Glassmill planning appeal - Day 6 Afternoon - Wednesday 25 March 2026, 2:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Glassmill planning appeal - Day 6 Afternoon
Wednesday, 25th March 2026 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Thank you.
.
.
.
.
Thank you.
.
.
Time is 2 .30 and the inquiry is resumed. Just before we make a start on the round table
on planning obligations, I'd just like to advise anybody who hasn't realised that there
has been a little bit of a breakage at the back of the council chamber and one of the
be able to continue in the meantime. Mr Edwards, I did just want to ask, this morning I raised
the issue of Greenfields and you were going to talk to your party and the appellant. Do
you have any feedback on that?
Yes, ma 'am, we've had that conversation both internally within the council and with the
appellant, at least at a barrister level. The point you raise is obviously a valid and
important one. It seems to us that there is a bit of a difference between how the principle
in Greenfield applies at planning application stage and at appeal stage, particularly an
appeal being heard by public inquiry, which is very much a public forum that the public
can attend. And that's why different considerations often apply to new information provided in
the course of a public inquiry. The obvious example is further environmental information,
which when provided in the context of a public inquiry
does not require the formal publication and consultation
that it would when that sort of information
is provided to a local authority.
So that's the context.
But be that as it may, Mum,
it seemed to us that it was important,
A, to ensure that the final draught version
of the planning obligation that is about to be discussed
at the public inquiry is made available publicly.
and I'm assured that they will be uploaded onto the website this evening.
And secondly, what we thought, Mum, just to assist those who may wish to comment on those changes,
is that we prepare just a short note and agree that note as between the appellant
and the local planning authority that explains what those changes are.
And if Mum, as I think is the expectation that you're not going to close the inquiry,
tomorrow, but close the inquiry when the executed section 106 is provided to you in due course,
then if it happens that anybody wants to make any representations, they can obviously approach
your case officer at the planning inspectorate to indicate that they wish to do so, and then it's a
matter for your discretion as to whether you accept those changes or not. And we think that
with those safeguards in place, that should and would properly reflect the application
of the principle established by the Court of Appeal in Greenfields as it applies in
the circumstances of this appeal.
MS. WATSON Thank you. And Ms Foster, you're in agreement
with that?
MS. FOSTER Yes. I agree with everything Mr Edwards has
just said in particular about the Greenfields case. The only point that I would add further
is that if there is going to be a further opportunity for members of the public to
make representations on the legal agreement, then we would also ask for a
period of time to consider those and respond to those points.
How we do that, we're in your hands, but if we originally said, I think, 14 days
for signing, if there was an extra week on top of that to be able to take into
any comments if there are any, then we'd much appreciate that.
Yes, this, just opening my calendar, this chimes well with an email I received over
lunchtime via my case officer, which was from the appellant asking a likely date for a decision.
Well, it's always a lovely question to get, because the answer is always how long is a
of string, but in this instance, okay, so say we get to the end of closings tomorrow, as planned,
and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't at this point, we then, and the 106 goes on the website
tonight, working on the basis and factoring in the Easter Bank holiday break, which occurs
on the 3rd of April and the 6th of April, so that's Good Friday and Easter Monday, it
would seem sensible to allow until the 7th of April for any interested parties to respond.
and then I would allow two weeks after that for the finalising of the legal agreement,
which would bring you to the 21st of April. Now, as far as I'm concerned in terms of
completing my decision, obviously that's something that can't be issued until the
agreements ready anyway. But I am on annual leave for the Easter holidays and then I will
be working on this case as soon as the Easter holidays have finished. There is also the
pre -election period and Wandsworth is one of the London boroughs. All of the London
boroughs are having elections this time round. Whilst I haven't been led to believe that
it's specifically politically sensitive in terms of particular parties taking a view,
it is a large case. And I suspect by the time I have the decision fully drafted and completed,
we'll be looking at just after the pre -election period ends. So it would be early May at the
earliest that the decision would be issued. So that would, there would have been enough
time for the legal agreement to be completed and even if there was another week needed
because signatories weren't available, that should be perfectly possible. Does that work
well for the appellant?
Yes, it does and thank you for addressing the point that was sent to your case officer,
we're grateful.
Yeah, okay. Thank you. Mr Edwards, was there anything further?
Nothing in terms of the timing, ma 'am. Just to be clear as to what you'd like us to do
and agree. We'll prepare that note and provide that to you to have a look at. In light of
what you said, would you like something to be included within the note just to indicate
that if there are to be any further comments on the changes to the 106 that they should
be provided to your case officer by the 7th?
Yes. So that would be by the 7th of April, by the end of the 7th of April, that any interested
party comments should be received on only the changes to the legal agreement because
everything else has been in the public domain for some weeks.
It has indeed, ma 'am. Yes, we'll see if that's done. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, so is there anything else procedural or housekeeping wise before
planning obligation? Mr. Marginson.
Yes, thanks. I just wanted to pick up the points that we had at the round table discussion
around facade maintenance. So I've had a chance to look at that now. And if you look at the
design and access statement, appendix one, which is on page 146, you will see there there
is an explanation of the facade maintenance strategy, which includes a BMU with a cradle
on top of the tower, along with a kind of pole system for the lower elements of the
building. But the details are all set out there.
Okay. So that's page 146, appendix one of the design and access statement.
Yes, that's right. Okay. Thank you very much for updating on that.
and just further to the conditions discussion that we had earlier,
just thinking about pre -commencement conditions and agreement to pre -commencement conditions.
So for anybody not familiar, there is a process whereby when there are
pre -commencement conditions proposed for certain forms of development,
It is a requirement for me to ask the appellant whether they are willing to agree to those
pre -commencement conditions. They can make a number of choices. I too can make a number
of choices in respect of whether I apply certain conditions and obviously we have had discussion
earlier today about particularly the Environment Agency's proposed condition and whether or
or not the appellant would be willing to accept that.
Bearing in mind that the conditions are not in their final, final form,
I suggest what we do is just go through what was discussed today,
as in if the council could come back on the points where it was going to go away
and think about certain things, we get the conditions to a slightly
further stage and then I will send a letter out to you and you can confirm or deny in
writing to me and that will again go on the Core Documents library for everybody to see.
But I can then proceed after that. Okay, fine. If there isn't anything else, I will come
down and we'll do the roundtable down there. Because before you do that, I just had an
update about the weather -related incident at the back of the room. I'm told that officers
of the council or someone's going to have to come in and remove some loose glass now
because it's considered to be a hazard in terms of falling from the window to the floors
below the ground. There's also going to be a board put in, but I've asked that, to cover
the broken window, but I've asked that that is not done until after we finish this afternoon,
so there's going to be a little bit of movement at the back of the room, but hopefully not
power of disruption.
Okay, thank you.
Well, we'll see how we go and if it becomes too disruptive we'll just take a short pause
and then we can reconvene and hopefully this session shouldn't be as long as the conditioned
session earlier today anyway and it should allow them to get on with boarding up.
Thank you.
So, this roundtable is aiming to discuss the draught legal agreement. We've had a number
of versions of the draught legal agreement. We're now at the version which I received
this morning, which is ID24. First of all, would the Council like to take me through
the latest changes, please? Thank you, I was going to say in terms of
the note that Mr Edwards referred to, what I was proposing to do is just set out the
history of the different versions, the CD numbers, and then in tabular form I was going
set out differences between the last published draught 106 and ID 24 and should there be any
amendments to that document which necessitates a further draught, that draught as well. If it
would be also assistance, I can provide a red line comparison between version two and
the version that we finish at today and that can be uploaded alongside the note. So if
If people have any more interest, they can actually flip through and see that the track changes rather than just the table showing the summary, if that would be helpful.
I'm sure there's somebody out there who would find that out.
I'm sure there is. Yeah, okay, thank you.
So, the changes between the draught that you were sent yesterday afternoon and the one this morning are quite limited.
The first of which, if I could ask you to look at Recycle C, which you'll see on page
one, we just added in there the date of the contract for sale that's set out in the charges
register for that particular title.
So nothing particularly exciting, but necessary nevertheless.
The second point, I noticed when I was looking through the draught last night that the schedule
3 relating to the affordable housing provision had a requirement for the RP essentially to
submit a marketing plan.
But that's something that is relevant to intermediate tenures.
What's necessary for social rent is that there's a nominations agreement.
So what I've done and the agreement of the opponents team is to add in a definition of
nominations agreement on page eight.
And also a definition of perpetuity.
And that carries through into the obligation set out
in schedule three.
So if I ask you to look at paragraph 1 .5,
you'll see that subsection or sub -para B has been removed
which relates to that marketing plan.
And this is one of the paragraphs that sets out what should be included in the transfer
or the lease to the RP.
And one of those terms is to prepare, enter into, and comply with a nominations agreement
which should be submitted to the council in writing at least six months prior to practical
completion of the affordable housing units.
And it follows the council standard for the definition, which requires the RP to allow
the council to nominate prospective tenants for all first lets and thereafter 80 % of true voids
So true voids where determinate the tendencies come to an end and the property is genuinely empty
It's been agreed by the opponent and that's that's acceptable and I'm sorry. I should have spotted that mistake earlier
The the third point is that we've done is just to remove the
brackets and the definition of healthy Street corridor improvements on page 7 at the bottom of that
definition the plan number was just bracketed so we just removed that to to
show to the reader that that is actually the plan number the next one schedule 2
page 20 and that's just a very minor correction to a paragraph reference so
if you look at paragraph 3a it refer to paragraph 6 1 5 so just tweak
that so it's correct. The next one, that's a nominations agreement which I've just spoken
to. And the final one relates to the council's covenant set out in schedule 13 right at the
back of the document. It was helpfully pointed out by Ms Herbert that there was a requirement
within that schedule for the council to pay a contribution to the environment agency.
this was relating to terms of river wall enhancements,
but it was quite rightly pointed out that the way that that Schedule 11 is cast,
it might not be the case that the money is payable to the EA,
so sensible to remove that obligation on the council.
So they are the differences between yesterday's draught and today's.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I do have a few points just on wording and missing things and so on.
If we do that first and then I'll go into the actual various obligations themselves
and just ask questions about those.
So I've just been through the newest version in the lunch hour against, I think, not yesterday's
but the one before's, just to double cheque.
So there's reference throughout to plans A, B, C, D.
Now, they are not on there yet, are they?
So that, if you're putting a new version up on to the website, it would probably be helpful
to have plans A to D there for the public to be able to see as well.
Yes.
Yep.
Yep.
Okay.
So if you could do that, that would be helpful.
Then I think at the bottom of page three, top of page four,
we've got an Arts and Cultural Action Plan.
At the top of page four, it talks about delivery arrangements,
time scales, a cost of budget.
It probably needs a comma or an and between time scales and a cost of budget.
On community space at the top of page six,
I think it's used not use.
So yeah community space top of page six.
Yeah um occupational therapist specialist housing.
So that's on page eight halfway down.
It says in brackets such individual it currently says two accredited
probably to be accredited. Just looking through, then we have a gap.
In Schedule 3, Affordable Housing, Part 2, Chargees, Duties, Section 3 of Part 2,
That's on page 22. Free from the affordable housing provisions of this schedule.
Got an of missing. And then schedule 4 part 2 travel plan point 1,
So, Schedule 7, Part 2, Recital D. This is about reasonable endeavours on employment
definitions of targets, activities, area of benefit. So is that and the area of benefit
or areas of benefit? It doesn't quite make sense as drafted. I'll resist the urge to
grumpy about apostrophes. Right. There we go. So that's it in terms of small typographic
issues. In terms of the various requirements and contributions, would it be worth going
through the schedules one by one, just particularly if Mr. White wants to have any input.
Right, okay. So schedule two, that sets out the majority of the financial contributions.
So the ones that are payable prior to commencement, the air quality contribution, the agreed monitoring
fee and 50 % of the carbon offset contribution.
So on the air quality contribution, so I think the council's
sill compliance statement looks for £30 ,000 to go towards monitoring in the
sill compliance statement, but the 106 describes it as being spent on promoting
health messaging, idling action events and additional idling signage. So which is correct
in that instance? Is it the compliance statement or the 106?
I think it's the compliance statement. So we will amend that so that it's solely towards
the monitoring costs because that's the basis on which that 30 ,000 has been calculated.
So we will amend that.
Is that in keeping with what the appellant understands?
Okay, thank you.
And can I just ask in terms of that £30 ,000, how was that calculated?
It's calculated, it's a figure that came from the Principal Air Quality Officer.
It's based on the cost of employing a member of staff and 0 .5 full -time equivalency over
a year.
So that's where the 30 ,000 came from.
Thank you.
So, the last contribution payable prior to commencement is half of the carbon offset
contribution that you were talking about, some of that in relation to condition 41 today.
but the CIL compliance statement sets out
that that contribution is there to meet the deficit
between what the scheme can actually capture on site
in terms of carbon reduction,
but also against the zero carbon requirement.
So it's that contribution that has been sought.
There is, in paragraph five, an opportunity
for that sum to be adjusted downwards
should energy savings and carbon savings on the site,
once the building's been constructed,
shell otherwise. Okay. And I did have a question about the... So we've got TfL. I think it
was... Which schedule is the arts contribution in? Is that in schedule two?
later on.
Ten. Okay, I don't want to jump ahead. If we go to the next schedule then of affordable
housing. So if you can just take me through the approach please.
Yes, well, the first point I think to raise is that there was previously a reasonable
endeavours clause that all parties would seek to try and assist for an application to be
made for GLA funding. That's been removed. It was my suggestion that it should be removed.
And that was agreed to. So the first part of Part 1 of Schedule 3 is an obligation not
to begin construction of any of the affordable units beyond shell and core level until the
owner is confirmed with the council the identity of the proposed approved provider.
And then it sets out who that approved provider can be.
And it's something like a cascade option.
The preference is for a preferred AHP to be in contract because they have agreements with
the council.
And I think there are 10 or so that are in the definition.
Yes, there's a list, a defined list.
The reason why there is this prohibition on commencement beyond a certain stage, a lot
of the time it's prior to commencement, is that it enables registered providers to have
some input into the final design of the units rather than criticisms in the past that they
had to buy off the shelf units that probably don't meet their requirements entirely.
So that's why that provision is in there.
Mm -mmm.
1 .2 is a requirement to construct these units in accordance with the affordable housing
mix and that is defined in paragraph 1 .1 which sets out 54 affordable housing units and the
number of bedrooms for each of those units and also wheelchair units.
Building standards is another requirement to which the units must be constructed and
that is also defined.
There are three elements to that, the first of which is the National Described Space Standards,
and then you have the requirement for 90 % of the units to be M4 .2 and 10 % M4 .3, which
is London Plan and also the ones with Local Plan requirement.
There is a requirement also for the units to be built in accordance with the GLA funding
requirements and that definition we looked at earlier, the occupational therapist, that's
someone who's employed in the council's housing team that helps ensure that the final build
of these M4 -3 units is going to be as it ought to be for the...
Yeah, user -friendly.
User -friendly environment, yep. So then we move on to the usual occupancy
restriction that you'll find to ensure timely delivery of the affordable units.
Okay. Moving on, 1 .4, that's the second part of the restriction on occupation until all
of the units have been provided. And then they're either sold or long lease hold interest.
And below it sets out those conditions. And we touched upon earlier, mum, the nominations
agreement requirement. At 1 .6 is an obligation that the RP will ensure that, or they'll commit
to providing details of the hand estimates of the affordable housing service charge
for the first five years. At 1 .7, unsurprisingly, you'll find a restriction on occupation to ensure
that those units are occupied for no other purpose than social rented housing. And part two is the
to enable RPs to charge at the highest possible rate they can.
And then you've got a carve out for right to acquire tenants in part three of schedule
three.
OK.
Anything, Mr. White?
One question.
On the 1 .5, is the word towards the end of the first line, shall be sold necessary?
because selling infers something other than a lease.
I don't think that word is necessary.
It may be the case, well, a lot of the time you will have in a 106 options for both,
in a block of this proposal, it may be that it's going to be leased if it's going to an RP,
So selling freehold is probably OTOs, but it's normally used for kind of
Completion really but I'm I'm in your hands if you like it removed it can be
And anything else on this schedule
Okay, so schedule for transport
So, part one, Marm, is the standard of exclusion from the ability of occupiers to apply for
parking permits within CPZs. It's not a planning obligation. I've set out in the seal compliance
statement that it can be imposed lawfully under the Act 1974, Great London Powers Act.
It's in its standard form. It's not over the top in terms of what it requires the owners
to do is just to notify people that they're not entitled.
Travel planning? Again, fairly light touch in the way that
the obligation is intended to operate. A framework travel plan was produced and submitted as
part of the application. They're required to submit an update essentially to that travel
plan prior to first occupation. There's an obligation to implement the measures, the
initiatives and the monitoring set out in that travel plan. And within the first five
years of its operation, they have to provide to the council upon reasonable request details
of what they've done essentially to accord with the travel plan, how they've implemented
an overall compliance. And then there's a provision at the end of that part two that
requires the owner to work constructively and positively with the council should the aims of the travel plan not be met for that
five -year period
Allied to that is a travel plan financial contribution that set out and
schedule two of seven hundred thirty pounds
so that then
Takes us on to the car club
And you very helpfully pointed out mom
okay what would happen if the owner wasn't able to get into contract with a car club operator.
So we've amended this part three that they have to use reasonable endeavours to enter into
an agreement with a car club operator, but if they're unable to do so,
then the council can release the owner from the obligations in Paravas one to four.
And it makes more sense now, I think it's reordered as well.
So it was badly worded before and I'm going to blame Denton's for that, but it's entirely my fault.
So, okay.
Moving on.
Um, public realm improvement works.
Did any, just before we move on, did anybody have anything they wanted on transport?
No.
Okay.
So public realm improvement works, Mr.
So that is, sorry, I couldn't find most up to date draught because that's numbered.
The definition of the public realm improvement works is found at the bottom of page 9 and
there's reference to a drawing there which sets out the proposed improvements.
And then in terms of the way that the obligation operates is prior to commencement the owners
to submit the improvement work specification to the council for its approval. They then have to
enter into a highways agreement in section 278 and possibly 38 if there is any areas to be dedicated.
They are required to practically complete those works prior to occupation of any residential unit
and then the last one is a prohibition on occupation until those works have been undertaken.
question. Could I ask for the Thames path manager to be at least
consulted in terms of the public role and improvement works?
I am told that it is not something that the council would normally look to do in terms
of agreeing to the specification of works to be carried out in that area. Again, I think
we are in your hands. If you think it is something that is necessary, then we can do so.
We've had a similar conversation with the developers at the Mortlake Brewery, where
a similar case arose because the Thamespath there immediately adjoins the site to be developed,
and the inspector agreed that the Thamespath manager should be advised and consulted prior
to the implementation of any works.
Is that the appeal that was issued
earlier this year or late last year?
Was it last year?
Yes, March of last year.
Inspector Rawlings? Yes.
Just a note, ma 'am, the description is fairly detailed and I think the plan has already been submitted.
Okay, I'll think about it.
And in terms of Schedule 6, so this was something that was subject to discussion earlier in terms of conditions as well, wasn't it?
It was. I understand the relation to hours of use.
If you're minded to conclude within the definition of the Amenity Areas Management Plan,
within probably a access arrangement including hours of operation,
then that does give some scope for the matter to be agreed with the appellant.
It doesn't specify any, you know, specific times,
but it gives the parties an opportunity to consider that.
The appellant is agreeable to that.
Okay.
Two points I'd like to make on that. First of all, the question about overseeing
number 6 Hester Road, the eastern flank of the
amenity area at 11th floor will directly overlook
success to roads accommodation.
And it would be, in my view, very helpful
if there could be an impenetrable screen
going along that eastern flank.
That's number one.
Number two, times of use are very important because of course people in Haster Road inevitably
require their privacy and amongst other things the noise.
Now is there any way that the restrict or there could be a restriction in terms of the
numbers of people that use that area because I can envisage noisy parties happening. And
this has happened in a scheme just off St. John's Hill in Battersea, which has caused
a certain amount of aggravation to adjoining owners. Now, clearly, it will be difficult
to restrict that, but if the management plan could specify that no more than, let's say,
ten people can congregate together, I'm not talking about children, because the open market,
sorry, the affordable housing content will have a number of adults there, they will have
their friends, and very happily have parties up there, which will cause noise and potentially
convenience to Hester Road.
Okay, so in terms of the hours of operation, we've already discussed that in terms of that
going into the definition of the immunity areas management plan. In terms of restricting
the numbers of people using the area and screening, what's the appellant's view on that?
I think in terms of the screening we did look at a condition didn't we on
boundary details so I think that will be picked up within that condition I think
that's probably a more appropriate place to pick it up so as a people
congregating I mean my view on this is that I understand the comment from mr.
but it seems quite onerous to me for a private amenity space
to be restricted in that way
and certainly 10 people congregating.
And I do have concerns about that.
And question whether anything it could be managed
and enforced to be quite honest with you.
It seems onerous to me.
And what's the council's view please, first of all,
before Mr. White.
I agree, Mr. Marjes and I think it would be very, very difficult to enforce that.
I would also question whether it's necessary.
I hope Mr. White would be at least a little bit comforted to know that the RP who would
take the site on would be contacted very, very quickly, I would imagine, by local residents
should there be any noise issues emanating from the public space on floor 11.
And also, I'll just point out that the council obviously has powers under the Environmental
health legislation to take action if there's any kind of statutory noise nuisances occurring,
but I don't think the council would support a congregation limit in terms of numbers of people
for that. Did you want to add anything further? No, I think it's a matter of fact, it may or may
not happen, I understand that. If the building management is sufficiently robust then that ought
to be sufficient.
Thank you. Anything further on the Amenity Areas Management Plan?
No? Okay. On to Schedule 7.
This is the Council's standard precedent wording for its local employment agreement obligations.
The recital set out the high level aims to ensure that local people and local businesses
are able also to benefit from the economic opportunities arising from new development
within the patch.
So there are operative provisions which are set out towards the bottom of the page.
And the way that they translate is into an employment and skills plan that is submitted
for approval by the council's economic development officers.
They then help fine -tune that and it's for the owner, the developer, to implement its
requirements.
If we look over the page to part four, this is the financial contribution that underpins
the employment skills plan.
And what it does, it enables funding to be provided to put local people into the job
opportunities that arise out of the development.
The calculation you would have seen in the SEAL compliance statement is set out in the
December 2025 planning obligations SPD, most of which is similar to what was in its predecessor,
but there has been a change in terms of the cost of placing people in employment. So that
has been increased and that's based on the Department for Education multiplier. So the
obligation that works very, very well. Okay, anything from anyone on this schedule?
Nope? Okay. Schedule 8, community space. And just to note, the community space hours of
operation were covered by one of the conditions. No, that's helpful, thank you, mum. So the
The definition of community space is at the bottom, I keep moving between them I'm afraid
because they're not paginated, but it means no less than 274 square metres gross internal
area of community floor space, class F2, located to the rear lower ground, ground on first
floors of the development with entrances, sorry entrance to be off Bassy Bridge Road
and to be used in accordance, as you used as you pointed out, in accordance with part
to Schedule 8. Now Schedule 8 requires firstly the owner to construct and make ready for
occupation the space and the category A fit out is also defined in Clause 1 .1. So that
means fit out providing basic finish shell suitable for occupation including floor finishes,
ceiling, lighting, heating, ventilation, power, digital connectivity and WC facilities, but
excluding tenant specific fixtures and fittings because at this stage they don't know who
that tenant will be. So that's required to be constructed and made available for occupation
prior to occupation of 80 % of the residential units. Part two of schedule eight sets out
The uses, firstly, it has to be used by a local area community group, approved by the
council, peppercorn rent in perpetuity.
The owner is not entitled to charge a service charge, but the occupier will be on the hook
for utility costs in the usual way.
And the last part of that, part two, is to ensure that it's used for no other purpose
other than it's the community space I set out.
So what happens if the community space isn't let?
That's a very good point.
I'm gonna put that one to the,
the appellant's team,
because we're of the view that it would be quite a,
it's been paid in aid,
obviously as a benefit to the scheme,
and we would have thought that there'd be
significant interest in such space,
for term.
I was just gonna say the fact that it's purple corn
obviously makes it quite an advantageous area.
And I understand there is quite a few interested groups
already that I think we have been talking to.
So I don't know if you want anything more than that.
Only to say that I have seen the section 106 agreements
with a sort of clause which says, well, in the event of,
of demonstrating that there is no interest
in the community space,
then it could be made available for other uses.
Not quite sure how that works with the approved plans
and the description of development though.
So we would have to either apply for some form of amendment
or submit a separate planning application
in order for that new use to be able to occupy the unit.
So I don't know whether we want to go down that road now, we could do or not, but I think it's a
bit more complicated than just the men in the 106.
No, no, I just wondered, but it's, and I had thought earlier about, well, you've got the
condition currently number 57, which refers specifically to community use and, you know,
gives the floor space.
You've got the description of development.
you've got the plans. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's something where you would have to
cross that bridge if you came to it. But if, as you're saying, you know, it's,
it's an attractive proposition and there is public interest in it, then hopefully
that wouldn't be the case.
I agree. I think we, well, the appellant I know has had some discussions that
does seem to be a good level of interest. So hopefully we won't get there. If we
do, as you say, cross that bridge when we get there.
It's also fairly open in terms of local area, but community group, there's not a defined
... It needs to be this particular type of charity or what. So I think there's quite
a bit of discretion within. Should be able to find someone.
Bite.
No, one very small one. Sorry. The usual outgoings. Would this as a community space be rated?
And if so, would it be rated under business rates or in what because the capacity of any
organisation which may have to pay business rates as well as all the other outgoings will
potentially add a significant amount to their outgoings.
Does the Parliament want to respond?
I don't know the answer to that.
I think that is a council question because they are in control of business rates.
I had a horrible feeling he was going to say that.
I don't know whether this space is rated, mum.
It's not specified in that list in the brackets that we rate.
And I'm sure that the council has some form of grant available for community groups so
they're not too disadvantaged if they need to pay rates.
but as Ms Hobart said, it's a peppercorn rent,
and I don't think we're able to reasonably require
the owner to pay business rates for part of the site
that is going to be essentially not gonna bring an income.
Right, schedule nine.
This is the affordable workspace obligation. It's not less than 10 % of the commercial space,
class C space to be let at a discounted rent. So that's 80 % of open market rent,
which is defined again in clause 1 .1. There's a work, affordable workspace management plan
that needs to be submitted no later than three months prior to occupation of the affordable
work space and it sets out hours of operation, cycle storage spaces, details of landlord
and services if any, and such other matters as the council owner may agree should be included.
So fairly broad. Then there's an obligation to fit it out to category A fit out again,
i .e. not specified to a particular user. The requirement to provide that space is triggered
prior to occupation of no more than 80 % of the residential units, which we think is fair.
And then to make sure that it's used in accordance with that management plan.
Part two, I jumped ahead a little bit earlier, that the rent isn't to exceed 80 % of open
market rent. The policy requirement is for 30 years, so the affordable workspace has
to be kept at this discounted rate for 30 years.
The, the, the panellists did ask for, you know, a review.
So after 10 years there's a review to see what,
what's happened.
I wasn't initially going to think about
whether that could apply to the community space,
but as Ms. Marginson said about the description development
as the GMM, it would probably make that
a little bit more difficult.
I don't think we have the same restrictions here.
So whilst the council doesn't ordinarily
allow a review to be undertaken in 10 years. It's the 30 year requirement in these circumstances
to be prepared to do so.
Anything on that schedule?
Okay, Schedule 10 Arts and Culture.
This is a requirement in the London Plan also in the Wandsworth Local Plan. The site is
Located as we know in the random doc focal point of activity and accordingly there's a requirement to pay a financial contribution
400 pounds per residential unit towards public art and 600
towards arts and cultural infrastructure
The council's planning obligations SPD and I've got a reference in that the 311 10 mom sets out
what the contribution towards infrastructure will be used for
There is an opportunity under Schedule 10 for the owner to submit an Arts and Cultural
Action Plan. Again, that's defined in 1 .1. I'll have to turn that up. That would help.
So it's a plan describing how the owner proposes to promote arts and culture as part of the
development pursuant to section 7 of the council's planning obligations SPD.
It's dated including delivery arrangements, time scales, a costed budget which will not
be required to exceed the value of that arts contribution which is 110 ,000.
The plan should be based on the outline arts and cultural act plan which was submitted
with the application and then it sets out what that updated plan may include.
Permanent arts commissions integrated within landscaping or building features, a part of
of the public realm works, early activation through temporary creative projects through
the development construction phase, support for local festivals or other programmes and tangible
creative ways for local communities to participate and learn. So it's an option for the owner to
elect to either pay the contribution or to submit the plan and then therefore carry out the
requirements of that plan. The trigger again is 80 % occupation of the residential units for either
the submission of the plan, sorry, the implementation of the plan or the payment of the contribution,
which we think is a reasonable trigger for that.
And in terms of the, so I get that it's effectively a thousand a unit and you've got the 400 per
residential unit towards public art, 600 towards arts and cultural infrastructure. How was
that calculated in the first instance, the 400 and 600?
The reference is para 7 .25 of the planning obligations SPD.
So the first 725 sets out what the threshold is going to be.
So we look at 7 .39 on page 32.
In circumstances where the applicant is unable to provide an action plan or it's not appropriate,
It bases the commuted sum on 400 pounds per dwelling.
I don't think there's anything behind that
in terms of how that's been calculated.
The 7 .41 looks at the arts and culture
infrastructure contribution,
and that's the 600 pounds per dwelling.
I'm sorry I'm not able to assist any further
and how that number was arrived at. I'm going to look plaintively at Mr. Grainger, who's
going to... You don't know either. Okay. It's one of those mystery multipliers, I suspect.
Okay. Well, I've asked. You've answered as far as you can on that one. Okay. Was there
anything else on schedule 10? Nope. Okay, so schedule 11, which is entitled flood defence
and then did have flood defence in it. But that's been removed.
I think you changed the name on to just Thames Riverwall enhancements, schedule 11 rather
than flood defence and strike out part one. Yeah.
So, this isn't my drafting, but happy to talk to it. I understand that the requirement arose
out of the environment agencies consultation responses and the mitigations designed to
protect the ecological health and integrity of the interstitial zones. I'm not going to
trespass any further into the EA conditions about the, no. So, the requirement is that
Prior to first occupation the owner will prepare and submit the Thames River wall enhancement scheme
So that was one of the the newer or sorry tweaked definitions
So
the
Enhancement means a scheme of improvements to the flood defence structure to mitigate the impacts of additional shading on adjacent tidal frontage and river Thames
SM INC for sure and
Intertitled sediment resulting from the development. It's agreed that the scheme based on timber fenders will be acceptable
So that is an EA agreed position as well
So just be worth setting out what the smink is just for the purposes of
The description on page 10. Yeah, I know it's a general London term, but
Set it out
We will do.
Thank you.
So the obligation is on the owner to use reasonable endeavours for a period of not less than six
months from the grant of permission to enter into agreement with third party owner of the
flood defence structure, again a defined term, it's a terms of all compartments building,
to enable the owner to facilitate the implementation of the approved Riverwall enhancement scheme.
And if they've entered into an agreement with a third party owner within six months, then
they've got to carry out those works prior to occupation of not more than 80 % of the
residential units.
And then paragraph four sets out the position if they haven't been able to reach agreement
with a third party owner.
So, they then have the option to pay to the council financial equivalent to the estimated
cost of delivering those enhancement works.
And then it is paid to the council, again, prior to occupation of 80 % of the residential
unit.
the council is required to spend it on those enhancement works
or an alternative scheme of mitigation or local river restoration effort.
And again, the last paragraph is just a prohibitional occupation
until it's delivered, sorry, forgive me, the owner has delivered the works
or paid the contribution.
Anything further from the appellant on this particular topic?
No.
Mr. Marginson?
Oh, sorry.
I just had one point and maybe it's me misreading this, but the
overshadowing enhancement contribution, I just looked at the definitions and it doesn't
seem to be there.
Is that meant to be there or is it within?
It's within.
It just hasn't been bolded, so it's obvious.
Okay.
Okay.
But is that defined in the 106 as to what that is?
That's the definition there, so it's an example.
No, I know it says the overshadowing enhancement contribution,
but what is that referring to?
There is now specific...
The estimated cost.
Whatever the estimated cost comes out at, I see.
So, are you saying basically it would normally appear in the list of...
Yes.
...various things at the moment it's been emitted?
Or in the front of this schedule, I don't know which, but that was my point.
Yeah, yeah, because obviously in the case of other contributions, you've got them here,
so it could be defined on page 8, along with all the other things beginning with O.
We'll move it, Ma 'am.
Yeah.
May I?
Yes, absolutely.
Can I ask for an indemnity against any costs involved or incurred by the Thames Walk residents
in respect to the works that may or may not be required and or agreed.
That could be legal, that could be other, it costs as well.
Sir Sythe, did the opponent of the council want to comment on this?
Just from the council's point of view,
I don't think the 106 would be a place for an indemnity of this nature.
Should one be necessary, I think Ms Shelley might have some comments
or a comment in relation to the other point.
I concur that the legal agreement is not the place for it, in the sense that they're also
not a party to the legal agreement, so it would be cluttering the legal agreement unnecessarily.
Also the intention is to enter into an agreement with the owners of the flood defence, and
if that agreement, if that's necessary as part of implementing the scheme, then we can
explore that then and there, but really the obligation is to try to reach an agreement
to implement an appropriate scheme as defined, and if an agreement can't be reached, using
reasonable endeavours to do so. And I question whether the indemnity is reasonable a requirement.
So I think we'd cross that bridge when we came to it. But in any event, it would be
part of the agreement with the owner when we're engaging in that.
When will it be appropriate then?
I think we need to understand the nature of the scheme.
So it's timber fenders, so they will need to be,
that they'll be a proper consultant who actually draws
up what the scheme needs to be.
And I imagine as part of the consultancy works,
they'll have some sort of indemnity, like some sort of,
in terms of they have a sort of reliance in terms of their work.
So there'll be some element of once they've done what they've
done that will sort of be in effect for a period of time. So I don't know then you need then an
indemnity on top of that because they should be standing behind the quality of their work,
I would imagine, normally. I'm not talking about the actual work, I'm talking about the legal costs.
Well, I probably think this is something I shouldn't trespass on any further, so I'm
going to shut up.
Mr White.
I'm just trying to safeguard in terms of what residents free -held interest.
Just on that, is it sensible, given that you've just mentioned the need to design a proposal?
So you're going to the appellant, subject to the scheme being allowed, the appellant
would have to get a consultant to do further work for them. And then once that further
work has been done or possibly in tandem with that further work being done, the appellant
is then going to have to go to Thames Walk Residents Association and say, can we move
further on this? Can we get to the point where we can enter into an agreement? Is this realistic
in the six months period that's allowed in the legal agreement from the grant of planning
permission?
I mean, I'd like to think it was, but I mean, open to extending the timeframe. It's just
there needs to be sort of an end date because we need to work towards trying to reach an
agreement. So we thought six months from the grant of permission is actually quite a long
time to design a scheme. I think it should hopefully be fairly straightforward. It is
timber fenders and people in their client team have said they've done something similar
before. So while someone needs to design it up, I don't think it's something that should
take a long time to design up. So basically you'd have the timber fender scheme designed
and costed and that's when we would be talking to the owners of the flood defence, the resident
group. If you wanted to talk nine months, I don't think that matters, but we just don't
want to be held up too long, that's all.
Any views from the council on the time period?
I'm conscious of what I said earlier about trespassing on this. If you were minded to
push that back to nine or twelve months, the council would support that.
But that's having borne in mind that if you were to get to a point, so say it took you
a month from the grant of planning permission to get sorted with your consultant.
And you then started talking to Thames Hall Residents Association.
And I mean, things could go well, things might not go well.
You may end up in a situation where you get nearly to the six month point
and you say, this is not happening.
There is still that option for the contribution.
And by that point you would have worked up the scheme.
you would have an indication of what that was actually looking like in cost terms.
So, okay. Right. Just thinking it through. Externally, anything more, Mr. White,
on this particular schedule? Well, not particularly, but I wish the simplicity
was such because it is likely that the Environment Agency will have to be involved and the PLA.
Forgive me saying it, but these organisations don't necessarily work with enormous speed.
Any views on the time scale and the involvement of the Environment Agency in the Port of London
Authority? From the appellant's experience perhaps? I don't have direct experience of
this particular matter. I don't know is the answer. I mean from the appellant's point of view,
we wouldn't obviously want to engage with the EA or PLA on this unless we are
absolutely required to under some form of legislation. That's all I can say, I don't know.
Anything further? I think I've heard pretty much everybody's point of view on this. Okay.
And schedule 12, Be Seen Energy Monitoring.
Yes, this is the GLA's precedent wording for Be Seen Energy Monitoring, which is the fourth
step in its energy hierarchy under the London Plan Policy, SI2. Again, it's all to try and
get to net carbon, no carbon zero, sorry, by 2050.
The requirements are to provide accurate
and verified estimates of energy performance
before commencement, and then prior to first occupation
of the development, and then there's a requirement
to report to the GLA, and for the first five years
to provide verified annual in -use energy performance data.
So the last point is where those performance estimates are not being met, the owner is
required to investigate and notify the GLA and thereafter submit an action plan to remedy
the issue. So there's nothing different in the GLA standard form of wording in this schedule.
From any of the parties on Schedule 12. Nope. Okay. Schedule 13, the Council's Covenants.
So these are the usual covenants that the council or any local planning authority generally
gives to ensure some comfort is given to the owner who pays the contributions that they'll
only be used for the purposes for which they're sought, that they're repaid after 10 years
if they've not been spent or committed. And there's also, it sets out the requirement
to repay up to one third of the employment, so the local employment skills and training
contribution if the council is satisfied that the developers use reasonable endeavours to
comply with the requirements of the employment and skills plan. And then the last covenant
is that where the owner has provided written evidence to the council that it's used reasonable
endeavours as defined in respect of a particular matter, and the council is required to respond
to that request to essentially confirm whether that's the case, and there's a process to
through to ensure that that's done with different information required. Nothing out of the ordinary
in that schedule, Mum.
And then Schedule 14 is a method of payment and compliance certificate. Is there anything
else on the legal agreement that anybody wanted to raise? Mr White.
The adjoining owners have a party wall with the appellant's site.
They are very concerned that no progress whatsoever has been made in terms of legal progress in terms of this.
Where would it be appropriate, sorry, this is a question rather than a statement,
where would it be appropriate for such documentation to be included to ensure that there is a transparent
and well -considered agreement between the appellant and the adjoining owners?
I will ask the appellant to respond to that one.
The party wall matters are dealt with in a separate legal arrangement, so it's not something that we would...
I've never seen a 106 agreement to be honest, so I wasn't envisaging that as part of this.
Obviously I'm too the inspector, but there's an arrangement for that elsewhere.
Fundamentally, party wall matters are not a part of this appeal and they're not a part
of the planning obligations for this appeal or the conditions.
So it would be a matter that would need to be dealt with separately between the appellant
and the affected parties.
If I may just through you.
Yes, certainly.
I recall there's some pretty good government guidance on the point, if you look on the website.
Thank you for your clarification.
Is there anything further on the legal agreement?
Bearing in mind, I've said I will take some things away and think about them, I will respond to you in writing in due course on that.
in terms of sitting. So we are currently at just before quarter to four today. We haven't
arranged the specific time for closings tomorrow and I can see Mr Harris has appeared behind
you, Miss Foster. So I'll ask, Mr Harris, do you have a preference for times for closings?
My learned friend, Mr Edges and I were discussing it earlier in the week and we were hoping that
we could at least have the morning. So I think from memory we were going to suggest a one o 'clock
start? That would be, I think, still sensible. Okay, so Mr. White and colleague, you?
Inspector, but the programme actually has, I think, rule 66 parties going first,
then the local authority and then the appellants, which would be in accord with the inquiry
procedurals.
Yeah, certainly that's, so it's effectively, it's the other way round from how it opens.
It's always the appellant last for closings. Okay. So that would mean if we were starting
at one o 'clock we'd hear from Mr Bolton or whoever's delivering your closings first.
Okay, so if we're starting at one o 'clock and if I can have paper copies of the closings please,
as well as electronic copies of the closings, very helpful to me. And so unless there is anything
else procedurally or housekeeping wise, I suggest we're adjourned till one o 'clock tomorrow here,
hopefully with a window, or at least a boarded up window. A board's more likely.
But thank you very much everybody for your participation this afternoon and the inquiry is
adjourned.