by the appeals site for any redevelopment

that would justify a departure from LP4 in the circumstances?

In response to that question, I would really highlight there's nothing in policy LP4

that would support a tall building on the appeals side or a building of the height proposed.

I think the revised wording under main modification 146, it did introduce an element of flexibility,

but it's important that we understand it changed the word from not permitting to resisting,

and that does not imply an acceptance to tall buildings anywhere in the borough. And I think

that is highlighted in the inspector's report at CD 6 .11 Para 115, which says that any cases

of this sort would be extraordinary, i .e. not ordinary. So they were looking at very

few cases of that sort. I think it's important here to just remember

again that a tall building is defined as over seven storeys. The proposed development is

2 .4 times higher than the maximum appropriate height in the immediately adjacent tall building

zone. And the UDS claims very clearly that development in the area should step down towards

to the approaches to Battersea Bridge and Albert Bridge where the site is actually located

at the bridgehead. So there are points in that policy which would really imply that

this was not the type of site that was being envisaged

by the inspector.

I'd also highlight, again, that the inspectors had

the opportunity at the inquiry to include

this site within the tall building zone,

or indeed to include it as an allocation in the plan,

and chose not to do that.

Thank you very much, Lee.

Good.

Thank you.

Next topic, please.

The Ransom's Dock Focal Point of Activity.

And as a point of reference, please,

could we turn together in your main proof

to internal page 23, paragraph 4 .50.

And you refer in that paragraph...

We might just take a moment just to remind ourselves what you say in that paragraph.

The site is located in the Ransom's Dock focal point of activity,

and it has accepted the policy

PM9B3 promotes residential -led development in the focal points of activity,

along with a mixture of uses to increase activity and vibrancy.

So I would argue that this is capable of being achieved through a more appropriate form of development

that is not in conflict with the development plan.

It's also accepted that PM9B1 states that development within ones with Riverside

would help to meet the borough's housing target, although the identified capacity of 904 homes by 20...

by 20...

It would actually be 2032 -33, I think not 20... 2023, is that right?

That's correct.

Yeah, so it should be 2032 to 33 there.

You see those dates?

Oh, it's over the period 2023 to 33.

Over the period, I'm sorry, forgive me.

Over the period 2023 to 2033, thank you,

is not reliant in any way on the development of the site.

So as far as the ransom stock focal point of activity

is concerned, firstly, would you just confirm

what the extent, spatial extent of that area is, please?

Yes, I think it's important to actually look at this because quite a lot of weight has

been attached to the completion of the Ransomstock focal point of activity by the appellant.

Just to give you some context, I'd refer you to page 31 of Mr. Barbeloff's evidence

at CD8 .02.

It's a section called Site Location and Context.

And there is a figure there which shows tall buildings in the area, but in particular it

shows a red line around the area between Albert Bridge and Battersea Bridge, and that's the

boundary of the Ransom Stock focal point of activity.

ALAN Thank you. So we can see that the appeal site falls within that focal point of activity

as does land to the south and the east, is that right?

JB That's correct. It takes in the full length of the riverside and then is bounded by Park

Gate Road and Battersea Bridge Road and Albert Bridge Road.

ALAN Thank you. And it, as was pointed out in the inquiry last week, it includes but

is not congruent with the tall building zone that sits to the east of the appeal site.

MS. FONG -TANG It is pretty much congruent with the tall building zone in that area,

with the exclusion of Albion Riverside, which has reached the maximum height in the tall

building zone, and the mid -rise zones both on the approach to Albert Bridge and to Battersea

Bridge where the site is located.

Q. Thank you. Now, more substantively, Ms. Chambers, as you acknowledge, the appellant

seeks to place some reliance upon the inclusion of the appeal site in the Ransom Stock focal

point of activity in terms of justifying the development, including its height and scale.

I'd like your assistance, please, with what in policy terms is sought to be achieved by

the designated focal point of activity at Ransomstock and generally, and whether it

supports in any way the height and scale of the development proposed.

I think the important point to make is that the focal point of activity is not about height

and scale or physical form of development, whilst it promotes a mixture of uses and residential -led

development schemes, it is not about development. It's about activation of the area, and that

has been the key focus of the developments coming forward in the Ransomstock focal point

of activity. The focus of the designation is on promoting vibrant areas with a range

of activities which will complement town centres and main growth areas. And just to illustrate

that I'd refer you, ma 'am, to the local plan at paragraph 11 .4. And this puts the ransom stock

area of active focal point of area activity into context. Can you just bear with me for a moment,

Miss Klamas? I seem to have my computer's being rather slow and I have not been able to open the

So just bear with me, please.

Sorry, I should have given you the reference point, the reference for that.

The reference for the local plan is CD 5 .02.

And paragraph 11 .4 is on internal page 234.

Yes, thank you, I'll have that. Thank you.

Yeah, I think the point I'd like to highlight here is that there are a number of focal points

of activity along the riverside, but some have a greater potential for change than others.

And paragraph 11 .4 highlights those areas with the greatest potential for change, which

are the Wandle Delta, which is being planned through the Bournesford Town area strategy,

and the Lombard Road, York Road area, which is just to the west of the Battersea Railway

Bridge on the riverside.

And these areas are identified as areas for transformation, where there continues to be

the potential for major development.

There are site allocations within those locations

to reflect this opportunity, and these areas

are continue to transform under the local plan growth strategy

through residential -led mixed -use development,

including the scope for some tall buildings.

But the important point is that Ransom Stock is not

identified as one of the riverside areas with greatest

opportunity for a transformative change and there are no site allocations in this area.

What Ransomstock has shown is the potential to develop the cultural focal, the cultural

quarter with employment, educational and economic dimensions, the Royal College of Art and the

soon to be constructed Vivian Westwood headquarters. So that is very much the focus of activities

and development within the Ransomstock area of opportunity.

Thank you.

So coming back then to the point, as far as the Ransomstock focal point of activity is concerned,

to what extent is it a policy that is directing scale, height and mass of development,

or is it a policy that is seeking activation of the area as far as it applies to Ransomstock?

JLF It's very much one focused on activity, and

if we look at the one policy in the plan which refers specifically to Ransom Stock and to

the focal areas of activity, that's policy LP 59, which is on page 436 of the local plan.

Thank you.

And if I take you to the section over the page on 437,

which is headed Thames Policy Area and Focal Points

of Activity, there are two parts to that policy.

Part F supports mixed use development,

where it would create safe, high quality environments,

provide new homes, leisure, social and cultural

infrastructure facilities, river walks, public spaces,

cycleways, and more importantly,

part G in respect of Ransom's Dock,

which says within focal points of activity,

uses including restaurants, cafes, bars, cultural space,

and small -scale retail would be permitted

in order to create vibrant and active places.

And Ransom's Dock is identified as one of the three areas,

focal points of activity which that policy applies to.

Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed, Miss Chambers.

Anything else on Ransom's Dock focal point of activity?

I think the only other point I would make is that development coming forward in the

Ransom's Dock focal point of activity is totally in accordance with the parameters established

in the local plan regarding height.

Thank you.

Point number five then please or topic five which is the penultimate topic topic I'd like

your assistance with please, affordable housing. The appellant's current proposal is to deliver

50 % of the new homes provided on the appeal site at affordable tenure with 100%.

of those affordable tenure homes being provided at social rented tenure?

Is that your understanding?

That's correct.

As a matter of fact, Ms Chaim,

is that change to the proposal was introduced post the submission

of the planning application to the local planning authority for determination

and by way of an amendment to that application,

or series of amendments to that application,

that were introduced in October 2024.

Is that correct as a matter of fact?

That's correct.

My understanding is that the council were advised of the increase in affordable housing

to 50 % habitable rooms all at social rent at the same time as the scheme was reduced

from 34 storeys to 29 storeys.

But my understanding again, having spoken in depth with council officers,

is that no explanation or rationale was given for it.

Thank you.

And so far as the quantum of affordable housing is concerned,

does that exceed what the local plan and indeed the London plan would require from a site

of this nature?

It does. I think it's important to highlight that the 10 -year split and the number of units

was changed as a result of that revised scheme. As a result of the height reduction, the number

of units overall was reduced from 142 to 110, which is the scheme before the inquiry today.

This comprised a reduction in the number of market units from 97 to 56, but an increase

in the number of affordable units from 45 to 54.

But the most significant point, I think, is the 10 -year split of the affordable change

from 70 % social rent and 30 % shared ownership to 100 % social rent.

There's no policy requirement for 50 % affordable or social rent, and so the proposal exceeds

what is required in the local plan, and I believe this must have implications for viability

and delivery. I can only assume that the appellant was seeking to demonstrate substantial planning

benefits in an effort to outweigh the substantial harm caused by the development.

JH. Thank you. Just taking a step back for a moment, Ms. Chambers, on this. The appellant's

case in terms of the impact of the proposed development is that it is acceptable, it doesn't

have any adverse, townscape implications, there's only a low level of less than substantial

harm to one designated heritage asset, namely Albert Bridge, that is outweighed by public

benefits. Given that is the appellant's position, have you identified any reason why consistent

with that the level of affordable housing proposed is being advanced as it is? And does

it make any sense to you?

It doesn't make any sense to me and this is why I have questions in my evidence.

At a time of very, a very challenging time for affordable housing delivery and housing

delivery as a whole, why without a policy requirement the decision was taken to actually

change the tenure to 100 % social rent at a time when the overall value of the site by

reducing it to the number of units was actually reduced, was falling.

CB And is, as far as you can understand exercising

your judgement, that increase in affordable housing materially beyond what policy was

required consistent or inconsistent with the case that there is actually no harm arising

from the development?

CT I would find it surprising. And I, having

seen the revision document that was provided by the appellant, clearly a great deal of

emphasis was being placed on the exceptional planning benefits that the scheme would deliver.

Thank you very much. Good. Thank you. And then, I think, final point then, please. Can

we go to your proof of evidence of paragraph 6 .22?

which is on page 54 to 55.

And in that paragraph, you address the MPPF at paragraph 125C, which refers to in the

section dealing with efficient use of land, the requirement for substantial weight to

be attached to use of brownfield land for housing and other development needs unless

there is substantial harm. Just to be clear as to your position on this, Miss Chambers,

do you consider, and does the council consider, that there is substantial harm in terms of

townscape arising from the development?

JH. I don't agree with the appellant's interpretation of 125C. The reasons for this are explained

in the officer report and in my proof of evidence. I don't believe you can subdivide.

Just pausing for a moment, let's take this in stages. Just to be clear, is it the council's

case to which you speak that there will be substantial harm caused in terms of character

and appearance of the area, a townscape harm arising from the proposed development?

That is the principal ground for refusal of the application, the extensive substantial

harm that would be caused to the townscape and character of the area.

Thank you very much indeed. And if the inspector accepts that evidence and the position arising from it

taken by the local planning authority, would paragraph 125c assist the appellant in terms of the benefits of the scheme?

No, I think, sorry, I jumped the gun there. I think that paragraph 125 doesn't need to be read as a whole.

It does say that substantial weight should be given to Brownfield, the use of Brownfield land,

But it also says very clearly that unless substantial harm would be caused

and I think on that basis the way to be given to the development of brownfield land has to be seen in the context of

the proposal coming forward and I think the

Inspectors decision which is referenced at six point two two of my proof

Which related to a 34 storey tower within the London Borough of Newham is very relevant in that sense where the inspector said

In that case, there was not an identified five -year housing land supply, but the inspector

said that it does not mean development at any price or at any height of tell would be

acceptable. So I think it's very much the important point of looking at it in its totality.

Yes, we all want to see brownfield land developed, but it has to be the right scheme.

Thank you very much indeed. Right, a number of points of confirmation and clarification

arising from that. First of all, I don't think we need to turn up Inspector Nicholson's decision,

which is the decision letter at Core Document 13 .01 that you refer to in paragraph 6 .22,

but just for your note, the quotation set out by Miss Chambers is from paragraph 62

of that decision letter. But more generally, Miss Chambers, if it is Mr. Marginson's evidence

and therefore part of the appellant's case,

that when considering paragraph 125C,

it has to essentially be subdivided.

So firstly, it is necessary to give substantial weight

to the value of using Brownfield land,

and then to consider separately

whether the proposal should cause a substantial harm.

Do you agree with that approach of subdividing the paragraph

or do you consider that it should be considered

in its totality and as a whole?

Yes, as I've stated, I think it should be considered as totality, one part cannot be considered in isolation.

Thank you very much indeed. Secondly, so far as paragraph 125c is concerned, you've referred in your evidence to the Planning Practise Guidance that has been published in association with paragraph 125c.

and I think the context was that this paragraph came in rather out of the blue when the NPPF

in December 2024 was published. It wasn't in the earlier draught and there was a lot of flurry of

comments about how it related to the substantial harm test in the context of heritage assets, etc.

And the PPG was then revised to make it clear that paragraph 125c has to be considered,

together with other elements of the NPPF and the NPPF looked at in totality as it applies

to a proposal. Again, would you invite the Inspector to approach that, the 125C in that

way, and how would you advise the Inspector to consider other policies of the NPPF in

terms of those dealing with design and respecting the character and appearance of the area in

its application?

I think we are all aware that the pressure for housing development has increased and

there is a greater pressure on bringing forward Brownfield land. But I think it's very clear

in the PPG that the balance required by paragraph 1 .125c does not justify the substantial harm

caused or outweigh the consequences that follow from the conflict with the development plan

in this case.

Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else you wish to add at this stage, Ms Chambers, in terms of your evidence in chief?

No, thank you.

Thank you, ma 'am. That concludes the evidence in chief of Ms Chambers.

Thank you. Would now be a good time to take a short break before cross -examination starts?

Okay, so if we take a break until 10 .30, Ms Chambers, as your evidence in chief has already

taken place, please avoid communication with your party. Thank you very much, we're adjourned

until 10 .30.

Thank you.

The time is 9 .30 and the inquiry is resumed. Mr Harris, would you like to cross -examine

Ms Chambers, please?

Thank you. Morning, Ms Chambers.

First heading is Operation of D9 and LP4, Guidance for Practitioners and Decision Makers.

and we heard a lot from you in chief about Master Brewer.

Can we look at it though please?

It's CD 13 .7, CD 13 .7.

Now this was a case where Hillingdon were arguing

that, if you like, D9B, and B3 in particular, constituted a gateway to the operation of

D9C. In other words, you couldn't treat D9C as part of the development plan tests if you

weren't in a tall building zone. Remember that?

Yes, I do.

Good. And that was roundly rejected, but we need to look at the reasons why it was roundly

rejected and then apply them to the circumstances of LP 4 on this case. So I'm going to go through

it really quite quickly. These are all submissions of law, but since they're relevant to the

way in which the local authority has used its testing in this case, I need to ask you

some questions about it. We need to look first at paragraph 83, please. The judge has already

said that the case made by Hillingdon was that B3 was a gateway and she didn't accept

that and then she gave her reasons. And at 83, you see it says this, in my view the context

is critical to the interpretation. Policy D9 is a planning policy and a development

plan by section 72 etc. There is a presumption that a determination will be made in accordance

with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Thus the decision -maker

will have to decide whether there are considerations of such weight as to indicate that the development

plan should not be accorded the priority which the statute has given to it. Then this point.

Furthermore, it's a separate point, the decision -maker must understand the relevant provisions of

the plan, recognising that they may sometimes pull in different directions. See that?

Yes, I do. And then she says this in 84, the drafter

of policy D9, as it turned out I had a hand in that, and the defendant who is the maker

of the London Plan, must have been aware of these fundamental legal principles and therefore

that it was possible that the policy in paragraph B3 might not be followed in any determination

if it was outweighed by other policies in the development plan, that must include D9C,

Yes.

Or by material considerations.

It seems likely that the policy provision was made for such cases, was made for such

cases, given the importance of the issue.

And then 85, please.

In considering whether to grant planning permission for a tall building which did not comply with

paragraph B3 because it was not identified in the development plan, it would surely be

sensible and in accordance with the objectives of policy D9 for the proposal to be assessed

by reference to the potential impacts which are listed in part C.

See that? Yes, I do. And that's, if you like, the ratio of that decision. That's what guides us and in this room

what is binding on us. That

surely be sensible in accordance with the objectives of policy D9 for the proposal to be assessed by reference to the potential impacts

which are listed in part C. Now,

As a result of your evidence in chief,

I'm not sure there's so much between us.

I think we can probably forge an agreement

in this cross -examination as to this, if nothing else,

particularly given what you rather unfairly said in chief

about Mr. Marginson's evidence,

which doesn't say what you said it does

when we look at it carefully.

Can I ask you these questions, please?

The consequence of this decision is that practitioners, when considering an application, must apply

the criterion -based elements of the policy as part of the policy when they're considering

tall buildings.

That is a sensible approach, yes.

I agree. You can't just say, it's not in a D9B location, I'm not going to look at D9C.

You would look at the development plan as a whole in considering any application.

First you look at the policy as a whole, and then you look at the development plan as a whole.

And I don't think you're saying, are you, first, that if you adopt that position,

a decision maker could not, as a matter of overall judgement, having looked at those criteria,

read as a whole, say that the proposal was complying with the development plan policy

D9 as a whole? That's not your case.

MS. FONG -JONES. My case is that you could say that the application

was compliant with the criteria in that part of the policy.

MS. HENRY. Yes. Well, obviously.

MS. FONG -JONES. What you couldn't say, if it wasn't in a

tall building zone that was compliant with part D9B3, which says development of tall

building zones. But what you said in your evidence in chief, and you said it on five occasions,

was it's for the decision maker, as a matter of judgement, to judge whether the development

plan policy as a whole was complied with or not. And let me put it this way, if it complies,

or is in substantial compliance with D9C, as a matter of fact and law, the decision maker

could conclude that it was consistent with policy D9 as a whole?

I think I said consistent with the development plan when read as a whole.

Yes, but I'm asking you about the policy.

With the policy I would say it would still not be fully compliant with the policy.

There's the word that you added, which Mr. Marginson did not ever say.

So we're all agreed it doesn't fully comply with the D3 part,

but as a matter of principle, just forget this case for a minute

because I know what your case here is,

if a proposal substantially complies with D9C,

even if, for reasons we'll come to later,

a site has not been identified in a tall building zone,

then the decision maker can perfectly, reasonably,

and properly, as a matter of law, decide that the policy is complied with as a whole, because

that's a matter of judgement, isn't it?

MS.

HENRY -FULLER -SMITH Again, I would go back.

I've said it would not comply with the policy as a whole, but it could comply with the development

plan when read as a whole.

The decision is very clear that policies pull in different directions, as you've highlighted,

But there is no justification or rationale for saying that the policy, that it fully

complies with the policy when it clearly does not comply with part of that policy.

JH. Right. Ms Chambers, nobody says in this case it complies with every single last element

of the policy fully complies in that terms. Mr. Margington has never said that, as we'll

in a minute. I just want you to... If you accept that Policy 9c compliant can make it

compliant with the development plan when read as a whole as a matter of judgement, then surely,

yet surely, it can comply with the development policy when read as a whole, even if it doesn't

fully comply with D3. That's a matter of judgement, isn't it?

It's a matter of judgement with regards to the development plan as a whole, but even

in the Master Brewer decision, it was quite clear that the GLA had taken the position

that it did not comply with that part of the policy.

That part of the policy, but we're looking at...

And I think that we are in a situation there of partial compliance.

Obviously, in our case and in the Council's case, there is full non -compliance, we would

argue.

I got that.

That doesn't help us really.

But I would still say that if you comply with Part C,

it would be partial compliance with that policy, not

full compliance.

All right, let's just test that.

And it would be a matter of planning judgement

to determine whether the material considerations were

such that it would be considered to be

in compliance with the development plan when

read as a whole.

I'm going to try it one more time,

because we're going to look at the minute how

local authority have considered it

in the circumstances of this case.

Right, let's try it this way.

D9C is part of the policy, isn't it?

That's correct.

There may be policies which all need to be read as a whole.

Parts of those policies may point in different directions,

as Sir Keith Lindblom said, correct?

Mm -mmm. Right.

If one part points in the direction of Grant

and the other part doesn't point in the direction of Grant,

the judgement for the decision -maker as to whether it complies with the policy when read as a whole

is entirely a matter for the decision -maker, isn't it?

That is a question which we have addressed, which is it's a matter for planning judgement.

Good. All right. I think we're more or less there.

Can you pick up Mr. Marginson's evidence, please, because in your evidence in chief,

along I'm afraid with my learned friend,

you actually looked at what he said,

but actually when we didn't explore in detail

contextual analysis what he said,

you gave the paragraphs numbers,

and it was put that you differed from him

in that he was suggesting that there was compliance

with the development plan in all its parts, full compliance, he said on I think four or

five occasions. Let's look at what he actually does say. 597, please. Paragraph 5 .97. It's

on page 57. Are you there? Do you have it now? Look at the last paragraph. He says,

well, let's read it all to give you, in relation to Part CT9, the proposal would not comply

with Part B3, not in a location identified in the local plan for total building. I've

carried out an assessment of the proposal against Part C of D9, and I find the proposed

in compliance with Part C. That's what was read. And then this, as the proposed development

complies with Part C, I consider that when read as a whole, the proposed development

accords with D9 of the London Plan. See that? That's what he said, wasn't it? He didn't

ever say, in full, it's a judgement that's available to him and the decision maker, isn't

it?

Well, I read that as saying it is compliance with the policy. It doesn't say as the proposed

development is partial compliance with part C and as a matter of planning judgement I consider

it complies. He is actually saying it complies with D9 as a whole.

When read as a whole, yes.

Yes, well I disagree with that.

All right, well I think I've got the basis of your disagreement. You say it's partial

compliance, but you agree that overall compliance with the development plan, and we say overall

compliance with the policy, is a matter of judgement.

I would say overall compliance with the development plan is a matter of judgement.

All right, we can make submissions on that. Just for completeness, look at 595, which

takes the view as a matter of planning judgement that the proposed development complies with

Policy N LP 4 when read as a whole.

Yeah, my same argument would apply to that as well.

Okay, all right, I've understood that.

My interpretation is the same.

Thank you.

Now, let's see where we get to on this.

First, the Master Brewer case means that the proposal could, as a matter of overall judgement,

in your view comply with the development plan when read as a whole, in our view

comply with the development plan when read as a whole and comply with the policy when

read as a whole as a matter of judgement. First point. Second point. The criteria

that are set out in D9C have effect as part of the development plan, don't they?

They do. Yes. They aren't other material considerations, they are part of the

development plan, which may or may not point in the same or different directions to other

parts of the development plan.

That's correct. And the local planning authority undertook the assessment of the scheme against

those criteria.

Yes. And that's exactly right. In this case, that is what both you and Mr. Eley have done.

You've treated the criteria in policy LP4 and in D9C as part of the statutory development

plan. That's correct. Good, thank you very much. Now I want to look at LP 4 next please.

LP 4, if you pick that up, that's part of the development plan, so we need to go to

Now, the relationship between parts B and parts C of D9 were dealt with by the judge

in the way that we've looked at just a few minutes ago.

But when we're considering LP4, I want to take us to a slightly different but important

part of the judgement.

Can we go to paragraph 82, please,

which you should still have open, CD 13 .7.

We'll start with paragraph 81,

I suspect the best way to do it.

Read straightforwardly, objectively, and as a whole,

D91 requires London boroughs to define tall buildings within their local plans, subject

to certain specified guidance. B requires London boroughs to identify within their local

plans suitable location for tall buildings. C identifies criteria in which the impacts

of tall buildings should be assessed, part C, and makes provision for public access.

Not relevant in this case, we can agree, correct?

That's correct.

Then it says this, there is no wording that indicates that parts A and or B are gateways

or preconditions to part C. We're all agreeing on that, aren't we?

I agree.

Yeah.

In order to give effect to Hillingdon's interpretation, it would be necessary to read the words underlined

below into the first line of part C to spell out its true meaning.

Development proposed in locations that have been identified in development plans under

Part B should address the following impacts.

And the court quite clearly held that that wasn't the case

for the purpose of D9B and C, didn't it?

No, I agree with that.

And in that case, there wasn't any guidance

which says how D9C was to be used,

but we get the view of the judge,

the drafter of D9 appreciated that policies

could pull in different directions

and different parts of the development plan

could be applied in different ways,

and it's a matter of judgement for the decision -makers

to how to deal with that.

But in the case of the local plan in this case,

although D9A and B didn't indicate

how D9C was to be used,

the judge said it was an essential element of the policy

which needed to be applied by decision -makers.

because they couldn't skip D9C or not treat it

as part of the development plan, correct?

Correct.

Right.

So let's, in that consequence,

and with that in mind, can we look at LP4, please?

So we're looking at CD5 .2 LP4.

And can we look at LP4B?

Well, this is a very straightforward sentence in English and we've heard what Mr. Ely says

about it, for example.

Proposals for tall buildings will only be appropriate in tall building zones identified

on tall building proposals, included at appendix 2 to this plan, where the development would

not result in any adverse visual, functional, environmental and cumulative impacts." That's

very clear. That's how you do the test in relation to tall buildings in tall building

zones, correct? MR. TABER -CUMMINGS Correct.

MS. HAYES Right. Not all buildings, for reasons that

we'll go to, not all sites, are within tall building zones, are they?

MR. TABER -CUMMINGS Or proposals could come forward on sites not

in tall building zones, yes. MS. HAYES Right. That's one example of the

of the proposition I put to you.

So what does LP4, how does LP4 deal with that?

Well, first of all, we know that D9 deals

with that situation by operation of D9C and D

being the way you judge things that are outside

of a tall building zone, yes?

Yes.

That's what the judge found,

even though the policy didn't itself make it

absolutely clear in terms of the relationship

between A, B, and C.

But look at what this development plan says.

Proposals for tall buildings will only be appropriate in tall building zones,

where development not result in any adverse visual function, environmental and cumulative impacts.

Then this.

Planning applications for tall buildings, that's not restricted in any way, is it?

Correct?

Yes.

Will be assessed against the criteria set out in part C and D of the London Plan,

policy D9,

and those set out below as follows. Yes? So what that means as a matter of law, I'd suggest

you, but just straightforward interpretation of what the English language says here, is

firstly, you have to have regard to D9c, and D, but that's not relevant, but also to the

criteria set out below when judging whether a proposal is in accordance with the development

Plan or the policy when read as a whole and the extent to which it is in accordance, correct?

MR. WELLS That's correct. And I think that wording was deliberate to avoid the ambiguity

in policy D9.

PROF. HENRY Yeah, I agree. Because if it just applied to in tall building zones, then it

would be a gateway and it's not.

MR. WELLS Yes, exactly.

are we going to have the same discussion as we had in relation to D9? We say that you

look at LP4 as a whole and judge whether it's compliant with the policy as a whole, parts

that don't comply in full and parts that do comply, and therefore LP4 as a whole can be

judged to be met and you'll say, well, you'd have to say partially met. Are we in the same

robust?

I would stand by the answer I've already given you. I think you have to look at the context

for LP4, the policy. It's a strategic policy based on a robust assessment of where tall

buildings should be located in the borough. And I think if you take the approach that

as long as a tall building anywhere complies with the criteria, it meets the policy requirements,

that's undermining the purpose and function of that policy.

JG. But surely that's a matter of judgement for the decision -maker.

CB. It's a matter of judgement for the decision -maker in the wider context of the plan, because

a tall building, whilst it would be considered against the functional environmental social

criteria set out in here, it would also need to be considered against other policies in

the plan as well.

Well, I've understood that.

That's really, really helpful and rather underscores the difference in approach that you have taken

from what we say is the lawful, appropriate approach, which is that it's open to this

decision -maker, Secretary of State or Inspector, to take the view, as is the case in hundreds

of cases across London that D9C compliance, as a matter of judgement, can mean compliance

with D9 when read as a whole. That's the distinction between us.

That's the distinction between us.

Okay, good.

But it is a matter of planning judgement.

It is a matter of planning judgement, yes, but you say, no, the decision maker can't

find that it's compliant with D9 as a whole because it isn't, is what you say, for some

reason or another.

My view would be it would still be partial compliance,

but there would have to be other material considerations

that would outweigh the departure

from the development plan in that sense.

Well, you see, we can probably go to a couple of these

when we look at the evidence a bit later on,

but in hundreds of cases, you and I do this work,

in hundreds of cases across London,

the GLA has found compliance with D9 notwithstanding the fact that the tall building isn't in a

tall building zone or exceeds the height identified in a tall building zone development plan context.

Haven't they? Let's just take Earl's Court, for example, which you and I were both involved

just to test your point. First of all, the GLA, second of all, two London boroughs in relation to

that development found the proposals, even though they were significantly in excess

of the tall building zone allocation, nonetheless to be compliant with D9 when read as a whole,

notwithstanding breaches of D9B3, didn't they? MR. WELLS I think that there are two different

aspects to that. One is the appropriate heights, which are set as a way of managing development.

Obviously, a scheme that comes forward would be assessed against the criteria. If it was

found that a development that exceeded those height parameters was still acceptable in

relation to the criteria, that would actually influence the decision -making.

JG. Well, hang on there. According to you, it could never be in full compliance, and

have to note, compliance brackets partial only goes to the development plan when read

as a whole. Whereas you and I know that in terms of Earl's Court, for example, there

were areas that were outside tall building zones where tall buildings were granted, and

there were areas where substantial exceedences of B3 were in place, but were found to be

acceptable with the development plan and the policy when read as a whole because of D9C.

But I think again, when you're looking at a very large development of that sort, which

is master planned and there are other considerations to take into account, I stand by my position,

Mr Harris, that it can only be partial compliance because the location of tall buildings is

such an important element of this policy that that has to be a material consideration.

Alright. And just take it one stage back then, because I'm having a real bit of difficulty

with this, and it's not even advertised in your evidence this as the point that you and

my learned friend advanced in chief. You're saying at any stage if B3 for any reason is

not complied with, the best that can be achieved, and indeed the decision maker is not allowed

to go further than this is to say partial compliance only.

That's the logic, isn't it?

That is my logic, yes.

Well, I'm going to make submissions on that basis.

Thank you very much.

That's helpful.

Now, in your case, in the circumstances of this case,

can we pick up your proof, please?

Because that's not how it was approached

by the local authority and the reporting committee,

and it's not how you approach it in your proof, is it?

Can we go to 447, please, of your proof, page 22?

I understand why you're saying it now, in chief,

and I heard the way my learned friend put it to you,

and you accept it.

But look at 447 of your proof, please, page 22.

The inspector considered the representation made.

the only concession was major modification 146, which introduced some flexibility into the policy,

seeking to restrict tall buildings outside tall building zones, as opposed to not permitting,

and thereby allowing for consideration of a scheme against LP 4 at the application stage.

Yes? Where in your proof do you say, ah, actually, B3 or the first part of LP4 is some sort of

gateway, which always means you can only ever be in partial compliance with the development

plan when read as a whole? Where do you say that? I'd say it's in my rebuttal, because I actually

picked this point up in particular in response to Mr. Marginson's proof of evidence. Yeah,

compliance. It says compliance. It says compliance. And my response was to Mr. Hutchinson's proof

of evidence. But what I'm saying here, and I think it is important, is that it is about

restricting tall buildings. That's very strong wording for a policy to restrict. It doesn't

say that the Council will consider proposals for tall buildings outside the tall building

zones in accordance with the criteria. It says it will restrict, and that is very strong

wording. Yeah, but do you result from what you say in 447 that that's an additional

flexibility allowing for consideration of a scheme against LP 4 at the application stage?

It allows consideration, that's exactly what the local planning authority did in this case.

I accept that. They applied those criteria. Good. Thank you very much. Good. Now, I want

explore with you please one of the reasons why the judge in particular but as I say hundreds

of decisions since Master Brewer have taken the view that accordance with D9C is capable

as a matter of judgement of meaning that a proposal is consistent with D9 as a whole.

I'll switch mine. Thank you very much. Thank you both. Miss Harris has said I think on

three occasions there are hundreds of decisions where the Mayor of London I think or the GLA

has concluded that compliance with the criteria means compliance with the policy as a whole.

I'm certainly not aware of those decisions. They're not before you. I would therefore

I'm not prepared to accept on behalf of the local planning authority that proposition

and without there being evidence to support it.

Okay, well, we can look at one or two of the matters

that are before the inquiry,

including the stage one and two reports

in the circumstances of this case.

But we've got a witness who's done a lot of work

in and around London,

including in relation to all buildings.

And I'll ask her about her experience,

and I think that's proper evidence.

And we've already heard about Earl's Court, for example,

and that is sufficient for me.

Now, I just want to explore the reasons why it's appropriate to deal with it in that way.

First of all, when tall building zones are considered, well, let's actually take it right

back to first principles, please. Some local authorities haven't even got tall building

zones, have they?

CBF Well, if they haven't not state local plan,

they won't have tall building zones.

Exactly. And so if you're in a borough which doesn't have an up -to -date development plan

identifying tall buildings, then what you do is, do you just say then, therefore there can never

be compliance with the development plan policy because there isn't a tall building zone,

therefore you aren't in a tall building? Just taking it back to first building principles.

or do you, as is commonplace, forget hundreds of times, as is commonplace and you were aware,

do you judge the proposal against D9C as a matter of judgement to determine its acceptability?

But that's a very hypothetical question, Mr. Harris.

But I'm testing your…

No, because that was the case in the Master Brewer judgement. It was 2018. Hillingdon didn't

have an up -to -date plan.

They had very broad policies on tall building.

Actually, and I can't say this from having looked

at every local plan, but I think there's very few

authorities in London that do not have a policy

on tall buildings.

But I would say that it's a hypothetical question

because we're dealing with a situation here

with a local plan that's less than three years old,

which is underpinned by a robust growth strategy,

a characterization strategy.

it's met all the requirements of the London Plan in terms of the design -led approach,

to actually say what happens if you haven't got a tall building zone. We do have tall

building zones defined here, and they're being applied consistently in the determination

of planning applications in the borough.

I'm not sure about that. I don't want to be dragged down that, but Dr Miele points to

three cases in his proof where this local authority has granted planning permission

significantly in excess of the height restrictions and has done so by reference to D9C and compliance

with D9 when read as a whole.

Therein his evidence, just three examples of what I say are the hundreds, but I really

want to press you on this and I want you to answer the hypothetical question, please,

because it goes to the way in which you are now arguing the case.

If there is not a tall building zone, in your analysis, that means you can never pass B3,

and the decision maker is driven to say there can only ever be partial compliance with the development plan.

Policy D9, is that right? Can you answer the question on that?

No, I've agreed with you, Mr. Harris, that policy D9 BC is not a gateway. It isn't a

gateway to the remainder. If there is no tall building zones, it falls away, I think, in

that stage. But I think it's a very hypothetical question that you're asking me.

Thank you. But I've got the answer with which I fundamentally disagree as a matter of law

that it somehow falls away, but you are left with D9C,

and it can, in your judgement, therefore,

be compliant with D9 as a whole,

because D9B somehow will have fallen away.

Now, let's look at other reasons why,

as a matter of judgement, it can be appropriate.

Not saying it must, it can be appropriate

for a decision -maker to find compliance

with D9 as a whole by reference to D9C.

one of the reasons that that might be appropriate is that the tall building zone identified in every case

is not identified with a specific project in mind, is it?

No, I agree with that point.

And that means that the specific impacts of a particular building are unknown at the time of zoning, correct?

That's correct.

Good. Second, the specific tests in D9, or at least some of them, require the operation

of a balance of benefits and harms. Heritage, for example, yes?

The balance of benefits and harms in terms of heritage, yes.

Thank you. And they are internal to the criteria and are part of the development plan, aren't they?

They're correct.

Yeah, good. And such benefits that come along with an individual building, which can be judged

pursuant to the criteria, are by definition not known at the time of zoning, are they?

They're not known at the time of zoning, but the purpose of the zoning is to set the parameters

for any proposals coming forward and give clarity to the development industry with regards

to what those premises are.

JG. Let's just take this case as an example. The local planning authority in this case

believes that the benefits of the proposal outweigh any heritage harms. That's the case,

isn't it?

CB. The heritage significance, the impact on heritage significance.

JG. That can't have been tested at the time the building zone was put into place, can

Well, depending upon the location of the scheme within the zone, the nature of the scheme

would have very different impacts.

An impact at one end of a zone would have a different impact to another.

But they were taken into account.

No, the benefits...

Can I finish, please?

Yes, please.

They were taken into account in the extent that the urban design study did a full characterisation

of the borough and actually took into account heritage characteristics in the identification

of tall building zones and the sensitivities of areas to tall buildings.

JG. I think we're across purposes here. The question was really clear. The benefits that

come with a specific proposal cannot have been taken into account and aren't taken into

account generally in the formation and identification of a tall building zone. Is that correct?

Can I ask what you mean by benefits? Are you talking about heritage benefits or broader

public planning benefits? But that is a matter for planning balance at the end.

No, they aren't. It's a matter for the policy. The policy in particular requires you, as

part of a criteria within the policy, to identify whether, for example, heritage harms are outweighed

by public benefits, doesn't it? That's a criteria in line C, isn't it?

That is a criteria there, but that's a specific reflection of the MPPF in that respect.

Yeah, exactly. And when you are identifying a tall building zone, you don't have regard

to, let's say, the weight to be given to 50 % affordable housing. That simply can't be there.

Well, no, but that's part of the planning balance.

It's not. It's part of the development plan.

That would apply to every consideration. That's taking the MPPF into account.

But we are questioning, again, questioning the wording of a policy, and I would reiterate

this. This policy was subject to full examination and found to be sound, and has adopted less

than three years ago. I think that adding that weight into policies is a move that is

not necessary given that we are determining applications in the context of the MPPF, which

provides that balance.

Can we pick up, please, the London Plan and go to policy D9? Because you're saying it's

for planning balance and other material consideration, but heritage in terms is identified as something

that needs to be part of the assessment of the policy, doesn't it? This may be another

second fundamental difference between us. So we're looking at policy D9, we're looking

at D9C and we're looking at C9D9C3.

Proposals resulting in heritage harm will require clear and convincing justification

demonstrating that alternatives are being explored and that there are clear public benefits

that outweigh that harm.

May I just find the policy please, sorry?

Yeah, D9.

Okay, D9C.

Clear public benefits that outweigh that harm. That's part of the D9C test, isn't it?

In relation to heritage?

Yes. Yes?

Yes.

It's not part of the overall planning balance, it's an identification of part of the policy

that might point in a different direction to D9B3.

CB2 But again, we know that the weighing of harm in relation to heritage assets is different

to the weighing of harm in relation to the wider benefits.

having regard to that internal part of the policy this local authority has

concluded that that that the harms which they identify which are to be given

considerable weight and importance because they're statutorily protected

are outweighed by the benefits whereas townscape harms which don't get that

weight are not outweighed by the public benefits. But I think you have to look at the

proportionate weight attached to those harms. Yes can we come to that later? We're talking about

less than substantial harm in relation to heritage impacts and substantial harm in relation

to townscape.

Well, as Mr. Edwards already pointed out, you can't read across those adjectives in

that way that you just have. I'm not going to deal with that here. Here we're looking

at one of the reasons why we say lots and lots of decisions. I've mentioned Earl's Court,

which you were involved in. There are three cases in Mr. Dr. Millet's evidence where

compliance with D9 has been found, notwithstanding that they are outside of a zone, and we're

looking at why that is the case. Specific impacts are unknown until you get an application,

which is, to use your words, to be considered on its merits at the application stage. And

we're also agreed, I think, that when you're looking at parts of the policy which require

an internal balance, parts of the policy that require an internal balance, at the stage

of zoning, the benefits of the proposal which are relevant to D9C and its compliance are

simply not known, correct? That's correct, but when the decision maker

is applying that policy, they would know that at that stage.

Good, thank you very much.

Thank you, that's the end of that issue

so far as it goes so far in this case.

Can we next please pick up CD611,

which is the local plan inspector's report.

Just bear with me.

Just mislaid it.

Oh, that'll do.

Thank you very much.

CD611. Now, in the circumstances of this case, the main change

that the inspectors made was to policy TB4, wasn't it?

That's correct.

And they specifically identified it as a major modification that was required in order to

make the development plan sound.

Correct.

And we've got the nature of the submissions that were made that we looked at in Dr Millet's

evidence, especially those which were put forward by Mr. James Marici Casey on behalf

of Dr. Miele's clients at that time, saying that the policy was inconsistent with D9 as

properly assessed, having regard to the Hillington case. All of that's well understood, isn't

it. Correct. Can we look at what they said? They clearly thought they were introducing

flexibility to the policy as a whole, correct? Correct? Correct. They use that word and you

tell us in your paragraph that we looked at earlier that you accept that and that flexibility

means that even if you aren't in a tall building zone, you've got to look at the criterion

and Policy LP4, don't need to go over that again.

I just want to look at 116 with you, please.

The modification will allow a degree of flexibility

and that's providing opportunities for tall buildings

where one can demonstrate other material considerations

in support of a tall building

beyond an identified tall building zone.

See that?

I do.

Yeah.

And of course, because of the way that we've just seen

the case law goes, those other material considerations

can be the provisions of D9C and also of the local plan

policy, can't they, the criterion?

Correct.

Good.

However, it said, it must be borne in mind

that such opportunities are like to be extraordinary

rather than ordinary.

Now, that's a very careful way of putting it, isn't it?

So what they're saying is they aren't going to be ordinary.

They have to be, in that sense, other than ordinary, extraordinary.

I feel it's rather saying they're going to be rare.

It doesn't say that.

They could have said that.

Well, extraordinary rather than ordinary.

I think it's rare.

Shall we leave that to the inspector?

Yes.

Because it could have just said extraordinary, but it actually clarifies it by saying rather

than ordinary.

and then it says, be careful, this is not a free for all.

See that?

Now, leave that to the inspector please.

But it's perfectly clear that the inspectors thought

that a tall building could, in principle,

be justified on the evidence,

then they clearly envisaged the potential

for tall buildings outside of tall buildings,

but it wasn't to be a free -for -all and it would have to be proven on its merits.

That's really what they're saying, isn't it?

Yes.

Good. I think there's no difference between us there then. Thank you very much for that.

That's the first heading. The second heading is the urban design strategy and its final judgments

on tall building zones. First thing to note about the UDS is that it's guidance, not policy,

correct?

It's part of the evidence base which underpins the local plan.

It is in policy is the question.

It's not in policy, although findings from the urban design study are obviously part of the policy.

And we need to be clear exactly what it is that it does and what it is that the inspectors took from it.

Go to paragraph 112 of 611 please.

Here they identify what they take from it and where it was being used and how it was

used by them.

In assessing the areas where tall buildings would be appropriate, the WLP relies upon

the Urban Design Study as a benchmark for amongst other things setting out where tall

and mid -rise buildings would be appropriate.

The Urban Design Study is a proportionate and robust response to identifying tall building

zones and as an overarching policy document.

So, they see it as an overarching policy document and they say this, it would be unreasonable

to expect it to provide in -depth and specific details for each site across the borough that

is not within such zones.

That's correct, although those sites would have been taken into account in defining the

boundaries of the tall building zones on the basis of the characterisation study.

the UDS, yes. But the panel, for reasons that we shall understand, because they said there

should be more flexibility, etc., from a case -by -case basis, didn't actually deal with any single

case where there is a site that was out with any tall building zone, did it?

But I think having said that, the case...

Is that right though, first?

Is it a yes before you go on?

They didn't deal with individual sites outside of the site allocations.

True.

But they had concluded that it was a robust response to identifying tall building zones.

And I think I would...

You say it's not a policy document, but there are policies both in the London Plan

and in the local plan, which requires schemes to take into account policy guidance.

Yeah, I'm going to come to that.

policy documents, design guidance.

You mean D1, for example?

Yeah, well, we'll see whether this document complies

with D1 in a short while.

But I think you're agreeing with me that first of all,

we know that the panel didn't have a proposal

on this site before them at all, did they?

They had a proposal,

well, they had a representation from the applicant.

Which they have a proposal before them.

They had a representation from the appellant,

which sought to get the site allocated in the local plan.

So there was a proposition that was put to the inspectors at the examination.

Did they have a proposal before them, Ms Chalmers?

A reference proposal, as it's called in the process.

There wasn't a proposal at that stage.

There wasn't a development proposal at that stage.

So they didn't consider that.

They didn't consider a number of other things that we'll come to in a minute.

and we see that they specifically state that it would be unreasonable and they have not had regard to what hasn't been put before them in relation to sites that are not in tall building zones.

It's very true, but I would say that this site was quite unusual in the fact that it immediately adjoined a tall building zone, so it was certainly within the inspectors' power to extend the tall building zone boundary to include this site.

OK, thank you. I've understood that and the actual extent of scrutiny or otherwise there

was for areas that were outside the tall buildings. In terms of the tall building scenarios that

are set out, this tall building area or these tall building areas in proximity of the application

site weren't the subject of such scenario testing, were they?

The scenario testing was on sites at Lombard Road within the Battersea, Riverside character

area where taller buildings or taller heights were identified as appropriate.

JH. Thank you. So no scenario testing of this site. The judgement in relation to this site

was specifically said to be undertaken

on the basis of existing buildings on the site.

It fell into that category, didn't it?

Existing buildings on the site.

The judgement, and I think we talked at length of this

when considering the heritage and townscape evidence

about the capacity for taller buildings

within the location of the site between the bridges.

That's what I want to explore with you now, please,

because that sort of capacity analysis

was explicitly based on the guidance in NPPF 2019,

wasn't it?

That's what the document says.

Yes?

Yes.

2019.

And it says that in the draught assessment, which

which we've got as an earlier CD, CD 515, I think.

And it says that, I think in six places,

in relation to CD 516,

NPPF 2019 was what was used in particular

to identify the sensitivity of locations, yes?

I see you nodding, but just for those who might not be able

Thank you very much.

I'll take your word on that.

Let me just put it as tersely as I can.

Government policy on brownfield development,

on densities, on the requirement to, if you like,

marry up densities to surroundings

has changed very significantly

between 2019 NPPF and December 2024 NPPF, is it not?

I think only in sense of promoting development

on brownfield land and looking to optimise uses.

Well, that's quite important, isn't it?

But I think that's always been the case.

In the London context, the focus has always been

on optimising the use of brownfield sites.

Forget that for a minute, because did you hear my learned friend say that some of the changes,

and again, there was a long, long sort of series of questions to you and you just agreed with it,

some of the changes were unexpected in 2024 and radical.

Could you explain which ones you mean?

Yes, well, there are any number and I can set them out in closing perhaps better, but

for the purposes of this cross -examination, shall we just take paragraph 125C, please?

Do you want me to go to the MPP?

Yeah, I think so. Probably better had. It's on page 36 of the document. You referred to

it in your evidence in chief.

Could you take me, sorry, no.

It's paragraph 125.

One, two, five.

Sorry, page one.

My evidence in chief.

Is page 36 bottom right?

Oh, it's 36.

Sorry, apologies.

No, no.

No problem.

It's CD4 -1 still.

Are you there, ma 'am?

Now, the UDS explains its approach to sensitivity,

explains the derivation of its approach to sensitivity

from the 2019 document and also explains why it has identified tall building zones in a

limited number of parts of the borough. Look at paragraph 125 please. C, give substantial

weight to the value of using suitable brownfield sites. You went to my lone friend in this.

proposals which should be approved

unless substantial harm would be caused.

That's a fundamental new element in December 2024, isn't it?

I believe it is, yes.

Yes, good.

It was meant to be a change that had effect

as the document that was published

alongside the NPPF made clear.

It went further than the draught

and was deliberately going further than the draught, yes?

Yes. Good. And what it means is that proposals should be approved unless substantial harm

would be caused. But look at paragraph 125 and how it begins. That's a test that applies

to development planning as well, isn't it? The development plan would have taken into

account MPPs. Yes. The development plan should take into

account, I should allocations and sensitivity analyses, for example, should take that into

account, shouldn't it?

Yes, I agree.

That fundamental new approach to the grant of planning permission, but also to the identification

of tall building zones, for example, was not in play in the 2019 NPPF, was it?

I don't really.

It said that MPPF has been updated on a number of occasions

since 2019, but I don't think the general tenant of it

has changed, which is actually to deliver housing

and to promote sustainable development,

the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

That hasn't changed.

I don't think the addition of this paragraph

in any way undermines the basis on which

the urban design study was undertaken,

Because that was undertaken to look at the development potential and capacity of the

borough, taking into account all of the considerations.

And I think the most important point in that paragraph is that it references substantial

harm.

So it's not saying go as high as you want to go, go as dense as you want to go.

It's not.

Provided you're using brownfield land, that's acceptable.

It actually provides the cheques and balances in order to determine whether or not a proposal

is acceptable. Yes. All right, I've understood all that. Let's see if I can get to it a different way.

The UDS identifies that tall buildings are only potentially appropriate in limited areas

of the borough, correct? Yes, yes. It does so by use of a methodology, which includes

capacity constraints based on sensitivity and deliverability.

They are the two elements.

The sensitivity tests are not framed by reference

to avoiding substantial harm on Brownfield sites, are they?

But I think that - Are they?

I don't know. Yes or no?

I don't know the reference in the urban design study

you're referring to.

I don't have the urban design study in front of me.

Hang on a minute.

This was looked at in detail in the evidence.

What I would say with regards to the urban design study

that substantial harm is part of the sensitivities.

The harm to an area is understanding whether or not

an area has the capacity to accommodate

development of height and scale.

Right, I got to come back to the question

and I really would like an answer.

I am right, aren't I, that the capacity for tall buildings, you can go to any three parts

of the document including Appendix A, and we went through these with others, was identified

by reference to sensitivity on the one hand and deliverability on the other hand.

Is that right?

No, can I answer the question to you?

Because I think that comes back to the argument you just applied to me previously, which was

do you need the proposal in front of you? No, I'm answering the question to you as best I can, Mr

Harris. You come back to the point which was that you need a proposal in front of you to actually

identify substantial harm. It's sensitivity. You're providing a framework within which to determine

whether or not an application is acceptable. And I would say with regards to the MPPF,

the inspectors at the examination which took place in 2023 would have applied the

up -to -date version of the MPPS in determining the,

in examining the plan and finding it sound.

So, Ms. Chambers, therefore in 2023,

they would not have had knowledge

of what was in December 2024, would they?

Well, no, that is the nature of the planning process,

but the decision maker in this case

did have knowledge of that,

and the officer report in detail examined

the question of 125C,

and the additional weight being placed on the development of brownfield land.

I saw that and they didn't use the word substantial at all, did they?

I've referenced that in my rebuttal proof in terms of the weighting applied.

They used significant, which was the highest level of weight applied to anything.

Yeah, okay. All right. I'm trying not to be derailed here.

I'm not trying to derail you.

No, no, no, I'm not saying you are, but I think my questions deserve an answer.

I'm trying to answer your questions in the best way I can.

So here we are. You agreed, I think, that the two parameters that led to capacity were

sensitivity and deliverability. Sensitivity was not judged by reference to avoiding substantial

harm on brownfield sites, which is what development plan makers are told should be the test in

125c, was it? By definition, it couldn't have been.

In the urban design study, they didn't specifically refer to 125C because that obviously wasn't

valid at the time.

But I would say in the assessment of this proposal and in the decision -making process,

125C was applied fully.

I'm going to come to that.

That's a slightly different point.

Because here, remember the heading was the UDS, what it did take into account, but it

couldn't have taken into account, and whether you can give it full weight for all of those

reasons. Now, notwithstanding the fact that it didn't apply the test in 125C, which is

meant to be a game changer both in terms of planning applications and development planning,

notwithstanding that, the application site was in and is now adjacent to two tall building

zones, wasn't it? It was in the draught and is now adjacent to two tall buildings, correct?

That's correct. This was examined in detail in the evidence of Mr. Ely.

Good, thank you very much. So we'll look to see why it was taken out in a minute. But

When we are looking at whether there exist substantial harms

for the purposes of whether it should be in the zone or not,

one of the relevant considerations

that the inspector might want to take into account

is that the council itself does not identify heritage harms

which are capable of rebutting the presumption

in favour of Brownfield sites in 125C, does it?

It identifies less than substantial heritage harms, I agree.

Which is outweighed?

Sorry?

Which is outweighed by public benefit.

I'm not seeking - In that case, yes.

Yeah, good, all right.

I'm not seeking to equate or read across

substantial and less substantial harm.

That's not the point I'm making there.

I think we're all agreed on that.

But however you identify it, there isn't a heritage harm giving rise to

substantial harm for the purposes of 125C here. That's correct. Thank you very much

Thank you. And in that context

It's relevant at least to look at the reasons for removing the site from the tall building zone, isn't it?

We went through this in detail last week and they are in detail in my proof that actually

there were significant changes between the Reg 18 and 19 versions of the plan, responses

from consortees including the GLA which had to be addressed in the documents and the way

in which the tall building zones were represented.

Yes, all right. I've understood that, but the question was the reasons for removing

from what was one of the very limited tall building zones, which

itself was chosen by reference to a different level of sensitivity,

we can make submissions on this in closing, is a relevant consideration as a matter of fact, isn't it?

It was part of the process of local plan preparation and the work that went into that local plan.

Again, it was considered in the context of the examination,

but it's quite normal that during local plan process

things progress.

And it was necessary to respond to the Secretary of State's

direction on the London plan to define those

tour building areas, so I want to see more detail.

Oh dear, I hoped we weren't having to go back to that.

I'm not suggesting we do, but I'm just trying to explain

that there was a process that was gone through,

which is set out in detail in my proof,

which I felt it was very important

for the inspector to understand.

Otherwise you would jump to the conclusion,

well it's just come out of a tall building zone,

but that wasn't the case.

There was a due process that was followed in that.

And the reasons why it went back into a mid -range zone

were fully explained by Mr. Eley

and his evidence last week.

Yeah, all right

Can we go to paragraph 79 please

Just this is a diversion

To deal with the sector estates intervention and the weight which would be given to it. I

Heard you mention it in chief and you've mentioned

Hillingdon 79

13 .7 paragraph 79

This is a paragraph which deals with the Secretary of State's direction.

And what the judge finds, I'll summarise it, what the judge finds is that their direction

is of no help at all in the consideration of the matter before her, which was whether

D9C operated as a...

Are you there?

CBF Yes, I'm here.

JG Yeah. Where paragraph D9C operated as in effect a bar to the B, operated in effect as a bar to D9C.

You're not suggesting that the Secretary of State's direction is of any relevance to this

inspector's determination now, are you? CBF No, I'm merely introducing it on the

basis that it was material to the changes in the local plan between the Reg 18 and Reg 19.

We're going to disagree with that, but I don't think I need to chase that down with you. Thank you very much

Can we go please to?

512 itself

Sorry 516 itself. This is the UDS

And I'm looking for reasons set out in the document itself

why

something that was in a tall building zone

has been removed from the tall building zone.

Because I think you've agreed,

that's a relevant consideration for the inspector,

putting it at its absolute lowest.

Can we go to page, let's start with page 180 please.

Sorry, my machine is computer slowly.

Is it taking some time to load up?

Yes.

Which paragraph, Mr. Harris?

Just bear with me, my machine is as slow as yours.

180.

Page 180.

Yeah.

Internal.

Okay. Page 180 deals with TBB05. And it's interesting because it shows the approach

to moving things in and out of tall building zones.

On page 180?

It's page 180. The inspector will want to look to see why it was in and it was taken

out. And this deals with a different tall building zone, but gives us a clue. Do we

see the tall building zone that is there identified TBB 105? It's along Battersea Bridge Road

on the approaches to Battersea Bridge, correct?

Yes. This is near the Surrey Lane Estate.

Sorry, I didn't hear that.

This is Surrey Lane Estate, specifically the area.

Exactly. And do we see, it says right at the end of that appropriate height, seven to eight storeys,

the approach to the listed Battersea Bridge

is excluded from the tall building zone

to avoid creating a canyon effect

and to preserve positive views

towards this historic river crossing.

So there's why it's been excluded for that reason.

I'm bound to say as to why it's been excluded

in these circumstances is a little opaque,

but can we go to page 182,

which we've looked at on a number of occasions.

And on the left -hand column, are you there, ma 'am?

Do we say TBB204 should be planned carefully

in relation to the small -scale ransom's dock feature.

That clearly relates to TBB 204,

which is the adjacent tall building zone.

Building should step down towards the approaches

to the listed Battersea Bridge and Albert Bridge.

And then there's something about TBB 203.

Now, that's the only sentence that I can find

which comes close in the particular circumstances

of this case to explaining what was previously in

has now been removed.

And it is to do with a heritage impact stepping down

towards the approaches of the listed Battersea Bridge.

See that?

Yeah, I would say that was also a townscape.

Say again?

I would say that was also a townscape consideration.

Well, that's as maybe.

And we can make submissions on that.

but it is at least in significant part, as expressed,

a heritage concern, isn't it?

I think that this is slightly different

from the two examples that you've shown

by taking parts of the area out

in the previous tall building zone,

the Surrey Lane tall building zone

further down south on Butsey Bridge Road.

That hasn't gone in,

I don't know if that's gone into Midride Zone.

No, no, no.

All I was pointing to there was -

The reason why, and I think this is from my recollection of the discussions last week,

I think it's because the definition of the tall building changed from six to seven.

I think from five to seven.

From five to seven.

And I think that that was one of the reasons and the concern was being that you would not

get that step down if it were in a tall building zone where an appropriate height up to 12 storeys.

Perfectly prepared to accept that.

And I think that that's the reason why there's a mid -rise zone on both approaches.

Anyway, if the Secretary of State's inspector looks at this and thinks, well, it is at least

in significant part to do with the setting of Battersea Bridge, for example, that we

now have to look at that in the context that this local authority doesn't take issue with

the heritage harm on the overall balance in the circumstances of the case, particularly

as it relates to Battersea Bridge, does it? Because that's part of the harm that's identified,

but the local authority takes the view that that is acceptable in the circumstances of

the case. Now, if and insofar, I may be right, I may be wrong, if and insofar as it's been

taken out of the bridge to protect, at least in significant part, that interest, that's

not part of the case that's now made against the proposal, is it?

It's to retain the, I think there's a townscape element to that as well in terms of character

of the area.

Can you listen to the question please?

So I'm sorry to cut across you, but I made it perfectly clear that if and insofar as

it is a substantial part, now it may well be part townscape as well, I think probably

not, but I framed the question very carefully to allow of you saying that.

So you saying it doesn't really help.

I'm asking the question,

if and insofar as the inspector finds that that reason

is at least in substantial part to do with

protecting the approaches to the listed bridge

and therefore its setting, et cetera,

then it's material, the local authority

is not taking that point against this specific scheme.

Is it?

I don't fully agree with you, Mr. Harris,

because I think it is actually,

it's part of the townscape setting.

We're talking about significance of the bridge

In terms of heritage harm, we're talking about townscape as a whole, which heritage

is an element of that.

The stepping down has a townscape function as well as a function in terms of protecting

the significance of the bridge.

And that is my view.

Heritage would be an element of the consideration, but they are townscape features.

The bridges and the river, it's not just the bridges, it's the stepping down to the

river as well.

Well, we've only got the words that they set out there.

Thank you very much for that.

That is the end of that matter.

I want to ask you now next, please,

about the existing position.

The existing position, we have all seen

and we have all read the formal response of the local planning

authority in the end of 2018, which

indicated that the existing building and its surroundings

were harmful to the setting of the bridge in heritage terms and were also harmful in

townscape terms. Do you remember that? Yes I do.

Do you adopt in heritage terms Mr Ely's evidence that the existing building is neutral

in terms of heritage? I have taken Mr Ely's evidence and I would support his evidence.

So the answer is yes, I have adopted Mr Ely's evidence.

I've worked with Mr. Eley in preparation for this inquiry and understand what he said in his evidence.

That's good, thank you very much.

Answer me this please.

In heritage terms, if the proposal...

If the existing building is found by the decision maker to cause harm...

Let me just put this properly.

In heritage terms, if our proposal, as you say, causes harm to Battersea Bridge as a

listed building through harm to its setting, etc., it follows from what you've already

told me that that harm is part of the harm, all of which is outweighed by the benefits

of the proposal.

In heritage terms. Yes. In heritage terms. Thank you very much. On the basis of the assessment

undertaking. I'm sorry for mucking that up because it's an important part in the sequence

of questions I'm asking, but we're agreed if in heritage harms, as you say, the proposal

harms the setting of the bridge, then that harm is part of the harm that's already been

outweighed, and there's no reason for refusal in respect of that.

Now, let me put the next point, which is where I was confusing myself. If the proposal is

found to enhance the setting of the bridge, as was anticipated by officers back in 2018,

and as is the case put by the appellant here, then that enhancement of the setting would

be something that should be given considerable weight and importance in the ordinary operation

of the fasciculus of policy set out in the MPPF.

In the MPPF, in terms of the heritage impacts,

I don't agree that it does enhance the heritage significance of the bridge.

No, no, no. We simply don't agree.

We agree with the other officers in this case who said it causes harm and this would be a...

Well, I would agree on that basis.

I think it detracts from the bridge.

Hang on a minute.

You agree that if it does benefit or enhance the setting...

In principle, yes, if that's...

It would be part of the assessment, I believe.

Thank you.

And it follows from what you've said,

that such enhancement won't have been taken into account

by you either as a public benefit or as a heritage benefit

because you simply don't believe it exists.

So if the inspector, the Secretary of State's inspector

takes the view that that is an enhancement,

then that is a further matter,

which is to be weighed in the overall balance,

to be given considerable weight and importance as a benefit.

That is a matter for the inspector's judgement.

Good. Now in townscape terms, we know from his proof, Mr Eley hadn't considered it at

all. He refers to setting impacts being neutral. Where are you on that, please? In terms of

the existing building and its effect on existing townscape.

Its effect on existing townscape. It's an established part of the townscape at the present

time. I think it's unfortunate it's not occupied, it's not been well maintained,

it's not been, the environment around it hasn't been well maintained. But I don't

think that in itself is a reason because there is no, we are talking about one existing building

being replaced by another. There are other ways in which that site could be improved.

There could be other more appropriate forms of development for that site which would accord

with the parameters in the local plan. But I don't think it is a reason. The Council's

position is that the principle of redevelopment of that site is accepted and we're not at

odds with you on that, to make better use of the site.

Can we try and focus on the questions that I'm asking? A yes or no answer, and then a

qualification relevant to the answer. Because it doesn't really help me, I don't know whether

it's helping the inspector, if every time I ask a question you just regurgitate the

whole part of your case in relation to that. I don't mean it as a criticism, but the question

was really quite focused. If the existing building harms the townscape experience, that's

a material consideration for the inspector, isn't it?

It would be a consideration taken in the round, not in isolation from the scheme as a whole.

Thank you very much. I heard what you said about the Ransom Dock Focal Area of Activity,

and I don't need a regurgitation of that answer. Here's the direct question. Does the existing

building do anything to express its position in the Ransom Dock Focal Area of Activity?

Does the existing building do anything to express its position in the ransom dock focal area of activity?

No, it doesn't. It doesn't have active frontages. At the moment it is underutilised and probably,

I think we will all agree, could make a bigger contribution to the objectives of the focal point of activity.

In terms of its functionality, the evidence is that it's a moribund office, not likely

ever to be reused as an office use. That is inconsistent with its position in the ransom

dock focal area of activity, isn't it?

I don't think it's inconsistent with it. It's not inconsistent with the...

because it's a developing area, the ransoms doc, the policy in relation to the focal...

It's existing... I'll put the question again. It's existing position and function,

a moribund unused office that's unlikely to be used as office again, does nothing to express

its position in the ransom doc focal area.

It doesn't contribute to the objectives of the Ransomstock focal point of activity.

Visually, I think Mr. Eley said it was uninspiring, do you agree?

Visual issues don't, as I said in my evidence in chief,

the focal point of activity is about generating activity in the area,

making the riverside more vibrant, attracting visitors.

So, it's not specifically about the building or building design.

If you walk around the area, as I know you will have done, there's a variety of building

types, quite industrial, some of them, and relating to the river functions around the

dock.

So, vibrancy has got nothing to do with how one sees, appreciates.

Vibrance is about the uses of the building.

Is that right?

I think it's uses and activity.

Focal point.

First of all, that's a visual metaphor to begin with, isn't it?

Yeah, I think a focal point of activity means a focus of activity.

I think the policy relates specifically to activity and vibrancy, and bringing in more

active uses to the area.

What about, I'm just benchmarking here this alleged neutrality, what about the contribution

the building makes to the experience of the Thames path, which should be the jewel in

crown of this location.

I agree that the Thames Path in that location is in need of enhancement.

It's dated, it doesn't make good use of the area, but it's a very constrained area and

you've got to deal with levels and I think that that's been a challenge for the architects

of this scheme to deal with the changes in levels.

So whilst it gives access to the Thames Path, which is important, I agree with you, it gives

could be better. Thank you, thank you. That's the end of that issue. Wait to market housing

and housing generally at the minute. Right at the beginning of the London plan, which

is now of some age, the mayor says London is in a housing delivery crisis. And we've

got more up to date in October, a document from the mayor and also from the department,

the Secretary of State who the Inspector represents here, explaining again that London is in a

housing delivery crisis. You wouldn't...

I wouldn't disagree with that.

I wouldn't disagree. And permissions are at an all -time low across London as a whole.

completions are at an all -time low,

and applications are at an all -time low.

I agree, I've seen the statistics as well,

and I think it's something that there has been

concerted effort to try to address.

Yeah, all of that, when the spatial priorities

of the new NPPF, that's the 2024,

and of the government, as expressed through

a variety of notes which are material considerations

that we don't need to look at. The spatial priorities are the delivery of 1 .5 million

homes by the end of the electoral term, correct? And the fostering of significant economic

growth, correct? And the provision of homes, and particularly affordable homes.

Yes, and the creation of quality places as well, I think I would add to that list.

London is one housing market, isn't it?

Strategically, yes.

Yeah, well, no.

Strategically, but not from the point of view of meeting housing needs.

No.

Which are done on a borough by borough basis.

No.

So the boroughs are given a target, but London is one housing market, and that housing market

is in crisis.

The ability or the requirement for London to be treated as one housing market was and

has been hotly contested at every single EIP into the London Plan, hasn't it?

Yes, I was there at the last one.

So what happens is that one local authority says, well, we're meeting our target. You

because green belt authorities can't pull their finger out and provide enough housing

there. So delivery of housing in London as a whole on one housing market means that the

crisis is one for this local authority, for Hammersmith and Fulham, for everybody, and

it's a housing crisis which exists irrespective of whether each individual borough is marking

its present, meeting its present housing requirements for the purposes of the five -year land supply

and the HDT, isn't it? It goes beyond that.

That's the case, but that is something that will be addressed strategically through the

London Plan review, as we know.

No, but we're in... That may be three or four years off.

the process has started, but at the present time,

there is no requirement on the borough

to be delivering more than it is delivering.

That doesn't mean that the weight to be given to housing

can be downgraded.

You and your colleagues have given

the provision of housing in this case just moderate weight.

That's the case, isn't it?

And that is taking into account the housing supply

and delivery situation in the borough.

Could I also just add something to this?

When I say it's a strategic issue,

I think it's very significant to note that the GLA, the deputy

mayor, in the knowledge that the council had resolved

to refuse this application, did not choose to call it in,

even though he had highlighted issues of housing

need in his response.

Two points.

There may be any number of reasons for that,

and we don't know, could be manpower,

could be all sorts of reasons.

You can read nothing into the absence of a...

But he has done it in other cases, so.

Exactly case by case basis.

Case by case basis.

And you can't read anything into that.

The second and important thing about this

is whether the mayor would place only moderate weight

on the provision of more than 100 units.

And that's the question that I'm looking into.

What I'm going to suggest to you

is that the Secretary of State

in the circumstances of this case would expect this inspector to give substantial weight

to the delivery of more than 100 units of housing in the circumstances of a London crisis

of delivery where some boroughs are not providing a single completion in certain quarters.

I think I've set out the rationale and the reasons for giving it the modulus.

Bear with me, answer the question.

Secretary of State would expect the inspector

to give significantly more than just moderate weight

to the provision of more than 100 units of housing

when London is in the biggest housing crisis

it has ever been in.

Wouldn't it just be reasonable about this?

Yes, but it's the weight to be given to it

in the context of the scheme itself.

The contribution it makes is relatively small

in relation to the housing needs in the borough.

The council has demonstrated it is exceeding its requirements

in terms of housing supply and delivery.

It is not the council's responsibility

to contribute to the London market in that sense.

Not responsibility to contribute.

And all those issues are going to be

responded to at the strategic level and when with the new London plan that is clearly going

to be a significant issue but at the moment what the the requirement for Wandsworth is

to meet the London plan requirements that have been set for it in the London plan.

Well we disagree and I've got your note it's not our responsibility to contribute I've

heard it at every single EIP that I've ever promoted on behalf of the GLA every single

time and we can make some.

CBF - It's certainly not with a scheme that would cause such substantial harm on this

JLF - Well hang on, you can't just...sorry, Miss Chambers, you need some very clear thinking

here. What the inspector has to do is weigh the benefits. That's separate from identifying

the harms. This local authority, for reasons that are now I understand because they don't

feel it's their role at all to contribute, even in the biggest crisis that London's ever

seen has given moderate weight. The extent and nature of the harm we've considered with

other witnesses. Here I'm asking you to consider the benefits. You say moderate. Can you point

to any single secretary of state or mayoral decision in the last year where the benefit

of housing has been given only moderate weight?

MR. HOPKINS I can't, no. This is based on the assessment

in the context of this scheme and the assessment presented in the officer report and in my

evidence.

Yeah, alright, thank you very much. And we know from the emergency measures that the

threshold for a mayoral call -in is going to be reduced to 50 units, isn't it? Not yet

in place, subject to consultation.

Subject to consultation.

Yeah, alright, thank you very much. Shows the direction of traffic travel. Next heading

is the weight to be given to affordable housing at 50%, please. There's a matter of law here

and a matter of general planning application. First, the application as a matter of fact

and law is for 50 % affordable housing, isn't it?

That's correct.

Right. You've chosen to give that significant weight, and I'm presuming you still give it

significant weight, notwithstanding what you said in evidence in chief?

I gave it significant weight.

Good, thank you.

And I think I explain in my proof why I don't give it the highest level of weight.

So you give it significant weight, you said I don't give it substantial weight.

I struggle a little with that, but I think just leave it there for the minute.

So the compass of difference between us

is that you think significant weight,

but notwithstanding the adopted and recently amended

local plan, which highlights the need for affordable housing,

you don't give it substantial weight

because you're not certain about its delivery.

And you consider, as you say in your rebuttal,

that it could be, for example, the subject

of a Section 73 application to reduce the affordable housing?

MR. HOPKINS This is based on my experience of schemes

in London. The officer report gave it the equivalent of substantial weight in giving

it significant weight and confusion between the weighting, but as I've set out, the weighting

was such that significant was the highest level of weight to be given. The situation

has changed in that year. I do not understand, and I have to say, how it stacks up. I don't

understand how it stacks up. And I have concerns that we'll be giving substantial weight when 50 %

all social rent is being offered, but I have substantial concerns that it could be delivered

at that level. I've understood that. Let's see what the inspector does with this, please.

The application is for 50 % affordable housing. That is the application before.

Yes, no, I understand that. Thank you.

the proposal has been designed, as the scheme architect identified,

to produce and accommodate 50 % affordable housing

in terms of the configuration of the rooms, the cores, all of those sorts of issues.

That's the formal position before the inspector, isn't it?

Yes.

Now, I heard with incredulity what you were saying, in chief, about 50 % affordable housing.

50 % affordable housing as a proposition was encouraged by the local planning authority

and its officers, wasn't it?

I don't agree with that in the sense that I think it was probably pointed out, as we

know in the London plan and in the local plan, there was a strategic target of 50%.

So is it your evidence of the inquiry that the 50 % adoption of affordable housing wasn't

welcomed by officers and encouraged by officers.

I'm told, and I wasn't present at those meetings, they're not minuted meetings, I'm told that

the situation with regard to the affordable housing was that the strategic target was

50%. At the time of discussions that took place, the partial review of the local plan

was being undertaken.

And there was an attempt in that plan

to increase the threshold to 45%.

That was not accepted as sound and it is 35%.

But I think that actually demonstrates again

how seriously the council takes the provision

of affordable housing.

Of course it wants to see affordable housing

but it wants to see it delivered as well.

And it is for an authority that's gone out of its way

to review after two years its local plan in order to strengthen its affordable housing

policies, I think demonstrates that.

Yeah, so I'll ask the question just one more time and maybe we can get an answer.

Officers, and this is the same local authority that was promoting 50 % through its emerging

plan, were welcoming and encouraging the developer to go to 50 % affordable housing at all material

times and the development is premised on that basis?

I cannot, I have asked this question of officers and I am advised that as with all cases, local

authorities promote the maximum amount of affordable housing you can get in any scheme,

particularly given the challenging circumstances we're in. But at never, at no time, did the

local authority promote 100 % social rent because that is not considered to be achievable, which

is why the policy actually says 70 % social rent and 30 % intermediate products.

Right, okay. Well, I'll have to ask another witness about that and the next witness. At

no stage has there ever been a requirement for a financial viability assessment sought

from the local authority either at application stage, at consideration beyond that, or at

any stage since then. Is that correct?

CB. There was no case for asking that because it was in excess of the threshold.

JG. Well, hang on a minute. It is in excess of the threshold, but you're now giving it

less weight. You're giving it significant, not substantial weight, because you're saying

it might not be delivered. At any stage you could have asked for an FEA.

CT. I'm actually placing that again. We're a year on from the officer report. The officer

report was considered last April and things have changed significantly in this year. There's

been government and GLA measures to try to promote development, recognising the challenges

in the housing market and in particular the challenges of delivering affordable housing.

JH. Yes. You've seen the developer's note of intention in this case and you've seen

Pascale Levine's evidence.

Yes, I have.

You've not produced any evidence contrary to that.

I have actually in my rebuttal highlighted the concerns

we had.

I've seen your evidence.

Yes.

But your evidence.

We haven't produced viability.

But I would actually say that that evidence itself

has raised concerns because the DS2 evidence references

discussions for the GLA regarding grant funding

to improve viability.

Yes.

But specifically to improve viability.

But it's very clear that he doesn't say viability depends on that.

And it's deliverability which is the issue.

Let's see what the inspectors meant.

Whether the level of affordable housing and the tenure being proposed at the present time

can be delivered without that assistance.

Yeah, all right.

And that won't change the planning balance.

Well, let's see what the inspectors meant to do with this,

because the application is for 50%.

and I just wonder what the local authority are saying about that. Should the inspector

judge the application which is formally for 50 % on the basis that it's less than 50 %?

That clearly can't be right as a matter of law, can it?

No, it will be a planning judgement for the inspector to make, but I think the onus is

on the council to actually raise this. If this is being advanced as the most, the greatest,

the most significant argument for this scheme being approved and to outweigh the harms that

have been demonstrated.

That's your case.

No, this is our case.

If that is being presented, I think we have to think seriously about whether it can be

delivered when there are serious questions raised about that.

You're giving it significant benefit in any event, aren't you?

You don't invite the inspector to go less than that.

No, I don't.

You don't invite the inspector to say that this application, which is for 50%, ought

to be for less than 50 % in her assessment.

No, no, I'm not suggesting that at all.

Because I think the level of affordable housing which is promoted, as I said in Evidence in

Chief, demonstrates the scale of impacts of this scheme and the level of benefits it's

required in order to outweigh those harms.

Well, I've heard you say that.

That's the counsel's case.

In the counsel's case, it does outweigh any heritage harm.

But let me see if I can push this a bit further, please.

At no time has the local authori -

first of all, the provision of 50 % affordable housing

is secured by way of a section 106 agreement, which

is agreed to all intents and purposes in relation

to these matters, correct?

I think that the heads of terms have been presented.

I know they'll be discussed in further detail tomorrow.

But I know there is reference in the heads of terms to grant aid for the affordable housing.

In the event that it's available, it should be sought.

But to me...

That's very usual.

But it's usual when you can't actually achieve what you're purporting to be able to achieve

through your development scheme.

That's not how the grant aid works.

But in any event, I just want to get to the bottom of what you're saying and how the inspectors

meant to deal with this, please.

At no stage is the local authority, for example,

sought an FVA prior to commencement of the development.

No.

No, thank you.

And the concern appears to be the risk of a Section 73

application to reduce the levels of affordable housing.

First of all, that's not the application

which is before the inspector.

No, again, this is just based on.

That would be a subsequent application which would

be determined on its merits.

Exactly.

But I think it would be very difficult to pull back

at that stage.

At what stage?

Well, if you come to it, if the scheme were to be approved, and then a Section 73 application

delivered down the line, it would be quite difficult.

There's no evidence before the local authority that there is a likelihood of that.

Second, in the event that there would be, that would be a separate statutory consideration

at that time.

I understand that, but I'm actually, again, I'm looking at the potential implications

of what might happen.

Thank you very much for that.

Good.

Just two more matters.

Are you okay for me to carry on now, in terms of timing?

I am if Miss Chambers is.

I'm fine, yes.

Are you okay?

Yes.

Thank you.

Is everybody else all right?

Okay.

Mr. Harris.

Good, thank you very much, ma 'am.

Next, in your oral evidence,

you dealt with the issue of alternatives,

and in particular, what the scheme architect

had identified in terms of consideration of alternatives.

Do you remember that?

Yes, I do.

Now, think very carefully about that.

You were here when he gave his evidence,

and when he gave his answer to my learned friend,

and then an interjection from the inspector.

did you remember him saying, no, this is more than a retrofit?

Yes, I do.

Because you said there's only one, and it was a retrofit.

Were you here when he said he'd use the existing capacity,

if you like, the framework within which the existing

building exists in terms of a volumetric position,

as opposed to a retrofit, as a proxy for the mid -rise.

Do you hear that?

I've seen no evidence of that.

No, no, did you hear him say that?

I heard him say it, but as I said this morning in evidence in chief, I've seen no evidence

of that.

Are you suggesting he's sort of making that up?

No, I'm not.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, but it has not been presented to the council or

to this inquiry.

Well, that's not true because that sort of proxy was before the council in consideration

of whole life carbon and other matters.

But all the council has seen is the proposal for the retrofit of the existing building.

Just bear with me a second. Did you hear him say, he'd used the existing capacity as a

proxy for mid -rise, that is, six storeys, and it simply didn't come close to being deliverable

30 units. Did you hear that?

I heard him say that.

You did. Yeah, that's what he said. Now, how many pre -apps have there been in this case,

and how many meetings between the local authority and the applicant overall?

MR. O 'CONNOR -LOPEZ -STYLES In…as presented in the

appellant's evidence, they say 12 meetings.

DR. HENRY FALLOWS Yeah, I think it's more than that.

MR. O 'CONNOR -LOPEZ -STYLES Well, that's what was presented in evidence.

DR. HENRY FALLOWS Yeah, it's 12 meetings post application, I think.

All right. At any time, and I underline this, at any time whatsoever, did the local authority seek

a mid -range testing further than that which had been identified by Mr. Berbeloff?

They would have identified at those meetings the local plan parameters for this site.

I'm going to ask the question again.

No.

At any stage did the local planning authority officers in this context or in this case seek

from the appellant a mid -range testing further than that which had already been identified?

I will repeat my answer that in those meetings it would have been clearly set out to the

appellant who would have known from his own understanding of what was in the local plan

that this development, what the parameters were in the local plan. Now part of the design

process should have been that. They didn't present the mid -rise.

Local authorities are meant to be proactive, aren't they?

And to positively identify when they need more information?

MR. HOPKINS I'm assuming that they would have said that

then. I'm assuming they would have asked it.

DR. HUTCHINSON Right. Is there any record that you want to

point to in any of those – I think there were 16 or more meetings – of the local

planning authority saying that the application was deficient because they had not seen an

alternative mid -range from the one that had been identified by Mr. Hall?

MR. HOPKINS There are no minutes of those meetings, as

I think has been established previously in the inquiry.

But what is clear that the only options presented

were incremental reductions from a very tall building.

If the local authority had asked

for anything more than that,

and they considered this as part of their whole life carbon,

for example,

if they had asked,

then the local authority request

would have been dealt with, wouldn't it?

You would think, acting reasonably.

If that was the case, but I don't know what happened in those meetings, but I'm assuming

that those issues would have been raised.

But clearly, whilst it was taken as a proxy for the mid -rise level, the only option we

have seen is the retrofit option, not a redevelopment option.

You could make better use of the capacity of that site with a well -designed building.

It could be a building that exceeded, as we've talked before, the policy.

allows for the potential to exceed the parameters.

That would have to be deliverable.

Nothing was presented. It would have to be deliverable.

But deliverable in accordance with the policies in the local plan.

Okay. All right. Well, I will ask the next witness to deal with that,

and in particular, whether there were any specific requests from the local authority

which would have been available to them. Thank you very much.

Last issue, please. On a number of occasions now, I have put, and you have accepted,

that the public benefits associated with the proposal

are sufficient to outweigh even the alleged harms

identified by the local authority.

I think Dr. Jubb was careful in the way that he put it

and said, well, I've not seen anything

which suggests that that is an outweighing.

I just want to confirm with you, please,

that when you say that and when we look at the position

adopted by the local authority in this case, you are saying that for the purposes of the

NPPF, that the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the identified heritage harms. Because

Dr. Jabb is right, that actual position is carefully not contained in your proof.

But that's...

MR. JABBARD -ZINN -MCCABE That is contained in my proof. I make it very

clear in my proof that the public benefits were considered to be taken together, were

considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm to heritage assets. And that has been

accepted and it was the position of the council.

Thank you. I don't think you find those words in your proof.

You do, you do Mr Harris.

Well point me to them and I'll be forever sorry.

I'm absolutely, I'm...

Where do you say that?

But you've made it clear now, so I don't think I need to press you. I'm very happy if you

want to point it out outside of the inquiry.

In paragraph 6, 6 .14 of my proof.

Let me just have a look. Let me just have a look. 6 .14, is it?

Yes, that's right.

Ah, yes, well, there's Dr. Jeb's point.

Do you see, it's the LPEA's view that public benefits as identified

and the weight attached to them work together to produce a cumulative impact that addresses...

You see, you use that word and you use similar words.

And Dr. Jeb is entirely right when you shy away from using the words in the NPPF.

But I'd say it complies...

That's what it means.

I say it complies with the NPPF.

Yes.

So in effect, let's take it this way.

If we've got a level of identified harm that you've taken from Mr. Eley up here, and you've

got the base level here, the public benefits must outweigh that, in other words, be taken

into accumulatively greater value.

So we end up with a series of, if you like, outweighed harms that sort of go just a bit

beyond the starting point.

Is that, yeah, I haven't got it wrong then, thank you.

And that's in respect of heritage,

which has got a special statutory status, correct?

Thank you very much.

And those public benefits that outweigh the harm,

which is given a special statutory basis,

are also available to weigh against alleged townscape harms,

which don't have the same status.

They've been taken into account. It's a different exercise in terms of the planning balance.

But they are, I identify very clearly in my proof all of those material considerations

that have been taken into account.

But they're the same public benefits. The public benefits that outweigh the heritage

harm can be the same. They might even be wider. Once you've spent them on heritage, you can't

then say they can't be spent out weighing.

I haven't undertaken the balance in that way.

Thank you. Well, we let the inspector grapple with that.

If housing gets more than moderate weight,

that would yet further emphasise the public benefits, wouldn't it?

If that was increased, yes.

And if the setting and townscape of the existing building

and the Battersea Bridge were enhanced as a result of the proposal, as we say, and we

thought officers were saying as well, then that further would emphasise the exceedance

of public benefit over harm, and that public benefit would also be available in relation

to heritage harm.

That would be in terms of the Hovell Planning Balance, in terms of looking at the benefits

of the scheme.

Good.

Yep, thank you very much.

Those are the questions I ask.

Thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Thank you, ma 'am.

Thank you. Just thinking about whether now is an opportune time to take a break. Mr Edwards,

how long did you think you needed in re -examination? I would have thought, ma 'am, about 10 minutes.

Can I make a request, if I may? Obviously, I'd like to complete this evidence if we can

before the lunchtime break, but equally I would benefit, others may as well, by a short

comfort break before re -examination. So could I ask for five, ten minutes and then complete

the evidence of this witness and then take lunch?

Okay. So if we resume at, say, 12 .35? Okay. The inquiry is adjourned until 12 .35. Mr Walton,

I assume, are you going to be around this afternoon or not?

Sorry, I was, I didn't know whether I should use the microphone. Well, first of all, I'd

I'd like to apologise for my late arrival this morning.

It was due to circumstances at my place of work.

No, I will have to depart.

I've got a meeting at 1 .30,

which is actually quite an important one with the students,

so I must go.

So I will be leaving in just two or three minutes

if that's okay.

And I mean no disrespect to the process or to the parties

or to yourself, or to the consortium,

but I really must depart.

So that's just to say that.

Thank you. Okay, well have a good afternoon. So that's adjourned to 12 .35. Thank you.

Thank you.

So the time is 12 .35 and the inquiry is resumed. Before I ask Mr Edwards to re -examine Ms Chambers,

just want to cheque if anybody supporting the application has any questions for Ms Chambers.

No. Okay. And I don't have any questions. You'll be relieved to hear. So, Mr. Edwards,

over to you for re -examination.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Chambers.

Good afternoon.

There are six short topics I'd like your assistance with, please, by way of re -examination. We'll

take them in turn. The first topic and series of questions arise from the discussion you

had in cross -examination in respect of the approach to D1

and this whole point about full compliance

or partial compliance and the general approach

to be taken to that policy.

Do you remember those questions?

I do.

I preface the questions I'm going

to put by recognising that these ultimately

include matters of law, and I'll deal with this in submissions.

But I'd like your help, please, in terms

of part of the evidence that goes to this point.

would you please take up the master brewer decision

of Mrs. Justice Lange, so core document 1307.

Please tell me when you have the document available.

Yes, sir.

And you recall that Mr. Harris very properly took you

to a number of paragraphs that are included

in the judge's conclusions on the grounds of claim before her.

Just by way of context, of course, the judgement arose out of a claim for the judicial review

of a decision of the Mayor of London to grant planning permission for development

in the London Borough of Hillingdon, comprising tall buildings, or including tall buildings.

and the focus of the claim was on advice given

to the mayor by his officers in terms of the acceptability

of the proposal and indeed the reasons given

by the mayor himself.

You understand that context?

Thank you.

Good, can we then just see how officers advised

the mayor please with regard to the application

of what was initially emerging policy D9

and then adopted policy D9 to the proposal.

So go please within the judgement to,

and I'm going to use paragraph numbers, paragraph 29.

Tell me when you have that paragraph available.

29.

29, 29.

Do you see that paragraph?

Yes, I do.

And paragraph 29 is part of the judgement

where the judge is quoting from parts of the hearing report

and just pausing there again.

That's a matter of fact, the hearing report is the report that is prepared

by officers of the mayor of London to him for the purposes of the hearing

of a called in application.

You understand that, Ms.

Jones? Yes, I do.

And we just see what officers then advise.

The gaol officer recognises that the proposed tall buildings are not in a location

where they're supported in principle by local plan policy.

DMHB10 and that this is a policy conflict with parts one and two of that policy which

state the tall building should be located within Uxbridge and Hayes town centres and

areas of high public transport accessibility respectively. This is also, this is addressed

in the planning balance of this report and then this. They do however comply with the

location requirements of the London Plan 7 .7 being in the town centre with good access.

The principle of tall buildings in this location would also conflict with the locational component

of the intent to publish London Plan Policy D9 Part B, which states that local

pollock plans should identify suitable locations for tall buildings.

This does not fall part of the Statutory Development Plan,

but is a material planning consideration.

Do you see that? I do.

And can we also look, please, at paragraph 31,

paragraph two, three, three of the hearing concluded in respect of urban design

that in conclusion, the scheme is considered to be in conflict

with part of policy DMHB10 and intent to publish London Plan Policy D9

in respect to the principle of tall buildings.

This is addressed in the planning balance section.

The proposal is otherwise considered to be compliant with the requirements

of the Mayor of the London Plan Policy D7, Policy D9,

and the Mayor's intent to publish London Plan.

Do you see that?

That's the approach that officers take.

Does that accord with your approach?

I think that just reaffirms the point that you can be...

compliant with one part, but in conflict with the other and non -compliant.

Thank you. Can we then please turn on in the report, in the judgement of paragraph 57?

Please tell me when you're there.

Fifty -seven.

Do you have that, Ms. Chambers?

Yes, I do.

Just to put that paragraph in context,

on the previous page above paragraph 52,

there's a subheading reconsideration of the application.

Again, this is a matter of fact.

Before the planning permission was issued

by the Mayor of London,

the new London plan had been published,

so it became part of the statutory development plan,

and that led to a further report by officers

to the Mayor of London,

considering the implications of that

before the planning permission was actually issued.

and what the judge is referring to in paragraph 57

is that updated report.

Can you just briefly read to yourself paragraph 57 please?

Yes.

And you'll see in about the sixth line

there's a sentence beginning,

it went on to identify that as a consequence

there is now a further element of conflict with the development plan in the sense in

that the scheme does not fully accord with new London Plan Policy D9, nevertheless the

updated report gave significant weight to the fact that the proposal would however comply

with other elements and it advised that the conflict with some development plan policies

is not necessarily in the zero -world conflict with the development plan as a whole. Do you

see that?

Yes, I do.

Okay, now what does that, A, is that consistent or inconsistent with your approach?

I think it is consistent with what I've said and how I frame my answers in relation to the judgement,

which was that a conflict with the plan doesn't necessarily mean a conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

Is it consistent or inconsistent with an approach to application of D9 in the context of a tall building outside an identified zone,

that if compliance is achieved with the criteria, there is compliance overall with D9 or there is partial non -compliance with D9?

I believe it's partial or not partial compliance or noncompliance

and cannot therefore comply with the policy as a whole.

Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.

You can put that decision to one side, please.

Point number two, you were asked a series of questions about the EIP process

that was undertaken to consider the sadness of what became the adopted

2023 local plan for this borough.

Yes.

Questions on the point was put to you that, well, the EIP process did not

and the EIP itself did not have a proposal,

a form of development before it

when considering the representations made

by the appellant to the soundness of the plan

and you indicated that you understood

and agreed with that proposition.

The detailed scheme was not put forward.

Just so far as what was before the EIP panel,

you were here for the evidence given last week.

yeah, was a proposition before the EIP

that it was not appropriate or sound for the appeals site

to be located within a mid -rise zone before the panel?

It was one of the propositions that.

Sorry, the point that was put was

that it was not sound to be placed in a mid -rise zone

when the policy said shall not be permitted.

That case should be put quite carefully,

because that was the lack of soundness.

Because the logically prior question

was that that was not flexible enough.

So if we could put the question accurately,

I think that's a fair intervention, Mr. Edwards.

Because you have to read it in that way, don't you?

The policy said shall not be permitted too inflexible,

and it was on that basis that it was said,

therefore to be inappropriate in a mid -rise zone.

I think that's really fair.

Not sure that is, well, I'm not saying

it's not a fair intervention,

as fast as it can intervene as he wants,

but the point I was seeking to put to the witness

is what the case being put before the EIP was

arising from the representations of the appellant

and therefore what the EIP had before them.

I mean, you have the evidence attached to Mr. Mealy's proof

as to what in fact was put before the panel

in terms of a written representation.

and I'm seeking to elapse, establish from the witness

what the outcomes of those were.

Objecting to the question,

I'm just objecting to the paraphrase of the question,

which left out the part,

the part of the reason for not being in the zone,

and the reason it was said not to be sound,

were because there was an inflexible requirement to refuse.

Well, that's a simple point.

I don't accept that that's the way

that the representation was put

on behalf of the appellant of the EIP,

and I'll make submissions on that in due course

by reference to the evidence before you,

but can we just see how we go on this?

Did the EIP panel accept a representation

that the plan in order to be sound required

the appeal site to be moved into a tall building zone?

It didn't and I don't know whether it helps

just in terms of clarification

because I do paragraph 4 .45 of my proof of evidence

summarise the representations made by the appellant

at the examination.

You do indeed.

If we can perhaps, that's very helpful by way of an intervention and a response, Ms.

Chambers.

Can we just have a quick look at that then, please?

It may foreshorten questions to be put in examination, only examination.

Could you just repeat the paragraph number, please?

4 .45.

I'm 4 .45 of my proof of evidence.

You set out there a synthesis of the points that were being made on behalf of the

appellant at the EIP as to why the approach taken to the site was unsound.

In terms of those elements of the appellant's case where they sought to have the site

rezoned into a tall building zone to increase the range of heights within a tall building zone and to secure an

Allocation policy in respect of the sites were they all matters before the EIP

That they were all considered and the inspectors did not make recommendations in favour of those changes

Good. Thank you. Can I put that point to one side then please third point?

the publication in December

2024 of the revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular the introduction

of paragraph 125 little c. You remember we asked a series of questions about that

and effectively the thrust of the questions was well that was a change in circumstances

compared to the position that prevailed at the time of the urban design study of 2021 prepared

by Arup. Do you remember those questions?

Yes, I do.

Let's just take this in stages. The urban design study of 2021, I think it is common

ground, was part of the evidence base that was used for the preparation of and to support

the soundness of what was to become the 2023 Local Plan.

That's correct.

Yeah. And the 2023 Local Plan, and as part of it, LP4, to what extent was that effectively

seeking to implement the conclusions reached so far as tall building zones, mid -rise building zones of the UDS?

That was the part of the evidence base of the plan that was before the examination.

And was therefore the UDS part of the justification to use the Test of Samsas for LP4?

It was and it underpins it and was found to be reasonable, robust and proportionate.

Thank you. And so far as LP4 is concerned, plainly the preparation

and the adoption of that policy predated the MPPF of December 2024.

It does.

Is it any part of the appellant's case that you see in either an application

stage or in its evidence that LP4 is in some way now out of date?

I haven't seen that in evidence and I think it's very difficult to, it is difficult to suggest a plan that is so recent is out of date, but I haven't seen that statement made in any of the appellant's evidence.

Thank you. So far as the 2024, December 2024 MPPF is concerned, would you just take up,

please, the document? And the premise of this next series of questions, of course, the urban

design study looked at the capacity of Wandsworth to accommodate tall buildings and had regard

both to townscape issues and to the extent that the inquiry has already seen heritage issues.

Is that your understanding? That's correct.

Can we just look at the MPPF 2024 please? Can we look first at paragraph 131?

And this is paragraph 131 and the other paragraph I'm going to ask you to comment on are within

chapter 12, achieving well -designed places. Do you see that?

Paragraph 130.

131.

131, yes.

Okay. We can see that 131, the creation of high -quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings

and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Do

you see that?

Yes.

If we look at these together at paragraph 135, planning policies and decisions should ensure

that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of an area, not just

over the short term, but for the lifetime of the development, be visually attractive

as a result of good architectural layout and appropriate landscaping. And then over the

page, be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment

and landscape setting whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation and

change. And then establishing a strong sense of place. Do you see those paragraphs?

Yes, I do. Were those all policy matters that were considered

at the time that the UDS was prepared?

They were.

I think that those design intents has carried

through various updates of the MPPF

and a greater focus has been placed on good design

and the delivery of good design.

So far as optimization of site capacity is concerned,

was the local plan examined

in the context of the 2021 London plan?

Yes, it was.

Does the 2021 London plan include policies

that seek to ensure that development opportunities are optimised?

They do. I think specifically Policy D3 of the London Plan looks at the design -led approach

as a means of ensuring optimization. And that highlights again the importance of testing

options for the site to determine the appropriate development for the site. And I think there

is a very important distinction there between optimization and maximisation of development

on any site, optimization takes into account

all of those considerations in particular context

and character, which are required both by the London Plan

and by the MPPF.

Thank you.

Are you aware of any, either policy statement

by the Secretary of State, or any decision

by the Secretary of State or any of his inspectors

that indicate that by reason of the introduction

in the paragraph 125C of the MPPF,

in some way, any local plan that was prepared

in advance of it is now to be considered out of date?

No, I haven't at all.

And the situation being that we have a very recent

local plan that must be up to date.

There are always going to be updates and policy statements

that happen after a local plan has been adopted

or a plan has been adopted.

but they would be material considerations in decision making,

but not to the degree that you'd have to go back

and review the local plan in the context of them.

Unless they were very significant,

I can't think of a situation that that would be.

Thank you.

And then finally on this point please,

you refer in your proof of evidence,

and we touched on this in Evidence in Chief,

to a relatively, well a recent,

relatively recent decision of David Nicholson

and the Inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State

related to development in Stratford.

It's core document 13 .01.

Would you take that out, please?

CD 13 .01.

Tell me when you have it, please.

Yes, I have it.

You have it. Thank you.

This is an appeal decision that you refer to in your proof of evidence in the context of how paragraph 125c operates.

Just help me with this. It's an appeal decision, as we can see from the frontispiece, that arose from an inquiry held on the 21st of January 2025,

and the appeal decision is dated the 12th of March 2025.

It therefore post -dates the 2024 MPPF, is that right?

That's right.

if you're around, indeed, see what the proposal is.

The appeal was dismissed.

Can we look, please, together at paragraph nine?

Do you have that?

Yes.

We can see that the inspector is referring

to the LLDC, London Legacy Development Corporation,

characterization study of 2019,

supporting a review of the local plan,

and it breaks down the area into sub areas.

Do you see those references?

Yes, I do.

And at the end of the paragraph, he says,

though not policy, I find it analysis is helpful

in establishing the context of the site.

And then he goes on in paragraph 10

to refer to part of that characterization

related to the metropolitan area.

Metropolitan centre, forgive me.

Do you see that?

That's right, yes, I see.

You've obviously had an opportunity to read this decision,

Ms. Chambers, you referred to it in your evidence.

Are you aware of anywhere, or can you point out anywhere in this decision where the inspector

in that case indicated that less weight should be attached to the characterisation study

because it's predated the MPPF 2024?

Not at all.

I didn't see in fact that he added great weight to it because that was fundamental to his

decision in determining the appeal.

DR.

And tell me when you're at that paragraph. Yes, I'm here.

This is within the part of the decision letter where the inspector is setting out his conclusions

against development plan policies, and you'll see that subheading at the foot of the previous

page above paragraph 30. Yes.

And at paragraph 31, the inspector identifies conflicts with all or parts of the 2020 LLDC

local plan policies, including policies relating to where tall buildings should be directed. Do

you see that? I do. Thank you. Again, you've read this decision. Is there anywhere in either

that paragraph or anywhere else where the inspector attaches less weight to the local plan because it

predated the MPPF or to the policies within it because it predated the 2024 MPPF? No, I don't.

In fact, he refers specifically to the NPPS

in paragraph 32 as well.

Thank you very much indeed.

Thank you.

And then, thank you, thank you.

And if we can then just for completeness

go on to paragraph 62 of the decision letter.

Which is the paragraph that you refer to

both in your written evidence and in your oral evidence in Keefe. Do you see that?

I do.

And does the inspector in that paragraph apply the MPPF including paragraph 125C as a material

consideration?

Yes. So he says that the scheme gains weight from MPPF paragraph 125C. It says whilst the

changes to paragraph 11d2 and 125C mean the balance will be closer, this does not mean

development any price or that any height of tail would be acceptable, nor does it

annul the design emphasis of the MPPF.

Thank you. To what extent, if at all, do you consider that that is the approach that the

inspector should take in this case?

I believe that that is a consistent... We believe a consistent approach should be taken

in this case.

Good. Thank you. That's that point. An ultimate point, please, you were asked some questions

about the position in terms of housing delivery in London, a number of questions about that,

and you acknowledge, unsurprisingly, that you recognise that there was

there were pressures in terms of housing delivery in the capital.

I do. And you were asked a question, a number of questions

about how that fitted in broadly into the plan imbalance.

And you said essentially that it's not the duty of this authority

to contribute to meeting that or addressing that issue.

Just so far as the position is concerned, in terms of the housing requirements

that forms part of the local plan for the London Borough of Wandsworth

to what extent is that derived from the London plan?

They all derive the housing requirements set out

in the local plan or the requirements set

by the London plan over the plan period.

And to what extent, if at all, is that requirement

being met both in terms of supply

and on the current HDT test delivery

so far as this borough is concerned?

It has not only been met, it's been exceeded.

And if and insofar as there needs to be

a development plan -based response

to the need to increase or improve delivery

or indeed housing supply in London,

what is the vehicle as you understand it

by which that will be delivered?

As we discussed earlier,

the vehicle would be the London Plan Review,

which is due to commence

and we're likely to have a new London plan in place 2027,

but we can't preempt that at the moment.

There's gonna be so many challenging issues

that the new London plan will need to be to address

in the whole, but that is the proper vehicle and clearly the local plan will need to be

revised, reviewed in the context of that strategic plan. Thank you very much indeed. And then so far

as the decisions taken by the Mayor of London as to how the increases in housing supply and delivery

to be addressed, to what extent do you consider, if at all, that that should in some way be preempted

by decisions taken by individual boroughs or individual decision makers in advance of

review of the London plan?

I think it's a dangerous approach. It will lead to development which is approved purely

on the basis to secure additional housing without being part of a wider spatial plan.

I think it needs to be addressed at the strategic level. And I think, particularly schemes which

have been demonstrated to cause harm,

it would have a potential serious impact on London

and the character of the city.

Thank you.

And to what extent is the mayor of London

in the interim period before the publication

of a revised draught of the London Plan in due course,

seeking to address housing delivery

through temporary measures?

I think that both the mayor and central government

are taking measures they can to proactively help with the delivery of housing, particularly

in helping stored sites and bringing those forward and ensuring that there continues to be a supply

and to actually address the problems of supply, which are very much more serious in other parts

of London, not to the same degree in Montworth. But those measures have been referred to in terms

of the draught document that was produced in November for consultation, which is supporting

the house building industry. And I'm sure those measures will continue in the period

up to the adoption of the New London Plan.

Thank you. And then finally, so far as those interim measures are concerned, published

for consultation both by the Mayor of London and by central government in tandem, to what

extent, if at all, are there any elements within any of those draught interim measures

that suggests that an individual decision maker should place less weight on the policies

both in the London Plan at local level and indeed at national level on ensuring that

development essentially respects the characteristics of the area in which it will be experienced.

There is no reference in that at all. And I would just reiterate again that the Mayor,

the Deputy Mayor, had the opportunity to call in this scheme for its own determination in

the knowledge that the council had resolved to refuse planning consent and didn't do so.

So that's not an approach which he is taking on sites like this.

Thank you very much indeed. And then finally please, you were asked at one stage a number

of questions about the, back to the emerging local plan that eventually became the adopted

2023 local plan. And the point was put to you, well as a matter of fact, at Regulation

so issues an option stage.

The appeal site was identified in a tall building zone

and that the Reg 19 plan, the Sprow submission plan,

and indeed as adopted.

Sorry, I didn't hear you.

I'm so sorry.

The draught plan, the draught document I was speaking to

was the draught UDS, which is CD 515,

not the Regulation 18 plan.

Fair enough.

Don't mind if we frame the question by reference

to the first, the draught UDS of 2020, I think it was.

That actually, I think, informed the Reg 18 plan.

It did.

So it doesn't make really much matters,

but I don't mind which way you look at it.

What was the parameters of a tall building,

as far as you were aware,

the parameters of a tall building,

as defined for the purposes of the assessment

in the first draught of the UDS and how did that change?

I understand it was six storeys in the first from recollection.

Thank you. And did that change in the 2021 UDS?

It increased to seven.

So was the definition of tall buildings or the parameters of a tall building therefore

different at the time of the 2020 draught UDS and the Reg 18 plan compared to what then

was published in 2019?

It was. And I think that's when the mid -rise zones were introduced, because they were not in the Regulation 18 version.

Thank you very much indeed, Ms. Chambers. That completes the examination.

Thank you. So we're now at 1 .04. We've heard from Ms. Chambers, we're moving on to hear from Mr. Marginson this afternoon.

Are people happy with the two o 'clock start?

It's a good round number.

Okay. So the inquiry is adjourned to two o 'clock. Thank you very much.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 Morning - Tuesday 24 March 2026, 9:00am - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 MorningTuesday, 24th March 2026 at 9:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 Morning
Tuesday, 24th March 2026 at 9:00am