Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 Afternoon - Tuesday 24 March 2026, 2:00pm

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 Afternoon
Tuesday, 24th March 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon. The time is 2 o 'clock and the inquiry is resumed. Before Mr Harris introduces

the appellant's witness, Mr Marginson, can I just cheque with the parties whether there

is any procedural or housekeeping matters. Mr Harris?

Nothing from us, thank you, ma 'am. Thank you for asking.

Thank you. Mr Edwards? Dr Job?

No.

Thank you. Okay, over to you Mr Harris to introduce Mr Marginson.

Thank you very much, ma 'am. I will introduce Mr Marginson. As everybody else has, I ask

that we take the proof as read. I think the documents you've already got to hand from

the previous witness will do double purpose. I don't think probably we need to look at

beyond that and the proofs. Are you Jonathan Margerson? I am. Good. You hold a

first -class degree in town planning from Heriot -Watt University and remember the

Royal Town Planning Institute, is that right? Correct. You've got 27 years

experience in the field of town planning, you're a senior director of DP 9, which

the inspector will be familiar with. Prior to that you were associate director at

GVA, now Avison Yang, and you've been involved in major urban development

for the last 17 years. Your focus has been on projects in London, is that right?

That's correct.

In which respect, you've appeared at mayoral hearings, that's the stage three hearings

where the mayor recovers jurisdiction, local plan examinations, and you've acted at Expert

Witness, now 10 public inquiries involving major development proposals in London and

the southeast. Is all of that accurate?

Yes.

You've advised a wide variety of private and public sector clients. I'm going to identify

a few. The new US Embassy Wandsworth.

Correct.

Tall building.

Yes, tall building.

Major residential -led development at West Free Printworks, which I think may soon be

at its third public inquiry or thereabouts.

Correct.

Tall buildings.

Yes, numerous tall buildings in London.

Canary Wharf group on the Isle of Dogs,

including towers at 110 Bank Street Park Place

and the 60 -storey residential tower known as Newfoundland.

Plot H1, Elephant and Castle.

So let's deal with those in turn.

The Canary Wharf staff, tall buildings?

Yes, yeah, I acted for Canary Wharf for around 10 years,

advising them on numerous proposals in relation to tall buildings on the Isle of Dogs, both

residential and office schemes. Thank you. Plot H1 Elephant and Castle, new

headquarter office building. I think it would have been the tallest wooden office building

in Europe. It would have been, yes.

And it was granted planning permission. It was.

Tall building, operation of D9. Correct.

Thank you very much.

And again, the proposals to remodel and redevelop

Liverpool Street in the City of London,

which have just been resolved to be granted

planning permission by the City of London tall building?

Yes.

We'll give the inspector approximate storeys,

if you can remember.

About 15.

Thank you very much.

And the Truman Brewery, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, that is a case involving tall

buildings that has been recovered for determination by the sector state and we'd be still awaiting

the result.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Tall buildings in the operation of D9 in play there?

Correct.

Same inspector, Inspector Griffiths, who did Alpha Newcastle.

Correct.

Right.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

You say you were instructed in November 2025.

You visited the appeal site twice. I think you've been a lot more than that now.

The inspector's been more than you probably.

You weren't personally involved in the planning applications.

Have you had access to DP9's file and attendance notes in relation to those meetings that you weren't personally involved in?

Yes, I have. Yes, I was given all the files in relation to this project and I've reviewed those.

us, along with having conversations with colleagues who were acting on the scheme during the application

process.

Thank you very much. Some questions will arise as a result of that. I want to ask you first,

please, the first substantive heading is the principle of development. And by reference

your proof at power 6 .2, I want to ask you about your overall, if you like your

headline, evidence of the inquiry about the potential of this site at a sort

of strategic level please. Yes, so clearly this site represents a brownfield site

in a highly accessible location within London and the borough of Wandsworth. My

is that it has the potential to make a significant contribution to the growth

of London but also in the delivery of much -needed housing. The site is well

connected in terms of jobs and services and to public open space including

obviously Battersea Park. It has the potential to be optimised to deliver

more on the site to meet the current needs of London

and Montrose than it does at the moment.

And it is very much in a unique location being on the river,

being adjacent to Battersea Bridge

and on the National Road network.

Thank you.

In terms of the EIP, I'm gonna ask you some questions

about that shortly, but just again in headline terms, the inspector distinguished between,

well, first he introduced flexibility as we've seen with the last witness for cases to be

considered on a case -by -case basis where they were outside the identified tall building

zones, but he, in introducing that flexibility, noted that the opportunities for tall buildings

out of tall building zones would be likely

to be extraordinary as opposed to ordinary.

That's how he phrased it, Pannoft phrased it.

In your judgement, please, general planning,

witness general planning judgement,

is this an ordinary site in the terms identified

by the inspector or was it something else?

It's not an ordinary site, I think,

for the reasons I've just said, really.

I mean, it's obviously a reasonably sized brownfield site

in an urban location on the river,

and in that respect, it is quite a unique site.

There aren't that many opportunities on the river now

to deliver development and development of scale.

And because of its location on the river,

it affords the opportunity to deliver housing,

but not just market housing,

but a substantial level of affordable housing

because of the values that ultimately can be generated

by the private market housing.

So it delivers the ability to actually deliver

a genuine mixed tenure development.

Thank you. We know from looking at previous correspondence and also what the scheme architect

has said about two pre -apps that officers have identified in the past the possibility

of a development here, A, enhancing the setting of Battersea Bridge as a heritage asset and

also appropriately marking the entry to Wandsworth.

How many other sites can or would be likely

to achieve those twin aims in the context

of the extraordinary rather than the ordinary?

I'm not aware of any other sites in Wandsworth

that could achieve those aims.

Thank you.

The inspector, again, using the words

following the introduction of the further flexibility

to consider this case on a site by site basis

by reference to D9C and the criteria in LP4,

said that what the panel were seeking to do

was to, in increasing the flexibility,

not to create a free -for -all.

How would the grant of planning permission

in the circumstances of this case fair?

Is this an application which would give rise

to a free -for -all?

No, I don't think so.

I understand the inspector's comments

in relation to the local plan examination

and their concern about a free -for -all.

Well, it's a concern I think expressed

by a number of local residents and groups,

but granting permission on this site

will not result in a free -for -all.

I mean, because of the unique circumstances of this site and the merits of this site.

Thank you. Just to pick up on just a point of fact, if we may, I don't know how far,

what the prospect of it ending up in the decision letter might be, but let's just deal with it

because it's been raised a number of occasions. In relation to the EIP, there were submissions made

at regulation 18 stage and submissions made

at regulation 19 stage.

Correct.

And we've got the regulation 19 stage at CD 616.

Now on a number of occasions, including this morning,

my learned friend and others have mentioned

that as part of the regulation 19 consideration

in front of the inspectors,

there was a suggestion made that there ought to be

a formal allocation of the site for a tall building.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

In terms of the Regulation 19 stage,

what's your understanding of whether that's accurate or not,

just as a matter of fact?

So the Regulation 19 stage,

the representations that were submitted

didn't seek a site allocation as such.

What they were seeking was,

Well, they indicated that the site was wrongly allocated

within a mid -rise zone, so that was one point.

And they also raised the point around the fact that

as drafted, policy LP4 was not in general conformity

with the London plan because it effectively

prevented prohibited tall buildings coming forward

outside of a tall building zone.

Is there a relationship between those two submissions, if you like?

They're there on page 6 and 7 of CD 616.

In other words, they were addressing a policy that says,

shan't be allowed.

If the flexibility wasn't allowed into that policy,

what was their position in relation to the mid -rise position

in the shan't be allowed world?

In the mid... Sorry, could you just clarify that?

Yeah, I will. So, we know that the policy that was alleged not to be sound

contained the absolute shan't be allowed.

Yes.

We know that the inspector was asked to modify that

and to allow more flexibility, which the inspector allowed.

Yes.

Now, at the time that the remove from the mid -rise was objected to, the shall be refused

was part of the policy when read as a whole.

That's correct, yes.

Now, if the extra flexibility is removed, sorry, if the extra flexibility is allowed

and case -by -case analysis of the site is allowed outside of the tall building zone, but by

reference to D9C and the balance of tall building policy 4. If that happens, what, if anything,

does that mean for the second aim, which was to remove it from the tall building site?

Was it as important to remove it from the mid -rise site?

Was it as important once the flexibility was accepted?

Yes, because the flexibility that was introduced under LP4

now potentially allows a tall building to come forward,

subject to the criteria under LP4 and D9C.

Thank you very much.

Do you want to look at 616, pages 6 and 7?

just to deal with this allegation that at this stage, which you remember wasn't Dr Mille's

recollection, but at this stage they were still pressing for an allocation?

Yes, I've got it in front of me, yes, and there is no reference to a site allocation.

Thank you very much for that. Again, under the heading of Principle of Development, please,

Can we go to 5 .29 and 5 .30 of your proof on page 19, where you make the point that the

Urban Development Study specifically states that it operated, if you like, under the AEGIS

or having regard to the advice in NPPF 2019.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

and you point out that there have been three or four,

in fact, different versions since the 2019.

In terms of the progress forward, if you like,

or the progress of those NPPFs,

do they all say the same thing about everything

in particular about use of brownfield land,

about enhancing densities where appropriate

and making the best use of land?

do they all say the same thing,

or is there a difference of emphasis or what?

There is some differences in emphasis.

I think the main change from the February 2019 MPPF

to the December 2024 MPPF,

MPPF is paragraph 125C,

and the substantial weight now given to meeting needs,

including housing needs,

which wasn't in there or in there in the same way

against balancing against substantial harms

as was in the case in the February 2019.

Okay, we heard from a lone friend

that that was a deliberate decision

and came in in the December 2024

when he and I were at an inquiry, in fact.

It came in halfway through the last day of the inquiry.

In the middle of your closing submissions, the inspector announced that there was a new

NPPF and Mr. Edwards had to deal with it in the middle of his submissions.

Now, the thing that Mr. Edwards said correctly is that that wasn't foreshadowed either in

any previous NPPFs or even in the draught.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

So, we all know what it says now.

Do you agree with Ms Chambers that the advice they're set out on its face applies to development

planning as well as individual decisions?

Right, right.

Namely that, A, great weight should be given to the development of Brownfield land where

there is a need being met.

Is there any doubt as to whether this site meets a need or not?

No, no.

All right, and second, if you like,

planning applications should only be refused,

or I suspect, identifications of sites

within development plans should not be ruled out

unless there is substantial harm.

Correct, yes.

Well, how would you characterise the nature

of that change of emphasis?

Is it meant to be a big change or a small change or no change?

The change that came in in the December 2024 MPPF was a significant change,

in my view, from the previous versions of the MPPF

and certainly from the February 2019 version.

It changed the emphasis and the weights that should be given

to the development of brownfield sites to meet needs, including housing needs.

Thank you. And how, if at all, does that play into spatial planning when you're looking

at the capacity of sites to meet the need for brownfield redevelopment? What sort of

should local authorities and those advising local authorities undertake in order to establish

that that policy is put into play in spatial planning?

It is an important part of spatial planning in the preparation of a local plan and the

evidence -based documents that would support that local plan and would need to be, if you

like at the forefront of those preparing the evidence base to support a spatial plan. It

would need to be properly considered as part of that process.

Thank you. And in terms of a process that had looked at constraints to development but

hadn't considered whether those strengths would in fact give rise to substantial harm

or not, a strategy that proceeded on that basis, by definition not having regard because

they couldn't have had regard to this fundamental shift in 125C, how carefully should a development

manager or the decision maker in circumstances like this look at the sensitivity that led

to, for example, the creation of tall building zones pursuant to an urban design strategy?

How carefully? They should look at it very carefully because

there has been a change in policy position since the urban design study was prepared.

Okay. Now, we know as a matter of fact, the inspector will have read it, that both the

draught urban design capacity 2020 and the extant urban design document were based on the 2019

NPPF. There are several pages explaining what that says and how it's been taken into account

in determining sensitivity.

And the susceptibility of areas to tall buildings,

for example, are dealt with also.

The best look at it, CD 514.

And we can go to page 331.

Go to page 331.

I hope my reference is right there.

Did you... CD...

It's CD 514.

Is it...

That's the Battersea...

Oh, it's the one CD 515, I think.

CD 515. Exactly right.

I'm hoping then that this reference is accurate.

Can I borrow the...

Well, we got the 20... Is it the 2021 version?

Yes, 2021 version. My apologies.

Sorry, CD 516.

Yep.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

It's just taking a little while to run through.

Yes, it's very interesting.

Okay.

And this should be in an appendix entitled Methodology.

I think I found it in a better place actually.

Can we look at 259?

Same document, 259.

Yeah, methodology.

C5 .3.

It's in the main text, but it's also in the...

I'm not sure...

Do you have it?

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm at the right place.

Page 259 on the document.

Yep, urban design study.

Oh, look, this is the wrong one.

It's the wrong one, sorry.

It's entirely my fault.

We can look at it in this one because it doesn't change between the two.

So it's CD 515 or CD 516, it's exactly the same principle.

OK.

So I'm thinking my first quote is probably right.

331. 331.

Yes. So 331 in the 2021 version, exactly the same in, except on page 259 in CD 515.

Yeah, now I'm there.

And there should be a heading, Assessing Susceptibility. Now, we'll ask the inspector to look at this

as a whole, but it's helpful in fact that we've got the document out both for 2020 and 2021,

and we see that having assessed value in various other things, we've got assessing susceptibility,

which was one of the factors that then fed in to the identification of capacity as part of this

study, based as it was on NPPF 2019.

Now, do you have 331 open?

Yes.

Right.

Can we look at the third stage of assessing sensitivity, please, which identifies the

factors that were taken into account.

So pattern of built development,

so test was whether the proposed scale of development

would integrate with the general pattern.

Scale and style of built form,

areas with a small scale of built form

and coherent architectural style

are more likely to be susceptible to change.

Land use, consistent residential land uses

may be more susceptible to changes.

Distinctiveness and condition,

townscapes with a strong and positive townscape character

and sense of place, good condition,

features worthy of conservation, et cetera.

Is there anything in that,

which was the identified position derived

from the 2019 NPPF,

that has regard to the sorts of factors

that we see in 125C,

namely about giving greater weight to brownfield sites

and ensuring in the circumstances

that densities were enhanced and only refusing

or not identifying in a planning sense, in a land use planning sense, sites which avoided

substantial harm. Is there anything of that nature?

No, that's not in the criteria listed there. No.

Now, does that make a difference though? Because what Ms. Chalmers said is, well, no, nothing's

changed really, nothing's changed and these tests of susceptibility, whether a proposed

scale would integrate with the general pattern etc., are good enough. What do you understand

the present NPPF and the various other documents that have come from government to be saying

about ensuring that development always integrates with general patterns, etc.

Yeah, I think there is a change and I think that if the urban design study was

to be prepared today then the criteria would potentially be different because

it'd have to reflect what the MPPF and to some extent the emerging MPPF is

is saying around density and the fact that

you should be looking to optimise sites

and you shouldn't be allowing the character

and density of existing areas to preclude future density.

And obviously in this set of criteria

there is no reference to meeting substantial needs

and unrefusing schemes where there is substantial harm,

which I think is a distinct change in policy position

since the UDS was written.

Good. Thank you.

Now, notwithstanding that assessment of susceptibility,

we know it was the same because I got my references wrong,

but we now got the 2020 document out and the same tests

So their pattern of built form,

does the scale integrate with general patterns, et cetera?

We've got that.

Notwithstanding that, we know that initially

the site was identified as within a tall building zone.

Correct.

Now, I think the point's been made,

at least in reexamination,

that the tall building zone

in relation to the earlier position

was somehow different in terms of height.

Do you remember that point being made in reexamination?

And if you don't know, just say,

is that factually correct or not?

I believe that isn't the case

and that the heights were the same.

Okay.

Can we look at, I think it's CD55.

I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

And at page 268 of that document,

is it five, is it five, five, Peter?

515, ah, that's why I've got it out then.

CD 515, page 268.

Thank you.

I think I've been given the wrong reference. It's my fault.

Just I'm sure we can agree with this outside of the inquiry because it's a matter of fact,

Mr. Marginson, and I'm looking to my learned friend,

we don't think as a matter of fact

that there was a change in the building height.

We may be right, we may be wrong.

I'm grateful.

I'm grateful, thank you very much.

All right, thank you, that's the end of that point.

Still under the principle of development,

what, Mr. Marginson, is the position

on the agreed existing office use on the site? It's agreed that in terms of meeting the local

plan policy requirements that there is no need to retain the existing office use on

the site. The marketing evidence that was put in in order to support the application

was accepted by the local planning authority in terms of the demand and supply for existing

office floor space in this location. Thank you. And what is the prospect, as agreed,

in the future of a restarting or a recontinuation of the office use coming back?

There's no reasonable prospect of that happening. In my evidence at Appendix G,

in my proof of evidence, DS2 have looked at and advised the appellant on the prospects of the

office use coming back, but there is no reasonable prospect that a developer or landowner would bring

that forward because it isn't a financially viable proposition. Thank you. What, if any,

is the relevance of the focal point of activity.

Please, do you agree with Ms. Chambers

that it's not a visual or a townscape

or an experiential thing at all, it's just about a use?

I think it goes a bit wider than that.

I think it does relate to ground floor activity

and public realm quality, as well as the visual quality

of the building itself which ultimately creates a focal point in an area and the

current building clearly doesn't do that it is a detractor in the area in my view

and doesn't meet the objectives for a focal point of activity that are

outlined in the local plan under PM9.

Thank you.

One of the things that the urban design study identified,

this is this time 5 .15,

was the potential for remarkable,

landmark buildings in this zone, B2.

I don't think we need to go to it,

but if you were to look at that,

it's one of the identified appropriate moves

for the existing B2 character area.

How consistent is the existing building

with that search for remarkable landmark buildings

or structures please?

I don't think it's consistent at all.

I mean I've described the building as quite crude.

I think it's of low architectural quality.

Doesn't have a particular special presence, shall we say,

on the river.

It's a, I think it has a negative effect on the setting of the listed Battersea Bridge,

as well as the setting to the river and the overall townscape of the area.

Thank you.

If you turn to page 71 of CD55, the precise character area design guidance is there.

Page 71 internal. It's the fourth bullet to point down.

Sorry, is this 5 .15 or 5 .5? Yes, it's 5 .15. 5 .15. Did I say 5 .5?

Yeah, which is planning obligations, so... I'm sorry.

It's one of those afternoons.

5 .15.

Sorry, say the page number again, sorry.

71, my fault.

And again, this is the same in the 2020 version.

Yeah.

And you see the fourth bullet point down?

Yes.

new development should have distinctive character that creates remarkable landmarks.

It should provide excellence in inviting public realm as part of a coherent strategy rather than spaces between buildings.

Active frontages to the Thames Path should be provided.

Existing building, how does it fare against that design guidance?

It doesn't meet any of those requirements, the existing building, for the reasons I've

just said.

Thank you. And if this application is turned away, what's the potential future for the

site in respect of that particular aspiration?

Well, there will be no change in the position on the site. If the appeal is turned down,

the site will remain as it is in its current state,

I expect, for some time.

Now, we know that the local authority in townscaping,

not in heritage terms, takes exception to the height

of the proposal on the site,

and Dr. Miele's dealt with all of those.

But in planning terms, in terms of that aspiration,

how does the proposal, in your judgement,

and fair against that distinctive character

creating a remarkable landmark,

excellent and inviting public realm

as part of our career and strategy.

I think the building will act as a marker on the bridge

and as a gateway into the borough.

I think it's a building of the highest architectural quality

which will present a distinctive

and remarkable landmark building on the river in this location.

The public realm will be significantly improved from the current position,

both in terms of its layout and quality of materials and its accessibility.

And the delivery of a restaurant, a ground floor,

as well as residential lobbies, office use, community use,

will take what is currently a very dead and uninteresting frontage to the River and Battersea Bridge Road

to one which is full of life and activity, which is exactly what Policy PM9 is seeking to achieve in the local plan

and is as described in this document.

Okay, thank you very much. Next heading is housing delivery and the difference of approach

between yourself and Ms Chambers. In terms of housing delivery generally, particularly

market housing but housing delivery generally, the local authority give that only moderate

weight, and you take the view that it should be more than moderate, I think you say, substantial.

I just want to just think about this in sort of planning philosophical terms, if you like.

What we've got identified in three central government pieces of guidance and also in

the London Plan is an identification of an extreme crisis in housing delivery in London.

Yes. You set this out in your proof, table 5 -1, page 21, for example. How would you

characterise the importance of addressing that London crisis?

Critical.

Right. Is that your view or is it the view of the Secretary of State that, like, gives the

Inspector the job?

It's the view of the Secretary of State.

I mean, it's been expressed by the mayor

and by numerous decisions, actually,

where the housing crisis in London

has reached that critical stage.

Way more critical than it was

back when the 2021 London Plan was written.

Thank you. Now, if you seek to get under the skin of the moderate weight to a benefit,

the answer comes back, well, we are meeting our five -year land supply here in Wandsworth.

Therefore, you cannot give more than moderate weight to the provision of more than 100 units

of housing. How logical a proposition is that in your judgement, in your professional judgement

and your evidence of the inquiry? What's saying it in effect is we're meeting our five -year

land supply, therefore the weight cannot be more than moderate?

I don't agree with that. I have a fundamental disagreement with that given the housing crisis

that we are in.

But in relation to the five -year housing land supply,

that is not a cap.

I mean, it's not a cap on the delivery of housing in London.

The London plan encourages local planning authorities

to make the most of Brownfield Windfall sites

in order to deliver housing.

And the London plan is, the strategic plan for London

in setting a overall housing target for London.

So each borough has to make its contribution

to London's housing needs, irrespective of whether or not

it's meeting its five -year housing land supply.

So I don't agree that you should reduce the amount of weight

given to housing delivery because the council

meets its five -year housing land supply, particularly given that, you know, as we've seen, its actual

five -year housing land supply is now 5 .5 years. I think it started off at 6 .8 years a few

months ago. And the projections are that actually delivering housing going forward is going

to become increasingly challenging.

The perfect storm referred to in the emergency guidance,

the perfect storm there and the fact that

completions across London have reached the lowest

they've been since the 1930s, et cetera.

Why is addressing that in the scale that this proposal

is putting forward, in your judgement,

more than moderate weight?

because it has, delivering housing has wider implications

than just numbers, ultimately.

It's delivering housing to meet social and economic needs

of London.

And in this case, obviously,

as well as delivering market housing,

this scheme is delivering a substantial amount

of social rented housing at a time when

the delivery of social rented housing has also fallen

because ultimately the majority of the social rented housing

that is delivered in London is reliant upon

the delivery of market housing,

which as we know has been very challenging

in the current economic circumstances.

Thank you, and what's the position in terms of need

for social housing in Lonsworth?

Well, the need is great.

I mean, the borough's own housing needs assessment,

which I quote a paragraph 5 .43 of my evidence,

refers to the need for at least 8 ,223 social rented units,

but actually, that assumed a sort of migration of people

from the borough, and if that didn't happen,

then you will be at nearly 18 ,000 social rented units

required within the borough.

So the need is, again, I mean, it's pretty colossal,

to be honest with you.

And there is a desperate need for social rented housing

in the borough.

There can be no doubt about that.

Thank you. Have you seen any decisions of the mayor, even a single one, or the Secretary

of State in the last 18 months where the weight to be given to housing is anything less than

significant? No.

All right. Thank you very much for that. Now, as to the present position of the local authorities

authority on the weight to be given to affordable housing. The position advanced by the local

authority now is that it ought to be significant weight. And it said the only thing that is

stopping it getting substantial weight is concerns about delivery. Well, let's just

expressed in the negotiation with the officers,

as far as you're aware,

in relation to the 50 % affordable housing

that's part of the application now?

Now, there wasn't any discussion on that point.

Thank you very much.

And in terms of the committee meeting, for example,

we got the minutes.

Was the issue of deliverability addressed

in the committee meeting?

and were elected members told about what the council's position was in relation to that?

I think it was raised at the committee. I think the officer responded that they had actually

undertaken their own liability assessment, even though it's not required under policy,

and they'd come up with a surplus. But I think irrespective of that, deliverability,

the policy is very clear that if you're meeting the fast strike requirement, and in this case

we're exceeding it, the appellant's exceeding it, then there is no requirement to undertake

a viability assessment.

Until the statement of case was received, was there any suggestion from the local authority,

a, that a viability appraisal was necessary, or b, that a viability appraisal was requested,

or see that there was any doubt but the top level of weight ought to be given to

the provision of 50 % affordable housing? No, not as far as I'm aware. In terms of

what's before the inspector, what's before the inspector, is it a 50 %

affordable housing that is judged in terms of relationship between

benefits and impacts? Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Just two further points.

What does the NPPF tell inspectors to do generally about the need for viability assessments?

So I think that's a paragraph 59 of the MPPF.

I'll just turn it up actually.

So that states that we're up to date policies

have set out the contributions expected

from development planning applications

that comply with them should be assumed to be viable.

Thank you very much.

Good, all right, thank you very much.

Next heading please,

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Do you remember this was one of the series

of representations, consultation responses

that was put to Dr. Mealy?

I'm not gonna ask you to redo the others.

But in terms of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,

and if you like the weight to be given to that.

First question, if a decision maker first of all

doesn't agree with the point that's being made,

is there some inherent requirement nonetheless

for a decision maker to give it a particular type of weight?

No, I mean, you have to look at what the statutory consultee or whoever the party is, what is

actually being said. And if there is evidence from other experts pointing in a different

direction or the policies, then that can override the statutory consultee or other consultee

response. Okay. Now, in terms of the Royal Borough

of Kensington and Chelsea, do they at all identify when they're considering heritage

harm, do they at all identify the level of heritage harm as required by the NPPF and

the PPG? No. Okay. How useful is that characterisation to a decision -maker seeking to decide what

weight to give to that sort of identification? Well, it's of no assistance at this inquiry

that RBKC haven't identified the weight, or the harm rather, sorry, that is to be given

to heritage assets. Thank you. And the inspectors walked around Kensington

Chelsea otherwise you form your own judgement. Yes. In relation to that, was there any balancing

exercise undertaken in terms of alleged heritage harm from the Royal Borough of Kensington

Chelsea? No.

No. And in so far as there has been a balancing exercise undertaken by the local planning

authority, does it agree that those identifications of harm are actually harm that are unacceptable

having regard to the provisions of the NPPF? No.

No. All right. Thank you very much for that. Policies next, please. Policies. What do you

understand the court's finding that D9B3 is not a gateway to the operation of the balance

of the policies in that, the criteria in that policy.

My understanding is that D9B3 doesn't operate as a gateway

and that for tall buildings which are outside

of a identified tall building cell,

parts D9C and D need to be assessed in order to consider whether or not a proposal is acceptable

and could accord with the development plan.

Thank you. Now, don't dance on a pinhead or whatever the expression is here, but if D9C

and D9D are substantially complied with,

what as a matter of the operation of the policy,

which should be read as a whole,

and a judgement formed as a whole,

what is there to stop a decision maker

as a matter of judgement finding that that policy

as a whole is complied with?

There's no prohibition on that. I mean, it is up to the judgement of the decision -maker

as to whether or not, when read as a whole, the policy can be complied with if you comply

with parts C and D.

But bearing in mind your experience with tall buildings, etc., is that proposition that

even if you're outside a tall building zone, or even if the tall building zone doesn't

the ability to look at the impact criteria and to find them acceptable allows of, not

requires, allows of a finding that policy D9 is complied with in terms of the statutory

test, et cetera. Yeah, I've got a lot of experience of tall

buildings in London and tall buildings outside of tall building zones. And decision makers

have come to the judgement that if you comply with parts C and D, then when read as a whole,

you comply with policy D9. I don't think that is particularly unusual.

Right. I just want to see now what the difference between you and Ms. Chambers is and whether

it makes a difference to the inspector. Because what Ms. Chambers says is, yes, you can have

regard to D9C. Just before we get to that, your point, please, as to whether there's

a requirement in the policy to consider D9C, even in the event that you are outside of

a tall building zone. Is there a requirement to look at D9C?

Yes, there is. Yes. And what Ms. Chalmers says, is, chamber

says is that, well, if you comply with D9C, then that can mean you comply with a development

plan when read as a whole, but not with policy D9 when read as a whole.

I don't know whether there's a difference that's a distinction there, but if D9 is the

most important material policy to the determination of an application, why is it that you can

find it consistent with a development plan when read as a whole, but not with D9 when

read as a whole?

Can you see a logic there that?

Yes, I do struggle with that logic.

I mean, Ms. Chambers was advocating partial compliance

with D9C.

And I suppose if there's partial compliance,

then you have to consider D9C

and the development plan as a whole

to determine whether or not the proposal

accords with the development plan when read as a whole.

But how usual is it for a policy, particularly with very many sections and very many identified

tests to be met in its entirety?

Highly unusual, if I'm honest, in my experience, because, I mean, one ought to look at the

length of some of these policies, like D9 or LP4.

Does that in any way restrict a decision maker as a matter of judgement from finding that

the policy as a whole is complied with notwithstanding one, two or more inconsistencies with the

criteria?

No.

All right.

We'll see where we get on that.

Thank you very much.

Good.

I think that's sufficient for these purposes.

is can you turn please to your proof of evidence,

618 and 621, and explain to the inspector

what your overall conclusion is

and where you think the planning balance

lies in the circumstances of this case?

Yeah, so I'll just sort of summarise, I suppose, those paragraphs. So recognise that the site

is not located within a tall building zone and therefore wouldn't meet the first section

of part B of LP4 and part C,

as well as part B3 of D9.

But my conclusion is that having assessed those parts

of both policies LP4 and D9C

in relation to the various design criteria

that they set out, that the proposals accord

with both policies LP4 and D9 when read as a whole.

I'd also comply with part four of policy PM9

which has a similar, well it references back to LP4

and the criteria in LP4.

So I find compliance with both those policies.

I don't find any conflict with the design objectives in paragraph 135 of the NPPF.

I consider that the proposed development is well designed and that significant weight

should be given to the design of the scheme in the planning balance.

And then overall a recommendation to the inspector, please.

I consider that the proposed development does accord with the development plan when read

as a whole and that the benefits of the scheme demonstrably outweigh any harms identified

in relation to heritage impact, even giving considerable weight and importance to the

heritage assets as required by legislation.

Good, thank you very much. Those are the questions I ask in chief. Thank you, ma 'am.

Thank you. Very timely. We're now at just before 3 o 'clock. Would it be an opportune

moment to have a 15 minute break before starting cross -examination? Okay. So if we break to

3 .15 and Mr. Marginson, if I can remind you not to communicate with your party, please.

The inquiry is adjourned at 3 .15.

Thank you.

The time is 3 .15 and the inquiry is resumed. Thank you for the document list. That is ID21,

the document list for cross -examination of Mr Marjane. Mr Edwards, would you like to

begin cross -examination?

Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr Marjane. I would like to begin cross -examination and

to finish by five o 'clock if we may.

So, fingers crossed.

Let's hope so.

Good.

You have the document list

for the purposes of the questions I have.

Mr. Martin, there's one other document

that you may want to have available

and it's really just as a point of reference

and that document is the Officer's Report to Committee

into the application, core document 301.

We'll come to that in due course.

Oh, is it already on the list?

Yeah, it's written.

There we are, something's ahead of me.

Good.

Mr. Margilson, your involvement in the appeal site and the appeal scheme, you make clear

in your proof of evidence on page two that you were instructed formally in November 2025.

Yes.

Your firm, however, were involved in matters relating to the site and the planning application

before that, and it was one of your colleagues, I think, who had some involvement with the

application when it was originally submitted. Is that right?

Yes.

Good. It follows therefore, Mr. Muddison, that in terms of your particular involvement

as a planning professional, you were not involved in terms of attending any of the pre -application

meetings that took place in advance of the submission of the application?

Correct.

You were obviously not involved in any discussions that took place during the currency of the

application leading up to the modifications in October 2024?

Yes, that's correct.

And you were obviously also plainly not involved in the EIP process.

Correct. Thank you very much.

Good. And we'll come back to the relevance of that, if any, in due course.

Now, there are a number of topics, Mr.

Monson, I'd like your help with.

The first of those is this rather vexed question about the approach to be taken

to the application of D9 of the London Plan and LP4 of the local plan,

so far as tall buildings and tall building zones are concerned.

So that's the subject of the first series of questions.

As a point of reference, it would be helpful to me, please,

if you would have in front of you policy D9 of the London Plan.

So that's core document 501 at internal page 138.

And tell me when you have that, please.

Yes.

If we can just take a moment just to remind ourselves of the structure of this policy,

It comprises essentially four elements and those four elements are preceded by subheadings

within the policy.

Element A is the definition.

Do you see that?

Yes.

And that provides a requirement of strategic level for the boroughs to identify the heights

at which buildings will be regarded as being tall buildings, essentially.

Correct?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

The second element is the location element, that is part B of the policy.

We've discussed this at some length, but in short, that is a direction at strategic level through the London Plan

that boroughs should determine if there are locations where tall buildings may be an appropriate form of development in the borough

and they should identify those locations on maps accompanying the local element of the development plan.

Yes.

Part three of the policy, which we will come back to in a moment,

tall buildings should only be developed in locations that are identified as suitable in development plans.

And plainly, Mr. Marginson, that is referring to locations that will be identified within the local component of the development plan,

because it is within that local component of the development plan that the identification will take place.

Yes.

Thank you. And then part C and D of policy D9 deal with impacts.

Part C is the part of the policy that identifies the criteria

and against which tall buildings should be considered.

Yes.

And part D, which we don't need to trouble ourselves with,

but this inquiry is dealing with public access

where it's considered the public access is required.

Yes.

Right, good. So we can see how the policy then works.

Obviously, there is no dispute as a matter of fact between us that in respect of Part

B of Policy D9, the London Borough of Wandsworth did and has in its 2023 local plan identified

locations where tall buildings would be appropriate.

Correct, yes.

Indeed. And again, there is no dispute between us as a matter of fact that the appeal site

does not lie within such an identified zone.

Correct.

and then as a further layer to the implementation of D9 at the local level, the local plan identifies

what are called mid -rise zones and the appeal mid -rise building zones and the appeal site

falls within one of those zones. Yes. Thank you very much. Good. So on that basis, and

we will come to the implications of this in a moment, Mr. Marginson, on that basis, there

There is no dispute between us that so far as London Plan D9 Part B3 is concerned, there

is a conflict with that element of the policy.

Yes.

Thank you very much indeed.

Right.

Now, I just want to see where you land so far as your case in respect to Part C of the

policy is concerned.

Now, can we go, please, don't close London Plan Policy D9 for a moment, but can we go

to your proof of evidence, your main proof of evidence, and turn to paragraph 5 .97.

I asked Miss Chambers about this earlier today. Mr Harris took you to this paragraph. The

you say, 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. Do you see that?

Yes. Thank you very much indeed. So it seems to me that what you are saying in that sentence

is pellucidly clear. It is that in your view, if there is compliance with Part C of Policy

D9 then a decision -maker is entitled to conclude that there is compliance with the policy as a whole

Is that what you are saying? Mr. Martin? Yes, I'm saying that

The decision -maker

Is capable of making the judgement that if part C is complied with

then

the policy

Is complied with when read as a whole? Thank you, mr. Martin

and that's what I thought you were saying

and I'm very grateful for that clarification of the position.

I preface the next series of questions by making it clear

that ultimately given where the issue lies

between us on this, the point ultimately comes down

to legal submissions and I'll be dealing with this

in my submissions on Thursday.

But I just want to test how far it goes

as a matter of planning, judgement and logic with you.

You reach that conclusion that it is possible

as a matter of judgement for a decision maker

to conclude that there is compliance with D9 as a whole by reason of a conclusion of compliance with Part C.

And that's the conclusion that you reach yourself as a matter of judgement, is it?

That is, yes.

And that is a conclusion that you reach notwithstanding your acknowledgement that there is a clear factual conflict,

a breach with Part B3 of the policy.

Yes.

Now part 3B of the policy, which is the requirement as part of D9 for the London, well part B

of the policy generally, I should say not part B3, but part B of the policy generally,

which includes the requirement for the London boroughs in the local components of their

development plan, in their local plans effectively, to identify locations that may be appropriate

for tall buildings as a form of development, was confirmed in terms of it being required

to be included in the 2021 London plan by the intervention of the Secretary of State,

wasn't it?

Yes.

And we don't need to turn it up. It's there for the Inspector to consider. But the Secretary

of State gave a very well publicised at the time direction to the Mayor of London to make

modifications to the London plan before it was the subject of examination and before

I think it, well, certainly before it was subject of publication, I think before examination,

requiring certain changes to emerging policy D9 to identify the parameters of a tall building

and to ensure that the boroughs, the tall buildings only came forward in locations

where the boroughs considered to be appropriate.

You remember that?

Yes.

Thank you.

Good. And therefore, it's quite clear, isn't it, that part D,

part B of policy D9 was introduced very consciously and in order to ensure

that the local plans did themselves identify

where tall buildings would be appropriate.

Was it conscious and deliberate decision by the mayor

in response to a direction given to him

by the Secretary of State?

Yes.

And I mean, if the position were, you see, Mr. Marginson,

that on a case by case basis,

for a proposal for a tall building

that fell outside a tall building zone

to be in compliance with D9

by reason of compliance with part C,

then there would be very little point

in those circumstances, wouldn't there,

of inclusion of the clear requirement in part B

for locations to be identified,

because it wouldn't be worth anything.

You'd simply default to looking at the impact.

No, I don't agree with that,

because you have to look at each specific case

on its merits.

Every individual application needs to be assessed

in terms of its compliance with D9C.

And then you have to look at the policy as a whole.

Now I don't accept that proposition

because there are numerous decisions

which have reached the position that I have reached,

which is if you comply with part C,

you comply with D9 as a whole,

including some relatively recent appeal decisions

in London for tall buildings.

Dr. Mr. Martin, I can only cross -examine you

on the evidence that's before the inquiry.

You can, you can.

I don't believe those decisions are before you.

Absolutely, I appreciate that.

I'm just giving the inspector my experience

of how the policy operates.

Well, Mr. Martin, to make it clear,

I'm not going to accept that there are this plethora

of decisions that took accord with the opposition,

and I'll make submissions on that in due course

on the basis of the evidence before the inquiry.

But if I can just test this a little bit further with you,

taking this case as an example,

or your case at this inquiry and on this appeal as an example, you say, we don't agree, but

you say that part C of policy D9 is met and that the impacts in terms of the proposal,

which is at all building, are acceptable having regard to those criteria, right?

Yes.

And you then invite the inspector to reach a conclusion that thereby there is compliance

with D9 considered as a whole.

Yes.

What do you say the inspector should do in terms of the weight, if any, that is attached to the fact that the appeal site is outside a zone identified for tall buildings in the 2023 local plan?

Does she just ignore that?

Well, that element of the policy obviously points in the opposite direction to a grant

of planning permission, and I accept that. So if you like, that is on the negative side

of the equation. But my view is that because of the compliance with Part C, then that negative

element is outweighed by Part C compliance. Right. So you do say that the inspector should

have regard to and is entitled to attach weight to the fact that the appeal proposal is located

outside a tall building zone identified in the 2023.

Yes, it's clearly a material consideration.

Thank you very much indeed. But nonetheless, you invite the Inspector at the same time

to reach the conclusion there's overall compliance with D9 as a whole.

Yes, I do.

Rightio. Okay, well, I understand your position, Mr. Muddison. I'll make submissions on that.

in due course.

Now, finally, on this point, there's

been some considerable discussion

about the approach of the Master Brewer case

and the approach that was taken by the court in that case.

Mr. Robinson, you appreciate the judgement,

which is core document 13 .7, the judgement of Mrs. Justice

Lang, is derived from a decision that

was taken by the mayor of London in the context

of an application for tall buildings on the Master Brewer site in Hylinden,

the mayor of London having made himself local planning authority

or called in that application.

You understand the context? Yes.

And that, you know, from your experience in London,

when the mayor calls in an application, he holds a hearing.

There is a hearing report.

It's effectively like a planning committee.

And he makes a decision on it.

Yes. The hearing report is prepared by GLA officers.

Correct.

I take it you've had a chance to have a look

at the judgement of you.

I have.

Yeah.

And so you're aware as to what GLA officers

advised the mayor, both at the hearing itself

and subsequently following the publication,

the, effectively the adoption of the London plan

before the planning commission was issued.

Yes.

Yes, I've read the judgement.

Can we just have then a quick look at it please,

just so I can give, ask you a question

and give you an opportunity to comment.

So would you go to 13 .07 please?

Which is the judgement in Master Brewer.

And I think at this stage and to save time,

we can go straight or directly to paragraph 57 of the judgement.

No.

I'm not sure.

Mr. Granger's going to sort it out to my mum.

Do you have that, Mr.?

I do, yes.

Paragraph 57, I took another witness to this earlier today.

Paragraph 57 is part of the judgement

where the judge is recording what was set out

in an update report which was post the representation hearing

and before the issue of planning permission.

And the updated review report addressed, at least in part,

the implications of the London Plan 2021

having been published or adopted at that stage.

So it had become statutorily part of the development plan

by this point in time.

Bridget, that?

Yes.

Okay.

And we can see what the judge records there

from the updated report.

We pick it up, five lines in, it, that's the report,

went on to identify that as a consequence,

there is now a further element of conflict

with the development plan

the scheme does not fully accord with the new London Plan Policy D9. Nevertheless, the

update report gave significant weight to the fact that proposals would, however, comply

with other criterion in Policy D9. It advised that a conflict with some development plan

policies does not necessarily mean there's an overall conflict with the development plan

as a whole. Policies can be put in different directions, and the updated report identified

additional conflicts with the London Plan in respect of heritage. And then, at paragraph

Paragraph 23 of the updated report concluded the overall

the proposals accord with development plan,

none of the material considerations are set out

in the hearing reports and the updated report

warranted refusal of planning permission.

So, let's see, ultimately we've come down

to a matter of submission, Mr. Marginson,

but what is clear, I suggest to you from the judgments,

and particularly paragraph 57 of that judgement,

that in terms of the way the mayor of London

and his officers approach D9 in the context

to the Master Brewer site. It wasn't that the location of an appeal site or their application

site outside a tall building zone was simply just weighed by the fact that other impacts

or the impacts were acceptable under D9C and therefore there was overall compliance with

D9. He accepted that there was partial non -compliance with D9, there was partial compliance and

that had to be weighed out in the planning balance. So that was his approach, wasn't

it?

Yes, no, I accept that. That's what the officer report to the hearing said. Clearly, that

predates the actual Master Brewer decision and the judgement that was made. It also predates

clearly a series of decisions that have been made post this judgement on planning applications

in London. And as I said, in my experience, the GLA have, when compliant with Part C,

come to the conclusion of compliance with D9 overall.

Okay. Well, there we are. I don't think you can really deploy the point, well, the analysis

in the hearing report and the updated report predated the judgement. Plainly it did, but

the judgement was looking at the legality of that approach.

which you accept.

Well, it was.

No, I accept that, but I think you have to place

the officer's report to the hearing

in the context of the actual judgement made.

And the, as I say, the decisions that I have seen

subsequent to that, both by the GLA and at appeal.

Okay, thank you very much.

Well, I'll make submissions on that in due course.

I think finally on the Master Brewer decision,

I think it is happily common ground between us that it must, as it must be, that the attempt

by the London Borough of Hillington in that case to construe D9 as a series of gateways,

you don't move to part C unless you pass part B, as it were. That was roundly rejected by

the court as an approach. But Mr. Modgison, it isn't inconsistent, is it, with an approach

to D9 where you recognise that if part B isn't met but part C is, there is only partial compliance

with the policy, it's not inconsistent with the finding of gateways. Effectively, you

don't look at them as gateways, you look at them as separate elements. You apply them

to a proposal and as a result, in a case such as this, where a site is outside a tall building

zone, but on your case, it meets the criterion in part C, there is partial compliance and

partial non -compliance with the policy.

I'm not consistent with that.

You said separate the policies out.

Of course you have to read the individual elements

of the policy, but you have to read the policy

as a whole, as you know, and come to a judgement.

I know what Ms. Chambers' judgement is,

which is partial compliance.

I don't agree with that.

And that's the difference between us.

Mr. Martin, I put that probably question

slightly inelegantly.

The fact that there are policy denying

is not a series of gateways, as the Court has confirmed,

does not mean that you can't,

that in an individual case, a conclusion could not be reached

that there is partial non -compliance

with the policy, is there?

That's not my judgement, but I accept it's a judgement

that could be made, but it will be the wrong judgement,

in my view.

Okay, there we are.

Right, well, we'll leave that to the Inspector,

and I'll make submissions on that in due course.

Right, you can put D9 away for one moment, please.

Second point, the NPPF December 2024 and paragraph 125c.

And you were asked a series of questions

in examination in chief about that part of the National

Planning Policy Framework.

Now, as a matter of fact, 125C was introduced for the first time in the December 2024 changes

to the NPPF and plainly, as a matter of fact, those changes post -stated the adoption of

the local plan in 2023 and the London plan in 2021.

Good.

As far as the application of paragraph 125C is concerned, there's an issue between the

parties on its operation. The council say that there would be substantial harm caused

as a result of the proposal in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of

the area and the appellant's evidence is that there would be no such harm. That's effectively

the issue of particularity and the inspector will have to resolve that as a matter of the

exercise of professional judgement in due course.

Yes.

Very much indeed. Good.

Now, so far as how paragraph 125c operates, I added the officer's report to committee as a document for cross -examination, just to use it as a point of reference.

Could you go, please, to CD301?

And when you have it, please turn. I'm using the paragraph numbers. Paragraph 20 .26.

I can't give you a page number because I don't have it in electronic form. I would have printed out 20 .26

Yes at core document 301 paragraph 20 .26

Do you have that mr. Martin'son? Yes, I do

And in that paragraph helpfully, the officers set out the associated planning practise guidance

that accompanied or companies now paragraph 125C. Do you see that set out?

Yes.

And it's referred to in terms of a reference in the evidence, but not set out in any of

the groups as far as I'm aware, hence taking you to this paragraph of the officer's report.

And we can see there the advice in the planning practise guidance when determining proposals,

decision makers will need to take account of this policy, porting that that is 125C,

alongside other policies within the framework taken as a whole. And then it gives an example

by reference to the tests in the MPPF with regard to less than substantial harm to heritage assets.

Do you see that? Yes.

Just by way of the context, as I recall, paragraph 125C was introduced when the revisions to the

MPPF were published just before Christmas in 2024, there was then a lot of discussion about the

implications of it, particularly the reference within it to substantial harm and how it related

to other elements of the MPPF. And the government sought to clarify and or contextualise the

operation of paragraph 125C by providing further guidance in the policy in the PPG. Does that

broadly accord with your recollection of the situation?

Yes, that's my recollection of what happened, yes.

But now the decision makers have the PPG guidance and what that guidance does provide, isn't

it, that you don't take paragraph 125C in isolation as it applies to any development

proposal.

You look at it alongside other elements of the MPPF and other policies within the MPPF

and you would accept that as being the correct approach in accordance with the government's

guidance?

Yes.

Thank you.

And amongst those policies of the MPPF that are relevant to an individual decision where

matters relating to impact on townscape are concerned are the policies at 131, 135, 139

that we've looked at elsewhere in the evidence.

Yes.

And you would accept that in applying the MPPF as a whole, yes, in the context of a

site such as the Appeal site and any Brownfield site in London, actually, you apply paragraph

125c, but you also apply the MPPF by reference to other policies, including those I've just

identified. Yes.

Thank you. Good. Now, as far as then the implications of paragraph 125c is concerned,

following your evidence and keep, the matter seems to have gone a little further in terms of

its materiality to issues before the Inspector, in the sense that a point is made about the fact that

the urban design study, the UDS 2021, as it obviously did, factually predated the publication

of the MPPF in its revised form in December 2024.

Yes.

And it goes to the approach that was taken.

Of course, the UDS 2021 was an evidence -based document that supported the emerging now adopted

local plan.

Correct.

And it also, as part of that function, supported the approach taken to tall buildings in Policy

LP 4 of that plan, didn't it?

Yes.

And Policy LP 4, in its adopted form, certainly its Reg 19 form and then subsequently in its

adopted form, identifies tall building zones and mid -rise building zones by reference to

what is set out in the UDS.

Yes.

Thank you.

Is there anywhere in your proof of evidence where you state that in your professional

judgement in some way policy LP 4 or, and or, appendix 2 of the 2023 local plan is in

some way out of date as a result of the publication of the MPPF in its revised form in December

2024?

No, I don't state that the local plan is out of date. What I do is I give some context

to the policy framework within which the UDS was prepared and therefore policy context

within which LP4 was ultimately adopted, and I provide commentary on how that policy framework

has changed and how it continues to change in terms of the weight that is given to brownfield

development, particularly to meet housing needs and the optimisation of sites.

Thank you very much. That's a very helpful confirmation, Mr.

Marginson, and if it's of assistance to you and the inspector, you'll meet no resistance

from the local planning authority that the MPPF 2024 and paragraph 125 is plainly material

consideration. But it's helpful to have your clarifications to the position with regard

to LP 4. Similarly, as far as the 2021 UDS is concerned,

prepared by Arup, the inspector has very clearly Dr. Mealy's evidence about his view with regard

to its comprehensiveness in terms of an approach.

But likewise, in terms of the question I asked you

a moment about ALP4, nowhere in your proof of evidence

do you say that the 2021 UDS is in some way out of date

as a result of the publication of the revisions

of the MPPF in 2024, do you?

No, I don't say it's out of date.

It needs to be seen in the context of what I've just said.

and its purpose, which was an evidence -based document

and a piece of guidance to the local plan.

Thank you very much indeed.

And there is nowhere in your evidence,

and indeed there is no such statement

by the Secretary of State, that in some way,

any policies of local plans that identify areas for growth

within the local plan area which predates the NPPF 2024 are or are deemed to be out of date.

There's no policy statement to that effect, is there?

No.

No, thank you.

And it's not altogether unheard of for the Secretary of State in the NPPF to

state as a matter of policy

that something is deemed to be out of date by reason of any changes to national planning policy.

and we're all familiar with that in footnote eight,

that deals with policies in relation to

what the consequences of the absence

of a five -year housing land supply.

There's nothing of the equivalent

that was published by the Secretary of State

in association with the introduction of paragraph 125C,

was there?

No, there isn't.

There is something in the emerging MPPF,

but I guess we'll see whether that comes to fruition.

That's very helpful.

Thank you very much indeed.

Good.

Next point, please, and we can deal with this, I hope,

briefly the EIP process. Now I appreciate, Mr. Marleston, I don't mean there's a criticism,

but you were not involved in that process, so we'd have to do the best with the evidence

we've got. There is the issue between the parties as to what the local plan examination

public panel were being asked to do in terms of any modifications to the local plan by

your client and others. But you've had an opportunity, I take it, to consider the written

representations that were made in respect of main matter 13

by Savills?

Yes.

And can we just take those out, please?

They're in Dr. Mealy's appendices.

So can we just turn to that, please, which is CD 809.

And it's appendix 7 in that document.

And it begins at paragraph 74.

Just tell me when you have that available, please.

I appreciate this. I realise this wasn't on my list, I don't think, so forgive me for

that, but hopefully you can access it reasonably straightforwardly.

It's incredibly slow. I don't know if you have a paper copy or not. I think it's because

it's got all the views in, hasn't it?

Yeah, it's a heavy duty document.

I can see there's a paper copy on its way to you.

I think I might have found it actually.

But yeah.

Okay, so you have a copy.

Just remind me of the page again?

Yes, of course, it's page 74.

You'll have the page numbers in the top right and left

corner of each page.

Yep, thank you

We've been over this at some with some degree of detail already at the inquiry, so I'm going to take this relatively shortly mr.

Marginson these were the this was the written statement the hearing statement prepared by subels on behalf of the appellant company

in support of their

Representations. Yes, main matter 30 in the main matter 30 in hearing if you look at paragraph 1

1 .4 on page 74 in the left -hand text

You can see the matter 13 topics or questions and there were three of those

or at least three that Savills were involved in. The first of the requirement

are the requirements of the achieving high quality places policies justified

by appropriate evidence -based having regard to national guidance local

contest in London Plan and then the second is policy LP for tall buildings

is the policy consistent with D9 of the London Plan. Do you see that?

Yes.

And Savills, on behalf of the Appellant Company, made representations in respect of all three

of those particular matters within matter 13 that are identified in 1 .4 and including

the first and second of those. Do you see?

Yes.

And if we just go on, please, to the facing page, page 75, you'll see on the left -hand

column of text above paragraph 33 .13.

Yes.

LP4 tall buildings is the policy consistent with D9 of the London Plan, you see?

Yes.

I'm not going to read out all the paragraphs that they're off to follow, but the gist of

what was being said in response to that matter is that because of the Master Brewer site

and because of the consequences that it was not determinative that the site had to be

within a tall building zone to be acceptable for a tall building, that policy LP4 needed

to be modified and that is a representation that found a landing place with the EIP, hence

the modifications that were made to the policy afterwards. Do you see?

Yes.

Okay. But if we look before that, please, on page

74, the top of the left -hand column, the right -hand column, forgive me, under the subheading,

three main representations. First question, are the requirements of achieving high -quality

the place policies justified by appropriate available evidence

in regards to national guidance, local context and the London Plan.

There's a series of paragraphs that I took Dr Mealy to.

Paragraph 3 .2.

I'm not going to read it out, but that paragraph indicates

that the range for tall buildings was inappropriate and too restrictive.

Paragraph 3 .3 that the appeal site as it now is

should not be restricted to a mid -rise zone. And then paragraph 3 .9 over the page,

that it should be included in a tall building zone as was the position at Reg 18. Do you see,

you're familiar with those paragraphs generally, Mr. Martinson? Yes.

So perhaps we can agree in light of this exercise that we've gone through again,

that it was certainly part of the representations made on behalf of your client to the EIP,

not just that there ought to be incorporated flexibility in LP4,

but that the other elements that they're set out, i .e. the height range for tall buildings is too restrictive

and the appeal site should not be within a mid -rise zone or part of the case that they put before the EIP.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you very much indeed.

Right, we can put that to one side.

In terms of, yes, I think we can leave that point and move on then now.

and just looking at what else I need to ask you about.

Right, next point please, as for affordable housing.

Now, there obviously is an issue about the weight

that should be attached to the quantum and tenure

of affordable housing that's being proposed,

much with judgement for the inspector ultimately.

But can I just understand

where the appellant's position is on this?

So can we go please to your appendices,

which is core document 808.

And can we turn firstly, please, within it to Appendix G, which is the DS2 report.

Yes.

And that begins on page 52.

This is headed a viability report, Mr. Marginson, and it does indeed consider, through the lens

of viability the potential for the reuse of the appeal site as offices, doesn't it?

Yes.

And that was in direct response not to any element of the local planning authority's

case but in response to some comments that were made in representations by third parties?

Yes.

Thank you very much, Lee.

There is no viability appraisal before the local authority in terms of either the appeal

proposal or any other type of residential led development is there in

this form? I say viability, Fraser, the kind of thing you would have in an FBA.

No there isn't and as I explained in chief there's no policy requirement for

that under the development plan or national policy. And the reason why

there's no policy requirement again which is a matter of common ground is

because the affordable housing offer that is being advanced through the

appeal proposal exceeds the threshold for fast track in the London plan and

now in the revisions to the local plan. Correct. Thank you very much indeed. Can we just go

please to paragraph 6 .12 which is on page 70...

72?

73, forgive me, 73.

And just before we just look at what is said in 6 .12 and then I've got one or two questions

arising from it for you in so far as you're able to help. You see the appeal proposal

in so far as it's being advanced on the basis of a commitment to 50 % affordable housing

at a hand -dependent social rent is materially in excess in terms of the quantum and the

tenure, extent of affordable housing, of social housing tenure that would be required to conform

either with the London plan or the local plan, wouldn't it?

Yes it is and it's a benefit of the scheme, yeah.

Thank you. And it was introduced, as the enquirer has already heard, and as is a matter of fact,

not when the application was submitted, but when the height of the application was reduced

from ground plus 33 to ground plus 28 storeys, which was in October 2024.

Yes.

Thank you very much indeed. If we can look, please, at paragraph 6 .12, I would note that

DS2 has also been in dialogue in recent months with registered providers in relation to securing

a delivery partner for the affordable housing on the scheme. Just pausing there for a moment,

insofar as I understand the evidence that's before the inquiry, no registered provider has

yet been appointed or nor is there an agreement in place with one?

No, there has been no registered provider appointed. I mean, that's not an unusual

situation, Inspector, because at this stage, until planning permission is granted for a scheme,

a registered provider would not, if you like,

I mean, they've got lots of schemes across London

to look at and they prioritise those

which have planning permission.

Ms. Martin, you'll seek no resistance from me

in respect to that matter, that is plainly commonly

the case, but it is equally not uncommon, is it,

for there to be letters of support provided

from registered providers in the context of applications

and there isn't any in this case?

I actually have seen letters of support.

Not letters of support, but I've seen letters of interest.

I don't know if they're in the evidence.

I can't recall, and I'm honest, but there certainly has been letters of interest expressed.

Thank you.

Then we can carry on, please.

The next sentence of 6 -12.

We have also had a positive dialogue with the GLA in respect of grant funding opportunities

that are currently available through the GLA's accelerated funding group programme, which would

improve viability. The engagement further illustrates the appellant's intent to deliver

the appeal scheme, subject to securing a planning consent. Has an application for grant funding

actually been made, as far as you're aware, Mr. Marston?

No.

Okay. And therefore, there's been no determination of any application?

No, there hasn't. I understand that initial discussions have taken place, as reported

in this paragraph 6 .12. Again, I think given the position of the application at the moment,

those discussions are obviously somewhat on hold until the outcome of this inquiry.

Insofar as you're able to help Mr. Marginson, how is grant funding intended to or expected

to improve viability? Well, the grant funding would actually go

to the registered provider, not the developer, and they would therefore be able to, if you like,

front load the viability of the scheme in the sense that they could fund the affordable,

the delivery of the affordable housing, so it would improve viability. But the scheme,

as I'm informed by the appellant, is not dependent upon the receipt of grant in order to proceed

and be delivered.

Why is your client engaging with the GLA

for grant funding then?

Well, I don't think that's unusual particularly.

I mean, if there is grant funding available,

then it would certainly assist in delivery of the scheme

because it would front load costs of the scheme.

But the opportunity's there for the appellant

to seek that grant funding.

So it would be entirely reasonable for them

to seek that funding. Why would they not?

All right, Mr. Watson, I understand the position as far as that is concerned. And then, so

far as general housing delivery is concerned, with regard to the current position of the

borough in London housing needs generally, it is common ground, at least now between

us, that the London Borough of Wandsworth is able to demonstrate a five -year housing

land supply?

Yes, it is. I mean, there was quite a lot of to -ing and fro -ing on the five -year housing

land supply, but yes, we did reach a position of agreement. I mean, I think I've expressed

my reservations about some of the sites, but in the interest of moving the inquiry forward,

we reached an agreement.

And that is common ground, and that is the basis upon which you would invite the inspector

to consider the position so far as five -year housing land supply is concerned?

Yes, it's a consideration, yes.

Thank you very much indeed.

And as far as housing delivery tests is concerned,

the latest series of results have confirmed that the housing delivery test is met,

and whether that continues or not will depend upon the outcome of the current testing process.

Agreed.

Thank you very much indeed.

So, as far as the tilted balance is concerned and matters such as that which are sensitive to performance

in terms of five -year housing, land supply and delivery,

there's no dispute between us that the Council is able to demonstrate

both the required supply and delivery and the tilted balances therefore not engaged.

Agreed.

Thank you. Then so far as the position with regard to the well -documented and recognised

constraints in terms of delivery of housing in London and to an extent supply,

firstly, the London plan is the vehicle by which the housing requirements for each of the London

boroughs is determined. Yes. And the way in which housing requirements amongst the London

barriers is determined is by reference to capacity

within each barrier to be able to contribute

towards housing needs for individuals for London as a whole.

Yeah, so it's a capacity based approach.

Yes, it's based on a strategic assessment of housing

across London and the figures are then derived

for each borough as a set of targets.

And then as far as the mayor's position is concerned

in terms of meeting housing requirements going forward, and indeed I suppose to an extent

in terms of accelerating delivery of housing, the Mayor is presently, has embarked on and

is presently undertaking a review of the London Plan.

Yes.

Okay. And that review of the London Plan is moving

forward in terms of looking at available capacity across London. It's still adopting a capacity -based

approach as far as you're aware.

Yes, it is, and it's likely that the housing numbers in various boroughs will increase.

And if they do increase, then that obviously will then require a consequential review and

revision to the local plans of those boroughs which set out the strategy by which they'll

meet those housing requirements.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

And until that London Plan review process is completed through the advancement to publication

application of a new London plan, the extent if at all to which the housing requirements

of the London borough ones within any other borough will be adjusted upwards or otherwise

can't be determined. So you have to wait until that process.

Yes, that's the that's the process that will occur in order to determine the new housing

targets.

Thank you. And in terms of meeting the challenges in the interim, the Mayor of London in coordination

with the government published a series of emergency measures for consultation in October

of last year.

Yes.

And I believe that consultation period has now ended and no doubt the responses are being

considered before a final position is published later in the year. Is that your understanding?

Yes I understand it's, well, it's imminent that the revised guidance is going to be published

indeed I heard it may even be published tomorrow.

But we shall wait and see,

because they say that every two weeks,

and then it never materialises.

Well, they probably would.

I have the misfortune of these kind of things

happening generally, but there we are.

Anyway, we'll see what happens over coming days,

weeks, and potentially months.

But as far as those emergency measures are concerned,

certainly as far as the consultation draught is concerned,

they're well publicised and well understood.

But nothing in the Mayor of London,

or indeed the government's emergency measures

that are being presently contemplated,

is there anything that says that in some ways

decision makers should give less weight

to any particular policy requirements,

either of the MPPF or the London Plan,

including those relating to ensuring development

respects the character of an area, is that?

No, not less weight.

I mean, what the emergency measures are seeking to do is,

in simple terms, I suppose,

reset the fast track threshold.

to 20 % in recognition of the significant challenges

that exist in delivering housing in London,

which I suppose puts in some context

the appellant's proposal here at 50%.

Well, indeed, Mr. Martin, as you quite rightly recognise,

there are mechanisms that are in contemplation

in terms of the emergency measures by the mayor,

which as you say include the resetting of the fast track threshold at a lower level.

And as part of the measures are also policy -based approaches, which is relaxing the requirement for

on -site cycle provision, for single aspect units and things of that nature.

There's nothing, and I'd be grateful for your formal confirmation of this, there's nothing

in the Mayor's emergency measures that suggests that decision makers as an interim emergency

measure should be applying less weight to any particular policies of the London Plan

that would otherwise apply to a development proposal, is there?

Yes, I agree. Thank you very much. And likewise, in terms

of the government's intervention, which again include well -publicised proposed mechanisms

such as sill relief in certain circumstances and other such matters, there is nothing in

the government's proposed measures which indicate that decision -makers should be applying on

an individual case less weight to policies of the NPPF that would otherwise be engaged

in the determination of a planning application.

Yes, I agree.

Good. Thank you. Just bear with me for a moment of response, please. Thank you for your assistance.

Those are my questions, Mark.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So the way we were playing it as per this morning was that you would be able to re -examine

only on the points that Mr. Edwards had made and then there would be further cross -examination by Mr. Walton

in the morning followed by further re -examination. Is that how it was going, Mr. Harris?

That's a very fair summary. The underlying logic I think that my learned friend and I

had was that that minimises the potential for dead time, so to speak.

Fair enough. Can I just ask first of all, just before re -examination, whether there

are any questions from parties objecting, so from interested parties objecting to the

scheme for Mr. Marginson?

Everybody's stunned in silence. Okay, I don't have any questions for Mr. Margerson. So,

you wanted to take a break now, Mr. Harris, or are you envisaging just getting straight

on with it?

No, I'm keen to go straight on, I think, if Mr. Margerson...

Yes.

Yep. Okay. Over to you.

Right, can we start please then with the Hillingdon case and you need to get it up, it's 1307.

And you were asked about your experience but also how you saw the operation of the policy

in the event that a building was proposed which was tall but outside a tall building

zone. And in effect, you were asked what's the Secretary of State meant to do with that

and you said the fact that it's outside the zone points in the direction of a refusal

but that position can be outweighed as a matter of judgement by compliance with the balance

of the policies. Remember that? I just want to look at paragraph 84 of the judgement, please.

The drafter of policy D9 and the defendant, who is the maker of the plan, must have been

aware of the fundamental legal principles set out above, that there might be policies

pointing in separate directions, and therefore it was possible that the policy in B3, so

not be followed in any particular determination if it was outweighed by other policies in

the development plan. Now, in the circumstances of this case and policy D9C, is that one of

the policies that the judge had in mind, do you think?

ALAN Yes, and other development policies of the

plan.

ALAN Might not be followed in any particular determination

if it was outweighed by other policies

in the development plan policy in paragraph B3,

outweighed by other policies in the development plan,

including D9C.

Is that the same or different to the approach

which you urged on the Secretary of State's inspector?

It's slightly different in the sense

that it brings in other development plan policies.

I think I'd said that if D9C, if you are compliant with D9C, then that can outweigh the conflicts

with part B3.

Thank you. So if the judge here, as she is, is treating B3 as a policy, what's the stop

C, D9C also being a policy that outweighs B3.

There's nothing to prevent that.

Thank you very much for that.

Just explore, please, what the alternative might be.

And that is this, that in any case where you have a proposal which, as a matter of fact,

is not identified in a tall building zone, you always end up, it's impossible to gain

compliance with D9 as a whole. That's the conclusion. What's the difference between

that and using D9 as a gateway in effect, ensuring that the policy is always breached?

Well, there is a distinction there because, as you say, I mean, if you took the approach

that if you breached D9B, you could never comply with the policy, and D9 effectively

never really comes into play in terms of making a decision in a positive way on a planning

application for a tall building outside a tall building cell. So you could never comply

with D9 in the hole anyway. There could be partial compliance, but you could never comply

with it in the hole. Good. Thank you very much. That's the end

of that issue. Next issue, please, is NPPF Paragraph 120C. And it was pointed out to

that the various sides of the debate in the circumstances of this case take a different

view as to whether there's substantial harm or not.

And that's the case.

But I want to ask you a slightly separate question.

And the question is this.

Was the capacity and sensitivity analysis in the circumstances of this case undertaken

for the UDS undertaken with the tests in 125C or anything close to them in mind?

In the circumstances of this case, what does that mean, if anything, for the weight to

be given to the explanation for the removal of the site

from a tall building zone?

It means it has to be given less weight

and paragraph 125C now needs to,

obviously that can be given full weight

and is a material consideration.

Thank you very much.

Can we pick up Dr. Miele's evidence please on this point?

And can we go to what he actually says about the UDS at paragraph 3 .24?

What's the CD reference?

Is this his proof?

In his main proof, yes.

Thank you.

Are you there, Mum? 3 .24. Do you see that? Do you see what he says about the UDS in the

round? Do you agree or disagree with him? Sorry, I'm not quite there yet. Sorry, 3 .24.

I'm just reading it. I agree. And it's a similar point that I'm making my own proof.

Why do you say it's similar to the point that you make?

Because the UDS is an evidence -based document to the local plan. It can only go so far in

assessing the suitability of sites to accommodate tall buildings. It can't get

into the very detailed and complex processes Mr. Mealy says in carrying out

a full heritage and townscape assessment on a particular proposal and as we know

there was no particular proposal in relation to this site put forward as

as part of the local plan process.

Thank you very much. That's the end of that issue.

Can you pick up your appendix G next, please?

Yes.

And it was put to you that the viability report considered

the viability of a retrofit position. Do you remember that?

Yes.

Can we look at the way that the index is set out, please?

First of all, this is a viability report by Pascal Levine.

Who's Pascal Levine and what are his qualifications and experience so far as they're relevant

to the weight that the inspector gives this sort of document?

He is a partner at DS2.

He chartered to pay a who carries out viability appraisals on schemes in London and has carried

out numerous viability appraisals and appeared at public inquiries as a witness.

If you look at the paragraph 2 .8 first, please. The draught statement of Common Ground applies

significant weight to the delivery of 54 affordable housing units, all of which are social rented

homes, but suggests there's an onus on the appellant to demonstrate the appeal scheme

is deliverable at no time in the application process was there. The appeal scheme was undeliverable

from either the council or the GLA and there was no requirement for an FBA to be provided

given that the affordable housing was fully compliant with the policy.

During discussions the statement of common ground, the council has indicated that it

might question in its evidence the deliverability of the appeal scheme. Then there's the scope

of the viability report. The report will therefore assess viability of refurbishing. Its structure

is set out in 211. And in Section 6, it addresses the Council's comments in relation to the

deliverability of the appeal scheme. Now, we know in this case that the statement of

Common Ground, and indeed the statement of case, was a few weeks before the inquiry began.

I think it was a couple of days before the CMC.

That's the history.

Shall we look at what he actually then says?

Because you were taken to 612.

Yes.

And 610 says this.

In relation to the appeal scheme,

the appellant has also submitted a separate letter

for the benefit of the planning inquiry

that sets out its clear intention to deliver the project on a reasonable commercial basis,

subject to planning permission being secured.

Yes.

We didn't go to that, but that's your appendix A, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

Which the inspector, I think, referred to in a previous session of the inquiry.

Can we look at that, please?

And it's from the appellant in this case, and it's to you, dear Jonathan.

And it sets out under the heading commercial approach that it's been designed to deliver

a fully mixed and inclusive contribution. And then it says, one, the site offers an

outstanding location in terms of residential values. Is there any dispute or contestation

of that so far as you are aware from the local authority?

No.

Now provides an investment opportunity, be optimised to harness this value. What does that mean?

That's in relation to the design of the scheme in that uniquely on this side

there is an ability to provide market and affordable side by side and that the

actual net lettable area of the residential market element is higher than the affordable

and because the sales value is high, it allows in these circumstances to actually deliver

that 50 % affordable housing.

It's 30 % in terms of footprint, that gives rise to 50 % in terms of habitable rooms.

Yes.

But that's the test.

And 70 % of the entire building is market -based.

How would you expect values to fare in terms of market values at this location, given the

nature of the views that scheme architects spoke of on day one?

They would be some of the highest in London.

Then he says there's confidence in demand.

and that you then mentioned in response to my learned friend

that you'd seen reference to some communication

with some registered providers, do you remember that?

Yes.

Look at A, B, and C.

Oh yeah, yeah.

What do they help the inspector with

about the interest of registered providers?

Yes, so A, B, and C.

So A, reports that initial discussions have been held

with registered providers and that the affordable housing can be delivered. Those registered

providers have expressed an interest in the scheme. They're also supportive of the affordable

housing mix, particularly on the three and four bedroom homes where there is the highest

demand particularly in the social rented sector.

Now the emergency measures that my learned friend was asking about makes the point that

the activity of registered providers at the minute has almost dropped to a nothing level

of engagement. How choosy are registered providers at the minute about schemes that they are

willing to confirm interest in?

The position has slightly changed over the last sort of six to 12 months on the registered

providers that they were in a difficult situation in terms of having to

retrofit a lot of their existing housing stock and that was their priority but

now a lot of them are coming out the other side and now they're looking at

taking new units particularly as there is more grant available from the mayor

and the government ultimately to deliver affordable housing.

Thank you very much.

Now go back to the paragraph

that immediately preceded the one that you were taken to.

Paragraph 611, please.

In your appendix G.

A par 610 is reference to the separate letter.

Is that appendix A?

Yes.

And he said, I have reviewed that letter. Is there any other evidence from any other

viability analyst before the inquiry put by the council or anybody else other than this?

No. I have reviewed that letter and confirmed

that at this very specific location, the matter set out in the letter relating to the disposition

of market and affordable units, the location and river views, all mean that a developer

could take a reasonable view as to delivery of the project, including its affordable housing

element. How do you ask the inspector to look at that, please, from DS2?

Well, Pascal Levine is a very experienced viability advisor and I think you can give

that due weight. Thank you. When it says in 612, which you read in isolation,

I'm not criticising because I've got the job,

that a grant would improve liability.

How do you read 611 about the deliverability

of the procluding its affordable housing element

as identified by the developer itself

and the confirmation of the reasonableness of that by DS2?

Yes, well, the developer's letter is saying that

in their view, given the unique kind of circumstances

of this site in terms of the values of the residential

and their ability to deliver the affordable housing

on the site, that they are confident that the delivery

of this scheme is a viable proposition.

Thank you very much.

Just please, from your point of view,

I mean, there are political cases on this

so we can look to the inspector's attention.

But the application is for 50 % affordable housing.

To be given to the affordable housing element

is framed by application.

What else is the inspector meant to determine the application

by reference to a different figure, and if so, what?

How does this come about?

Well, the inspector has to consider the application

and that is in front of her,

which is for 50 % affordable housing.

There is no alternative proposal

that is being put forward here.

The intention of the appellant is to deliver the scheme

as is in front of this inquiry.

There is no intentions at this stage, as far as I'm aware,

to make any amendments to the scheme,

and if there were amendments,

they would have to be considered on their own merits,

and the planning balance judgement would have to be made again.

Thank you very much. The end of that issue. Last issue, really the summary is, my learned

friends team say, well, we met the five -year land supply, therefore moderate weight to

housing. I just want to explore that with you, please. The five -year land supply, and

indeed the housing development target, which we await with interest, it's not available

yet. The five -year land supply goes to whether the tilted balance applies or not.

Correct. That's the purpose of it. Does it automatically translate into weight to be

given to housing delivery as a public benefit can only be moderate?

No. No. No, it doesn't. I mean, to do that, you need to look at the actual supply and need for

housing in the borough and in London, which I set out on my proof, and the numbers particularly

in relation to, well actually, both in relation to market housing and affordable housing are

pretty stark in terms of the decline.

Thank you. So, even though for the time being, let's see on housing delivery standard, the

tilted balance is not engaged, is not engaged,

is the public benefit of housing restricted to Wandsworth?

No, no, I mean, delivery of housing in one London borough

delivers housing across the London housing market.

Thank you.

Then, the fact that the government is prepared

in the emergency measures to forego

to alter some density parameters, basements, bikes, et cetera,

that otherwise would be ordinarily required.

What do those things tell you about what it believes is the weight to delivery of housing

and the present perfect storm, to use their words?

The weight should be substantial.

I mean those changes just reflect the critical point we've reached in delivering housing

in London.

Thank you very much. Those are the questions which I ask in re -examination. What forward

lengths will be tomorrow? Thank you, ma 'am.

Thank you and thank you, Mr. Marginson. Before we adjourn for today, can I cheque what the

situation is regarding the draught legal agreement, please?

I'm going to ask Mr. DeMors to explain.

We revised the 106 to include the mitigation obligation

relating to the shadowing of the foreshore.

We sent it back to the appellant earlier this afternoon,

just after lunch break.

Just waiting to hear back.

There's very little in terms of changes to the 106,

say for an additional definition and the obligation itself which comprises of a page. So whilst

we would obviously prefer to be able to give you a hard copy of a complete draught colour

as you requested, I'm not sure we're going to be able to do that before you leave this

evening. If we can, we certainly will do so, otherwise you'll have electronic copies sent

to you for this evening and hard copy to follow in the morning if that's okay.

Has the appellant had an opportunity to look at the document?

I'm sure somebody in my team has, but I can't answer that question directly. But I certainly

wouldn't want the provision of a hard copy which you asked for so you can mark it up

to await our response in relation to that.

I'm very happy for my Learning Friends team

to submit what they now have,

so long as it's understood those very limited issues,

it's a running draught.

I think that would be much more useful

than you having a document that you can't mark up.

And we can definitely point you to any differences,

if there are any at all,

arising from the very few changes that have been made.

I'm very reasonable, we'll get you a printed copy now.

Okay, that would be helpful, thank you.

and if that can be provided to my retiring room.

We'll do that.

Yeah, we'll see about that in a bit.

Okay, thank you very much.

Is there anything else procedurally or housekeeping wise

before we adjourn for today?

I think because the...

I'll be careful here because certain things have changed,

but because I think the next cross examination

hasn't started and Mr. Margerson is to discuss

with the team the conditions in the section 106 issues

that including that which you've just spoken to,

otherwise, I mean I don't mind either way,

don't know what my learned friend thinks about that.

It's funny to hear that I have no idea

How does the Royal Sixth Party feel about it?

We have no objection to that and can I add we're just very grateful that our advocate

has been allowed to develop this rather unusual situation.

It happens, Dr Jubb. Don't worry about it.

OK, so given that all the main parties are content with that approach,

Mr Marginson, you probably want to actually have an evening off,

But you're down for conditions and obligations discussion with everybody.

OK. Thank you very much everybody for today.

It's now 16 .27 and we're adjourned till tomorrow morning at 10am tomorrow.

Slightly late to start.

OK. Thank you very much and have a good evening.

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 Afternoon - Tuesday 24 March 2026, 2:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 AfternoonTuesday, 24th March 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 5 Afternoon
Tuesday, 24th March 2026 at 2:00pm