Glassmill planning appeal - Day 6 Morning - Wednesday 25 March 2026, 9:00am

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 6 Morning
Wednesday, 25th March 2026 at 9:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Thank you.

Good morning. The time is 10 o 'clock and the inquiry is resumed.

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

this inquiry.

First of all, can I just make the usual reminders please?

If you could please turn mobile phones and other devices off if you're not using them

for the inquiry and if you are using them please turn them to silent.

In terms of fire alarms, many of you will already have heard the fire alarm test this

morning so if a fire alarm does go off please take it seriously, leave the room in an orderly

Manor, use the main stairs to leave the building by the main doors and then go out onto the main

road and round to Ram Street where there is a collection point. Just in terms of documents,

I can confirm that I received a draught legal agreement, so this is an updated draught legal

agreement yesterday afternoon after we adjourned, and that is ID22. And I also received an addendum

to the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy Compliance Statement, which is ID23.

Can I ask the parties whether there are any procedural or housekeeping matters before

we hear from Mr Walton and Mr Marginson. Mr Harris.

Nothing from us, thank you, ma 'am.

Thank you. Mr Edwards.

Just one matter, Madam. I'm told that there is a further revised Section 106 and CIL compliance

statement which makes some changes beyond those that you were provided with last evening.

I can provide that to you now or at an appropriate time before we start the roundtable session.

If you can provide that now, that's fine.

I confirm we've received that.

And you've received that.

Have the Royal Six Party had sight of it as well?

I don't yet know, but we can provide a copy now.

If you could please. So that's ID24 for the planning obligation and ID25 for the

SILC compliance document.

And if it assists, Mr Mors will be in a position to explain to you what those additional changes

are at an appropriate time.

Okay, can I just highlight something to the parties, just in terms of the planning obligations.

So obviously we've had a draught planning obligation on the Core Documents website for some time now.

The parties helpfully provided that some weeks ago, so interested parties have had the opportunity to look at that initial draught.

Obviously there's been some changes and that's mainly to do with the overshadowing issue

and the Thames tidal wall. But I'm sure the advocates are aware of a Court of Appeal judgement,

I think it's Greenfields. So I was thinking about whether these quite late changes would

have an impact on the time scales for the completion of the legal agreement, just in

terms of allowing a little additional time to make sure interested parties have had an

opportunity to see the final draught on the public register. Would the Council like to

respond on that?

Yeah, well I'm very aware of the Greenfields v. Isle of Wight case and what that provides.

rather than just respond immediately, could you just leave that with me just for a short

while? I'll take instructions from Mr Moore and perhaps speak to the appellant's team

about it and perhaps we can come up with a suggested way forward to address that point.

Yeah, that would be helpful. That's why I raised it this morning rather than later in

the planning obligations session and it would be helpful if you could discuss that with

the appellant. Thank you. Mr Harris? I'm very content with that, ma 'am. Of course,

the circumstances here are very different in the sense that this has all been done openly at a public inquiry

and those that are interested can watch live what's going on.

But my learned friend makes a proper suggestion and we'll address that in due course. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Was there anything further, Mr Edwards, beyond the updated obligation and SIL compliance addendum?

Mr Walton, anything from the Rule 6 party?

With respect to 106?

No, just procedural or housekeeping wise?

No, just again, I apologise for yesterday, my departure, but nothing.

Not a problem, Mr Walton.

Okay, so if there are no more procedural or housekeeping matters to cover, yesterday Mr.

Marginson was introduced by Mr. Harris and Mr. Edwards cross -examined him.

He was then re -examined by Mr. Harris in relation to the council's questioning.

So today we'll hear from Mr Walton who will be cross -examining Mr Marjanson on behalf

of the Rule 6 party and then Mr Harris will have an opportunity to re -examine Mr Marjanson

on those points and in between there will be a further opportunity if any interested

parties objecting to the scheme have any questions for Mr Marjanson. But without further ado,

Mr Walton, can I hand over to you for cross -examination, please?

Thank you, madam. Good morning, Mr Marginson, and welcome to the inquiry.

I watched last night, well, early as this morning, last night early as this morning,

the replay of the tape of the cross -examination of yourself by Mr Edwards.

So I'm familiar with that.

It is possible that if I ask a question

which you have already been asked,

please forgive me, but you'll understand

that maybe you haven't had quite as,

not having been here yesterday,

didn't have quite that advantage,

but I think everything I'm gonna ask you

is relatively new.

Although, of course, it does become

more and more difficult to ask questions

about policy D9 and LP4 as inquiry goes on because there's less and less to say

about it that might be new. But can I ask you to turn in the first instance to

policy D9 as that seems to be critical to this to this inquiry. Now you say that

you have lengthy experience of planning for tall buildings in London. Yes, and you

cited yesterday, I think you mentioned,

various schemes including, I think,

the United States Embassy and I'll just say others,

but there were quite a number of them.

And I guess a lot of those, or I say I guess,

some of those obviously post -date

the introduction of policy D9,

some of them presumably predated D9.

Yes, obviously I've been practising

in planning in London for 17 years,

So you're absolutely right that I've dealt with tall buildings that predate the London plan

2021 and also post

2021 so yes, that's great. Okay, this is sort of cut to the chase you

your

position and your clients position is

that

d9c

which is headed impacts is triggered for proposals outside of d9b locations is

that is that their comment yes that's that's correct so tall buildings that

are proposed outside tall building zones identified in development plans are

subject to the provisions in paragraph C as are actually all tall buildings and

and therefore the assessment is against criteria C and D,

although in this case, I think there is acceptance

that D is not relevant in this particular case.

Thank you.

Now you have said, I think, through your proof of evidence

and also your colleague witnesses on your side

over the last week or so, would it be fair to say

you place considerable weight on the specific attributes of the location of

your client's proposal yes that's right yes that's correct yes I mean I think

it's been described as a unique location and I would agree with that because of

its location on the river next to Battersea Bridge at the Gateway into the

the borough and on a national road route. Yes, and just to sort of remind you and go

through, you have cited some of them there. It's also a Brownfield site and of course

we heard yesterday quite a lot about paragraph 125C of the framework. That's also a locational

quality which you think adds to the case for your client's proposal?

And it's also, I think you said, it's part, or has been said, maybe it was Mr. Barbelov,

but you might endorse this as well or embrace it, that it's part of a complex of high buildings

at that location.

It's yes, it's I mean the

spatial sort of dimension of the area is

Experienced by a mixture of mid -rise and low -rise buildings with tall buildings

Visible within the surroundings

well, yes tall buildings within the

Definition that's given by the ones with local plan. Yes, so that the Albion Wharf building and for example, yeah

Well, let's say for example, I'll be in Riverside. Yes. Yeah, and it's also close to the river of course

Yes, and as you say it's close to the bridge which is once with

One might say one to have gateway and provides opportunity

as you see it for a landmark a

landmark scheme

Yes, there is a an opportunity for this

building because of its location to act as a marker and a gateway into the

borough and to mark the river and the bridge and we've heard quite a lot

haven't we over the last week about the the reference in the local plan

inspectors report to opportunities for tall buildings being in extraordinary

locations or extraordinary circumstances I'd need to double -cheque the precise

wording but is that accord with what you understand was said yes the the but

you're referring to the inspectors report into the local plan and in

particular LP for and that such opportunities that for tall buildings

outside tall buildings, so this should be extraordinary, not ordinary, I think is the

reference you're referring to.

Thank you.

If you turn to policy D9C, would it be fair to say actually that policy D9C doesn't actually

require any sort of extraordinary location at all, does it?

Well, those words aren't used.

I mean, I think, of course, you need to put into context

that that was an inspector's report into the local plan,

and that was their view on,

and their reasoning in relation to how tall buildings

could be accepted outside tall building zones,

but clearly it's not the development plan.

I mean, part C has a whole range of sort of recruitment

criteria, but many of them talk about

locational requirements, including if you look at Part B,

spatial hierarchy, for example,

reinforcing spatial hierarchy, local and wider context,

aiding legibility and wayfinding,

as well as architectural quality, et cetera.

Yeah, they're implicitly geographic,

if I can use that term,

but they're not explicitly saying that any location

for tall building has to be in an extraordinary location.

Now they don't use those terms,

but I would say that the criteria in part C

is very extensive and covers, as I say,

a whole range of matters, visual, functional,

and sort of, you know, emphasis on high architectural

design quality, and they use the word exemplary.

They use the word exemplary for, in part C,

architectural quality of material should be

of exemplary standards, is that what you're referring to?

Yes.

Yep, okay.

But again, that's not a locational criterion, is it?

No, it's not a locational criteria, but I think, you know, as I say, you have to sort

of take a slight step back and the words of the inspectors, you know, you can read them,

but this is the development plan against which proposals will need to be assessed.

I suppose what I'm trying to put to you, Mr. Marjanson, is, and you might think, of course,

to use the expression that was used yesterday by Mr. Harris, that this is one for you rather

than one for us, but you could come to the conclusion, looking at these criteria, that

actually they're quite broad and they're quite crude and that you could build a tall building

in many places in Wandsworth and meet these D9 Part C criteria. No, I wouldn't agree with

that. I mean, this is an extensive set of criteria that has to be considered for the

acceptability of a tall building outside or inside a tall building. So this is very detailed

criteria which is you know has been applied on numerous tall buildings within London and

as well as this policy D9 obviously there is a similar policy which is replicated in

the local plan under LP4 with very similar criteria I mean I would say the criteria is

extensive and is thorough.

Well, sorry, we'll come on to the local plan policy

in a minute, but if you were to,

you've, as a Chantertown planner,

have you ever been engaged in sort of sieve analysis

producing maps to try and identify almost

by process of elimination a site that might be suitable

for a particular type of development,

like let's say mobile phone mass for example or in this case a tall building I

Haven't been involved in that process, which I think the process you're describing is more like a local plan type process

I yeah, I do get clearly involved in looking at numerous sites across London

to consider whether they are

appropriate for tall for tall buildings or any other form of building and

and informing that judgement,

I go back, obviously, to the criteria under policy D9

and whatever the criteria is under the respective

local planning, informing that judgement.

Okay, but you recognise what I say in terms of

what a SIV analysis is, you understand that,

or you've come across it, or?

I haven't now.

Oh, right, okay.

I suppose, you know, some of these criteria,

the criteria, for example, on list of buildings would be,

there's the one that I'm referring to, which is,

I beg your pardon, you'll know better than me, which is D, I think.

So, D9C, subsection D.

So proposals should take account of or avoid harm to significance of London's heritage assets.

Now I appreciate that at the risk of going over old ground, the planning application was not refused for reasons of heritage.

So that's common ground, is that understood?

Yes, that's common ground, yes, with the council, yes.

But nevertheless, your site you could interpret as being in many ways one of the last sites that you would want to go to

because it's, in some respects,

very close to a heritage,

designated heritage asset, isn't it?

Yes, the site is located next to Battersea Bridge,

grade two listed.

In London, it's not unusual

to have, to either be within a heritage asset,

like a conservation area,

or to be close to a heritage asset,

because that is the nature of London.

I mean, there are so many listed buildings

and so many conservation areas.

So I wouldn't agree that this is the sort of last place

that you would look.

And that the impact on heritage assets

has to be considered, which the appellant has done

and obviously takes the view that in this case,

there is a benefit as a consequence

and to the significance of their heritage asset,

the Batsy Bridge.

Okay, and I take your point that across London

there are many designated heritage assets

with a list of buildings of whatever status

and conservation areas, so appreciate that.

Again, that might come back to the SIV analysis point

about how far you are away from these things.

But I take that point.

What I would say to you is that in many ways

is the policy in D9C is actually quite crude.

Well, no, I wouldn't agree with that.

I mean, I think many people would say

that the policy is too detailed.

And perhaps could be simplified,

but I would certainly not agree that it's crude.

I think it's extensive and is a full set of criteria

which is rigorously applied to schemes for tall buildings in London.

Okay, let's move on to the Wandsworth local plan.

So I think again it would be common ground between us that Wandsworth obviously has a

duty to produce a local plan and the purpose of that local plan is to give effect to the

general principles laid down in the London Plan, would that be a fair comment?

It is the local plan that's there to set that next layer of detail in relation to local

issues, and it has to be in general conformity with the policies in the London Plan.

Thank you. In general conformity, that stated, for example, that's obviously from the Greater

London Authority Act of 1999.

I must confess, I don't know the section number,

so I do apologise.

But it is restated in paragraph 1 .8 of the local plan,

the sort of preambles section, the introductory section,

where it says what the local plan is about,

why it was drawn up, and what it's required to do.

And as you say, the term general conformity,

in inverted commas, is the appropriate test,

is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

But it's then for, just as a matter really,

as sort of almost political ideology

and democratic principles,

then for the London Borough of Wandsworth to interpret

the London Plan in the way that it thinks appropriate,

having regard to the needs of people within its area

and its political alignments or its sets of priorities.

Would that be fair?

Yes, I mean it's that the local borough has an ability to set the priorities and

objectives from a planning perspective for its borough all the time,

ensuring that those policies and objectives are in general conformity

with the London Plan and other material considerations like the MPPF.

Yes, of course, the MPPF, which of course is also, albeit the timings of these things

aren't always synchronised and in line, the Greater London Plan should also reflect the

MPPF, but I take your point that it could be situations where there could be a new MPPF

after the production of the London Plan and that may have to inform the content of the

subsequent local plan. But let me put this to you, and as I say, it's difficult to find

new things to say at this inquiry after five or six days,

but would I be correct in saying that what the

Wandworth local plan has done is it's taken actually,

it's adopted a more nuanced and finer grained approach

to tall buildings than is advocated or required

by the London plan.

Might it be said that the London plan sets a floor

but it doesn't set a ceiling.

and what the London plan does under part d9 B is to require local planning

authorities to identify the locations for tall buildings and their heights and

so the extra layer of policy that you're referring to would you know that is

required to come through the local plan and that is what the London Borough of

Wandsworth has done in order to ensure that it is in general conformity with

policy D9 of the London Plan. I don't think it's the approach that Wandsworth

have taken under their policy LP4 is particularly unusual, say four I would

say that it is unusual in my experience for mid -rise zones to be identified.

Well, I was going to ask you about that. That was one of my next questions. But so let's

again just establish it probably doesn't need restating but maybe for the benefit to people

watching online and in the audience here. The Wandsworth local plan identifies or defines

tall buildings and then it also defines mid -rise buildings.

And that's the mid -rise part is not defined

within the London plan.

There's no reference to mid -rise that I can see

in the tall buildings. No, that's correct.

So that is, Wandsworth have determined

that that is an approach that they wish to take.

So that's what I said earlier on

when I said it was a finer grained

or a more nuanced approach to this issue of tall buildings

and is then is adopted by the London plan,

which I said to you perhaps is a slightly cruder approach.

Well, what I would say is that the local plan

has identified tall buildings as required

under policy D9B of the London plan.

It's then taken the opportunity,

because that is what Wandsworth wanted to do,

is to identify mid -rise buildings.

as well, mid -rise zones.

But that doesn't have a relationship with D9.

That is its own approach by Wandsworth.

So it adopts, well I've got written my margin here,

it has an approach of A or B or C,

whereas the London Plan has A or B.

And that's a sort of rough and ready interpretation.

but is that a fair characterization of the one to a local plan approach?

I'm not sure what you mean by A or B.

Well, where A corresponds to tall buildings, B corresponds to mid -rise buildings, and C

corresponds effectively by elimination to lower the mid -rise buildings.

I'm not sure there's any definition for lower than mid -rise buildings in...

Well, by process elimination, if a mid -rise building is up to four storeys, mid -rise building

is five to six. Is that correct? I think that's stated at paragraph 13. Sorry, 14 .3 .4 of the

local plan. Sorry, I should have taken you to that. Paragraph 14 .3 .4. So, is it the supporting

justification or the reason justification for the policy.

It's not part of the policy itself, although there is a useful little sort of

diagram of what a tall building and a mid -rise is.

So all I'm simply saying is I don't think this is very controversial to say that a building

below a mid -rise we might conveniently call a low -rise.

Yes, I mean, I can accept that.

There isn't a definition of low -rise under policy LP4,

it just simply deals with tall -rise, tall buildings, sorry,

and mid -rise.

Okay.

Where I'm going with this, and you might ask,

and no doubt Mr. Harris might wonder,

and so might the inspector,

but Wandsworth is entitled to take this more

nuanced approach, isn't it?

Yes.

And why, if I can ask you, why do you think,

as a town planner, why do you think it has taken

this more nuanced approach to this issue

of mid -rise and tall buildings?

I mean, I think that does,

I mean, I don't know why Wandsworth have taken this approach.

Obviously, it was found to be sound.

they clearly wanted to define different types of heights of buildings across the

borough perhaps reflecting the the character the distinct characteristics

of the borough. Oh, is that right? As they, sorry? That's right, as it's reflecting the

distinct characteristics of the borough. That's the reason why they have done that, I presume, but I

I didn't write the local plan, so I don't know.

Okay.

So is it fair to say that it's quite possible

that their policy is a reflection of the output

of the urban design study,

which we talked about quite a lot

at this public inquiry,

which was a 2021 Arab study.

Policy LP4 is, yes, is a reflection

of the urban design study that was carried out, yes.

And is it fair to say that they are,

the study identified the particular sensitivities

of the riverside area, the urban character in that area.

It did identify sensitivities, yes.

And in relation to this site,

it talks about the West Lake Conservation Area,

the river views.

Okay, moving on, or moving back to the wording

of the local plan and policy LP4C.

So, this sentence that we have talked again about earlier in the inquiry, and just to

remind you, the Council will seek to restrict proposals for tall buildings outside the identified

tall building zone. So, you're familiar with that?

Yes. So, my question here is, what do you think

the words to restrict, do they add anything to the policy,

or are they merely sort of a description

of almost a statement of intent?

Well, they were deliberately put in there, as you know,

as an amendment following inspectors' comments

where the original wording was, will not be permitted,

and the change in the wording was, will seek to restrict.

and my interpretation of that is that that was done,

well we know that was done, in order to conform

with policy D9 of the London Plan.

That was the removal, sorry, I didn't mean to cut across,

but just for clarity, what was done for the conformity

of the London Plan?

Are you saying it was the inclusion of the word restrict

or are you saying it was the removal of the expression

to prohibit?

it was it was both because will not be permitted was seen as not to be in

conformity with policy d9 of the London plan yeah the words will seek to

restrict provided the flexibility which policy d9 allows for in in that it is

not a gateway as we've discussed at length of this inquiry so that is why it

was put in there because it allows the opportunity

for tall buildings to come forward outside tall building

zones where they meet criteria within D9 LP4

and obviously other policies within the development plan.

But if that wording were not in there,

if that sentence were not in there that LP4C,

the council will seek to restrict. Would the LP4 policy in substance be any different?

Yes, it would. That wording was put in by the inspectors to ensure it was in conformity

with the London Plan Policy D9. If it wasn't in there, then there are questions as to whether

it would be in conformity.

But I mean, the simple fact is that it is in there.

It is part of the development plan.

And that is how these proposals will have to be assessed.

So you agree then that it does add

an additional layer of restriction or protection?

Yeah, an additional level of restriction or protection.

Which, does it add a further qualification

to the application of D9C.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that,

a further qualification.

I'm not sure it is a further qualification.

It is simply, the wording is very carefully chosen

by the inspectors to ensure that it allows for, as I said,

the opportunity for tall buildings to come forward, subject to other policies within

the development plan, including LP4 and D9. Okay. Okay. Just moving on to this issue that

was discussed yesterday by Ms. Chambers about this issue of whether your client's proposal

is in conformity with D9 or only the wholly or partially in conformity. And it was Ms.

Chambers' view, I think I'm correct in saying that your proposal was partially in conformity

with policy D9, and it's your view that it's wholly, in conformity taken as a whole. Is

that a fair characterization or representation of what you said?

Ms. Chambers uses the words partial compliance.

That's right. My view is that if you comply with the criteria for in D9C and in part LP4B,

then it is capable and the judgement is capable of making a judgement that the proposed development

complies as a whole with policies within our people and denial.

Okay, and I think Mr Harris in cross -examination said it was logically impossible to be, to

require a proposal to be, if a tall building proposal was outside of a designated tall

building zone, then taking the approach, I think, and I don't want to misrepresent what

Mr Harris said, but taking the policy D9 as a whole, it would be impossible logically

for a building outside of a tall building zone to comply with policy D9C and comply

with policy D9B, because they're mutually exclusive. Is that fair? If it's outside of

a tall building zone.

I think the point Mr. Harris was making,

and I can speak for himself if needed,

but I think that the point he was making was that

there would potentially never be a circumstance

where you could comply with policy D9 or LP4

if you were tall building outside the tall building zone

because effectively you were almost treating

the policy as a gateway.

Okay, but it is possible,

for, again, hopefully this is quite uncontroversial, it is possible for a proposal within a tall

building zone both to be compliant with D9B and D9C. Is that fair?

Yes. Okay. So, to that extent, it is not illogical

to talk about a proposal being compliant with all aspects of Policy D9, because there's

policy D9a which about the definition and D9d which is access. Yes, if you were a tall

building in a tall building zone. That's what that was the criteria that was a hypothetical

example. Yes. For a tall building in a tall building zone meeting the definitional criteria

and what a tall building is, it is possible for it to meet the requirements of D9A, D9B,

D9C and D9D. Yes. Okay. All right. So to that excerpt, one can talk about a proposal being

wholly in compliance with D9 or in compliance with all elements of D9. Yes, you could say

that a tall building and it's all building zone is compliant with all aspects of D9.

But just because you're not compliant with one element of a policy doesn't mean that

you're not able to form a judgement that when read as a whole you are compliant with the

policy. I understand. All right, Mr. Margerson, thank you for your answers on that. Can we

on because I am aware I don't want to trespass too much on inquiry time. Can I just quickly

move on to the issue of the planning balance, if you don't mind? And again, it's hopefully

a straightforward question. My understanding is that you have agreed that Wandsworth has

met its five -year housing land requirement. Yes, that's correct. And I think you said

you agree that it meets its delivery test,

housing delivery test.

2023, that is correct, yes.

And therefore I think it's common ground

amongst the parties that the tilted balance

is not triggered or invoked.

Yes, that's correct, okay.

So if we strip out the issue of housing land supply then

as an issue at this inquiry,

and we say it's not a material consideration,

then is it fair to say that we are left with,

and this isn't an exhaustive list,

so I don't want to be shot down here,

but we're left with issues of heritage.

Well, sorry, I'm going to have to.

Which of course did not form part of the reason for refusal.

So, you know, sorry, I'm going to have to

kind of intervene there because it's not correct to simply put aside housing as a

material consideration in relation to this appeal proposal simply because the

council is meeting its five -year housing land supply that is not a reason

suddenly to place no weight or consider the delivery of housing at a time when

there is a housing crisis and what is material to consider at this appeal is

what is happening in the London housing market at the moment what is happening

in terms of the delivery of housing in London, which we have seen is in severe and dramatic

decline. All of this evidence is in my proof, which you will have seen. I mean, you will

have seen at table 5 .1 how London is performing in terms of the completion of housing. And

for the last four or five years.

It has substantially failed to meet its housing need

in relation to the targets in the London plan.

The borough itself on its own projections,

not mine, its own projections in the AMR

show that it will not over the next three, four years

meet its own annual housing targets.

it certainly will go nowhere near meeting

the requirement for social rented housing,

which is very, very significant.

I mean, almost up to sort of 17 ,000 units

if you discount any migration that may take place.

So it isn't right to suddenly dismiss

the housing delivery on this site

as not being material or carrying weight simply because the council are meeting

its five -year housing land supply. All London boroughs including Wandsworth have

a role to play in meeting the housing crisis that exists in London at the

moment. Yes, and look I was here yesterday and I heard Mr Harris's questions to Miss

and he put it to her that did she accept that London was a single housing market area and

she did and did she therefore, and again I've got to be careful I don't misrepresent what

he, Mr Harris asked, but I think he then said if you accept that premise or that proposition

then do you accept that Wandsworth has not only a responsibility to provide its housing

for itself, but also a sort of collective responsibility,

which I think is a point you're making,

that there is a broader issue of housing shortage

across London, and therefore your position is that

if a borough, merely for a borough to just meet

its own requirements, that's not necessarily enough.

It should also, it also has wider responsibilities.

Is that fair, is that what you're saying?

Yes, that's the point I'm making,

but it goes a little further than that,

which is just because the council is meaning

it's five -year housing and land supply

does not mean that there is not a pressing need

for housing in the borough itself.

And that is clear that there is,

and it should not reduce the weight

to housing delivery in the borough.

But of course, I don't want to dwell too much on this,

but if you pursued that policy to its logical extension,

that could almost provide an opt -out for boroughs

like Bromley and Croydon who say,

well, just let Wandworth do it.

That's why there's a London plan,

and that's why the targets for housing in London

are set by the London plan.

Except and that they are and they are targets. They are not caps. Sure

and of course

Each borough in London will go through if you like peaks and troughs of delivery

Where some boroughs will be able to provide more housing than others

but London operates as a single housing market and

the point of that is

to iron out those peaks and troughs that happen between boroughs and the London

plan is very clear that where there are brownfield windfall sites then those

opportunities should be taken to deliver housing okay all right and and and those

those points are fair points to make and obviously you know our view on this side

is that we say it's essentially for Wandsworth to discharge its responsibilities and it's

not required to go over and above that and we say that it's met its responsibilities

but there's a difference there and that's absolutely fine.

If I can move on, heritage as you say is not, your side's view is essentially that the application

was not refused for heritage reasons and although there have been heritage impacts they are

than offset by public benefits, is that a fair?

Yes, that is a fair characterization.

It's a position that we have,

which is the public benefits of the scheme

demonstrably outweigh the harm

that the appellant has identified,

and it's the council's position as well,

and they identify actually more levels of harm

to heritage assets than the appellant does.

It's just those awkward rule six people who take it take a different view from the doctor job

And so I appreciate that but then that takes us to townscape and that that is an area obviously where I get on our side

We say that there are

fundamental impacts

But your view is that those those issues have also

They don't exist either or they're not

impediments to granting permission

Yes, that's correct. We we don't find

uh harm to townscape, um

but

Obviously the real six parties take a different and I didn't mention social housing and I know that mr

Harris will probably put it to you in re -examination that

Uh, aren't there other housing issues, which mr. Walden failed to mention so

I I don't want to gloss over that the the social housing

element is acknowledged, although again there have been discussions about the

deliverability of the social housing, the cost of the land and whether it's

almost inevitable or quite likely that there might be, or possible, that

there might be a section 73 application in the event of planning permission

were granted shortly thereafter for a sort of relaxation or

or dilution of the social housing requirement?

Well, my simple answer to that is that

that is not the scheme in front of the inspector.

And it is not and cannot be a material consideration

as part of this appeal.

The appellant is fully committed to delivering this scheme.

the design of the scheme has been purposely done in order to deliver the 50 % requirement.

It is integral to the design of the scheme in the way that the separation of cores works,

the lobbies, etc. So there is no intention on the part of the developer to come back

and to seek a reduction. And as I say, it forms no part of this appeal.

And I know and I accept that mr. Marginson that you

Know I can stand fairly accused of essentially of engaging in hypotheticals or what -ifs and speculation

But is it fair to say that building costs are?

Rising quite rapidly in London and in the UK as a whole is that is that fair comment

Yes, I mean there has been pressure on building costs. I mean that is that is well known and

And that would exercise downward pressure on the opportunity or the possibility of delivering

the level of affordable housing, social housing that your client is anticipating or is part

of the scheme.

Well, that has been, the building costs have been considered by the appellant.

As you would expect, they run their own commercial appraisals on schemes and they are of the

that this scheme is deliverable.

And it's deliverable because of the unique circumstances

of this site being on the river,

the views that that affords to the private market units

and the high levels of private sales values,

which can be generated,

which will be some of the highest in London.

And it's for that reason, and in this particular case,

on this particular sign that 50 % affordable housing can be supported.

Okay, I mean just very briefly, again, without engaging in semantics too much, you say the

unique attributes.

There are many housing schemes, aren't there, that overlook the river.

There are not many opportunities in such close proximity to central London where you can

deliver a building of this scale.

Because if you look up the river, even within Wandsworth,

the majority of those opportunities

have gone or are going to be developed.

There are very few opportunities,

and I can't think of any as I sit here,

that are similar to this one.

Okay. Just very quickly moving on, I want to try and draw this to a close. You mentioned

at paragraph 5 .3 of your evidence. I'm talking here about PTAIL, which as you'll know is

the Passenger Transport Accessibility Level, I think, and the score that's been accorded

to this particular site.

So it's paragraph 5 .3 of your own proof of evidence.

And I think, of course, accessibility

is a requirement in policy D9, isn't it?

It's come back to our old friend D9C2D, which says,

I hope it does.

I forgot the wrong one.

Yeah, it must be demonstrated to pass through the area and this transport network is capable of accommodating quantum and development

Etc. Yes

And public transport for people living or working

in the building and

Again, I'm just directed by

My colleagues here in the rule six party

You say that it's it's a good location in terms of public transport. Yes. Okay

My understanding is it's 12 minutes by bus

to Clapham Junction from the site.

Would you accept that?

Yeah, I think I outlined the accessibility of the site

in my proof of paragraph 2 .5.

2 .5, okay.

Where I set out the closest stations to the site

And the walking distances as well as the various bus routes that are available

I'm told it's a 29 minute walk to a tube station from the site

Is that is that your understanding well

Sorry that that may be correct. But so I'm not quite sure what tube station that is, but that's not what's in my proof

I've I've looked at Imperial wharf station, which is an 18 minute walk

That's north of the river, isn't it?

Yes.

Not that that's an issue, but I'm just...

You can go north of the river, it's okay.

I didn't make that comment in the sense of it's unacceptable to go north of the river,

I just meant, I was just clarifying, I don't know London as well as you do, I'm sure.

And then Clapham Junction, a 25 -minute walk, but obviously the site is highly accessible

by busses as well with various connexions across London,

including night busses, sits on the Thames Path,

which is obviously a prime cycle and pedestrian route.

Okay.

Just quickly going on to design.

Now I appreciate that you say in your proof of evidence

that you rely in large part upon the evidence

given by Mr. Barbelov and Mr. Milia.

Correct.

Dr. Milia, a big opinion.

Yes.

But nonetheless, in terms of policy,

and you're a planning policy person,

if you look at D9 C1 A Roman numerals two,

it talks about the need for a scheme or a development

to make a positive contribution to mid -range views.

And I've put here in my notes,

mid -range views, would that include Battersea Park?

Yes, that would be a mid -range view.

And at the moment we have, and I appreciate that

you're not an urban design expert,

but I would also point out, you know,

you're a member of the Planning Institute.

At the moment from Battersea Park,

I think it's common consent from the pictures and the images shown in dr. Miele's

evidence and

that at the moment there is no tall building evident from Battersea Park and

In the event that your scheme were permitted you would see the top of the tall building is that is that fair above the tree line?

You would see the building yes

Obviously that's from one particular view and I think there was quite a lot of discussion

and around how you actually come to form a judgement on any tall building that is

visible whether that is more from one view or an experience but of course

visibility doesn't equal harm just because you can see something it doesn't

mean that it's harmful and indeed it may mean that there is a positive well that's

That's a point I was going to go on to.

We're almost into, I'm sure Mr. Harris and Mr. Edwards from the Inspector will remember

these days, but we're almost into Steinberg tests, you might remember that, as to conservation

areas, etc., you know, preserve or enhance.

And we have here, this is essentially an enhancement requirement, isn't it, in the policy?

This has a positive contribution.

So it's not enough simply to be neutral.

it's requiring that the impact of the scheme

must possibly contribute to the...

That's what the policy says, yes,

it should make a positive contribution.

But obviously, you, you know,

informing those judgements, as Mr. Mealy said,

you need to be careful about

focusing on one particular view,

and it's very much about experience.

But I'm not a townscape expert,

and Mr. Mealy has commented extensively on this

and within his evidence.

Okay, but would you accept that there are probably

several mid -range views where you will see

the tower in the future where at the moment you wouldn't?

Yes.

Okay, all right.

I think I dealt with that.

Just very quickly, this is something that's been brought to my attention again by one

of the local residents. I think Mr. Barmlov in his evidence let slip or maybe misspoke,

but I think off the cuff comment he suggested that in future it might be that Thames Walk

itself is is not down and redeveloped and I was in a room at the time that did

I do remember something being said to that effect I can't recall that I have

no evidence to suggest that will be the case as far as I'm aware it's a fully

occupied building with private tenants so there's there's no no evidence that I

that that would happen.

In fact, it's more likely I would suggest

that it will remain as it is.

Okay, if that were to happen, I suppose the issue is,

could that be part of the so -called wall effect

or the canyon effect?

I think that's pure speculation.

I mean, there's no evidence before this inquiry

that Thames Walk is going to be redeveloped in the future.

Okay, what's not speculation?

Sorry, big pun.

In whatever form that may be, or could be.

What's not speculation is Mr. Harris, I think,

on day one or day two in cross -examination,

one of the witnesses, I think it was,

Mr., sorry, the witness.

Mr. Healy.

I do I do apologise

Said that there had been no proposals for tall buildings in and I've forgotten the name of the estate

but the low -rise estate to the west of

Bassey Britain's war

Morgan's wolf and I'm obliged. Thank you very much. Is that is that is that your recollection?

Yes, and I think that was

in cross -examination that that that would point was made just to

who suggested actually concerns about Canyon

or the wall effect of paths being exaggerated,

there were fears when really there was no ground

for those fears.

Again, Mr. Harris will no doubt correct my thought.

I can't recall that exact conversation.

I remember a conversation around Morgan's wall

and the prospects for it being there.

Very briefly, and I think it's my last question to you.

Would you accept or are you aware, is it possible,

that that lack of development in that Morgan's Wharf area

is a result of what I am led to understand

is the sterilisation of land by a future crossrail?

I've no understanding of that.

I mean, I don't know.

Okay, you're not aware of crossrail?

Well, I know of crossrail,

but I have not looked at the crossrail 2.

I presume you're talking about.

Yeah, crossrail 2, not.

I have not looked at the crossrail 2 plan,

so I couldn't comment on that.

Okay.

Can I just take 30 seconds, Madam, just to.

Thank you, Mr. Marjanson.

and that concludes my cross -examination.

And I apologise to parties

if I went on longer than expected.

Thank you, Mr Walton.

Do any interested parties objecting to the proposal

have any questions?

Could you please come down?

Thank you.

They can sit in that one.

It's fine.

Do you want to come down and sit in this seat here just so that everybody can hear you on

the microphone?

Thank you.

Hi.

just very quick questions. The first one is, uh,

there's been a lot of emphasis on the housing crisis, which we all understand.

I just wondered what kind of percentage do you think, um,

of the one's worth constituents and maybe even London will be buying your ultra

luxury apartments?

I don't know the answer to that. Um,

they will be on the market, um, available in the market.

available to Wandsworth tenants.

As you may not know, but there is no requirement

in planning policy to sell to residents

within the borough alone.

I know, but we're talking in the context of,

you were saying that there's a housing crisis

and Wandsworth Council must look at the housing as a whole,

but actually it is fairly clear

that these ultra -eluxa apartments

will not be available to local residents

if you know the age group and the income

of the Wandsworth Council Borough.

Well, as I say, it's not a planning requirement

to deliver housing other than, of course,

the 50 % affordable housing that is being delivered,

which will be available solely to residents

within Wandsworth, which is a significant benefit,

substantial benefit of the scheme.

So under that, because it's not a council planning regulation, then you obviously wouldn't

take into account that the site would add value to those ultra -luxury apartments in

a sale price.

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

So obviously also the site gives you an underlying value, additional value, to those ultra -luxury

apartments that will be facing onto the river and over the Chelsea Heritage area.

Well, I've already said in evidence that the apartments will command, you know,

some of the highest values. I accept that. But that is a factor of the location and

enables the development to deliver the 50 % affordable housing which is meeting

local housing needs in the borough.

OK, thank you, ma 'am, that was all.

Thank you very much.

Any further questions for Mr. Marginson?

Mr Harris, would you like to re -examine Mr. Marginson?

Thank you very much, ma 'am.

You'll need immediately to hand CD 502,

which is the local plan,

and the London plan which is CD501.

I have both those to hand.

And the first heading is housing

and the weight to be given to housing and affordable housing.

I think I got it right when Mr. Walton said,

well, the view that we take

is that Wandsworth has met its duty

and housing need and meeting housing needs,

not even a material consideration.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

And you said, I've got to stop you there.

And you explained why it was a material consideration.

I'd just like to explore with you just a little further

this concept that Wandsworth has met its duty and that's it.

Can we pick up the London plan first, please?

And can we go to policy H1?

Yes. And we see that policy H1 is the policy that

sets the 10 -year targets for each borough. Yes.

And this chimes with something that my learned friend also suggested to you yesterday. If

look at 411, we see there the identification of an additional need for 666, the figures

are astounding, 66 ,000 additional homes per year. That's the need as defined through the

And then my learned friend properly yesterday, Mr. Walton, no doubt had this in mind as well,

identified that as the need, but then pointed out that in London, because of the shortage

of space and land for housing, the actual targets that Mr. Walton says are met are defined

by reference to physical capacity.

Yes.

Right.

Look at 417.

That tells us, well, let's do it a little more clearer than that.

411 identifies need, 66 ,000.

412 identifies London as a single housing market.

417 tells us that the housing targets

are based on the capacity.

And 418 tells us that the capacity identified

is 40 ,000 new homes.

Yes, so 26 ,000 short of the need,

year on year on year.

Yes, no.

When you look at that, meeting your capacity needs,

as identified in table 4 .1,

is that the same as meeting the housing needs

across London as a whole?

No, it's not.

And I recall when the London plan

was going through examination,

obviously housing was a hot topic of debate.

and there was recognition and that's why it's,

in the London plan as it is, that actually,

the London plan even adopted then was not capable

of meeting or allocating all the large sites

to meet its housing needs.

And that is why the figures are in here

and that is why there is such an emphasis

on making the most of any opportunity

on a brownfield site and a windfall site

to deliver housing in London

because it needs to go beyond the targets that are set out.

If you don't know the answer to this question, please say,

but in terms of how the examiners of the London plan

looked at that meeting of objectively assessed

need for housing, can you remember what it was

that they said they were going to do

in relation to this plan,

having regard to that big gap annually between capacity identified by the plan

and the actually objectively assessed need. Can you remember? It doesn't really

match if you can't because I can deal with it by reference to the public documentation.

I can't remember. I think they talked about a regular review but I can't remember.

That's exactly right. They only found it sound on the basis that there was need for an

urgent review. Yes. Now let's see how that translates please into Wandsworth.

We'll come to it wider later.

So we need to go to SDS one,

picking up on Mr. Walton's point that

Wandsworth has done its bit.

SDS one page 34.

Yes.

Now what that does is it identifies

that London plan figure.

Yes.

And you see it says this,

within the period 2023,

the local plan will provide for a minimum of 20 ,311 new homes. The five -year land supply

is based on that minimum. Why do you think it says minimum?

It's deliberate, isn't it, because of the housing need that has been identified in the

London Plan as we just saw. It's not a cap on delivery because it recognises that you

need to make efforts to go beyond that to meet London's housing needs.

So if you meet your five -year housing land supply, which is five times 2311 or thereabouts,

the figures are all slightly different, but we know the order, does that mean that there's

no more requirement on you to optimise sites to meet housing need?

No, it doesn't.

And then we see how the local authority deal with it in terms of SDS 1B is specifically

on a capacity -based position, not a needs -based position.

Is that correct?

Correct, yes.

Thank you very much.

Now that's just within Wandsworth.

Taking the wider position of absence of delivery

in very many local authority areas,

how does that in principle affect the already existing gap

between need and capacity year on year,

which is identified in the 2021 London plan?

Well, what we're seeing is the gap growing effectively.

I mean, we're seeing a dramatic slowdown

in actual delivery and the need not being met

as was identified in the London plan,

but the need just quite frankly getting more significant.

and we're expecting to see the new London plan set even higher targets for delivery

of housing because of this, well, the lack of supply at the moment, because the need

is just growing and growing.

Thank you. Now, we know that if you are able to demonstrate a five -year land supply based

on previous completions, etc., and fall above a target in the HDT, then that means that

the tilted balance doesn't come into play.

Correct.

The fact that the tilted balance doesn't come into play, does that mean that you give any

less weight to the meeting of a need if a proposal is capable of meeting that need?

No, because you have to look at, as we just have, the housing needs of London and the

borough, and there is a critical need to deliver housing in London and the borough at the moment.

So just because you meet your five -year housing land supply, or the HDT, doesn't mean that

you should reduce the weight to housing delivery. Absolutely not.

And well, let's just talk about the HDT for a minute. In terms of the HDT, does that

necessarily reflect what government is identifying as a significant delivery crisis bearing in mind

the years to which that HDT figure would be directed?

Now, so the, I mean, the HDT is always quite a way behind actual things are happening.

I mean, the last one is 2023. We haven't had the most recent one. I'm aware that the, I

think over a few years, they made an allowance for what they called the COVID years to reflect

the fact that obviously there was a huge downturn in the market and therefore

there was you know there was exceptional circumstances why boroughs couldn't

deliver housing that won't apply in the next HDT so we are expecting for a lot

of boroughs in London that they will actually be failing the housing delivery

test now. So this is just reinforcing the fact that across London housing delivery is

in decline. I think the new HDT will show that.

Thank you. And it's in the statement of common ground that if and when the HDT, which usually

comes out in January, but now we're in March, if and when it comes out, it's a material

consideration for the inspector and there may or may not need to be the submissions

made in relation to that. All right, thank you very much for that. That's the end of housing.

Well, maybe not. In those circumstances, how would you invite the inspector to treat the

assignation of only moderate weight to the housing provision and the affordable housing provision

as part of housing as opposed to affordable housing

in the circumstances of this case as moderate.

But I don't agree with that for the reasons I've said

and I don't see any, I haven't seen any strong reasons

as to why you would not give substantial weight

to housing delivery on this site.

Thank you, thank you.

That's the end of that issue.

Next you were asked by Mr. Walton about the changes made

to the development plan as a major modification required to ensure soundness by the planning

inspector? He said it came in two parts. Let's take those parts. The inspectors removed

were required to be refused. Is that removal, in your judgement, meant to be

a meaningful removal and if so why?

Yes, it was a meaningful removal and it was done because there was not, well, as drafted,

the policy was not in general conformity with the London Plan because it would not allow

the delivery of tall buildings outside tall building zones. Effectively, it was going

to act as a gateway policy for which would be inconsistent with D9 and the Masturbruer

case.

They identified that as a major modification.

Do you agree?

Thank you.

They replaced it with the council,

and this is a general policy.

So generally the council will seek to resist.

That was the way in which the inspectorate amended

the will be refused to seek to resist.

how is any such resistance to be tested?

It's to be tested under the criteria

under LP4 and D9C.

That's how you test that.

Thank you very much.

And is that consistent or inconsistent

with the court's identification

of the operation of policy D9

in the case that we've been looking at?

Consistent.

Good, thank you very much.

That's the end of that issue.

But a similar issue raised by Mr. Walton, similar.

He characterises in the following way.

He said if you are a tall building

outside the tall building zone,

then that triggers, is the way he puts it,

as a result of the major modification,

the requirement to consider the application pursuant to D9C

D9C and D, except everybody agrees that D9D is not relevant in the circumstances of this

case.

Correct.

Now, I just want to explore that with you, please.

I want to look at the weight to be given to D9B where a proposal is incapable of complying

with D9B because it is outside a tall building zone as defined by a development plan and

in the particular circumstances of this development plan.

The weight to be given to the inability to comply with D9B3 because you're not in the

tall building zone, there'll be many factors which go to the weight, but is one of them

the acceptance in the circumstances of this case of the need for more flexibility in the

policy as identified by the inspectors in this case having regard to these tall building

zones.

Yes.

Why?

Because that is how the policy operates.

D9B is not the gateway.

you have to look at the policy and read the policy as a whole.

And D9C is an integral part of that policy.

Thank you.

In terms of the anticipation of the panel, the PINS panel,

help me with this, please.

Were they anticipating that the mere fact

that a building was not in the tall building zones

that they had identified

should by itself drive a refusal in its own right

without consideration of the balance of D9, C and LT4?

No.

Thank you for that.

And can we pick up LT4 please?

Because Mr. Walton took the point with you

that LT4 was somehow more nuanced or a different approach.

LP4, yes.

Sorry, what did I say?

LP4, yeah, thank you.

So that's in CD 5 .2.

The inspector's probably got it open already.

It's on internal page 294.

I just want to just see whether it is, in fact,

more nuanced or a different approach.

We've got the identification of mid -rise.

If you like, Mr. Walton can have that because that's different.

But can we look at LP4B, please?

Yes.

I don't want to read it all out, but I'm very happy if anybody wants me to do that.

I'm going to concentrate on the last sentence.

Having identified how proposals for tall buildings in tall building zones,

in the first sentence, it then says this.

planning applications for tall buildings will be assessed against the criteria set out in part C and D of the London Plan Policy D9 and those set out below as follows.

So, dealing with the first part of that sentence, planning applications, is that just planning applications in tall building zones or is it all planning applications for tall buildings?

All planning applications for tall buildings.

And in so far as then that requires those to be assessed against the criteria set out

in part C and D, is that the case whether they're in tall building zones or out tall

building zones or what?

Inside and outside tall building zones.

And is that any different from London Plan Policy D9?

No, it's consistent.

And then and those set out below as follows.

Let's just look at spatial hierarchy, which is the reason for refusal in this case, or

identified as part of that.

We've got visual impact one through to six, spatial hierarchy seven, the massing of any

proposed tall building.

Again, consistent or inconsistent with D9 and what the court said about that?

It's consistent.

Thank you.

And then we've got the tests proportionate

to the local environment,

and not having an overbearing impact

they're addressed by other witnesses.

They're addressed by other witnesses.

So in terms of the, if you like, the main moving parts

for the inspectors determination of this case,

is there in fact any substantial difference

between D9 as identified by the courts and how it should operate and LP4 in the circumstances

of tall buildings outside of tall building zones? No, there is no difference. They are consistent.

Thank you very much. That's all I ask. Thank you very much, Bob.

Thank you, Mr Harris, and thank you, Mr Marginson. We're now at 11 .22. We're supposed to be going

on to the roundtable on conditions next. I have had, whilst we've been sitting, an email

through from the Environment Agency with an amended reworked condition. And I did ask

my case officers to send that on to the parties. Has that reached the parties? I'm getting

nods from the appellant.

Yes it has, thank you.

And I did ask the council to provide paper copies. Would you be able to distribute them

please to everybody. It's a fairly short document from the Environment Agency, but how long

do the parties think they will need to break to consider that for before starting the conditions

session?

Ms Foster is going to do the roundtable on our behalf along with other team members.

because she has had an opportunity to read it while I've been doing the other part of

the inquiry. So we don't need any specific time.

We don't need any specific time. I think we're in a position to deal with it. So we're happy

to go with any suggestion that you make in terms of breaks.

Okay, how's the council fixed?

Yeah, that's absolutely fine. You'll appreciate, given it came through whilst we were sitting,

I was trying to concentrate on sitting rather than reading, so I do need to read it.

Can I just cheque before we do take a break, and we will have a reasonable length break,

Who will be representing each party for conditions, just thinking about how we're going to work?

So for the appellant it's going to be Miss Foster.

Certainly.

Thank you, ma 'am.

It'll be myself, Mr. Marginson and Mr. Green from DP9 and Ms. Herbert as well,

instructing Solicitor.

So provisionally four from the Appellant's team. Thank you. And for the Council?

My conditions, it'll be Ms. Chambers and Mr. Grainger and I'll keep in if I need to.

Okay, and for the Rule 6?

Madam, it will be Mr Philip White, W -H -Y -T -E, sitting behind me. I will not be involved.

Okay. And thank you for the spelling on white. Is it a 1L or a 2L, Philip?

Spelling. The first name. Just the one L. Cool. Okay, thank you. Got it. I know people

hate being misnamed on things. Okay. So, and is anybody else, any interested parties proposing

to participate in the roundtable discussion on conditions.

No? Okay, so we've got one, two, three, four, eight, plus me.

Okay, cosy. Right, but I think if we use the table, that's probably best.

Okay, so we're now at 11 .26.

Shall we come back at 11 .45?

The inquiry is adjourned until 11 .45 and we will reconvene at the main table.

Thank you.

Okay, I know we're quite close to one another, but we're using the microphones for the purposes

of everybody who's watching on live streaming or on video. So the time is 11 .45 and the

inquiry is resumed. So we've moved on to a round table on conditions. Hopefully everybody's

had sight of the conditions and this is the, I think the second full version that the appellant

circulated. They've been on the council's website for some time now. And we've also

got the additional condition which is the paperwork ID 26 which was handed around just

before the break. Thank you Mr Verringer. Which is the new amended condition from the

Environment Agency. So just before we make a start on discussing conditions and how I

do it is we literally go through one by one. Thankfully they are generally in order in

terms of pre -commencement and so on. But just like to provide a reminder in terms of what

the framework says about conditions. So they should be kept to a minimum and only imposed

where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted. They

need to be enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. And the framework also

goes on to say that agreeing conditions early is beneficial to all parties involved in the

process and can speed up decision making and conditions that are required to be discharged

before development commences should be avoided unless there is a clear justification for

them to be pre -commencement. Now, nothing that the council or the Rule

6 party says in this, in terms of discussing an actual condition, changes what I know of

their case. This is your opportunity to discuss conditions and I would rather you take it

and discuss the condition constructively rather than just saying don't like it, okay? Because

I have been there in inquiries before where people have just said, well, I'm not willing

to discuss it. It doesn't help me. Okay. So, moving on from that, if we start with condition

So, we've got the, this is the time limit condition, which states that the development

should be begun within three years from the date of the permission. Any comments on that

condition at all? No.

No? Okay. And can everybody hear us fine up there, by the way? Okay, thank you. And then

we've got Condition 2 which is that the balance shall be in accordance with the proposed plans.

Now a list of plans has been provided and I have been through them and checked the numbers

against CD 128 and 129, the existing plans and the proposed plans. There are no landscaping

plans in it, but I assume that's because you're going to be dealing with a landscaping condition

in due course. Yes, that's correct.

Okay. So, other than that, any further plans that need to be considered? Ms. Chambers.

I was just going to raise the issue. I noticed that there were some revised plans in the

Statement of Common Ground with the Environment Agency and whether those changed any of the

plans that were on the CD, particularly the one that showed the distance of the development

from the River War.

They were plans for information with the Environment Agency, not plans for approval.

Thank you. Okay, anything further on Condition 2?

Okay, so Condition 3 is requiring a phasing plan, so that's prior to the commencement of development and including demolition.

requires it to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

and then to be implemented in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.

Anything on that condition?

Not from us.

No?

Okay.

Condition 4 is details of site levels prior to commencement.

So that's requiring full details of existing and proposed site levels to be submitted to

approved in writing by the LPA and then the development needs to be carried out in accordance

with those details. I don't have anything on that. Do any of the parties?

No.

So at the time of this particular document being issued, there was a Condition 5 that

was just a header, Flood War Survey, details to be agreed with the appellant and the EA

following statement of common ground would now be a good time to discuss what is ID26.

What we've had from the Environment Agency this morning, and I'll read it out for everybody's

benefit. In the roundtable on flood risk that took place on way, way back when, day one,

Tuesday last week, they had set out in the Statement of Common Ground in the areas of

disagreement three draught conditions. Now what the Environment Agency has suggested is a

condition which reads, prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit

a detailed assessment of the adjacent tidal Thames flood defences to the local planning

authority to be approved in writing, in consultation with the Environment Agency. The assessment

must include, but not be limited to, and then it goes into bullet points.

First bullet point, an intrusive survey of the flood defence structure including any

buried elements to determine its precise location in relation to the proposed development.

Bullet two, an assessment of the current residual life of the tidal Thames flood defence structures

prior to development. Bullet 3, an assessment of that, the proposed development does not

impact the structural integrity of the flood defence structure or its residual life.

Final bullet point, an assessment that the development does not preclude any foreseeable

future maintenance and upgrade works which may be required for the flood defence structure.

Obviously, the Environment Agency aren't here today. They were advised as to when the condition

session would be and they're aware of that because I asked them to submit this information

by no later than 10 o 'clock today. They're not in attendance. But can I get any views

from the parties on this particular draught condition if I can start with the appellant?

Ma 'am, obviously, we're wary of the introduction you made to this condition session, but it's

not helpful for us to say we just don't like the condition. But I would just reiterate

for the same reasons as discussed at the EA roundtable, the appellant's view is that these

conditions aren't necessary, relevant to the particular development to be permitted and

and not reasonable for the same reasons.

This condition essentially amalgamates

the three conditions we discussed previously into one.

And so I won't repeat the points that we made on Tuesday,

but those points still stand.

But nevertheless, were you to think that this condition

is something that would be necessary or reasonable,

then we would be happy to accept it.

Yes, the only thing I was going to add to that was when we say we would accept it,

I think we would want to discuss the wording with you as written here,

because I'm not quite sure the language is quite right, precise enough.

Okay, so, bearing in mind we have to work to all eventualities really.

It's possible that I might dismiss the appeal and I'm not even going there with this condition.

It's possible that I might allow the appeal without imposing this condition.

It's possible I might allow the appeal and impose a version of this condition.

So if you do have any concerns about wording, absolutely please do state them here.

Okay, I mean without I suppose sort of removing parts of the condition.

We do have, I have some concerns about the wording.

I think the first is where it says prior to commencement of construction.

I think that should be development which is consistent with other conditions that we will

be going through.

I have, where it says the assessment must not include but not be limited to,

I don't think that's precise enough.

And I think those words, but not be limited to should be removed.

I think there's a general comment around when it says an assessment.

and I think we would like a feasibility assessment

given that we are not the owners of the wall,

the riparian owners of the wall.

And this probably goes to a point that you may bomb

in the round table that whilst we can do,

could do some of these assessment work,

kind of what happens to it in a way,

because we can't without agreement

of the owner of the wall actually carry out

any works to the wall should there be any requirement

to do so.

So that is my sort of word comments, I suppose.

I suppose I should make another general comment,

which is I do have concerns about

in practise how this condition would operate because my experience is that

and particularly given the discussions we've had with the EA to date that given

the generality of some of these requirements and if you go for example

to bullet point four which is an assessment that the development does not

preclude any foreseeable future maintenance upgrade works.

I could see us getting entrenched

in quite a long discussion with the AI on that point.

And I have genuine concerns around

how this could delay delivery of the scheme

should it be granted planning permission.

And how that, you know, if we end up in a back and forth,

how that actually gets resolved.

in an expedient way which doesn't prevent delaying construction.

Does the council have anything it wants to add?

I think, I mean, it's mainly, you know, it's a very intrinsic point for the appellant,

but I don't think they particularly listened very well on Tuesday in terms of when we get

these four surveys what they actually what happens to the next and whether they become

implementable and then obviously enforceable bias. So that's a point as well. And I think

you know, not going over on ground, but certainly your bullet point for the seek to sort of

like re examine the degree of setback again. So, which the council didn't have an issue

as discussed within the office report at the time. So yeah, I feel that that's going to

be very difficult aspects of the condition to work through.

Thank you. Mr White. Thank you, yes good morning. Effectively this has done quite a

lot more to strengthen the position of Thames Walk apartments, which I'm very

pleased about. I would however want to try and ensure that they or their

representatives have an opportunity to consider

the implications of this in the event of

works needing to be done, but not only that,

an indemnity against all costs that likely to arise

in respect of the work that may be required

because they are the freehold owners of the wall itself

and they have no effective voice in terms of conditioning how their interest would be provided for.

I'm very pleased, however, that these four bullet points, as far as Ten Spork and the Rule 6 people are concerned,

have been provided, and I think it's a really good step forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr White. The appellant would like to speak further.

Just to cover the quick points. Firstly, just the reference to what the flood defence is.

It's quite vague in the sense that I'm assuming they mean the immediate vicinity,

just to the north of the site, because it's been accepted in the statement of the Common Ground.

It's a strategic flood defence which serves only one element of a wider purpose.

And then secondly, I don't think the condition actually achieves what the Rule 6 party was

potentially thinking it does in the sense that it's very much where we were at the roundtable.

It's effectively saying you can do some surveys on the wall and you could assess that it's

residual life, but there's no requirement for the app, the appallant or the developer

of the site to actually do anything about the current condition of the site.

And that's actually already covered elsewhere.

So the suggestion of indemnity and all those suggestions, that doesn't follow and the EA

has accepted that there's no expectation and policy doesn't require the appellants or the

developer of this site to effectively remediate an asset that's ailing and the development

is not actually touching the flood defence.

So from the appellant's side, there's a question that the reason for this condition in the

sense that if we were touching the flood defence that might be a different issue in the sense

that we need to show that we're not making anything worse, but we're not actually touching

it. And so the FRAP procedure already is a regime that's available to effectively show

that the construction impacts can't do anything to make things worse. So to the extent that

there needs to be anything that's done, that will already be covered from the FRAP process.

And then just as Jonathan mentioned, the reference to any foreseeable future maintenance, that's

just so wide. Realistically, it's already been accepted that the developer isn't to

be raising the flood defence and isn't to be maintaining the wall. To the extent that

there is a ... Arguably, there's a feasibility could show one option for accessing the flood

defence, but any future ... That's just a can of worms. You just don't quite see what

we're trying to achieve with that, because there's an acceptance already that the development

is improving means of access. Well, it's at least not making any worse. I think the

EA accept that the surface level is getting improved, but they didn't quite go as far

as to say they think it's an improvement, but I think everyone else accepts the development

is improving the surface area. So in our minds, it's only making access a little bit easier

to achieve. So then what's this feasibility assessment? How is that going to take it any

further. Thank you. Anything further? Mr. White?

Could I come back? Thank you. The building itself will be piled to something like 120

odd metres. That will inevitably cause an enormous amount of disruption subsurface,

including the disposition of water and water tables,

all of those sort of things,

which have and will have an immediate effect

on immediately surrounding infrastructure,

and the wall is the most important part of that.

And so if all of a sudden you've got 120 metres

of piles going down,

there will inevitably be a disruption caused

to the immediate infrastructure, which needs to be accounted for, in my view,

in respect to the opportunity that's provided.

Thank you.

Did the appellant want to respond any further?

Just to say that that's the FRAP procedure we'd be covering now.

Was there anything further on this particular condition or shall we move on? Okay, thank

you. And thank you for taking the opportunity to look at that this morning at fairly short

notice. Okay, so the next condition is Condition 6, which is a deconstruction and construction

environmental management plan. And this is also prior to commencement of development.

any comments on this particular condition?

No?

Mr. White.

Yes, I have, in fact, and this is something

that really hasn't been considered properly at the inquiry,

why the river has not been used or investigation further

in respect to the removal of soil

and the existing structure

and the provision of the delivery of materials

for the construction of the new.

Thames Tideway have used the river extensively

during the course of their construction

of the Thames Tideway Tunnel perfectly satisfactorily

and it seems absolutely extraordinary

that this was dismissed with a,

I think it was in the HITV report,

in respect of, apparently the opponents

have spoken with Wolfingers, or the wolf people,

and they have said that the site is too close to the bridge,

and therefore is of no use, or would not be used.

I find this extraordinary, because the experience of the,

amongst others, Thames Tideway,

who've completed the construction

of the most extraordinarily advanced system,

used the river for the delivery

and taking away of the materials extensively

during the five or six years

that they were using the river.

So I'm very disappointed

that there hasn't been a further detailed investigation

as to why the river cannot be used.

Would the opponent like to respond? Yes, I understand that there was some discussions

with the Port of London Authority, I think the PLA who you're referring to, who are the

owners and managers of the river, and that there was concerns expressed around the proximity

of the bridge. I have some of my own experience actually in this in a scheme at Albert Wharf

where the boats, due to an accident

and the collision with the bridge,

no longer are able to moor.

So I think there is an issue here.

It isn't a condition that has been requested by the PLA.

Their request was that there should be a condition

in relation to life -saving equipment.

They did make the comment, appreciate,

around the ability to move materials via the river, but our view is that it isn't a feasible

or safe option.

Anything further on this condition? Mr White?

The PLA's evidence was never made clear in the evidence that you put forward. There's

is available that the PLA made these comments.

No, I appreciate that.

That was a conversation as I understand it,

so you're absolutely right,

there is no correspondence on that.

I suppose, Marm, I'd say that if you considered

this better condition was necessary,

then that's from the appellant's point of view.

While we don't think it is,

Yeah, we we can understand why you would may want to impose such condition and there is some standard conditions

on lots of schemes in London

which require

the assessments

in conjunction with the PLA around

the transport of

materials by the river I

Was going to add that mom that I have seen the use of conditions elsewhere

which includes a requirement to consider the feasibility of using the river for the transport

of construction material and waste. And I think that that could be added to the condition

in this case.

And would the council be able to provide me with a standard?

I can consult with Mr Grainger on that outside, but I believe it has been used here. It certainly

If you could provide it to me that would be helpful. Anything further on this condition

as it stands now? No? Okay. Condition 7 is the dust management plan. So this is requiring

a dust management plan based on an air quality and dust risk assessment to be provided prior

to the commencement and development and it needs to be submitted to and approved in writing

by the LPA. It relates to an SPG that's been produced by the Mayor and I assume that the

last sentence of the condition, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the

dust management plan. I assume that's the approved dust management plan. So that would

my suggested change. Is there anything else on the dust management plan condition? No.

Okay. About 10 % of the way through. Okay.

Right. Construction Environmental Management Biodiversity Plan. This is Condition 8. So

This is again a pre -commencement condition and this is requiring measures to maintain

retained and adjacent habitats, construction lighting plan, measures to avoid animal entrapment

or harm and to deal with invasive non -native species. Anything on the wording of this particular

condition? No. Okay. Contaminated land site investigation and remediation method statement.

So this is a pre -commencement condition. I think I said prior to the inquiry that whilst

I didn't have a problem with the principle of it, it was a horribly worded condition.

I stand by that. But that often happens with contamination and highways conditions. They're

respect. So we've got prior to the commencement of the development, preliminary risk assessment

to be submitted to and approved, a site investigation and then that's submitted to and approved,

remediation method statement then is the third point to make the site suitable for its intended

use. So apart from a little bit of tightening up to actually make it read better, has anybody

you got any issues with that particular condition? Pretty standard.

No. Okay. Condition 10, air quality peak monitoring,

so that's particulate matter, prior to commencement of each phase. So this requires during each

of the four construction sub -phases of the proposed development, so that's demolition,

earthworks, construction and track -out.

PM10 continuous monitoring shall be carried out

and then prior to commencement of demolition,

monitoring parameters to be monitored,

duration, location and monitoring techniques

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

Anything particular on that condition from any of the parties?

I just wondered what track -out was.

I haven't seen that expression before.

Does it mean fit at?

Can the Council help on that one?

I think it's a fair point Mr. Marchison makes.

I've always read this as exiting vehicles,

but yeah, that's what I've always read it as.

Sorry, we just had a look what track out means.

What is the wonder of Google told us?

Well, it refers to the mud, dirt, rocks and debris

transported from a construction site into public roads.

Okay, we've got... Sorry, I didn't know what that meant.

I hadn't seen that expression before.

So it's usually the kind of thing that gets covered by wheel washing

in construction management conditions

to ensure you don't have what looks like a farm track through the centre of London.

Okay. We're fine with this condition.

Okay. Anything from the council on this condition? No. Mr White? No.

Okay. Condition 11 is written scheme of investigation prior to commencement of

development. This is dealing with archaeology and as with some of the other conditions it's

fairly standard. It's looking at a programme and methodology of site investigation and

recording, nomination of a competent person, details of a programme for delivering positive

public benefits if it's appropriate, and post -investigation assessment and subsequent analysis and so

on anything like that one. Nope. The Environment Agency condition made me think about archaeology

conditions because you have that, oh we've got all this work, we've pulled all this information

together and then where do we put it? Where does it live? What do we do with it? I understand

And it's now an issue for lots of archives across the country.

Condition 12, radar mitigation condition. So this reads, no development, excluding demolition,

can take place until a radar mitigation scheme has been submitted to the LPA and agreed to

ensure that the proposed development will have no impact on the H10 radar at Heathrow.

So I would assume that needs to say submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

And does this then normally involve consultation with Heathrow?

Yes, we worked together, we held a session going through this

and we got some very useful information on the background of this

and yes, we have no technical ability ourselves to manage that

so yes, we would have to ask them for their opinion

and apparently it's a relatively short process. It sounds complicated but it's actually...

It's easier than it sounds.

Okay. Anything else on that particular condition? Mr. White?

Just very briefly, it seems astonishing that there's no mention of the Battersea heliport.

And I know this has been a bit of a moving target because it seems to me with the heliport

no more than about 500 metres away,

particularly with the building of this impact

on the immediately local environment.

And I'm very surprised, to be honest,

that the Heliport operators didn't respond

to the significant danger that this may cause

to their operations.

Did the council or the opponent want to comment on that?

Thank you, ma 'am.

I have a lot of experience with the London heliports

and you on your site visits,

you would have seen a white 28 storey tower

that sort of like rotates on its way up.

That was an issue for the London heliports at the time,

because the way that the London heliport approaches

is its landing jetty, which is in the Thames.

It actually goes downstream and it turns,

it turns around backwards at Cremorne rail bridge

and then taxi, you know, flies in

and then lands at the heliport.

So it doesn't, that is the standard procedure.

When that tall building was being proposed,

there was a lot of backwards and forwards in aviation terms

about a new obstruction being there

and the pilot having to do,

Effectively, pilots shouldn't have to do any additional flying over and above what they need to do.

So a new obstacle that could create a wind situation had to be assessed,

and that was done in for a lot of time.

But it was all revolved around that obstacle, and this is obviously, it's over a kilometre away,

so it's not an issue.

Okay, thank you.

I'd just draw your attention to condition 55,

which is in relation to aeronautical lighting. I'm sure we'll come on to this

condition but you can see there that there is a requirement to submit details

of aeronautical lighting and in consultation with London Heliport

amongst others.

Thank you. Anything further on this condition?

Condition 13 is the crane strategy.

This is prior to commencement other than demolition.

Crane strategy shall be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA.

This is one where it requires consultation with Heathrow,

National Air Traffic Services and the Civil Aviation Authority.

So London Heliport or not in this instance? Or is it satisfactorily covered by NATS and

CAA?

Again, it's a very localised system that the London Heliport uses, so this is appropriate

in terms of the involvement.

Okay, and just into, so the strategy that's required, requires details of cranes and other

tall construction equipment including the obstacle lighting. Then you've got details

of compliance with an advice note on cranes and it then says the approved strategy or

any variation approved in writing by the LPA shall be implemented for the duration of the

construction period and then it goes on to say,

construction equipment on the site and adjoining land

does not breach the aerodrome safeguarding surfaces

associated to Heathrow and endanger aircraft movements

and safe operation of the aerodrome.

What is that sentence trying to do?

It's difficult, but I think it relates to obviously

the locality of Heathrow Airport and I just,

I'm not really sure that it's necessary in this regard.

I'd agree, I think it's just a statement really of fact

which isn't required for the purposes of the condition.

I think it could be removed.

Because presumably if the strategy needed to include

all the details of tall things

that are going to get in planes way potentially,

and going to potentially change their approach to Heathrow.

And you've already had to comply with the note, which presumably sets all,

I have looked at it, but it's been a little while,

that sets out the minimum requirements anyway.

And then that strategy needs to be looked at by the LPA

and they will be strongly advised in their consultation process by NATS, CAA and the

airport. I don't think there's any point because the whole purpose is to maintain the safe

operation of any aerodrome. So that whole section just needs to go. It's part of the

reasoning rather than anything else.

Okay, anything further on crane strategies? No? Okay. Number 14, piling method statement.

So this is prior to the commencement of any piling and this requires a piling method statement

to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA and this is in consultation with

Thames Water. Details the depth and type of piling and the methodology by which it will

carried out and that includes measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage

to subsurface sewerage infrastructure and it also includes the programme for works and

then requires it to be carried out consistent with that approved statement.

Anything further on piling? Obviously Mr White's already mentioned it in respect of the flood

wall. Condition 15, details of materials. This is prior to above -ground works, excluding

demolition. This is details and samples of materials to be used on all external surfaces.

Any comments on this? Those details will then be carried out as approved.

Sorry, just looking at this again, I just wonder whether there needs to be more precision

about the samples of materials, because that's quite broad. And typically with these conditions

we would see samples, for example, of the terracotta or brick or the fenestration or

glazing because otherwise, you know, where does it kind of stop in terms of the samples?

I don't know whether the council got any comment on that.

What's the council's usual approach on this?

We keep it broad for non -desert, well, if it was a listed building or anything like

that we would go into a much greater level of detail. But I think that, I mean, we could,

the materials palette at the time that we've been aware of is not complicated. So we think

that we don't necessarily need to drill down so far.

I'm happy with that.

Right, condition 16, details of specific items

prior to above ground works.

So this is requesting detailed drawings

at a minimum scale of one to 20

or other scale as to be agreed.

and that's details of window reveals, window frames, entrance doors, door frames,

junctions between changes in material and any other fenestration detailing and then

be constructed in accordance with those approved drawings. Anything on this one?

No.

No? Okay.

Condition 17, sound insulation, external noise prior to above ground works.

So this is a scheme to insulate the developments against externally generated noise.

Sorry, such as that.

And so it requires various measures, guideline values in accordance with British standards.

Is the last, so the part of the condition that goes from any works which form part of

the scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the dwellings

are occupied, shall thereafter be retained as approved. Internal noise levels should

be achieved with windows open for rapid ventilation purposes. Where this cannot be achieved alternative

means of ventilation and cooling will be required. Where whole house ventilation is provided

then acoustic does go on a bit. Is all of this necessary in that last part of the condition?

I think it's obviously trying to deal with any situations that arise from any of the

the BS standards that have been identified. So this is, colleagues in environmental health

have used this on numerous occasions. Whether that's a positive thing, I don't know.

Yeah, my next sentence is, does that mean it's good?

Yes.

Does it mean it's, you know, it meets all the tests? Do you want to take it away and

think about it.

Anything further on that condition?

Condition 18, sound insulation.

So internal between commercial and resi prior to above ground works.

So this is a scheme for sound insulation of separating partitions.

Any comments on this condition?

I think there might be an unnecessary at in the second to the last sentence.

The sentence that starts the scheme will reduce.

after commercial unit.

Okay,

then we've got condition 19 which is sound insulation internal between

amenity spacers

and RESI and this is prior to above ground works.

We've got the same problem with the AT

and just wanted to cheque.

So it's very repetitive

of the previous condition 18.

So in the second to last sentence of condition 19,

it refers to the scheme will reduce the transmission of noise

from the use of the commercial unit

and the proposed residential unit.

So is that relevant to this condition?

Or is it the amenity spaces and the residential?

I believe so because they're in slightly different locations.

So one's definitely trying to make a distinction between the commercial residential and then

the amenity spaces and the residential.

Yeah.

Okay, so that second to last sentence of 19 should read,

the scheme will reduce the transmission of noise from the amenity spaces,

use of the amenity spaces and the proposed residential units etc.

Anything else on 19? No. Moving on to condition 20, details of cycle

parking. This is down as prior to above ground works but I know that the appellant had a

as to whether it should be prior to first occupation, as for car parking details.

So we were going to discuss triggers today.

So has that position changed at all?

Not from our point of view.

We think that given this is sort of internal details,

the trigger could be later in the process than prior to above -ground works,

because it will be later in the process that the supplier, if you like, of the cycle parking would be.

That design would develop with the supplier rather than at that point in time when we're just about to go above ground.

And what's the council's view? Is this something they would normally do?

We have to take it on a case -by -case basis because there's there's a loss of this cycle parking so

for the affordable we've got

104 spaces in the private sale at 99 and it's mixed between two tier

Racks and Sheffield and then large Sheffield racks

So I think the spaces are accounted for physically within the areas located, but the I mean as mr

and said, you know, they will develop it, but it's this, the three different types of stands

and the quantum of this, of the parking cycle park, it really does need to be thought about

for it to succeed. So we just thought that the trigger that we suggested would work.

Okay. This is something for me to take away and think about. Okay. Thank you. I understand where

both coming from. Water use. This is Condition 21 and it requires details to be submitted

to and approved in writing by the LPA to demonstrate that the development will achieve a maximum

water use of 105 litres per person per day plus 5 litres for outside use. I think my

only issue with this is the water efficiency calculator having been

archived so is it more suitable to refer to something else such as building

regulations? Yes I think I think that's right. I mean I always have a query about

these conditions because they seem to just replicate building regulations

which were you know that is a requirement and that's what will have

to be met. So I kind of always question the necessity for this type of condition on a

planning permission. I presume it's a standard condition that the council impose.

I don't wish to put words in the council's mouth, but certainly when I worked for an

LPA, there was an issue of you've got certain levels of water stress varying across the

country. You've got certain things that are adopted in local plans and therefore you end

up using some conditions to, for example, to show requirements for M42 and M43 for accessibility,

but you also end up doing it for water to say, we are in an area of water stress, let's

deal with it. We'll go for the extra level that's set out in local plan policy rather

than just going for the standard. I think that's probably the rationale behind it here,

But...

Thank you for your help.

Yes, I agree.

We do use this approach a lot.

We've never really had to discuss the approach much, but it seems to be appropriate.

Yeah, okay.

But things do get disappeared and archived, I find, on the National Archives.

So it's something that I do cheque every time I've got conditions,

whether the British Standard has been updated on something

or whether the regulations have changed and so on.

So it's just worth updating that.

Okay, BRIAM condition 22.

This is requiring information to be shown that an excellent rating can be achieved.

This is sustainability standards.

Any comments on this one?

Well, it's predicted, I mean, this is obviously, this percentile figure is taken from a study

and a report, so we do, what's promised, we do seek to capture in the condition.

Can I suggest we just add the words at least then? Just so there's a bit of, you know,

that's the benchmark and...

A bit of leeway. Would a little bit of flexibility to say at least 70 .55 %?

That's acceptable. Yeah, okay.

Right.

Okay, condition 23,

home mark quality interim assessment.

So, any comments on this one?

No? Okay.

24, mechanical ventilation comfort cooling.

Any comments on this one? No. Landscaping details. So this is condition 25. It sets out a fair amount

of detail on what should be required for landscaping. It includes hard landscaping,

various access movement and circulation areas, materials, lighting column design and soft

landscaping and various things about functional services.

Anything on this one?

No.

Ms. Chang.

I noticed that there's nothing there referenced to boundary treatment there, which would be

normal in a landscaping condition.

I'm thinking in particular the boundary treatment on the roof terrace because I don't think

that's covered in another condition.

It's the appellant's view on that.

Yeah, I was just looking through the other conditions to see where there was anything.

I had looked through earlier, I couldn't see one, but...

Are you talking about the roof terrace?

Yes, yeah.

Because I'm assuming this landscaping conditions covers all areas except for the play space

facilities. So it would cover the roof terrace as well.

Yeah, I don't object to that.

Okay, so if that condition.

Now, can I just before we go on any consultation with the temps path manager, because clearly

a lot of the landscaping between the river wall and the building will involve the temps

part

that's under the session 278 agreement, not under this condition because this just relates

for the red line area of the application boundary.

Thank you.

So that will be dealt with Mr White, but just under a different regime.

Nothing else on Condition 25?

Condition 26, Landscape and Ecological Enhancement and Management Plan Prior to Above Ground Works.

So this requires provision of a plan with various measures for biodiversity gain, including

but not limited to, and then goes through a range of things.

It sets out at part D a proposed construction lighting plan including lux spill diagrams

to ensure that any lighting will be of a specification that minimises its impact on bats, on -site

habitats and the adjacent River Thames and tidal tributaries. There's some coverage of

lighting in what is currently bullet point F of condition 25 and then we've got this

as part D of condition 26, are they both necessary?

Miss Chambers?

I was just going to say, I think this is very specific to the management plan.

It's a normal element of the ecological management plan

and I think it should be retained there.

Okay, anything further?

No, you're in agreement.

Okay. And then condition 27 is significant BNG, so that's biodiversity net gain. And

it says prior to commencement of above -ground works, excluding demolition, details of all

significant biodiversity net gain shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

LPA. Details shall include, etc. What is significant in this context?

I don't know. I mean, there's a sort of set way of doing BNG. It's quite strict,

so I'm not quite sure. Via the metrics, yeah.

Yes. But what's the local plan say about biodiversity net gain, if anything? And then,

you know, what would significant look like over and above x percent, y percent?

I'd have to have a good look through our BNG policy. I don't know when that...

Yeah, I'd have to look at that again.

I'm just looking at the definition. I think significant VNG refers to the requirement

for developers to achieve a minimum of 10 % biodiversity gain. So I think it's a standard

definition, rather than specific to the local plan. So it's a 10 % biodiversity gain.

I think it's automatically included anyway by the statute. I don't think that's necessary

for you to oppose that.

A very small, simple question. Will this actually appear on the ground here, or is there any

way that the

Appellant could make a contribution to an overall scheme

Physically will any BNG?

appear on -site

The BNG statute requires you to deliver it on -site you can't deliver it off -site to meet your

10 % requirement so it has to be within the red line

Well, that's good because of course the trees that have been identified surrounding the

side, the trees are going to be removed from the river walk area. The trees that are on

the east side of the approach road off at the back are not within the red line. And

so I can't, forgive me, but I can't honestly see how a 10 % net gain can be provided within

the red line. Thank you, I've just looked at the officer

report and it has been calculated that a score of 39 .24 % would be achieved in terms of BNG

uplift so that's across the piece there of the existing site as you well know.

The parcel of land is completely occupied by the building existing building, but, but

Yeah, we've identified that there is a BNG uplift, so this would capture that.

Yeah, so Mr White, you start from a baseline with biodiversity net gain

and the baseline here is extremely low because of the coverage

and the size of the redline site, so hence the percentage.

Anything further on that condition or shall we move on to condition 28?

Habitat management and monitoring plan. Anything on that condition?

No? Okay.

29, Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery. This requires a strategy to be submitted to

and approved in writing by the LPA in order to mitigate air pollution. It includes details

and air intake locations for the ventilation system.

I think, do I recall correctly that the appellant wanted this to be prior to occupation rather

than prior to commencement of above ground works?

I don't think so.

Okay.

Originally, but then we discussed it with the council and we're fine with it.

Okay, so things have moved on so that's fine. Mr. White.

Could I just be very awkward and say all very well for intakes but where are the exhaust

areas? Are they, it says quite specifically air intake locations. Where is the exhaust

going?

Would the opponent like to respond on that?

Getting slightly beyond my knowledge here, I have to say I presume there is an exhaust.

Now I understand the point.

I mean, we could put exhaust in as well.

I don't think there's any issue with that from our point of view.

Yeah, that's fine.

Thank you.

I think because we know that all the windows there, they're all trickle -vented as well.

I think there's more of a natural dissipation as opposed to an exhaust.

But that's not... You know, that's how I read it.

Condition 30, details of wind mitigation measures prior to above -ground works.

So this goes back to what we were discussing

in the middle of last week.

Anything on that?

I'd add a two after submitted, but apart from that.

Condition 31, Digital Connectivity Infrastructure Strategy.

This requires detailed plans demonstrating the provision of sufficient ducting space

for full fibre connectivity infrastructure within the development.

and then it gets carried out and retained.

Anything on this one?

No.

Okay.

External noise control, external plant.

So condition 32, noise control scheme,

and it requires that scheme to be submitted

and then various measurements are given.

Anything on that one?

No.

External plant and ventilation equipment plant.

A bit obsessed with plans.

Condition 33.

So this is any external plant and ventilation equipment

except air source heat pumps to be submitted to

and approved in writing by the LPA

and then it needs to be installed.

Anything on that one?

No? Okay.

So condition 34 is details of photovoltaic cells and this is prior to occupation, so

it requires details of the appearance, location, orientation, total area and predicted carbon

saving from the photovoltaic panels.

Is this trigger of prior to occupation the norm for the council?

Again, it depends as to the degree, the scope and nature of the amount of PV that is going

to be potentially positioned on any scheme in order to deal with sustainability matters.

We do know that because the shoulder building is dedicated solely to play space, there is

quite a limited and there's very high up locations for this.

So I think, prior to occupation, I think is okay.

In this instance.

Anything further on that one?

No.

No, okay.

And then 35 details of air source heat pumps.

Anything on this condition?

No.

No, external lighting.

So this is prior to installation

of all permanent external lighting on the building.

details should be submitted to the LPA and then it goes on to explain what all those

details should be and requires it to follow best practise. I'd suggest the approved lighting,

it's okay, we've got it in accordance with the approved details, you could just have

the approved lighting should be installed and maintained but it doesn't change it massively.

Anything else on that one? No? Okay. Details of play equipment. Condition 37.

So this requires full details of play equipment including its location, form and materials.

And it requires a maintenance programme for it as well as it to be provided in the end.

Anything further on that one? Mr. Grainger?

I don't know whether it would be appropriate to have details of play equipment and boundary treatment as we talked earlier.

We could modify this condition to include it to make it specific to that location as an idea.

Any views from the appellant?

Um, no. I'm not sure of that.

Okay. Right. Anything further on condition 37?

No. 38, details of the car lift. So this is prior to occupation, how it would operate,

how you would request lift from both inside and outside the building

and it would then be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Anything on this condition?

No.

Okay.

39, car parking management disabled spaces plan.

This is details of the basement car park layout,

allocation and arrangement of disabled parking bays,

management and security measures.

So all of that gets submitted to and approved in writing

and then carried out once approved.

Anything further on that one?

No.

Condition 40, delivering and servicing management plan.

So this requires details of hours of operation,

but also vehicle sweat path for refuse collection. Anything on this particular condition?

No. Okay. Condition 41 carbon reductions. So this requires the development to be built

in accordance with the appellant's energy statement and that's revision three version

2006 from the 26th of February last year and then it sets out minimum, so we've got the

at least in there, minimum reductions in CO2. I just wanted to cheque how this related to

the legal agreement. So are they both, because there's various...

For the offset. Yeah.

Yeah, well we have to set, this is interesting because we have to actually capture just the baseline.

There is scope within the 106 to improve on that, but we also have calculated a sum to be collected now,

and we can talk about, because you know we've had to obviously give a figure as to what the offset is,

but how we deal with that later on can be probably looked at in the obligation, but this sets the basis.

Anything from the appellant on that one? No.

OK. 42, home mark quality post -construction certificate.

So this relates back to one of the earlier conditions about home mark quality.

Anything on this one? No.

OK. 43, whole life carbon assessment post -construction assessment.

So this is prior to occupation, the post -construction tab of the GLA's whole life carbon assessment

template should be completed accurately and then it tells you how and where to find that

and so on.

And then you need to submit that to the GLA and that confirmation needs to go to the council

that it's been submitted prior to occupation because it's the GLA's role fundamentally.

Okay.

Anything on that particular condition?

No.

Condition 44, Circular Economy Post -Completion Report.

Very similar in the sense that it's requiring information to go to the GLA.

Nope.

SUD's management plan, so that's sustainable drainage.

And this requires a public rail landscape and sustainable drainage management plan to be submitted to

and approved in writing by the LPA.

and that should include annual maintenance of any garden space, green roofs and sustainable drainage.

Anything on that particular one.

Condition 46, Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan.

So this is prior to occupation, submission of a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan,

which is then approved in writing by the LPA

That would need to include safe access and egress, who will take responsibility for advising

occupants and updating.

So I assume that's updating the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan and conducting an annual

review of the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan and circulating any updated version produced

plus registering the EA flood line.

So plus registering with the EA flood line or?

Okay, and the plan shall include details of monitoring

and shall be implemented as approved in perpetuity,

apart from when it's updated.

Okay. Anything further on the Flood Warning Evacuation Plan?

Okay. 47, foul water network infrastructure capacity.

So this is requiring prior to occupation, confirmation to be submitted to the council

and approved in consultation with Thames Water to show that either foul water capacity exists

off -site or a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with the LPA

and they've been talking to Thames Water about it or all flower water network upgrades have

been completed which deliver sufficient capacity for the additional flows. That's pretty standard

now with Thames Water. Others? Anything else on that one?

No.

Okay.

There was a condition that seemed to disappear between drafting, which was a positive pumped

device.

Was that just missed out in the second go or was that purposeful?

It was purposeful.

Thank you, Mum.

Yeah, but there's just absolutely no way we could have ever known in terms of enforceability

that such a buried piece of equipment would be included.

Okay, so that's been removed. I just wanted to double cheque.

Okay, moving on to Condition 48, waste storage provision prior to occupation.

So we've got an operational waste and recycling strategy that needs to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

And that needs to include details of arrangement for storage and collection of waste.

and then you need to carry that out prior to first occupation and operate it as such.

Anything further on that one?

No.

Contaminated land, so this is picking up on the earlier remediation issues.

So this is requiring a verification report to be produced on completion of remediation.

That's fine.

Condition 50, air handling. This is a scheme for extraction and treatment of fumes and

odour generated from cooking undertaken within the ground floor commercial kitchen. That

scheme needs to be submitted and approved and then it needs to be installed and operated

in line with those approved details.

Anything on that one?

51, water network infrastructure capacity.

So this says basically that you can't occupy beyond the hundredth dwelling

unless it's been confirmed under condition...

It says 45, but I think that's now 47

condition that foul water capacity exists off site to serve the development. And then

we've got another staged approach of temps water, you need to do this, this, this or

this. So anything on this particular condition? I did ask initially, was it appropriate to

them split? Could it be one condition? Yeah, I think we're fine with this.

Yeah, okay. Anything from the council? No? Okay. 52, secured by design. So this is requiring

secured by design certification being submitted to and approved by the LPA to demonstrate

that the social rent tenure units achieve the silver award of secure by design on completion

in order to mitigate future crime and victimisation. Apart from saying that it's the units that

need to meet that accreditation, anything else on that condition? Nope? Okay. Security

surveillance equipment strategy, 53. This is a strategy that needs to be submitted to

and approved and that's in consultation with the Metropolitan Police and then those details

need to be carried out prior to when occupation.

Okay.

And then fire safety and evacuation strategy, which is

another prior to occupation requirement submitted to and

approved in writing by the LPA.

So this strategy shall include details of who will take responsibility for advising occupants.

Does it include anything else?

So presumably you'd need a strategy that would indicate, say you have disabled occupants,

how are they going to get out?

You know, our particular, given it's a tall building

and you don't tend to use elevators in the case of fire,

you know, how are certain people going to be looked after in that instance?

You know, what's...

Because who's...

This only asks you to take...

for somebody to take responsibility for advising occupants,

it doesn't say what is the strategy for actually saying,

get those people down from the 29th floor safely

as it stands.

And this has become obviously much more sensitive

over the years.

So I think that might need a bit of rewording

just to think about what it actually needs to say and do.

Okay, anything further on the fire safety and evacuation strategy apart from going away

thinking about it. Aeronautical lighting prior to occupation. So this is condition 55.

So this is prior to first occupation details of the lighting scheme for the building to

include architectural lighting and aeronautical lighting. So we've already thought about

biodiversity and the landscaping, but this is the architectural lighting and the aeronautical

lighting and that would need to be done in consultation with the heliport in this instance,

Network Rail and the Port of London Authority.

So how come those organisations instead of the ones we've referred to previously in terms of

aeronautical lighting.

I think this is more targeted at local transport providers and infrastructure.

I think if it was necessary to include Heathrow in there as well, then so be it.

But they seem to be the most immediate potential users and those who would have to see any

additional lighting see we have the construction phase as well that we've

included in there but this is all the permanent lighting at the end of the

occupation

I was just looking at the reason for the condition it talks about in the

interest of the amenity area biodiversity I'm not quite sure about

that operations of the heliport and river traffic I suppose I can understand

the Port of London Authority depending on how the lighting you know if it affects in any way their

navigation. I'm not sure about Network Rail because we're not near a train line. I get it if

we're near a train line but there's not going to be any effect on signalling which I presume is their

concern. Which is why I have a note that says Cremorant Bridge is a kilometre away and Grosvenor

Bridge is 1 .7 kilometres away so I think we could possibly exclude Network Rail. Okay.

And does TfL usually interest itself in things like this or not?

Not in my experience.

Not in the same way. Okay.

So in consultation with London Heliport and the Port of London Authority.

Then we have Condition 56, pre -amposed construction certificate.

So do we need a least? Because this then would then match with the other condition that we've

already discussed. Anything else on that, Breanne one? No? Okay. Condition 57 was crossed

out for quantum of development compliance. What's the latest position with that one?

The parties agreed that that's not necessary or... Mr. Grainger?

I think, well, we did discuss this when we met to go through that. But we generally have

very little resistance in imposing conditions like 57 and 58.

The description of development, to go back to that,

talks about the heights of the buildings

and being part 28 and ground 10, et cetera,

and then goes through some use classes,

but in very general terms like class E

and things like that with no final quantum,

for good planning reasons. We don't put the number of units and the quantum of these floor

areas in the operational part of the description. So capturing this, no more than, is deliberately

being chosen in terms of those words and then the actual floor areas of each uses. It's

quite important to us, we think, that we don't really want to encourage, with both of these

these conditions working together, that we capture the amount of floor area as indicated for reasons.

I mean, in planning terms, obviously all of these uses have been given individual weight

throughout the balancing exercises in the heritage balance and the overall planning balance.

But just to point out, for instance, in terms of the restaurants, if that was to be just a very general EU class,

or if it expanded, whatever,

then there is a natural planning policy implication there

because we, in the land use section of the officer report,

the fact that it was under 200 square metres

meant that it didn't have to be sequentially tested

because we have a threshold of 200 metres

and then it would, anything outside of a town centre use

would require sequential testing, for instance,

and also the office space

Again, I mean, it's been agreed through the assessment that a large quantum of the office

space can be lost, but upon implementation and then occupation of that, that also starts

to be fixed and not only does it gain an element of protection, to expand out of that as well

would require further sequential testing because we do actually have a preference for light

industry in focal points of activity.

So there are policy implications behind that.

And also it's useful for developers to have a condition

to be able to vary as well if and when they do so.

And that leads into condition 58, which obviously seeks to prevent,

you know, uses the fluidity of the youth class.

I think we can keep this pretty simple.

We're prepared to agree to those two conditions.

Okay, so that's both condition 57 and 58. Any comments on the specific wording as drafted?

No. Can I make it clear, is that going back in?

That's going back in. Yeah, so that's both quantum of development and use class restriction.

Not that I'm normally looking to increase the number of conditions, but you know, there

we are.

Okay.

All right, so we're on to 59, which is opening hours.

So this is use of the non -residential units at ground and first floor.

Here by permitted shall not be open for their approved uses as office, restaurant, community

uses other than between the hours of 7am to 12 midnight Monday to Saturday and 7am to

11pm Sundays and public holidays. So that's for living conditions reasons for neighbouring

residents. Anything on that one?

It's an element that hasn't been covered here and it may be appropriate to put it within

this condition or a separate condition, which is the hours of use of the roof terrace, because

that would also have immunity implications for residents in the adjoining residence.

CB Yeah, I've come across this before. I think this is always quite challenging to restrict

hours of operation on private immunity space. Generally, where we end up going is that that

will be controlled by the managers

of the residential building.

I always think it's, for me it just seems

a kind of step too far when you start controlling

private immunity space of actual residents.

I mean that, and actually kind of probably causes issues

with leases as well, but I have had this discussion before,

but generally it's been accepted that it would be controlled

by the residential management team on site.

So I mean, typically a lot of the time,

in the winter, obviously these spaces

are not used that much in the summer

when daylight hours cease, then they close them off.

I certainly have been involved in schemes

where conditions have been applied,

particularly in dense urban areas

where residents are in close proximity.

not to be unreasonable, and clearly there would be a management plan that would be adopted

anyway. But I think it is a consideration that is appropriate in these circumstances,

and I don't think it's covered in any other aspect in the section 106.

So maybe you just want to…

I mean it may be one we can discuss more in the 106 section because there is an Amenity

Area Management Plan which needs to be submitted to the Council for approval. At the moment

it talks about access arrangement in relation to the areas to be made available to the occupiers

of the development. It doesn't specifically say hours of use, but there is, I think that

might be a more appropriate area to deal with it.

It was just a question, because there's obviously, it would be for amenity reasons and protecting

the amenities of neighbours as in the case here. But it is something for discussion.

our feeling was it might be more appropriate as a condition,

but if there is an element in the section in section 106 that covers that,

maybe that's for discussion at the second round table

to see where it is more appropriately.

Okay, so if we just pick that one up later,

and I have seen it done by both ways, different places.

Okay, so condition 60,

the accordance with the flood risk assessment and drainage strategy. This requires the development

to be carried out in accordance with the approved flood risk assessment and then it gives the

details of which one that is. The drainage strategy dated March 2024 and requires mitigation

measures to be retained as such.

Any changes given the further work that's been done by,

it wasn't by Yellow Sub but by others to support the EA discussions?

No?

No.

Okay. Anything else on that one?

No.

Condition 61, urban greening factor.

So this sets out that the development must achieve an urban greening score of at least 0 .4 %

and if the proposed development deviates from that layout that's set out in the landscape strategy

and it gives the landscape strategy details, then prior to occupation an updated urban greening table and plan

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA and then the urban greening gets

provided. Anything else on that? So that's all down to London Plan Policy isn't it, the

urban greening factor.

Okay, so Condition 62, this is tree protection measures. So it's requiring accordance with

the arboricultural impact assessment and the method statement. It gives those details and

requires protection measures to be retained until completion of the development. Anything

else on that condition? No.

Now, 63, non -road mobile machinery. This requires all non -road mobile machinery used during

the course of the development to comply with emissions requirements in the Greater London

authorities supplementary planning guidance.

Okay.

64, fire statement.

The development hereby permitted

shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved

one Battersea Bridge Reba stage two concept fire strategy,

Issue 06, the proposed mitigation measures shall be installed as proposed and retained as such.

Anything else on that one?

No.

So, there is a fire strategy.

It's going to be carried out.

So it's just about the communication of that fire strategy in the other condition.

Okay, 65, no equipment on the roof and that's basically saying no water tanks, plant, lift

rooms or other structures on the roof. Okay, and then there's a further condition,

66, on telecommunications equipment and saying no satellite dishes, telecoms, masks, antenna,

equipment or associated structures shall be installed on the building hereby approved.

Anything on that one? No. Okay. 67, no plumbing other than rainwater pipes on front elevation.

So this says no pipes or flues other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed on the front

elevation of the building here by proof. Can I just cheque what the front is for these purposes?

Yes, well it's got two very flat elevations and two curves so it's all front but

we need to achieve precision there so all elevations.

I presume the main concern is the River Battersea Bridge.

I would have thought so.

Maybe where it turns the corner onto Hester Road.

So is it more appropriate to say?

I think to actually specify the roads, I would have thought.

Does the council want to have a look at that?

I mean, in reality, this is never gonna be an issue

because of the nature of the design of the scheme.

I mean, I see this a lot in more simple design,

shall we say.

I don't think it's gonna be a problem here.

No, okay.

And 68, roof terrace compliance.

So except for the approved residential external terraces,

The roof areas of the development hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof, garden or similar amenity area

and furthermore no balustrades, railings or other means of enclosure or means of permanent access shall be erected on this area.

So is it this area these areas? Just to agree with the roof areas earlier on.

Anything else on this condition?

It's just the heading probably should be roof areas rather than roof terrace because I think

it applies to everything other than the roof terrace.

Don't worry I won't be using headings if I am allowing because it's not our practise.

Mr White.

Could I just ask one very simple question? I'm afraid it's how is the building going to be window cleaned?

From above I believe there's plant above but I'd have to cheque that do you know

There are no cradles shown on any of the drawings, okay, I'd need to cheque that then I can't be certain

Okay. Anything else on condition 68? Nope. Okay. Any other conditions that aren't included

in the schedule at the moment and haven't already been discussed as part of the Environment

agencies concerns? No? Okay. We'd be relieved to know that pain is over of conditions. Okay.

So the time is now 13 .19. So if we, shall we resume at 2 .30 for the excitement of planning

obligations. Okay, so resuming at 2 .30 the inquiry is adjourned. Thank you.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 6 Morning - Wednesday 25 March 2026, 9:00am - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 6 MorningWednesday, 25th March 2026 at 9:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 6 Morning
Wednesday, 25th March 2026 at 9:00am