Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 26/08/26 - Wednesday 26 August 2026, 9:30am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 26/08/26
Wednesday, 26th August 2026 at 9:30am

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

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.

resume the inquiry. Can everyone hear me? Yeah. My name is Benjamin Webb. I've been

appointed by the Secretary of State to hold this inquiry into an appeal made by

Victoria Wharf Limited on section 78 for the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against the decision of Council of London Borough of Tower Hamlets to refuse

planning permission for redevelopment to write business class eg3 use at the

ground floor and part first floor residential class 3 use C3 leaves associated highway and

landscaping works at Victoria Wharf style road slash Beachy Road London E32 NT. Just

a couple of quick reminders to silence electronic devices. I'm going to cheque is there a fire

alarm planned for today. No fire alarm planned for today. Fire alarm does go off. We exit

through that door. So yesterday we started to hear evidence from Ms Chung. He got part

of the way through the cross -examination. We'll continue that in a moment. And then

Are there any housekeeping or procedural issues?

So just to cheque, in terms of the addendum statement

of common ground you're preparing, how's that going?

It's with the council, sir, and Mr. Cheema and Mr. Wira

meeting, I understand, on Thursday morning,

I think, subject to what else we might be doing in the inquiry.

but the plan is for them to meet on Thursday morning to hopefully finalise that I would imagine.

So hopefully we will

finish today without overrunning into tomorrow. If we do however not finish today we'll probably

We will run into tomorrow morning

And then it'd be a case of doing the site was it in the afternoon

I think it looking at the weather. It would probably be a case of doing in the afternoon either way

Okay, unless there's anything any other points

Can I ask you know sergeant to continue your cross -examination?

Hello again, Ms Chung. Could you pick up the decision notice, please, which is Core

Document 3 .1?

Yes, I have that.

And we can see that reason for refusal 4 that you're dealing with

alleges conflict with London Plan policies D3, D9 and HC1

and local plan policies SP3, BN, 124 and 5 and 17.

And then when we go to your proof please and go to paragraph 211.

Yep, I see this. We can see that you additionally allege a conflict with local plan policies

1 .2, 1 .3, 1 .4, T6 and T9 and additionally conflict with London plan D5, D8, SI16 and

SI 17. Yeah. The council's decision on the application was delegated to officers, wasn't

it? Yes. And the case officer was Miss Milenetiovic, I think. That's correct. She didn't consider

that there was any conflict with the additional policies that you now say are breached, did

she? Otherwise they would be in the decision notice, wouldn't they? Yes, she didn't write

those policies.

Are you aware of the requirements of Article 35 of the development management procedure order?

I wouldn't know on top of my head.

I mean, is it a provision you've ever looked at?

I can't say that I've looked at it recently.

So you didn't, I assume, look at it or re -familiarise yourself with it when you were producing your

then? No. Nor when you were reviewing the statement of case for the council. No.

Thank you.

Sorry to interrupt. Would it be useful for Ms. Chung to actually look that up?

I mean it's a legal point, so I'm not going to, I only want to understand what her familiarity

with it was and whether it was something she thought about when she was putting her evidence

together and I've got an answer to both of those. I'm not going to try and cross -examine this witness

on statute, it wouldn't be fair. Could you find the statement of common ground please and go to

which is called document 1 .1 and go to paragraph 47.

I have found it.

Thank you.

And that explains that Ms. Melendyevich's delegated report sets out that she didn't

have any concerns with the scheme meeting criterion six of policy BN5.

and then you presumably in compiling this or reviewing I should say the

statement of case decided to take a different view did you we did we did we

did who's we I

Thank you. And then if we can go in your proof, please, to paragraph 5 .6.

I'll have that in front of me. Thank you. And we can see the list of policies

from the London plan, or first of all you say the specific design and heritage policies,

guidance and legislation that you've relied on in assessing the appeal scheme is set out.

And then we can see the London plan policies in the second bullet point. No reference there

policy gg2 is there it's not on that list no could you find the then we'll

turn up the London plan please and find policy gg2 on making the best use of

land it's page internal page 17 of the London plan or probably page 32 if

you're using an electronic PDF.

Let me know when you have that.

I now have it. Thank you. I mean this is a policy that is of relevance to design matters

isn't it? Yes. But not one that you turned your mind to in assessing the scheme. I hadn't

included in my list, no. Again you're not going to tell me that you did think about

it and then for some random reason didn't put it in the list are you? You didn't think

about this when you were assessing the scheme did you? No I didn't include it.

And similarly if we can go to policy SD1 please in the London plan. I also have that.

This is a policy on opportunity areas, yes?

Yep, I can see. Thank you.

Again, relevant to consideration of design matters to be cognizant of the fact that the site is within an opportunity area, yes?

Yes.

Not something you think about or assess in your evidence at all, is it?

I note the designation but I didn't include it in my assessment.

Yeah. Where's the designation noted, please?

not in writing, just as writing noted, but I haven't noted it in my proof.

All right, hang on, let me just make a careful note of this.

So we agree no acknowledgement of the designation in your written evidence.

Yes.

We agree policy SD1 is relevant to consideration of design matters.

Yes.

And you say when you were thinking about your evidence, you noted that the site was in an

opportunity area, but you decided not to discuss that in the proof.

Not with any intent, I just didn't include it, I forgot.

I mean it's fair to say that the site's location in an opportunity area didn't play any material

role in your analysis, did it?

No.

Thank you. Then can we go to paragraph 5119 in your proof next, please?

Yes, I have this. And you say you think the scheme doesn't satisfy criteria 1, 5 and 6

of policy BN 5, including the second kind of sub point is the requirement to make a

contribution to the surrounding townscape you're not saying are you

that this scheme overall is not an improvement on what's there at the

moment? Ask the question again. Is it your evidence that this scheme would not be

an improvement on the condition of the site at the moment in townscape terms?

I hadn't in my proof concluded that the existing telescope was detrimental or negative in any

way.

That's not the question that I'm asking. Is it your evidence to the inquiry? I understand

that you think, you know, the scheme could perform better in various ways and we disagree

with those criticisms, but I understand that's your position. But that's not the same thing

is saying that the scheme wouldn't make any improvement to what's on site at the moment.

So I'd like to understand what your view is on the last question. Is it your view that

the scheme is so underwhelming that it wouldn't be an improvement on what's there at the moment?

There would be elements of some positive improvement.

Sorry, could you just repeat that? There will be some elements of improvement.

But overall, are you going so far as to say the scheme doesn't make a positive contribution

to the surrounding townscape? Or do you accept that it will make a positive contribution

to the townscape? It's just that you think it could have made an even more positive one?

I wouldn't conclude that I think it would make a positive townscape contribution given

the reasonings I've provided in terms of what I consider the height scale and massing not

to achieve. Okay so your position is that there are some

elements of positive improvement but overall not a positive outcome, is that what you're

saying? Yes. So you're not accepting that the scheme overall would be an

improvement on what's on site at the moment is that where you've got to on

this? Could you ask the question again? Yeah. Overall you're not accepting that the

scheme would be an improvement on the current condition of the site. You think

what's there at the moment and what we're proposing are I think neutral. Well

I've acknowledged that there will be some positive improvement with the

scheme but overall I would still not overcome all the reasons I provided in

terms of why I don't think the scale is highlighted. I've understood that but the question is overall will the scheme be better than the current state of the site or not and I

Well, you haven't said yes yet, so I'm assuming your answer to that question is no.

For the reasons I've said on my proof, I would say no.

Then looking again at 5 .119, the next point is about enhancing existing views where opportunities

exist to do so. Is it your case that the scheme wouldn't enhance any of the

views that it would appear in? No I don't think in my proof I've considered I've

only selected eight out of fourteen of the views so those I have not mentioned

I'm not considered there to be harm. So eight out of how many sorry? I believe there were

14 views in the HDB. And if you also wanted to include the additional 11B that was provided

help make 15 views. Right, so I just want to get a clear note of which of the views

that you're not happy with looking at this.

You want you take issue with I think.

Look I'm back in. I'm at five point one oh one and you're proof now.

Well, I'll let you explain which of the eight views that you say the scheme fails to enhance

just so that the inspector and I can both have a clear note of your evidence on this

please.

So it's views one, three, four, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen and fourteen.

Sorry, could you say that again?

One, three, four, eight, 10, 12, 13 and 14.

Thank you. And so the other...

So, two, five, six, seven, nine, 11, and I think 11a,

or whatever the additional view is,

you agree that the scheme would enhance those views

and has taken the opportunity to do so? Not enhance or just has no effect because

in some views they're too distant to appreciate. Okay so you say the other

views it's a neutral effect is that your evidence? Yes I think we did include that

in the statement of case. Right so there's no view there's not a single

view where you think this scheme would be an enhancement over the existing position

that's your evidence is it? Yes but I did acknowledge in my proof that there are aspects

that I appreciate would be improved such as turning the line back in block three, appreciating

the profile, the timber yard, gatehouse but overall given just the overall massing that

columns over it, it wouldn't be positive.

Um, oops, sorry.

Then could we, yeah, 5 .119 next please, and your proof.

page 58. Yes, I have that. You say there's conflict with London Plan Policy D3, which

seeks development that responds positively to local context and distinctiveness through

appropriate layout, scale and appearance. I mean, it's really scale, isn't it, that

you're taking issue with rather than layout or appearance?

Yes and layout in terms of the courtyard and public realm.

Thank you. And then 5 .123 next on page 59, please.

So at the end of this paragraph you say there's non -compliance with London Plan Policy D9

which requires mid -range views of proposals from surrounding neighbourhoods to make a

positive contribution to the local townscape in terms of legibility with attention paid

to their form and proportions.

Is it your evidence again that there are no such views in which the scheme

would make a positive contribution to legibility or do you accept that in some

views it will positively contribute to legibility?

No, in my proof I consider that the chimney is the wayfinding legibility

point of the conservation area of Fish Island and the introduction of Block 2

in the way that it's been designed presently, its scale for massing would not be a better

wayfinding point than the chimney presently.

Right, so you say there's no view in which the scheme would make any sort of positive

contribution to legibility at all?

No.

Thank you. Could we then, could you find a copy of the new MPPF please?

Yes, I have that. And within that go to policy DP3.

which is internal, well the path I want is internal page 67.

And looking at policy DP3 paragraph 3, this says development proposals should be refused

if without clear justification they conflict with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 and then the

part I'm interested in is with any explicit design standards set out in the

development plan including those in locally specific policies, guides, codes

or master plans. And as you'll know previously the reference was more

straightforwardly to local design policies and government guidance on

design and to local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as

design guides and codes. So there's been a change in wording and we've now got

this concept of explicit design standards, yes? Could you identify the explicit design

standards within either development plan policy or local guides, codes or master plans? What's

It's the answer that there isn't one.

I don't think what I'm thinking of is an explicit design standard.

I couldn't hear that.

I don't think what I'm thinking of is an explicit design standard, sorry.

I don't want to include that.

So there isn't actually any explicit design standards that the scheme would conflict with?

Not liking the thing of presently.

Thank you. And then finally, could you find Core Document 8 .4 please, which is the newer

one that came in yesterday the extract from I think the piano factory does is it yeah

so core document 8 .4 and within that the dust excerpt please yep I have that now

The chimney was within this site, wasn't it? Yes.

So the relationship between the chimney and the appeal site is different and the appeal

site is not, you know, immediately concerned with having the chimney in the red line boundary,

is it? No. And then you were discussing the height variation that we can see on page three

of this extract from the DAS. Could you in relation to the appeals scheme return to view

one please which I think is page 165 in the DAS, in our DAS or it's also obviously in

Bridge Associates, HDVA.

Just view one.

For the moment, view one, yeah.

Do you have that?

I mean, when we look at the scheme in this view,

we can see that building two appears

as a separate block to, sorry,

block two appears as a separate block

to block one doesn't it? Yes that's a different colour, I can see that block two is different.

It's not just the colour is it though because there's a clear gap certainly at the upper

storeys between block two and block one yeah? There is some gap there. Yeah I mean if block

two were brick you'd still be able to see you know the shadowing alongside the edge

of the building wouldn't you? Yes. And similarly looking just at building one the bay of that

building that's nearest to us again certainly at the upper storeys presents as a separate

block actually to the two bays that are further away from us doesn't it? Please describe that

Yeah, looking at building one, the brick one, or the red brick one, there are three bays,

yeah, and the one that's nearest to us presents as a separate building to the other two bays

that are further away because there's a gap, isn't there?

If I zoom in, yes, I can appreciate that.

Okay, well, I mean, I'm looking at, I'm looking at entry, so I haven't got to zoom in myself.

It's not, it's not difficult to appreciate that gap, is it in reality, that is quite

clear.

I can see it now.

Yes.

Yeah.

Because I think you said in evidence in chief, that you didn't think there was appreciable

stepping between that Bay that's closest to us and then the other two but I mean, there

There is appreciable stepping, isn't there, in the facade there.

There is a step there.

It's appreciable isn't it, I mean we're looking at it.

I can appreciate that one recess.

Thank you.

Then could you just turn through to view four, please?

I have that in front of me.

Sorry.

I have that in front of me.

Thank you.

And again, what we appreciate in this view is the same. So there's an appreciable gap

between block two and block one. Yes. I can see it from this. Yeah. And we can still see

the gap between the two bays of block one and nearest to us. And then the third bay

that's now further away from us in the view, yeah? In the view, yes, it's better.

Would you agree that the design of the scheme reflects the industrial

heritage of the area? Yes, I don't think the architecture was disputed in terms

of industrial heritage and influence.

Good, thank you very much Ms. Cheng, that's the end of the course examination, thank you

sir. Thank you.

Okay then, I have some questions for you now.

You have to just bear with me because I have to note down both my question and the answer.

Okay, bye -bye.

Right, while we're on the question of viewpoints and views and how the development would be

experienced, in terms of the idea of a landmark or marker building, is it necessary for Block

to perform that function in all directions.

I would view it to be and I believe that in, I can't remember in the architect's design

access statement or was it in their later proof and rebuttal, that it is an arrow pointing from

Roach Road that they had considered that to be a view that they wanted to capture a landmark

to indicate that there is a bridge further beyond to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

Sorry, could you just repeat that last bit again?

That they had indicated on one of their design proposals that there was a view down from

Roach Road, that they wanted the landmark block to be able to be visible from that approach,

so that they can indicate the bridge and a crossing over to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

But what's your view?

I don't think it necessarily has to be from all viewpoints. There is already a landmark in this

location, being the chimney, which helps from Fish Island to be able to indicate to you where

the H16 bridge is and the crossing over to the other side of Hackney Wick. So I don't see it

necessary to have a taller building there to landmark that direction of travel for pedestrians.

But if the objective is that they wanted a taller building there in this location, the canal,

to be able to perform that duty, then it should be one which is better refined, which I've argued.

Now while we're still on viewpoints, we've been looking at a lot of static viewpoints.

Obviously, that's not how the development would be experienced in reality because people

would be moving around.

So what difference does movement make?

So that's where I have kind of considered the kind of three and four moving into each

other or 13 and 14, 12, 13 and 14 rather than just individually what they look like as well

as just the experience of walking through it.

I think when you go on site you can actually appreciate it better and how kind of existing

building it reveals itself, that corner of the Timberyard Gatehouse and Stour Space,

how that terminates the corner currently.

It's not just a static viewpoint.

You kind of walk down road and you appreciate

the revealing of itself, how the Timbirr Gate House

reveals itself and that's quite a special moment.

And similarly, three and four as you walk

from Marsh Gate Lane over the bridge

into the conservation area, again,

that's a revealing of the chimney that becomes greater,

that signals your kind of passage into Fish Island.

So I think these viewpoints are helpful

to understand the scale of development

but actually kind of walk on site

and understand the sequential experience of walking into the conservation area that's more important

and I feel currently the buildings and that landmark of a chimney plays those roles quite well.

Well, in terms of the chimney then, is the... sorry, I made that sound.

In terms of the chimney, is its landmark quality historic attribute, or is it a more recent

product. It's a historic attribute. It's in the Conservation Air Appraisal as, I

believe in Conservation Air Appraisal, it talks about chimneys being the

landmarkers of Fish Island. There's another not far from it, the Carlton

Chimney Block, I believe, which is kind of north to our site. So these kind of

vertical protrusions are quite recognisable in Fish Island area and

having this one here is quite special that I think any development coming

forward in its foreground should be respecting that landmark.

But I mean before the bridge was constructed and the Victoria Wharf buildings were truncated,

did it perform the same function?

Before its truncation it wouldn't have, not for this viewpoint, it would have been to

landmark or help wayfind within different routes for Shireland because this route didn't

as you mentioned, until the bridge was constructed.

How much of the...

land within the site within the conservation area? It is just the strip to the east which

covers the canal and where there are pontoons proposed. So we're just talking about the

water not any land? I could be mistaken but I think maybe part of the towpath as well

water. Let me look at the designation for you, the red line.

Difficult to tell because it's a small diagram but it looks, because of the scale of the

diagram it looks like the towpath is part of it.

If you can look at page 14 of the character area appraisal of the

Shireland and White Post Lane.

I mean just to cheque in assessing this game obviously you didn't you're not the

one that was responsible for assessing this game but in assessing the scheme

did the council consider any land within the site to fallen within the

conservation area no I believe it was assessed on setting so not within the

conservation area.

I mean, it's a point on which it would be beneficial to have

some clarifications.

There seems to be a difference in view as to whether land is

within or not within.

maybe the council can pick that up at a later stage where the parties can discuss that.

Come back to me.

I hadn't understood there to be a point of dispute on this in that I had understood that the council accepted that

none of the land in the site was in the conservation area and that we're dealing with a setting case, but I'm sure Mr Flanagan can correct me if I've understood that wrongly.

Well, yeah, the question is arising from Mr. Chang's answer whether or not the Office of

Assessment was correct.

Just in terms of the part which we know is in the conservation area, which is the canal,

Yes. So in terms of those parts of the scheme which would be in the canal, would those,

is it your understanding that those parts require planning permission?

The pontoons that they're proposing, is that the structures?

Any of it that's in the canal.

So really the floating bits.

I believe it would, but it would also still require the Canal

and River Trust to look over the design of it,

rather than us to consider the impact on ecology, the water.

Again, that's a point I think it would be useful to have some clarification on.

I think, Ms. Sergeant, you mentioned you might be making some submissions on whether Section

172 is relevant

Again, it

be useful for the parties just to come together and discuss that in advance.

Another question I'd like your view on, the bridge crosses the canal.

is the canal within the conservation area?

Not the canal, the bridge in the conservation area?

Yes, there's the conservation area.

The reason I ask is because it appears that the parts of the bridge that actually touch the ground

potentially not in the conservation area? It's just an interesting question.

Any view on that?

I'll apologise, I wasn't sure.

So if I'm looking at the – which I've got the designation in front of us – the landing

of the bridge on the Fish Island part isn't within the conservation area, so where the

new landscaped area is, that's not within the conservation area, but the bridge crossing

itself is just kind of over the waterway because the canal isn't within the conservation area.

That would be.

It's again, it's something an interesting point that I'd like the party's views on.

I've not come across a situation before where potentially a floating aspect of a building,

you know, where a building which is not actually touching the ground is within a conservation

areas considered within a conservation area.

But, so.

Just looking at, in terms of

the creative and cultural uses,

Do you consider they have heritage value?

I would.

I mean, can you explain?

So the history of the Fish Island area has historically been moving in of artists, etc. from, I believe, the 80s onwards.

And that has kind of cultivated the cultural creative uses within the area since.

and that's still ongoing today as we've heard from speakers yesterday.

And within the conservation area appraisal it also notes that the character of the area is

it's recognised because of this cultural contribution that the creative industry has provided for it

and it specifically captures uses and buildings such as Stour Space in identifying its importance

contribution to the area so that's something which has embraced that's

something which has historically been of significance to the area which has

invited people to the place which has made it attractive for people to move

there to work there to live there so I do think it's part of its heritage as

as well as just a land use.

Just to make,

when we're talking about things that are historic,

would you say something that started in the 1980s

could classify as historic?

Well, it's been, I guess, in my view, 40 -odd years.

It feels quite historic to me.

That's enough time to establish itself.

It's not something which has started overnight or just in the last few years.

It's something which has made a presence and marker of itself to be so significant as to

be included in the conservationary appraisal.

Would it be fair to say that the conservation area appraisal is a crossover document?

To some extent it's a townscape appraisal.

It talks about landscape but it also talks about the uses as well within the

area. I mean to the extent that it's not really focused on the conservation area

it's focused on a much wider area. Yes.

Another point that comes up in your proofs, maybe in the conservation area of Prosel as

well, a street art or what might be called graffiti, does that have heritage value?

I consider that it does and I've had in the past come across in other pre -apps around

and Fish Island where working women have touched upon

graffiti being potentially of significance.

In this instance, the street art on the external wall

of the Timbirr Gate House hasn't been recognised

as of significance within the original assessment

and I raise in my proof just some context

around what street art is in the area.

And whilst I don't think I can assert a new assumption,

assert a new view here that removing the street art

is harmful, I do think it is important to consider

that it is characterful of the area and it is part of its identity.

So removal of it, you can take a view as to whether you consider that to be harmful yourself,

but I do think it's part of the identity and character quite heavily.

So kind of a changing of that into a very clean, fresh wall of the new proposal

does change its character and appearance.

Just a general point on safety.

It's a point you've raised in relation to the development.

In terms of the experience of anyone walking around that area, particularly parts of the

you have a lot of street art in that sort of area.

At night, would you say it's a safe,

the existing area is a particularly safe environment?

I can't say that I hang out in the area all evening, all night,

to be able to understand the character,

but generally in the daytime as you walk along there,

I don't find it to be particularly unsafe.

I've not ever felt around the Day's Road cluster,

which I think you mentioned. It's rather open that you can view all activities

and there are currently kind of active cultural uses around which help to

activate the space throughout the evening, early evenings which I've been

around. So presently I don't think it would be very unsafe. It may be different

in the character towards the station or towards the Queen Elizabeth Park area but

just in this immediate context.

I don't think it is presently unsafe.

Okay, thank you. That's my questions. Now, Mr. Fernigan, would you like to put any questions

in re -examination?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Just a few. Mr. Chiang, can I just have a few questions in re -examination

in reverse order? The first is DP3 from the framework. Can you take that up again?

I have that. Thank you. And at paragraph three, reference to explicit design standards. And

you said, you don't know, I don't know what I'm thinking. I don't know whether what I'm

of is an explicit design standard, what were you thinking of? The criteria in BN5 1 -6 and also the

National Design Code. Sorry, say that again, the criteria? The criteria 1 -6 in policy BN5 with

they come to mind? When it says explicit design standards I considered BN5

because that invites tall buildings but then explicitly there are five criteria

as to why they're acceptable hence to my view that was an explicit design standard.

in brackets after those words in dp3, so it's including those in locally specific policies.

Thinking about the LLDC local plan,

BN5, how the height thresholds work, are they locally specific or not?

Yes.

Okay, so just to make clear, I'm going to suggest that the meaning of explicit design

standards is a matter of law because it's policy.

Ms. Chung, if, I heard your answers to this, Sergeant, if the criterion BN5 are explicit

design standards, if that's the case, is there conflict with explicit design standards?

Yes.

Thank you.

The next question

is, I'll get back to you yesterday.

in your proof of evidence 4 .57 and the second sentence of 457 you say which

you were asked about across examination you say any replacement development

should deliver a building or buildings and place of equal or greater value

which enhances the character and appearance of the townscape and conservation area.

You carry on.

And it was put to you that there was no, quote, equal or greater value policy expressly, and I think you agreed.

You said there isn't.

Continuing on in that sentence, you say, a place of equal or greater value which enhances the character appearance of the townscape and conservation area.

Are there or are there not policies to enhance the character and appearance and

townscape of the townscape and conservation area? Yes there are. Thank you.

Next question, different topic. It was said, it was put to you as a question

that in relation to the courtyard there was no mention of sunlight in the LPA's statement

of case. Could you go to CD 1 .2 please which is the LPA statement of case.

Yes, I have that open.

And if you could go within that to page 44.

Yes.

and paragraph 6 .94.

So there's no other space in development

would appear to be capable of functioning

as community immunity space,

ground floor courtyard and mixed use space,

which appears to act mainly as circulation

for members of the public, residential, commercial access,

cycle parking, bins, deliveries,

as well as break up for the commercial units.

Ground floor pontoon areas over the Lea navigation

would mainly support circulation from the H16 bridge steps

to Roach Road, Beechey Road

for members of the public and site users, as well as break out for the commercial units.

The pontoons and courtyard areas would also not meet BRE requirements in terms of sun

on the ground.

Ms. Chung, you'll be familiar with BRE and those requirements?

Yes.

So, the BRE requirements in terms of sun on the ground.

for the reasons above this the appeal scheme would fail to provide sufficient

well -designed and appropriate located community space for future residents is

their reference there to sunlight in the context of the courtyard and the

opponents that LPA statement of case yes there is and just looking at the last

two sentences if you could read them to yourself. Do they align with your position today or not?

Yes. Thank you.

Two more questions.

You asked about the step down between blocks.

Now, if you could go just deal with this.

You were taken to take up your proof, the references.

So we've got them.

You were taken to 3 .7 of your proof.

Yes.

Where you've got the heights for the proposed blocks 1, 2,

and 3, 22 .7, 28 .6, and 23 .2.

Yeah. So the step down between block two, that's the highest, 28 .6, and the other two,

B1 and block one and block three, about five or six metres? Yes. Just in terms of maths.

So that's the proposal. You were also taken to the consented scheme, which at 5 .22 in your proof.

You go to that.

Yep, I have that as well.

Thank you.

And you see in the fourth line of 5 .22, it says that the consented scheme would have

risen to approximately 20 metres.

It's dealing with the meterage.

Then the penultimate line of that 5 .22, it says reducing in height to approximately 17

metres for the five -storey and 12 metres for the four -storey so 20 metres 17

metres and 12 metres if you go over the page the image you are asked to look at

figure fifteen over two pages.

Yes, I also have that.

Which is the four storeys part and which is the six storeys part?

The fourth storey would be the central element and then the six storeys is the tallest on the left.

So what's the drop down from the tallest to the next element?

Two storeys. And in terms of metres according to 522?

Eight metres. Thank you. Greater or less than on the appeal scheme? Greater.

Just a follow -up question. Even assuming that the two -storey, called it a two -storey

drop down on the consented is similar to the proposed.

Stronk, is it your view that a two -storey or six -metre drop down on a 20 -metre scheme

is comparable to a two -storey or six -metre drop down on a 28 -metre scheme?

No.

Why not?

There is a much more significant drop in the 20 to 12 metres.

Thank you. Good. And then a final question. You can stay where you were. Just go back

one page to page 32 of your proof. And you see the image there of the

consented scheme looking down right towards the consented scheme

which you're asked about in evidence and you keep that image in mind and on the

previous page paragraph 5 .23, you were asked about what you say in the third line there,

that allows the gatehouse to be better appreciated as the prominent subject of this termination

view, prominent subject. And you were asked, well, is that phrase prominent subject referring

to figure 14? And you said it was. And it was said, well, my London friend said, well,

we'll see if Dr. Meade agrees with that. But just before we see whether he does or not,

Can I just ask you to clarify why you say in that image it allows the gate

has to be better appreciated as the prominent subject of this termination view?

Well the buildings around it better embrace it and they step down

meaningfully so that the block behind it doesn't overwhelm it. So you can still

appreciate much of the height of the existing building and it doesn't feel

enclosed or really intimidated by any building mass which presently the pill

scheme does present. It doesn't feel as, I can't remember the term I use, as overwhelming or

kind of doesn't wrap around as much as the pill scheme presently does.

Good, thank you.

Yes, thank you Mr Chen, thank you sir, that's the re -examination.

OK, thank you.

I expect you both want to make submissions on what constitutes a standard.

So I have to say the witness's clear evidence in cross -examination was that she wasn't alleging

that there were any explicit standards so I will be closing on that basis because that

was her evidence to a question that I clearly put to her.

There were those other few other points

I'd like clarification on.

You can possibly weave them into your addendum statement

of common ground.

That is, you consider the bridge to be in the conservation area.

Is there any land in the conservation area?

and yeah I think they were the oh and the the consent regime that covers the

pontoons I think those points would be usefully clarified so is there any land

it within the site in the conservation area is the bridge in the conservation

area and what's the consenting mechanism for the pontoons?

No, by land I don't include the land underneath the water, because obviously there is land

under the water.

Okay then we'll take a break now and if the opponent's first witness could set up, I think

it's Miss Young's going first.

It's Dr Meaney's first.

Oh, it's Dr Meaney's first.

Thanks witness, Mr Mealy, if Miss Sargent would like to start your evidence in chief.

Thank you sir, in terms of documents before I introduce the witness, we will potentially

need the floor plans at CD 4 .4 and the elevations at CD 4 .5.

And also serve the proofs and rebuttals for Dr Mealy, Ms Young and Ms Chung.

and

So the new MPPF and then the four other core documents that we might need to turn up are

the HTVA which is 5 .23.

There are local plan, the LLTC local plan, which is 6 .1.

And finally 7 .29 and 7 .30 which are the conservation area documents.

Thank you sir, good morning Dr Meaney, could we begin by picking up your page 10 please

where you set out your qualifications and experience.

And you tell us at paragraph 2 .1 that your name is Dr Chris Lee Lee, you're a partner

at Monte Tippins, you're both a chartered town planner and a member of the Institute

of Historic Buildings Conservation, the IHBC. You explain at 2 .2 that you joined English

in 1991 and worked there until you moved to private practise in 1998. Could I ask you

please just to highlight the aspects of your professional appearance that you consider

experience that you consider to be particularly pertinent to your work on this appeal please?

Is this close enough sir for you to hear clearly? Thank you. For the past 35 years I've advised

on the design interaction between new development and historic areas and on the design components

of planning policy.

And that has led to many instructions, major commercial and residential developments in

very sensitive locations, ranging from tall buildings and opportunity areas to important

developments, cultural developments on sensitive sites such as the National Holocaust Memorial

and Learning Centre and contentious schemes too such as the Chinese Embassy where we help

promote that application.

Over that period of time Montague Evans built a large team of professionals that specialise

in this area.

Many of us are dual qualified like I am.

I have particular experience in the L 'Vonnabur of Tower Hamlets, which began when I was a

listing officer, or inspector as we were called, in the 1990s.

I worked on statutory casework as an officer for historic English heritage as it was.

But then in private practise, many projects over the years, major developments for Canary

the Wharf Group and other tall buildings on the Isle of Dogs, major listed building projects,

conversions and refurbishments.

And within the LLDC area, both in Newham and Tower Hamlets – I've been working since

the creation of the LDDC – LLDC, sorry – in 2012, and that's involved advising on sites

in Stratford on major developments there and also in this part of the former LLDC area.

And I explained in my evidence that I worked on two nearby sites, the piano factory, which

you've heard about previously. We provided the Heritage Task and Visual Impact Assessment

advice, working closely with the architects and local authority. And then I was involved

an appeal for Swan Wharf, which is south of this site. It's in the conservation area.

And there I was tendered as an expert providing a second opinion in connexion with that appeal.

I explain also that I've maintained my credentials as an architectural and cultural historian.

I've published very widely in this area and contributed to major exhibitions at the V &A

with the second one coming up shortly.

And I lecture and still maintain academic affiliation,

so I'm outgoing honorary professor of planning

at University of Glasgow, for example.

And I was previously at the Centre for Urban History

at Leicester University as the chair of the board

for the centre.

I explain I was not involved in this,

promoting this scheme, as you would have gathered

from the evidence.

One of my junior partners, Mr Taylor, was approached to give evidence on the matter,

was unable to do that because of the scheduling.

I was able to and having looked at the case, visited the site, which I already knew,

I confirmed the client could act in this matter supporting its statement of case.

So that's how I come to be here now.

Thank you. And just before we turn to the substance of your evidence, I think you have

two corrections to make.

Yes, sir. If I can take you to paragraph 413 of my evidence. And I have that hard copy,

I'll give you the internal pagination and that is on internal page 16. And in this section, sir,

I recite... I'll let you get it, sir. I identify the planning policy that's relevant. In 413,

I explain that because there are a number of policies not cited in the reason for refusal,

I assume the local authority took no issue with those policies.

But sir, that was an error and I, on my part, in fact, the local authority have added in

those policies to the statement of case.

And I don't think that, sir, makes a substantive difference of the evidence I offer you.

And there's the same point to be made in relation to paragraphs 410 and 412 in relation to a

London Plan policy and another LLDC policy.

And then the second is a very minor point at paragraph 7 .90, which is internal page

And there, sir, I'm defining – I'm giving definition of a non -designated heritage asset.

And I say as defined in the NPPF, that's an errata.

It's not in the NPPF.

It's in the NPPG.

So if you go looking for it, that's where you'd find it.

And it's in the heritage, the historic environment part of the PPG.

It's paragraph 35 and it defines them there as assets, building sites, landscapes, having

a degree of significance and merit in consideration and planning decisions because of their heritage

interest.

Those are the only two corrections I have to make, sir.

Thank you, Dr. Meeley.

I'll leave you then to proceed with the summary of your evidence that you'd like to present

to the Inspector.

So I'd like to ensure that you have, in a sense, comparable evidence, as between me

and my fellow expert on the two main topics I cover.

The first topic is obviously – well, I'll do them in the opposite order I do in my evidence.

So the first topic I'll treat as heritage because I think it's a sort of easier to

understand – I think – topic.

And I'd like to do that, sir, through the adopted appraisal for the area, which all

parties will agree I think is up to date and provides an accurate summary of the area's

special interest, and that's CD 7 .30.

And I'm just taking that document up and turning

into page 11 internally, which is probably about,

I don't know the PDF number, I'm working off the paper.

And just to take it at the highest level,

which we get there, sir, there's a summary of significance

is there at 2 .3, which is very helpful.

And I'll draw out some of the main points for it.

So in terms of the physical attributes of the area,

it comprises two clusters of historic buildings,

one to the south of the appeal site,

which is referred to in some of the documents

as the Storro Road cluster,

and then there's the White Post Lane cluster to the north.

And effectively they're linked by the River Lee Navigation,

which is the canalised lee that's created

in its current form in the 1860s.

The conservation area includes other important elements

of infrastructure, which are the greenway,

which is the sort of horizontal vertical expression

of the southern outfall sewer,

which was constructed in the 1860s,

and a railway bridge to the north.

So those are the physical infrastructure constraints.

Physically, it's characterised by a regular grid of streets.

by surviving yards and places by this infrastructure.

And these small collections of historic buildings

at either end, north and south,

I think it's fair to say are modest

in their architectural interest.

So these were not, there's not an industrial area

designed to impress, for example,

in the way certain really important mill buildings

were in northern cities or even in some parts of London.

They were generally small -scale industries and their concentration here because of the

infrastructure and lying outside the settled part of London is of historic interest.

And so I'd say, sir, that a lot, a good deal of the significance of the conservationary

is those, are those historical associations evidenced by particularly those buildings

and by the infrastructure.

And I think it's fair to say probably the canal is the most, probably critical overall

to the way the conservation area is defined today.

In terms of date of development, I mean the heyday of this area is about 1900 or so, it

continues into the interwar period and then as you will appreciate there's been a steady

decline since the 1960s and 70s and in particular in the 1980s and 90s which was when I first

came across it after I'd moved to London.

The plan of the conservation area is on page 14, which describes what I've just explained

to you.

And I'm afraid, sir, that in relation to your question on the boundary, this doesn't really

particularly help us.

So that's been taken away.

But if you turn on in the document, sir, just to give you a feeling for some of the physical

characteristics and other features of it.

So for example, page 17 shows one of the typical

warehouse buildings.

And then moving on to page 19,

there's information on the form and layout

of the conservation area, talks about the scale

of buildings from two to six storeys,

talks about diversity in architectural language using brick,

what they call a robust utilitarian aesthetic

that creates a particular sense of place

and yards provide quite an important contribution to that.

The main way for appreciating this

is obviously from within the area and the towpath

opposite on the east side

which is now the edge of the Olympic Park.

And if you go to page 20

and with particular relevance I think to this matter

It talks about views, it doesn't identify any views

on the plan because it was not a formally planned area

so there are no well defined areas from which to take

in particular sites like many industrial areas

it's planned in a sort of piecemeal way

to respond to commercial requirements.

But it talks about views from Dace Road towards the lock

which is the Old Fort lock which is a,

Old Fort is quite an important historical reference point

in this part of London, and to the Olympic Park

as being important.

And then it says in the second column on that page,

towards the end of the paragraph,

views across the area are punctuated

by the surviving former industrial chimneys,

including those within the setting of the conservation area.

And it's worth saying so that at this point,

there may have been a plan for the bridge,

which created a view of the chimney on the piano work site.

but at the time this was written,

those chimneys were things you kind of came across

in the local context.

And in many respects, the chimneys, the gatehouse,

the odd old wall to a yard, are relict, I guess,

features of the area, often denuded of context,

but standing as reminders of an industrial past.

And just again for reference, and I will refer to it in chief, from pages 24 onwards, the

document provides illustrations of buildings that are characteristic of the conservation

area and which in my experience, you know, architects working in the area outside the

conservation area have tended to take as points of reference for new designs and you see a

lot of these features repeated in contemporary form

throughout the wider Hackney -Wick and Fish Island

area.

And so I just would pick up on one point

that arose from your question to my fellow experts earlier.

That it's, in my experience, a sort of unusual situation,

the designation of these conservation areas

in a large opportunity area.

First of all, as I said, their architectural interest

is slight, doesn't make them uninteresting, but you know, they don't, there isn't the

same density and extent of really impressive buildings you find in many conservation areas,

but then they're historically interesting.

They played an important role in the regeneration of the area, which you'll appreciate had suffered

greatly from deindustrialization, and there was a lot of vacant land.

And in the absence of clear points of reference, the LLDC used in certain areas surviving industrial

enclaves as a kind of pattern to generate new kinds of architecture.

And so it's a really good example, I think, in the way that heritage can be used to inform

new design across a wide area.

And I'll talk about that a little later,

but as a consequence, it has very cohesive quality.

So some of the principles and characteristics

identified in this document are ones that you find

played out across the wider area.

And that was deliberate, that was a matter of policy.

But turning the pages, you see that the conservation

areas examples not just of flat parapetted buildings,

but gabled buildings.

And the conservation area appraisal does in fact mention,

as we've seen already, towards the end on page 34,

the store space, which in effect the appeal site

that we're talking about, and that's on page 34.

And it describes them comprising one and two storey buildings,

variety of uses, they recognise the cafe and studio use,

no great architectural merit, but in their form

and materials contribute positively to the townscape

of this part of the conservation area.

And I think that's a fair appraisal.

The site does have some characteristics

which reflect characteristics of sites

within the conservation area.

But again, as you've seen in the evidence,

the site was considered expressly for inclusion

within the area and not included in the area.

And I gave a link to and explained

the reason my understanding of the reasons the reasons for that and just so

you know sir and so it can be clear even though the local authority reason for

refusal doesn't allege harm our reason of the loss of these buildings and

indeed it's common ground that they are not NDHA's they're not non -designated

assets but in my own evidence I carry out an appraisal it's not as full as the

appraisal in the HTVA, which is a very detailed document, and if you want to read more about

these buildings, I'd go there. But I, at several points in my main proof, conclude my thoughts

on the merits of this site from a heritage perspective. And if you go to my page, internal

page 57, which starting at paragraph 7 .59. And I'll draw your attention first to 7 .59,

where I say the quality of the waterfront of the appeal site is low, but its former industrial

use is recognisable. And Victoria Warr Studios, which is a building of about 1900, which is

has been truncated to form the bridge, and that's the building that you'll see has a

panelized metal southern gable on it.

I then say furthermore, at 7 .62, overall the existing buildings within the appeal site

make a contribution to the ability to appreciate the historic significance of the CA by reason

of their industrial history and character.

And I say further that the gatehouse is an attractive feature and a visual link between

it, the gatehouse, and the chimney and boiler house on the piano factory site, which is

or are in the conservation area.

And I say further, the industrial vernacular character of the buildings on the appeal site

reflects some of the characteristics of buildings in the CA.

However, I conclude whatever affinity it has with the conservation area, it was decided

not to include it.

So on that basis, it lacked sufficient, it was not special, that's the test and statute,

the land did not possess special architectural

or historic interest.

So in my evidence, I don't treat the question

of whether there's any harm to heritage interests

arising from the demolition of those buildings

because they're not agreed to be NDHA's.

And I think for the purposes of the reason for refusal,

my understanding is that the demolition is not relevant,

even though the site has some characteristics,

which for the reasons I've just described

link back to the conservation area.

But I say also, as I've already highlighted,

that the site at the same time has a number of features

that detract from the setting of the conservation area.

And here I'm thinking principally of the elevation

of the site to the canal,

which I think demonstrates no particular architectural quality or interest, has a kind of ad hoc

arrangement and the buildings lack, in my judgement really, any degree of design merit.

The only elevation that has some merit is of the Victoria Wharf Studios building itself,

but that's the one that's been truncated for the construction of the bridge.

so its integrity as a historic building has been severely diminished.

What I thought I'd do then, sir, is just move on to what I see are the two main impacts

issued between us.

And I'll start with the canal impact, and we've seen views.

and I'll come back to those at a certain point.

And I think in the townscape section, really,

because the issues overlap here quite a bit.

I think it's one of those cases where

setting considerations and townscape considerations

overlap a good deal.

So I start with the proposition that the site,

whilst it has some characteristics that

reflect the character of the conservation area,

that overall it's in poor shape and not distinguished apart

from the gatehouse, which I do think is an interesting old building, one of those remnant

structures like the chimneys that you find embedded across the area, inside and outside

the conservation area.

And so we move, sir, from a position of a site that, whilst it has some associations

of note, is in poor condition to the site as we see it.

But I think I will make a few observations before taking up the views.

And the first is that by providing access to the canal edge across a yard, the development

provides an opportunity better to appreciate one aspect of the conservation area's significance,

which is obviously the canal.

And you've seen the site from the towpath.

You will have seen that it's the only proposal

that provides public, unfettered public access.

And more than that, it provides also the pontoon.

So there's two different sorts of experiences.

One, I guess, directly in the conservation area

on the water, and the other looking across it

towards the Olympic Park.

And that's a view that the conservation area appraisal

commends as contributing to the setting of the site.

If we take up the HTVA,

I'm just gonna make the point in relation to

one of the views,

which is view four,

that we've looked at a few times now.

I don't have the digital page, but it's page existing and proposed start at pages 43 to

44 and 45. We'll return to page 44, which is the rendered view. And you've got the

Sorry, can you just bear with me a minute? Of course, sorry.

Sorry, my document's all just closed down.

I'm just going to re -find...

So if it helps, we have a paper copy of this document, which is unmarked.

I don't know if you'd like to...

If you can just remind me what the CD 5 .23.

I mean, it's also been referred to as an addendum to the DAS,

but that's an even bigger document.

I've got that, yeah.

Oh, thank you, sir.

Just to make a few short points.

If you've got page...

If you go to the first, he has existing view on page 43.

That's the frontage that you've seen and I've described as detracting, of no real

townscape value relative to the conservation area.

You see also how, you know, in effect it's obviously a gap site waiting to be developed,

taking a cue from Carpenters Wharf to the north and the skeletal element that you see

rising behind it.

I will come back to detailed design in a moment, but as a general proposition, and I think

this is agreed, that the architectural language of these proposals reflects the architectural

heritage interest of the conservation area and of the industrial uses in this area more

generally.

and it does through, amongst other things,

by the facing gables that you see there,

the proportions of which are roughly the proportions

of traditional facing gables in the area.

The use of brick in a relatively unadorned and simple way,

the detailing of the building is the result of

just the brick, no applied detailing.

And in terms of Block 2, the larger building,

Like many of the buildings that has a flat parapet, signage is also a feature

of a lot of the buildings in the Hackney Wick Fish Island area and obviously the

signage denotes the historic use. But this building, Block 2, relies particularly on

the brick pier warehouse language that is quite typical of industrial buildings

in the south of England from about 1860 right the way through the First World War. And by

that I mean the continuous, the bays formed from continuous piers that go top to bottom.

And that's a device used in a lot of developments in the area. And I think, in my experience,

this development draws in its design detailing more explicitly than a lot of the modern developments

around it, which is not to criticise them. It's just that the approach taken in a lot

of these schemes is to develop designs on the basis of a kind of abstraction or on the

basis of principles. But here the resemblance is a little more literal. And I think the

practical effect of that, so in townscape terms, we blur the boundary here and go to

conservation area is that the development of the site in this way with

block two and then block three returning actually provides a kind of

cohesiveness across the two parts of the conservation area which I see is a

benefit to the ability to recognise and appreciate the conservation area because

if you look along the stretch of elevation there's only really one other

building to the south, which is the beach road. It's a sort of six, seven storey block

of flats, which has a sort of flat parapet. The foreman and son's building doesn't draw

on the legacy particularly, and neither does Carpenter's War for Omega Works to the north.

So I think that's quite important. And I will say also, and I'll get back to some of these

other points, that the proposed retention and treatment of the gatehouse and the proximity

of that to the chimney, which will be restored in a kind of new setting.

Likewise, I think, helps to reintegrate these relics from the late 19th century

into a more cohesive townscape. And I think that is a unique... the site is

well placed to do that because it exists in this prominent position. I think the

criticism from the council and here is a point where maybe we now just give you

some evidence on a more like -for -like basis as I understand it is that

It's overbearing on the scale of the canal.

Monotonous is a word that's used.

Lack of relief.

And again, these are all points that crop up again

in the criticisms on urban design.

I'll just make one, I hope, two simple points

just to provide you with my view on that.

And if you turn earlier in the HTVA to view one,

if you have that, that's internal page 35,

and we've seen it several times now.

And so I think the charge is that the scale of the proposals

is dominant on the setting of the canal.

And so I make a couple of observations.

The first is the perception of scale

of any building or object is always relative

to the size of the space in which you see it.

So a Volkswagen Super Beetle would be really big

in this room, but in a parking lot it's not very big.

It's the same here.

You can't consider the scale of this building

without reference to the, I think anyway,

the wider spatial setting, which comprises

is not just the canal, which is a long, linear open feature,

but the towpath and of course the park,

which is a large open space, immediately opposite.

And the second point of reference

that seems to me to be relevant is,

for scale purposes, is Carpenter's Wharf.

It just seems a really straightforward proposition

to match the height and form,

albeit in different materials,

of an adjoining building to a site,

which is clearly an infill.

site. So that is why I think the conservation area is, and it's setting

it's not harmed, but in fact experiences a degree of enhancement. I think

particularly because at this point, and if you compared it in again we don't need

to go there to view one, spaces often benefit from better enclosure. So you

you understand and appreciate a body of water

or at the edge of a park, sometimes better

if there's a building of a suitable size enclosing it,

because then you appreciate the spatial extent

of the object, which is the canal in this case.

So for all those reasons, I've considered that

the setting of the conservation area is enhanced.

and I accept that that jumps over to urban design.

So that's my evidence on the canal.

I want to say just a couple of words on the chimney,

which you asked some questions about,

and for that we need to go to in this HTVA,

and probably the best view is three.

Which in the HDVA is, you've got it in two places, so 41, page 41, paper, which is lower

right.

So the, I think the allegation of harm here is that the proposals, block two, are prominent,

and they are prominent in the view, and because of that they detract from the ability to appreciate

the setting and significance of the chimney.

And I see it slightly differently, sir.

To me it seems that the relevant consideration, or put another way, the chimney is a sort

of interesting object.

It doesn't stand out prominently from this position because it's not big and this is

a view over some distance.

So it tends to get lost against the background datum of development.

And when we were working on the piano works site, if you turn the page, you see that that's

one of the consents that's shown in orange.

the object was to try along this approach

for you to maintain a clear view of

as much of the upper part of the chimney as possible.

And it was that skyline retention you see in orange,

the proposed panowarke scheme.

So I think you're looking at,

in this view, things of two different scales.

You're looking at the chimney which has a local scale,

because it's not a big object.

It's not designed to be seen over any distance.

It's unlike, therefore, those great industrial chimneys,

again, you think of the north of England,

which are particularly elaborate

and are demonstrations of the wealth

of the company that has built them.

It's a little thing serving small -scale industries

that were characteristic of the area.

And I think at this point, with this opening,

just to be efficient, it's a good place

to take the point about landmarks.

So I think the Council's criticism on this point is that the area has a landmark already

and you're challenging that landmark status.

And I'd simply say that I think, sir, that landmarks function at different scales.

The chimney is a local landmark, which is to say it's something that creates pleasure

and interest and provides a point of orientation, walking in and through the streets immediately

around it.

And in fact, the way the piano worksite is set out,

actually you don't see the chimney

from some of the side roads.

You kind of come upon it when you come to the corner.

Block two is a landmark that works at a different scale,

a wider scale.

It's a proper entrance to the area

because it's closely associated with an important crossing.

That was constructed as part of the strategic planning

of the area with funds from a larger development.

elsewhere.

And then finally on the gatehouse point, which I've touched on already, but I think which

the council has raised concerns about, and if I were to summarise it, it's that council

accepts there's a benefit to the reuse and restoration conservation of the gatehouse.

But they, in effect, diminish the weight to be given to that benefit because they say

it's overwhelmed in its scale.

And there are any number of views where this point is made.

But if we go to viewpoint 13, which is a good position, actually, because

But I think it points to 14.

14 is better, I'm sorry.

Which internally is page 74 of the HDVA.

So as I said, the council accept this as a heritage benefit.

It's physically restored.

It's given a beneficial use as part of the development.

and that use is consonant with its original purpose.

I mean, it's called a gatehouse,

but it's actually a building built within a wall.

It doesn't have an obvious gate in it.

It's an enclosing feature.

So it's reused for its original purpose to enclose a yard,

which becomes publicly accessible.

So you can appreciate the building in the round

and it has a purpose.

And by giving it a purpose,

you give it a meaning and value in the context of a scheme,

which ensures its conservation in the long term.

I just make a few points that, I mean, and this is an obvious point that we're looking

at a two dimensional image, but in fact, the development from this side is highly sculptural

or three dimensional.

And the way you appreciate that layering is by moving through the space, because we appreciate

setting depth through the phenomenon of motion parallax, which is the way the brain constructs

depth through binocular vision and on the basis of experience. And so what I

see when I look at this is the gatehouse and wall defining the street edge. And

actually the tree is quite important for creating a local setting to the gatehouse.

It's very prominent when you're there. The two of them read together

quite attractively.

Block three has a different alignment and is set back.

Block one has a different alignment again.

And the link block between them is treated

in a sort of neutral or background way

with a kind of textured or it might be core 10 steel

or a kind of coloured metal.

I can't recall if it's core 10 steel in that location.

Although this shot is taken against the sun and therefore things are in shadow, of course in the scene you appreciate the difference in colour

because the eye adjusts in a way that the camera can't adjust and so there are therefore three different colours of brick in

this view. Block one, you see a bit of block two, you see more block two from different angles and then block three.

And so all of that I think does create a sufficiently

layered and complex scene, which combined with the gatehouse providing its original

purpose, which is to enclose a yard, means that it doesn't overbear on it or diminish

your appreciation of its historic interest, because that's the test, even though it's

a non -designated heritage asset. This is not a structure of any great architectural quality.

its interest is historically eating closed working yard.

And the ability to understand that significance,

which I said I stress is the test,

is not diminished by this.

There's a different point on townscape,

but I think I've addressed some of those points already.

So that was all I had to say on heritage.

I probably a little more swiftly wanted to move on then

to character and appearance.

And for that, again, we'll stay with the HTVIA,

but I just, I do want to turn up one part of my proof.

And it's in section five,

which begins internal page 22.

Now this is the section where I talk about the character and appearance of the area and

it's I think it's notable when you talk about the character and appearance of this area

you have to talk about planning policy because the character and appearance of the area as

recently as 2009 -10 was this is put this way emerging and that that was one of the reasons

why and also in anticipation of improved transport connexions in the arrival of the Olympic

Park, et cetera, that it was identified for major change.

So I don't think it's possible to understand the character of this area without thinking

about its opportunity area status, which I've described, the policies for growth promoted

strategically in the local – in the development plan, and so forth.

And if you do, sir, want, I think probably the best and maybe only place in a published

document that describes character, and I apologise, I should have put it in the note.

I'm not sure we need to turn it up, but it is the part of the characterization study

for the LDC, which is, I'll just give you the reference, it's CD 7 .27.

It's the 2019 study.

So it post -states the first local plan, 2015,

but it's before the 2020 plan, which is BN5.

I just will say that there were similar studies available

during the formulation of the previous local plan of 2015.

But it's only a page that describes

what's called Fish Island Mid,

which is the character zone that the LDC used to describe it

and I think it's still a valid way to describe it.

And it talks about the importance

of the conservation areas as providing a kind of anchor

and a way of generating a new sort

of architecture for the area.

It talks about the regular grid of streets,

it talks about the yards,

but it also talks about major change

as one of the characteristics.

And I think to make that point with reference to some images, if we just turn on in my proof

to page 28.

28, just to start there very quickly, this is the plan in the local plan that identified

the strategic importance of H -16 or the Store Road Bridge.

And this was the doc, and it has an earlier iteration.

This was the document that I recall provided the basis for the section 106 contributions

that went into building the bridge, which is how they've been built.

If you turn the page and look at the aerial photograph I reproduce obliquely, you see

the site highlighted and you see just the considerable extent of new buildings, including

in the setting of the conservation area.

But also I think a really important point, which is that Hackney, Wick and Fish Island

are very clearly bounded.

There's the A -12, there's the east way to the north.

There's a southern outfall sewer

to the south of the Greenway as it's called.

And of course there's the Lee Navigation

and the whole thing is split in two

by the Hartford Grand Union Canal.

And the result of that today

and the positive policies in the LABC local plan

is that you know when you're entering this area from whichever direction just

about you enter it. It has a very clear sense of identity. So spatially it's very

well defined. It has a shared history which I've already talked about and

which is reflected in the conservation area designation. And if you just turn on

a couple of pages in the evidence to page 30.

You see I've done a series of extracts from View City,

which you'll appreciate as the proprietary software

that contains a virtual model of London,

including consented and implemented schemes

and existing schemes.

And just to give a bit of a snapshot,

in 2016, figure 5 .8, you will see

have those yellow buildings consented.

And in 2026, turning the page, you see not just new things which are under construction

and yellow things which are consented but not built, but also new things that have been

constructed.

And it is just an astonishing, really an astonishing level of change in a very short period of

time.

And I turned one more page over to figure 510

and to assist what my colleague has done actually

is overlaid the conservation area boundary

onto that same view city model at 5 .10

and at 5 .11 then put in the development

that's been consented and is under construction.

And that gives you a sense of how much

setting of the conservation area has changed which again is it's quite

considerable and even within the conservation areas there have been a lot

of new development as well. I just will say that you know having been around

through the whole of that transformation as professional in private practise

certainly I started to take inquiries on sites in this area before the creation

of the LLD say I say inquiry and start discharge instructions. I say it's

remarkable because the planning policy in place, from my perspective,

and besides two important things, it was creating a new character which was

distinctive for the area and in some way redolent of its industrial past, where

appropriate, but also seeking to ensure that that character was uniform in terms

of height and scale and that's the source of the 20 metre, well, limit we say, but

a policy threshold in effect.

So you cross 20 and you have to pass a different test,

which is the way tall building policies work.

I would just add that every one of the sub areas

in the LLDC area have similar thresholds.

That's the way they approach things.

And for example, in Sugarhouse,

where I was involved in a really large development

over many hectares,

there was a slightly different height range

that we were working to,

but always tying the thing back

to some of the industrial buildings in the area.

And practically speaking then, if you turn on,

figures 5 .12 in my evidence.

Now it's not, there's some variation of AOD across the area

but we pegged it at six metres AOD and flooded the model

with a visual plane of blue,

which is what you're looking at on that.

Now there's some variation within that,

but it's a good guide.

And then what we did was we overlaid on the next thing,

of 20 metres, so that's figure 13, 5 .13.

And that shows the number of 20 metre exceedances.

And what you'll see from that is that there are

pretty regular occurrence in modern development.

And I think just for practical reasons,

absolute height caps just don't work.

There has to be some degree of flexibility,

And that's what minor exceedances in the development plan is meant to deal with.

So it has this new character, but which is always going back to the historic character.

And as I said, the infrastructure has an important part to play.

Architecturally, the area is very varied, but there's this return back to some of the

industrial base.

And I'd also add, and this is a point I would stress,

there is a very marked contrast in many places now

between the very enclosed nature of the area,

it's tightly defined,

and getting onto the waterway and the canal in the

Olympic Park where suddenly the whole thing opens up.

And that's a striking contrast, I think.

And again, it was planned.

I would also say that the quality of design across the area is again quite high for an

area that came forward in such a short period of time and that was achieved through the

close involvement of the quality review panel.

Again, it's a point I would stress that in all of the projects I've done in this area,

the weight given to the QRP's advice has been significant in discussing things with officers,

even though they're professional design officers,

to the point where when you're advising a client,

you say the absolutely important thing to remember

when you were, when it existed,

is that the QRP's opinion carries a lot of weight,

and particularly when you're dealing with buildings

that exceed the guidance heights, the thresholds.

So with that in mind about the character of the area,

and I'm just going to, I hope more quickly,

and moving towards a conclusion in my evidence,

just take you through what I think are the differences

between us in terms of impact

and with reference to some images.

So if I had to break down the council's criticism,

I'll keep this in mind as I move in this part

of my evidence.

I mean, essentially, I think the council alleges

that the lack of variation in height across the scheme

is effectively overbearing and imposing

and tells against design quality.

And that same lack in variety means that block two

doesn't provide its landmarking function.

If I had to boil down the criticisms,

they seem to come back to those two points.

And those points are made in relation

to a number of views.

So first in relation to the canal views and I'll go back in the HTBA to view one.

Yes, sorry, I have view one.

There are, and either of the as proposed pages will do.

So the council say about this view that, and I'm paraphrasing, I hope fairly, I tried to

be fair, the block one's continuous gables produce a uniform rhythm.

I'll just pause, I mean, consistent rhythm

is a positive aspect of architectural design.

It isn't the only way you can create aesthetic pleasure

and architecture, but repetition is a good way, actually,

and it's tried and tested down the ages.

But then the council say that the facade,

I think they mean the whole of the facade

is flat and repetitive with insufficient stepping

between bays.

Well, as a matter of fact, the three gable ends of block one are the same height.

Okay, so there's no step type between them.

But I just want to pick up this point on flat and repetitive.

These facades are very highly articulated.

Within every wall plane, there's both the surface of the wall, a recess for a window,

and generally some sort of spandrel or other intermediate planar elements.

Second point, and this goes to the colonnade point, the council say that the

building edge comes right up to the edge of the canal and over bears on it. Now

look I'm just giving you my response on the basis of what I'm looking at here,

but these are two -storey. It's a two -storey colonnade. The bulk of the building is

perceived above the springing arch of the arcade, which is open at either end.

So I mean in the language of modern architecture, you use the word piloti to describe lifting

a building visually from the ground.

That's what's been done here just using a traditional form of architecture.

There's significant gaps between each of the gable ranges, which create shadow in all of

the views.

And there's another layer or depth added to the facade,

which is the balcony.

And of course that's done in the contrasting material.

So these are not flat buildings.

They are, in my experience, quite highly articulated.

The architectural language changes significantly

with block two, as does the colour.

And if we look then at view four,

where you see more of block two.

I don't need to rehearse the debate about

the difference in height between the two.

There is, as a matter of fact,

a difference in height between the two of them,

block two and block one.

And as a matter of fact, you notice it.

And you notice it from lots of different angles.

But in those views where perhaps

the difference is less obvious than say it is here,

in view two.

The architectural differences are fundamental

in booking down the mass of the development.

And those differences, just in summary,

are and obviously a flat parapet,

a broader building width,

so the gable -facing bays of block one are narrower

than the whole expanse of block two.

The use of signage, which gives,

literally makes the site legible,

and it's intended to be incorporated in the brickwork

in a way that's not uncommon now.

And a really important point,

which is the way the balconies are handled on the corners,

which I don't think has been discussed yet in proceedings.

the south west corner, which you see here

on the left of the image,

is effectively an open triangular corner.

And that will create a very distinctive feature

that your eye will pick up from lots of different directions

because it changes the lighting and spatial quality

of that side of the building.

And the balconies on the right hand side

have a similar function visually,

but not as pronounced.

So I think those things taken together

ensure that there is sufficient difference

when you see this building,

from actually from most directions.

I'll just say one further point about landmark.

Very often in inquiries,

when I do a lot of tall building work,

there's a debate about legibility and landmarking

and wayfinding and those sorts of points.

And the point is often made

that you don't need a tall building to have a landmark.

And it's absolutely true, you don't need a tall building

to have a landmark.

And the other point to make is that when,

as in this case, you've got such a consistent height

of development across a wider area,

I don't think you need too much difference to stand out.

And so I contrast that with many areas of London

where the range of heights will be really significant.

I mean, even in places like Mayfair or St. James,

you'll have a retain to start building a six storey building,

a 10 storey building.

In areas of mixed character,

you need to do more to stand out.

In areas of uniform character, it's much easier.

I mean, if you think of a pub in a Victorian street,

it will usually be just a little bit taller,

but it stands out.

And it stands out because of its purpose,

but also because of its design

and the marginal height differences.

So that I think is what we're dealing with here.

And then if we turn on into my evidence into appendix three,

which is the new CGI, which we have turned up once already.

And the appendices are through paginated,

and it is page,

so sorry.

Just a single page, I keep on losing it.

Yeah, so it's internally paginated pages 104 and 105.

So this is looking at, you know, obviously from sort of the edge of the piano factory

site across and over the bridge.

And you know, just to make the point, the council dismiss the effectiveness of what's

been called the link block, or that intermediate range between the two in providing any difference.

And it seems to me on its face, it clearly does differentiate between the two.

but the characteristics that I point to are,

first of all, the distinctive brick pier language of block two

the gable facing language of block three,

which are different and different materials.

And block three is lower.

By the way, the fact that block two is associated

with the bridge itself,

because you're walking up that area,

you know the bridge is there.

But the link building is got its main elevation recessed

and it's clad in a different and contrasting material.

And in contrast to the solid masonry elements,

the value striding is very fine.

So there's very considerable difference

between the architectural expression of these buildings.

So for all of that and taken together

with the obvious association of the building

with the bridge, I think that it does

adequately serve a landmarking function.

And I note, and I think it's agreed,

that there's nothing between the parties

in principle about the absolute height of the building.

I think I recorded that correctly

from yesterday's oral evidence,

but I'll be corrected if that was wrong.

I've dealt with the sort of landmark function,

so I don't need to cover that point.

As I said, there's an overlap here

between townscape and heritage,

But the penultimate point really I want to make is about the Roach Road and Beachy Road

Interactions where the council we go to views 12 and 13 in the HDVA

So view 12 if you've got it this may to the north of the site from White Road

And I think the criticism here is that the form,

which in this case is block one,

produces a continuous and assertive built form

in producing an enclosed canyon -like effect.

This is more uniform than the incremental

townscape character of the area.

And I think from this view and maybe the next view, 13,

it said that block two doesn't perform

on its landmarking function.

I'll just make the observation that as you walk in this view,

there's a change in geometry as between the line of block one

and the direction of travel in the view.

So block one is always kind of angling away from you,

slightly because it follows the alignment of the canal, which

is different.

What you see at the end of the road is a building

of the same scale as the buildings

in the foreground of the view,

and which in fact has more obvious relief

in its roof treatment than the flat parapets

on either side, which have no relief to speak of.

And all Carpenter's Wharf has is a sort of setback floor.

It's not a sort of positive architectural feature.

And then I think if you turn on to view 13,

which I think is where the canyon -like effect

is alleged. Now of course by this point you've walked towards the site. You've seen this

building at the end of the road which takes a turn and a corner and an enclosed corner

in a city is always an interesting thing. I should say I don't think there's anything

harmful about enclosing a view in an area which is characterised by enclosure and a

tight urban grain. This is part and parcel of that urban experience. But as you get closer

you appreciate more of the depth of relief in the building

and you know very well that it's angling away from you.

And you see here just the corner

or a little bit of the gatehouse,

probably most of the gatehouse building itself.

And of course, as you approach the site even more,

you appreciate that you can walk into the site,

in the courtyard, through the building itself,

and that adds a sense of depth

and makes the development more inviting.

So what you're not confronted with,

which is what you are confronted with

on the Taylor -Wimpy scheme to one side,

which is just a solid wall of development

with no way into it.

And I think also I just would disagree

with the use of the word canyon here.

I mean, a canyon is something that has straight sides

facing one another of the same height.

This is an unusual angle,

and the buildings don't face each other in that way.

I mean, I understand the purpose of the metaphor,

and it's to suggest overbearing.

and dominance, but I mean it's incorrect to characterise

the spatial and three dimensional arrangement

of this part of the building like that.

I think that was all I wanted to say on

townscape and bearing in mind I've made some comments

on townscape in relation to heritage too.

I want to just take finally a couple of short points, sir,

on inspector on the colonnades,

and the courtyard. So I have to say that on the courtyard there's really 180 degrees between

me and my fellow witness on this. It's obvious that we disagree about a lot of points, but

I mean I strongly disagree on it. The allegation is that it's over -programmed, which I think

means there's too much going on in the space. And if you take up the, it's the best place

to understand this and make these comments is the ground floor plan, which in the CD

now, you got up some of the plans. Sorry. It'll be CD 4 .4, and I think it's the first

GA 100 is the last. So it's 1175 which is the job, GA 100 and it's titled

General Arrangement Proposed Ground Floor. So just to be clear, the public

will be able to walk into this scheme and through it from three positions at

the bottom of Roach Road and Beechey Road where there's the direct link to the

canal. Because of, as I understand the Section 106 agreement, you'll be able to walk into

the courtyard and take an alternative route to the canal if you want to. From Beechey

Road to the west, you can go straight into the courtyard and get to the canal. Now just

to comment, this is very unusual to provide so much public access to through a site on

what is, you know, in my experience, because I work on, you know, really big projects,

relatively small, you know, or piece of urban design. So there's the first point.

It's highly permeable and in my judgement to an unusual extent and it's

noteworthy. And then I think maybe there's the criticism about the

programming. So if you start at Beecher Road to the north you see there's an

entrance into the first commercial unit. There's the bikes which in this area

will be well used, unlike for example the City of London where nobody brings the

Then there's another residential entrance, or office entrance, I beg your pardon.

Then there's a residential core that's placed right next to the way through.

Going north you've got two entrances.

You've got the entrance to the cafe, the gatehouse, whatever end use that's going to be put to

understand the kind of cafe or maybe site, some site -wide purpose, I don't know.

And then of course you've got another residential core on the way through.

I mean sometimes when you're working on projects you ask a designer to put on a piece of paper

where the heart of a scheme is and that's the place where the communal identity of the

scheme takes place.

And it's a lot of interesting things about it but everybody using this scheme is going

to pass through the courtyard and that means the courtyard will be very animated as a place

is to move through, which is its primary purpose.

And I don't see that as a problem.

I see that actually as a strength of the scheme.

And the second point is the colonnade.

And I can make that point with reference to this plan.

So the colonnade has a generous dimension.

It's double height.

I asked the architects to scale off.

I think it's about 2 .8 metres wide,

so it's pretty generous.

there's generous spacings between the columns.

It's, you're intended to be able to walk out

from the colonnade onto the pontoon,

so your perception of the space

that's available to you is greater.

And along the length of the colonnade,

there are two routes through it.

So it's not a continuous wall of development.

It is true that a number of these sites historically had open key sites for commercial purposes,

loading and unloading, and they wouldn't have been covered.

But I don't think anyone criticises the principle of covered access along the canal edge, and

indeed Carpenter's Wharf next door is partly covered.

In fact, Carpenter's Wharf building itself is cantilevered out to a significant degree

over the walkway or the area that is not a walkway.

So in summary, for those reasons, I think it will be.

And also bear in mind, when you're walking along the colonnade, I mean, your attention

is going to be focused on the water because the water is an intrinsically pleasurable

thing to look at and the greenery on the other side.

So I'm struggling to see how that would be an overbearing, anything other than a really

pleasant architectural experience.

And I think it's agreed between us that it will be animated because of the orientation

of the commercial workspace.

And it's also, as a matter of fact, there's been no objection on public safety or crime

prevention grounds.

So those are the main points I wanted to make to you in chief.

Thank you, Dr. Mealy.

just to pick up a couple of supplementary points from Ms. Chung's oral evidence.

I mean there are two schemes that the council in particular rely on to a

significant degree in their design and heritage evidence. So first of all

carpenters wharf next door and then they previously consented scheme for this

appeal site. In so far as there's any value in kind of comparing and

contrasting schemes which you know you've made your view I think clear on

but if the inspector were to engage in that exercise what's your view on the

comparative merits of the scheme first with the design of carpenters wharf?

Well, if we take up the view, I think we looked up previously, there was a few one.

I mean, the degree of articulate, I'll start with just the architecture, the degree of

relief in the plane of this building, apart from the inset, which I'll come on to, is

really pretty minimal. So it's a sort of flush cladding, with timber by the way, which is

a problem obviously, with inset openings. There's a gap at the top which is shadowed,

which articulates the gable. And it actually, okay, I mean, it might be a matter of taste

this point, but to me its architectural character is not cohesive or coherent. It consists of

a number of disparate elements that don't combine to create a satisfying and singular

building image. I mean the test often of a good architectural design is if you look at

it quickly, can you kind of sketch out the main features of it? You can with the scheme

proposal you can't with that building and its variety increases even more

because as you walk along the north side it's got these brick elements that are

strong vertical elements so it's it's quite a variegated building which I just

think is to it doesn't stand a test of time and you know timber as a material

has problems with durability but importantly you know it is there and it

sets a height datum and critically it doesn't provide public access to its

waterside and as I indicated earlier it's been said that you know it doesn't

overhang the waterside area but in fact the building cantilevers out over the

seating area and then the there's an additional element like a pergola which

is pegged onto that for most of the length of the building it projects a

a little bit more at the southern end of the building.

So there might be a preference for that sort of architecture,

which is very complex, and I think unnecessarily so,

as against, which is my preference,

a sort of simpler and more straightforward form

of architecture, which has greater coherence.

But I don't see it in those terms.

I appreciate it would have been approved by the quality review

panel.

It would have been deemed to be high quality design,

but I think in comparison the merits of this scheme, of the appeal scheme, stand out.

And furthermore the appeal scheme also makes a more obvious reference in the use of materials

and detailing to the industrial heritage of the area. And that's probably the critical point.

And as for the previously consented scheme on the site which has lapsed,

and I understand not a fallback, just a few observations.

That was for a smaller site.

The courtyard of that scheme had car parking in it.

The ground, or I guess first floor of that scheme,

was designed, I understand, to interact with the bridge

so that it would open directly onto the bridge.

It uses a sort of brick architectural language.

I think it's intended to be brick, which is not distinctive in the local area.

I mean you get that sort of architecture and lots of modern developments.

So I don't see anything obviously drawing on the heritage of the area in that scheme.

It does actually have the same site arrangement as the appeal proposals because really there's

only a couple of years, there's no other way to develop this site.

you're going to have to have buildings that run more or less east -west on the south part

of the site and buildings that run north -south on the east side of the site. It's only

where you can develop a triangular site anyway. It takes the same form and arrangement and

obviously it has buildings coming near to the setting of the gatehouse just like the

proposals do. So it doesn't create clear sky behind the gatehouse. It encloses the

Gatehouse in an internal courtyard. Yes, the proposals are taller, that's right,

but the way you perceive scale in a local context, I don't think there'd be

any material difference in impact myself.

Thank you. Just one quick point actually on the Gatehouse. Could you find

Ms. Chung's proof, please, and go to page 32.

Yes.

Which is her figure 14.

And you'll recall yesterday I noted that at her 523 she refers to the gatehouse as the

prominent subject in this view, and she confirmed in oral evidence that that remained her view.

What's your response to her suggestion that in this view it's the gatehouse that is the

prominent subject in the view?

Well, I don't agree.

I mean, there are – it's completely backdropped, so there's no clear skyline behind it.

If you're going to make something prominent, you would necessarily have to reduce the height

materially all around it so that it's stood out as the most significant thing.

The other observation I make is that – and assuming this CGI is based on the approved

drawings – that's my assumption – it opens up the wall in the gatehouse to a greater

extent than we do.

So from a heritage perspective, it's less preferable

because it makes big openings in the gatehouse.

And it opens up a whole side wall

to provide, I guess, vehicle access on the left side there.

And it seems to remove the wall on the other side.

So I mean, these proposals retain the gatehouse

as an entire structure, both the building

and the walls associated with it.

So it's to be preferred, I think,

in my view from a heritage perspective.

Thank you. Very briefly on the new MPPF and first of all the heritage policies. To what

extent is there anything in the new MPPF's heritage policies that alters your previous

analysis or that you wish to bring to the inspectors attention please?

Well nothing in it changes my analysis sir but there are just a few points I want to

draw to your attention. So it's in the H, it's in chapter 20, which is the

heritage conserving the historic built environment, or historic environment, and

it's under HE 5. So to HE 5 to little a. Oh no I think I bigger sorry I think a

pardon. No sorry I've been pardon. It's HE 6 2. It says development proposals

which would have a positive effect on designated heritage assets should be

Now, there really isn't an explicit statement of that nature in the existing framework.

The way the previous framework worked is you gave great weight to conservation, which meant

you gave great weight to ... To make that link, you had to do it through the footnote

to avoiding the harm or maximising enhancement.

But this is a sort of admonition, or not admonition, an invitation to give support to something.

So if, on the facts of this case, if you find a conservation area undergoes some sort of benefit,

then it's something that should be supported.

I think then under HE7 there's something similar.

Development proposals should have a positive effect on a non -diligencere,

it should be supported.

So that goes a little bit further than the previous framework policy.

Those are the only two points I wanted to make about it.

Thank you. And then on the design principles and the new MPPF, could we go to DP33, which

is page 67, please? Yes.

And Ms Chung's evidence in cross -examination was that she accepted that there isn't any

conflict with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan. What's your

The drafting is, I just have to say, is open to interpretation. It says locally specific

policies. I think the only policy that might be relevant in this case is BN5. And then

there was some reexamination around that, around the height threshold. Just as a matter

of judgement. I don't think that that 20 metre threshold is an explicit design standard because

as we know from the policy, it allows you to vary from it anyway if you achieve certain

other points. So it's, I think it's just a design standard or a design policy. The

use of the word explicit suggests to me something particular that is present in

an adopted document that you have to follow. So more like a code which is why

they say locally specific policies, guides, codes or master plans. So the idea

of the specific policy is linked to guides, codes and master plans. I mean I

appreciate the media policies are construed on a legal basis but applying

this as a planner that's why I'd read it. Thank you. Could we just turn up policy

BN5 please in the LLDC local plan?

Yes.

I think what Mr. Chung referred to in the examination was actually those criteria that

are listed as one to six.

What's your view on whether those are explicit design standards?

They're assessment criteria.

they're absolutely standard in all design and tall building policies.

You know, they're general.

Thank you and finally the inspector asked Ms Chung a question about the sort of cultural

uses or the more recent uses within the conservation area or on the site and Ms Chung's evidence

was that she, well basically the point was, you know, if we're talking about the 1980s

is that far enough back to be relevant to the heritage analysis? What's your view please

on the 1980s as an era and the import of that on the heritage analysis?

I would just start with section 69, sir, of the 1990

Plan with Spilling Conservation Area Act,

which explains why conservation areas are designated

and therefore what they are.

They are areas of special architectural or historic interest.

That's the first point.

And then the regulatory part of the framework,

legal framework, is section 72,

which preserve or enhance the character

or appearance of an area.

character is in part the product of use.

So, you know, in Hampstead Gardens suburb,

the use of the houses as,

well, the buildings as houses

contributes to its character as a suburban street

planned for housing.

It seems to me that looking at the history of this area,

what you've got are a series of uses

that all employment base, but that pass through it.

Maybe it's a sort of more transient point.

And I was just reflecting when you asked that question, Inspector, on areas where, which

are conservation areas that I know and where I work, where a particular use is protected.

So I'm thinking in Camden of Hatton Garden, which is of course famous for the diamond

trade, and there's Article 4 directions which restrict changes of use away from that trade

and policies which support it.

And the other obvious one is the Harley Street Special Policy Area in Westminster, which

is also a conservation area. So in cases where conservation areas have are being

regulated alongside with and in tandem with land use I would expect some other

land use policy. I'm not giving land use evidence here so I don't know but that's

what I would expect. But the other point I'd make is it's it's these sorts of

uses come and go. I mean there's it is I mean rightly or wrongly and you

You sympathise with these things or you don't, but the fact is that the artistic side of

gentrification is a process we see rattling out across all of our cities.

Derelict industrial areas become colonised by creative people.

Often ... and I understand what you said yesterday, often then they have to move on.

But you often get sites in periods of transition where you get in effect sort of intermediate

or meanwhile kinds of uses.

And they're really valuable because they do, for the time they operate, provide some interest.

But I don't see how the conservation area system can be used, regulation system can

be used to regulate a very particular kind of land use on its own.

And I think that the point about graffiti falls into, or street art or whatever falls

into that category.

There are undoubtedly examples of it, like the London County Council did a whole bunch

you know, graffiti -sponsored street art in the 1980s from a central fund which was made

certain political messages which were deemed to be, you know, apposite at the time. And

they survive and they're recognised as a legacy in Lambeth, for example, through a control

policy. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about, you know, incidental

ephemeral activity. And apart from anything else, you know, the planning system can't

control the removal of graffiti or its maintenance. I will also say that on the piano work site

the north wall of that site. It was a fabulous array, absolutely fabulous array of street art,

and the council didn't raise any objection to its removal because it was just not something

they could control. It's the sort of thing they picked up in the building recording condition,

quite helpfully, which is what I recommended on that site.

Thank you very much, Dr. Meaney. Is there anything else by way of evidence in chief?

Thank you, thank you, sir.

Rather than heading into cross -examination and then having to stop part of the way through,

we'll take our lunch break slightly early now.

The witness knows the procedure I'm sure.

So until 1 .30 the inquiry is adjourned.

Sorry, just before we do that, could I just cheque whether this, I can see the screen has

arrived, but can I just cheque it's going to function and everything in advance of Ms.

Thank you sir and good afternoon Dr. Mina.

Good afternoon.

So Dr. Mina, BN5 of the local plan I think we agree imposes a 20 metre height restriction

subject to greater height being allowed in certain circumstances.

I agree with that, yes.

That height datum was also contained in the 2015 version of the local plan, then numbered

BN10.

As you'll know from reading Mr. Chung's proof, you weren't already aware of that.

I'm very aware of that, yes.

Your proof explains how Fratney Whick in Fish Island has been undergoing change, and the

evidence in chief you elaborated it in your words an astonishing amount of

change in a very short period of time. Yes. And some of those buildings as part

of that process of change have exceeded 20 metres. Correct. But not with

not withstanding that change both before 2015 and after 2015 adopted policy in

development plan saw fit to impose that 20 metre height restriction and retain

it five years later in 2020 yes yes subject to the qualification that it can

be exceeded indeed on the facts of any case so accordingly see the absolutely

right to remark upon the change, but the change that's taken place has not led

Development Plan policy to adopt a different height restriction has it?

Not to this point, however the emerging local plan doesn't maintain as I

understand it that restriction. And the adopted local plan clearly has not felt

that such local exceedances as there have been is it was a justification for

relaxing the 20 metre height restriction no good thank you

coming to our site and one element of how we should deal with height on our

is in relation to your point about strategically important position. Can I take up your proof

just to deal with this point? So it's page 28. Paragraph 5 .17. And 5 .17, you explain

under the heading key connexions, the LLDC local plan identifies the appeal site as a

principal connexion improvement.

Correct.

Comprising the new pedestrian and cycle bridge AKA H16 etc. You explain it to deliver pursuant

to the planning commission you refer to and then you say two -thirds of the way down in

that paragraph. The appeal site therefore occupies a strategically important position

in the townscape where key topographical features intercept and forms the principal entrance

into a Hackney Whig when travelling east -west from Stratford. Now, you've included Figure

31 taken from the Local Plan. We'll just have a look at that. Sub -area 1 key connexions

and the first one in the key is Principal Connexion Improvement and there is such a

designation around now the site of the H -16 bridge adjacent to the appeal site, yes?

Yes.

The phrase strategically important position I don't think is a phrase or

judgement reached expressly at least in the local plan about this site is it?

No that's not the word that's used. That's my own judgement about the importance of these connexions

for linking Hackney Wick and Fish Island across to the Olympic Park, which is an overall objective of the plan.

So what we, in the words of the plan, it's a principal connexion improvement.

There are, you're able to count them, by my count, nine such principal connexion improvements in the whole of the sub -area and six in Fish Island.

Correct. And policy does not give any preeminence or importance to the one next to our site

over any of the other ones, does it? No. So it's one of nine principal connexion improvements

in the sub -area, no hierarchy, anything of that sort, correct? Well, I think there has

to be a hierarchy because the lee navigation is such an important constituent part of the

area and the boundary with the Olympic Park I think makes those connexions across of

particular importance because the Olympic Park and the regeneration associated with

that is a very important part of the structure of London.

Well there's five on that, on the lee navigation?

Yes, five connexions to a very important part of London doesn't diminish the importance

of any one of them.

No, no, understood. Good.

So that's the principal connexion improvement.

Then I want to ask about the move from that to the conservation area and its setting.

Yes.

Just before we do, I just want to deal with the, try and agree the approach to such matters.

The statutory test, section 72, is that in exercise of function special attention shall

be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of

the conservation area.

We won't deal with it, of course.

On land, on development on land within a conservation area.

Yes, character and appearance of the conservation area, yes.

Yes, that's the test.

The NPPF, the new NPPF in terms of what it says about risk and that in terms of policy,

HE9, we'll go to that in the historic environment section.

Just one moment. Thank you. And HE9, it's on internal page 97. HE9, we've now got a separate subheading

for conservation areas in the Historic Environment section which we didn't have before.

They can separate it out.

And HE9 .1 tells us that development proposals within or affecting the significance of conservation

areas should, and then it tells us what we should be doing.

In terms of policy, that is expressly acknowledging that development proposals outside a conservation

area may affect the significance of the conservation area. Yes, and which was the previous MPBF

position. And in terms of heritage guidance, you've included, I think, GPA 3 in your appendices,

So let's use that as a useful example.

So it's your appendix one, Dr. Mealy,

the setting of heritage assets, starting in GPA three.

And if you go in that to page three, please,

internal page three.

Sorry.

Yes, go on.

So probably I think it's page 73 in your overall pagination.

Thank you, yes.

Page 3, section or paragraph 8 of GPA 3

talks about the extent of setting.

And the second bullet point under that,

the bottom of page 3, says, extensive heritage assets

such as historic parks and gardens, landscapes,

and townscapes can include many heritage assets,

historic associations between them,

and their nested and overlapping settings,

as well as having a setting of their own.

A conservation area is likely to include the setting of listed buildings

and have its own setting.

To express acknowledgement by Historic England,

conservation areas are likely to have their own setting.

Yes, and that's my approach in carrying out assessments.

And development within such a setting

can affect the significance of the conservation area, obviously.

It's capable of doing so.

well, can affect the ability to experience the significance of the conservationary

because the intrinsic interest of the conservationary is encapsulated by the land within its boundaries.

So there's an important difference between direct and indirect impacts,

which I'm not suggesting is trying to be glossed over, but that is really important.

It's a different test.

And that's why the policy we looked at, HE9, refers specifically to development proposals,

not only within, but also affecting the significance.

It's taking the same approach.

So that's the general approach.

Then in terms of the conservation area in our case, can you take up the conservation

area appraisal wherever you have it?

So you've included it in your appendix two.

It's also CD 7 .30.

That's fine, sorry.

And within the conservation appraisal,

we pick it up, please, at page 19.

Is this the internal page or is it the digital page?

Internal page.

Thank you.

So section 3 .3 and 3 .3 form, scale and layout of the conservation area.

There are two primary groupings that survive in historical industrial buildings.

Those around White Post Lane and those around Dace Road.

These are in areas identified as the Fishline and Northern Fishline and Mid in the Tower

Hamlets Area Action Plan.

A secondary group of industrial structures is located near the junction of Roach Road

and Stour Road.

These clusters and their individual buildings are identified in the section on heritage assets below.

So just by way of introduction.

And then, following on and reading the rest of it in context, in light of that, we go over the couple of pages to page 20...

21, firstly please.

3 .4, land use and activities. Second paragraph. Today the area is known for its concentration

of creative industries and the considerable sense of the active floor space in the conservation

area is occupied by these uses. This distinctive local creative community utilises the historic

buildings and studios and live -work spaces, is expressed externally in the area's street

art and represents continuity in the area's historic employment character.

Cafes and mixed -use ventures such as the Stour Space, Café Gallery Art Studios, form part

of this character.

So this conservationary appraisal is expressly concerned with land use as well as physical

form, yes?

Yes, within the area, because it's an appraisal of the area.

Okay.

The last sentence, the cafes and mixed -use ventures such as the Stour Space, that's not

not within the constellation area boundary,

but that this appraisal is concerned with it.

No, that's not.

And it's a curious inconsistency in this section,

because under section 3 .3, where we first started,

you referred rightly, the text, I beg your pardon,

refers rightly to the two concentrations,

and it talks about the third.

But that third area wasn't included in the constellation

area boundary.

I understand that, Mr. Blochman.

I'm just trying to deal with what it says.

You told me that the appraisal was concerned with such uses,

creative uses within the boundary.

That's not right, because at the end of 3 .4, last sentence,

it is expressly concerned with such uses on our site,

which are not within the boundary.

They're within the setting.

Well, that is true.

But they are not part of the character and appearance

of the area which is the land bounded by the conservationary designation. And in any event,

the text quite fairly makes the point that employment uses in this area are part of a

process of historical change. Yes. And you need to read it from the beginning.

It starts in the 1860s. I don't need to labour the point, but it goes right the way through

the Second World War and takes it to the present day.

And those, I'm being part of that.

Specifically asking about whether the appraisal

is concerned with the creative and cultural use on our site.

I put it to you that it was because it expressly says so.

I think you're agreeing with that.

Oh yes, I would agree with that, yes, I would agree with that.

At the time this was drafted, that was how it was perceived.

Then carry on, next page, page 22, headed 3 .5, individual heritage assets and their significance.

And it introduces this by saying the significance of heritage assets is set out in brief below.

This does not include all structures potentially contribute positively to the character of the conservation area.

Yes? Sorry. I thought I missed the question.

Yes, so 3 .5 introduces us with those words.

is a set out in brief below and that below is referring to what follows on

page 23 and following. Okay so the first subheading on page 23 is 3 .5 .1

Dace Road cluster. That continues for a few pages then go to page 25 still under

this same heading 3 .5 you get another subheading Stour Road yes and then

thirdly come back to Stour Road cluster but thirdly page 26 3 .5 .3 White

Post Lane cluster yes so focusing on the one relevant to us 3 .5 .2 on page

25 Stour Road, Baster. It says between the roadways and the water along Roach Road, Stour Road,

Bream Street are a series of industrial structures that individually are not architecturally

distinguished but together and taking into account creative uses are of interest. They include the

surviving red brick carton brick chimney directly south of the O 'Mable works when we cram wharf.

Stour space and building to its north and south actuatorial walls and the single -storey

stock brick hipped roof building that is built into the wall to its west the gatehouse to

the former Broadwoods timber yard. That is including, Dr Meade, all the current buildings

on our site within the Stour Road cluster with the exception I think of the Hacken Cup

metal flat building is of a lesser interest,

but expressly included in the Stour cluster, isn't it?

Correct.

It continues under the same heading Stour Road cluster.

Let's talk about the next paragraph,

the loosely gridded street layout of Fish Island, et cetera.

And then in the next paragraph,

it comes back to the,

comes to the Broadwood Piano Factory,

which it has an image of below.

and relevant to us, the last sentence says opposite at the corner of Beechey

Road and Roch Road. The one -storey hip -to -roof Stockbrook Gatehouse to the

Broadwood timber yard is included in the listing. That's back to the gatehouse. So

the conservation area appraisal is expressly recognising the value and

significance of the appeal site buildings as heritage assets, isn't it?

Yes, it does, but not ones of any great interest.

And effectively, that's my position too.

Not that they're heritage assets, because they're not,

but that the site as a whole demonstrates

some of the historical characteristics

and architectural characteristics of the surrounding area.

I mean, they are not heritage assets,

and it doesn't mean that,

because under Broadwood's piano factory, for example,

it says in the very last sentence, opposite at corner of Beecher Road and

Roadshow, the one storey hip -stop, but that's the building on the site and

it says it's listed which I think means it's identified as a locally listed and

non -designated heritage asset. It doesn't say that about the rest of the buildings

on the site. We're under the heading of 3 .5 which I carefully took you to

on page 22, individual heritage assets and the significance. The significance of

heritage assets is set out and grouped below.

Then when we, under that 3 .5 .2 Stour Road cluster,

dealing with that as a cluster admittedly,

but given that it specifically picks out Stour Space building at its north and south,

the Victoria Wharf and the Gates House,

it is suggesting that that cluster as a whole is a heritage asset.

No, I'm not accepting that.

It says they are not, just going back to the beginning,

they are not architecturally distinguished,

put together and taking into account they are of interest.

It doesn't say what kind of interest they have.

They may be of interest from the point of view

of someone who uses them for a creative purpose.

And that might be what it has in mind,

but it doesn't use the word architectural

and or historic interest.

It's a conservation area appraisal.

They are of interest from the point of view

of the conservation area and its setting.

Why else would it say that?

Well, this was excluded from the conservation area

on the basis it didn't meet the criteria

of special architectural or historic interest.

It's talking about setting elements,

and I accept in my evidence that these buildings

have a measure of some affinity

with some of the architectural historic characters

in the conservation area, but they're not.

So this is not in any way describing them

as heritage assets.

it's describing them in general terms in terms of their character.

And I don't know the date at which this prepared relative to the decision to remove them from the area,

but this appraisal I think predates.

We'll come to that.

Yeah.

So I think that's right, as a matter of fact.

I think this appraisal does predate the board paper.

I said I'll come to it, and I do it now.

It's a November 2024 appraisal.

The board paper was April, so it doesn't predate.

No, it's 2014.

Okay, and the board paper was in April.

Okay.

I said I'll come back to you.

Okay, so we've seen what 3 .52 says about the Stour Road cluster and what it says about

the Stour Road cluster and the buildings being of interest.

To you that must mean interest from a conservation area point of view.

Agree or disagree?

Yeah, I think they must be intending that

because this document has a conservation area purpose.

I agree, you put that question previously

and that's a fair question.

That's the context for this document in this appraisal.

I've expressed my own view about it.

But the words have to be read very carefully

because whatever their interest, it's not architectural.

It's something else arising from a combination

of factors and clearly not sufficient to warrant inclusion in the area or identification of

the majority of the site as an NDHA.

It's about character, isn't it? They're not architecturally distinguished, but they are

contributing to character. That's the point it's getting at.

Yes, and which I acknowledge fairly in my proof.

So then, as I said, that's the Star Road cluster text on page 25.

The next is White Post Lane cluster, the third of the three subheadings for clusters.

Then the next section I want to go to is page 33, where we have a further 3 .5 subheading,

3 .5 .5 heritage assets that form part of the setting of the conservation area.

Yes.

And it tells us the appraiser has incorporated the wider area to ensure, that must be read,

that heritage assets outside the Fish Island and White Peas Lane conservation area are

appropriately considered within the conservation heritage context, as these assets are an important

part of the industrial heritage and character of Pappywick and Fish Island.

Yes.

So, focusing on that language, keeping that in our minds, these assets, an important part

of industrial heritage and character. Those assets include the first one on

page 34, Stour Space, 7 Roach Road and buildings to its north and south.

Yes. Okay so just tying that back to the 3 .5 .5, you said we had to read this

carefully and I'm trying to do so. 3 .5 .5 is heritage assets that form part of the

setting of the conservation area. Yes. The third such heritage asset that is said

to form part of the setting of the conservation area is Stour's Bay 7 Roach Road and buildings

to its north and south. Yes.

Okay. Conservation area again expressly identifying the buildings on our site with the exception

in fact, likely cut as a heritage asset?

In some form?

No, the four materials and uses contribute positively

to the townscape of this part of the conservation area.

Well, first of all, it's not in the conservation area,

so I don't know what the drafting means.

It doesn't say the setting.

So it's - Questions about the heading,

3 .5 .5.

What the heading is is what the heading says,

and there's no dispute between us about that.

obviously, but it's confused and it's drafting

because it says, uses contribute positively

to the townscape of this part of the conservation area,

which I read to mean that it's talking about land

in the conservation area, not in its setting.

And so if it means in its setting,

then it's blurring an important distinction.

Which bit are you reading from?

I'm sorry, I'm on page 34.

It's that one paragraph under storage space.

I'll come to that one thing at a time. So, come to the text on page 34, the non -embolting text.

But just before we get there, we've got to see it in context, which is all that text is under the heading of heritage assets that form part of the setting of the conservation area.

So it is suggesting, I'll try one more time, that Stour Space, Southern Roach Road buildings to its north and south together,

comprise a heritage asset in some form that forms part of the setting of the conservation area.

Well, that is what it's saying.

It's under the heading heritage assets.

So it says that.

And then coming to the text you were just reading from.

So page 34.

These brick buildings of one and two storeys stretching

between the former timber yard gatehouse

and the chimney of the former crown wharf yard

are in a variety of uses, including cafes, studios,

and art space.

They are of no great intrinsic architectural merit,

but in their form and materials and uses contribute positively

to the townscape of this part of the conservation area. Stour space and the building to the

south beyond a recent metal plant block, and it must be happening about cup, relate well

to the waterfront. So Conservation Area Docks Media is telling us that the buildings on

our site contribute positively to the townscape, yes?

Yes, it's telling us that.

and it goes on, the townscape of this part

of the conservation area.

Yes.

And the point I think you were just taking issue with

is that the star space is not in the conservation area.

The star. Well, yes.

Sorry?

No, yes, that is the point.

The drafting is unclear.

Well, the star road cluster straddles the boundary

of the conservation area, doesn't it?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what is it.

Straddled between what points between the piano factory and the canal? Yeah. Yeah. That's what I said in evidence. Yes

Yes, the piano factories in the conservation area, yes

Over the over the road is not in the right conservation area

so when you expressed

Your

lack of clarity I think you put it,

as to why it says,

contribute positively to the townscape

of this part of the conservation area.

It's clearly talking about this part

of the conservation area that encompasses

the piano factory and its setting.

Well, just to be clear,

I agree spatially it's talking about this land

because it's specifically referring to this land.

The point I was expressing confusion over was the drafting

because it says of this part of the conservation area,

which I just understand to mean

of land in the conservation area.

It doesn't say part of the setting

of the conservation area.

I accept fully that's under the heading,

but the drafting is just not clear.

We've got it in the heading now,

the setting of the conservation area.

That's clear enough.

And just the last sentence, I'll come back to this.

but it the conservationary appraisal considers that staff space in the

building to the south relate well to the water front so in terms of canal side

setting to the conservation area conservation area appraisal thought that

building was an ass sight contributed positively in that respect can you take

me that sentence again sorry last sentence on page 34 thank you this it

says that I don't consider that's the case at all the buildings don't all of

them orient clearly to the waterfront.

Yeah, so yeah.

So that's a better judgement.

A judgement on which you are the conservation area,

you're taking a different view to the conservation area,

you're disagreeing with the adopted conservation

area appraisal for the area.

Yes.

All right.

I want to paragraph on your proof now, still on the same issue.

7 point, it's in section 7, your proof, paragraph, sorry, page 54, internal page, paragraph 7 .40.

7 .40 you say the area has two clusters of historic buildings and the

appeal site is proximate to one the Stour Road cluster. Just pausing there Dr. Moody.

The area doesn't have two clusters of historic buildings, it has

three doesn't it well I mean I'm guilty of not putting in the word conservation

area but the concert this is about the conservation we just agreed that the

star -ray cluster goes into the conservation area but it's not in the

conservation area the piano factory is oh sorry the piano factory is that's

right yes but when that was written in the piano factory was put in that

cluster then it was also including the appeal side and now it's come out of

It's now part of the one to the south, if it's part of any one.

I mean, part of the problem is that these terms and words are used in relation to an

area designation which was not taken forward in its then projected boundaries.

I'm dealing with your words at the moment.

No, and my words are based on the words in the document too, so.

So you say the area, so that should read the conservation area.

Okay, that's fine.

That's what I have in my mind, yes.

has two clusters of historic buildings and the appeal site is proximate to one,

the Stour Road cluster.

Which includes an outside, a lying site.

Well on that draught, I mean it could be, I was referring to, I should have used the word,

whatever that second cluster is called.

Dace Road and White Post Lane.

Yeah, so perhaps that should have been Dace Road.

But I mean there are only two plus, there are only two groups of historic buildings

in the conservation area, one at White Post Lane and the other in Dace Road to the south.

The piano factory is closer to the Dace Road cluster. Since there is no other land included

in the conservation area apart from the canal, then the piano factory can only be associated

with the Stour Road cluster and it's contiguous to it.

Dr. Meade, it's a strange area, if that's one that you make, because you said the appeal

site is proximate to one, the Stour Road cluster. It's not proximate to the Stour Road cluster,

it's in the Stour Road cluster, isn't it? Well, I explained my understanding, which

is based on the plan of the adopted conservation area.

Sorry, no, specific question, Dr. Niede. The appeal site is not proximate to the Stour Road

cluster, it is in the Stour Road cluster, isn't it? On the terms, the express language

of the conservation area appraisal. The appeal side. Yes. It's not in the conservation area.

The clusters are referred to... One more time Dr. Milley. In the Stour Road cluster. Yes.

Thank you. Well as defined earlier in the document on the basis of a different conservation area

boundary. Your proof as a result fails to recognise that the conservation error

appraisal expressly identifies the appeal site as falling within a cluster

of buildings which it says is of interest. No it doesn't actually. I fairly

recognise the proximity of the appeal site to one of the sites within the

cluster to the south. Where do you... Well I don't, well because of the way I write

about it in many places.

I talk about the proximity of the piano factory,

which can only be part of the cluster of buildings

to the south.

Where do you recognise in your proof

that the appeal site is within the Stour Road cluster?

The majority party?

Look, sir, I think it's been checked.

I clearly don't.

I'm not aware that I draw that distinction.

But for me, the distinction is really not all that relevant,

because I consider the characteristics of the site fairly and in line with some of the

observations in the conservation area appraisal and I describe its impact on the land in the

conservation area which is the relevant consideration.

It is relevant that you've left out of account the fact that the appraisal expressly identifies

the site as falling within the Stourow Road cluster.

That's obviously relevant.

I've given my answer already on the fact that my understanding of this document is it's

written on the basis of the land being included

in the conservation area.

It must be, that text must be a survival

because I can't read it any other way.

But it did, you know what, I'm gonna accept

that it is in the Star Road cluster

as designated somehow in the conservation area

but not in the conservation area.

The important thing about my evidence

is I've carried out an appraisal of the impact

on the adjoining parts of the conservation area.

So that's what my evidence does.

The categorization of these is a matter for a document

that's prepared apparently at a point in flux.

The substantive part of my analysis takes cognizance

of the relevant considerations about the character

and appearance of the area and which fairly recognises

that there is heritage interest in the site

but not enough to make it a non -designated heritage asset.

Because otherwise, there would be a reason for refusal

that identifies their loss as comprising

harm to a non -designated heritage asset.

And there isn't.

So you now accept it falls within this diary clusters

where we got to, do you?

As defined in this document, which is confusing, yes.

Not something you accepted in your proof?

No.

Because candidly, I thought these

some categorizations were not that relevant to the actual substantive part of the analysis,

which I looked at with reference to the character and appearance of the area.

Conservationary appraisal is obviously relevant to the substantive analysis.

No, it is, obviously, but it has to be read in its own terms, and then you have to apply

general principles to the assessment of impact.

So moving on, assuming as per the conservation area appraisals statement that the buildings

on the appeals site contribute positively to townscape, the loss of those buildings

is a relevant consideration when evaluating the appeals schemes, isn't it?

Yes, I take them into account in the preparation of my evidence.

I don't think they're relevant though to consideration of the reason because they're not mentioned in the reason because you need to weigh

The loss of balance to understand from a townscape and heritage point of view whether the appeal scheme outweighs. No, I'm Fred

I don't accept that formulation. No

The impact of the development on the conservation area is what is considered

If this was a site in the conservation area in a conservation area

then you would look at whether the loss of buildings affect its special interest

and you would apply the framework test in section 72 of the Act to preserve or

enhance. This is not a site in a conservation area. Let me see if you accept

the townscape point of view. The appraisals, the inspector pointed out

actually doing the townscape as well. Yeah well it's... Now wait for the question.

The appraisal expressly says that the appeal site buildings contribute positively to townscape.

It is relevant to weigh that loss, the loss of those buildings in the balance from a townscape

point of view and ask whether the appeal scheme outweighs that loss.

No, because the design policies that relate to urban design and townscape do not have

the same statutory underpinning that conservation area regulation has.

It's fundamentally different.

Although they overlap to some extent in terms of assessment, in terms of decision -making

and planning policy, they're just fundamentally different.

And it's not dissimilar to something you find, for example, in cases in the countryside

where you're dealing with setting of heritage assets in LVIA.

There is an overlap between them, yes, but they're fundamentally different tests.

So you say we should...

Because the test in conservation area terms is the impact on the ability, in this case,

to appreciate the special architectural or historic interest of the conservation area.

So do you say...

It's not a direct impact.

Sorry, I'm looking at you.

Do you say that we should ignore the loss of buildings which contribute positively to

townscape?

No, I don't say that because if I said that, I wouldn't have written about the buildings

in my evidence.

And I did write about the buildings in my evidence.

Next subject, use. There were comments in your evidence in chief about your words more

transient uses and this was dealing with the current occupation of some of the buildings

on the appeal site, the creative cultural occupiers. And you stated these sorts of uses

come and go. Just a clarification question, you referred I think to Hatton

Garden and the diamond trade or the jewellery trade there, you also referred to

Harley Street. Are you saying, just to be clear, if such a use, such an

industry has specific recognition or protection in policy, planning policy, it

therefore could be relevant in character terms?

To take your hat and garden hardy's food?

No, I'm not saying that.

All I'm saying is the local authority

in those heritage contexts have also overlapping policies

on use protection.

Okay.

I'm not saying that.

So, understood.

So, we've seen what the conservationary appraisal says

about the use, the creative uses.

Go back to it, it obviously highlights them

and places value on them.

In terms of planning policy,

whether this thinks that such creative uses

should come and go,

I just want to take you to two.

The first one is

the local plan policy 1 .2.

We've got that as a CD6 .1.

Policy 1 .2, promoting Hackney Wick and Fish Islands' unique identity and appearance.

Proposals for development within sub -area one, perhaps us, will be considered acceptable

where they, various requirements.

Number five, respect the contribution made by cultural and creative industries to the

identity, culture, and character of the area.

So locally specific policy there about respecting the contribution by the sorts of uses the

industries on the appeal site in character terms. Yes. So planning policy

plainly not there suggesting that such uses should be allowed to come and go

without further consideration is it? No that's absolutely right that they do

with the policy does seek to control those uses. Yeah. My point was in general

terms about the historic character of the area that those uses are fairly

recent relative to the history of the area, the history of the area and the

reason for the designation is are not those uses. The reason for the

designation are the historic industrial uses that were attracted to the area.

It's okay. I'll finish, sorry. And that is plainly emphasised in the

conservation area appraisal and that's why these conservation areas, if

there weren't for the building serving past industries, there wouldn't be

into conservation area designation.

And my point about transience is with reference to that, the long lens of history, which was

why I emphasised that in that paragraph that it talks about the period from the 1860s and

probably even earlier to the present.

So from the point of view of history, some more recent creative uses are transient.

and that's part of a natural cycle of urban change in areas like this.

I'm not saying therefore the policy shouldn't be applied and they shouldn't be protected

in the way the policy seeks.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm making the point from a different point, from a different reference point.

So you do accept they should be respected and I was going to go to another one.

No, I accept the policy is there to regulate them.

got to me.

So you do accept that policy says they should be respected,

and I was going to go to another policy where

they should be protected.

No, I'm not going to go that far.

No, I'm not giving land use planning evidence.

I'm simply trying to express the idea that there

is a policy that relates to them.

It's for others to talk about the relevance of that policy,

what that policy, I should say, and its application

to the facts of this case.

1 .2 is design policy, character policy.

It's not just land use policy, isn't it?

It is, yes.

That's why I asked you about it specifically.

Yes?

It is an identity and appearance policy, yes.

Yes, indeed.

Good.

Now, onto the board report which you referred to earlier.

So that is CD 1 .5, I think.

I'll find the reference at the moment.

Yes, it is 1 .5, it's a news document.

This I have digitally, so if you could give me the digital.

If we just see what it is on the first page,

it's the top rank on agenda item 17,

it's obviously part of a larger report.

London Legacy Development Corporation subject Hackney Wick and Fish Island Conservation

and Extensions meeting date 30th April 2014.

Can you just give me the internal page reference?

I can but I want to see the context which is reading from page one.

Page one of the PDF document.

Thank you.

Cross purposes.

So page one tells us what it is in the date 30th April 2014.

report to board, the board of the corporation. And the relevant part for our purposes is

on electronic page 10 and internal paginated page 108, paragraph 8 .20.

Sorry, so that was PDF 108. Yes. Thank you. Hold on.

This is 8, consideration of the key grounds for objection.

Heading?

Dr. Mealy, it may be you have a larger version of this report.

I have a larger version of this report.

I'm sorry about that.

That's fine.

Let me try and give you a...

Yeah, I do have the internal pagination though, so can you give me...

Oh, yeah, the internal pagination is page 108.

Thank you.

Yeah, sorry for that.

Yes, I have that.

And on that page there's a subheading

Does the proposed extension between existing Fish Island Conservation Area and Hartford Union canal possess the historic merit required to justify extending the boundary to?

include the sites adjacent to the canal

And then from 8 .17 onwards it discusses that issue

And

8 .18

explains that it has originally drawn the proposed extension of the Fish Island

Conservation Area included land and buildings located with it along the

western edge of the River Lea navigation on the basis that the land fell within

the setting of a number of heritage assets including existing conservation

area River Lea navigation and buildings that are considered to have

landscape merit. In response to objections received and concerns

expressed during the consultation process and views expressed by the

Planning Decisions Committee, officers have reconsidered the extent of land.

This is the point you make and then it 820 specifically deals with

Our site

It says it's recommended the buildings located on Roach Road and Stour Road including the Torrey wharf and Stour space and adjoining buildings

which were identified as being a townscape merit and

The site referred to as the former warehouses Breen Street identified within the Fish Island conservation and accommodating buildings that fundamentally sorry

Has it and yes identified it with in brackets within the Fish Island

conservation area as accommodation buildings that fundamentally

contribute to the character appearance of the conservation area just pausing

there that those Breen Street formal warehouses to the south and not on our

sites. I'm aware of that. Good and then it continues the recommendation is that

still in 820 are removed from the originally proposed Fish Island and Hackney

South Conservation Area boundary. So as highlighted in your proof the appeal

site was originally included in a draught proposed extension which went up to the

appeal site up to the flea navigation but then subject after

further consideration it was excluded. Yes. And the reasons that are given there

Bullet points. The first one, Vittoria Wharf and Stour Space and adjoining buildings are

not identified as buildings that fundamentally contribute to the character and appearance

of the existing Fish Island Conservation Area.

Well, that's a substantive judgement.

A substantive judgement. A judgement that implies that they contribute in some respects but

don't fundamentally contribute.

Yes, fundamentally means sufficient to be an area of special architectural or historic interest.

So, good. I'm not sure I would draw a distinction between fundamentally and

fundamentally contribute and fundamentally contribute. They either have or haven't sufficient interest.

Yes, in terms of the judgement reached in this report is that they don't fundamentally contribute.

Well, that's a judgement they reach, yes.

And then second bullet point, updated conservation area appraisal identifies them as adopting

of former materials that contribute positively to the townscape.

It's acknowledged they have no great architectural merit.

So positive contribution to townscape but of no great architectural merit.

Third bullet point is about the planning permission that would allow significant demolition.

Fourth bullet point is about being geographically distinct from Fish Island Conservation Area,

the group of heritage assets. Next bullet point is about Breen Street, so we can skip

over that I think. Penultimate bullet point says the future redevelopment of these sites

would, in accordance with relevant policy, need to be considered in terms of their ability

to enhance the setting of the existing conservation area and the canal and associated structures.

That is a comment that they will remain relevant in terms of setting potentially.

Yes, except I will just observe ability to enhance.

I don't recall what the policy in play in 2014 said, but the NPPF preserved at that

point still the preserve or enhance test or something similar to it so it's just

it just you know properly it should be for development in their setting to

preserve their the significance of the conservation area you know enhances is

well is beyond the statutory the then relevant policy requirement nationally

okay so that so I mean for example you know if you propose anyway never mind

I'm just making that point because it's a fair point and the national policy at play

at the time was in effect shadowing the general setting, heritage setting policies that you

conserved either if you cause no harm or you enhanced.

Next document is the guidelines, please. Can you take that up? It's CD 7 .29.

Can I close this document? You can, yes.

Okay. Just to observe before we leave it, on the third bullet point,

it just, I think for the avoidance of doubt, I think what that says, where they said there

is plenty of permission to demolish something that, in effect, one of the structures on the

was going to have its historic interest eroded in any event so I don't think I

don't think they were having regard to an appropriate consideration yes it

wrote it is not not completely removed necessarily that eroded well it wrote to

the point where it's 60 % of the building so that's pretty significant 729 then

yes sorry

So these are the final management guidelines for the Sharlina Whitepost Lane conservation

area and just to get the chronology again, the date on the first page is March 2015 so

these also post dating both the appraisal and post dating the board record.

page 10 firstly. On page 10 is the heading landmarks views and legibility

and it starts the character of the area is generally low to medium rise with

buildings ranging in height from single storey to four storeys this generally low

to medium rise character is interspersed with taller buildings and industrial chimneys,

which are the principal landmarks of the area. And then to the right on the same page there's

two such chimneys, one of which is the piano factory chimney, one on the right. So the

conservationary guidelines considers that the taller buildings and industrial chimneys

are the principal landmarks of the area. Next paragraph.

That's true, but that's not saying that the landmarks are visible across the area.

I remember what it was like here. There were generally low buildings, yards and sheds,

and occasionally you had a chimney that popped up.

These are guidelines. They're going to be guiding us. It's relevant in guiding us that

they're emphasising that the chimneys are the principal landmarks of the area.

At that time, of course, the chimneys have now been surrounded in most cases by significant

new development.

Come to that at the moment.

That changes their landmark function because, as I said, in the late 90s and 2000s, the

and even into the mid -2000s, there were very few buildings of any height in this area.

They tended to be sheds of different dates, walls, yards and so forth.

And the only things that you saw when you walked around were the chimneys,

but that's very different now.

The chimneys don't have a presence across the area because of all the development

that's taken place, including within the conservation area.

The next paragraph, if I can come to it, starts,

new developments can preserve or enhance the character of the area by respecting

the role these landmarks play in the legibility of the area and by not

blocking views to them or diminishing their landmark status through the

inappropriate location bulk or form of the new development. So express guidance

guidelines there in terms of not diminishing and respecting the landmark

status of these identified landmarks including the piano factory chimney. Yes?

Absolutely. I mean if that guidance that were followed, if that was going to be

guidance that was followed in development control, the area around the

piano works chimney would not have been developed to the scale that's been

developed. Do you say... That goes to my... No, sorry. I mean the piano factory itself

largely encloses the chimney from the west

and to the south, and the Taylor -Wimpy scheme

to the north closes down views of it.

And that's what's happened to these structures

in the course of development, is they no longer stand out.

Talk to me in your set.

Because the development constructed around them

is bigger than they are.

And that was my point earlier, sir,

about these being landmarks in a local context.

And at this point, of course, there was no bridge.

You finished?

Yes.

Dr. Meade, you said, if these guidelines were to be applied, do you therefore say that this

guidance in this paragraph should not be applied?

No, no, this guidance, I would agree, is a general urban planning principles.

I think that that's a fair comment.

It doesn't identify particular, it's very generic.

It doesn't identify particular views.

And in any event, I've given evidence to the effect

that we don't actually diminish the ability

to recognise the chimney.

Third bit on this page I'm interested in height and scale,

last paragraph.

New development that responds positively

to the characteristic height, scale, and massing of heritage

buildings and which would successfully relates to the streets, areas, streets,

yards, waterways and human scale will enhance the overall character and

appearance of the conservation area.

Dealing with the features they pick out there, so the area streets, the yards,

Waterways. That obviously applies to the new navigation in respect to our site.

In terms of heritage buildings, heritage buildings include the non -designated heritage asset, the Gatehouse on our site.

Yes.

Reference to human scale there.

Gate house obviously of human scale.

Human scale doesn't actually mean absolute height of a building.

It means elements of a building that you can relate to as a person

because you recognise the module.

So a window, if detailed correctly, in a residential tower block

can give a residential tower block human scale.

A blank brick wall, that's one that's two and a half metres high or so,

which is about the height of that wall, maybe more at the moment,

I wouldn't say has human scale because it's really overbearing in the street scene

because there's no relief in it.

So it's one of those words that's used commonly to criticise large developments

but it's rarely applied correctly.

So you don't say that the gatehouse, the two -storey modest gatehouse, is not of a human scale?

When you're up against it, I mean it's low, but human scale in the context of planning

policy and urban design doesn't mean absolute height.

That's my point.

Yes, and that's, I'm sorry, the question was, is the gatehouse of human scale?

I think in its current form it's imposing, and it overbears on you when you're walking

along the street scene.

Imposing an overbear?

Yeah, even though it's only a storey and a half,

because it's a blank frontage, which is very menacing.

So very menacing.

Yeah.

Well, I found that anyway.

It's got security devices on top of it.

I don't find it inviting.

We'll go over the page to page 12, please.

Over a couple of pages, sorry, page 12.

So are we leaving height and scale then? Sorry. Before we do it's just worth making the point

that this is about development in a conservation area mostly and the heights in the conservation

areas have been exceeded materially in most in almost all the new development outside the

conservation areas page 12 then we've got a viewing a slightly apart number

style space Broadwoods gatehouse pictured the three distinct buildings collectively

make a loosely faceted corner the central section addressing approaches

from two directions. The author of the guidelines obviously has sawn fit to pick out

the buildings on our site, Stour Space and Date House as a positive feature in that respect.

Yes, yes. Go over the page again, page 13.

Another picture of the appeal site, this time the key navigation side of the

what was then Stour Space Cafe.

The author of the guidelines again,

saw and fit to pick out the appeal site

as a positive feature of the wider area,

the setting of the conservation area.

It does, it doesn't say it's not in the conservation area.

Then in terms of the guidelines for mixed uses,

on that page, reading from the top,

sorry, strong character of the area is reinforced

by the small -scale productive employment uses

that occupy the area, traditional industry

and cultural and creative industries.

These include a number of cultural venues

and cafes, bars within the conservation area

that help to activate the area at different times of day.

Regeneration of the area provides an opportunity

to introduce a genuine mix of uses

that complement the small -scale productive employment uses

that occupy the buildings and yards

that characterise the area.

Retention of historic buildings

and the introduction of new development

offers the opportunity to create a tightly knit mix,

a tightly knit mix of workshops, studios, offices,

and light industry to reinforce the character of the area.

Nurturing creative industries has the potential

to assist in the regeneration of the conservation

area and its setting.

It doesn't mention residential uses in that paragraph.

It does in the next paragraph.

I haven't asked a question yet, Dr. Meegan.

Sorry.

I can't hear.

Conservation area guidelines providing clear and strong

guidance about the value of the creative and cultural uses

to the conservation area and its setting.

Yeah, to its setting, yes, and the conservation area.

Thank you.

14, we have the heading, so the next page, page 14, building form.

The second paragraph says,

the scope throughout the conservation area

to improve the sense of enclosure to streets,

some of which have been entirely lost by flanking buildings.

However, the scale and mass of the new buildings

must respect that of any nearby heritage asset.

And it says, third paragraph, page 14,

unlike in many historical residential areas,

uniformity in matters such as parapet line and form

is not a characteristic of Fish Island.

Variation, eaves lines, building widths, massing,

and materials can contribute to a diverse urban landscape.

However, these should be informed by precedents

established by heritage assets within Fish Island.

So guidelines consider that variation in those matters

is characteristic and to be pursued.

Yes, it does.

And then a lot of the buildings in the setting

of the conservation area have straight parapets. So it isn't uniform. This is talking about

the conservation area itself. This is guidance on development in the conservation area. There

is scope throughout the conservation area too.

Dr. Milley, you say something in pause.

I'm going to ask you about it.

It says in that paragraph, not a characteristic fourth line

of Fish Island.

It's talking about characteristics of Fish Island

generally, isn't it?

Yes, but since this was written, the development of Fish Island

has become more uniform in terms of its building line,

more uniform in terms of its massing,

and more uniform in terms of its materials.

But we've already agreed, Dr. Meaney, that you don't say that these guidelines should

not be applied.

So regardless of subsequent change, you're not saying that we should put aside these

guidelines?

No, I'm not saying that they're irrelevant, but they're guidelines for development principally

in a conservation area.

And they're written from that perspective.

We are not in a conservation area.

We've also got that point.

Next page, page 15.

Second paragraph, paragraph starting, there is value.

It says, there is value in juxtaposition,

generating excitement and confidence in the new,

as long as changes in scale and materials are proportionate

and sensitive as foils to heritage buildings.

Now, I think we do agree that the gatehouse is a heritage building.

What is proposed is six and eight storeys next to that two -storey gatehouse on the appeals site.

I suggest to you, Dr. Meade, that six and eight storeys next to a two -storey building is not, in the words of the guidelines, sensitive.

No, well, I reject that. I've given my evidence on that point already, so I don't need to elaborate the answer.

Well, I don't know if you said anything about sensitivity. You suggested it's acceptable,

applaudable even, I don't know, but sensitivity is a specific guideline and point.

Yes, just to be clear, the scheme is sensitively designed. It shows great care and attention in

relation to details and the way those details are elaborated in terms of the metalwork and so forth.

So this is not an insensitive scheme, whatever that means.

So I don't see that the scheme conflicts

in any way with this.

Do you say it's sensitive to the scale of the gate house?

That's the specific question I want your audience to ask.

It says changes in scale.

Not my question.

And materials are proportionate.

Do you say, Dr. Meeveen, that the appeals,

Yes, yes.

No, no, let me ask the question

so I get a clear answer, clear note.

Do you say that the appeals scheme

in six and eight storeys is sensitive to the scale of the gate house?

Yes, taking into account all of the aspects of the design and for the reasons I gave earlier

in chief.

Thank you.

I just want to deal with, turn away from, we can put aside the guidelines.

Minor exceedance now. So the policy in BN5 talks about minor exceedance, supporting text, and there's a difference, I think a clear difference of opinion between you and your fellow expert,

to Jia Cheng about whether the blocks one and three, the exceedance beyond 20 metres

is a minor exceedance or not.

Minor exceedance, I think, is an undefined term in the local plan.

And it's obviously a matter of judgement and it may not lend itself to much cross -examination.

you might be glad to hear, but a couple of questions about it.

Obviously, the numeric position is

that block one exceeds 20 metres by 2 .7 metres, 22 .7 metres,

and block three by 3 .2 metres, so 23 .2 metres.

So both of those, obviously, over 10 %

greater than the threshold, but just in pure numerical terms. In terms of the

effect, will it take up the view 11b which you've appended to your proof? In your

proof it's some page 105. View 11B, appendix 3.

Have you got it there? I've got it, yes, sorry. So View 11B, this is the new view. Specifically looking at, we get a clear view here obviously at the

end of block three and broadly I think we're told that the eaves of block three

are close to 20 metres and then obviously it stands up and there's a

roughly 3 .2 metre gable end. In terms of the effect of that, obviously in

in visual terms, what we see is, we don't see a full floor because it's a gable end, but it is a

the gable end is a solid facade without any openings and it is clearly perceived as adding

height isn't it? No, I mean a gable end is used to soften the skyline impact of a building and

when judging height in a residential context this looks like a six -storey building, which it is,

six storeys is about 20 metres.

It's not a habitable floor.

It's included as part of the design.

And it doesn't appreciably add to the mass

or bulk of the building.

All it does is make the building form more attractive

by reflecting a characteristic form one finds in the area

and in parts of the conservation area to the south.

Can we just do that?

The Taylor -Wimpy scheme to the rear exceeds the 20 metre threshold by a whole floor in

places which is inhabited.

So I don't think it's material to the impact of the building.

And you have to think about, Inspector, I just make the observation that when you are

reflecting on sort of height limits and so forth, obviously that can't be applied rigidly,

which is why minor exceedencies is advised.

But these height limits correspond

to general heights of buildings.

So in a residential area, you say 20 metres,

you think of buildings of about six floors or so,

sometimes seven.

That, in my judgement, is what the 20 metre threshold

is trying to get at, is buildings of about this scale.

And I say in my written evidence,

inspector that some of the inspiration for these height

limits are around historic precedents that

were at one time in areas.

And five or six modern residential floors

is about the scale of a significantly sized Victorian

multi -purpose warehouse.

So that's where these height thresholds and limits come in

and why they were adopted.

Those heights are also heights deemed often

in urban design principles to create

Can you stick to the question which is about minor exceedance as opposed to a full comprehensive?

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry

I was extremely patient with Miss Chung who gave some very long answers and fought for a long time about many of her answers

And I would like my witness to be afforded the same respect, please

It's not hard to wait until he's finished a question before asking the next one. Sorry. I've asked the question about minor exceedance

I've got an answer which is a full discussion about the origins and use of the 20 metre threshold

That's not fair. I've estimated two hours. That's based on answers being to the

questions I've asked. All I shall say is that I shall be equally discourteous to

your remaining witnesses. Absolutely no discourteous meant at all to Dr. Moody.

Certainly not. I don't have anything more to add Inspector. Okay if that's the end

be your point anyway.

Dr. Ridley, back to my point of minor exceedance and use the word appreciable.

What I wanted to ask you, looking at view 11B, you see it, block 3 next to block 2,

and we'll see if we can see for ourselves and make a judgement on the contribution of

the Gable and in the 3 .2 litres or so exceedance.

I want to suggest to you, Dr. Mealy, that standing back, given the importance of height

and scale in what one appreciates in visual terms, block two does not function as a landmark

building in this view because blocks two and three are perceived together as a

single tall group? No that's completely misconstrued that question because it's

treating a two -dimensional image as a three -dimensional experience. When you're

closer to something it looks bigger. The eye and brain adjust for the

relative scale. It's a well -established principle. So that even if block two were further away,

you would know it was bigger. Sorry, yes, than block three. So that's just a, I'm afraid,

just a, you know, just no basis, credible basis to making that the point, in that question.

Thank you, you've got that.

Piano Factory now, 3 .27 of your proof.

Yes.

And.

Oh yes, I've got it.

In the second half of 3 .27 you say this assessment, it's from the delegated report, overlooks

the recently implemented consent for the piano factory site, an urban block extension of

the CA away from the core which has been largely redeveloped, as you should read, with a building

of more or less uniform height and scale at 20 metres plus in places. So the question

about uniformity, I just want to ask you about this. If you take out the DAS extract that we put in in the

five -page Dasset extract. I think there's more than one document in that document.

Yes.

Let me know when you've got there. I'll take a point lying there. Thank you.

And within that, if you go please to the third

page within the PDF extract, five pages,

which provides us with a street elevation, streetscape as it

calls it on Stour Road and the Piano Factory. It's obviously the northern half of that.

And we can see what's in the top half of that page, what's shown. The blocks of the Piano

factory and between the blocks there's the block to the south then there's what is indicated

with the red line as a one -storey drop down correct goes back up to six storeys

goes back down to one storey back up to six storeys

Mainly looking at that street scape and what the author of this design and access statement

has tried to emphasise, that it's not a uniform 20 metre height because it's dropping down

to one storey.

Well, yes, that's true.

I mean, so does the appeal scheme.

But the three, the larger part of the development is at about six.

then there's an office component which is office 4 equivalent residential 5 at the northeast

corner of the site. And then it gets lower because that's part of the programme of the

buildings because they're separate uses, different sorts of uses which have been segregated.

Then can we look at another...

I mean, just to make the point, this is not a site that faces the waterway.

This is a site that faces one of the smaller streets forming the core of the Fish Island area.

Can we now take up another image, look at the rest of the scheme?

Same document?

No. If you go to Ms. Chung's appendices, which is CD 2 .2.

Just give me a moment.

It's a large...

Yeah, sorry.

I'm very sorry about that. My access is shut down slightly. Sorry.

If anyone has that as paper they can give to me. I had it up, unfortunately. It was on my screen and my connexion broke.

I'm very sorry about that. I just need the computer.

I'm going to go.

So within those appendices is Appendix 29 and it's the

548 and it's the Montague Evans produced

HTBA for the factory.

Thank you.

Internal page.

So start at page 549, if you will.

Thank you.

Yes.

So I think you referred to it in your chief.

Montague Evans, HTVN.

for the piano factory. We can go to then page 603 please.

And on page 603 we've got a visualisation looking west from the new bridge towards the

the piano factory development with the chimney obviously in the centre piece of the view.

The piano factory blocks have been, I assume, deliberately kept low from the chimney. That's

a yes, is it?

Oh yes, I beg your pardon, yes. So that was part of the concept.

They have been deliberately used to frame the chimney?

Yes.

Can you carry on to page 609, please?

Page 609 is a view, an existing view.

Sorry, that's a bit off. It is a proposed view, but you can stand there today.

So page 609 is a view of, it's from the towpath on the east of the canal, the lee navigation,

looking west. And we see the chimney, we see the new piano factory development. So the

The chimney obviously clearly visible from the towpath in this location. Yes

And paragraph 10 .71 some commentary on same on the same page

Where it tells us the historic chimney

Continues to be the centrepiece in this view

the author of this document

Was of the opinion that the

chimney at present is the centrepiece in this view and will continue to be so with the piano factory.

So from the top of this view, at least historic chimney, a centrepiece in the view.

This was one of the views that this game was designed to bring.

There was no equivalent view suggested by the local authority in relation to the appeal for bonuses.

Yes, just give me a moment.

And till Pete I canete itsunker.

Whether you prefer a break now, sir, or to continue, it may be that I can finish within

the next 45 minutes or so, but it might not be much less than that.

OK then, probably a good time to take a break then.

Take a break for 15 minutes then until 10 past three.

Until then the inquiry is adjourned.

Dr. Mealy, could you briefly take up the HTVA CD5 .23,

wherever you have it?

Yes, I have it.

Yes, I've had it.

And in CD5 .23, HTVA, if you go to page four,

to orientate ourselves.

This is where I've most easily found

a red line of the bow

in relation to the conservation area.

And we can see, obviously,

subject to the inspectors question about

precise extent of the boundary,

Obviously the red line of the site on every basis adjoins the conservation area on the

canal side. Correct.

And fair to say that the site has a very close relationship with the canal.

Yes. Good.

And we can also see that on the southwestern corner it also adjoins the conservation area.

And that's a less direct relationship, it's just one element of it, but yes.

Understood. So keeping that in mind I want to ask you about the form and

proposal, comments on it, so I just want to look at it briefly first. Hopefully

you might still have in that large file Mr. Chung's appendices. Yes. And it's

Can you give me the page reference again, sorry.

525.

525, yes.

You just did?

I need the previous one.

Great, thank you.

I do apologise about it.

I don't know why I want to make sure it's not.

It will be one of two, I'm appointed, Ms. Sergeant.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

This, what we're looking at on page 525, just to understand what I'm going to ask you about

in due course, this is an extract from the design and access statement, I think, for

the form of proposal which Ms. Chung's putting out, appendices.

Obviously, we can see the proposal, we saw it yesterday.

you can see the chimney and we can see the visualisation of the consented scheme.

Keep that in mind. And then coming to the meat of the questions now I need you to take up a separate

document which is the historic England comments which is in separate document Ms. Chung's

God bless your hand.

Glad.

That might be less unwieldy.

And what we have here is a journal about an appendix one historic England letter 26th of May 2017

been providing comments on this planning application, the form and proposal as I call it. And I

just want to ask you about this and obviously Takers Red, it's a different scheme. So my

questions are pronounced on that basis.

Summary, second paragraph on the first page. Historic England welcomes in principle the

proposals for this site. However the proposed height and detailed design of the current

scheme and associated intention to create a landmark building is of concern and would

harm the significance of the adjoining Fish Island Conservation Area.

Just pausing there that Forman site also outside the conservation area, nonetheless, Historic

and in this case reached a conclusion of harming the significance of that adjoining conservation area?

Yes, but which must mean the ability to appreciate the significance.

Understood.

Yes, they found that, I agree.

Take your qualification.

And then,

next paragraph on the same page, historic England advice, subheading significance of the site.

The site is enclosed by the Fish Island Conservation Area bounded by Stour Road to the west and

the River Lee to the east. It's adjacent to the allocated heritage asset, Broadwoods Piano

Factory and Timber Yard Gatehouse, of which its chimney acts as a principal landmark for

the area. So Historic England, agreeing you might say, with the conservation area guidelines

which identified the chimney as a principal landmark.

Yes.

Good. Over the page then to second page, second paragraph. The existing buildings on the site

are two -storey high stock brick warehouses. Now just pausing there, you understand that

to be a reference to Victoria Wharf before it was truncated, do you?

No, I don't actually. I'm not sure I do understand which building's being referred to there. I'm sorry.

Because Victoria Wharf would be on the image you've given me, 525.

Yeah. On the right hand side, wouldn't it?

Yes, but it can't be the modern form in building, can it?

Because that's obviously not a two -storey high stock building.

Correct it can't be and let me read it then in the context of this image which helps orient me. Yeah

They must be referring I don't think they're referring to Victoria I

Don't think they're referring to me. I think they can be if you've still got miss Chung's appendices I do

page 504

page

page 504.

Yes.

Don't put the...

I won't, no I won't.

Oh yes, okay, so that is...

page 504 shows us the...

That shows it before the demolition.

the pre -demolished, pre -truncated

Vittorio Wolf, all 12 days I think

someone's counted them as,

of which we've got I think five left.

Yes.

Okay, so good.

So we can agree back to the historic England letter that the existing buildings on site,

two -storey stock brick warehouses, they're not situated in the conservation area, although

in a dilapidated condition, they correspond with the scale, massing, and materiality of

the area, maintain its industrial character.

You'd agree with that?

Yeah.

In fact, that's what my evidence says anyway.

Yes, I thought so.

Good. Then the next paragraph explains the proposals include the

demolition of part of the existing Pretoria Wharf and Stow Wharf buildings

and the construction of a new significantly taller eight -storey

building for the residential and restaurant uses. This will alter the site

contribution to the setting of the Fish Island Conservation Area. And then

relevant policy, the second paragraph under edit policy, the historic

image site section 72. Yes? Yes, I wonder if that's correct though. This

line was not in the conservation error. But if it's contributing to the

significance or as you put it I think appreciating the significance of

understanding the conservation error. No, I mean they're unfortunately they're in error.

Section 72 doesn't apply on the facts of this case because the site was

not in the conservation area.

There is no setting provision in section 72.

If you put a building in the setting of the conservation

area, and doing so harms, causes harm,

by impacting on your ability to appreciate

the significance of the conservation area,

section 72 is engaged.

If the land is inside the conservation area, yes.

No, that's not my understanding of it actually.

That's not my understanding of it at all.

And the fact that the MPPF had that policy that I was taken to, Inspector, at the beginning

is in effect kind of blurring the point, doesn't change the statutory fact.

I just don't think historically England are correct.

It's the wrong, I mean, it's regrettable because there's a statutory consul team,

but Section 72 only applies to development

within a conservation area.

We've got static Historic England's view.

Well, it's regrettable.

They're wrong, but you know.

You said that.

That Section 72 is Historic England, understand it.

Over the page to page, the third page of the letter,

The first full paragraph says, although not situated within the conservation area, the

site is directly bounded by it to the east and west, making it a highly sensitive location.

Just pausing there, so you're talking and giving a view on the sensitivity of the location.

The appeal site is also bounded to the east and west by the conservation area.

Indeed it's only a few metres away from this site, the Foreman site.

It's just to you that that conclusion from Historic England about the Foreman site being highly sensitive

also applies to the appeal site.

Yeah, I agree with that in relation to the canal frontage, certainly, because of the direct relationship that exists.

I don't agree that the rear of the site has as sensitive a location, although it's sensitive.

I would differentiate between the two settings of the site.

But I mean, sensitive to very highly sensitive,

I'm happy with.

So subject to that qualification, which I've got,

so you say that the west side of the site

has a sensitive relationship,

but not a highly sensitive relationship.

Well, on the canal side, it is highly sensitive

because the canal has high amenity value

as well as conservation value.

And the connexion with the conservation area to the west

is to sort of outline part of the conservation area.

It doesn't affect or interact with a significant

or extensive part of it.

So I would just differentiate Inspector

between the two sides of the conservation area is all.

So I don't differ from historic England's assessment

in relation to the canal,

but I think it's less sensitive on the land side really.

Good.

Then next paragraph.

The height of the proposed eight -storey building fronting of the canal is of concern.

The height is greater than buildings already established within the conservation area and proposed neighbouring buildings that have had their planning applications approved.

The proposed building would appear as a continual standalone tall frontage alongside the canal, where buildings are traditionally lower in height and more intimate in scale.

From the information provided, the proposed building does not appear to directly block views of the Broadwood Planner Factory's chimney.

However, such height in this context competes with it, diminishing its prominent landmark

role and lessening its importance as an important historical feature.

I'm just dealing with that, the last couple of sentences, single sentences, the last sentence

about relationship with the chimney.

In your rebuttal, you suggest that the chimney does not provide a landmark along the canal,

4 .17 if you want to go to it. That's true, you can't see.

Sorry, wait for the question. I beg your pardon, okay.

Historic England plainly do think that the chimney provides a landmark along the canal.

They do, but you can't see the chimney from this viewing position.

Maybe you can see it from some other position which you haven't taken me to.

I can turn through this.

So remember we looked at, which is right just before the break, I took you to the canal

tow part view where you could, and indeed Montague Evans themselves have described it

as a prominent view.

No, no, no, but that's a big problem.

That's after the demolition of the Victoria Wharf buildings,

which extended into that view

and would have occluded it in part.

Because, I mean, the significant amount

of that building was demolished.

It's my understanding, Inspector,

that the view you get of the chimney from the bridge

is created by the demolition associated with the bridge.

I'm happy to be taken to a photograph that shows otherwise,

but until that point, I don't think the chimney was prominent from the canal.

And certainly looking up and down the canal, I don't think the chimney is a prominent feature,

I mean not least because from the north there's been significant development which interposes.

And the other observation to make about this letter, giving my date storey, is 2017, is

I think before, because it doesn't show, the construction of the six, seven storey building

further south on the canal, I think,

and also before the construction of carpenters wharf.

So the situation Historic England is commenting on

is quite different to the situation today.

Do those points in turn, sorry.

What they're commenting on is the application,

and we started this series of questions

by looking at the image in the design and access statement

for the proposal where you are on the bridge looking west with the new eight storey proposal

page 525 with the chimney in the background. Historic England is suggesting that what is

going on here is that that is diminishing the prominent landmark role of the chimney.

Okay, yes, that is their judgement, with which I disagree.

However, I'm also on the point of the chimney's landmark status from the canal.

I don't understand the evidential basis for that, simply because the view that we assessed

in the HTVIA inspector that you were taken to earlier for the piano factory was only

possible because of the demolition of part of the site, which intruded into that view.

Although I don't have any record of by how much because I don't it's probably on a start map somewhere

But I think that it was the existing that warehouse building was significantly longer

Significantly longer so that I think my understanding is at this point

You know, I don't I don't know what they were working off of if they were working off of CGI

which I was taken to earlier. Yes, if you turn on the proposals, sorry in that

appendix volume I just had open to internal page 509. Yeah. I'm just trying

to, I really am just trying to get to the facts of what was there. You see a slight

location plan and it shows Victoria Wharf proposed, which suggests to me it

wasn't constructed at that point.

So when they showed that visual,

I mean the general point that's being made,

that historic England felt that a nice storey building

detracted from prominence, I get that point,

I'm not challenging that, they said that.

But I'm just trying to understand what the basis

for their judgement about prominence on the canal was

at that point.

And it could only have been on a future state.

And I don't know why they would say that,

because anyway, because you can't see the chimney.

Up and down the canal.

If you let me try and help you.

Sure, no, no, fine.

That sentence says fraud starts by saying from the information provided.

Yes.

Well, that suggests they didn't visit the site.

Wait, wait, wait, Doctor.

The information provided is the DAS and page 525 of the DAS.

Yes.

Which includes a view looking west at the chimney of the eight -storey new building next to it.

in its proposed location.

And I suggest to you what they are clearly, what historical people are clearly concerned about,

because this is where you can see the chimney.

With the bridge, the proposed building, suggesting that it's going to diminish the prominent landmark role of the chimney.

And the end of the question is that the proposed scheme, the appeal scheme,

As an eight -storey building a few metres away to the other side and Historic England's conclusions

Must have some relevance to our eight -storey proposal. Just I don't think they do the information

Can I just I just suggest?

If you look at page 504 it might make it help to resolve

Yes.

Right, so that's the position.

I mean, the text sort of sets out

what the context for all this was, I think.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, thank you. Thank you very much.

So that refers to the proposed H -16 bridge.

Yes, it does. And then we see the impact of that at 525.

Yes, with that I'm afraid, yes it says all that, but they were consulted on these proposals and they've not objected.

So whether it's for them to, they're not here to explain their change in position,

they haven't even commented on the application. So I mean I don't know what

I make of this, it's a different set of proposals in a different context at a

different time in the area's development and their assessment is based anyway on

the view of the chimney with two modern buildings on either side of six and

eight floors because that's what CGI was taken to.

Whereas the current proposals have eight storeys on one side

and only the Foreman's Warehouse on the other, so

significantly lower building than ours.

So it's a very different impact that they were

commenting on.

I want to put in closing enough what I need to put to

you is that you're proposing an eight storey building on the

other side of the bridge, which you say, as I understand,

doesn't diminish the prominent landmark.

That is my evidence.

Wait, wait, wait.

The prominent landmark role of the chimney.

Historic England looked at an eight -storey building

on the other side of the bridge

and said that that proposal did diminish

the prominent landmark role of the chimney.

Suggest that your conclusion cannot be consistent

with Historic England's view of this area, this view.

No, it doesn't suggest that,

for the reasons I've just explained.

they're commenting on a different set of circumstances

in a different context at a different time.

And as they themselves say,

without having visited the site,

on the strength of the papers supplied to us.

And as a matter of fact,

they haven't commented on these proposals.

Got that point, thank you.

So I don't think you can read anything across from this.

Nothing at all, is that your evidence?

No. You can read nothing

at all across from Historic England's examination of this site which is a few metres away from

the appeal site?

No, nothing, because the circumstances are so considerably different and from the fact

that there's no comment from them on the current proposals.

Seven point eighty of your proof. I think you can put the Historic England letter away.

Was that 780?

I've got 7 .80 of your proof.

7 .80.

Yes.

8 .0.

Can I put away the appendices?

It's John's appendices.

There's no evidence about saying people can put away things, but yes, I think you can.

They're rather long.

We've got a lot of them.

Thank you. In your proof of paragraph 7 .80 on page 58, you say the placement of block 2

also maintains the view towards the Broadwood piano chimney, better revealing and enhancing

this asset located within the conservation area.

I just want to deal with that judgement.

We've got the view at present

on the bridge towards the chimney.

The proposal is...

The proposal is to put the eight storey block

you can see it on the next page of your proof and the visualisation

where it is, the placement of that eight -storey block does not better reveal and enhance the

board which Henry does it. Well it actually pulls the building line back by three metres.

Block two is three metres further away from the edge of the bridge than the current building,

so it opens up a wider gap.

Yes, but overall...

And it... Sorry.

Yes.

And so by opening up a wider gap, you see more of it.

That's the point I'm trying to get at.

By changing the building line,

you create a wider area within which to see the chimney.

I suggest to you that looking at it overall,

obviously you suggest it's been pulled back somewhat,

but it's also adding all the scale and mass of the new proposed 8 store and overall it can't be said to better review.

Well I mean I've given my, I'm not seeking to change my evidence on that point and I treated it in chief.

I explained the reasons why I didn't find harm to the setting of that chimney.

And in relation to view 14, I think that's also an enhancement

because the pulling black of the building line of Block 3 does expose more of the

chimney to view and the attractive frontage that's proposed which is

redolent of architectural the art the historic architecture of the

conservation area creates a more appropriate setting and so complements

the industrial archeological heritage of the chimney.

Yes, understood. I'm just dealing with this view, but thank you for that.

Just a specific point on the recently created point. This, the view by the

partial demolition of Vittoria Wharf and the creation of construction of bridge H16

obviously has created this view. It's right, isn't it, Dr. Mealy, that a recently created view can

enable understanding and appreciation

of the conservation area just as much

as an originally planned or unplanned view.

Absolutely, that's clear from the

historic and unsetting guidance.

That's right.

Because what's happened, sorry.

What's happened here is we've lost seven bays

of the Toria Wharf, but we've gained a view

into the conservation area of the chimney.

Good.

Yes, that's a different point to the landmarking function

of the chimney.

Thank you. Courtyard, now separate subject. In evidence in chief, as I noted it, you said

that the courtyard will be very animated as a place to move through. That is its primary

purpose. What I want to put to you in light of that is that the purpose of a

residential community amenity space includes rest, relaxation, interaction.

Its primary purpose is not a space to move through. No I don't think I agree

with that. I mean there are small parks or recreation spaces that are integrated

with patterns of movement. That's quite a common thing in London, taking waste sites

or small bits of local authority ground and turning them into playgrounds at the same

time you make a link that's more convenient. I've got a few near me in Lambeth. I think

people in any, I'm from New York originally, it's part of the experience of living in an

urban environment that these things come together. I don't see, and also I can't imagine, I don't

evidence on the server, just working on the basis of judgement.

I mean, how many people actually are we talking about?

I mean, it's quite useful and valuable, but I mean,

I don't think that anyone anticipates this would become like,

well, I don't wanna be flippant and say Oxford Street,

but I mean, I don't think anyone's anticipating it's

gonna become a principal, as busy as a district centre

shopping front or anything like that.

I mean, you can judge for yourself,

and there's a nice footfall through the area that's regular.

you can see it, increases, in my experience,

at evening and morning rush hours or peaks,

but it's not hordes of people

who are gonna create some sort of conflict.

That's how you envisage this courtyard,

the space to, hang on again,

it's a place where the primary purpose is to move through.

No, no, I think it's unfair characterization

edition of what I gave in chief.

I referred to that as the first point.

And then I carefully pointed out for you, Inspector,

where all the entrances were.

And I described at the end, if someone

were to identify where the heart of the development

is where everyone comes to, it's the courtyard.

That was the point I clearly made.

It's serving two purposes.

And I don't see any problem with that at all.

There's lots of spaces in urban environments

that perform exactly that function.

and it adds to interest.

It's not a place where people are going to go to,

to pause, to rest, is it, to relax, to interact?

I just completely disagree with that, actually.

I really do.

I mean, I just don't see why you wouldn't.

And in any event, there is then, if the weather is good,

the opportunity to do the same on the pontoons.

So in weather like this, if you knew about the courtyard,

you'd walk through it and have your lunch or a cup of coffee on the

plantings. So I'll be you know, that's the point of moving through the

courtyard is to get to the canal.

And finally, DP3 framework.

If you could take that up, please.

I'll just give you a moment.

Can you give me a pinch reference in the end?

I still have got my head around it.

65, 68. 66 internal.

Yeah, thank you.

DP3 starts on page 66 internal and then DP3 .3 or paragraph 3 is on the next page.

The wording of it is development proposal should be refused if without clear

documentation they conflict with paragraph one of this policy or relevant

aspects of the principles in paragraph two or with any explicit design

standards set up in the development plan including those in locally specific

policies guides codes or master plans. Now that's the wording we've got.

Yes.

We'll deal with it what we can.

And obviously we are at the vanguard of this, having a merchant this week.

So then if you keep that in mind, but also have a look at BN5, please.

Yes, one moment please.

Thank you.

Yes, I've got that.

The first point, I want to put you on BN5, is that policy in BN5 is locally specific

because it has different heights for different subareas.

Yes, for the whole of Hackney and Fischhalle, Hackney, Wick and Fischhalle, correct.

And it distinguishes, just to assist, it distinguishes between things in the centre boundary and

not in the centre boundary.

Yeah, it might indeed.

Sorry if I cut across my book.

No, that's a relevant point, I agree.

Then, in terms of, that's the locally specific point, and then in terms of explicit design

standards and whether this can or cannot be considered to contain explicit design standards,

The policy sets a restriction or a threshold,

however you want to characterise it, on height,

that is specific and quantitative,

not just a generalised one,

as in the 20 metre one we're referring to.

Yes?

Yes, I mean it's,

I think restriction is not quite,

I wouldn't agree with that actually,

it's a threshold that if you breach it,

a different, another consideration comes into play.

which is a standard sort of tall building.

So it's a gateway, really,

which is anticipated within the policy.

And in fact, it's a little bit blurry in the first place,

because it allows for minor exceedance.

Well, what is that?

And once you get beyond that minor exceedance,

which is a matter of planning judgement,

I think it's agreed, then you're into another test.

Yeah, but if we're looking for something,

I think in chief you talked about,

you compared something general to something precise and specific.

This does have something precise and specific.

It has a specific 20 litre threshold standard.

Well, I'm going to disagree that I don't think it can.

Wow.

I don't think DP33 can mean, when it uses the word explicit design standards, this kind

of gateway or cascade, policy cascade.

And why do I say that?

Well, just think about the practical implications

of that for a start.

Every single design policy on height

I can think of in central London and in some other places too

operates in precisely the same way as this.

So if that interpretation is right about BN5,

then it applies to a lot of things, actually.

Now that in itself isn't mean, it's wrong.

I accept that.

I'm just providing some context.

I hope you appreciate acknowledging the limits of my answer on that point.

But...

I can see a whole year of inquiries. Yeah, I know.

So...

I'll just pick apart the words, as Mr Flanagan says, that's all we have.

So it's explicit design standards.

That contemplates the difference between something that's explicit

and something that is just a design standard.

So whatever it means, I think it must mean something more than just a design standard.

And I think that's a fair interpretation of the policy wording.

And it's for that reason, and then the supporting comments I made in the earlier section, I

don't think it applies to BN5.

But we, as Mr. Flanagan, I think we can all agree, you know, it hasn't, I'm not aware

of any appeal decisions been issued where this matter has come up and it's too soon

for it to appear in the courts but it will.

So I can't help any more than that I'm afraid.

I'm really trying.

Let me just put the other points I'm going to suggest are relevant.

So we've put the point about 20 metres being specific.

You've given your answer on that.

Thank you.

I don't characterise it as a good gateway but as I just to make clear I'm not going

exact that bit you think different. What happens next in terms of qualifications

or circumstances where you can go beyond 20 metres is that there are then I'm

going to suggest a number of specific criteria and I'm going to put within

that category significant additional public benefit that's the one you find

at the end of the second paragraph.

That's in BN5, yes.

Yeah, so that is a specific criterion,

which you have to box, which you have to tick.

There's also the, in the next paragraph,

exceptionally good design, clearly carefully worded,

precise, obviously admits a significant adjustment,

but it's a criterion.

And then thirdly, you get points one to six,

which particularise in some detail what the local authority say is required.

They all admit a judgement, they are a positive contribution, that's a

matter of judgement, but they are specific, particularised standards of design that

need to be met and putting all that together,

this policy is extremely explicit, I would suggest,

in terms of design standards that need to be met.

Yeah, well, I don't agree.

And I'm just going to explain, give a little bit more context

to my reason for that answer, which is that going back

to the sentence, it then says in the development plan,

BN5 is in the development plan, fine.

and then it has the paragraph, locally specific policies, guides, codes, or master

plans. Now these, in fairness, are all meant to be alternatives because it's

or, or, or on that grammatical construction. I think it must be, right?

Because the or at the end. I think we can agree that. And I would just say this, sir,

that the government's promotion of the national, just get it wrong, national model design code and

and the pressure generally to create clear guidance

on design, which is, as you appreciate,

notoriously a matter of some debate.

I won't say it's subjective,

because that's not a fair way to characterise it, I think.

That what this policy is contemplating

is in effect giving more weight to circumstances

where there are those extremely clear guidelines.

and that's how I think explicit should be interpreted.

But I cannot offer you any more than that,

my opinion on the basis of what I've just said out.

And I think there's a debate,

but that's my clear view on this.

And actually I will misfind that a fair point.

It's not really constructed as a cascade.

That was an incorrect characterization of it.

It allows for an exception, essentially,

I think is the way I'd characterise it.

Thank you, Doctor. I'm happy to be here. Thank you, sir. That's the cross -examination.

I don't have any questions.

Ms. Sargent, would you like to ask some questions in re -examination?

So let me just cheque. I don't have very much, if any.

Just one question, Dr. Mealy.

It was about the difference between you and Ms Chung on minor exceedences and whether

blocks one and three, she says that is more than a minor exceedence of the 20 metres and

you don't agree. And my learned friend made the point that because the exceedence is 2 .7

metres and 3 .2 metres, that's over 10 % greater than the threshold in purely numerical terms.

What's your view as to the appropriateness of focusing on a purely numerical approach

to this minor exceedance question, please?

Well, I don't think that's the right way to approach it, Inspector, because it's a design

policy and it's to be read in the round with other design policies, which include matters

of character and appearance.

And those exceedances are clearly not great enough to comprise a habitable floor.

So they couldn't be inhabited.

And in any event, they're part of a sloping group.

So it reduces their height, bulk, and mass.

So I think in summary, you have to take all of those,

all the characteristics of the exceedance into account

before you can deem it minor.

And if it doesn't add appreciably

to the bulk and mass of a building,

and it's perceived height,

then I would consider it to be a minor exceedance.

And that was why I think when I gave that answer

which in fairness was going off a little bit,

but I was trying to make the point

that when I think of 20 metres as a building height,

I think of six residential floors,

that's standard, you know, generally.

Maybe a little bit more if you've got

a commercial ground floor which has to be born in mine

and that's why you sometimes get things at 21 or 22.

So I think if looking at a largely residential building,

it's a six storey building,

then I don't think even if numerically it goes to 22 .7

or 23 even, I don't think you'd consider it more

than a minor exceedance.

It's about the overall impression.

And also bearing in mind that these exceedances occur

as part of the gable features which are meant to reduce

the perceived bulk of the building.

When you put that fact into the context of BN9's purpose

as a design policy amongst other things,

red glow the policies, I think that that's why I don't,

I don't think it can be just a matter of pure height.

Can I just cheque before we go on that you're confident in your estimate of a need for one

for your evidence in chief and you're happy to go ahead with that today?

Yes sir. Okay then we'll have a quick break to this changeover. If we could come back for

four o 'clock the inquiry's adjourned until then. Sorry just to cheque, Ms. Young needs the

screen. It wouldn't be called until next week rather than any amendment to that just so she

knows when she's coming on. Well yeah I wasn't anticipating that we were going

to do anything on Friday and I think that was the point we agreed to at the

beginning. Yes thank you. Yeah so planning evidence will be next week. Any

other points before we finish? Okay then till tomorrow at 930 the inquiry's

end.

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 - 26/08/26Wednesday, 26th August 2026 at 9:30am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 26/08/26
Wednesday, 26th August 2026 at 9:30am