Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 25/08/26 - Tuesday 25 August 2026, 10:00am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 25/08/26
Tuesday, 25th August 2026 at 10:00am

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished
Webcast Finished
Webcast Finished

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.

Before redevelopment to provide business class EG3 use at ground floor and park first floor

residential class 3 use associated highway and landscape works

at Victoria Wharf, Starrow Road slash Beechey Road, London E3 2NT

Before we begin there's just a few formalities to run through

First, if everyone can make sure they've silenced their phones, mobile devices.

Second, is the level of lighting okay for everyone?

It's a bit dingy.

Is it possible to put the lights up a little bit?

Microphone back away.

In terms of using the microphones,

if you could switch the microphone on

when you want to speak and then switch it off

when you've finished.

Can I just ask for someone to explain the evacuation

procedure?

Next up we just introduce the teams if I start with the opponent.

Good morning, sir. I've done a list of appearances which I'll hand in with my opening statement.

My name is Ms. Heather Sargent of Cownsell. I'm instructed by Centro Planning Consultancy

and I'll be calling Dr. Chris Miele, a partner at Montague Evans LLP on heritage and townscape

matters, Ms Beatrix Young, Director at Buckley Grey Yeoman on design matters and Mr Tarun

Cheema, an Associate Director at Centro Planning Consultancy on planning matters.

If I go now to the council. Yes, thank you. Good morning, sir. My name

is Hugh Flanagan. I'm a barrister instructed by Diane Phillips, Senior Planning Lawyer

at Tower Hamlets. I should say I've got a list which is coming with my opening as well.

and my three witnesses. Firstly, Miss Katarina Chung, Senior Planning Officer and Place Shaping

Officer at the Council. Secondly, Miss Yulia Pak, Creative Enterprise Zone Manager at the

Do we have anyone else here who is intending to speak today?

I think I did have a couple of names.

I did have a couple of names.

I understood someone might be joining virtually.

and then can anyone update me on that?

So I can provide an update.

As I understand, as we understand,

two councillors wish to speak.

One is intending to attend in person today.

At 11 a .m.

The second was intending to attend virtually today.

So perhaps I'll just update you on that situation.

Now the inquiry is being webcast

and there's a link on the council's website

and it's working as I understand.

However, there is no screen here.

It was intended there would be, but there isn't.

We are working on that at the moment, but it means there is not currently a screen for someone to appear virtually,

unless a laptop were to be used or something of that sort.

So that's where we are at the moment on third parties and virtual attendance.

Okay, if any interested parties do turn up at some point, we'll see how we can fit them

into the timetable.

So as you just said, the event is being streamed.

I was just checking, is the camera being left on all the time, or are you switching off

during breaks?

So hopefully everyone has seen the draught timetable.

So the inquiry is scheduled to run over three weeks with each full day split into four sessions.

So we start at 9 .30 from tomorrow onwards.

Generally speaking we'll aim to take a short break around 11.

lunch around one o 'clock and another short break probably around three ish.

I aim to finish by five each day except on any half days when we finish at 1 .30.

We keep those timings under review as we go along.

I think it's right to say that materials can't be left here overnight.

Just a quick question before we go on. Is anyone bothered by the music we've got going

on in the background?

I was about to ask if something could be done about that because whilst you're speaking

it's not very distracting but then it is, I don't know where it's coming from but it

for coming in from here.

I've got a copy of the council's letters of notification, the appeal dated 27th of April

2026, and confirming the date, time and location of the inquiry dated 13th of July 2026, together

with the lists of those to whom the notifications were sent.

Where the site notices have been posted, which have copies of the representations made in

response to the appeal and the planning application consultation. So I'll take

those into account in reaching my decision.

I held a case management conference online on the 19th of June 2026 with

representatives from the Appellant and Council. That was how to discuss the

procedure for the inquiry and the merits of the appeal weren't discussed. Case

Management Conference covered confirmation of the main issues, plans, the

way in which the evidence will be dealt with and timetable for submission of

evidence. Now following that I've received and I've read the proofs of

evidence and rebuttals.

I'd expect that to be largely taken as read,

although clearly we'll be going over

those disputed matters in a lot more detail.

I think hard copies have been provided

at the back of the room.

If anyone needs to refer to them.

I'll be following the procedure in the 2000 inquiry procedure rules.

I assume the main parties are familiar with the procedures, but for the benefit of others

I'll just outline how the inquiry will proceed.

When I've concluded these opening remarks, I'll ask the appellant, followed by the council,

to each make a brief opening statement.

They'll be around 15 minutes long.

That'll help everyone to understand the main arguments.

Then if there are any interested parties and they wish to speak, that's when I would hear

them.

Alternatively, as I said, if interested parties turn up on other days, then we'll make time

in the timetable.

As was agreed during the case management conference, the inquiry is being structured by topic,

so those topics being in broad terms, character and appearance and planning. Each is going to

be dealt with by formal presentation of evidence and cross -examination. Council's witness is going

first. Now following evidence in chief, we're the council's advocate. We'll ask the witness

about their evidence, the opponent's advocate will have the opportunity to cross -examine.

Council's advocate they may then put some questions in re -examination.

There will be an opportunity for questions from any interested persons

speaking in support of the proposal. I might also have questions.

Next, if there are any, there'd be an opportunity to hear evidence from any interested parties

who haven't already contributed.

Those giving evidence would be normally expected to answer questions.

I'll then ask the appellant to present their evidence following the same procedure.

Generally if I have any questions I'll ask those before re -examination.

Any interested parties wishing to speak, ask questions, it would do so after I've asked

my questions.

So when we've gone through the main issues we'll have a discussion on

conditions and planning obligations. As a standard procedure it doesn't mean that

I've made up my mind when it doesn't prejudice the council's case position.

As I indicated previously there will be time for a signed copy of the section

one oh six agreement to be provided and just just any quick updates on the

section one oh six and sir I understand that we received sort of the latest

draught from the council last night I believe so it's still under discussion

between the parties but we'll obviously keep you updated

I'll hear you closing submissions from the council and then the appellant and can I request

that I have those in writing please beforehand.

Not inviting any applications for costs but if anyone does intend to make an application

For an award of cost, that should be done before I close or adjourn the inquiry at the

end.

If you are intending to make an application, if you could do it as soon as possible, that

would be helpful.

I've also got the power to initiate the award of cost, whether or not any applications have

been made by the parties.

If I was to do that, that would follow a written process with a relevant party after the appeal

decisions issued. So I have already visited the site and the surrounding

area. I say I visited the site, I've not been on site. I'm familiar with the site

and its surroundings. We'll be making a site visit during the course of the

event which I've currently got scheduled for day three. I think the parties were

keen that I did that before the planning evidence.

Can I just cheque the extent of access that will be available

on that visit?

So we've notified all of the tenants on site,

so we'll provide access to as much of it as we can.

Now the site visit will be accompanied so there will be representatives from both parties.

The idea of the site visit is that it's for me to see the site and its surroundings.

I'm not intending for there to be any discussion during the visit.

Obviously I know that you've got differences in opinion at the moment.

I hope you received the message that was sent yesterday.

So really I really would like for you to resolve this issue of how much space exists

and what it's used for. I appreciate you might have some differences opinion on use and awfulness.

It would be really helpful if you could clearly set those out in that schedule.

But certainly move to a position where you agree on the basic factorial matter of how

much space exists.

That would be really helpful.

Now just going to the timetable, I understand the Council had some comments on week two.

He wanted Ms Pack's evidence to come first.

So yes, that's correct. I'm not sure how that arose, but I certainly would want to call Ms Pack before Mr Weir on the basis of Mr Weir's planning.

Witness, he'll deal with the overall balance and therefore needs to come after Ms Pack, please.

But that's fine, it might just mean that Mr. Weare's evidence is not all done in the same

day.

And if you're happy with that.

Yes, no question.

As I said previously, this week,

The half day on Friday is probably not going to be required.

I should think we'll accommodate everything we need to

on Thursday.

Any comments on that?

We were in agreement broadly with that.

We, it's the same.

So the timetable is only a guide.

Some things might overrun, some things might take less time.

But the reason is there's scope for slippage

within that timetable.

I think, provided the advocates generally

stick to their timings as much as possible,

and that does of course also involve

cooperation from witnesses to clearly answer the questions

and not delay the process.

Then everything should fit in.

And we can have a discussion about how,

You know if everything does run to time we deal with week three

Probably revisit that next week

If at any time the advocates think that an adjournment is necessary, please let me know

Bear in mind that I might ask more questions of one party than another or one witness or another

Doesn't indicate I've made up my mind

The sent questions are simply to ensure that I understand all the evidence before me.

The list of plans is set out in the statement of common ground.

Can I just ask for confirmation that the plans we are looking at are the latest submitted plans?

Let's go exit.

Now, would either party like to keep a list of the inquiry documents?

It's probably best, actually, if whoever it is maintains the website, does it?

I think the website might have been somewhat a joint effort, so we're happy to keep a list

of inquiry documents if that's helpful.

Now those inquiry documents should be uploaded onto the website.

Now all documents and evidence should have already been provided. If you are intending

to submit any more now, please let me know.

So I have one pending edition it's not new evidence and but Ms. Young has

produced a slideshow for her evidence in chief which just takes the images from

her proof and the DAS I think primarily and would like to refer to that in

giving her oral evidence tomorrow and we can circulate that imminently I think

and but we've made sure to label every image with the source so that you know

where you can find it in the other documents that are in evidence.

She will...

I think we did ask the council and the planning inspector

at the end of last week whether a screen would be available.

I heard Mr Flonigan's explanation that actually in this venue

there isn't one at the moment, but hopefully that could be provided

by the time she gives her evidence, which I think is tomorrow afternoon.

Yeah, I had understood that a screen would be available.

I mean obviously if we're going to be using a screen in here it'll have to be a

Pretty a pretty big one if we're going to actually see it. I mean is there any likelihood of that?

And so the only other point was that we have got a draught sort of addendum statement of

common ground circulating between the councils that covers off amongst other things the floor

space point you mentioned and I think the latest HDT results that's currently

with the council but we'll obviously get that to you as soon as we can.

And were you just going to address the new framework in as part of your

treatment of their planning witnesses or are you wrapping that in with the new

addendum? It's the addendum provides a sort of comparison table to explain

essentially what's happened to the old policies and what they've become but it

doesn't really go beyond that factual explanation so yeah it is the rest of it

I think and the implications as a matter will need to explore in evidence. So yes

we're trying to take that approach as well I can confirm that the addendum

State of the Common Ground has been going back and forth between the parties and will

now take account of your email yesterday morning on the floor space as well. That's been worked

on. So from us there are two extra documents, I can refer to them now, which were sent in

night but fairly late so you may not have seen them. The first is a board

report or part of it, 30th April 2014 from the London Legacy Development

Corporation and it's footnoted with a hyperlink in Dr. Mealy's rebuttal but

the document itself is not in the documents as far as we can see so we've

provided that. Hopefully that's acceptable. And the second one is a short five -page extract

of the design and access statement for the Broadwood piano factory scheme, which is over

the road from the appeal site and is referred to quite extensively in the evidence. There's

documents from that scheme in the core documents.

But for Ms Chung's evidence in chief,

we'd like to have a look at it just to illustrate it better.

So we've provided a short extract, as I say.

Obviously, if anyone wants to put in a fuller extract,

that would obviously be fine.

But hopefully that's acceptable.

And I think we've provisionally given them CD numbers already,

but obviously you haven't seen them yet,

we put them in now but hopefully that's okay sir.

Have you seen these documents? No, I don't have any objection to the first one since it

appears to be a document that my witness is referring to. I don't have a problem in principle

with the second one but I may need some time once I've heard specifically what points Ms Chung is

making in relation to the DAS for the piano factory specifically you know I

haven't had chance to discuss that if that's going to be detailed evidence I

haven't had chance to discuss that with my witnesses so I may need some time I

hope not extensive time but I might need time to consider that properly before I

cross examine her

Can I just cheque that the parents seem to have received these documents?

I think they've made them as far as Mr. Cheema said.

It may be that they're lurking in my emails.

Not quite yet.

I'm sure they'll come through and sure.

If I only exceptionally will any material that is received after the closing of the

inquiry be taken into account?

Just moving on to the main issues.

As I said very broadly, we're talking about the effect of the development on the character

and appearance of the area, including heritage assets and the effect of the development on

employment floor space provision and existing cultural offer.

Obviously there have been some things that have fallen away but I'm not going

go into that. Has anyone got any comments?

So you'll see it from my opening, but it seems to us that the two issues you identify certainly

are probably the first two main issues. Place space has fallen away, but communal amenity

space hasn't. That is a discrete issue, obviously connected, but it is a discrete issue, which

remains.

Can I just cheque, is it still the intention to address that in the context of the planning

evidence. So that's partly right Mr. Weir gives evidence on it in terms of

planning policy and quantum. Mr. Cheung does give some evidence in terms of

design and quality.

So before we start, are there any questions?

Of the questions about the procedure or any other matters before we start

Okay, then that concludes my opening remarks I just asked the

Must be sergeant if you'd like to make a short opening statement

Thank you, so I just hand that around in hard copy

So by way of introduction, earlier this month, the government

introduced the new national planning policy framework NPPF which is a

material consideration it says of critical importance in determining

applications for planning permission. The context for the determination of this

appeal has thus evolved. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is

now found in policy S3. The site is within a settlement and so policy S31A

applies policy S4. Policy S41 requires the appeal scheme which I'll refer to as

scheme to be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed

by any adverse effects when assessed against the national decision -making policies in the

MPPF. There are in this regard then a number of obvious changes from the position under

the previous MPPF. The tilted balance that was previously found in paragraph 11d2 of

the 2024 MPPF required planning permission to be refused if the adverse impacts significantly

and demonstrably outweighed the benefits. But the parallel requirement in the new MPPF

is that planning permissions should not now be withheld unless the adverse effects substantially

outweigh the benefits. Then the presumption now applies to every

development proposal within a settlement irrespective of whether the policies of the statutory development

plan are out of date. Although we note that had the previous 2024 MPPF still applied,

the most important development plan policies would have been out of date in any event

because the latest housing delivery test result is only 47%.

Applying the new presumption in Policy S41, the considerable benefits of the scheme would not be outweighed by any adverse effects

and would certainly not be outweighed substantially.

It follows that under the Government's latest national planning policy, the scheme should be approved.

The appellant notes further that policy S42 of the MPPF

expressly identifies a number of circumstances

in which the benefits of approving development

are likely to be substantially outweighed

by adverse effects, but none of those circumstances

apply here.

As regards the benefits of the scheme,

the site's present condition fails to optimise

the opportunities presented by its excellent location

in an area of change within the Olympic Legacy

Opportunity Area, a location that scores 5a which is the second highest possible

score on the GLA's SAM Sustainable Access Measure. The scheme would optimise

the site in line with the objectives of policy GG2 of the London Plan on making

the best use of land and of London Plan policy SD1 in relation to opportunity

areas. Delivery of the scheme would also reflect the transformation that's

ongoing across the wider Fish Island and Hackney Wick. The optimisation of a sustainably located

Brownfield site is a benefit that accords with LLDC policies SD1, SP2, BN4, T4 and SP5,

and with London Plant policies GG2, SD1, D2, D3, H1, T1 and T2. It should be given substantial weight.

C Policy L21b of the new MPPF, which requires substantial weight to be given to making better use of underutilised land.

Next, the scheme would swiftly deliver 72 homes, including three in a low -cost rent tenure, in a range of unit sizes.

Substantial weight should be given to this benefit, which accords with LLD C Policies SD1, SP2, H1 and H2,

and with London Plan policies GG4, SD1, D3, H1, H2, H4, 5, 6 and H10.

That's because there is an evidenced unmet need for housing in the Council's area.

The latest housing delivery test result is just 47 % of the London Plan housing target

and I add sir that as you all have appreciated that's a recent development in the context for the determination of the appeal.

In publishing the new MPPF, the government emphasised that under the leadership of the

new Prime Minister, the government is more focused than ever on building the homes our

country needs and delivering good growth in every postcode, and that the new MPPF

incorporates a number of substantive reforms designed to boost housing supply and unlock

economic growth in the years ahead. Policy H07 of the new MPPF requires substantial

rate to be given to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting

the evidenced accommodation needs of the community as identified through needs assessment prepared

for the area of the local planning authority and other relevant evidence. The significant

unmet housing need within the council's area is now well evidenced through the recent publication

of the latest HDT result. Next, in accordance with LLDC policies SP1 and B1 and with London

plan policies GG3, D3, E1, 2, 8 and HC5, this scheme would provide

workspace aimed at creative industries, that is, light industrial floor space

that can be used flexibly as workshops, studios, exhibition space, showrooms and

so on. This provision would improve the functionality and employment density of

the site and it should be given substantial weight. The scheme would also

deliver substantial public realm and landscaping improvements on the site,

improving public access between the site and the canal and delivering a 57 %

biodiversity net gain. This benefit accords with LLD policies SB5, BN2, 3, 5, 9

and with T8 and with London Plan policies GG1, G5, 6 and 7 and D3, 8 and 9.

it to merit substantial weight in the overall planning balance.

Substantial weight should be given to the high quality design of the scheme,

which would enhance the local townscape, including by aiding with wayfinding and legibility.

The scheme represents a significant improvement from the low quality buildings that largely occupy the site at present.

The scheme's design accords with LLDC policies SP3 and BN1, 4, 5 and 17, and with London

Plan policies GG1, D3, D4, D9 and HC1.

There would also be heritage benefits to both the Fish Island and White Post Lane conservation

area and to the locally listed gatehouse building, as Dr Neely explains.

With reference to policy HE61 of the new MPPF, substantial weight should be given to the

benefit to the CA and applying policy HE62 of the new MPPF, the scheme should be supported

because it would have a positive effect on a designated heritage asset, that is the conservation

area.

Policy HE71 of the new MPPF similarly indicates that the scheme should be supported because

it also has a positive effect on a non -designated heritage asset which is the gatehouse.

Substantial weight should now be given to the scheme's carbon credentials having regard

to policy CC22 of the new MPPF. Moderate weight should be given to the excellent standard

of residential accommodation and to the inclusive and secure design that the scheme would secure

in accordance with LLDC policies SP2, BN4 and 6, H1 and S12,

and London Plan policies GG1, 4 and 5, and D35, 6, 11 and S4.

Finally, minor weight should be given to the benefit that would derive from the construction jobs that the scheme would create.

Against the series of substantial benefits summarised above,

the scheme would result in only one instance of planning harm,

which would be minor in the overall planning balance,

and that, as I've explained in the footnote,

is the loss of Victoria Wharf Studios

as cultural and events floor space, which I'll come back to.

Of the nine reasons for refusal that were originally identified

by the Council in its decision notice,

only four remain and none of those is well founded.

Before addressing the four remaining reasons for refusal in turn,

a final point falls to be made on the new MPPF.

Paragraph 2 of Annex 8 of the new MPPF provides that very limited weight should be given to

development plan policies or parts of those policies that are materially inconsistent

with the national decision -making policies in the new MPPF.

That question of consistency is one that will need to be explored in oral evidence.

Turning to the remaining reasons for refusal, by way of preliminary observation you will

have appreciated, sir, that the Council introduced in its Statement of Case numerous additional

development plan policies that are nowhere mentioned in the reasons for

refusal in the decision notice but that the council now belatedly contends that

the scheme conflicts with. Such belated reliance is not only unpersuasive but is

inappropriate because it's flatly contrary to the requirements of article

35 of the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure England

Order 2015. The appellant will return to this point in cross -examination and

and enclosing submissions.

On reason for refusal one,

which is an alleged loss of employment floor space

and failure to provide details of relocation strategies,

there would not be a loss of employment floor space.

In fact, there would be a 50 square metre increase

in the amount of floor space

that contributes to employment capacity on the site.

Furthermore, the proposed light industrial units

have been designed with sufficient floor to ceiling heights

and other design features to accommodate those working

in the creative and cultural industries. A Section 106 obligation can be used to ensure

that the fit -out of the proposed employment space meets the needs of those industries

and an appropriate obligation is included within the draught Section 106 obligation as

part of the relocation strategy. The provision of this flexible and functional workspace

is a public benefit of substantial weight. The detail of the relocation strategy is a

matter still under discussion between the appellant and the council.

Reason for refusal 2 alleges the loss of a nightclub. The council's case in respect of this reason for refusal has evolved very substantially from the reasoning set out in the decision notice which identifies only a single nightclub venue as relevant.

The council now identifies Two More Years and also Victoria Wharf Studio as multi -purpose cultural venues.

As to that, Mr Chima's evidence remains that the primary use of Two More Years is as a workspace with ancillary cultural and or events use.

As such, Two More Years does not benefit from protection under London Plan Policies HC5 and 6.

Should you conclude to the contrary, sir, that the primary use of two more years is a cultural or events use with ancillary workspace use,

then the apparent acknowledges that there would be a loss of a cultural venue that benefits from policy protection.

But in that scenario, so if two more years is not primarily in workspace use at present,

there would be a 560 square metre increase in the net employment floor space,

which would outweigh the loss of the cultural and events use in the overall planning balance.

As to Vittoria Wharf studio, that amounts to 153 square metres of floor space, which

is less than 5 % of the total GIA of the existing site and typically hosts one event per day.

Mr Cheema is correct to observe that the planning harm that would result from the removal of

Vittoria Wharf studios must be considered proportionately. In the overall planning balance,

it amounts only to minor harm.

Moving on to Reason for Refusal 4, which is Design, Townscape and Heritage related.

That reason for refusal complains that the scale, height and massing of the scheme would result in a negative impact to the local context and townscape,

that the ground floor arrangement would result in poor quality public realm, and that there would be an adverse impact to the setting of the conservation area and the gatehouse.

None of those complaints is well founded.

Significantly, the LLDC's quality review panel ultimately concluded, amongst other things,

that the form, scale and massing of the Schemes blocks provided a sensitive response to the local context,

that the introduction of the double height opening created an important link through to the canal,

that the success of the scheme would depend upon the quality of the detailing, materiality and finishes used,

but the Council here is not advancing any criticism of the scheme's detailing, materiality or finishes.

And finally, the QRP concluded that the scheme met the criteria for LLDC policy BN5.

As Dr. Mee -Lian and Ms. Young explain in their evidence, the scale of the scheme is, as a matter of fact,

consistent with the scale of recent development nearby, both constructed and consented.

The scheme's massing was informed by a rigorous and iterative design process.

It's been broken down into distinct elements that reinforce the site's industrial grain,

create a varied townscape composition and establish an appropriate relationship between

the scheme and its surroundings.

The additional height of Block 2 doesn't lead to any harmful impact on the character

and appearance of the surrounding area, including the conservation area.

Rather it serves a clear townscape purpose.

It forms a clear gateway landmark, reinforcing the strategic north -south connexion between

the H -16 bridge and the Hackney Cut. The scheme's public realm is high quality,

perhaps most obviously, unlike neighbouring developments which includes

Carpenter's Wharf, where waterside spaces remain private, the scheme proposes a

continuous publicly accessible canal edge that would transform a previously

inaccessible waterfront into a new public destination. The scheme wouldn't

cause any harm to the significance of either the conservation area or the

To the contrary, the canal -side setting of the conservation area would be enhanced by the provision of a building of appropriate design and of attractive public realm that provides views over the conservation area of the canal.

Similarly, the scheme would conserve and restore the gatehouse, integrating it into a wider development and so providing for its long -term beneficial use.

The proposed new buildings would be set back from the gatehouse, which has a distinct identity arising from its scale and form which stand out.

Overall, the setting and significance of the gatehouse would be enhanced.

Critically, and in light of the new MPPF's new presumption,

the Council's complaints about the design of the scheme are not well -founded.

It's important to bear in mind that the LLDC's QRP concluded that the scheme met the criteria of LLDC policy BN5.

That means that the QRP was satisfied that the scheme did exhibit exceptionally good design

and that the scheme met the requirements of LLDC policies BN1 and BN4,

and that the scheme also met the six criteria set out in policy BN5,

which include, amongst others, an appropriate proportion, form, massing, height and scale in context with the character of its surroundings,

a positive contribution to the public realm at ground level, a positive contribution to the surrounding townscape,

and creation of new or an enhancement to existing views, vistas and sightlines where there's an opportunity to do so.

Policy DP42 of the new MPPF requires local planning authorities to ensure that they have access to and encourage the appropriate use of design review

and take into account their outcomes, including any design recommendations made by design review panels.

The conclusions reached by the QRP here are of course not binding either on the Council or on USER,

But it is striking that the QRP did not ultimately share the concerns that are now evinced by

the council.

Naturally, there will be disagreements about design, but that doesn't mean that design

is a wholly subjective matter.

The next reason for refusal that's still in issue is reason for refusal six, which began

life as an alleged failure to meet the minimum child play space requirement for on -site provision.

It's now common ground, however, that the scheme would provide sufficient child's play

subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. The council now

complains instead of allegedly inadequate provision of communal

amenity space. Development plan policies do not however require any particular

quantum of communal amenity space to be provided, a fact that Mr. Awir

acknowledges in his proof. The scheme would provide a hundred and twelve

metre square of community amenities communal amenity space in the internal

courtyard which satisfies the quantum required by the draught local plan policy

and an additional 97 square metres would be available by the proposed floating

pontoons. For the reasons set out by Mr Cheema in his rebuttal, the council is

wrong to reduce the quantum of communal amenity space proposed down to 75 square

metres. The internal courtyard is not precluded from serving as effective

communal amenity space simply because it also provides pedestrian access and infrequently

functions as a temporary refuse holding area. Similarly the pontoons would be easily accessible

to residents close to the residential entrances to all three blocks and would offer a high quality

and unique communal amenity space. Overall therefore as I've summarised the scheme would

result in very substantial planning benefits and in only one instance of planning harm which would

be minor in the overall planning balance. The scheme complies with the development plan

overall and even if the contrary conclusion were reached, the minor harm that would result

from the scheme comes nowhere close to outweighing the benefits, still less substantially. So

the appellant respectfully requests that you allow the appeal and grant planning commission

for the scheme. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we will hear from Mr. Fananigan.

Thank you.

So the opening submission is on behalf of the Council. Hackney Wick and Fish Island

is a unique and important place. Its strong industrial heritage from the 19th and first

half of the 20th century derives from the invention and production of goods linked to

the emergence of the consumer age. Some of the world's first plastics, early developments

in petrol production, dyes, printing, dry cleaning, and so on. After a period of post -war

decline, the area re -emerged as a hub of innovative production in new ways, with a cluster of

vital creative industries of artists and makers, locating there from at least the 1980s onwards.

By the 2010s, Hackney, Wick and Fish Island had become the most dense concentration of

artist studios in the UK.

The area has a strong sense of place in the architecture of its surviving industrial buildings

and structures, in the morphology of its streets and industrial yards, in its insular character

created by the Lee Navigation and Hartford Union Canal, and in the intensity of creative

and cultural industries and uses with workshops, studios, galleries, bars and event spaces.

The appeal site lies at the heart of this important area, geographically and functionally.

A vibrant multi -purpose cultural venue and workspace has operated from the 7 Roach Road

space since at least 2010 to the present day. First as Stour space and now as two more years,

containing individual workspaces, co -working space, an art gallery, a cafe, a bar and a

It is a valued community space and a destination venue.

A second multi -purpose cultural venue, Victoria Wharf Studio,

exists in Unit 4 at the top floor of the Victoria Wharf building,

adjacent to the canal, and has done so from around 2010,

hosting an array of cultural and community activities such as workshops,

dance classes, and wellness and music events on a daily basis.

The Vittoria Wharf Hackney Cut and Gate House buildings contain a significant amount of floor space in use either as stand -alone workspace for creative businesses or as live workspace for creative occupiers.

The space is affordable and flexible, creating a thriving community of productive occupiers.

The site lies in the immediate setting of the Fish Island and White Post Lane conservation area and contributes positively to character and townscape.

The site is repeatedly recognised in studies and reports about Hackney Wickenfish Island as a key creative workspace and cultural venue within Hackney Wickenfish Island.

It is an important part of what makes Hackney Wickenfish Island special.

Redevelopment of the site needs to recognise and respect the value that the site brings to the area.

Council officers, in agreement with officers of the London Legacy Development Corporation,

to whom the application was originally submitted before transfer of powers back to Tower Hamlets on 30th November 2024,

considered the application proposals failed to do that.

Accordingly, Planning Commission was refused on 10th December 2025.

Nine reasons were given. Reasons for refusal three, viability five, fire safety

seven, highways eight, ecology and nine, groundwater have been resolved to the

council's satisfaction by submission of further information by the appellant.

Reason for refusal six has been resolved insofar as it concerns play space by

submission of further information but Tower Hamlet say that the scheme remains

unacceptable in respect of communal residential amenity space as set out in the Council's

statement of case. The Council also highlights the strength of feeling that this proposal

has generated amongst the local community. 417 third party representations at planning

application stage, a further 220 at appeal stage, all but a tiny handful in objection

and many giving detailed first -hand evidence of the importance and value of the appeal

site from those who work, live and use it. As required by the inquiry procedure rules,

Tower Hamlets has set out its case for this appeal in its statement of case. And I comment

and I add which the development -managed procedure order to which my leaded friend refers obviously

does not prevent. And it's expanded not in its proofs of evidence.

This short opening will briefly outline Tower Hamlets's case on the issues in dispute as

between the council and the appellant.

Firstly, employment floor space.

This issue has a number of components.

In summary, however, the appeal scheme will result in, one, a net loss of employment floor

space.

Two, a net reduction in employment density.

Three, inadequate re -provision of employment floor space.

Four, loss of cultural and creative work space.

Five, loss of affordable work space.

And six, loss of live work spaces.

Just deal with the first two together,

so loss of employment floor space

and net reduction in employment density.

Policy B1 of the LLDC Local Plan 2020 to 2036

seeks to protect existing employment floor space.

Despite this clear and strong policy

and clear advice from LLDC officers,

the planning application and the appeal

appears to have been made without any proper assessment

of the amount of existing employment floor space

or what it was being used for.

The planning statement stated that there was

1 ,633 square metres of employment floor space.

In drawings provided with the appellant's statement of case for the appeal, that figure

went up to 1 ,995 square metres of employment floor space. When the appellant finally undertook

a survey in June 2026, that figure initially went up again to 2 ,149 square metres. Then,

Then by a further email on 21 July 2026, only seven days before proofs were due on 28 July,

the figure went down by nearly a third to 1 ,476 square metres. And that figure appears

to be the figure which the appellant now invites the inquiry to accept.

None of this gives any confidence in the figures, nor is the appellant clear on what it says

the lawful use of this floor space is or on what basis.

The council will say that however the lawful use

of the floor space is treated,

there is non -compliance with policy B1.

Assuming that the lawful use remains

the historic general industrial storage

and distribution use, or B2B8,

for all of the site other than firstly two more years,

which comprises 690 square metres

of co -working light industrial floor space

and a Vittoria Wharf studio,

which comprises 153 square metres of cultural events space.

There is about 3 ,000 square metres

internal employment floor space,

plus an upper operational yard.

1 ,536 square metres is proposed,

resulting in a significant net loss.

Assuming alternatively, as the appellant appears to do,

that the live work on the site is lawful,

the council considers on present evidence

that there is about 2 ,149 square metres of employment space,

also leading to a significant net loss

against the 1 ,536 square metres proposed.

On an employment density approach,

there is reduction in density, not increase,

as B1 requires.

Then turn to the other aspects of this first issue, that's inadequate re -provision of employment

floor space, loss of cultural and creative work space, loss of affordable work space

and loss of live work spaces.

The existing employment floor space is in use by creative and cultural occupiers.

It hosts scores of studios and workshops, making a major contribution to the creative

industries in Hackney Wick, Fish Island and London. It is affordable, flexible and suited

to the needs of those occupiers. The NLDC local plan, including policy B4, 1 .1 and 1 .2,

and London plan, including policies HE5 and E3, require employment floor space used by

creative and cultural industries, both in terms of quantum and affordability, to be protected.

The site is also within the Hackney Wick and Lower Leigh Valley Creative Enterprise Zone, the CEZ, and Mayoral designation.

The CEZ programme designates areas of London where artists and creative businesses can find permanent, affordable space to work and where they are provided business support to start up and grow.

CEZs are embedded in Development Plan Policy, for example in Local Plan Policy, page 40,

and in London Plan Policy, HC5. The appellant says that the proposed employment floor space

has been designed to accommodate creative and cultural occupiers. But the appeal proposal

does not restrict the employment floor space to creative and cultural occupiers, nor does

the appeal proposal contain any affordable workspace.

That will inevitably result in the loss

of the existing creative and cultural occupiers.

The council also says that the specification

of the floor space, for example,

in terms of ceiling heights and servicing,

has not been designed with the requirements

of existing occupiers in mind,

is less suited to this type of occupier

and does not comply with guidance.

Nor has the appellant committed to any relocation strategy which would comply with policy and

guidance. The appellant proposes to give existing occupiers a right of first refusal for the

new space, but without providing any alternative accommodation in the meantime, nor with any

commitments in terms of affordability. And finally, the scheme will result in the loss

of live -work space, which directly facilitates creative and cultural enterprises.

I then turn to the second issue in my formulation, the loss of cultural venues.

The appeal scheme will result in the loss of two cultural venues, Two More Years and

Vittoria Wharf Studio.

There is no justification for the loss of either of them.

Both are important contributors to Hackney Wick and Fish Islands' cultural offering,

as I've explained.

The appellant gives no reason as to why they cannot be re -provided.

In respect of Victoria Wharf's studio, the appellant has belatedly, in proofs of evidence not in application or appeal documents,

acknowledged the conflict with Development Plan policy due to its loss, but simply asserts that its loss is outweighed.

In respect of two more years, the appellant appears to suggest that the cultural use is not subject to policy protection because to some extent it shares floor space with co -working space.

That is obviously wrong, we say. It would drive a coach and horses through policy protection for cultural uses.

The community and cultural space at Two More Years is at the heart of the Hackney Wick

and Fish Island community. Such uses get strong protection from Development Plan policy. National

policy in the new MPPF has been strengthened to give them enhanced protection. It is a

fundamental failing of the appeal scheme not to maintain or re -provide this use. The appellant

states that the design of the scheme, I quote,

acknowledges the memory of the former cultural space

from Ms. Young's proof.

A memory will not be much use to all the existing users

of the cultural and community space.

Thirdly, then I turn to design, townscape and heritage.

The appeal site forms a cluster of buildings

referred to in the conservation area appraisal

as part of the Stour Road cluster,

which are of interest in heritage terms

and contribute positively to townscape.

The Two More Years building and the Vittoria Wharves

buildings with the exception of the Hackney Cut building

are characteristic of the industrial heritage of the area.

The Gate House is a locally listed building

which has heritage significance.

The appeal site sits in the immediate setting

of the conservation area adjoining it on two sides.

That is the whole of the canal frontage

with the proposed pontoons being located

within the conservation area and on the southwestern edge,

southwestern edge of the appeal site.

Together the appeal site buildings

make a recognised contribution to the wider character

and identity of the conservation area and its setting.

The council has no in principle objection

to the proposed demolition,

noting that the gatehouse is proposed to be retained.

But the contribution that these buildings, these existing buildings make, has to be recognised

in weighing their loss and in judging whether what is proposed justifies that loss.

Tower Hamlets will say that the appeal scheme is harmful in townscape and heritage terms.

As to the proposed Block 2, while height beyond 20 metres on the corner plot by the bridge

could be acceptable, what is proposed is excessive in bulk and scale and detracts from views

into the conservation area. There is also insufficient variation in height between block

two and the six storey blocks one and three, leading to a wall of development on the boundary

of the canal and the conservation area and failing to relate to the varied height of

conservation area elsewhere. The combination of the height of all three, all three proposed blocks

that is, is to dominate the modest gatehouse in a way which harms the significance of that heritage

asset. The public realm is also deficient. The courtyard will receive very little sunlight given

the scale of the surrounding new buildings and will suffer from a volume of uses and activity

which will prevent it functioning as high quality residential communal amenity space.

The colonnade by the canal lacks the openness and visibility to encourage greater usage beyond the neighbouring commercial uses.

Both are symptoms of overdevelopment.

Policy in BN5 imposes a 20 metre height restriction.

All three new blocks proposed materially exceed that restriction at 22 .7m, 28 .6m and 23 .2m.

That's exceedances of between 13 % and 43%.

They do not meet the criteria in Policy Bn5 for such exceedances, either the design criteria

including exceptionally good design,

or the significant additional public benefit test.

The scheme proposes only 4 % affordable housing.

The scheme provides no affordable workspace.

New public access is provided to the canal,

but the design is compromised.

This is not a scheme going above and beyond,

which is what policy requires.

Fourthly then, communal amenity space.

The amendments made by the appellant to the fifth floor podium are sufficient to resolve the play space issue by submission of new plans on 13th of July of this year.

But the knock -on impact is to put more pressure on the courtyard for residential community amenity space.

Given the number of uses that the courtyard must service, there is inadequate space for residential community amenity space as well as it being deficient in terms of lack of sunlight.

So finally in terms of planning, balance and conclusion, the Council fully recognises the

benefits of redevelopment of this site, in particular through the provision of new housing

and new employment floor space.

Policy contemplates change in Hackney, Wiccanfish Island, but not change that harms what makes

Hackney, Wiccanfish Island important and valued.

The harms of this scheme are considerable for all the reasons I've set out and which

will be further explained in evidence. As a result, there is clear conflict with the

development plan as a whole. There is also conflict with national policy in the new NPPF,

which indicates that planning permissions should be refused. Norwood Planning Permission

accord with the duty in section 72 of the Planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation

Areas Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing

the character appearance of the conservation area.

The Council will in due course invite you, sir, to dismiss the appeal.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We'll have a short break now of 15 minutes.

So until 11 .25 the inquiry is adjourned.

I just ask, was there a list of appearances for the council?

Not a separate one but there is a list on the first page of my opening submissions incorporated

into it.

So there will be inquiry documents one to three.

Thank you.

Right, now is the time we would hear from interested parties if there are any.

Okay.

If you'd like to come down to the table in the middle.

I should just explain, interested parties are generally expected to answer questions.

if the opposing advocate has any happy to answer questions.

Right, if I just take your name first and your interest.

Sorry, can I just take your name again?

Okay, if you'd like to start.

Thank you.

I think the most important thing here is that in 15 years time when kids who read

about the history of the Olympics and the legacy of the work come to ask the

question of how can I get involved or how can I take part in that, what are we

going to turn around and say to them? Are we going to turn around and say yeah you can go

try that out because we've enshrined those spaces that have provided the place

to do and participate in such a way of life that the development of the area

currently does not provide? Or are we going to say sorry mate we weren't able to

enshrine it, it just got built over. Here's what you've got, a couple

facilitated spaces that have been given over to so -called community

organisations to run on the behalf of developers. Or as I say these spaces have

been enshrined and preserved. I think the most important thing here is recognising

in those spaces, what they are. Not the spaces that have been brought up in this meeting

so far, but the actual spaces that have inhibited the Victoria War from Black Gates, the spaces

that go under the radar, the spaces that are inhabited, but those inhabitants aren't able

to speak on their own behalf today out of fear that their own leases might be terminated.

And it's these spaces that have created this legacy in Hackney Wick or the so -called Wick

that we would lose.

And in what's gone on in the Wick right now, be it Hackney Wick and Fish Island, you don't

have many of these spaces left.

And what this site represents is one of the last of those spaces in Fish Island.

I really, really can't stress enough how important the legacy of this site is to the surrounding

area and the cultural legacy.

I think it's really interesting that a recent exhibition at the Bath House

points out that tens of thousands of people signed a petition against the

plan, hundreds wrote letters, five cross -party London Assembly members'

objective.

The scheme went ahead regardless. This is talking about the neighbouring development

at the Victoria Wharf site which saw a bridge be developed even though there

was a close proximity to two pre -existing crossings.

But just to keep it short, it's that these sites do

represent a significant interest to the community

and for future generations.

And should we see this development go ahead,

future generations won't get the opportunity

to participate in something which

has made the area significant.

And there's not much else more and more else to add.

I think most of the objections have been brought up

planning grounds already but I think it's a cultural legacy that really needs

to be preserved you know. And speaking to Tower Hamlets it kind of is a problem

that's going on across London where we're seeing cultural legacies in areas

just be built upon whether it be data centres or new builds but yeah that's

pretty much it for me. I know on the Hackney side we're doing all we can to

preserve the existing warehouses which are left over in the Hackney WIC side.

Some of them are under... some of them are listed buildings so they are being slightly enshrined but others aren't.

And I think it's a really important thing to bring up and to save future generations.

Okay, thank you. Ms Sargent, do you have any questions?

Just one sir, thank you. Mr. Anchor, have you understood that your council's position

is that they don't have an in -principle objection to demolishing the buildings on the site?

As of so far, I was not on the understanding of that, no. I come here as a resident first

and foremost. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have anyone else who would like to speak?

Sir, can I update you on that?

There are, as I understand, three people online who have indicated they wish to speak.

One of those, I understand, is the Tower Hamlets Councillor, whom I referred earlier.

Mr Anker beings, I understand, Hackney Councillor.

And two further interested parties.

As I say, they are not online, not here.

That raises the question of the screen and remote participation.

I've asked again about that.

The latest update is there is a screen which has been located and is for this use.

It's currently in the town hall, a short distance away, and needs to be brought over.

That requires the logistics team to do it.

Logistics team, last I heard 20 minutes ago, were all out and therefore unable to do it.

but it was being, we were trying to bring it forward

as much as we can.

So we're trying to expedite it,

but at present the screen is obviously not here

and it's, I don't think it's gonna,

it's no indication it's going to arrive

in a matter of minutes or anything like that.

So it may be that, obviously we can seek to communicate

that to the people online.

Just turn to my left to make sure that is right.

We could let them know and potentially suggest they return at a later time when there will

be facilities hopefully to accommodate them.

Well as I say, interested parties can contribute at another time if they're not able to contribute

right now. I can comment on things to highlight from interested parties if that helps.

Well I mean you can make those comments but of course if you're making

comments on behalf of someone else they obviously can't answer any questions

about that so you know it affects the weight that can be attached to those

contributions. It's best if those persons could make the contributions

themselves if that's possible. Did you say how long it might be to the TV gets

there? I have no idea because that's in the hands of the council I think.

Thank you. Okay yeah we'll carry on. I say we have to slot that in at some point

um, where it's not disruptive, so whether we manage to do that today or not, um,

is perhaps open to question, but to wait and see, I suppose.

Right, there have also been a couple of written submissions. I don't know if you've managed

to see those.

So, from Mr. Ridge, if those are the ones you're referring to, there were potentially

three. I'd seen the ones, I think, from a few days or weeks ago. There's been some now.

somewhere within the last hour as well which I haven't seen.

I've got two

this morning from Jason Hess

and from Annie to Jennifer Williams.

They

should have been circulated.

We've not seen over these.

there.

They should have gone to Mr. Cheema, I think.

Has the council got those?

We do, yes.

Thank you.

I think they came through at ten, sir, which is why Mr Chima hadn't caught up with his

emails.

Well, those are written submissions.

Obviously, the people who made those

aren't here to answer any questions.

So I'd suggest the best thing to do

would be to just pick that up in the planning session

or wherever is relevant.

Would you like time to just look over those? They don't raise any particularly new issues.

No sir, I think given that none of my witnesses are on the stand today, we can consider them this evening and pick it up in their oral evidence, thank you.

Okay, before we just go on, is the mic still on?

Okay, I suggest while we're waiting for the screen, we start with Mrs. Chung.

I have to do evidence in chief.

What I'll do is I'll have a quick break and allow you to just set up on the witness chair.

Would five minutes be enough?

So just adjourn for five minutes.

Inquiry will return at quarter to 12.

Without the screen.

So yes, I am.

Ms. Chung is going to invite you to look at some of the visualisation of the views.

I see you've got your laptop and therefore if you're willing to open the... rather than see them on a large screen, I suggest we proceed in that way.

I'm very happy with that but my internet connexion is quite, I've been, some of the documents

I've had to try and get off the core document folder and that's just being a bit slow so

yeah, I'll keep up as best I can but I am struggling with some of the larger ones.

Can I just cheque the, I think the apparent was hoping to use the screen as well, is that

correct?

Yes, not for Dr. Meery's evidence but yes for Ms. Young's evidence.

So would it be, assuming that we can actually get a hold of this screen soon, would you consider it most fair to wait for the screen so you're not disadvantaged?

We're prepared to proceed without the screen, I think.

There is a benefit, I think, from having the screen, and I think that it is in process

of being – the team know it's a priority and it's being brought over as soon as it

can.

So I think, you know, we're hopeful for lunchtime today.

today. Can I just turn to my left to see if that's going to...

No, so it sounds like I can't guarantee it's going to be here at lunch and so to avoid

delaying matters I think we're happy to proceed without the big screen for Ms Chung's evidence

in chief, provided you are.

Yeah, I mean we can do it in the normal way.

We just have to give a bit of time for everyone to find the things you're referring to.

Perhaps just to flag them now, I think the key one, if anyone wants to start downloading

it now is the views which are found in the HTVA which is at the back of the design and

statement. I just find the core document reference for that. So it's CD 5 .13 and

and the viewpoints start at page 165.

That's a CD5 .13 would be probably

the certainly an important one, there may be others.

And with that then said, a post called my first witness is Katarina Chung.

If you could just just hang on a minute while it's downloading very, very slowly.

WSAP is experts best for those

All right, has the, the appellant got the Designing Access Statement handy?

So mine is still downloading, but if we're looking at the June 2023 Bridges Associates

HTVA, then I've got that in hard copy and we have a spare hard copy.

I think you've maybe succeeded with the internet, but we do have spare hard copies if that would

Okay then, Mr Flanagan, if you'd like to start.

Thank you, sir.

Are you Miss Katarina Chung?

Yes, I am.

Thank you. Let me briefly introduce you to the inquiry from your proof of evidence.

Paragraph 1 .1. You have a BA honours in architecture, spaces and objects from Central St. Martins, University of the Arts, London, MSc in Architectural Conservation from the University of Kent and an MSc in Town Planning from London South Bank University.

eight years experience in town planning and urban design working for local

authorities employed by London Borough of Merton in 2017 employed by Tower Hamlet

since 2022 worked as a planning officer in the West area team until January 26

promoted to senior planning officer and of relevance since April 2025 you've

also undertaken ongoing play shaping responsibilities through a secondment

that has continued to the present.

And you explain that in your place shaping capacity,

you've contributed to strategic discussions

on conservation, design and townscape.

And at paragraph six, one scheme you've contributed

to discussion about is the Fish Island Creative Arts Quarter,

which I raise obviously because it's another

Fish Island scheme.

Is that all correct?

That is correct.

And you also give the declaration in your proof of evidence as to the correctness of

what you say that they are your true and professional opinions at paragraph 2 .12?

Correct.

And in terms of documents, you've got a proof with appendices.

Appendices are quite a large separate PDF and a rebuttal and appendices.

Yes?

Yes.

Thank you.

So I'm going to follow the inspectors lead and ask you to take the proof as read and the rebuttal

is read and ask you to deal with your evidence under a number of headings or topics please.

So I'm going to start with the existing buildings on this site. So can I ask you

Ms. Cheung to describe, summarise any value that you see in the existing buildings.

And in doing so, obviously, since you wrote your rebuttal, you'll have seen the rebuttal

evidence, written evidence from Dr. Meili and Ms. Young.

So picking up any points from that evidence, which you haven't yet responded to in writing,

please.

Thank you.

So just to describe firstly, I know everyone has read the proofs, the majority of the appeal

site does lie, sorry, does not lie within the designated Fish Island and White Post Lane

Conservation Area boundary, although a small strip of the canal does fall within it, which

as Mr Flanigan mentioned is where the proposed pontoons are to be located. There are no listed

buildings within the appeal site, however the Timber Yard Gate House is locally listed

and identified as a non -designated heritage asset.

In my proof at paragraphs 4 .16 to 4 .52, I've set out the various ways in which the significance and contribution of the appeal site buildings has been identified,

both collectively and individually, through current, previous and draught guidance alongside the wider history.

I do not intend to repeat all that evidence, but there are a few points I would like to highlight.

First, the Peel site buildings are specifically identified as forming part of the Stowell Road cluster within the currently adopted Fish Island and White Coast Lane conservation area appraisal.

The cluster comprises a wider collection of industrial buildings and structures which contribute to the character and interest of this part of the conservation area, and which whilst, I quote, individually are not architecturally distinguished, are collectively of interest, particularly taking into account their creative uses.

Secondly, the Conservation Area Appraisal at page 33 is clear that it has ensured the

wide area beyond the Conservation Area boundary in order to ensure that heritage assets outside

of Fish Island and White Post Lane Conservation Area are appropriately considered within the

conservation and heritage context, as these assets are an important part of industrial

heritage and character of Hackney Wick and Fish Island. This expressly includes Stour

Space, Seven Roach Road and the buildings to its north and south.

Can I just ask you for the benefit of my notes at least to go slightly slower.

Thank you.

Apologies.

Is that better in terms of volume as well?

So whilst the appraisal acknowledges that the buildings are of no great intrinsic architectural merit,

it nevertheless identifies that in their form and materials and uses they contribute positively to

the townscape of this part of the conservation area. It also specifically notes that style space

and the building to the south of Victoria Wharf relate well to the waterfront. I've also referred

in my proof to the earlier LLDC Hackney Wickham Fish Island design and planning guidance.

That guidance included the appeal site within the study of the wider Hackney Wickham Fish Island

area and identified style space and the buildings to its north as being buildings of

townscape merit. I am not suggesting that this earlier position means that the

buildings should now be treated as though they remain within the conservation area.

In my opinion it provides further context demonstrating the way in which

these buildings have historically been understood as contributing to the wider

character and identity of Hackney Wick and Fish Island and the conservation area.

Dr. Mealy's initial rebuttal at paragraph 2 .5 refers to an LLDC board report of

30th of April 2014 which is footnoted in this rebuttal and raised at the beginning of this

inquiry was sent as a new document to the inspector. This sets out the reasons why the

appeal site was removed from the proposed conservation area foundry. Having considered

those reasons I do not consider that they alter my assessment. Though the report sets out that they

do not fundamentally contribute to the character and appearance of the conservation area and are

of no great architectural merit, it still identifies them as adopting a form and materials

that contribute positively to the townscape. This is translated into the

current conservation area prose or wording where the form and materials

and uses contribute positively to the townscape of this part of the

conservation area. Furthermore the 2014 report recognises that any future

redevelopment of these sites would need to be considered in terms of its

ability to enhance the setting of the existing conservation area as well as

the canal and its associated structures. In my view that reinforces the point in

notwithstanding their position outside the designated boundary the site remains

relevant to the setting and wider heritage context of the conservation

area. And also to further respond to Dr. Miele's rebuttal of

equiparting that I have treated buildings as non -designated heritage

assets which has been adapted through my proof. I do not quite agree with this.

The information associated with the appeal site undoubtedly makes it

interesting, it's history interesting and I bring this information forward to

explain how the buildings and their historic and creative uses have

contributed to the character of the area today. This does not amount to an assertion

that the buildings themselves are non -designated heritage assets nor have

I sought to resist their demolition or redevelopment in principle. Rather I want

to express that the existing buildings form part of the established character

and townscape context to which any replacement development should respond.

As set out in my proof, the adopted conservation area appraisal itself

recognises the Peel buildings as contributing positively to the townscape

and wider conservation and heritage context, notwithstanding that the

majority of the site falls outside the conservation area boundary. The point I

therefore make is not that the existing building should be retained, rather any

replacement development should respond positively to the site's existing and

distinctive character and should seek to deliver a greater quality of design than

that which currently exists. In this way redevelopment has the opportunity to

a contextual and heritage -led development which makes a positive

contribution to the townscape and does not detract from the setting and

significance of the neighbouring conservation area. This is also

consistent with the general principles of good design. I therefore do not

consider the demolition of the existing buildings to be entirely irrelevant

which Dr. Neeley mentions at paragraph 2 .9 of his rebuttal. Their history,

former and current uses, form, materials and relationship with the waterfront

have contributed to the established character and townscape of the area. This

does not mean that they should be retained and untouched as they are or

that redevelopment is unacceptable in principle, rather the existing qualities

and characteristics that they form that should form part of the

context. I'll read that again. So rather these existing qualities and

characteristics should form part of the context for considering what replaces

them, including whether replacement development preserves or enhances the

significance of the conservation area.

Thank you. So you then discuss it, you're there discussing the existing buildings

on the appeals site. I'm going to ask you now to look a bit more widely at the

existing locale which you refer to in your proof and I'm going to suggest in

doing this that we turn up your proof to look at some images just as an aid

memoir to these sites. So if you've got your proof of evidence which for CD 2 .2

There's more than one document within CD pot 2 .2, but it's the proof that I'm interested

in.

And within the proof of evidence, at page 33, there's a subheading, consented schemes

in the locale.

we've got that. And if we go over the page to page 34, there's what you've

called Figure 16 Annotated Plan showing the consented schemes within the locale

and there's a list of them, a list of a number of them, marked in

different colours.

And then in the next

10 or so pages, you present images of

some of them and discuss them.

So using, if you will,

that annotated plan at page 34 to identify

which ones you want to talk about.

And then when you do, if you could use the images

or if that's useful at least from page 35 onwards so we know which one we're

looking at. Could I invite you to provide, discuss any that you wish to from those

in the locale please. Might I be able to discuss the consent of scheme on the

site first and then move to the locale?

Thank you. So I thought first to discuss the consent scheme which was back in 2016 on the

application on the appeal site. At the time the red line was slightly different. Unfortunately

I don't have that in my proof. I believe it's in the appendices. If I give me a moment I

can find that in the core documents.

The 8 .1 I think contains the some documents relating to the consented scheme.

Not sure that contains a red line plan.

We may have been thinking of somewhere else.

I might not have included one. I don't think it's too necessary.

It is similar to the appeal site application.

it just excludes style of space and also doesn't have the strip along the canal.

So if we can envision our red line and just remove those two parts, it would be the 2016 scheme.

But just to kind of give some context as to what was previously approved on the site,

this scheme involved demolition of all the buildings aside from the Timber Yard Gatehouse and the erection of a series of

new buildings in a U -Plan around the gatehouse in a similar configuration to the appeal scheme to provide mixed use commercial and residential.

uses. This scheme established some additional height on the appeal site

corresponding to the position of the currently proposed Block 2 and its tallest

element would have risen to approximately 20 metres, 6 storeys,

measuring around 21 .3 metres and incorporated meaningful modulation

stepping along its canal frontage. This step down to 5, 17 metres, storeys and 4

at 12 metre storeys. The stepping is appreciated along the canal elevation as

also along the western elevation toward Fish Island and results in a less

intimate wrapping around of the building mass behind the Timberyard Gate House.

And then now I would move to the former Broadwood Piano Factory

application which is to the southwest of our Peel site and this is on page...

page 41 of your proof, at the bottom.

Thank you.

It's on page 41 of my proof.

And there is a visual of volume 42.

And also, as mentioned earlier, there has been an additional design and access excerpt

that was submitted as a new document, which we provisionally included as CD 8 .4.

I'm not sure if the other side have a site of this yet, but there is additional elevation

drawings within that exat that would be helpful.

So planning mission for this consent was granted in 2023 and it involved demolition of all

the existing buildings on the site except the retention and refurbishment of the chimney

and boiler house to provide three new buildings, five to seven storeys, which provided PBSA

and commercial uses.

The chimney, as I have not mentioned, is a non -designated territory asset and local listed building, and thus it was supposedly retained.

The majority of the buildings on that approval were less than 20 metres, but only one exceeded this by 2 .05 metres, thus was assessed against policy BN5 of the LLDC Local Plan in relation to tall buildings.

The design was described to create a fragmented building form which helped to create breathing

space along the scheme and it was commended by officers and I quote from them producing

a building of distinction that turns the corner from Beechey Road into style space, Sour Road

without scale. In relation to the fragmentation of the forms of the scheme turning to page

three if you could with the additional DAS that was sent forward there is an elevation

I don't have this document yet so I can't follow and I'm actually a bit lost as to what the witness was referring to in her proof.

So the reference is bottom of page 41, former Broadwood Piano Factory,

and then I think she referred to the following two pages where you have the images.

So the CD, obviously it's important that everyone has CD8 .4.

So this is the DAS extract referred to this morning,

which is true like to refer to serving up of the I hear what the sergeant says if

if this one hasn't I found it so and you've got I found it I'm grateful so

have you got a copy of CD thank you mr. Ching then so if we open up CD the DAS

extract which has been put in CD 8 .4 as I understand along with some other

documents that are already in CE 8 .4. It's a five page extract I think and if

you perhaps just take us through it and explain what points you wish to make.

Thank you. Thank you and I'll wait for everyone to open it up for a talk.

Shall I assume everyone's got CD8 .4 open? So it is on page 3 that I refer to in terms

of the fragmentation of the building forms and you can see there is an undulation in

the massing from 1 to 6 to 1 to 6 storeys and that's kind of outlined in the red line

at that top street elevation for you. It's also marked annotated at the bottom, one and six

storeys, and also the width of the building, building width and the gaps between the buildings.

Therefore in Dr Mealy's rebuttal, well in proof I beg your pardon, where he describes that the

building at the piano factory consented was of more or less uniform height and scale at 20 metres

plus in places. I would disagree. There are single storey elements that you can see from this

elevation which contrasts with the six -storey elements and the 10 -metre gaps

which create meaningful breaks in the frontage so you do not perceive a

uniform wall development. The massing and public realm of the development which I

have a figure of figure 21 on my proof on page 42 also carefully considered how

the public realm was considered around the chimney in order to allow the

chimney to be framed by the building form and also considered in wider views

from Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park where you can see in figures 22 and 23 on page 43 of

my proof where the views were tested on that approach from the east side.

So the relevant testing the views were carried out and the officers considered that this

would enhance the setting of the conservation area.

And then now I move to another consented steam in the locality in my proof which will be

This is on page 35.

This is a site that lies immediately north to our Peel site and was consented in 2015.

I hope everyone has that open and can see that there is a figure on page 17 of the photograph

of the development consented and it was of a development ranging two to six storeys

accommodating residential and commercial uses and it's interesting to note that

the scheme is set out in my proof at paragraph 5 .29. It was amended following

an early iteration of seven storeys all along the frontage, all on the canal

frontage which was felt to create an inappropriate cluster of tall buildings.

This consequently led to reduction in the height and an improved relationship

with the surroundings of the townscape including that dramatic six to two -storey

drop we see towards Stour Space which is on the left hand side of the building

kind of just shaded behind the trees before it kind of goes into the gable

form of Stour Space in that figure 17 on my proof at page 35. But also you can see

from the elevation that there were architectural devices used to help

animate the frontage and roof lines so the massing was not felt to be monotonous

and the colonnade on its canal elevation was also a lightweight

intervention felt to invite openness. And then lastly I would raise a withdrawn application

from 2017 which is on the H Foreman and the Sun site to the south and this is set out

on page 38 of my proof. So the scheme as mentioned was withdrawn in 2017 and this was prior to

the H16 footbridge being built and involved partial demolition of the

Victoria Wharf Studios building before it was truncated by the later erection on

the bridge and proposed an eight -storey building in this location. There are

clear similarities of the scheme with the appeal scheme and the taller building

introduced in the chimneys foreground intended a landmark to mark the bridge

from Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park into Fish Island which is a similar objective

to the PIL scheme. The scheme was recommended by the LLDC officers for refusal due to excessive

height, scale, bulk, materiality and amount of development and would amount to harm to the

setting of the conservation area and the significance of the non -designated heritage

asset being the chimney. So while similarities were wanting to cite itself as a landmark for

the bridge, the officers considered that this would be unsuccessful as it would compete with

chimney and diminish its importance as a landmark, therefore concluding the scheme

would have an adverse impact on the setting of this non -designated heritage

asset and its importance in the conservation area. The committee report

also described it as being an obtrusive and unsympathetic addition to the

townscape. And that image is presented on Figure 19 on page 39 where you can see

the eight storey building proposed in the foreground of the chimney that was

as the obtrusive and sympathetic edition. I will not go through the rest of the

consented schemes in the locality because they are quite a number, but to

round off my consideration of the schemes in my proof and those presented

just now, I agree that the past consents have introduced moments of tall height

within the area and establish a new context for the site, and I do not suggest

that the recent consents should be disregarded in any way. The point being

made however is that height should be considered within its policy context and

have regard to the individual characteristics and constraints of the

site rather than through a lack of refined term, a copy and paste approach

based on height or the filament permitted elsewhere. There should

therefore be careful consideration of how greater height could be incorporated

whilst balancing it against other material considerations including the

site's relationship with the surrounding context and heritage assets. In my proof

I have referred to neighbouring consents to establish the planning and townscape

context and to report the assessments made by other officers. I had not sought to undertake

a comparative design exercise in which I expressed a personal preference for one consent of scheme

over another or suggest that any particular neighbouring scheme presents a preferable

design to the appeals scheme. Rather, I have set out that the relevant office assessments,

including the language used in their committee reports to describe and assess the design

of those developments, which I found to be very similar in language and therefore help

to inform our understanding of the building characteristics of the local area.

Therefore, in the conclusion of the schemes in the locale at paragraphs 5 .93 and 5 .97

of my proof, the general thrust of the design has sought to not apply a 20 -metre datum uniformly

across building heights, create contrast in height with taller, contrasting lower elements,

which are characteristic of Fish Island, and to create variation and modulation in massing

height. So I do conclude that whilst additional height can successfully be

integrated into Fish Island it needs to be carefully distributed.

Good, so thank you.

So that's the recall and some of the schemes around the appeal site.

So I'm now going to invite you to discuss the proposed scheme in terms of the views

impact on the townscape and any heritage considerations by reference to the views in the HTVA.

So this is the document at the back of the DAS or you also find it in the

Nicklaus Bridges HTBA. So if you could take up that please. CD 5 .13 where I'm

and it starts at page 164, which is the plan of the various viewpoints.

And then at page 165, we start with the first visualisation,

Looking south on the towpath, viewpoint one.

So, Ms Chiang, can I invite you to take us through any ones you want to highlight, explain what you want to say.

And as I say, if you can bear in mind that we're trying to write down what you say, so if you go at a sort of writing pace, that would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Sorry, I do talk very fast and that's a problem.

I will go through the views, I've appended them in Appendix 1 of my proof, so it's a

lot easier if you just wanted to see the existing proposed views that I'll run through in this

section or you can go by the HTBA from the appellant as well.

I annoyingly also won't be going through them in order, I'll be going through them in the

which my proof has set out because there is a narrative as to how the views are

kind of approached and experienced going from one to another but I will start at

viewpoint one. So hopefully everyone has that on their screens or on paper form.

So view one is the view along the River Lee navigation toward the south of the

pill site opposite carpenters wolf and this is looking south to our scheme to

the Peel scheme. So in this viewpoint I have found that the development proposes

blocks 1 and 3 to be broadly consistent in height and gable massing to reflect

the scale and form of carpenters wharf. So looking here at view 1 you can see

block 1 which is the brown brick building and the limited variation of

it from block 2 which is the grey landmark building which they have which

the appellant has described it. Block 1 and Block 2 create a repetitive

arrangement across the canal frontage and there is no appreciable stepping

between the bays and it makes it feel relatively flat. Added to this is

the colonnade which together with the building mass push the development to

the water's edge and create a continuous and visually dominant base. View 1 also

shows the long and uninterrupted edge addressed in the canal with a variation

mostly appreciable, I'll say that again, so view one shows at present how the development would be

a long and uninterrupted edge addressing the canal with a variation mostly only appreciable in the

change in brick colour rather than a meaningful variation in height, massing or architectural

expression. This is also a moment where you can appreciate the scheme in the context of

Carpenter's Wharf quite clearly and you can see the contrasting way in which the colonnade has

been treated and also the facade treatment of the Gaywood Bays and the

setting back of the building line from the canals edge. I then move on to view

8 which is just walking further south of view 1 and this is still on the

canal towpath looking north toward the appeal site with the H16 bridge in its

foreground. Using this viewpoint I will discuss the appeals schemes intention to

create a landmark block and the design statement of the

appellants describes this as acting as a wayfinder to help mark position the

bridge in distant views. So whilst in this view block 2 as a tallest element is

better understood the scale and breadth and massing of this result in a building

that appears rather bulky and cumbersome in the composition and coupled with the

limited variation in scale of the building sandwiching it, block two is not

experienced as an elegant marker for the bulky corn building. And the problem with

the landmark is also evident as you move into views three and four which is

further east approaching from Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park walking along the

16 toward our site, three and four are sequential experience of how you would approach the conservation area.

So moving up at this viewpoint

you can experience block one and block two in the slightly elevated level.

Block two does step down but into a monotonous elevation of block one which emerges with

Carpenter's Wharf so there's limited opportunity where you experience some greater animation or

in the roofscape. The removal of the link between buildings 1 and 2 leaves a gap

that feels empty and unresolved rather than functioning as a convincing

breathing space between the blocks. Unlike the deliberate 10 metre separation

which I mentioned previously at piano works, this gap was never conceived as

part of the composition and any attempt by the appellant to characterise it as a

purposeful break would be a retrospective argument rather than a

reflection of the original design intent.

And then at view 3, this is experienced in relationship with the chimney at the Broadwood

Piano Factory, and as I mentioned it forms part of the sequential experience approach

in the site along the H16 corridor. Currently the existing view illustrates the chimney

as a strong vertical punctuation point on wayfinding element Interfish Island, and block

would be in competition in that proposed viewpoint. With this, I alter the

experience and establish hierarchy of the chimneys performing as a principal

landmark role within this part of Fish Island. I then move on further west to

ward view 12. So here we can also experience the lack of variation in the

height and hierarchy of the buildings, not only on the canal frontage but also toward

the Fish Island frontage on the west.

So from view 12 and 13 you can understand the existing arrangement of Stour Space and

Timbir Gatehouse to form a distinctive corner which is appreciable in the experience moving

from as you walk along view 12 to 13. It currently provides a soft determination to views along

Roach Road with a modest scale and articulation of the current buildings. In contrast, the appeals

scheme introduces a more assertive and continuous form resulting in a more enclosed and canyon -like

approach with a uniform composition. And that's quite clearly seen from view 13 where there is

a continual building line rather than any kind of appreciable modulation in the massing and roof

heights. The lack of variation in these views also limit the ability of Block 2

to perform its landmark duties from these western approaches. Having more

meaningful reduction and variation height will allow better layering of the

buildings and thus allow Block 2 to better be reinforced as a landmark as

well as create better breathing space behind the gatehouse and support a

clearer hierarchy of buildings. Then moving on to view 14, moving even closer

toward the appeal site at the very corner of Beechey Road and Stowell Road.

You can appreciate the intimate relationship between blocks one and three even more apparently.

The proximity and scale of the proposed development diminishes any sense of visual separation

between the buildings and creates a very enclosed experience.

In paragraph 5 .115 of my proof I acknowledge there is a slight increase in separation between

Hackney Cut building and the Timberyard Gatehouse from 2 to 2 .5 metres but this marginal increase is

outweighed still by the substantial increase in height and width of the buildings and footprint.

Further the projecting balconies you can view here contribute to the sense of bringing the

building line forward and creating greater shadowing and dominance over the gatehouse.

Then finally at view 10 which is on the other side of Stile Road there is a similar experience

of Block 1's continuous massing, reducing the openness of the termination view.

Although acknowledging there is another benefit with the pulling back of Block 3's building line from the existing boundary by 2 .6m,

this pushing back of the building line simply exposes more of Block 1's uninterrupted elevation,

Rabinowville, a laid hierarchy of buildings.

I then want to discuss the new viewpoint, view 11B, which was included in Dr Mealy's rebuttal.

Which I can allow people some time to find.

I beg your pardon, it's in his proof of evidence.

So I think it's appendix three of Dr Nealey's proof of evidence.

Additional view, view would like to be.

So again, if you just give people a moment to get there.

Yeah, so, Ms. Ching, for 11B we've got the existing view looking at the Victoria Wharf

buildings and then we've got the proposed view where we see blocks two and three particularly.

Comments on this new view please. Thank you, I can't actually load it on my screen but

I do know what it looks like. So I did address this viewpoint in my rebuttal and I repeat

the conclusion that I found again here for you all. I do not consider that the additional

view alters my assessment of the proposals. It demonstrates that there remains an insufficient

differentiation in height between the scale between blocks 2 and 3 along the southern elevation

such that block 2 does not read as a distinct marker sought by the appellant.

Overall the appeal scheme does not provide sufficient variation and articulation in its

height, brucescape or massing to create an appropriate transition between buildings

or create a clear hierarchy within the group itself or allow block 2 to operate successfully

as a landmark building. Thank you. Now assuming that's the end of your tour of

the viewpoints, I'm now going to ask you to move to what you do, what you call

in your proof and, rebutted as your second issue, the public realm.

and you raise, I think you deal with two particular aspects of the proposed

developments. The first I'd like you just to talk about briefly is the colonnade and

if you give us a view to an image to

just refer to if you go to your figure

34 in your proof which you'll find on

page 61 of your main proof page 61 and

And there at the top of the page we've got Figure 34,

proposed new colonnade visual,

which you've taken from the design and access statement.

So with the benefit of that,

what do you say about the colonnade please?

Thank you, hopefully everyone has time

to the correct pages.

So there is a helpful figure at 34,

which Mr Flanagan mentioned on 61.

Overall in my proof,

I have understood that there is an intention to create a more active canal frontage and

to invite public access to this, and these are considered positive aspects of the scheme.

However, the manner in which they have been achieved has not been considered successful.

So going through the narrative of my proof, I have considered that rather than setting

back to give an obvious generosity to the canal, the proposal brings the built form

directly to the canal's edge. The pontoons and island modules therefore feel like an

excuse to include a more public realm to offset this consequence of pushing the building forward.

This approach fundamentally alters the existing character of the canal edge.

The relationship between the existing buildings and the waterway is characterised by an intimate

human -scaled environment with a strong sense of openness to the water. There is no currently

definitive boundary between the built edge and the canal, instead the two spaces blend to create

an informal and continuous waterside setting. By extending the building line directly to the canal

in introducing a tall continuous colonnade form, the proposal creates a more enclosed and building

dominated edge with a relentless repetition of heavy columns that erodes the openness and

informality of the current canal side experience. There is a risk that the colonnade would be

experienced as an extension of the commercial units adjacent to it, functioning as a spellout space

rather than an inclusive waterside environment. The deep and covered nature of the colonnade

would reduce its attractiveness outside of daytime periods. The enclosed form and limited natural

surveillance afforded by the overhead structure would create a space that feels less welcoming

and less inviting during the evening and night time periods and this does not record with LLDC's

Creating Places That Work for Women and Girls Handbook which highlights how space, height and

transparency of boundary treatments shape how environments are perceived. The depth and closure

created by the colonnade together with limited transparency along its edge contribute to a less

welcoming less inviting environment. In Dr Mealy and Miss Young's rebuttals they

comment on the double height nature of the colonnade space and also the

surveillance be provided by the residential balconies above it. So whilst

the colonnade may provide a space that appears generous when considered purely

in terms of its height and width from the plan and section drawings I've

measured this to be 2 .69 metres by 6 .7 metres. The quality of the space cannot

be assessed through these measurements alone. How these dimensions are

architecturally treated is also fundamental to how the space is

perceived and experienced. In this instance the design of the

colonnade has potential to undermine the apparent

generosity of its dimensions as the reason set out by proof, resulting in

space that feels enclosed and oppressive than its measurements might otherwise

suggest. In terms of surveillance the three

first floor balconies overlooking the colonnade serve commercial units

and given this proposed use would unlikely be able to provide passive

surveillance into the evening. I also do not agree with Ms Young's suggestion that the

residential balconies above would provide effective passive surveillance. As a colonnade

sits directly beneath these balconies, occupants would not be able to look naturally over would

have clear views into the colonnade, so their ability to provide meaningful passive surveillance

would therefore be limited. There is a helpful section drawing post section 5 in the Appellant's

documents where you can see how the resident balconies are immediately above the colonnade

space. So actually there is no natural viewing platform down to this space. And if you give

us a moment I will find that reference for you so you can also turn to it.

So if it's the sections, the proposed sections are CD4 .6 as far as I can see.

Yeah, that's one I've also found and I refer specifically to proposed section 5.

Yes, so we're now looking at proposed section 5, which is on the fifth of seven pages, PDF

pages which I think is looking south. What point do you draw from this?

This was my comment back that the residential balconies would actually be

able to view into the colonnade so you can see the building form push right

onto the canal edge so any views out of the balconies at that edge you'd have to

really crank your neck down to be able to see into the colonnade so it doesn't

really provide a natural point of view and provide surveillance into the

colonnade outside of daytime hours into the evening so it would feel like an

enclosed oppressive space in the evening times.

Thank you. So unless you've got anything further on the colonnade I was going to

ask you to turn to the other aspect of the public round which you comment on

particularly and you'll prove the courtyard and similarly if we can have

some visual aids in your proof of evidence at page 63 you've got figure

36 which shows us a what you call illustrative courtyard plan from

landscape statement showing the courtyard and although I don't

necessarily invite you to go back to it you also in your proof refer in the

context of the courtyard to to view 14 I think it is you'll be able to correct

me if that's wrong. With the benefit of those please can you explain your

concerns or otherwise about the courtyard? Thank you and is view 14. So

firstly turning to figure 36 on page 63 of my proof where there is a landscape

drawing of a ground floor plan of the appeals scheme. This space is proposed to

be intended as the principal communal amenity space for the development.

However, in practise, I've identified that there will be likely a lot more considerable

number of functions occurring here simultaneously, accommodating things such as circulation to

residential entrances, access to cycle parking and refuse facilities and movement of refuse

bins to the street.

Sitting adjacent to the commercial units are also, sorry, the space also sits next to commercial

units and would also create potential for informal spellow activity associated with

these uses.

There's also an opportunity I've considered that incidental play could

occur in this location considering the journey that residents would need to

undertake from for example block one traversing through the courtyard and

canal colonnade up to the fifth floor for the play space. So this distance and

indirect nature of the route would likely result in families with children

using the ground floor play space. So whilst the idea of doorstep

play on the way play can be a happy occurrence, here it is felt that there will be a lot of

competing functions adding pressure to the courtyard amenity space. Consequently, the

courtyard risks becoming an over -programmed space accommodating circulation, amenity, servicing,

commercial activity and play, and feeling lost as intended users. These concerns are also compounded

by the characteristics, the physical characteristics of the courtyard itself. The space is enclosed by

tall and closely spaced buildings with limited variation in height or relief, and also intensified

by the projecting balconies which add to the perception of a constrained environment and

overshadowing within the courtyard. This is reflected in the Daylight and Sunlight assessment

where there would be insufficient daylight and sunlight into that ground floor amenity

space and the combination of enclosure, overshadowing and the limited sunlight is likely to further

reduce the usefulness and attractiveness of the space altogether.

View 14, if you can turn to that, helps to just illustrate these concerns further.

There is a clear lack of depth and openness beyond the timber yard gatehouse.

Rather than providing a sense of relief for an open yard space, the

view is dominated by a sheer wall of development, reinforcing the enclosed

character of the courtyard environment. Overall, I considered that the combination

of competing demands on the space with a high degree of enclosure, limited daylight and

sunlight and lack of visual relief would result in an environment that feels constrained rather

than welcoming and adaptable. I also have just one correction point to make in relation

to the access to the courtyard which I have set out at paragraph 5 .133 and 5 .135 of my

proof where I refer to the access to the courtyard as gated. My understanding is

that through Section 106 negotiations that this courtyard space could be open

to the public, therefore be more accessible and open than originally

thought. However even so allowing public access into these spaces in my view adds

additional pressure on the already constrained space. It

does not change my view of my assessment of the courtyard amenity space.

Then, assuming that's all on the courtyard, now I want to turn to the final of your three

issues as you identify them in your proof of evidence and rebuttal.

So that's the setting of the impact on the setting of the conservation area and the conservation

area itself through impact on the setting and the locally listed building.

So can I ask you to start please

take them in turn dealing with the setting of the conservation area first please and I note in your

proof you pick up two particular aspects. One talking about the viewpoint

three and viewpoint four looking towards the chimney on the piano factory. You

also talk about the canal frontage. So if you can discuss those and obviously

anything else you wish to please.

I'll start with the Canal Edge which I present in my proof as one of the issues in relation

to the setting of the conservation area. To help highlight the concerns I've identified,

you can turn to views 1, 4 and 8 of the HTBA. Again, they're also appended in my appendices,

one. I'll provide a few moments for you to turn to it.

So in these views I identify that the appeal scheme would substantially alter

the current experience of the setting. As set out under issue 1 previously, the

limited variation in height together with the continuous building frontage

would create a dominant and uninterrupted wall of development along the canal edge.

In my opinion, this would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the conservation

area.

Rather than responding with a more considered composition and clearer transitional scale,

the proposal would introduce a heavier and more imposing built form that diminishes the

modest proportions and human -scaled rhythm currently experienced along this part of the

Lee Navigation.

And then moving to the impact on the setting of the chimney, which is a non -designated

heritage asset. Looking at views 3 and 4 are helpful for this. So the current relationship

between block 2 and the former Broadwood Piano Factory, sorry the relationship between the

existing Victoria Wharf building and the former Broadwood Piano Factory is currently understood

given the modest scale of the present building. And the chimney as discussed under issue 1

is an important performer in terms of townscape and its wayfinding role. In views three and four,

this illustrates the experience of how one approaches the conservation area from Marshgate

Lane along H16 bridge during which the chimney currently performs this important role as a visual

marker. The introduction of block T within this composition would alter this established hierarchy.

Rather than allowing the chimney to remain the principal element drawing attention

Towards and signalling the conservation area, the more dominant massing of Block 2 would compete for visual attention and diminish the chimneys' prominence as a landmark.

Whilst the effect might not be as pronounced as a single block building considered in the H4 Min and Sun scheme previously talked about, which was recommended for refusal, the principle is still similar.

The introduction of competing massing would diminish the prominence of the chimney and consequently its contribution to legibility and appreciation of the conservation area on approach.

Here I slightly segue also into including comments on the H. Foreman & Sons application

where I included a copy of Historic England's comments in my rebuttal in full which was

not included in my original proof of evidence. I can give a moment for people to bring that

up.

So this is appendix one, I think, to your rebuttal, Historic England Consulting comments

on application NL17160, which was the eight storey block on the other side of the building.

That's correct.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I just wanted to include in this moment some additional comments, well, the comments which

provided by Historic England which I find quite relevant and similar to the

appeal scheme as the similarities of the site of the scheme wanting to set a new

landmark for the bridge. In the comments the Historic England considered

that the building would have an adverse impact on the setting of the non

designated heritage asset and its importance in the conservation area. In

Historic England's comments they also note that whilst the site is not in a

conservation area, it's directly bounded by it to the east and west, thus is a highly sensitive location.

The building would appear as a continual standalone tall frontage along the canal where buildings are traditionally lower in height and more intimate in scale,

and whilst the building would not block views of the chimney, its heightened context would compete with it,

diminishing its prominent landmark role and lessening its importance as an historic feature.

The development would cause harm to the significance of the conservation area.

I consider that Historic England's comments are directly relevant. They emphasise that

the increased height and canal edge massing in the sensitive location would compete with

the Chimney's landmark function and diminish its contribution to the conservation area

setting. The Chimney is an established landmark and wayfinding element and its prominence

contributes materially to how the conservation area is experienced on approach. As demonstrated

in views 3 and 4, the introduction therefore of block 2 would compete with the established

marker altering the hierarchy and diminishing the chimney's role within the

townscape. I do not consider that the Peel scheme would preserve or enhance

this aspect of the conservation area setting.

Thank you. So next item under the same heading was the setting of the gatehouse

please. So the setting on the gatehouse starts at paragraph

wiper 162 of my proof and I use views 12 and 13 to highlight this from the

Currently, as I mentioned before, the existing situation of the gatehouse is a modest presence in that termination viewpoint.

It provides a subtle and modest termination at Roach Road and view 13 in particular.

As you move forward further south east along Roach Road, you have a peak of the Timbar Yard gatehouse's hipped roof and chimney above the boundary wall, which indicates its presence.

The appeal scheme would increase the visibility of the Timbayard Gatehouse by altering the boundary wall to reveal more of its profile in the approaching views.

However, the dominant presence of Block 2 alongside it would just draw greater visual attention and diminish the Timbayard Gatehouse's presence within the overall composition.

In View 14, as we move closer, turning onto Beechu Road, this demonstrates again the subtle presence in the current situation of the existing Timbayard Gatehouse.

Its roof and chimney peer over the boundary wall and act as delicate protrusions that indicate its presence.

There is an understated relationship with the street which feel an important part of its character and the partial reveal of the building can feel almost

as meaningful as the complete view of the asset itself.

The character of Fish Island is not derived from overtly grand or monumental buildings, but from its collection of simple

industrial forms and surviving structures. In this context, the Timbiard Gate House is a modest Timbiard building whose value lies partly in

ability to remain distinctive in its presence despite its limited scale.

In proposed view 14 whilst revealing more of the Timbir gatehouse's profile

to allow its form to be better understood, this benefit would be undermined again by the scale

and proximity of the proposed development behind it. The increased prominence of the new building

would alter the balance of the current view causing the Timbir gatehouse to appear as the

weaker and overshallow element within the composition.

And moving to view 10 from Beechey Road approaching the gatehouse from the western direction.

The gatehouse is currently less visible and as discussed earlier there is a proposed pulling

back of the building line of block 3 to reveal more of the Timbirr gatehouse's western elevation,

which I consider to be a positive aspect on its own.

However, the scale and massing of Block 2 would again risk diminishing the visual presence and legibility of the locally listed building.

And a final point to make is that the impact on the setting of the Timb yard gatehouse is also closely linked to the matters discussed previously under issue 2 in relation to the public realm.

The existing courtyard currently serves as a service yard, functioning primarily for access, storage, parking and refuse.

not entirely delightful activities and although the proposal was removed for the

car parking, the courtyard would continue to operate

largely as a functional space accommodating access

entrances, routes for managing refuse and cycle storage with some resting and

potentially play. In my view I do think that the scheme represents a missed

opportunity to create a higher piece of public realm that could have

strengthened the gate houses setting. A well -designed courtyard

could have offered an additional layer through which the Gatehouse is experienced and appreciated.

Instead, the proposed layout limits its ability to contribute positively to the Gatehouse's

immediate setting or provide a meaningful opportunity for its appreciation.

Thank you.

And finally on this issue three,

You also mention in terms of heritage and the character of the conservation area,

contribution from creative and cultural uses within your proof and rebuttal.

So not directly about physical development but about use in terms of contributing to the character

of the conservation area.

Any final comments on that point, please?

Thank you.

So the adopted Fish Island and White Post Lane

Conservation Area Appraisal identifies the buildings

on the appeal site as heritage assets

forming part of the setting of the conservation area,

notwithstanding that they fall outside

of its designated boundary.

Importantly, their positive contribution to Townscape

is identified not only in terms of their form and materials,

but also their uses.

The Conservation Area Appraisal also discusses the relevance of the land use and activities within the Conservation Area today, highlighting that on page 21 of the appraisal.

And to quote, today the area is known for its concentration of creative industries and a considerable percentage of the active floor space in the Conservation Area is occupied by these uses.

This distinctive local creative community utilises historic buildings as studios and live workspaces.

The cafes and mixed use ventures such as Stour Space form part of this character.

Further, the Fish Island and White Post Lane Management Guidelines state that nurturing creative industries has potential to assist in the regeneration of the conservation area and its setting.

This is called document 7 .29 if you wanted to look at that.

So overall the reuse and adaptation of industrial buildings has become an

established component of the character and identity of the

conservation area. The existing creative workshop as should be uses therefore

form part of the character and interest associated with the Peel site and its

relationship with the surrounding conservation area. Their contribution is

not simply a land use consideration, it is also relevant to an understanding of

the particular character that the site presently makes to its surroundings. In

this respect I find that the harm arising from the appeal scheme is not

limited to the matters discussed already in terms of physical townscape and

heritage contribution. The existing uses are themselves identified as part of the

contribution that the appeal site makes to the character of the conservation area.

Their loss without adequate replacement or reprevision would therefore further

erode those characteristics which presently contribute positively to the

setting and character of the conservation area and would consequently contribute

to the harm of the conservation area. There is also some

or the separate land use issues identified in the council's remaining

reasons refusals which will be discussed further by my colleagues Mr. William

Laspak. Thank you and then I'm going to ask you to do two final things.

Firstly, to both in respect of policy the first is to comment on the new national

Planning Policy Framework, so far as concerns your evidence please. And if you want to make

any comments about however, to the extent any amended policy affects your assessment,

any weight to be given to harms or benefits. And so that's the first item, new National

Planning Policy Framework, which obviously you haven't commented on your rebuttal because

post dates your rebuttal. And then secondly to draw that together in terms

of policy more generally, existing policy in the development plan provide a

conclusion on compliance or otherwise with design and heritage policy. And

perhaps I just note on that the new national policy framework obviously

this that's not in your original evidence.

So I'm going to reiterate my request for that to you to go

slow to make sure I can take a note because obviously I don't

have that in writing. No one has that in writing yet. Thank you.

Thank you. So in the new MPPF, chapter 14, Achieving Well

Designed Space Places is one identified as relevance to this

appeal scheme. Previously, this was addressed in chapter 12 of

the old MPPF at paragraph 139 where it states that development that is not well designed

should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government

guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning

documents such as design guides and codes. That overall message remains in the new MPPF

at DP3 paragraphs 1 and 2 which set out the key principles for well designed spaces. So

Paragraph one sets out that development proposals should respond to their context, the history,

character and features of their site and its setting so that they integrate with and enhance

their surroundings such as through the arrangement of development plots and buildings, the uses and

materials and architectural features and the restoration, reuse and integration of heritage

assets. And then paragraph two comments to create well -designed places development proposals should

also reflect relevant aspects of the following principles as appropriate to the nature of the

development and its location. I consider that part E is relevant which discusses

built form, use of the pattern of buildings to define the arrangement of

streets, squares, other spaces, creating focal points where appropriate,

enhancing views into and out of the scheme. Part F in relation to public

space which includes spaces that are safe, secure, inclusive and accessible for

all ages and abilities including groups such as women and girls and also part G

identity, creative, visually attractive, distinctive and characterful development

to establish or maintain a strong sense of place and pride. And then at paragraph

three the MPPF further goes on that development proposals should be refused if

without clear justification they conflict with paragraph one of this

policy or relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph two or with any

explicit design standards set out in the development plan including those in

locally specific policies, guides, codes or master plans. These changes to the MPPF do

not alter my assessment of the appeal scheme. As set out in my proof, I consider that the

design does not accord with the relevant local design policies, guidance or SPDs. My conclusions

and respect would remain, therefore, unchanged under DP3.

In relation to conserving and enhancing the historic environment at Chapter 20 of the

old MPPF and the old MPPF at paragraph 215 set out that where a development

proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of

a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public

benefits of the proposal including where relevant securing its optimum viable use.

The MPPF approaches this slightly differently. HE5 sets out a framework

for assessing the potential effects of development proposals on the

significance of heritage assets including through effects on their

Rather than using the previous less than substantial harm category, it identifies a range of potential effects from positive effects where significance would be enhanced or better revealed through to no effect, harm and also total loss of significance.

Where harm is identified, the degree of harm should also be identified with the substantial harm occurring where development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset's significance.

In my proof I identified less than substantial harm at the lower end of the spectrum to the

significance of the conservation area. Under the terminology of HE5 I will continue to identify

this as harm to the significance of the conservation area. HE6 then goes on to state

that where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset,

the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits

resulting from the proposal. Therefore, whilst the terminology has slightly changed, there remains

the requirement to weigh the identified harm against the public benefits of the proposal.

HE7 then deals specifically with non -designated heritage assets. Whilst the policy wording has

changed in the previous version which asks that a balanced judgement be made having regard to the

scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset, the assessment continues

to require consideration of the significance of the asset and the scale of the harm.

With the benefit proposal now expressly identified as part of that assessment.

Under the new framework, I would still identify harm to the non designated heritage asset

and at the same level were set out on my proof, harm being of a moderate degree.

Overall, I don't believe these kind of changes do alter my assessment of the appeal scheme

or the conclusions reached in my proof.

Thank you.

So that's the new MPPF and then policy more widely

and benefits and harm in terms of design

and heritage to the balance please.

So generally I do not think that I have disputed

that additional height on the site

which result in the tall building

has been disputed as unacceptable in principle

as a knowledge in my rebuttal and proof.

However, where the additional height is sought, this must be supported by a design -led approach,

as per the London Plan, which optimises the site, and particularly given the site's location

within the Fish Island sub -area 1, where the prevailing height is expected to be 20 metres,

demonstrates compliance with all its criteria set out in BN5 in order to justify or earn

this additional height.

As set out above and in my proof, these criteria have not been met.

I have considered the benefits arising from the retention and refurbishment between the

Gatehouse together with the townscape opportunity to improve its visibility in some views. However,

I consider that these heritage benefits would ultimately be limited and compromised by the

overall design and composition of the development. In particular, the scale, height, massing and

proximity of the buildings would diminish the visual prominence of the Timber Yard Gatehouse

and the ability to appreciate and understand its significance within its wider setting.

I also do not consider that the proposed development would otherwise deliver

sufficient townscape or public realm benefits to offset this. The limited

variation and articulation, the height and massing of the buildings would fail

to provide meaningful townscape benefits and local views from within Fish Island

or also from the canal side setting. The design and quality of the courtyard in

Colonnade, noting that the public access is a positive aspect, would overall still

failed to provide a sufficiently high quality public realm with the courtyard

in particular resulting in over programme space lacking a clear and distinctive

purpose. Taken all together I do not consider that the appeal scheme offers

sufficient heritage, townscape or public realm benefits to overcome the harm

identified to the Timbir Gate House, the Fish Island and White Post Lane Conservation

Area and the wider townscape. In addition just to address also policy BN .5

in relation to tall buildings of the LLDC local plan, this also sets out the

requirement to put forward significant additional public benefits where

additional heights proposed and this also helps to further inform whether

additional height can be justified in this case. As I've set out I do not

consider that the appeals scheme offers sufficient heritage, townscape or public

realm benefits to overcome the harm identified to the Timbirr Gate House, the

Fish Island White Post Lane Conservation Area and the wider townscape and the wider

public benefits of a planning balance have been considered and will be

addressed by my colleague in his evidence.

Thank you Ms. Chang. Any further matters you want us to deal with? Nothing more, thank you.

Thank you, sir. In that case that's the evidence in chief.

Okay, thank you.

Now we'll take our lunch break.

So during that lunch break the witness shouldn't talk to her colleagues and her team.

So we'll take an hour.

So until two o 'clock the enquiries agenda

Webcast Finished - 2:42:24

If this is the only interruption so yes, I don't have any difficulty with that. Thank you

Do we have someone?

Samsung.

Okay, can I just ask you to introduce yourself and...

I can't hear you.

OK, can I ask you to introduce yourself

and tell us your interest in the inquiry?

Are you happy to answer questions?

Webcast Finished - 2:44:45

If you start.

A really specific example to put you, so if you can imagine what it's actually like to

live in the Black Gates warehouse in Victoria Wharf, just last Thursday, an electronic experimental

music night ran out of a local cafe, bringing together local artists from all over the warehouses

and providing a free event that was really broadly attended by the community and was an

incredible space for all these people to come together and new ideas to be generated. The fact

that a free music night with professional musicians can be whipped up and put together

and put out there for the community is something that can only happen because of the close

collaborative nature of how these warehouse spaces work, the high level of trust that exists between

the creatives who live in those areas and the ability of them to then have the time

and the affordability to actually think back and provide the culture that Hackney Wick

is so famous for. That's why all the young people come to Hackney Wick on a night out.

It's for that access to that creativity and that dynamism that is actively fostered by

the warehouse culture. That's just a very specific example that these kind of events

are happening every single week. So the talent that actually comes out of the warehouse is

I think is really important to highlight. This is like I've said, as well as providing

this incredible, for example, I would say personally, two more years, one of the bars

is a really beloved local bar that exists in Vitoria Wharf. That bar is famous all across

East London and all across Hackneywick. Everybody knows two more years and it's an absolutely

beloved cultural space and I think it's really really telling that there are very few other

bars that have a similar level of reputation and belovedness and integration within the local

community amongst any of the newer commercial developments upon Fish Island. It is two more

years that exists in an old warehouse that is constantly at risk of being demolished but that

is the space that people come back to every single night that is beloved by the entire community.

Some examples of the kind of genuine creative talent and success that come out of the warehouses

that I wanted to highlight are record labels that have been founded in Vittoria Wharf.

One was nominated for best breakthrough label at the DJ Mag Best of British Awards.

A short film that was recently produced in Vittoria Wharf by residents in the warehouses

won a number of short film awards and ended up being screened at Raindance and

Hollyworks festivals, which are Oscar and Baster nomination screening festivals.

So the calibre of artistic expression that is coming directly out of Blackgate's and

Vittoria Wharf warehouses is world class.

It is absolutely world class.

And again, I just want to contrast that with the rows and rows of empty commercial units

that are currently sitting in the newer developments on Fish Island in places where previous warehouses

have been demolished. The warehouses that exist are the ones that foster community,

they are the ones that foster creative expression. And in order to have sustainable development

in line with the local plan, they desperately need to be protected.

I just also want to really briefly mention one other really recent success storey out of the Black Gates,

Pirates Hub bar, a really cute tiny little bar, it's a tiny little room, it was incubated in that space

and it's done so well that they've now actually moved out into a bigger venue elsewhere.

So this is exactly the kind of thing that the warehouses can foster, these little artistic seeds that grow into something that is a massive success storey.

And it is absolutely vital to maintain the features and the structures as they are in order to foster that.

Like I said, there's a reason the creatives are desperately trying to move into the Black Gates and they want to live in the warehouses and they want to work in Victoria Wharf.

but they don't want to live work and they can't afford to work in those other commercial units.

These are the kind of units that we need to preserve and this is the kind of culture

that we need to celebrate and actually enhance if we want East London to maintain any of

what it's currently famous for, which is its creative and artistic expression.

So just to note again, I'll just mention specifically the elements of the local plan

that I've kind of touched upon.

And these are all on pages 236 and 237

of the Tower Hamlets local plan.

But as part of the Tower Hamlets policies

to promote sustainable growth,

it's said that we need to maintain employment.

And we're going to lose a lot of workspace

with this development.

And those empty units,

no one's getting employed in those empty units,

but people are being employed in two more years.

People are being employed in Pirates Hub.

Artists are commissioning other work and artistic work is being commissioned in

Victoria Wharf and Blackgate as they currently stand. Point ten, the Tower Hamlets

local plan is to support creative clusters and Victoria Wharf and

Blackgate specifically, this specific area is one of the last remaining

highest density creative clusters in all of Hackney Wick and that is why the

community support for this inquiry has been so intense.

Point two, the note to protect heritage

and reinforce local distinctiveness.

And I hope I've just given you a taste kind of verbally

of why Hackneywick is so distinct

and why Fisher Island is so distinct.

And it is distinct because of places like Victoria Wharf

and the Black Gates warehouses.

The other things on Fisher Island, unfortunately,

have only gone a long way to erase its distinctiveness.

And finally, most crucially, just for the employment

and the livability of the spaces,

the loss of affordable workspaces

and the loss of specifically creatively beneficial

workspaces that actually enable artists to create

in the way that artists need to produce

this high quality world -class work

that comes straight out of Fish Island.

thank you very much for listening to my comments thank you do you have any

questions just one can you hear me yes I can yes thank you when you were

referring to the Tower Hamlets local plan are you referring to the current

Tower Hamlets local plan or to the emerging one oh thank you I should have

Clarified, I'm referring to the Emerging One plan, the 2031 plan.

It is currently under review for approval. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Thanks.

contributor this evening.

Thank you.

Okay, now we'll continue Ms. Chung's cross -examination.

If you're ready?

Yes, I am.

Okay, Ms. Sergeant, if you'd like to start.

Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Ms. Chung.

Can we turn to page three of your proof and paragraph 1 .1, please?

Yeah, I have that.

We can see that you tell us you have a BA Honours degree in architecture,

which you say is RIEBA Part 1 recognised.

are you a fully qualified architect? No I only did part one. And as I understood your

evidence here you never practised as an architect therefore? No I only worked as an

architectural technician. Sorry I couldn't hear that. I only worked as an

architectural technician in a small practise when I initially graduated.

And then you go on to refer to your first masters I think in architectural conservation

which you say is IHBC recognised. You don't say that you're a member of the IHBC so I've

assumed you're not, is that right? That's correct, I didn't pursue the accreditation

after. Sorry again I didn't, could you just, I'm not sure whether your mic's working but I didn't

catch the end of that sentence. You said I didn't pursue and then I didn't catch the rest of it.

I didn't pursue the accreditation after.

And then you have a Masters in Town Planning and since then, as I read this part of your proof,

you've primarily worked as a planning officer. So at Merton you were a planning officer,

you don't say that you had any responsibility for urban design or for conservation matters?

Not at Merton Council.

And then for Tower Hamlets, you've again, you're formerly your planning officer,

senior planning officer, sorry, as of January this year. But since April last year, you've

seconded to what you refer to as place shaping responsibilities, yes?

That's correct. I assume the answer is no, but does Tower Hamlets have specialist

or separate conservation officers? They do, we have a Borough Urban

Design Officer, Borough Conservation Officer and Design and Heritage Officers as well.

Sorry, so the council has a separate urban design officer.

Yes, so there is a borough urban design officer and then a borough conservation officer and

then kind of I guess maybe below them there are design and heritage officers that are

called all play shaping officers and there is also a principal play shaping officer.

It's rather muddled in terms of titles in the little group.

Right, sorry, I got as far as I've got the Urban Design Officer, the Conservation Officer,

Design and Heritage Officers underneath them, and then another category of officers I didn't

hear.

There was also a Principal Place Shaping Officer role as well.

Principal Place Shaping Officer.

I don't mean this, I genuinely don't mean this to sound impolite at all, but why is

it that the urban design officer or the conservation officer or one of the other officers who's

charged more specifically in their day -to -day professional life with design and conservation

aspect of this scheme? No that's a perfectly valid question and I guess in my role

where I've got quite extensive planning expertise that helps in order to kind of

look at policies and how they relate to applications, how they relate to policy

but also I guess we're the architectural background and the conservation

background in my education and in some of my previous work I felt competent

that I could also take on play shaping duties hence my sequentment initially

and that kind of has retained a more permanent role in a way where I didn't

go back after year because of my competence I kind of continued that position.

Thank you. Have you previously given evidence as a public inquiry on design

and heritage? No, this will be my first.

Are you a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute? No, I didn't pursue it after I

finished my masters. The only reason I ask that is because if we turn to paragraph 2 .12,

you say that the evidence you've prepared has been prepared and is given in accordance

with the guidance of the Royal Town Planning Institute so that was why I wasn't sure whether

you were or weren't a member but you're not basically.

Presumably though you're not a member of any professional body otherwise I assume you would

have been referring to them rather than to the RTPI.

No I never wanted to do any of it.

Thank you. Then in terms of your involvement with the application, when did you first formally

have a role in the application, a pre -op process please?

I was brought on when we found out that the scheme was going to be appealed and kind of

considered our public inquiry. So I guess quite late on in the stage, I wasn't involved

in when the application was submitted or any conversation when the previous case

officer had it. And you're not therefore disputing anything in the factual

account that is given in the by the appellant's witnesses of the way in

which the design evolved and you know what happened at the pre -application

stage and all the rest of it because all of that is before your involvement with the scheme.

Yeah might be silly to challenge that because I wasn't present.

And indeed the application was with the LLDC until November 2024 so actually nobody at

Tower Hamlets would have been involved with it prior to that date would they?

Yeah that's fair.

Could we then turn to your rebuttal please?

And within that, page two, paragraph 1 .4.

So this is where you're dealing with the QRP feedback.

And you say the QRP is an advisory body that provides independent professional design advice

and plays a valuable role in helping to shape proposals.

What weight do you give to views of the quality review panel generally in your professional work?

I would give them... I don't know what the scale is of how you would want me to do it.

Like considerable, not considerable, none, everything.

I guess medium amount of weight.

they do obviously have valuable expertise and bring an external viewpoint into proposals

and also they don't have any relationship with the appellant, us, so their kind of advice

is valuable. But also, as I mentioned, it is advisory body and whilst they do have material

consideration in contributing to comments in the scheme, it shouldn't be taken as read

that we have to pursue everything that they say and everything that they've said means

proposal will be approved or refused etc also needs to be considered against

relevant policies by DiEM officers and have a more balanced judgement than just

from a design point of view which I think QRP is usually providing this

valuable information on design. So when you say you give it a medium amount of

weight is that when you're kind of looking at matters as a planning officer

when you're looking at the overall planning balance in the round? Just in

In terms of design, townscape heritage issues, I don't think QRP's generally comment on land use issues, flood risk issues,

other issues that could play into the planning balance.

Yeah, but that was sort of where I was coming from. Is the reason you give it medium weight,

because you're saying rightly that when it comes to the overall decision as a planner, there's flooding,

there's whatever else that the design review panel QRP here has no competence for.

Is that the point you're making? Yes. But if we were just at the prior step in the

analysis where we're trying to work out what the design effects are, if we're just talking

about design, the views of the DRP or the QRP should be given significant weight, shouldn't

because they're an independent professional body who are you know

councils specifically pay to input into and comment on the appropriateness of

the design. I appreciate that design review panels are kind of mentioned in

MPPF guidance that they should consider the five review bodies to help shape proposals

but it also just would like warn that what they say shouldn't be just taken as

as I said before, whilst they do have a high degree of expertise and are

valuable in providing advice, planning officers should also have the

competence to take it forward as well and review against relevant policies

which QRP, DRP members may not do as competently on an everyday basis so we

would take that feedback and I think do a balanced judgement as to what they've

said not just take everything they've said as correct. I mean I wouldn't

suggest to you that you as a planning officer have to just you know copy and

paste what the QRP has said of course not but and do you agree with me that if

we're just talking about the weight to be given to their views on design alone

it's it should be significant?

Could I say medium to significant? I'm wary that QRP

shouldn't be the sole design advisor on an application.

We also have local knowledge in terms of our borough, urban design officers, conservation officers,

who also have input and are valuable as well in providing that expertise.

So it should be, I believe, a kind of synergy with both QIP members,

as well as our urban design officers, conservation officers, whomever.

So medium significance potentially but also with the soundness of our own local

expertise as well.

Could we then look in your proof at paragraph 5 .9 please?

And so you say here this section summarises the evolution of the proposals through the

pre -app process and two QRPs and subsequent LLDC officer review.

And so then you go on to deal with the pre -app responses at 5 .10, 5 .11, 5 .12, 5 .13, and then

the QRP sessions at 5 .14, 5 .15, 16, and then at 5 .17, you get onto the handover note.

Why in 5 .9 to 5 .16, why is there no acknowledgement at all that the final position of the QRP

was that the scheme met the criteria for BN5 and that detail points could be

picked up between the applicant and officers? It wasn't a deliberate

omission. I think I wanted to run through the themes of what was the recurring

themes that were mentioned in the QRP notes by us, by me, and then I guess and

then at 517 I assert the most up -to -date guidance or handover note from the

which is later dated than the last QRP session, so I find that to be the most relevant information

about the appeal scheme rather than the QRP session from a date back in 2021. So it wasn't

deliberate, it was just that I think we have more relevant LLDC officer hand -imminides that

were more effective in describing the current field scheme?

Well, you say it wasn't deliberate,

and I think what you probably mean by that is

there's no sort of nefarious intent on your part,

but you're not telling me that you somehow hadn't spotted

what the QRP had said in November 2021, are you?

So you did make a deliberate decision

not to put that point in your proof.

I do think I have some comments about

some of the successes in the scheme,

such as at 516 I do mention the double height opening with block one so inviting

and our public access from Roach Road into the scheme and onto the canal so

there are key improvements which is the quote there that the office scheme

offers and also architectural treatment and reform also considered sit more

comfortably in the local context so I do note some so maybe not quote verbatim

but there are acknowledgments that there are improvements that the QRP didn't

knowledge but still the kind of underlying issue was that they were

still concise of the limited height that contrasts and one and two and the

quality of the environment so whilst yes I point out some positives there which

hopefully you did not overlook as hopefully didn't overlook and then I

kind of go into actually whilst that has been achieved this is still an

underlying issue. Could you turn up core document 3 .4 please which is the QRP

response.

Yes I have that open. And if you go to the very end the final bullet point under next steps

says the panel feels the scheme meets the criteria for BN5 and detail points

can be picked up between the applicant and officers yeah? Yep I can see that. And

Can we then go to policy BN5, please?

I have that also.

Thank you.

So we can see that

about half, well, it's the third paragraph

that begins subject to the above.

Do you see that?

Yes I do. And so one of the things that's a requirement of this policy is that

proposals for tall buildings will be considered acceptable where they exhibit

exceptionally good design yes? Yes correct. And that's to be demonstrated

through independent design review undertaken by a panel appointed by the

local planning authority yes? So in stating their conclusion in the core

document we just looked at that they felt the scheme met the criteria for BN5

the QRP was satisfied that the scheme exhibited exceptionally good design

wasn't it? They did write in their report that they considered they felt the

scheme met the criteria for BN5. Yeah and one of those criteria is exhibiting

exceptionally good design yes. Could you point me to where that is in the

document? Yeah in BN5 it says subject to the proposals for tall buildings will be

considered acceptable where they exhibit exceptionally good design. Sorry I meant

in the QRP note where they write that it has exceptionally good design. No my point here is the QRP at the end says the panel feels the scheme

meets the criteria for BN5 yeah? Yes. One of those criteria is exhibit

exceptionally good design yes? That is a criteria yes. Right so when the QRP says

as we think the scheme meets the criteria,

they're essentially acknowledging

that they think the scheme does exhibit

exceptionally good design, aren't they?

I also, but BN5 has a number of criteria to meet,

rather than just being exceptionally good in design.

So whilst they may consider an aspect

is exceptionally good design

in terms of the four massing height architecture,

there's also the kind of criteria that sets out one to six

that we also need to consider on top of that.

Yes, I'm going to move on to them, but my question will be and they also thought it met all of the other criteria because they

say

At the end very clearly of their note the panel feels the scheme meets the criteria for BN5

So the first criteria that I'm highlighting is exhibit exceptionally good design. So they must have thought that was satisfied. Yes

to a degree they probably considered it to be a design yes. I mean it's rather

started, they don't say we think to a degree do they? They just say we think the

criteria is satisfied don't they? But then to kind of add on that detailed

points we picked up between applicant officers considers that there are still

small hurdles to kind of refine the design to be exceptionally good rather

then it's already achieved that.

It would have said, no further discussion required

between officer and applicant if they did consider it

to be exceptionally good design.

Meeting the criteria would be in five.

No further discussion, I would think.

If they had taken a different view

and they hadn't thought it was exceptionally good design,

they would not have said,

this is a professional independent panel,

they would not have said clearly

that they felt the scheme met the criteria

if actually they weren't satisfied

on exceptionally good design, would they?

I think they can have their view as to whether it meets BN5 and then officers can take this away as to whether we agree.

Oh, yeah, I understand entirely and we'll come to this later. I

understand your point which is that well, that's what the QRP said, but then

LLDC officers

expressed a later position and obviously you don't agree with the QRP. We'll come back to that in a moment.

But I'm just looking at them. I'm just trying to understand at the moment what we can

interrogate from the fact that the QRP said they were satisfied on BN5.

I don't, it's not a trick question.

Straightforwardly, one of the criteria of BN5 is exhibit exceptionally good design.

So you may disagree, I know you do, but the QRP was satisfied

that the scheme exhibits exceptionally good design, weren't they?

If I'm looking at this in isolation and from what it says, then yes.

Yeah, and the same is true.

The next point is you have to meet the requirements of policy BN1,

so they must have thought that was okay.

But they've not said that and also it's not the role of the QRP to be assessing against planning policies.

They might comment on it but I don't think they fully would interrogate BN1.

There's certainly no evidence to suggest that they thought there was a problem on that.

No there isn't but I wouldn't take the QRP panel members to be also planning officers and undertaking that assessment also.

BN4, again, nothing to suggest they thought there was any difficulty there.

No, but then again, it is just an advisory note and they don't interrogate every single

aspect and policy as planning officers do.

Right.

You're not going to suggest to me, though, that the QRP didn't have and weren't properly

entitled to have a view on this list at one to six, are you?

because those are squarely design points

that we would expect the QRP to have a view on, wouldn't we?

Yes, but also I think, for example,

criteria three in terms of access and servicing

also has some overlap with highways as well.

So potentially they may not have the full expertise

to interrogate that potentially.

Right.

Let's have a look at these in more detail then.

We can agree that the QRP was satisfied

that the scheme had an appropriate proportion

for massing height and scale in context

with the character of its surroundings, yeah?

We can agree that they were satisfied

that the use of material was appropriate to the height

of the building, yeah?

They looked to be OK with it.

Yeah, and on three, I think the point you're making as well,

the transport people may have had something to say about that

as well.

But from a design perspective, the QRP

for the access and the servicing arrangements

were acceptable, yes?

Where do they mention this or is the general mission of that just taken as they accept it?

Yes, it's the sentence where they say we feel the scheme meets the criteria for BN5

This is one of those criteria and they thought it was met didn't they?

I'm not I don't think that kind of saying a blanket we feel that being five

criterias met means that they have interrogated each and every one of them

in this case the access and servicing arrangements which go beyond just

looking at where's the refuse point, where's the cycling point. Are you a member of a

DRP or a QRP Ms Chung? No.

No.

So you're not...

Essentially, is your evidence going to be that where the DRP...

Sorry, the QRP say at the bottom of their note, we feel the scheme meets the criteria

for BN5 and detailed points can be picked up later.

Your evidence to the inquiry is going to be that the inspector should take a different

view other than to straightforwardly just acknowledge that that means they were happy

in relation to the six criteria we see here.

No, I'm saying that if we're reading the QRP response in isolation its own then

yes they're saying that they're happy with BN5 but there's also other considerations

that have evolved since that QRP response. We're coming on to those but

the straightforward point I'm putting is the QRP say they were happy with BN5

when we look at BN5 that means they were happy with exceptionally good design

compliance with BN1 and BN4 insofar as it was a matter

for them to consider and the list that's set out at one to six.

I mean that's correct, isn't it?

I know you don't like the response, but that is correct.

I do not and I do really want a clear yes or a no on this. It is right that when the

QRPs say they are satisfied BN5 is met, they are satisfied on exceptionally good design

BN1, BN4 and the list from 1 to 6. That is what they mean when they say they are satisfied

that the requirements of BN5 are met, isn't it? Yes or no, please.

I don't agree but one may read that and assume and make that assumption.

What do you say that means then if you don't agree?

I consider that if they were to have assessed all the criteria of being .5,

that they would have interrogated all the titles and said that they're happy with criteria one, two, three, six individually,

rather than just giving very kind of open ended headlines and giving kind of basic bullet points in each point.

If that were the case, then what the QRP say at the end of the document would be factually

inaccurate, wouldn't it?

the

Not saying that the QRP, DIP members are not competent in

looking at policy and reading it and considering whether it

complies or not. I don't think they do as thorough

interrogation of the criteria as required by planning officers,

for example, so they may say overall that they feel that it is moving toward

compliance and give officers kind of a bit more confidence in kind of moving

forward with design matters but it doesn't mean that overall what they said

in terms of meeting the criteria BN5 that we should just take it as yes

they've met BN5 hence no further discussion on that matter.

Why would the QRP not be actually more competent than planning? This is an

independent professional panel convened specifically to focus on design and

nothing else, why would they be less competent than planning officers to

reach a proper view on whether a scheme exhibits exceptionally good design

especially when the policy itself says that that should be demonstrated through

independent design review? I don't think I didn't I don't start that they're not

competent I'm just saying that potentially their role is not the same

in terms of looking at policies as in -depth as the planning office in May for example.

So we're looking at the overall design policies, yes BN1, BN2, BN4, whichever are relevant here,

but they won't be looking at the overall kind of balance of all other matters.

So I...

How do I say this?

I don't dispute that what they said could be correct at the time of the

planning application but the fact that they don't interrogate each criteria to

me suggests that there is room for interpretation but what they have

concluded I wouldn't disagree with and potentially they did think the design at

the time was exceptional. I mean yeah at that point we I you know we do know that

they considered because if we look earlier on in the note, under their

summary on page three we see that they say explicitly they feel the proposal

has the potential to meet the criteria for exceptional design set out under

Policy B N 5 and then they go on immediately to consider form scale and

I mean, I want to move on, but before we do, I just want to get a really clear understanding

from you.

My question to you was, when we see the conclusion they come to, which is that they think it

complies with the criteria of BN5, that means they're satisfied on exceptionally good design

on the BN1 or on the BN4 points and the list from one to six.

And you didn't accept that, and you want to say that actually the QRP meant something

else.

So which of the various criteria in BN5 do you say the QRP were not satisfied on, please?

I'd probably still land on the access and servicing arrangements.

Right, so the one you're not accepting is three in that list of one to six, yeah?

Only because it doesn't mention it, with all the other criteria there are kind of key terms

through it which talk about form, massing, public realm, the courtyard, townscape and

So there are keywords of the other criteria within which I can take as they consider that criteria to be acceptable but

Purely through the lack of just terminology with a relation to access and servicing potentially that wasn't interrogated

Okay, thank you so in your proof I

Mean the reason that this came to my attention was you say at five point nine

The point you're making in this section is the proposals were revised several

times but feedback consistently highlighted recurring concerns relating

to height scale mass and public realm quality in the relationship with the NDHA.

But that is simply it's not factually correct to say that there was a

consistent concern raised because for example in the QRP's response we were

just looking at which is 3 .4 we see in the summary where we just were they say

they think the form scale and massing provides a sensitive response to the

local context don't they?

They do say that in summary yes. Yeah and then they go on to say the

introduction of the double height opening in block one creates an

important link through to the canal, yeah? Yeah. So where in your, when in your proof

you're saying, and you say this repeatedly, you say there's consistent

feedback highlighting concerns in relation to scale and massing. Well it

wasn't consistent was it, because the QRP in November 2021 thought the form scale

and massing was fine. Well the list also includes public realm quality, so just

all those themes together through the QRP feedback. And if I were to look

beyond the summary of a QRP initial paragraph of that November 2021 response,

if I were to look at say the ground flow experience and just a ground flow

experience for example, there are still

that the QRP felt could be improved. So it wasn't taken as this is perfect the way it's

designed, but it is that the experience could be improved further. So I still consider that

to be a push to the applicant or the appellant to do better to create a more inviting and

welcoming ground floor experience, for example.

Yes, I didn't ask you, I didn't put to you that the QRP thought the scheme was perfect.

That's not the opponents case is it? My question was where in your proof you say

feedback consistently highlighted recurring concerns relating to height,

scale and massing. That is that at least is factually incorrect because the QRP

wasn't concerned by form, scale and massing in November 2021. In that

conclusion it also includes say prior LLDC feedback as well so not just the

second response but also the first response. So in that response there were concerns raised in terms

of high scalar massing. So maybe I should have separated the inclusion out to say initial QRP

feedbacks at this in November and so this in response one and QRP response two said this.

I put them together, hence you could you've taken it to be the high scalar mass and they've

considered it inappropriate in the November 2021 response. But say I do think in the first response

there were concerns raised, hence that was a summary. But my difficulty with this part of your

proof is that when one reads it, one gets the impression that both our LDC

officers and the QRP from start to finish had nothing good to say about the

scheme and were you know consistently troubled and that isn't accurate when

you read the November 2021 response from the QRP is it? In response in relation to

the high scale amassing in November 2021 response they do

conclude as you've said in the summary that they are okay with it. Thank you and

briefly whilst we're here, still within the summary section, if you look at the

second paragraph, which begins pulling back block three, you'll see in the third

line down it says the courtyard will struggle with daylight and it will need

carefully selected materials, plants and a focal point to ensure it creates a

positive public realm experience. So yes the QRP is identifying a potential

struggle with daylight but then it goes on to identify the solution doesn't it?

Yes, they offer some suggestions.

And then finally in this paragraph we can see at the end they say, finally the panel

notes that the success of the scheme will depend upon the quality of the detailing,

materiality and finishes used. You're not criticising the quality of the detailing,

materiality or finishes are you?

Of the buildings, no.

happened. Because I noticed, where have I put it, in the statement of common ground at 46

for the inspectors note we can see it says the architectural treatment including

facade materials and details are acceptable subject to appropriate

conditions being secured, yeah? Yeah.

Then as I've, if we just pick up your rebuttal paragraph 1 .5 please. So this is where you

make the point that you've just made to me again in oral evidence, that although the

QRP's comments say what they say. In November 2021 the LLDC handover note came later and

you say it's the most up -to -date feedback from LLDC officers, which factually is the

position. But have you got the statement of common ground available, please?

I'll give you a moment, I'll open it up, thank you.

Yes, I have that.

Could you go, it's PDF page 9, paragraph 29, please.

Sorry, paragraph 9. Paragraph 29.

Yes, I've got that. We can see that this explains that because

the council's case office was on long -term leave, it's not clear whether the pre -app

feedback from LLDC or from the QRP was available to her before the application was refused,

yeah yes I can see that's written and in so far as you're making the point here

at 1 .5 that you know the QRPs comments are sort of overtaken by the handover

note but the handover note is the view of LLDC planning officers isn't it yes I

Yeah, so it's not the independent professional view of a specialist

design panel is it? No. And there would be no point putting local planning

authorities to the cost of a DRP or a QRP if afterwards all that happens is

the planning officer thinks well that's very nice but I disagree and therefore

you know I'm not giving any further consideration to the QRP? I can't speak

to how the LMDC officer came to the conclusion that they set out in the handover note, but

I wouldn't have assumed that they've just gone ahead and considered this unacceptable.

I have dismissed what the QRP panel have said altogether. There must have been conversation

around how that's evolved into the amendments that they've reviewed and also discussion

with their own local authority at the time and design officers. So I can't speak to how

they came to those conclusions of the handover note.

Yeah, I mean I don't think the handover note gives any explanation as to what has happened to the QRP's views, does it?

No.

Thank you. Then in your proof of evidence can we go to paragraph 3 .9, please?

And you, sorry, let me know when you have that.

You identify here a number of positive design intentions, including the retention and the

reuse of the gatehouse, the introduction of active ground floor frontages to encourage

public access and a canal focused elevation to respond to the water side setting.

I mean, those do still weigh positively in the overall planning balance, don't they,

despite what you go on to say later about things such as scale massing and

detailed design? If they're executed well, yes they can play into the planning balance.

But I mean is it, I think this is an aspect of your evidence I'm not entirely

clear on actually. I think the answer's no from what you just said but are you

saying for example that because you have criticisms of the canal focused

elevation it shouldn't get any weight as a benefit of the scheme or do you acknowledge

it should still get some weight as a benefit even though you think it could have been you

know still further more beneficial? I would say it's very limited weight in terms of just

the public access and the canal edge that would be limited whilst yes we do have a new

introduction of members being able to access the space as you can't do in the current situation

that is a benefit but then how it's been executed and moulded around that journey

and experience I then think doesn't play in its favour to find it be a

considerable weight.

All right can we then go to paragraph 5 .22 please.

In your proof, which is the previous consent on site, and you say here, we give the figures,

so we've got 20 metres, reducing in height to 17 and then to 12, so that's a step down

by three metres and then by five metres yes?

Yeah that's correct. And the appeal scheme that

the inspector is considering would go up from building one to building

two there's a difference of about six metres.

I took those figures from 3 .7 and you're proofed for reference.

Yes, I just wanted to find the figures. So yes, that'll be a five metre dip at one point

from two to three.

So there's 5 .9 metres between block one and block two, yes?

And then 5 .4 metres back down again from two to three,

looking at the figures you've set out at 3 .7.

Sorry, can you say the measurements again?

So 22 .7 to 28 .6 is 5 .9 metres, isn't it?

Thereabouts, I'm not suggesting it.

Yeah, that's correct.

Sorry, I've got very good mental math.

No worries.

And then 28 .6 down to 23 .2 is 5 .4.

Yep, also correct.

Yeah.

So those height differences are actually greater than the three metres and the five metres

that were proposed in the previous scheme, yeah?

Just based on numerical value they are greater.

Then could we go...

Let me find it again...

Yeah, page 32 of your proof, please.

I have that.

We've got figure 14, which I think is a CGI from the previous scheme.

Now I think perhaps I just want to clarify what you're referring to.

So I'm looking at 5 .23 of your proof where you refer to figure 10.

Yes.

Then, so it's not this figure 14 in which you say that the gatehouse appears as the prominent subject of the termination of the view then?

Or are they the same, can't quite work out, are they meant to be the same reference?

It could be in the type of my end, which probably should be Figure 14.

Right, so when I'm reading this in 5 .23 Figure 10 should be Figure 14.

And then when we look at Figure 14, you say that in this CGI,

the gatehouse is the prominent subject of the view, do you?

I also think my Figure 14 annotation is probably incorrect,

so that's probably not helpful.

But yet in this view, the gatehouse, I would argue, is better appreciated as a prominent

subject of the termination view.

So your professional view is that the gatehouse in this view is the prominent subject of the

view?

Yes.

Well, we'll see if Dr Mealy shares that opinion.

Then you've got a section 5 .25, quite a long section, that looks at other schemes.

The fact is these schemes are, well except for the ones that didn't get planning

permission obviously, but you know the schemes that have been built out are there

and they form part of the baseline against which the acceptability of the

appeal scheme has to be assessed, don't they? Yes. And the reasons why they were

given planning permission don't alter that fact, do they? Because you know the

the logic and the analysis behind the grants of planning permission doesn't alter one IO to the

fact that they've been built and they're there. Sorry I missed the first part of the question

which you repeat all of that. Yeah the reasons behind the grant because you've done quite an

analysis of the public benefits package, the policy context, whether it was the same or

different and you know the kind of underpinnings of the grants of planning permissions or the

refusals but none of that alters the fact that factually the ones that have been built are part

the baseline correct? Yes. I don't want to go through all of these but 549 please on the Foreman and Son

proposal that wasn't successful. Yes I have that. What are you inviting the inspector to draw if

anything from your 5 .49? Is the suggestion being made that because that scheme was refused planning

permission then the appeals scheme should also be refused planning

permission? No I don't I just wanted to draw that there are similarities in how

the appeal scheme and also this proposal looked to create a new landmark

building at the bridge both intending to create a wayfinding point and also its

relationship with the chimney is also quite similar and also both schemes sit

outside the conservation area so there are similarities and how potentially

both of them were reviewed and I just would like to highlight in this point

what were the failings of that application. I mean to be fair though

looking at your figure 19 the appellant's not proposing anything of the

sort is it? It's a good thing it's not one building they're proposing. Yeah the

scheme does not look like what's shown in that image there does it being fair?

Oh no if I'm looking at it it's not the same it's just the principles are the

same in terms of creating a landmark block and inviting a new setting to the

foreground of the piano factory. The appeal scheme though is coming

forward in a different physical context because the baseline has evolved since

the Forman and Sons site was last considered.

yeah? Yes. And the planning policy context has also developed as well yes? Yes.

As recently as last week or whenever it was the MPPF came to us. And the public

benefits package obviously is not the same as between the two schemes either?

No.

The piano factory scheme you start discussing at 5 .60. Did you have any involvement with

that scheme? No. I wasn't involved. Can you just turn back to 5 .30 in the pooch please?

Yes. I think you're discussing here unless I've got lost but I think we're on carpenters

wharf are we? Yep that's correct. And we can see at 5 .28 the six storey elements there

are varying between 21, 23 and 25 yeah? Correct. But then at 5 .30 you very fairly say that

the officer report reasoned that that was a marginal exceedance and as I read the officer

report when I looked at it yesterday. Essentially the 21, 23 and 25 metres were all taken as

being sufficiently near to the 20 metre guideline, correct?

I can't remember what the committee report said, I have to read it again.

Well let's turn that reference up then please. It's your appendix 17, power of 1025.

All right.

you have a page number? So I can't persuade the appendices to download again for me I'm afraid.

326 sorry 326.

Just give it so if you found 10 25. Yeah reading it thank you.

Once you've read it, my reading of that paragraph is that Carpenter's Wharf wasn't made to,

you know, justify itself in terms of additional public benefits and basically was treated

as though it was, you know, no more than a marginal exceedance of the 20 metres, correct?

Could you ask the question again? So they didn't consider it against the public benefits

tests, is that what you asked? Yeah.

And well the application was viewed against the previous Fish Island Action Plan, so there

wasn't a need to provide the public benefits under that.

No, that's fair.

But the point, I mean, the way you put it in your proof,

which I think is accurate, is there was an emerging 20 metre

guideline, but all of the heights were taken essentially

as being sufficiently close to that as to be acceptable, yes?

I accept that they said that the predominant height of the proposal is marginally above

the guideline of 20 metres in the emerging policy 1 .6 of the LLDC publication plan and

therefore because it's acceptable, particularly as it results from a generous floor to ceiling

height to the affordable workspace unit onto the waterway, which the welcome feature, and

improves flexibility. So there is like a caveat at the end of it that it exceeds it, but because

it results in benefits in terms of the height, floor to ceiling height of the workshop space.

So not just height for sake of height.

My point is, in the carpenter's wharf, 21, 23, 25 metres

were all identified as being marginally above the emerging

20 metre guideline.

And it's not because your case here

is that all three aspects of the appeal scheme

are more than a minor exceedance of the 20 metre prevailing

height.

And my point is, well, that's not

consistent with the approach taken in carpenter's wharf,

where there was an exceedance of five metres and that was still said to just be marginally above.

But then I'd also view that as Carpenters Wharf was considered in I guess maybe a transitional

stage where there was a Fish Islander Action Plan and also an emerging local plan, emerging

LLDC local plan. But in for example the Keanu factory where it was more recent in 2022 I think

I said in 2023 that was properly considered against the LLDC significant

public benefits BN5 requirement and they didn't view it as a minor exceedance and

they did consider it against the need to provide significant additional public benefit and

they did secure that. So in a sense the later application may be more relevant

in how they've treated the view on the minor exceedance.

Going back to my original question if we're looking just at whether the

approach that the council's taking now is consistent with its approach to

carpenters wharf it's not because in carpenters wharf a one metre three metre

five metre exceedance is marginally above 20 metres whereas here you're now

saying that a 2 .7 and a 3 .2 metre exceedance is more than minor I mean

they're not consistent those two factual positions are they focusing just on that

question of factual consistency it's not consistent focusing just on what they

said about the Carpenter's Wharf scheme in relation to my proof, then yes, hence I bring

forward a later application with the piano factory in terms of how they dealt with the

binary exceedance matter and the need to trigger significant wallet benefits tests.

And then several, I'm not going to go to all of the references, but for most, I think,

if not all of these other schemes in the locality, you've made observations about the extent

of the package of public benefits. But I mean our inspectors not in a position realistically

to undertake any meaningful comparison between public benefits packages is he?

The meaningfulness I guess of the public benefits package is relevant to the scheme itself rather

than what someone else is secure to say it wouldn't be reasonable to say that person's

100 % affordable hence we have to do it as well there are constraints I guess with each

So I wouldn't ask the inspectors to do that. It would just be in relation to proportionate

benefits in relation to our scheme and how to balance out the heritage harm, transcript

harm, etc. that I've considered.

Yeah, so you're not actually, although you have provided commentary on the public benefits

packages for some of these other schemes, you're not actually asking the inspector to

undertake any form of comparison.

This might be overstepping what my evidence is, as I guess Mr. Weir is doing the overall planning balance and looking at public benefits,

but hopefully it's not unreasonable that I say that I'm not asking the inspector to try and copy another benefits package from another scheme.

It's just that this is what they've delivered, other schemes have delivered in terms of weighing the application in their favour,

on top of like design benefits etc so it's just to show what neighbouring

sites have provided rather than to say that we should be matching it purely

based on no other facts. Why then let's look at 5 .65 please in your proof.

So what are we on here?

I think it's the piano factory still.

Where you say at the end this contrast with the appeal

scheme where all three principal blocks exceed the

20 metre prevailing height data and whilst the package

of additional public benefits is in my view considerably

less substantial.

Well the overall public benefits package that I

understand my colleague to have considered is not

significant so I'm just drawing upon that but it's not considered as an

actual public benefits package. But how have you because as you say it's really

Mr. Weir who I think is looking at the overarching public benefits case for

this scheme so where you go along in your proof and you summarise the sort of

full -blown public benefits package for all of the other schemes, you're not in a position

to compare, aren't you? Because you're not the planning witness looking at the full suite

of public benefits for our scheme.

No, I guess I wanted to paint, help paint a picture.

But when in so far as you have volunteered some kind of comparison between the package

of additional public benefits, your approach has been to look at the entire package of

public benefits for the scheme in question, yeah?

Yeah, that's kind of my take on doing it.

Then at 573, please.

This is dealing with the 90 Monier Road scheme.

Yeah, that's right.

And you say a number of the proposed buildings were more than 20 metres, so 21, 22, 24 .5,

but the scheme nonetheless retains substantive variation in height including low scale one and two

storey elements. Of course the appeal scheme is retaining the gates the gatehouse though isn't it

which is a low scale element. That is one low scale element but in this scheme they have the

Yeah, 5 .79 next please, which is 79 to 85 Monier Road and 1 Sneed Road, where you note

that the taller six -storey elements were concentrated along Sneed Road and then the buildings stepped

down to four and five storeys elsewhere and the committee report said that that variation

in height was a smooth transition. How is that markedly different to the stepping that

the appeals scheme is proposing please.

I'm just finding it again because I can't remember what the composition looks like.

So was your question about why I don't consider the appeal scheme to be a smooth transition

but this from six to four and five storeys is?

Yes because I myself struggle to see what the market difference is between six storeys

stepping down to four and five and what's being proposed with the appeal scheme?

We can say with the appeal scheme that is a smooth transition if you're looking at it just

from numerical storey values but the point with the appeal scheme is that they're looking to create

a marker block, something to kind of interrogate that, interrogate and announce that corner to

which they don't do that.

If you want to create a marker block,

you need a contrasting scale rather than a smooth transition

where that looks to me,

any lack of modulation or variation,

it's too smooth potentially.

They need something which drops down to one or two storeys,

which was recommended previously.

But it's a two storey transition here, isn't it?

from block two to one and three. But they don't have the challenge of designing on

the canal edge with a non -designated heritage asset and it's setting also the

bridge as a marker so the objectives aren't the same in terms of design

in that scheme and our scheme.

Right so I'm struggling to see what point you're inviting the inspector to

take from this example because you've referenced the committee report as

identifying that transition as smooth but now I think your complaint is that

our transition is too smooth. Is that where we've landed?

The transition that the officer considered to be smooth worked in that context away from the canal.

It's on, is it Smead Road and Beechey Road, Monier Road, so there's a different context to what we have currently.

In order for our proposal to be successful in terms of responding to the canal, responding to the bridge, responding to the chimney,

there needs to be more transition rather than just kind of a uniform datum which we are

looking at. So I'm not arguing that it's smoother than not smooth, it's not about, smoother

is more about creating the contrast in order to create the landmark that you're wishing

for it to be and also to respond to the heritage assets we have and the canal condition.

But there is more contrast here because it's not 654 is it, there's a two -storey difference.

With the with this smead road scheme is that what you?

The appeal scheme.

Appeal scheme has less or more? Sorry, I missed the question.

Well it's I don't have this smead road example in front of me but it seems to me that we have.

Well let's not waste time on this there's a two -storey differential here isn't there?

For the appeal scheme.

If I'm just looking at the values yes.

Yeah. Therefore, skipping on briefly just picking up on 597 of your proof please, page 52.

Yes, got that.

You say neighbouring schemes demonstrate a deliberate contrast between taller and lower elements rather than a consistent height across an entire development, but we're not proposing a consistent height across the entire scheme, are we?

No, it's only consistent with blocks one and three.

Then further down that page, you say blocks one and three adopt broadly consistent heights

and gable massing closely reflecting the scale and form of carpenters wharf to the north.

What's the problem then with the scale and form of block one and block three if as you say they

closely reflect the scale and form of the building immediately to the north? So that's where I turn

to view one when I was giving my evidence in chief earlier. So the lack of any variation and just

kind of replicating the height of carpenters wharf you fail to appreciate any kind of animation or

modulation along the canal and it becomes quite an abrupt and uniform monotonous elevation.

That's not a complaint about scale though is it really? Maybe it comes under form but

I don't think that's a scale issue is it?

Or the form also because it replicates the Gable form.

So you're not happy with the fact that there's a gable form on blocks one and

on block one is it? So blocks one and three both have gable forms. Yeah but is that

something you're now dissatisfied with? I'm not complaining about the use of a gable form.

There is a contextual influence to this but I'm just saying that being too close in its height

form architectural treatment to carpenters of war,

there becomes less of differentiation between itself

and the labour and development.

I would have expected or would have enjoyed something

which is a little bit more contrasting

in order to create that modulation

and also then to allow block two to sing

as a landmark development or block,

landmark development, landmark block.

Is your issue,

I've understood that one of your issues is

that you say there's not enough contrast, I think, between Block 1 and the marker block on the corner.

Are you also raising an issue around there being insufficient variation, you know, internally to Block 1?

As in the form itself?

Yeah.

Yes, so I think I had mentioned before when you look at the U1 for example, there is very

little appreciate, you can't really appreciate potential potentially the depths which have

been invited and it does feel just like a flat elevation. So, a cable form is fine,

it's just in how you further interrogate elevation architecturally.

Where is there any policy or guidance requirement though that the approach to

block one is offending?

Well there is a need in policy BN1 for example, is it BN1?

So yeah, BN1 for example responding to place. So the need to look at the water frontage,

the architectural and historic context, urban fabric and architecture. It's not a personal

offence, I'm just saying that there needs to be more modulation in that in order to

make it seem significantly different from Carpenters Wharf and from Block 2.

But why do I understand, I don't we don't agree with you obviously, but I understand

your point around the corner block not being sufficiently contrasting, but I haven't yet

seen anything that says to me in terms of policy or guidance that block one is insufficiently

varied.

Is it just that you think it should be more varied like carpenters wharf next door?

Are you saying that design policies don't dictate how we should be designing elevation hence

what they provided is fine or

or?

Your evidence was I would have enjoyed more variation

within the facade or more, I'm not sure about the lingo,

but greater recessing or whatever,

and you think the facade to block one is too flat

and you would have enjoyed more movement

or articulation or whatever, fine.

But where is the policy or the guidance

that indicates that somehow our approach is lacking

in terms of policy and guidance?

If we're looking at the policies in response to BN1 and also the Heritage policy, I think

it's BN4 design and development and then BN1 in terms of responding to place. There's no

dictation about how you should design development, it should respond to its

place and be designed contextually. And in this I find that how the applicant, the

appellant, has designed block one, it does feel like a uniform wall development

where if you were to provide relief in recessing, in better set out bays, you

could appreciate a better contextual response to the canal where there isn't

large -scale walls of development confronting the canal. It's more about

looking at the existing buildings, for example, they embrace a more modest scale and there

is variation in their low -scale heights and that's something which should be

translated into the development to be contextual.

This is a wharf site though isn't it? So I'm going to suggest to you there's nothing

inappropriate at all in the approach that's been taken here. It's a redolent of a

water historic wharf, far more so actually than if we look at your figure 15, which is

the page 33, which is the previous scheme. I mean, how is that a better or a more effective

response to context than what's now being proposed. It's not is it?

I'm not trying to compare schemes. Well also that scheme is slightly different in that

I didn't include the whole appeal site buildings so potentially also not as wide. So the blocks

are of different widths to the appeal scheme buildings.

Right, because we may end up coming to the references later on, I can't remember, but

I had read your evidence as saying that you were more satisfied with this previous scheme

in design terms, but actually you're saying that's not your position.

If I'm looking at a different site, more different site context, different site footprint, that's

they've delivered their buildings, this can be successful in that terms. We are increasing

the boundary line and I don't think about the increase in buildings that have been proposed

are successful. But what are you actually asking the inspector to do with this section on the

previous scheme? Because it's in your proof so I assumed that you were, you know, your view is that

it was relevant and you're asking the inspector to analytically do something with it but you're

I think saying that you're not drawing a comparison and you're not trying to say whether this scheme is better than that scheme

But if so, why is it in your evidence?

There are principles that this design or the schemes that I have mentioned generally in my proof that should be taken away

There's underlying thrust of those applications in terms of how they're designed to create and contrast and hide the modulation

How they treat the non -designated heritage assets and the chimneys landmarks

So I'm taking all that language and how we should be using that to implement into our

Proposals into the applicants proposals, which I don't think has been successful

So I'm asking to look at just general pattern of development that has occurred and the language used to describe and design developments

This is still relevant if I'm still looking at figure 15

Which we pointed to how they have a relationship with the chimney is different from our building

the roof forms are different, the contrast and heights are different, how it

responds on the western end is also different in terms of to the Shireland

and to the canal so there are interesting moments in this application.

Yeah but there are also you know I mean you criticise the lack of variation in

the appeal scheme but this doesn't even have you know the change in brickwork or

the in my submission quite obvious difference between the corner block and

the other two blocks, this is just the same approach across the whole development, isn't

it? So we could, I'm not going to because we haven't got time and it's not hugely helpful,

but we could sit here for the rest of the afternoon and flag aspects of the design of

this previous scheme that you think are more successful and then we could also probably

identify aspects of the appeals scheme that are more successful. Ultimately, they're different

schemes aren't they? Yes, I'm just looking at the principles of what they've done in

order to achieve a good design not replicating exactly what they have done

onto our scheme. You can create modulation variation and kind of

difference with the different techniques and in this case maybe I don't want to

obviously go as you said into interrogating every scheme it's not

relevant but the change in transition in height here and also the contrasting

roof elements it does invite kind of some noticeable difference between the

Okay, thank you. Sir, I've just seen the time, so if you were looking for a moment for the

afternoon break, then now is convenient from my perspective, but obviously a matter for

you.

Yeah, we'll take a break now. Are ten minutes clear now? Okay, actually, if we say we'll

come back at ten to four, inquiry's adjourned till then.

I'd like to continue your cross -examination.

Thank you sir.

Hello again Ms Chung.

Could we go then to 5 -101 in your proof please?

Let me know when you're there.

Yes I have it.

So you say towards the end you're referring to view one and you say that the distinction

between individual blocks is perceived primarily through changes in brick colour rather than

through meaningful variation in height, mass, single architectural expression.

If we look at view one please, I'm happy to pick it up in the DAS at page 165 which is

where you were in your evidence in chief.

Yes, I have a view as well. It's right that between block two, which is the corner block

and block one, which I think are the only, we can't see block three in this view, I don't

think. But I mean, it's not just the fact that it's a different brick colour. It's plainly

a different form. There's no gable to block two, is there?

No, there isn't a gate.

And it's clearly a different height as well, isn't it? Even at this distance and in this

view?

Very marginally.

Oh, so your judgement is that the height difference that we can see between blocks one and two

is marginal. Very marginal, I think you just said, actually.

I'd say between block one and two in this view there isn't a very clear transition in scale.

There isn't a very clear transition in scale. There isn't much.

There isn't much transition in scale, is that your evidence?

Yes.

Okay and then also in paragraph 5 .101 just above where we were, you refer to the colonnade

and you say that pushes the building directly to the water's edge and creates a continuous

and visually dominant base to the proposals. But if we turn in your proof to Figure 30,

please, on page 54. And we can see it in Figure 29 as well. I mean, there's also a colonnade

at Carpenter's Wharf, and that's actually more dominant, isn't it, at the base than

the appeal scheme. But with the carpenters wharf colonnade it was designed with

openness in mind so our building the appeal building it brings a building

line forward with the colonnade but with carpenters wharf the building line is

pushed back to allow the colonnade to sit separately as its lightweight

structure. Right but looking at view one in figure 29 or indeed what we were just

looking at it in the DAS, is it your evidence that the base of the appeal

scheme in this view is more dominant than the carpenters wharf base? It's

dominant in different sense in that it looks monotonous in its continual

colonnade and structures and brick columns. But the carpenters wharf

colonnade is also completely monotonous at the base? But it's treated in a

materiality for example, different architectural treatment to it from the

building form itself so that it sits forward, it sits in a different, it

pronounces itself differently from the Peel Schemes Colonnade. The Peel Schemes

Colonnade is, it feels kind of absorbed into the building form and it feels kind

of very heavy and bulky at the bottom, whereas this one is just designed

differently at Carpenter's Wharf.

Okay well we'll see what Dr. Mealy and Ms. Young have to say about that

Then 5 .108.

And also then looking at 5114,

you're referring here to the lack, you say, of sufficient variation in height

and that limiting the ability of Block 2 to perform a landmark role.

And then we can see that what you would have liked to see,

this is 5114, is a more meaningful reduction

and variation in the heights of Blocks 1 and 3.

But of course, if Blocks 1 and 3 were lower,

that would be a less efficient use of land on the site overall, wouldn't it?

It wouldn't be less efficient if all other matters that I've considered a failure such

as the courtyard to be better fulfilled with a lower scale. It doesn't necessarily mean

optimisation, it could be maximisation which I think is the case here because the consequences

of the increased height affects the courtyard behind it.

Are you now saying the scheme is a maximisation of the site?

I think I've said in my proof that it's an indication

where there are failings that could be overdevelopment.

I think there are references to overdevelopment.

I can't immediately recall having seen the word maximisation.

If it's there, you can take me to it, please.

It might be that in my rebuttal, I think I've said

it's not an optimisation of the site.

Let me look at that again to be clear with you.

So in my rebuttal at paragraph 1 .10, if I read it out, I say additional height is

disputed as unacceptable in principle. The question is whether that particular height in

its particular configuration successfully responds to the constraints and opportunities of the site.

In my view it currently does not. London Plan Policy D3 requires the capacity of the site to

be optimised through a design -led approach rather than simply maximised by increasing height to

accommodate a fixed quantum development. Is there a reference to maximisation in your proof that I've

missed. I've not included it in my proof. I think in my rebuttal I do mention it

because in Miss Young's rebuttal she talks about how a development of a

reduced height couldn't work because that would result in a large footprint, but

then also I fight back and say that an increased height also doesn't work with

reduced footprint so the question was whether it was optimising the site with

the quantum, it's not about being quantum driven it should be about design -led.

Is it your evidence in your proof was, I think you do say it's

over development, we'll come on to that later, we don't agree of course, but I

think that's what you're saying in proof, there isn't a reference to maximisation

in your proof, there is one we've just seen in your rebuttal, are you, is it your

evidence, ultimately this is the last chance for you to explain to me what your

evidence is, is it your professional view that this scheme is a maximisation of

the site? Is that actually the argument you're making?

I argue that it's maximisation because of the point that I had to, that I looked

at in this Young's rebuttal which was about having to cater for a certain

quantum and that quantum didn't work for a low scale, sorry, a low height and

to consider it to be suitable at taller height, therefore that raised the question of maximisation.

It's not a maximisation is it? Because if it was a maximisation we wouldn't have blocks

one and three being a couple of storeys lower than block two would we? And we'd be looking

at something well in excess I'd put to you than eight storeys.

And which I've argued that I don't think that... Sorry what was the question again?

It's not maximisation is it? Because if we were maximising the site we'd have taller

buildings we wouldn't have the drop in levels to blocks one and three and we

wouldn't have a courtyard we'd have just I don't know come along with some

proposal for a 20 -storey tower that took up the entire site that would be

maximisation it's maximisation is not the same thing as over development is it

you can have over development but that doesn't necessarily mean you've got

maximisation which is the ultimate as the name says maximising other sites

capacity I accept that it could be instances where it could be maximised

further. Right so we're not trying to maximise the site are we realistically?

In relation to the comment that I was responding to I consider that to be a

view where you're maximising simply just to accept simply just to deliver a

certain quantum maximising it with unsuccessful design in order to

accommodate that didn't work. Right I'm gonna move on are you still saying are

you still alleging that the appellant is trying to maximise the site? Yes or no please

and I'd like us to pick up a bit of speed.

No, I won't say it's maximising. Thank you.

Then, that's 5 .10 and 5, sorry, 5 .1 .10 and 5 .111 in your proof, page 56 please. You discussed

the chimney at the piano factory. There's no allegation of any harm to the chimney in

reasons for refusal is there? Not explicitly the chimney just the setting

of conservation area I believe and the setting of the timber yard gate house.

And there's no mention of the chimney in the statement of case that I could find?

LAC Award for hearing loss.

Did you input that into the CASE Money diesel

statement or else?

completely. No it was Mr. Wiess' statement. Mr. Wiess, so you didn't have any contributions

or review or anything of the statement of case? I looked at section reason 4 later on

in the statement. So that is from paragraph 6 .68. So when you say you looked at it, he

drafted it you reviewed it? Yes correct.

And the chimney is a non -designated heritage asset but it's not listed is it?

Non -designated heritage asset, you're right. And then moving on, a few pages in your proof.

5 .16 please, page 60.

5 .16.

Sorry, 5 .126, that's my fault.

Yes, I've got that.

So you describe there the approach taken to the colonnades and then at 5 .127 you say this

approach fundamentally alters the existing character of the Canal Edge. But I mean there's

a colonnade next door at Carpenter's Wharf isn't there so how can that be a fundamental

alteration of the existing character of the Canal Edge?

I was looking at it in relationship to the existing experience which I have written that

it is on an intimate and human scale and it's very open so inserting in the

colonnade there would fundamentally alter that experience of the Canal Edge in that instance.

Does that matter though because I didn't read your evidence of suggesting that

there's anything particularly positive about the experience on the Canal Edge

at the moment I mean it's not open to the public for a start.

So at 5 .127 I do say the relationship of the existing building and the waterway is characterised

by relatively intimate and human -scaled environment whilst also maintaining a strong sense of

openness to the water, being no definitive boundary between the built edge and the water

instead of two spaces, blend together creating an informal and continuous relationship with

up. So that's how I describe the existing experience to be. I don't think that's painting

in the negative light. The fact that there's no public access is not the only contributing

factor to being negative.

Is it your view that the proposals would be worse or less good than the existing position

on site?

For the reasons I've set out as to why the Colonnay design is unsuccessful, I don't think

it would be an improvement. I think there's quite an enjoyment with currently how the

space was open, albeit there is no public access. But I don't think the way the colonnade

has been designed would embrace the openness and that quality that you exist with the canal

currently.

So your professional view is the scheme wouldn't improve the existing character of the canal

edge at all?

Not with the colonnade in the way it's designed presently.

Are you saying it would make it worse or it's neutral? It's basically, you know, neither better nor worse. It's essentially a

replacement that's of the same value.

Arguably worse if I have argued previously that there wouldn't be passive surveillance and also the potential unsafeness of it during nighttime.

Wouldn't that just invite a covered space for

antisocial behaviour? So you are saying that the scheme would worsen

the existing character of the Canal Edge?

Currently the Canal Edge is not publicly accessible, so any activity there is limited to those who have access to the canal.

Whereas in the proposed appeal scheme that would be open to the public and the failures which I found with the colonnade design being they would be enclosed, not so open, transparent.

the kind of interaction with the canal not so successful I don't find that to

be an improvement upon and also because it would be public accessible everyone

can access it whereas the existing situation it is just privatised and

people can't go in there. I'm gonna put the question again can you just give me

a yes or a no please. Say whatever you like afterwards but I just want to

try and pick up a bit momentum. I've understood you're not accepting it's an

improvement again we don't agree but the inspector can reach a viewing view

course. Nowhere in your written evidence did I see you say that you were alleging that

the scheme would make the existing character, you know, would worsen the character of the

Canal Edge. Are you now saying that the scheme wouldn't be, you know, I know you say it's

not a benefit now. I asked you if it was neutral. I'm not sure. I asked you if it was worse

and I didn't get an answer. Are you now saying that the scheme would make the character of

Canal edge worse yes or no please no I do recognise that there are benefits to

the active activation of the canal edge and inviting more activity to it but

it's just the way it's executed I don't think that it would provide very good

quality. And then 5 .131 please. Where you're discussing the QRP for carpenters

wharf and you point out that the QRP strongly supported the double height

spaces but as we saw earlier the QRP also you know responded positively to

the double height spaces in the colonnade and the appeal scheme didn't

they? I believe that was the double height of the entrance from Roach Road.

Okay so that's the point of distinction that you're seeking to draw between the

scheme and carpenters wharf then is it? I don't understand so the QRP comments

about the double height of the appeal scheme were in relation to the kind of

new entry from road to road for public access and not about the colonnade itself

but this is QRP at 5413. QRP's comments on the colonnade were a

matter so they're different.

One who is misunderstanding you.

Yeah, no I've understood what the evidence is on that now, thank you.

5 .129 you raise this point around

essentially

the experience for women and girls,

or I suppose for everybody ultimately, but especially for women and girls during the evening and night time

hours. You're aware that the Metropolitan Police crime prevention team was

consulted and that they didn't have any comment, yes?

Were you aware? I can't remember, I'm sorry.

Then 5 .132 please, page 62. Carpenters Wharf again, you make the point that Carpenters

Wharf has got an accessible lift and you say the scheme this is an opportunity to provide

a more legible and inclusive connexion between the canal and bridge level. What's your understanding

of whether carpenters wharf is actually available to members of the public

please. I wasn't aware from the plans that I looked at they look to be open

access and then from Miss Young's evidence she clarified that matter for

us so where I talk about public access to carpenters wharf colonnade is

incorrect in this instance nonetheless it doesn't take away from where I

consider that there could be a missed opportunity to have better accessible

accessible access rather than just stairs from the canal edge to the street

level. There's no reason for refusal around inclusivity or accessibility is

there? Not in this instance I just wanted to highlight it as a point.

5 .134 you've got you treat the courtyard and you make the first point you make is

that as well as providing community and communal amenity space it would

accommodate circulation to residential entrances.

Why is that problematic, please?

No, I'm not saying it's problematic.

I'm just saying the amalgamation of all those uses together

could have cause for concern rather than individually

that they are of concern.

And then you mentioned the movement of refuse

out to the street, but you're not disputing

Mr. Cheamer's factual account of the infrequency

of that sort of temporary refuse use are you? He's explained basically obviously the bins

don't get taken out every waking hour of the day. You don't dispute his factual account

do you? No I understand that there's also residential

and synchronicity between residential and commercial bins so there'll be two different

activities for that but yes I understand that they're not every tiny collections.

Similar query on 5 .135 you've taken a point about doorstep play. There's no conceivable

objection is there to communal amenity space being used for doorstep play?

I'm not objecting to that also I'm just saying that everything happening in the

courtyard at once could cause concern for pressure and users not knowing or

understanding what the use of the space is. In fact I think I mentioned in my

evidence in chief that it could be a happy occurrence that that does happen

and also in Britain mentioned in 5 .13 it can form an important part of

everyday experiences to have kind of incidental play along the way. It's just

that having so many uses in one space which isn't significant could cause concern.

There's not really that many uses though is there because so far we've

got communal amenity space, circulation to the entrances, people coming and going,

access to cycle parking again, presumably cyclists arriving with their bike or

to get their bike, and infrequent refuse, temporary refuse use, and then potentially

some children playing on the doorstep. And also potentially commercial users billing

out for whatever associated activity with their units. You could argue that, but I've

argued that I think there is a number of uses to make it over -programmed.

Okay, 5 .137 please. You've got this point about limited sunlight to the courtyard. There's

no daylight or sunlight reason for refusal. No. There's no mention of daylight or sunlight

in any of the actual reasons for refusal, so it's not mentioned in reason for refusal 4 is it?

No.

There's no mention of daylight or sunlight in the council statement of case is there?

No.

And that's despite the council having added numerous policies to its case in the statement

of case expressly?

Yes.

And the council instructed Arup, external consultants, to review the daylight sunlight assessment, didn't they?

Yes.

And if we turn up Core Document 3 .2, please, which is the delegated report.

Let me know when you have that.

I've got it now.

Thank you.

And PDF page twenty five.

I'm looking for paragraph seven ninety nine.

Yes.

We can see that this is talking about the assessment of sunlight and

overshadowing to the amenity areas, refers to the two

sun hours on the ground test for the 21st of March, the spring equinox, the

recommendation of 50 % and then explains that an additional assessment can be

carried out for summertime on the 21st of June which is likely to show reduced

overshadowing but should be borne in mind that that date would

represent the base case with the minimum shadow. And then 7 -101 explains that the ground floor

internal courtyard wouldn't meet the minimum requirement because it would be 40%, not 50%,

but then that would increase to 69 % on the 21st of June. And then the conclusion on daylight,

sunlight and over shadowing is that although there would be shortcomings, it's not considered

that the proposed development would fail on the provision of sufficient levels of

daylight and sunlight to the residential units and amenity space so that this

qualifies as a reason for refusal and it's considered acceptable on balance

yes yes that's what it says yeah you're not now changing the council's position

to argue that the sunlight to the courtyard is unacceptable are you not

viewing in isolation and we're saying about it contributes the kind of

overshadowed nature of it contributes to the over -programmed use of the courtyard

which could make it an unpleasant environment. I'm not stating that it's on

its own a reasonable refusal. Not my question. Are you saying that the sunlight

to the courtyard would be unacceptable?

No. But that doesn't take away, as I said, that the kind of in combination with

the use of it and also just the enclosure overshadowing brought around by the balconies,

etc. that plays into creating a potentially subpar environment on its own. But the view

of the case officer who was the person who actually considered this informed by

Arup who are specialist external consultants was that on balance it was

acceptable daylight to the courtyard and you're not trying to go behind that are

you because as far as I understand it you don't I don't mean just

disrespectfully but you're not a daylight or sunlight specialist are you

No, no, I don't dispute what Arup has said.

Thank you. 5 .142.

At the page 65 of your proof, please.

You're sort of drawing your points together here on issue two,

and you say at the end that these factors that you've referenced demonstrate

an excessive intensity of development that's not appropriate for the site.

Could you just turn up Ms. Young's proof please?

Let me know when you have that.

I have it now. Thank you. And if you could go to page 64, please, and paragraph five

point for section five point twenty nine. Yes, we can see that the proposed development

has a floor area ratio of approximately one point eight six, which is below the average

for Fish Island which is two and which was identified by the LLDC's density study, yes?

Yes. That's not, you don't dispute what she says there do you about the FAR for the scheme? No.

That, I mean an FAR that's slightly below the average for Fish Island doesn't suggest

I guess not. The council's not criticising the density

of the scheme, is it? I haven't seen anyone say that the density is inappropriate, no?

I'm not saying that. And there's no mention in the reasons for

refusal or the statement of case of any other symptoms of over -intense

development. For example, I read what you say in your rebuttal about standard of

accommodation but you were clear that you're not raising that as a separate

concern, correct? That's correct. And as we've just discussed the council's not

saying that the daylight or sunlight position is unacceptable? No. And no

concerns around potential impacts on surrounding buildings have been raised?

5 .144 you turn to policy BN2 and you say that that policy expects

development proposals to enhance the local distinctiveness of waterway

environments, including through improved access to and along the waterway. Factually, there

would be improved access to and along the waterway, wouldn't there? There would be some,

yes. And then it refers to creating opportunities for recreational activities along the waterway.

Again, the pontoons would contribute towards that, wouldn't they? They would, subject to

the design I believe from the relevant council to the body. And then there's a

point about introducing various moorings or improving existing moorings but that's

not a point the council's taking in against the scheme is it? No. Then 5 .147

at the bottom of the page and again this is this point about overshadowing of the

menti space but you're referring here to the LLDC pre -app letter at Appendix 14

which chronologically preceded the second QRP didn't it? Yes. Then if we can

couple of things in your rebuttal please. 1 .26 please. You have a point here around

one bed one person units being comparable in terms of occupancy to

studio accommodation. What definition of studio are you employing here please?

One bed, one person. But where do you get this notion of studio

accommodation from? Does the council have a definition of what a studio is?

I don't believe you do. You don't think there is? No. Because I mean in common terms a unit

that has a separate bedroom is not a studio and a studio is a unit that doesn't have a

separate bedroom isn't it? That's what most people understand by the concept of a studio

yeah? Correct yes. Then actually can we pick up Ms. Young's rebuttal please and

if you could go to page eight

Yeah.

And we can see I'm looking at 2 .03 .02, 2 .03 .05.

Ms. Young explains the way in which the light industrial units have been designed so that

they'll be suited to creative and maker uses and they're not just generic commercial units

and then goes on to discuss floor to ceiling height ranges and makes a point about the

benefit of the masonry arches in terms of natural daylight. You haven't

challenged in any of your evidence what she said there have you? No that's a

matter that my colleague is covering in terms of the appropriateness of the

reprovided creative spaces.

But you don't from a design perspective come to anything that's said there? I

Ms. Young's our design witness.

So that's how she's approaching it.

I've not interrogated the spaces

as it wasn't in my capacity

so I don't think I would make a comment now on it.

Sorry, you haven't interrogated...

I haven't interrogated the appropriateness

of the spaces internally as part of

my evidence so I don't think I could make a comment on it

now because it would be

based on nothing.

So did you read this part of the rebuttal

or you just left it

because you think it's from Mr. Weir?

Yes I left it for my colleagues. You haven't read it? I read it but I didn't respond to it, I think it was mine.

2 .4 .03 on page 9 please.

I mean this is pertinent to your evidence isn't it because it's dealing with the courtyard

and responding to what you've said about the sort of multiple use of the courtyard. You

haven't challenged what Ms Young says there about removing car parking.

No, I'm not challenging that. I think I acknowledge that it would be removed and that would be

a benefit.

And so you're not challenging in just focusing purely on the factual accuracy of what she

said in this paragraph you haven't challenged that, correct? Just factually

no, I won't challenge it. Thank you. Right, moving on to heritage then please. Can

to go back to the officer report core document 3 .2 and go to 5 .14 on PDF page

10. Let me know when you're there.

Yep, I'm there. We can see that Historic England was consulted but didn't have any comments

to make, correct? Correct. Then if we can pick up your proof and go to 411, please.

Yes. So you're talking here about basically adaptation of former industrial buildings

by creative industries and that that's become an established component of the character

identity of the conservation area but none of the conservation area's creative industries floor

space is on the appeal site is it because the only part of the site that's in the conservation area

is the pontoons in the canal yes yeah that's correct and then similarly um

Yeah, you go on to mention street art later on in that paragraph, but again, the street

art or graffiti that's on the site at the moment is not within the conservation area,

is it? No.

And again, for the same reason, basically, because the only part of the site that's in

the conservation area is in the canal, none of the artists studios that might be elsewhere

within the conservation area are located on the site are they? No. And then you go

on at 4 .12 to discuss cultural and mixed -use venues forming part of the

established character of the conservation area but again you refer

to two more years and to Vittoria Wharf studios not in the conservation area

either of those? Not in the conservation area but just also I think I have

mentioned this and also you've probably seen the conservation area appraisal it does

highlight cultural uses, industrial uses which are outside the conservation area

so I think it's still relevant that conservation area appraisal notes those

buildings whilst talking outside of a designated boundary. Yeah but if we look

Later on in your proof page 70 please, 5 .169.

Yeah.

You take a point on the effect you say the scheme

would have on the established mix of cultural, creative

and employment uses that contributes to the character

identity of the conservation area.

But again, none of those uses are the same.

on the site are contributing to the character or identity of the conservation area, are

they? Because insofar as there are cultural, creative, and employment uses on the site,

they're not in the conservation area. They're not in the conservation area, in

the boundary, I accept that, but it does note in the conservation error appraisal that it

highlights buildings that are outside of its boundary which still contribute to its character.

I think it's relevant.

And then could we go to paragraph 4 .21 in your proof please.

Yep.

And you refer here to the 2013 document

that included the site within the study,

but despite that approach in 2013,

none of the site's buildings was ultimately included

in the conservation area, not in 2008,

when I think it was introduced,

and not when it was extended in 2014.

I don't dispute that.

So you say at the end of 422 that the inclusion within those studies of the buildings on the

site make a recognised contribution to the wider character and identity of the conservation

area and its setting, but really that should just say they make a contribution to the character

an identity of the setting of the conservation area, yeah?

I still would think it's the conservation area.

How can buildings that are not within the conservation area make a contribution to the

conservation area?

they make a contribution to the setting don't they? To a setting yes but in relation

to the usage for example that also contributes to the character of the conservation

because I set out in the conservation area appraisal it highlights buildings

and uses that are not within its boundary that contribute to the

character of the conservation area. Yeah but all of that is coming by way of setting isn't it?

In terms of physical townscape, the heritage yes, but in terms of uses that's also part

of the conservation area also.

It's factually it's not the uses on the site and not part of the conservation area are

they?

They're not, no.

Thank you.

5 .171, please, in your proof next.

Page 70.

Yeah.

You refer here to section 72 of the listed buildings act. What's your, this is a legal

point so I'm not going to cross -examine you on it, but I just want to know what your understanding

is. Is it your understanding that section 72 does protect the setting of conservation

areas. Thank you then if we could just hop back to 4 .23 please page 15.

You've got a section here on sort of the history of Star Wars space and then at 427 you move

on again to consider the Victoria Wharf studios and into 4 .28, 4 .29 and 430 the history of

that building.

Naiva building though is a non -designated heritage asset,

correct?

Correct.

And there isn't therefore an objection in heritage terms

to their losses there.

I have not asserted one.

Nor actually is there any suggestion

in reason for refusal for,

that the loss of either Star Space or Victoria Wharf studios would result in

townscape harm? No. And if the appellant was proposing a different scheme

and you thought that the difference scheme was satisfactory in townscape and heritage terms,

then reason for refusal for would go, wouldn't it? Can it say why not?

So when we arrive at 4 .36 in rule proof, page 21, we've got a couple of pages about relevant

consultee comments but for example 438 we can see the Canal and River Trust

expressing regret at the loss of the existing wall side buildings and that

isn't a regret that shared in reason for refusal for is it? No I think I set out

at 4 .37 that I have considered the evidence in my own assessment rather

than views I have adopted so I provide these consultee comments to provide

backdrop rather than saying I agree. Thank you and just on glass the Greater London Archeological

Advisory Service 4 .45 you say the requirement for historic building recording reflects

acknowledgement that the existing buildings make a meaningful contribution to the industrial heritage

of the area their loss is therefore not treated as inconsequential. Well it's not inconsequential

in the sense that glass wants some recording to be done, but glass, there's no suggestion

anywhere from glass that it thought the buildings shouldn't be demolished, is there?

No. Doesn't there need to be appropriately recorded?

Yeah.

4 .54 please at the end of this is your response to a suggestion from one of the consortees

I think that Vittoria Wharf studio should be an NDHA and you explained that you ultimately

don't agree. But you say at the end the absence of NDHA status doesn't mean the buildings

without historical architectural interest you consider but it does possess such interest

and it contributes to the significance of the wider group of surviving industrial buildings.

But you haven't I don't think analysed the situation on the premise that all of the buildings

on the site are heritage assets have you? No. Because then when we get to 4 .56 you refer

to policy 1 .1 talking about heritage assets and then the guidelines again referring to

heritage assets and the presumption against demolition or partial demolition of any heritage

asset, but I mean, certainly, you know, none of that engaged here in relation to Stour Space or

Vittoria Wharf Studios, is it because they're not heritage assets?

I note that. Sorry. I noted, I note that.

And then of course, the gatehouse is not being demolished or part demolished,

so there isn't any issue under policy 1 .1 or under the guidelines, is there?

No. Then at 4 .57 you say that you consider the

loss of the appeal site buildings would not be insignificant and any replacement

development should deliver a building or buildings in place of equal or greater

value. I mean that has to be I assume a reference to equal or greater value in

townscape terms because it can't there can't be a requirement to replace to

have a replacement building of equal or greater value in heritage terms can there?

No, Townscope terms I think you liked.

Where in policy or guidance is there a requirement for sort of equal or greater value in Townscope terms?

There isn't that something that I have put in considering the information had before

me in terms of the buildings that were presented from various sources. I considered that if

we were to demolish all the buildings that quality of equal or greater value should be

justified in order to help enhance the character and the principles of child safety in the

conservation area.

But that is your desire and it's not a requirement of policy or guidance?

I've not taken those words from policy or guidance.

Oh it's something you, it's just your, it's what you would like to see isn't it?

Yes, from given the background history that I have looked at into the existing buildings on the site.

2 .9 I think in the proof next please. Page 6. Yes. So you acknowledge here that other

material considerations include national policies and guidance and the relevant guidance of

historic England, yes? And if we look back in the officer report please, core document

3 .2, PDF page 13.

Yeah. Paragraph 6 .4. There's a long list and we can see three Historic England

documents listed there. I can see them. Yeah, those would all be, they would fall

within the category you identify of relevant guidance from Historic England,

wouldn't they? Yes correct. I'm not sure I see GPA 2 mentioned there I don't see

GPA 3 mentioned but Dr. Mealy refers to it in his written evidence doesn't he I

think he appends it yes.

I can see that now, yes.

So GPA 3 as well as GPA 2 is relevant Historic England guidance, yes?

Yes.

So it's a material consideration?

Yes.

Where in your proof have you referred to any of those Historic England documents, please?

I have not.

I'm assuming that you didn't undertake the exercise of going away and reading

them all and then just not writing about it. I mean you haven't sat down with them

and applied them to your analysis of heritage have you? I haven't.

And we can agree, can't we, that in order to understand the impact that development

within the setting of a heritage asset would have on that asset's significance, one of

the steps is to understand the contribution that the setting of the asset makes to its

significance, yeah?

Yes.

Where in your written evidence do I find your analysis of the contribution that the setting of the conservation area makes to its significance, please?

I don't know if I've set it out in my proof.

So you haven't set it out in your proof of evidence?

Again, I'm assuming that you didn't sit at your desk and do the analysis in your head

and then just not include it.

It's not part of the analysis that you turned your mind to, is it?

No, I went straight into looking at breaking up the setting to what I consider to be the

Canal Edge setting, the Chimney setting, rather than putting out a whole paragraph about as

to what I consider the setting to be in this instance.

And then on the contribution of the gate houses setting to its significance, if we go to 5161

one please. Yes. We can see that you say here second sentence and the value of the Timbirad

Gatehouse derives not only from the survival of the asset itself but also from its setting

and relationship with the surrounding townscape but that's all that I found in your proof

on the contribution that setting makes to value or significance.

Is there anything else that I've overlooked?

No.

And I mean, that doesn't actually just go beyond an assertion

that setting contributes to value.

It doesn't identify why or how, does it?

No.

Then just the previous page please, at 5 .155 and 5 .156, you're considering the effect of

scheme on the canal side setting and you say that there'd be a dominant and interrupted

wall of development along the canal edge. It would introduce a heavier and more imposing built form,

diminishing the modest proportions and the human scale rhythm currently experienced along this part

of the lee navigation. But those criticisms would apply equally to Carpenter's Wharf wouldn't they?

I wouldn't think so. Carpenter's Wharf has been designed to set away from the canal edge.

Its colonnade is of a different design and form to the appeal schemes and also the height

modulation that I've talked about previously provided some transition and a composition

to the building so it doesn't have the same symptoms as our appeal scheme, as your appeal

scheme.

Right, so when we look at, can you go to page 54 please and your paragraph 30?

Your professional view is that Carpenter's Wharf, which we can see there, hasn't introduced

a heavier or more imposing built form and didn't diminish the modest proportions and human -scaled

rhythm along that part of the canal. It's introduced a development which is larger and

more dominant than the existing building. I grant you that but in terms of how it's been treated and

with the colonnade design I don't consider it to be as imposing a built form as the appeal scheme.

Sorry, we still experience the openness with the colonnade design which is in contrast to

which is entirely enclosed. Sorry, what's entirely enclosed? The colonnade of the

appeal scheme. It's not entirely enclosed, is it? It's enclosed in that it has a roof over it.

But it has a roof. That's what you mean by entirely enclosed, you mean it's got a roof?

It has a roof, it has a colonnade, the arch structure and that creates another sort of

elevation there to provide an additional layer of concealment, but just in contrast to Carpenter's

Wharf, Carpenter's Wharf is entirely open.

I mean that's not right is it though, because looking at back in view one, there is some

sort of gazebo looking structures on the second floor of the colonnade at Carpenter's Wharf,

So there must be a roof to that.

It's partly inset.

I believe when I was reading the scheme that that was the canopies that you could draw.

Have you managed to access Carpenter's Wharf at all?

I've not stood in it, I've only stood opposite it.

Okay.

Yes, so 5 .163 of your proof, please. Page 69. Yes, got that. You're dealing here with

the impact on the gatehouse and you're referring back to your figure 14, which is the CGI of

the previous scheme and you say that that approach was more successful but if

we just turn up figure 14 again on page 32 I mean you know you say you think

figure 14 is more successful but others might take the view for example that the

roof form that's going on here is less appropriate in the setting of the

conservation area, right?

Yes

Then briefly 5 .164 please

You've got this point around the street art or the graffiti and I

Mean does this point go anywhere because you do say that you you don't consider the removal of the graffiti to constitute harm

It doesn't I just I put it in there as just a little context

And then just to pick up, yeah, 5 .162 actually just on the bottom of the previous page. You

make the point at the top of page 69 that the scheme would increase the visibility of

the gatehouse because it would alter the boundary and reveal more of its profile and approaching

views but then you explain what you don't like about the presence of block two alongside

that and then similarly at 5 .166 again you acknowledge that revealing more of the gatehouse's

profile would allow its form to be better understood but you say that benefits undermined

again because of the scale of the development behind it and similarly at 5 .167 you acknowledge

that the proposed pulling back of the building line of block three would assist in revealing

more of the gate houses western elevation and you acknowledge that's a positive aspect but again

you think the scale and mass in the block too would risk diminishing the visual presence and

the legibility of the listed locally listed building so in those paragraphs you're acknowledging

that you know in heritage terms there are pros and cons it's not just you know it's not all negative

is it, even on your evidence? Yes, that's correct. 5 .168, you're referring back to issue

two and discussing the courtyard and then you go on to say the third line of the paragraph

over the page on 70. In my opinion this represents a missed opportunity to

create a high quality public realm which could make a positive contribution to

the setting of the gatehouse. Now leaving aside the dispute on you know the

approach to the courtyard there isn't a policy or a guidance requirement to

maximise the positive contribution that the development makes to the setting of

heritage asset is there? Could you ask the question one more time? Yeah there's no, I'll try and

make it a bit simpler, there's no requirement in policy or guidance to

enhance the setting of a heritage asset as much as you can? Not to enhance it as

much as you can, no.

And similarly, 5 .170, about halfway down, you say, the quality of the courtyard would

also fail to provide the high quality immediate setting that could have further enhanced the

experience and appreciation of the gatehouse. And then again, you've got to talk about a

missed opportunity to enhance surroundings and provide a high quality setting. But again,

there isn't a policy or a guidance requirement to you know maximise

enhancement is there certainly not in relation to a non designated heritage

asset. No I accept that I think I'm writing as a missed opportunity that it

could have been a positive not to max up to the fullest just to invite. That's not a

legitimate criticism to do you can't turn down the scheme because you think

more could have been done the question is whether what has been done overall is

appropriate and acceptable isn't it? Yeah that's correct I don't think I'm trying

to settle that on its own is a reason for refusal.

Thank you then 5 .174 you explain that you think the harm to the gatehouse

would be moderate. In order to get your conclusion of moderate you have focused

I think they're just on the harm so you haven't at that stage taken into account

the benefits that you acknowledge to the gatehouse have you?

Yep so that's the overall harm and then the acknowledgments the gatehouse are

later. Then 6 .5 page 72. You say you've had regard to the benefits arising in

relation to the gatehouse and the townscape opportunity but you consider

the heritage benefits would be limited and compromised because of the harms

that you've identified but one doesn't sort of compromise or lessen the weight to be given

to benefits because of the harms. The approach is a straightforward one isn't it? You identify

the benefits and then you identify the harms and you weigh them off against each other

don't you? Yes. 6 .6 you've undertaken a sort of partial balance I think because

you've considered the balance between heritage harm and then townscape and

public realm benefits but as you go on to acknowledge at the end of Power of

6 .6 under the MPPF it's all of the public benefits of the scheme that need

to be weighed against the heritage harm if there is any isn't it yeah which is

you say is a job for Mr. Weir that's right when just a final point on your

evidence in chief because you were summarising this weighing of the public

realm benefits against the what you say is the design and heritage harm

But you explained in your evidence in chief that in your proof you've accidentally, mistakenly

been under the impression that the courtyard access would be gated. So actually you need

to revisit the waiting to be given to the public benefits on the understanding that

the courtyard won't be gated, don't you?

Yes, I think I did in my evidence in chief mention that whilst there is public access

to it that still introduces the additional pressure and the already constrained space

on the already constrained space it doesn't alter my view.

So I'm conscious of the time I think I've got theoretically about 35 minutes of my sort

upper time estimate remaining but I realise it's five o 'clock. I've probably got somewhere,

I think with a fair wind, 20 minutes to go, but it depends on obviously the answers Ms Jung wants

to give. So yeah, I'm obviously just looking to you as to whether you want to draw stumps now

or whether you want to press on and I don't know actually what Mr Flanagan has in re -examination

and I were that said so.

Well first question how long do we have the room for?

Are you happy to

finish part the way through your... I'm happy. I'm completely

It's not really, yeah, I'm completely happy to just pause

and reconvene briefly in the morning,

but it's really whether Miss Chung and Mr. Flanagan

are happy for her to be not able to communicate

with her team overnight.

So I'm content with not communicating

with Miss Chung overnight.

I've got, I might have not a great deal of time,

but probably 10 minutes at least in reexamination.

So my view would be it's after five o 'clock.

It sounds like we're going for at least another half an hour,

potentially longer and therefore tomorrow might be preferable

given how long we've been going already.

Yeah, I think it would be best to finish now.

And you understand you can't talk to anyone in your team.

Yes, I understand.

Okay, we were going to start at 9 .30 tomorrow, is that still okay?

Okay then until 9 .30 tomorrow then the inquiry is adjourned.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London 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.

Interactive webcast player

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 25/08/26Tuesday, 25th August 2026 at 10:00am

Webcast Finished - 2:42:24

Webcast Finished - 2:44:45

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 25/08/26
Tuesday, 25th August 2026 at 10:00am