Vittoria Wharf Public Inquiry Day 3 - Thursday 27 August 2026, 9:30am

Vittoria Wharf Public Inquiry Day 3
Thursday, 27th 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.

Right, is there anything else before we begin today?

Okay, then we'll hear from Miss Young now.

If Sergeant, you could start your evidence in chief.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Miss Young.

If we could just start by introducing you and go to page five of your proof, please.

We have there your introduction, your qualifications and experience and you tell us at 1 01 01.

Your name is Beatrix Young, A -R -B -M -A -B -A -ons. You're a registered architect and a design

focus director, you have over 20 years of professional architectural experience. And

then at 101 -02, you've referenced previous schemes that you've worked on, and explained

how that experience is directly relevant in your view to the townscape and heritage considerations

at Fish Island. At 101 -03, you refer to the Commercial Way project and the award that

and that was successful in securing.

And then at 1 .01 .04, you explain

that you have significant expertise

with design review panels.

You're the co -chair currently for the Merton one

and also a panel member for Newham, Havering

and Wandsworth, Richmond, and also the city of Oxford.

And then you set out at 1 .01 .06

and how you came to be giving evidence here today

in relation to the scheme.

And at 1 .01 .07, you've provided the statement of truth

and confirmation that you give your evidence

in accordance with the guidance

of your professional institution, the ARB.

And you've also explained that you went to site

in preparing your written evidence.

And finally, you confirm that the opinions

you've expressed there are your true

and professional opinions.

Is all of that still true and accurate, Ms. Young?

Yes, that's correct. Now, as the Inspector will have gathered because of the

discussions around the screen, you've prepared a presentation for your

Evidence in Chief, so I'll leave you to take us through that and then we'll come

back at the end to any supplementary questions that have arisen earlier in

the evidence that others have given.

Thank you very much. Good morning all.

So as has just been outlined, I'm appearing today to explain the architectural rationale,

urban design approach and evolution of the Vittoria authors proposals as I understand it.

As Dr Miele I also wasn't part of the design team for the application and so the directory was

unavailable for this date so I'm here to give my professional opinion on the final scheme which I

consider acceptable and that's detailed and set out in my proof and rebuttal. For the purposes

of today I've actually structured my comments around some of the design objectives contained

within policy DP31 of the National Planning Policy Framework,

specifically E, F and G, that Ms Chung raised in her evidence in chief.

In doing so, I would explain why,

on a number of architectural and urban design matters,

I have reached different conclusions from Ms Chung.

So, to start with DP31, responding positively to context,

as Dr Mealy summarised very well yesterday,

Fish Island is characterised by the industrial heritage,

the waterways, the buried roofscapes

and incremental development

that you can see on the slides here.

On this slide, I'd like to draw your attention

to the image on the, what would that be,

on the right hand side,

which starts to show some of the development

that's to the left of the bridge, H16.

So that building there is six storeys tall,

and I think what's really marked is the flat frontage

with the projecting balconies and how it sits

up against the canal side.

I think that's really important when we go

and talk about the colony later,

just to really be aware of how the broader context

of that canal side sits and those broad facades

that currently front it, both to our left and to the right.

We've talked a lot about carpenters.

I'd also like you to pick up on sort of like the mixture

of old and new building forms and the gable ends

and projecting balconies that I've talked about.

I think these examples specifically illustrate

the varied industrial roofscapes,

changing building heights,

and the incremental evolution

that characterised Fish Island today.

And I think these references I've taken from the DAS,

so they are the ones that informed

the development of the architectural strategy,

and they do demonstrate the variation in scale,

reform and architectural expression

are characteristics of the area

rather than exceptions to it.

So again, just looking at the general datum

that I think we talked about quite a lot yesterday,

but when you look at the canal here,

you can see again on the top image,

we're looking at Carpenter's Wharf

and the datum it sets,

and then again, looking at those buildings

that I picked up on the image before

to the left of the bridge.

Again, setting that really strong datum

across that frontage,

and again, just being really aware

that that frontage faces onto a waterway

and is what you experience

is what I'm calling Elizabeth Park and the bridge.

And then just picking up that this isn't unusual

to the canal where Victoria Wolf is,

it also moves around to the other side of the canal,

which is the Hertford Union Canal,

which is the image on the bottom.

So I think understanding this townscape and heritage

was quite a primary design consideration.

And that's not my opinion,

and that's actually what I've taken

from reviewing from the desk.

And it was an iterative process that explored the canal,

this hype, this sort of like datum that's been set,

the views, the wayfinding, which was quite a critical item,

the public realm, the movement, the canal frontage,

which again has that sort of uniformity,

and then variety as well,

through the different architectural expressions

and building hierarchy.

And this is summarised in some of the key

architectural design moves shown on the following pages.

So I won't go through these in detail, but I wanted to just put them in here to show

that right from the beginning the design looked at all the different options. So it was a

cumulative effect of looking at everything from courtyards to corals to public spaces

right the way through to sort of dual aspect. On the next slide, the cycle stalls and how

you can look at orientation surveillance and where marker buildings might help to delineate

and wayfinding and footbridge.

And I think this approach was recognised

by the LLDC quality review panel,

which concluded that the form, scale

and massing of the proposals

provided a sensitive response to the local context

and that the scheme had the potential

to meet the criteria for exceptional design

under policy BN5.

So one of the principle criticism raised by Ms. Chen

relates to the role of block two as a marker,

particularly at paragraphs 5 .105 to 5 .111

of her proof of evidence,

and also paragraph 1 .24 of her rebuttal.

So in my opinion, the discussion should start

with wayfinding rather than height,

because that is the role that the marker building

responds to, and that is the role it's taking in the design.

So looking first at the movement network,

one of the key characteristics I think of Fish Island

is that routes and destinations are not always immediately

legible to visitors unfamiliar with the area.

So as part of my site visit, I actually came from Bow,

so I came over from the west,

and it was virtually impossible for me,

through the narrow streets,

to find the H16 bridge connexion.

And so the photo that you see that's on the bottom left

is actually one of the little snapshots I took of the time,

because I was relying on quite small signage

under the building which is the image above to direct me down to where the bridge was.

I actually found myself on the bridge to the other side, so not H16, the one to the other

side of Carpenters Wharf, where again, which is where I took the photo of the locked gate

down to the canal. So from my experience as someone who doesn't really know the area,

it was incredibly hard to find my way to the Queen Elizabeth Park and H16 bridge. And so

I think the idea about wayfinding,

how this site plays quite a pivotal role,

is really important to discuss in more detail.

So the two plans that are shown on the image here,

the first one shows the importance that this site will take

once the bridge across Hackney Wick is up and fully running.

So actually once you cross over from Hackney Wick,

which will become the closest tube,

the inverted corner of our site,

which Dr. Mealy talked about yesterday,

will actually be really prominent.

And when I talk about wayfinding,

which I think again, maybe it was in my description,

but the wayfinding of the site

is not just the marker building,

it's the site in its entirety

and composition of architecture as a whole.

So that point where you come down

between Roch Road and Starbridge Road

is really critical to how it's designed.

And I think the openness that our design,

which I'll lead into more,

is a really critical and beneficial

piece of urban planning.

The other item of course,

is when you're then coming as I was from sort of like Baghreen and moving your way down towards

the Queen Elizabeth Park, the role the route of Stourbridge Road and the marker that then directs

you across is really important. We talked a lot yesterday about the view from Queen Elizabeth Park

into Fish Island and I think the one thing we didn't really explore was the route from Fish

Island back into Queen Elizabeth Park and the importance that the marker role and the site and

composition played. So if we move to the next image I think these show that

detail and a lot more access strategy in a lot more detail so the one on the left

is currently the existing plan and the one on the right shows the amount of

connectivity and those key points I talked about. So the first one you can

on the corner of Roach Road and Stourbridge Road that will be visible, that double height entrance

that will be visible for people to walk through. The one on the corner where they step back on

Stourbridge Road opening up that pavement, opening up that vista and then again by building one being

set back further, opening up that bridge and that vista with that broader pavement to H16 bridge

and over. I think this can't be underplayed in its importance and then with the marker building

playing such an important role in then helping people move through and understand the site

as well. I think this really sits together as an urban piece of planning that I think

is really, really strong in design terms. It marks the main route to the canal, it highlights

the connexion to the H16 bridge and it creates a clear point of arrival as a landscape feature.

The scheme design as a whole helps with wayfinding, terminates the view from the bridge and signals

and I think when you talk about, as Dr. Meehan did yesterday, how it also sits within that

wider hierarchy of landmarks, linking to the development of the piano chimney beyond, which

is here, you can see that the relationship in the second image across is you read the

bridge and retain chimney together in some respects, and it is that sort of like stepped

to perspective that you see that you see the marker building

and then the chimney beyond that is experienced

as a broader hierarchy of landmarks

rather than one in isolation.

And in my opinion, this successfully performs

the role of the marker building.

So turning to the canal elevation,

I think you can see here in a bit more detail

that the scheme establishes a clear hierarchy

through the location of block two

adjacent to the bridge landing.

and then the step down, which we've talked about a lot

between blocks one and three,

which is reflected in the existing character of Fish Island

and that's set out quite clearly in my proof.

I think we've concentrated a lot on the views,

on one view looking, we've carpentered to off on our right,

looking at the canal,

but I think this is a really important image

because people walking down the towpath,

which is where this image is taken from,

really do get that sense of the marker building

and its step in height,

which I think is something

that's created really successfully here. I think the distinct architecture treatment

at the Gable ends is reminiscent of the existing forms on the site. I think the material differentiation

through the tonality of the brickwork really reinforces that wider canal elevation and

clearly reads as a focal element and then three separate buildings associated with that

bridge connexion. Importantly, and I think I've touched on it already, a landmark, again

as Dr. Mila said yesterday, is not height alone. So block two distinguishes that through

its architecture, materiality and detailing, which I'll touch on more later. But for now,

I think just with this image, it's really important to pick up that flat parapet form

with the integrated signage, that structural rhythm that's different to the other buildings,

and the wonderful chamfered corner that faces the bridge that will really fold back rather than

bulky as I think Miss Chung suggested. I think this corner which gracefully peels away from

the bridge, opening the views around the junction, creates a far more elegant relationship between

the bridge and the building than any previous theme on the site and indeed quite a few of

the other buildings already down that canal elevation.

The integrated lettering as a rain marker is really deliberate. Both BOT2 and the board

with piano, factory chimney, the signage as part of their architectural identity and creating

that visual relationship between the foreground and the background actually complements the

two together rather than creating a competition between the two structures. In the same way

that the retaining chimney acts as a recognisable marker within the wider area, the lettering

integrated into block two helps signal the bridge connexion, canal frontage and arrival

into Fish Island. So the variation height is a characteristic that successful and sleeps

throughout Fish Island, and it's something that is trying again identify positively elsewhere

and her evidence, and I think you can see that within this image. I think what's really

clear to mark here as well is a clear break between buildings two and buildings three,

which can be seen here, which really make building two stand clearly on its own, but

within that architectural composition that I've talked about. And it's for all these

reasons I consider block two to be a successful marker building. It's not simply defined by

its height, but it's the combination of location, architecture, materiality, identity and wayfinding

that along with the rest of the scheme together establish its landmark role within the wider

landscape. So moving on a bit more detail into DP3 1E which is a built form scale and

massing. I think a key theme ran through Ms Cheng's evidence and that was the relationship

between height, massing and density. So from reviewing the DAS, the design approach and

I think our brief is actually in the DAS was never about maximising built volume. It was

about achieving appropriate balance between residential quality, workplace provision,

public realm, heritage concept and an appropriate townscape response. And the image on the right

again picks up this wider wayfinding role that the scheme addresses, which was an important

element and was used to separate the building to create that tenuous point that I've talked

about from Roch Road. So I put this image in here as well because one of the other key

when I talk about public realm is a scheme genuinely offers phenomenal public realm.

There's a generous three metres additional width given to and in front of building three,

which you, sorry it's the next slide sorry I've jumped, which is in front of building

three which I don't think this image really helps you perceive. So where the tree is,

is currently the line of the existing pavement.

There's an additional three metres

from the rear of that tree to the building line.

That piece of pavement is going to be

about five and a half metres wide.

From my walking around Fish Island,

and when you go later today,

there isn't a pavement of that width in that area.

So that huge, generous piece of public realm

that folds round from Roach Road,

and then allows the entrance into the bridge,

is something that will really be quite unique in the area,

quite generous, very inclusive and will help with any issues that there are to do with

people walking as families, friends, safety and accessibility.

Moving on to the next image, another item that really talks about scale and massing

is floor area ratio, which I've again pulled from the DAS here. So our scheme achieves

a far of 1 .86 and as touched on yesterday, this is lower than the average far identified

within the fish island which is approximately two and I think is one of the clear indicators

that demonstrates that proposals do not seek to maximise development capacity at the expense of

context or character. In fact what they do is about an appropriate solution for the uniqueness

of the site and I think really demonstrates that generosity that I started to touch on

that is created through the step backs in the buildings, the routes through and then the way

the design and the buildings are clearly separated, but again sit together as a complementary

composition. And I think this diagram really is important because it demonstrates that

with a far of approximately 1 .86, the site sits within the average and below a number

of the nearby schemes that have been talked about today. So it definitely demonstrates,

in my opinion that the scheme has not been driven by maximising development volume.

So Ms Chung's suggestions in paragraphs 1 .6 to 1 .10 of the rebuttal that development quantity

is driving the scheme I respectfully disagree. I think the efficient use of a sustainable

highly sustainable brownfield site is clearly encouraged by national planning policy but equally

important is ensuring that development responds appropriately to its surroundings. In my opinion,

the design was sought to balance delivery with contextual response, public realm and

clear placemaking objectives. The height of the building allows the footprint to be reduced

and creates the opportunities that would not otherwise exist, which I've touched on,

which are the public route, the opening of the canal frontage, the landscape courtyard

and the enhanced public realm and increased pavement width

that I think do lead to this being an exceptional scheme.

So just going into DP31D, so movement,

and picking up again on that connectivity in public realm.

So the image that I've pulled out here

is the one that you see from Broach Road.

Currently the site in its current form

is a barrier between Fish Island and the waterfront.

you can't access it unless you have private entry, very similar to Carpenter's Wolf next door.

The design presented in the appeals scheme deliberately breaks that barrier down.

So the key benefit of the proposed height and massing strategy is that it does create the

opportunity to introduce these publicly accessible routes through the site, and is one of the few

sites, I haven't seen another on this side of the canal, that can deliver this. I think this is

truly remarkable and it's a real signal of design excellence. Carpenters' Wolf could

provide this access but it's currently private and locked so the benefit that this scheme

gives stands out. A pedestrian arising from Roach Road can enter the site through this

new double height opening which passes directly through to the canal frontage. They can continue

along the waterside route and then, as you can see on the next image, they can then access

H16 bridge. Then we move to the next image. You can then see what would happen if you

were coming the opposite way, if you were coming from the Olympic Park. You could reverse

that direction and you can access down the stairs or again round this very generous route,

round Stour Road, back into Roach Road and then across wherever you want to within Fish

Island. I think only a scheme on this side of the canal can achieve this and unlock the

Riverside Terrace as this new route and piece of publically accessible public realm.

The quality review panel identified both the double height opening that was on the first

image as a key improvement in the scheme and recognised it as an important link to the

canal. The panel also welcomed the extension of Fish Islands urban grain through the creation

of this route and in my opinion this is one of the schemes most significant public benefit.

So I've touched on how the scheme has been shaped by Wayfinding, which was a fundamental

design driver throughout the project. The Mark Building, Canal Route, Bridge, Connexion

and Gateway opening, they all work together as this coherent movement strategy, which

again can be seen on the images on the screen. As well as being accessible 24 hours, an additional

benefit of the scheme is that nature is integrated throughout the new route and

that's through the ecological pontoons through the bio -diverse planting and the

green reefs and the route is landscaped through a new piece of high quality

public ground delivering BNG to a high standard and set by planning. I think

activity is prioritised through the entrances on both the

where you have on the corner of Building 2 the residential entrance which provides additional

surveillance as well as the balconies which I'll touch on later from Building 2 that

look down into that colonnade opening as well as the courtyard and the creative uses that

activate it.

So moving on to the public spaces which was DP31F, the courtyard. So the courtyard has

been characterised as an over -programmed and overly constrained space and suggests that

it is indicative of overdevelopment. I respectively disagree. The courtyard should not be viewed

in isolation, it forms part of a wider network of external spaces across the development

which included, as I've touched on, the canal frontage, the public pedestrian route, the

widened realm along Stour Road and the fifth foreplay immunity terrace. It is also, as I agree

with Dr Neely, the communal heart of the scheme. I think as I explained in my rebuttal, the appeal

scheme follows the same fundamental urban design principles as both the existing site arrangement

and the previously consented scheme, organising development around a central courtyard.

The key difference between the existing arrangement, the previous consent and the appeal proposals

is that the design removes the dominance of vehicles and servicing activity and transforms

that space into a landscape -led environment focused on people.

So moving in a bit closer, you can see here where seating and landscaping has been placed

in the part of the site that is designed to achieve the highest day lighting and sunlight

areas which is identified as C just behind the gatehouse building. The primary functions

of the space are clearly movement, social interaction, planting those seatings, particularly

on hot sunny days and also seating the areas that will be nicer on very hot days that we've

experiencing residential entrance access and opportunities for interaction with those workspace

and creative uses. The seating area, the heart of the screen has been placed in behind the

gatehouse and the access routes to the entrances to the refuse and to the bike stores run around

the perimeters so that central part of the courtyard is actually protected from lots

of activity going through it and so will be a space where people can sit and rest and

read and relax and I think that's really important to understand. And when we move on to the

plans later you can really see how the access to the servicing is pushed to the side and

that area is safeguarded for that amenity that both the residents and the creative users

It's important also to note that the cycle storage and refuse stores are integrated within

the buildings and then they themselves do not occupy the courtyard and so that area

genuinely is carved out for the residents. One of the key things as a design review panel

member that we always look for is activity on all sides to buildings and when you look

at this courtyard and you look at the scheme and whole,

I think that is one of the true achievements

of the design activity in Houston's two -way light

into all those community and commercial units

that's been achieved is really excellent,

and again, a marker of really high design quality.

I also think that refuse is a,

collection is a limited operational activity,

and it should not be viewed as a defining

or permanent use of space. So in my opinion, there are not computing

activities within the courtyard. I think they are precisely the mixture of uses that characterise

successful urban yards throughout Fish Island and indeed across all of London. And the courtyard

is also, I think, much more connected than this journal suggests. It does, and I think

as Dr Mealy said yesterday, it links to these other routes, to the canal and to the wider

movement network and rather than operating as an isolated enclosed space. So therefore

I do not agree with the suggestion that the courtyard demonstrates overdevelopment.

Also, as discussed earlier when considering built form and density, I think the scheme

achieves an efficient and appropriate use of a highly sustainable brownfield site whilst

remaining responsive to the established character and scale of the wider area. I think the courtyard

reflects the established morphology of Bish Island where yards, workspaces, industrial courts have

historically formed an important part of the area's urban grain and identity and I think it's been

very successfully implemented here. So moving on to Stour Road and the public realm. So I've

and the design response along Stara Road.

Ms. Chang's evidence focuses heavily on building height,

but it does place less emphasis on the way

the scheme improves conditions

for pedestrians at street level.

And again, I think that goes back to that human experience

that we talked about yesterday.

So the significance of the decision to pull block three back

from the existing building line as shown here.

And again, when you look at how it steps back

from the bridge side, which was touched on yesterday,

I think really needs to be explored in more detail.

So you can see how through the iterative process of,

I think through the pre -app process on the QLP,

the building has moved and responded

to really reflect those changes,

which is the resultant image on the far right.

So the move was undertaken to protect that mature tree,

safeguard its reach system

and create the significantly wider pavement.

And it provides, as I've touched on,

the generous and useful pavement environment,

The quality review panel specifically welcomed this new, noting that it widened the public

realm and created space for future tree growth.

In my opinion, this intervention makes an important contribution to the pedestrian comfort,

the accessibility, the streetscape quality and the legibility of movement towards the

and is again an identifier of high quality design.

I've taken this image from the DAS because it again shows how the buildings have sort

of pulled back from the edges and how the form, which is the red line, which is the

existing building form, has been reduced where the building, the proposed building's footprints

within those. The extra dark grey area shows how the courtyard has actually been extended

compared to the existing scheme and the yellow shows those new public routes that will now

be created which don't currently exist on the site. I think this reflects the overall

design philosophy whereby movement and external spaces have shaped the architecture rather

than being residual areas left over after the buildings were arranged.

Moving on to DP3 1a, livability, so really touching on mixed use and active frontages.

I think whilst the planning merits of employment provision are addressed in the evidence of

Mr. GEMA, they are important architectural and urban design considerations associated

with these uses. So Fish Island's identity is closely linked to its maker and creative

economy and a further aspect of good design is ensuring that buildings support activity

through the day and contribute positively to the public realm and the wider economy.

So as we know, Fish Island has long been associated with creative and maker industries.

And the scheme, I think, has never tried to shy away from that. The scheme proposes to

replace the workspace within it and has worked really hard to make sure that the future occupiers

have that same flexibility of floor plate that the current buildings offer.

There are generous floor to ceiling heights, the layouts are adaptable.

Just looking at this image here again you can see that those units are lit on both sides,

there's no place where one of these creative units doesn't have

excellent daylight, maybe sort of even more than the current units have.

There's robust servicing arrangements so you can see here that there's cycle access from

and broach road that then links into the bins so that's separated off and then there's a

core access. Moving on to building 3, there's a separate access into that cycle store for

the people from the makerspaces and that same route is also a private area where those makerspaces

can spill out uninterrupted to the courtyard. The bins and areas do get accessed from the

corner nearest our road but those, as I touched upon before, those routes through the buildings

around the sides and that heart of the courtyard remains carved out. These aren't generic

commercial units. They're deliberately designed to support the type of creative employment

uses that contribute to the area's identity and character. And I think that relationship

between the workplaces and the public realm is equally important. The courtyard's canal

frontage and the routes through the site allow the activities to spill into those public

spaces, creating animation, surveillance and interaction between the buildings and public realm,

and really trying to reflect the current experience that they have, and particularly when

you look at how they reach and interact with Whate Road. In my opinion, this contributes positively

to the mixed -use character of Fish Island and supports one of the key placemaking objectives

of the scheme. So moving on to liveability. So good urban design

this ultimately support high quality homes and the residential design was

developed from the inside out with a focus on daylight, outlook, ventilation,

private amenity and spatial quality. The scheme delivers no north -facing single

aspect homes and one of the things I don't think we've touched on already is

that the floor to ceiling heights are generous, they're 2 .6 metres, so the quality of the

liveability of those homes will be enhanced by that greater and generous floor to ceiling

height. There's private outdoor space to all those homes and in most cases that's recessed

in. There's also occasional projecting balconies, so whether you're an introvert or an extrovert,

the homes would allow you to be able to choose the right level of immunity for you and there's

high levels of natural daylight and outlook. Ms. Cheng raises in paragraph 1 .27 of her

rebuttal a technical point regarding the classification of certain apartments as dual aspect and applies

the definition contained within the housing design standards LPG, which is CD 7 .5 in the

core documents. I think it's important to distinguish between the requirements of the

adopted London plan and the supplementary guidance.

I think guidance is the keyword contained within the LPG.

Policy D6 of the London plan seeks to maximise the provision of dual aspect dwellings and

normally avoid single aspect dwellings.

However, the policy does not prescribe a minimum percentage of dual aspect homes, nor does

it contain more details halfway down the depth of the dwelling test relied upon by Ms Chung

and her rebuttal.

In my opinion, this is principally a debate about classification rather than residential

quality. As a number of apartments, as you can see here, that would be excluded from

her dual aspect calculation benefit from windows on more than one elevation. If you look particularly

at the ones that are counted as single aspects, there's actually windows onto those balconies.

They have daylight from multiple directions.

That also enables there to be varied outlook.

There's opportunities for cross ventilation.

Again, those generous floor to ceiling heights help with that internal environment.

Sustainable lead design, which the scheme has, has led to prioritise the facade

so that the recessed balconies, the depth and the quality of the refills

helps to minimise any passive overheating through the overshadowing of those details.

And it's also worth noting at this stage that there was no reasons for refusal on daylight or sunlight ground.

I think it's also worth noting that in all the accommodation areas achieve the minimum set out in the London Plan

and that actually 85 % of those units achieve the LLDC area requirements.

So again, being up and above the minimum standards that are currently required.

And I think it's also worth noting now that the residential balconies on building B1 do

overlook the colonnade on building 2.

So there is that surveillance coming all the way up building 1, looking down onto that

colonnade.

And again, just noting that the entrance to the core of building 2 is on that corner.

It's also looking at these plans now, just to look at the cores and the corridors.

Again, as a Design Review Panel member, one of the things that we always look at in terms

of quality of plans is whether those cores and corridors have natural daylighting.

You'll see that all of these do benefit from windows to those areas.

These are really key criteria that I'm used to assessing on schemes when I am a Design

Review Panel member and are all present in the scheme here today.

So in my opinion the important question here is not a statistical classification of a particular

unit but the quality of the environment experienced by the residents and on this basis I consider

the homes to provide a very high standard of residential accommodation and quality.

So moving on to DP31G identity, so just picking up on the architecture, materials and appearance.

I think before turning to durability and longevity, I think it's important to note that this is

not a principal area of disagreement between the parties. Paragraph 46 of the statements

of common ground confirms that the architectural treatment, including façade, materials and

details are acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions being secured. So in my opinion

that agreement is important because it recognises the quality of the architectural approach,

material palette and detailing that underpin the design.

So just moving on to the canal frontage and the colonnade.

Ms Chung is critical of the canal frontage and colonnade, particularly at paragraphs 5 .126 to 5 .131 of her proof,

where she suggests the route is constrained and lacks generosity. I respectfully disagree.

The canal edge has been deliberately set back from the water and the colonnade is generous

in both height and width. It has to be generous because within it it accommodates pedestrian

movement, seating, access to the pontoons, active workspace frontages, views along the

canal corridors and also access to the residential cores.

I think it's worth touching that the pontoon should not be viewed as compensation for a

constrained route, rather they are a positive design feature which extends activity, accessibility

and biodiversity directly onto the water. And I think importantly the frontage is overlooked

by the active commercial uses and forms part of a wider network of publicly accessible

routes that I've touched on already. No concerns were raised by Secure by Design in relation

to surveillance or the functionality of these spaces, and please note again in this image

the views from those balconies of the building, of the residents on Building 2 that look down

into the uncolonade. I think the canal frontage should also be understood in its wider setting.

When viewed alongside Carpenter's Wharf and the opposite towpath, the canal is experienced

as a broad and open environment rather than an enclosed corridor. The open water, towpath

and landscape at Queen Elizabeth Park create significant visual relief. The principle of

the gable ends and the simple reversed forms of the historic warehouse and industrial buildings

of the characterised Fish Island are directly interpreted in the design here and it creates

a clear visual relationship with the area's industrial heritage whilst avoiding direct

replication. The quality review panel specifically recognised that the revised form of scale

and massing worked well in a canal side context. Ms Cheng contrasts the masonry arches proposed

the Victoria Wharf River Timber Colonnade at Carpenters Wharf. In my opinion, the two

developments are responding to the canal in very different ways and should not be expected to adopt

the same architectural language. Carpenters Wharf relies upon a lightweight timber expression with

flat main building form with little to no articulation or rhythm. Its feature is the

timber expression, its access to the canal is private, residential frontage which is

part enclosed at roof level, which I think you'll see so when you visit site later today

by the building stepping out above. And I think more importantly the choice of materials and

that expression, the building has aged badly due to the poor detailing and choice of the

The appeal scheme adopts a more robust wharf and warehouse typology. I think when you look

back through history, as far back as you want to go, wharf -side buildings of any durability

have robust brick and masonry architecture. And where colonnades are fully open to the

public, it's very similar in the style that's been interpreted on the design here today.

and the design I feel really draws on that industrial architecture that characterises

Fish Island. I think there's a really charming rhythm that you can see in the image here

that's created by the masonry arches. And when you imagine the gabled reef forms above

those really strong vertical brick piers, the varied reefscape and the detail and layering

that the building has and compare that to the very flat facade of Carpenters Hall, I

I think the canal frontage from the design

and the appeal scheme breaks down the massive development

and reflects the grain of historic warehouse buildings

rather than presenting, I think, as was said,

a singular building form.

I think the architecture is also deliberately more robust

in its materiality.

Contemporary expectations regarding durability, resilience,

and I do have to touch on fire safety,

would prevent a lightweight structure being placed here.

And I think design now has moved on a lot further with emphasis, rightly being placed on long life materials and construction methods.

So in this context, the use of the masonry, those deep brick articulation, that durable metal work, and the really robust and quite charming design,

I feel is really appropriate for the water front location and is, in my opinion, is more

reflective of the historic war character of Fish Island.

So the final characteristic I would like to address, and I've touched on already, is

the durability and longevity and the design in its whole. I think from the outset, the

ambition was not simply to design a building that responds to Fish Island today, but one

that can endure and that will contribute positively to the area for decades to come. I think the

architecture intentionally does this. The scheme has been carefully composed so that

each elevation responds to its specific context and orientation. Whilst the canal, street

and courtyard elevations each possess their own distinct architectural character, I think

they unite it through consistent material palette and design language, allowing the

development to read as a coherent whole. The material palette is centred around high quality

masonry and brickwork, reflecting the industrial warehouse character, and the materials are

all proven to weather well and age gracefully over time. Rather than relying upon applied

decoration and shortly lived architectural features and fancies, the character of the

building is derived from the architecture itself, and I think that's through the proportion,

and the massing, those distinct elements that you can see on the next slide.

The tone and materiality and the depth of the facade.

The south and west facing elevations incorporate deep window reveals which provide some shading

and will help moderate heat gain during warmer periods whilst also contributing to the activity

and the shadow and depth and that visual richness to the facade.

The brick detailing is really, really beautiful. The window openings are formed using full

brick decks that reveals and those create quite a genuine excitement to the architecture

and a robustness to the facade. And it reflects a solid crafted quality of traditional warehouse

buildings. The balconies are predominantly recessed within the buildings envelope, reducing

visual clutter and improving privacy whilst also contributing again to that passive environmental

performance. And it's structural rhythm is really, really important in how the buildings are seen.

These deep reveals the articulated brickwork, the masonry arches and the carefully composed

roof forms create a building that gains character through shadowing, texture and weathering.

These are materials and architectural techniques that become richer with age rather than

deteriorating visually over time.

The facade composition is also deliberately articulated

at multiple scales, which you can see here.

The overall massing of the gable roofs

provide eligibility and longer views,

whilst the setbacks and the way the buildings meet together

and the detailing, materiality and craftsmanship

ensure interest and richness

when experienced at street level.

And then moving on again to that durability,

such an important thing now that's embedded into the resolution of the architecture, those

balconies with their integrated architectural elements, the metal that takes cues from the

character of the surrounding industrial environment and the same materiality as the bridge mean

that the building sits in its context really clearly and the recessed panels and carefully

resolve junctions contribute to that sense of high quality and craft. The canal side

arches that robust masonry base and express brick detailing are not only contextual relevant

references to the area's industrial heritage, but they provide that permanence and resilience

that's demanded for high quality architecture in a waterfront environment. And the building

elevations employ a range of brick detailing techniques, including changes in bonding patterns

projecting in recessed courses, soldier courses and integrated signage. These elements create

visual interest and texture which can't really be appreciated in two -dimensional photos that you see

as on the screen today. They're going to be really quite exciting when seen at street level as a

person and they really will reinforce that robust attractive and durable character of the architecture.

The quality review panel repeatedly highlighted the importance of architectural quality

detailing and material specification in ensuring the long term successes of the scheme. In

my opinion, the proposals respond directly to that challenge through the carefully considered

and durable design approach that I've discussed already. I believe that the buildings have

the necessary qualities to become a lasting part of Fish Island's townscape, not because

they imitate historic buildings, but because they share many of the characteristics and

that have allowed those buildings to endure robust materials, careful craftsmanship, strong

architectural expression and design, and a form designed to weather successfully over

the time. In my professional opinion, this is an architecture designed for longevity,

it is intended to age well, weather well, and become an enduring part in the character

and identity of Fish Island to come. So, to conclude, having considered the proposals

against the design objectives of policy DP31, it remains my professional opinion that the

appeal scheme is a very well designed, highly contextual, responsive and beautiful design -led

scheme. Throughout the design process, the proposals have been informed by the character

of Fish Island and its relationship with the waterway and the strategic importance of H16

Bridge. Whilst I recognise the concerns raised by Ms Chung, I have reached different conclusions

regarding the scale and massing of the development, the effectiveness of the marker building,

the function of the courtyard, and the quality of the public realm created by the scheme.

In my opinion, the height and massing are not ends in themselves, they are the mechanisms

that enables the public benefits delivered by the proposals, which I'll just summarise

which is that improved permeability and wayfinding, that new publicly 24 -hour accessible route

that no other building I've seen on that site achieves, those direct connexions to Queen

Elizabeth Olympic Park, the publicly accessible canal frontage, the enhanced public realm

with real generosity along Starrow Road, the retention of the mature tree and the new landscaping,

the retention of employment spaces within the new beautifully designed creative uses,

and most importantly given where we are currently, high quality homes and amenity spaces that

are much needed.

Taken together, these are significant placemaking benefits which respond positively to the site's

context and support the continued evolution of Fish Island.

For those reasons, it is my professional opinion that the proposals represent a high quality

architectural and urban design response which will make a positive enduring and

distinctive contribution to Fish Island. Thank you.

Thank you very much Ms. Sheehan, I don't have anything further for you in evidence

in chief so I'll hand over to Mr. Flanagan.

Before you start though, rather than possibly breaking up your cross -examination, we'll

take a quick break now.

Ten minutes until 25 to 11 the inquiry's adjourned.

Now, Mr Flanagan, you'd like to start your cross -examination.

Thank you sir, good morning Ms. Young. Ms. Young, just to clarify on your role to start

with, you say in your proof that you joined BYG in the past year, so more precisely 2025,

26? Yes, that's correct.

Sorry, I was asking broadly when, within 2025 or 2026?

It was a year ago, so it was July 2025.

Thank you.

And if you take up...

Can you take up your proof of evidence and go to page five, please?

Yes.

A paragraph...

1 .01 .07, last paragraph on page 5. In the fourth line there you say you undertook a

site visit on the 6th of July of this year, 2026.

That's correct.

In evidence in chief you said you were someone who doesn't really know the area and here

you say you undertook a site visit on the 6th of July. Was that your first site visit,

please?

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

On the same page,

previous paragraph, 1 .01 .06,

you say, having joined BGY in the past year,

I bring an objective perspective to the Vittoria Wharf project.

While the initial concepts were developed prior to my arrival,

I've led a comprehensive and independent strategic review and so forth.

The application, the planning application was made in June 2023.

You arrived in July 2025.

It's right that not just the initial concepts were developed prior to your arrival.

The scheme was fully worked up prior to your arrival at BGY, yes?

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

And I think it follows from this that you cannot give first -hand evidence

of the design rationale for the scheme or the response to the LLDC pre -app responses,

because just as a matter of fact, you weren't there and the scheme was fully worked up before your arrival.

Yes, that's correct.

However, I can comment, I suppose, as I do on other schemes,

in my capacity as having experience as a quality and design review panel member.

Thank you.

Could I ask if you could move your microphone slightly closer?

Sorry, I do have a soft voice.

Okay, no problem.

Good.

The, that same paragraph, continue on a couple of lines, three lines in the end, it says,

I'm intimately familiar with the scheme proposed under the planning applications submitted

in December 2024. I mean, the planning application wasn't actually submitted in December 2024,

it was submitted in June 23 and handed over to Tower Hamlets in December 24.

So that's a minor slip but the reality is that you've obviously come very late to this

project. Yes that's correct. I think that's partially because the date was set for now

and the director who was intimately involved was unavailable at this date. So then I stepped in

in my role as Head of Presidential at Buckley Grey Yeoman

and then also informed by my experience as an architect

and design review panel member to be able to advocate,

to be able to explain and give my opinion on the design and quality.

Understood.

So in that same paragraph where it says in the second line,

while the initial concepts were developed prior to my arrival,

I've led a comprehensive and independent strategic review of the proposed scheme.

Did you lead that or did your predecessor director who was instructed lead that?

So when I was asked to undertake the appeal, I have read through all the design and access

statements. I did a Q &A with the director who was involved in the project, sort of asking questions,

trying to understand rationale.

I've also read through the majority, not all,

but quite a lot of the rest of the information,

and it's from that that I form my opinion.

But specifically about, there's a statement here,

I have led a comprehensive and independent strategic review.

I'd assumed, given this is your proof and it's in the first person,

that you had led that. Is that right or not?

Yes, as I said, I've read through all the documents,

I've interviewed and done a Q &A with the director

who was responsible for the project and then have used that to formulate my opinion that

I've presented in my documents and here today.

And when did you first start undertaking that review process?

So I think when the date was set and it was made clear that the director from BGY was

able to attend, I was asked to step in and it was from that date. I don't know the date

off by half.

May or June this year?

Yes, it's been recently.

And...

Thank you.

In terms of...

Just one point on... third point on this.

You say you led a comprehensive and independent strategic review.

I mean, no disrespect at all by this, but...

You cannot...

You cannot, personally,

conduct an independent review of a scheme which has been designed by the firm of which

you are part. Can you? I suppose that's a nuance of wording. I'm an architect, so not

a linguist. I think by writing that, the intention was that the review I carried out was of my

own volition. I led it, I asked questions, I read all the documents and I formed my own

opinion. It's not an opinion that I've been given by anyone else, it's my opinion that

presented in the documents in here today. And that is the independence that I'm referring to.

You understood. You don't claim in any independence from BGY, the firm of which

you're an employee and member director. No, no, it wasn't my independent opinion.

Okay, thank you. Then on to some questions on height, please.

is page, or paragraph 2 .04 in your proof, so that's page 14.

The first question is a genuine question of clarification,

just in terms of your evidence.

Paragraph 2 .04 .05, the penultimate one on that page,

You say, hence a taller element ranging between 28 .6 and 30 .5 metres from ground is appropriate

to act as a wayfinding marker for the new bridge.

I think today we've all been operating this inquiry that block three is 28 .6 metres.

What does the 30 .5 approach refer to, please?

I think that was just in terms of where I thought the hike could go. I actually think

that, and I know we're not talking about that today, but I actually think that the building

could potentially even have been slightly taller.

It's very precise. It doesn't look like a sort of range. It looks like a reading it

objectively, it looks like it's some precise data that's been measured on the plans.

I mean, if you don't know off the top of your head, could you just cheque that for me after

you've finished giving evidence? And if it's irrelevant, so be it, but I'd just like to understand that, please.

Of course. Thank you.

Good work. Assuming for present purposes 28 .6 is the right figure,

Block 2, as we've discussed, 28 .6.

Block 1 and Block 3 discussed at some length in terms of their height.

We know what they are, 22 .7 and 23 .2.

Discussed with Dr Mealy, the extent or otherwise of exceedance of 20 metres.

In terms of design rationale, from your point of view,

you give a clear wayfinding justification for block 3 and its 28 or so metres height.

That wayfinding justification has not been given for blocks 1 or 3, notwithstanding that they also exceed 20 metres, has it?

I think in my chief that I've just presented, I talk about the site and its hull and its capacity for wayfinding.

I also talked about the canal frontages, particularly when you look at that broader expense and

the datum of the site and how the composition and the enclosure of those are important,

the generosity of the space. I think those are the things that create the design and

the architecture rather than the important factors to be taken into account. And I think

when you look at the composition of the design as a whole and the way it sits and the way

and the rhythm and then the articulation and the steps,

I feel that all the heights are appropriate in the design.

Just look back at 2 .04 .05, what you've said in writing so far on that page.

Hence a taller element ranging between 28 .6

is appropriate to act as a wayfinding marker.

That is not suggesting that blocks one and three are a wayfinding marker, is it?

But it's also not saying that they aren't. I disagree. This is talking about prevailing

heights in Fish Island and it's talking about where a height could be to be a marker. It's

not talking about, I think that's two different subjects, there's the discussion of a marker

and then this is also talking then obviously what the roles of the other buildings are

doing is sitting together within that composition and how that as an identity as a whole, I

I think they're two separate items.

Okay, just continuing on this then.

If you go please to your rebuttal proof of evidence please,

and within that to page six.

And in your rebuttal on page 6, second paragraph 2 .01 .02, you say,

in considering 79 to 85 Monier Road and 1 Sneed Road,

it's a separate scheme, Ms Chung rightly observes

that a two -storey height variance stepping down from six to four

storeys provides a smooth transition that introduced variety

into the townscape. This is a sound urban design principle that we've also employed at the Torino Wall.

Ms. Young, you achieve a marker building, a landmark, as you call it, by making it prominent

and making it stand out from its surroundings, not by having a smooth transition to its surroundings, do you?

No, I disagree. And again, as I explained in my chief, the marker isn't just about height,

it's about the other roles that it plays, and it can do that in many ways. And I think

the datum of six storeys, and again, as Dr Mealy said yesterday, that datum that seems

to exist across that canal frontage, and then that smooth transition up to the taller marker

building with the architectural detailing, with the lettering, with the wayfinding, all

the other roles it has, I think, actually really successfully performs the role of a marker.

So your evidence is that we should, in looking at these designs, see block two both as a

landmark and a smooth transition from its surroundings?

Yes, and I don't think the two cannot be achieved. I think they've been achieved really successfully.

In Ms Chung here is referring to height variance in the Hackney Wickingfish Island area more

generally and how a two -storey height variance can achieve that variety. If two -storey dropdowns

are typical of Hackney Wickingfish Island more generally, then having a two -storey dropdown

is it going to give block two a marker status, a landmark status is it?

No, I disagree. There's many other ways that you can create a marker status and that's

exactly what I've expressed now in my chief. So the materiality, the tonality, the difference

between the gable ends and then the flat parapets, that lettering on the top, the position, the

step back, the way that you can appreciate it because you've got a wider pavement to

able to see it. The way that it's then seen in kinetic views as you approach it, I think

all of these things give it the role of a marker. And again, you have to consider that

this building sits on a prominent corner where there is that sort of space around it to see

it, and actually I think it performs it really well.

Perhaps your proof, paragraph 2 .04, which you'll find on page 14.

And second paragraph on that page 14, paragraph 2 .04 .02.

Analysis of locally consented and built schemes show that a large number of the consented

and built new schemes in the area exceed or equal 20 metres above ground. And what you've

provided on the right -hand side of that page is a diagram with height of recent developments

numbered under a key as well. There's just a couple I want to ask you about specifically.

Number 17 and 18, we can see them obviously on the plan to the south of the appeal site,

and we see them on the key 17 is sixth storey Breen Street, 18 is seventh storey Breen Street.

Now I think in your rebuttal you fairly make a correction that if we're using above ground

level heights, that 26 metres should be, taking this from your rebuttal directly, 20 .2 metres.

So you take about 6 metres off to get from AOD to AGL. And the next one, 18, number 18,

seventh storey Breen Street, 28 metres, I think you say on an AGL basis is 22 .35 metres, just

as a matter of fact.

Yes, correct.

Thank you.

And so that's the ones I'm looking at at the moment.

And we see the one with that indicates seventh storey,

that's the one further south, number 18.

Just number 18 is obviously set back somewhat more from the

canal edge than number 17.

Correct.

And going over the, if you go over a couple of pages to page 60 of your proof,

you've done the height analysis and paragraph 2 .06 .02,

Second paragraph says, Bream Street also has a seven -storey structure that fronts onto the canal edge.

And if you look at the section two that you've provided on that page, which has got the two Bream Street buildings.

Just in terms of that seven -storey structure, the seventh storey is the setback we see on

the top of it, is it? Correct.

Yeah. So when in your paragraph 2 .06 .02 you say has a seven -storey structure that fronts

onto the canal edge, in fact the building itself is set back almost by the width of

building from the Canal Edge and the seventh -storey structure was again a

setback on top of that setback building. So not right to say that it actually

fronts onto the Canal Edge? Not by comparison with the sixth -storey one next door,

which is on the Canal Edge and doesn't have a setback on the top of it.

That one's closest to the Canal Edge but that one also faces the Canal Edge.

I think that's a nuance, they both face onto the Canal Edge.

In terms of architectural explanation, if I was to talk about that,

that would be a building that faces the Canal Edge.

I don't think I could describe it in any other way.

Yeah, faces the Canal Edge.

You say fronted on, okay.

Good, so that's the ones to the south, the 20 metres.

Then the consenting scheme...

which you deal with as well in your proof.

So, can we look at that in terms of design?

Page 18 of your proof.

And what we see on page 18

is a visual image of the consented scheme.

Just for clarification, this obviously image of the consented scheme does not have the

new bridge in it. There are images of the consented scheme with the new bridge H16 in

it, which we looked at yesterday, but this one's fine for my purposes. In terms of what

the consented scheme what was felt appropriate in that context we obviously

see this on the corner at sixth storey and then it drops down to four storey and

then goes up back up to five storey on the canal edge doesn't it yes we had the

heights yesterday in this chungs evidence and discuss with dr. Miele as

as to whether those drop downs are greater or lesser than on the appeals scheme.

But I just want to put this point to you that from Block 2, in your appeals scheme,

from Block 1 to Block 2, there's a two -storey increase or drop down either way,

particularly if you exclude the Gables.

and it might be said, well, there's a dropdown of six to four storeys on the consented scheme.

Ms. Young, it's right that a two -storey dropdown on a six -storey scheme is obviously a greater

proportion of the scheme than a two -storey dropdown and an eight -storey scheme.

Right.

So it's perceived as greater variation.

You're losing a greater proportion of the building when you drop down.

Correct.

Thank you.

Although I'm not sure you could argue it's necessarily greater variation.

I think it's a mathematical variation.

but I think variation comes from so many other details of architectural language.

Arguably, yes, mathematically, if you were to define the ratio,

then it is greater.

But if you look at the other things that create variation in architecture,

they're much more subtle.

I think that's something that you'd need to layer on to any conclusion

as to which one has more variance.

I could only ask about one thing at a time.

You say mathematically, I'm talking about height.

I take your point there are obviously other matters to consider but just dealing with height at the moment

um, okay, turning then

look from the

other side, so, consented scheme

you take up this Chung's

yes if you take up Mr. Ching's proof page 32

if you've got Mr. Ching's proof

no, I just need to go through it

it's CD 2 .2

if you need it

Sorry, which page? Page 32.

Correct, I've got that. So looking at from the Roach Road side, the

consented scheme as well, still on this point of height and variation, it's right that

greater variation could be perceived in the consented scheme from the Roach Road viewpoint

as well, isn't it?

And on the appeal scheme.

Shall I just make it our image so I can put it in?

Yes, please do.

I don't necessarily agree, because when you look at view 14, which is the same or the

to the same view where you have the image of the gatehouse and then the buildings again

in the urban design form. Both of those have a lower block, which in our case is the Link

block, which is five storeys, and then the building across to Starrah Road, and then

the form of the building to the left. And I'd say that in terms of urban design orientation

and those steps in form, I'd say they're very similar. I wouldn't say that one had

I wouldn't say that the previously consented scheme has greater variation than the appeal

scheme.

So you say they're very similar in terms of what we perceive from...

No, in terms of the urban design orientation and layout of the blocks is similar, and I

don't perceive that Figure 14 in this chunks one has greater variation than the appeal

scheme shown in our figure 14. No greater variation, okay.

And while we're on this, in design terms, relationship to the retained gatehouse. The

retained gatehouse in figure 14 in the consented scheme is plainly more prominent than in the

your view 14. Wait, just before you go on, can I just be

clear what images it is that you're comparing? Right, so it's the view 14, I think, that

Young took you to in the appeal scheme. And the consented scheme is page 32 of Ms Chung's

The question was that in the consented scheme, the height variation allows the gate house

to retain a more prominent role visually than in the appeals scheme?

I think I referred to Dr. Mee -Loo's chief yesterday, which I think clearly expressed

a strong opinion on how the Gate House is seen, and I concur entirely with his chief

yesterday.

Thank you.

Back to your proof then, please.

page 35.

And page 35, Headed Massing Involution.

First paragraph, the evolution of the Tory Wharf massing has been informed by a rigorous

and iterative design process. Early options explored a range of buildings, heights, forms

and site layouts which were progressively refined through urban design, townscape, heritage,

daylight and environmental testing, together with extensive pre -application engagement

with the London Legacy Development Corporation, Hundbrough Tower Hamlets and other stakeholders.

On the same page you have three images...

which are part of the iterative design process as I understand.

In your paragraph 5 .0 .3 .01, which I just read,

you say early options explored a range of building heights.

These three options...

do not explore a range of building heights, they're all broadly the same building height?

Yes and no, building two is a different height in this one, and they're also quite different forms,

so when you look at the first image on the left hand side, that's a continuous urban block that is

obviously in an early design stage but obviously doesn't work because there's no definition,

And then you can see how as the buildings move, they're broken down, undulation varies

heights, the link blocks are added in, and heights are played with.

You've then got the sort of like step backs in between.

So I think they do.

I would stand by my statement that they do explore varying heights.

So in terms of heights, are you trying to be specific?

Mm -mmm.

You referred to other matters then, but just starting with heights.

You said, I think, that...

I'll rephrase your words.

Block two in all three of these is broadly eight storeys, so it hasn't changed height.

Block two hasn't, but block three has.

Block three has.

So what's block three gone from to?

It's gone from five to six, it's actually...

gone from five to six, it's gone up. Yes? Yes, that's correct. Any others? I haven't

got the heights of the others though, or the background, but then the buildings have actually

stepped and you've got the links where they've dropped down. So by introducing the links,

block one has dropped down to five storeys, and then again there's that play in heights.

In the images here, you're looking at a snapshot of the design process. So these have just

taken as snapshots through an iterative design process just showing how the design is evolved.

Okay, so we can see what heights are explored in these three images.

Are you going to tell me that any other heights were explored that you haven't

referred to in your proof? I don't have those documents on me so I can't confirm.

Your statement early options explored a range of building heights.

You've got the extent to which that is the case from these three images that you've just discussed.

Yes.

There were no other range of building heights that were explored, correct?

The documents I've seen are the ones I've looked at which I've written against.

Okay, thank you.

Still in your proof, if you go on in section 5 to page 63,

So we'll start on page 62. Page 62. The third paragraph on page 62, paragraph 5 .28 .03, you

say, reducing the height of the buildings whilst maintaining the same quantum of development.

would require broader building footprints and a more continuous built form.

This would reduce the visual separation.

Then you refer to some...

You say, reduce visual separation between blocks one and two,

diminish the prominence of block two with canal views

and create a flatter, wider and more monotonous canal frontage.

You refer there to, in your words, reducing the height of the buildings

whilst maintaining the same quantum of development.

Now just to put you by way of context, the borough of Tower Hamlets and I think the LLTC

before them are not saying that simply you should reduce the height and necessarily maintain

the same quantum of development. The question to you is, was consideration given to not

maintaining the same quantum of development but reducing the height?

The quantum of development did come down. When you go back to my desk and in my chief

the FAR ratio, I think you can see quite clearly that the quantum of development sits very

comfortably and actually slightly below the average in Fish Island. So as the designs

iterated, the development quantum is very much within an appropriate, maybe slightly

lower level than the buildings around it. The whole idea about sort of dropping the

there has to be a quantum of development to enable efficient use of land.

It's not over development, it's lower than the average in the area.

And by reducing the height further on this design, what you'd do is you'd end up losing those really key public routes

that I took time to explain in my chief today, that really do make the building and the design stand out

as a coherent piece of architecture.

And I think that's the play that the design has gone through, and I think really successfully overcome.

Can I just establish factually, I've got lots of opinion there about the merits or otherwise of doing so,

just factually, I think you started by saying that the quantum of development was reduced.

It was, it was.

Where do I find that in your proof elsewhere if you want to show it to me?

If you go through the pre -apt feedback notes, you'll see that the area reduces, I think it's in those ones.

I haven't got the document to hand but when you go through the documents they're numbered

maybe give me a second

I think it's maybe from when I reviewed the early schedules the quantum did reduce slightly

quantum reduced slightly? can you tell me what from to?

I don't have those figures to hand though, I can get them for you though.

I think it's also worth pointing out that areas move as well when you go through an

iterative process. So you start with a bulk and then you articulate it, and I think that's

what's happened here.

Dealing with your point about, I think you referred to an average FAR across the area,

It's not right just to apply average FARs across the area

and put them mechanistically on one site, is it?

You need to respond to the site context.

Which it does.

As a matter of principle, I know you say it does,

but you referred to average FARs across the area,

compared it to them,

and say we're within that range or close to it.

As a matter of principle, when designing,

it's right to design specifically in the context of your site and not simply mechanistically

take an FAR across the area and apply it. As a matter of principle?

As a matter of principle, yes, but the LLDC also views the FAR so it's also quite relevant

for a site to make sure that we cheque that we are within those. We don't just design

on one aspect, you're looking at everything in the round, so you would take heed of that

as well as the context.

Okay, we come now to what the NLD said.

So, we've looked at, I think, the QRP responses with Ms. Cheung.

We looked at the pre -apps and I want to look at them with you.

So can you take the first, what, CD 3 .7?

I've got that.

And you've got that, have you?

Yes.

Thank you.

So this is the first pre -app response from the Corporation, 1st March 2021.

And dealing with matters relevant to what we're talking about,

can I take you first to page 10?

And the final heading at the bottom of page 10, scale and massing.

They're not paginated I'm afraid. I'm using PDF numbers but if you flip through and get

to...

Okay, I've got it here. Hang on a sec.

So which part?

the subheading at the bottom of page 10, scale and massing.

And turns up the LLDC said, bottom of page 10, prevailing

Hype sub area one of which this site is part is 20 metres above existing ground

level set out in the local plan. This should be taken as the level of stairway

beachy over the canal front at the bridge level. The area is characterised

for a variety of heights and proposals expected to follow suit. Next bullet

point, there are buildings in the area which exceed the 20 metre height as

identified in the presented height analysis but these are part of the

composition of heights that cannot be looked at in isolation. It should also be

noted that taller elements on other sites have been considered as part of a

wider planning balance from cherry -picking heights and its justification

for this proposal is not encouraged.

For example, Green Street Heights and so forth.

And third bullet point, development on the site

is considered to be excessive and is not supported.

The focus must be on optimization.

There should be a variety of height in line

with the character of the area.

This means elements which are less than the prevailing

height, take 20 metres.

Now, obviously that's a clear view from the LLDC.

In terms of what they were at that stage,

we looked at the three iterations in your proof of the evolution.

That's the first one, is it?

This is March 2021, so this relates to the date of the first image

that we looked at on post 35.

I don't know if the image on the left is the one from...

There's only three images there. There were four pre -apps.

Yes, so you're unable to tell me then.

I'm unable to contain my notes.

Yes, okay.

Then,

page 11,

so same, sorry,

page 11 last bullet point where we were getting to

LLDC in that last bullet point on page 11 say whilst the area is not in the conservation

area it abuts it and contains within it a heritage asset form of timberyard gatehouse.

The retention of the gatehouse is strongly supported. The built form should respond to

the positive and distinct character and urban grain of the Gepp conservation area. Currently

the proposal dwarfs the gatehouse and is overbearing. The setting and relationship between proposed

massing an existing form needs more careful consideration. So again we've got

their view there and you're unable to tell me precisely to which

which form of design that was being put forward to the LLDC at that point

is that right? Yeah correct. Good. Do you know? No sir, I'm hoping a witness could explain but it appears not.

Then the next pre -app, CD3 .8.

If you could go to that, please.

I suppose the point to make at this point is you've already established that the witness

was not involved in this stage, so I don't see how she can answer questions about this

pre -app.

So yes, what I wanted to ask as a whole, the question that themes clearly, is how the design

has responded to this pre -application advice.

This is the witness, as I understand, who deals with that subject.

She wasn't there at the time, for reasons we understand.

But it seems to me relevant, sir, to look at what that advice was.

And then where would I get to is to ask how, with the tool that design has responded.

I wasn't involved in the project at that stage,

and so I would not seek to give evidence on the discussions that I didn't participate in.

So that's the question I think I need to ask, given this is the design witness.

And so, while I can't ask the witness what happened back in 2021,

I can ask the witness how the scheme has responded to this advice.

So if you're happy, I'll continue on that basis, or at least let me do so.

You can, but we've also established that no one knows what we're talking about.

Unless you've got a plan you can take us to,

then it's not clear how anyone can answer that question.

Okay, so the question that I asked that the witness doesn't know the answer to,

she doesn't know the answer and I won't, that's the end of that line of questioning.

but there's a separate line which I do need to ask the witness about, is that, I'll put

the question now, Ms Young, the clear advice from the LLDC in their first pre -application

response there, and when we go to the subsequent three pre -application responses, essentially

maintain that advice. Lower height, greater variety. The scheme has not responded to that

advice, has it?

So I think the existence of a concern during design development, I don't think that determines

whether the final proposal is acceptable or not. I mean, the whole point of pre -applications

is that concerns are raised and designs evolve. So I think, obviously, I wasn't present at

meetings, but my evidence assesses the scheme as submitted and it is from that

that I conclude that the final form is appropriate, which is what I've expressed

in my chief. The question is a slightly different one. The LLDC in their first

pre -application response which I've just taken you through and in three

subsequent pre -application responses expressed and suggest significant

serious concerns about the height, scale, massing, variation.

The scheme that we see today has not responded to those concerns, has it?

I acknowledge your concern, but it's not my professional completion.

When it talks about the height, scale and massing, it talks about it amongst a whole series of other concerns.

And when you were talking about hyperscale and massing, you're talking about all the

things that make those designs.

Whether we know whether that first image was from Pre -App 1 or Pre -App 3, what you can

clearly see is a design that has gone through an evolution and has throughout that sought

to articulate and form and create distinct edges and robust material palettes and start

to articulate that design.

A design doesn't just come down to whether there's one height or context or anything,

and whether it is slightly too tall, people have different opinions.

And in my professional conclusion, whether it's responded to that or not,

the height that's submitted as part of the scheme

is fully appropriate to its setting.

I acknowledge the concerns that were raised in the Pre -App documents,

but I disagree with them in terms of whether they result

in a high -quality exceptional piece of architecture.

I do believe that they do.

Much has been made of the QRP's support for the scheme or elements of the scheme. It's

said that the scheme follows the QRP advice, gets their blessing. It's obviously right,

isn't it, reading those pre -app response, that the scheme did not get the LLDC officers'

support or blessing did it.

I think those are two separate items.

The LLDC planning offices and the QRP are independent design professionals.

So the role of the QRP is very different to the role of the planning officer.

They're solely responsible for looking at design and testing that.

Members of Design Review panels, as I know from experience,

I've seen hundreds of schemes across London and we're looking at all of them

and we're looking for common points and denominations

and what makes those exceptional for the area.

And from my experience, the design here is excellent.

So the QRP forming a decision, in my opinion, on design

has more strategic weight than a planning officer

who's not looking at it purely on design periods.

I think they're two separate roles.

The LLDC had design officers, didn't it?

They do, but they weren't the independent quality review

panel which in my opinion carries more weight in terms of that design. That's a design

officer when you're looking at a design review panel you're talking about four to

six independent professionals, many with extensive experience under their belt who have reviewed

extensive schemes from minor to major applications across the whole of London and can really

see why qualitative measures make a difference. I think that carries significant weight in

how a design is reviewed and in my opinion, and particularly as the LLDC also places weight

on the evidence of the QLP in terms of design and the fact that they needed a design review

panel to have that independent design interpretation I think gives it even more weight and credence

to their opinion, with which I agree.

If you go to the second pre -application, so this is 3 .9 please.

So we see this is 7th July.

On the front page, top of the first page,

We have a list of participants and planning officer Josh Hackner, design officer Rachel

Hearn Catherine Leeds, so as a matter of fact from the express recording of it in the LLDC

pre -apps, design officers who were involved in this pre -application advice, as a matter

of fact.

Yes, you're not going to dispute that?

Yes, I think so.

They are the design officers for the body which is statutory responsible for determining

the acceptability of the application at that time. Yes?

Yes. Which is not the QRP?

Yes. The QRP offer advice, don't they?

That's correct. And then, continuing on, just give me a moment.

Go to CD 3 .6 please, which is the Vittori Wharf handover note.

Yes, I've got that. Thank you.

Just as a matter of fact, what happened here is I've explained on the cessation of the

NLDC's planning powers, it was handed over to the Tower Hamlets in December 2024. They

produce this hand over note to explain their position at that point.

On the halfway down, two thirds of the way down the first page, there's a heading reasons

for refusal. And the first one in bold italics is the proposal by reason of the excessive

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

setting of the fish island and Whitepost Lane conservation area and the significance of

non -designated heritage assets within it, so failing to preserve or enhance the

special architectural and historic interest of the conservation area. The

proposal would be an obtrusive unsympathetic addition to the townscape

of Fish Island, overly prominent views along the lee navigation would not

provide substantial benefit to justify the adverse impact on designated

heritage assets. Then there's conflict with policy alleged. And then the second

one of two, I don't read it all, continues on similar themes in terms of BN5, which

we've looked at already.

You continue on into it and go to pages not numbered,

but the fourth page.

There's a heading at the bottom of the fourth page design.

We've got an image that starts with it with the heights.

And the first bullet point, they say,

The proposed height scale massing and the impact on the townscape in the context is not supported.

landmark heights of block 2 only considered acceptable for heights of other buildings blocks 3 and 1 are reduced in height

So that there is a distinct difference in height between block 2 and the other elements

Previous suggestions to reduce the height of blocks 1 and 3 by a storey to both have not been considered

Next bullet point

Proposed height scale massing does not make a positive contribution to quality of a public

rail on the ground floor, particularly courtyard.

Third bullet point, proposals not deemed to make a positive contribution to the surrounding

townscape.

Blocks one and three, due to excessive height, do not create enough variety in height to

create local distinctiveness.

And then fourth bullet point, most of the proposals exceed 20 -metre prevailing height

for Sub -Area 1 and are considered tall buildings, not an appropriate response to the context.

reduction of height of blocks one and three, so that these are below the threshold to be

classed as tall buildings, with only a single element being classified as a tall building,

may have been an appropriate response to the context. Greater variation in height, as well

as a reduction in height to prevent overdevelopment, has been encouraged, but not explored. LLDC's

view was that in response to their advice, what they encouraged, the scheme did not explore

responding to that advice in that way. Correct?

Correct. Also, if you read through the rest of the document, it does record extensive

engagement and number of design changes. But I think going through all of these, I think

my evidence here isn't intended to explain my offices, maintain these views or those

pre -app purposes. My evidence here today is to explain why having reviews, the final scheme

and the scheme presented before you, I find it acceptable, which I've done. I wasn't at

these meetings and I wasn't present at the design at this stage. But I think Dr. Mealey

yesterday talked again about the gable areas where we're talking about the buildings slightly

going above 20 metres. It's the gable height, it's the fact that they've got that extra

floor to ceiling to create those really beautiful environments for the people living there.

It's that quality of those residential units.

So, yes, I mean, this is a statement of fact. I'm not going to disagree.

But again, I think my evidence explains why, having reviewed the final scheme,

I consider the design to be exceptional and acceptable.

And then the final...

The final bullet point, just for completeness, refers compounded issues of overshadowing

of the courtyard, lack of height definition between the blocks and unacceptable number

of single aspect units points towards overdevelopment of the site, which is not supported. So again,

you've referred, referred to quite a lot by the appellant, QRP support. We see here,

and LZC clearly taking a contrary view.

That's what happened, yeah.

Again, I wasn't there, so what's taken here, I accept.

The QFP didn't note that the courtyard used to is,

when you talk about sort of overshadowing,

but actually the way to overcome that is exactly how it's been done,

through careful placement of seating.

So where those areas where people do sit and settle

are in the sunny places and elements like that.

So there are comments written here,

but when I've reviewed the design against those, I feel that the design does respond to them and does overcome them.

But this is materially correct, I'm not disagreeing with it.

Good. So you mentioned the courtyard, come on to the courtyard now then please.

We've discussed in some detail what the courtyard can and will be used for, circulation to residential

entrances, to commercial entrances, cycle parking, refuse facilities with your qualifications

about how frequent that will be.

In your evidence in chief, you said that, as I understand, the courtyard contains space

that was genuinely carved out for residents. Yes.

There's no space that's demarcated for residents in the proposed courtyard, is there

in terms of taking it away from the employment and other uses, is it? It's all shared?

The central area of the courtyard has seating in areas where residents can genuinely go

and sit and relax.

You say genuinely carved out, so that's what you're referring to, you're referring to seating and those sorts of matters.

Yes, the courtyard is an amenity space, it's got communal amenity facilities that the residents

can go unused. So yes, it genuinely does provide community for the people who will inhabit

and occupy the scheme.

Taking up your proof on this matter, if you go to, if you deal with it in section 12,

your proof. If you go to page 86

Yes, I've got that. And dealing with the amenity more widely on

the site, 12 .01 .05, raised play an amenity terrace. You say a south -facing fifth floor

terrace between blocks two and three provides the required resident play and

amenity space, maximising sunlight whilst preserving valuable ground -level public realm.

You'll have seen Mr. Weir's proof and his evidence, which I don't see that you've rebutted in your rebuttal,

is that you need essentially every inch of that fifth floor podium to comply with London

plan play space policy requirements. The effect of that is to not leave any further space

for what you refer to here as amenity space on that fifth floor podium.

Yeah, so play and amenity, so if I was taking my children to the fifth floor play space

and they were playing, they'd be playing and I'd have amenity, but it is the play space.

So it's currently designated under the London Plan because you have to put those areas there

as the play space. And then the additional area is then provided at ground floor and

in that wider public realm.

Yes, for residential community amenity space.

Is that the design?

So also in terms of analysis in your proof,

I don't see any analysis in your proof

of how many people will be using this communal residential amenity space.

And in your proof, therefore, how much amenity space might be needed.

Is it right that in designing the scheme there was no design work done to correlate how many

people will need residential community space and how much is going to be provided?

Again, I've only been able to review from the information I've had, so at the design

stage whether that calculation was carried out and what it were.

I do know, however, and again it's in Mr. Cheam's.

evidence that's been presented, but calculations have been done and the scheme satisfies the

requirements for immunity space through the sequence of spaces that have been included

in the design.

Yes, so on that if you take up CD 4 .10, which is entitled Proposed Community Amenity Space

mark up.

On that we can see the courtyard, the square meterage and within that a dotted line which

shows an irregular shape, which is given the label

community space 112 square metres.

As I understand, that has been a calculation

done by Mr. Cheema subsequently.

That was not part of the, when the courtyard was designed,

it wasn't designed to provide that 112

in that irregular shape.

So again, I wasn't party to the design of the scheme

as the design of the scheme,

so I don't know exactly how numbers were put,

but I think what this diagram plainly shows

is that within that courtyard area,

the design accommodates amenity space,

and the design is generous in that statement,

because even with the setback from Stara Road

and that widened pavement edge,

even with the cut -throughs down to the colonnade,

none of those areas are included,

and community space fits very comfortably within that area

with clear routes that are separated off

for access to cores and everything else.

So the scheme from its design,

I think I touched on it again in my chief,

it was about that wayfinding and the splitting

of the buildings and creating those areas.

And by doing that and having that FAR lower,

making sure that it's not overdeveloped,

that all those areas sit comfortably

within the areas that are available.

So you can't tell me whether that's part of the design process though?

No I think we've established that.

You say so Miss Yarnell, just to be fair can you take up Dr Mealy's proof?

CD 2 .6.

Yes, I've got that open.

Thank you. If you go to page 48.

See there's a heading

design process.

And that starts at 6 .44. If you continue on to page 49, you get to paragraph 6 .53, top

of the second column. And it says, I leave the detailed analysis of the process, the

design process, to Miss Young, who explains in evidence how the scheme responded to the

And that advice is the reference to the QRP advice in the previous paragraph.

So it's been expressly said by the appellant that you'll be coming here to give evidence

about the design process and how, more specifically than that, you would explain how the scheme

had responded to design advice, and although the QRP is referred to, obviously, pre -app

advice as well.

As I understand, you are now saying you cannot explain the design process and you cannot

explain how the scheme responded to design advice? I can't respond to the

exact moments that people were there because I wasn't present. I can tell you how, as

the scheme sits today, how I feel it has responded to, how it has responded and

in the result of design. So obviously the Courtyard caters for and quite clearly

has enough space for community immunity, the scheme satisfies community immunity.

So quite clearly the scheme, through its design process,

has ensured that that is a provision that is made.

And that I can confidently say, because it's clear.

Sorry to imply.

It's confidently clear in the outcome.

Good.

So that's the mark -up.

Can I ask you about the condition of the courtyard?

Can you take up CD5 .25, which is the daylight assessment?

Yes, I've got that open.

And so we see what this is on the first page.

It's the October 2025 Daylight and Sunlight Assessment.

And if you go within that to page 18, please, section 6 .2,

direct sunlighting to amenity spaces.

It tells us that the BRE guidelines

acknowledge that good site layout planning for daylight and sunlight

should not limit itself to providing good natural light inside buildings,

sunlight in the space between buildings

has an important effect on the overall appearance and ambience of the development.

The worst situation is to have significant areas

on which the sun does not shine for a large part of the year.

These areas would, in general, be damp, chilly and uninviting.

So that's an introduction.

And then in terms of the appeal scheme,

if you go to the next page, there's

a table that says page 20, where we get some results.

And what the table tells us is public realm, first row

for ground floor, percentage area receiving two hours or more on the 21st of March is 40%,

and percentage area receiving two hours or more on the 21st of June is 69%.

And so it's 40 % there for the ground. That includes, as you see, I think from the next column,

that I think is not disputed anywhere,

that includes the canal and the pontoons as well,

which are in more direct sunlight.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And then in visualisation,

if you go to page 47 within the document, please.

And where this is illustrated visually, so page 47 is a plan.

And it's labelled in the far bottom right hand corner, two hour sunlight on the ground SAG

contours 21st of March.

Do you see that?

So it's showing us what was described, I think, in words in that table.

And we can see from, it's the blue hatching that shows you when you're having, you've got two hours on the 21st of March.

You see the pontoons are fully hatched blue because they get, they meet that here.

And you look at the courtyard.

none of the courtyard, zero percent rather than the 50 percent guidance, gets two hours

on the 21st of March. Yep.

Correct.

Then the next drawing, which the document says we should look at as well, is page 48.

And the drawing reference at the bottom right hand corner says,

Two hours, sunlight on ground contours, 21st of June.

So that's the sun of solstice.

and at this point we see from the blue hatching perhaps say around half of the courtyard gets

the two hours something in that range. The guidance obviously tells us to look at the

21st of March because that's the equinox. I mean if we start looking at the 21st of June obviously

the winter solstice, December, is going to be a less good picture than the 21st of March, isn't it?

If we go back. Yeah.

Yeah, I agree.

That's why they choose the 21st of March.

Okay, none of these results are disputed as I understand, it's all agreed.

No, I think there's one clarification though.

If you read through the rest of the daylight document, the one thing it does says that

For this site to have daylight there, the buildings would have to be, I think, something

like 10 metres high. The existing buildings are taller than 10 metres, so currently, even

in the existing environment, that courtyard is used and everyone, in terms of those community

spaces and creative uses, is used now. It's currently also because the existing buildings

are higher than 10 metres, would also have the same outlook within that same point of

I mean, I'm not a daylight and sunlight expert and BRE guidance is exactly what it says,

guidance, but the document itself, as my reading, states that it would have to be 10 metres

and that's lower than the existing buildings on the site.

Understood. In terms of what it does show, as it shows us the results, on the 21st of

March the public realm overall doesn't, on the ground floor, doesn't comply with the

Looking at the courtyard in isolation, it's got 0%.

The point I want to put to you, Ms. Young, is that going by the report itself, which

has concerns about areas ending up being damp, chilly and uninviting, if the courtyard has

0% of the area getting two hours on 21st of March, surely the concern is the courtyard

is going to be, for large portions of the year, damp, chilly and uninviting.

I would like to, I mean, in terms of if you were to apply the BRE guidance over London,

if you particularly to apply it over Fish Island, I imagine that there would be many

spaces that would have, in my opinion, that would have similar things and that doesn't

mean that they're dark and things, but guidance is guidance for that reason. And so therefore

it's to do with the materiality, it's to do with the sequence of spaces, it's to do with

how those areas are detailed, it's to do with the planting that you put into them, it's

do with the openness. And I think in my chief we talked about how each of those creative

units actually have windows to both sides, so they're overlooked, they've got light there,

they've got activity, and those are the things that take something that from a guidance documentation

gives a written response to what they'd actually be in reality. And if you walk around Fish

Island there'll be many spaces now that you'd be able to see that have exactly the same

conditions and are actually really successful and thriving places, and that's to do with

quality of the design and that's really, really critical.

And the way that Courtyard has been faced

with active uses all around the edges,

with careful consideration to its programming

and how people can use it, I think outweigh those concerns.

And I think when you're looking at dense urban environments,

which London is and which Fish Island is,

I think this is actually quite normal.

And so how the design approaches it and overcomes it,

I think is what we should be looking at.

and I think that's been done really successfully.

Policy BN5 says for tall buildings above 20 metres

you need to exhibit exceptionally good design.

The courtyard not even meeting the sunlight standard on the 21st of March

and falling well below it is not exceptionally good design, is it?

I disagree. The BRE is guidance and it's not set.

Again, I'm not a daylight and sunlight witness,

so I don't actually want to get into diesel further because it's not my expertise, but

the dense urban environments, the BRE was not set up for that, which is why it's clearly

guidance and what you have to look at, which is what the QRP said, whether even they acknowledged

it, is how you design those spaces and the way that the design has been done to respond

to that scenario is of a very high quality and that is what I think would then give it

exceptional categorisation of EN5.

Thank you. I'll turn then to the colonnade.

Sorry, what?

The subject of the colonnade I haven't asked you to go to yet.

I thought you said colonnade, sorry.

Can you go, please, to your proof page 89, please?

And on page 89, which you get there,

Yes, definitely.

In the bottom left -hand corner have a section through the floating planting. The section

also shows us the colonnade, I think. The walkway is obviously under the building there,

and the building has been brought forward to almost the edge of the canal, yes?

Yes, slightly set back. I think the current building is 1 .1 metres from the edge of the canal,

in the same point and the proposal is 1 .3, and then the current building again comes up to it

and the building forms that line, there's a slight undulation in the area.

So it's slightly more generous at the widest point of the existing site,

and then shares, the building line then shares the same aspect as the existing buildings on the site.

Perhaps the inspector's got a look at the building line on site.

Then the...

Your proof on the same page, third paragraph says...

Public access to the canal is provided from the surrounding streets

with the northern entrance encouraging wider public use.

And the southern route, that's from the bridge, as I understand,

providing managed residential access beneath the building.

And we have an image on the bottom right hand corner, I think, of how you will access from the southern end

that new route. So you go down the steps and then you...

Two sets of steps and then you go into the colonnade, yeah?

That's correct.

We can, I think, see it in that image.

There are two, in the first two bays of the colonnade that are looking at this bottom

right hand corner.

Those balconies go essentially to the edge of the building, don't they?

On the first floor, sorry.

So when it's said that the colonnade is double height, it's not double height there, is it?

the floor plans i looked at yeah i'm just going to go to a section to double cheque because

obviously you've got the stair going underneath it so that plays with your i think that's

you wouldn't be able to walk underneath the stair if I had help.

Yes, at that point there is an intermediate floor that extends over the column and I agree.

Thank you. And in terms of the extent of it, can I just make sure I'm looking at the right

plan as well. I'd looked at CD 4 .4, which are the proposed floor plans. And in CD 4 .4,

which is 13 pages, my version, the second page is the first floor proposed.

Which is at bridge height.

And we see from the southern end, the colonnade, the first two bays if I call them that, that

the first floor, there is a first floor at that level, yes?

Yes, that's correct.

And then for the rest of the colonnade going north, it becomes double height after that.

Yes, that's correct.

So where this new public, where this new colonnade at the southern end meets the public highway,

meets the bridge, the access, at that point it's not double height, it's single height.

And I'm going to suggest to you that that is going to mean that precisely at the point

where you want it to be open and welcoming and inviting,

because it's got less headroom, it's only one floor,

it's more enclosed, it's going to be less inviting,

less open and less welcoming, less visible.

No, I don't necessarily agree,

because the floor to floor of the ground floor

is more generous, so actually that's going to still feel

very open, it's actually open on all the sides,

so it's just the element that pops over.

The canal is at its widest point there,

So you've got the extra width and then the pontoon against it.

So you've actually got that extra bit of canal

of the existing land and then the pontoon.

And then also through the design,

it will be a well -lit illuminated and activated space

because you have the ground floor uses directly

coming onto it.

So it's a very short expanse.

So no, I disagree.

Thank you. And then the, in terms, still looking perhaps usefully this plan we're at on page

two, the floor plans, we can see at this first floor level going north along the colonnade

there are three balconies within the colonnade coming out from three commercial units.

Correct.

and above that if we go for instance to the next plan in the series, the second floor,

then we can see that the building obviously goes to its boundary and the residential units

which we're looking at in that plan obviously and their balconies are over the top of the

In your rebuttal, you stated that the colonnade

would be passively surveilled

by the continuous residential balconies above.

Do you now accept that it in fact won't be

continuously surveilled by the continuous

residential balconies above,

because they will be directly above,

unless you crane your neck around dangerously,

you're not gonna be able to surveil it?

As I clarified in my chief,

the continuous balconies I was referring to

were the ones on the corner of building two

that go all the way up and they have a view

directly down into the colonnade.

So it's the, sorry, yes, okay.

So looking at plan three.

It's worth reading.

The corner of, sorry, let me ask a question.

Corner of building two, is that what you said?

South, east, north.

Sorry, just before you continue,

just to complete my point,

It's also worth, I think, reinforcing the fact that the scheme went through Secure by

Design and it was deemed acceptable.

There was no concerns raised because of all the elements that you're looking at.

The whole colonnade is completely viewed from the H16 bridge.

You've got entrances, you've got exits, you've got residential entrances that activate it.

You've got the balconies on the edge of Building 2 that looks down.

The design of the stretcher is something that's inviting and open.

I think now trying to put a concept that the design would be unsafe

when it's gone through that rigorous process of ensuring

that it complies with all safety elements.

Again, as I've said in my proof for my chief of evidence,

I don't agree that it will be.

I just want to ask about what you've said in your written evidence.

So which balcony are you talking about?

In block two, is it, in the corner?

It's a block two, the corner balcony

that faces onto the colonnade

is continuous all the way at block two.

It's the one that I highlighted in the image

as well on the screen.

You're looking at the plan I'm looking at,

I think page three of the proposed floor plans.

Second floor, you're on that, are you?

Well, it would be all the floors going up, yeah.

Yeah, all the floors going up.

and it's the rectangular balcony for the residential unit in the north -east corner of block two.

That one and the ones above it.

That's not going to provide surveillance along the entire length of the column A to the left.

I think it will provide surveillance.

Well, it's not going to provide any surveillance looking south for a start, is it?

But looking south, you'd then have the surveillance from the...

Looking south, you'd have the surveillance from the other...

No, that one wouldn't have the surveillance that comes out.

Thank you.

Well, generally, just, I think, finally on the colonnade.

The colonnade goes from the south along the canal side

and then joins to Roach Road through the connexion, as it's been described.

In terms of residential community amenity space,

leaving aside the pontoons, they must be taken into account,

but just the purpose of this question specifically, the colonnade and the connexion,

that is a new route through the development and it's a positive one,

But that colonnade route and the connexion route, and that is a route, it's circulation,

it's not public community immunity space, is it?

So the public community immunity space is on the diagram that we showed up for, that's

an allocated space.

However, it doesn't predicate people being able to go and sit there, there's seating,

it'll be sunny, people being able to go and utilise it.

So in terms of the usability of that space, it's very generous.

I think it's 2 .85 metres wide.

It's in the most part identified before double height,

so it is somewhere that people would be able to go and use.

Thank you.

I'm not sure if I'm hearing you.

You're on.

You got your presentation from this morning.

Page 27 presentation.

The images I showed earlier.

So I just need to reopen those.

And actually it's taken from your proof so rather than taking it from the document you can find it in your proof page 81 apparently.

I've got 27, 27 or 81? I can do both.

Yeah, it was the same one, either one.

Page 81 of proof, 27 % of the present value.

We've got the width of the colonnade there.

Mm -hm.

The dotted line, just a question of clarification, really.

It's got a dotted line for plant,

taking up about half of the colonnade.

what's going on with that plant.

I think that might refer to the landscape planting rather than plant. I'm just looking

at a landscape plant. It doesn't mean physical plant as in HVAC and things like that. I'm

Perhaps you could clarify that in due course, but I'm just doing it now.

Good.

Then, our final subject is workspace.

Come to that, please.

Firstly, if you take up CD 3 .8, which is the second pre -application FISE response.

Yeah.

And this is the 8th of April 2021.

And if you go to the second page of it, page two, paginated, halfway down, well, there's

a subheading uses, and then there's a paragraph beginning the LLDC employment space study,

if you've got that.

suggests the following floor to ceiling heights

and then it gives the heights listed there,

which we'll come to in a moment.

Next paragraph says floor to floor height of 4m is shown in the diagram,

and there's a query about that.

Then the final paragraph on page 2 says

the illustrative floor plans appear to show a co -working type space is proposed.

The space must meet local need and this should be demonstrated through an evidence -based approach.

There's understood to be a need for messier spaces like artist studios, recording studios,

maker spaces and the small industrial space in the area.

These spaces have different design requirements, a particular note is the need for acoustic separation and so forth.

And then if you go over to the next page, there's various indents,

but after that it explains that discussions are encouraged with Celine Myonné,

the developer and business engagement manager working in Hackney Whig in Fish Island on the

behalf of NLDC, Dunbar Tower, Hammersen Blunburg Hackney, to ensure the space proposed best meets

the needs of the local area. What was the scheme designed in response to advice from Celine Myonné?

Was her advice taken? Do you know? Again, as we covered earlier, I wasn't at the meeting.

Have you saw fit to go and cheque?

Everything to do with the spaces and the community space and other things actually is also covered in Mr. Jean's documents, so he may be able to answer that in a later one.

Okay, let's deal with what you do say about those spaces.

So in your...

Give me two...

First your rebuttal, please, page 8.

And in your rebuttal, there's a heading, page 8,

Employment Floor Space and Creative Industries.

And you start by saying,

addressing the quality and function of non -residential uses,

the portal emphasises the proposed employment floor space

has been purposefully designed to respond to the specific needs

of creative and maker industries

which are intrinsic to the character and economy of Fish Island.

Rather than providing generic commercial unit design

and as flexible robust accommodation suited to creative maker

and light industrial uses, this response to the happening of Fish Island SBD

identifies the importance of maintaining and strengthening the areas

creating employment character alongside the LLDZ employment study.

And it's that one I want to ask you about.

Just before I do, in the next paragraph, you'll see you set out the heights from the employment

study.

You see that?

Yes, that's correct.

So with that, can we turn then to the employment study, CD7 .48.

Yes, I've got that open.

And this is the employment study to which you refer.

And if you go please to page 48 in that study, section three studio type space.

And we've got a picture there which annotates this space itself.

relevantly and sorry is that page is that section 3 .3 no 3 .0 page 48

and are those type of technologies are you referring to the whole page sorry

I'm referring just to the whole page to orientate ourselves this is studio type

the studio type space section of the report.

Oh, okay, the title, sorry. That's okay.

And then in terms of what it,

the guidance it gives,

if you go within this section to page 52, please,

the studio type space, there's a table and then dimensions on the left -hand side.

the second entry in dimensions, floor to ceiling heights, internal dimensions.

The range 2 .9 to 4 .4 metres ceiling height, generally a minimum ceiling height of 3 .5 metres is preferred.

The scheme is, in terms of ceiling heights, and your rebuttal, you explained that the ground floor units are 3 .4 metres.

and the first floor is 2 .8 metres.

So right that both the ground floor and first floor are below the preferred minimum ceiling height, correct?

But within the ceiling height range that's given, but yes.

Good.

And that's for studio space.

then if you carry on please to page 58 of the document.

Yep, I've got that.

Page 58 is section 4 .0, small industrial warehouse type space. See that?

Yes.

And just on the same page still, still on page 58, bottom right hand corner there's subtypes.

And the subtypes are 4 .1 small industrial space and subtype 4 .2 maker space.

Yes? Yes?

Obviously referencing the documents to the scheme providing maker space, which I want to ask about this.

And same exercise, if you go please to page 62, there's a table for this category of space.

And dimensions on the left hand side, second entry under dimensions on page 62, floor to

ceiling heights internal dimensions.

first indent higher ceiling 4 .5 to 8 metres, generally minimum 4 metre ceiling height.

It says double height spaces means 6 metres allow for smaller scale elements to be stacked

around taller spaces and so forth. So in terms of small industrial warehouse type space,

including the subtype of maker space,

all the floor space on the appeal site

will be below the minimum, the four metre,

and below the range as well, yeah?

Correct.

That indicates it is not suitable for this type of space

in this type of creative industry.

It's not suitable for that subcategory.

Not suitable for that sub -category, thank you.

In terms of existing heights, Mr Weir gives some evidence on the appeals side.

He says they're up to 7 .6 metres for Victoria Wharf, 7 metres Hackney Cut and 8 .8 metres in two more years.

The reference is proof 8 .63.

Just as a point of fact, I don't think you contradict those existing heights, do you?

Those existing heights do comply with both the studio space and the small industrial

warehouse space guidance in the study, don't they?

By comparison, I would agree.

Then stick on the same page where we were, page 62, access and servicing, entrance arrangements.

So this is small industrial warehouse type space.

Entrance arrangements.

The first indent is some need for large entry access points for vehicles, transporting materials

and for regular servicing.

Openings should be large enough for delivery of goods and equipment, roll up doors with

minimum height of 3 .7 metres and width 2 .4 to 3 metres.

The existing building has on -site loading bays in the shared yard.

Yes. Correct.

Which would comply with that guidance, but the proposed scheme doesn't have them, does it?

Well, the proposed scheme's a different scheme, so, but as a direct comparison, comparison, that's the same.

but the proposed scheme also has wider areas because we've got plant access and plant access

by its definition is also quite large. It's also open, if you look at the ground floor

plan, we've got a scheme that opens directly onto the courtyard that could take access

for larger things. You've got direct access off Staira Road again with wider doors that

could take, I haven't measured them but they look to be, what's that minimum width they

so within those areas.

So this obviously isn't a warehouse scheme

because if it was it would be replicating

exactly what's there.

What it is is responding to the needs that we have

by bringing forward a mixed use development

that promotes creative industries

and how they can be taken forward

and also delivers housing and all the other benefits.

And I think it's not a like for like,

it's not a warehouse scheme.

So the uses therefore respond to the design of the building and the uses that would be appropriate within it.

I'll let Mr Chiam go into the strategy and the uses in more detail because I don't have that information.

So I don't want to talk against the evidence because it's not my expertise.

Just to complete the exercise dealing with the study that you obviously do deal with in your rebuttal.

So that was the warehouse including makerspace access guidance.

If you go back to page 52, there's also access and servicing guidance on studio type space.

Page 52 again.

And in the table there, left hand column access and servicing, last entry vehicle access.

and there's two indents, dealing with the first two indents. Some operational parking

required for moving of materials within studio, provide a dedicated loading and

loading access to the building with enough space for a rigid HGV circulation.

The proposed access arrangements in terms of direct access where you don't

have to cross the public highway, Beachy Road, that's obviously not proposed for

scheme is it in accordance with that guidance? I don't believe it is, that's correct.

In your proof, you go to page 20.

This section, page 20 starts main site, page 21 starts to have a site overview. You see

that?

And then we go over the page, next page is site buildings, and you identify them. And

detailed analysis in your evidence of the existing workspaces, how they operate,

what are their dimensions, what their needs are, correct? That's correct. Policy

says that development should be design -led. A scheme which does not

analyse, proposal which does not analyse what the existing requirements of

occupies R and does not design the scheme to comply with the guidance on floor height

servicing, is not a design -led scheme, is it?

I don't think you can, I don't think design's as linear as that. I don't think you can isolate

one item and say that therefore if that isn't complied

it's not a design met scheme.

I wasn't present as we established when the design was done.

So I don't have the details here

about the analysis of the existing spaces.

I know Mr. Ching in his evidence

does have quite a lot of information on that

which hopefully will be able to cover up

some of the questions I've been unable to answer.

In my proof it doesn't go through the existing buildings.

It goes through the design process

from the point of when the design moves forward from that.

So, in terms of my evidence,

that's what I'm able to talk about confidently.

I haven't placed in here any information about the existing buildings,

because I suppose the focus on the design

was what we could replicate within the design form

that would look to re -provide spaces that could be used by creative people,

whether it satisfies every sub -category of this.

Obviously, evidently it doesn't, but it does satisfy some of those categories

and it will still be a really quite attractive place

with variety and very high -quality spaces that can be used by creative industries.

I think I'm better to leave that to Mr Ching to go into in more detail

about those uses and who they could be and how they've been brought into the group and developed.

Okay, that's your answer. Thank you, so those are my questions.

Okay, I don't have any questions.

If, Sergeant, you've got any further questions?

Thank you, sir.

Just one, Madam Ms. Young, which is daylight and sunlight.

There are a few other elements of the report that you weren't taken to that I do want to

give you the opportunity to comment on.

So can we go back to 5 .25, the daylight and sunlight report please.

I've got that open.

And page 7, first of all please.

I've got that open.

Paragraph 2 .4.

You'll see that explains there's no official national planning guidance or legislation

on daylight and sunlight, but the most recognised guidance document is the BRE one. Then there's

a paragraph that explains the evolution of that. And then it says, in the third paragraph,

the BRE guidelines are not mandatory and themselves state that they should not be used as an instrument

of planning policy. In practise, they're heavily relied upon as they provide a good

guide to approach methodology and evaluation of daylight and sunlight impacts. Now I know

you're not a specialist in this area, but insofar as you have an understanding of the

BRE guidelines, how far does what's said there reflect your understanding?

Yeah, I think I was trying to say, I agree completely, I was trying to say in my response,

they are guidelines, that's exactly their purpose, and on any dense urban scheme, there

There are so many schemes that we do not manage to achieve them because the guidelines are

set up for sort of like a perfect suburban scenario and don't reflect the more grain

and granular urban fabric of, you know, central London and particularly Fish Island.

So I think that's completely true.

The way to overcome it is through the design, which I think the scheme does do.

It's through that detailing, it's through the material, it's through the choice of where

you place the seating so that you can achieve it and it's through how you

overcome those issues because it's commonplace wherever we go even on

streets we've got north -facing streets where pavement works that we walk down

every day never see a touch of daylight because if they want to particularly go

into the city so it's not an unprecedented environment and it's to do

with the quality of the design and the openness and everything else that really

sort of counteract the repercussions of there not being any daylight and where

guidelines are beneficial is that they highlight those spaces and allow then the architects

and the designers to be able to overcome them through the design development, which I believe

the scheme does really, really well. Thank you. And then just over on page eight, please.

You can see the point that's being made there by this is Harrington consultant who I think

with the parents' consultant.

I don't serve, just for your information.

This document was reviewed by Arup on behalf of the council,

but Arup's response isn't in evidence.

Daylight and sunlight, I don't understand

to be a major issue between the parties,

which is why we haven't covered it

in more detail in the evidence.

So we see here, Harrington Consulting advising

that some level of flexibility should be applied

where appropriate.

again to what extent does that reflect the approach that you're asking the

inspector to take here? Yeah it completely reflects it. Thank you and then just

going to see where were you taken to?

Yes, you were taken... Can we go to page 18, which is where Mr Flang took you, I think,

please? Yeah. You were taken to the left -hand column, I think, which says the worst situation

to 6 .2, the worst situation is to have significant areas on which the sun doesn't shine for a

large part of the year. These areas would in general be damp, chilly and uninviting.

If we look at the right hand column though, I'll leave you to read that for yourself.

But can you just read what's said there about ways in which planting and the build up of

moss and slime can be managed?

Yeah, so it says for example, specific planting and reducing the build -up of moss and slime

can more readily be managed as part of the ground maintenance. Likewise, the positioning

of outdoor activity areas and areas for sitting out and children's play can be more specifically

located within the development site. The need to dry clothes is less of a priority. Therefore,

applying the standard assessment criteria to individual immunity areas is not necessarily

considered appropriate and in line with the strong recommendations of the BRE guidelines

and the MPPF and more flexible approach needs to be taken.

So what's your view having regard to what Harrington have said in the right -hand column?

What's your view insofar, and I appreciate it's not your bag, but insofar as you are

comfortable expressing a view, what's your view as to the extent to which measures such

which is those identified by Herrington in the right -hand column,

would be able to address concerns around the courtyard

being damp, chilly and uninviting, as Mr Flanagan would have it.

Yeah, so the column on the right

basically talks about the immunity that you'd need as a resident

in terms of your outdoor space, so dry and closed, etc.

All of those, when you read through the rest of the report, are applicable

because each unit, each flat, each home

has private immunity where they can try clothes and everything else and all of those achieve,

I think it's 94 % of the rooms in fact achieve the BRE and all of the areas and external

immunity areas achieve BRE guidance. So the reference to this on the ground floor is not

applicable in terms of how residents would use it because they wouldn't be using it for

clothes, etc. They'd be using it to a bit like the example I raised earlier, a bit like

North facing street where you'd be walking around the edge of the building and therefore

it's to do with the design maintenance and the activity on those that would then overcome

any feelings of darkness. Thank you and then page 19 please. We can see that this says

for the Vittoria Wharf scheme a very significant amount of time has been spent designing the

scheme and testing options to best meet the BRE criteria for sunlight and amenity areas.

then it goes to the courtyard. It says that achieving two hours of sunlight on the 21st

of March to at least half of it is not realistically feasible. Best endeavours have been taken to bring

as much sunlight into the main courtyard area of the scheme, but full compliance hasn't been

possible. And then it says during the early design phase of the project, a cutback exercise was

undertaken to help understand exactly just how much the massing of block two and three would need

to be reduced by essentially to get to the Equinox standard. That exercise

demonstrated that these blocks would need to be reduced to a maximum height

of 10 metres to achieve a compliant sun on ground result for the courtyard. The

exercise clearly identified that there's not a reasonable way of amending

the massing of the proposals to provide two hours or more of sunlight to the

main courtyard area on the 21st of March and we can see in figure 6 .1 that

image of the massing. Now your evidence in response to Mr Flanagan I think was

that the 10 metres we can see there is lower than what's on site at the

moment. What's your view as a design professional as to whether what we're

looking at here represents an efficient use of the site please, this cutback image?

Well it clearly doesn't. I mean obviously it's quite a crude image so but that

position where you need to cut it back, which is, as we've said, sort of like smaller than

the existing building, is actually that corner that I think in my evidence and in Dr. Mealy's

evidence is that prominent location where the marker and all the wayfinding and all the other

critical and qualitative aspects of the design really rest. So it's quite a critical corner.

It's also one of the ones that even in the LDC feedback that we touched on earlier was not a

of contention in terms of its height and location.

So I think the scenario here in terms of the wider role

that site plays in wayfinding and everything else,

this couldn't be a satisfactory or a high quality solution.

Thank you very much, Ms. Young.

Thank you, sir.

That's the end of Ms. Young's evidence.

Okay, thank you. Now I've got the copy of the Edendum Statement of Common Ground.

Just a couple of points to make in relation to that.

I've not read it all.

In terms of the table we've provided,

I asked for, doesn't mention the mezzanines.

Are you able to provide figures on the mezzanines?

So they're later in the document I think in the text.

Can you just tell me where?

I think I missed a workout there.

One of the things I wanted clarity on was with this very point in paragraph 14.

It says the LPA, because if the upper floors level is not subject to planning permission,

so I mean really what I was, I can ask you the question in the end, but it would be useful

if I could know in advance, is the LPA's position that they are lawful, I mean that's one of

the things I wanted you to capture in the table.

I think what I'd like you to do is I'd like you to do another iteration of this addendum

statement of common ground where I get the confirmation of what the council's position

is on lawfulness because it is a position, it is a point that's raised by the appellant

and I'd like a clear view one way or the other how the council is dealing with that.

I mean as I say I've not had a chance to read this document completely because obviously

come through just this morning.

But again,

I mean,

your council's planning witness is coming on last, I mean, it's the end of next week.

I can ask questions at the end of next week, but it would be

helpful to know in advance also

on what basis the council is judging lawfulness.

so if that's not already captured within this

document then it should be added

equally on what

basis the Appellant is judging them from

Is that all OK?

If you could have that produced as soon as possible and certainly before we come back

next Wednesday.

Now, in terms of next week,

obviously we'll be starting again on

Wednesday, 9 .30, and

We'll be starting with Ms. Pack, then Mr. Weir, then Mr. Cheema.

We'll possibly run over into Friday, which will be a half day.

We'll have to wait and see, I suppose, how things go.

Then we can decide on how we deal with week 3.

Now, this afternoon, site visit.

Does everyone think they can get there for three o 'clock?

I would suggest you just whoever is attending wear appropriate clothing.

I'm not going to be wearing a suit for the visit.

So any other points to raise before we finish?

All right, thank you sir.

informed that there's an interested party who wishes to speak, we have asked them if

they can provide an indication of when they're available. They haven't provided such an indication

yet. So we have suggested that, to them, that Wednesday morning might be a convenient time

if they can turn up at 9 .30,

that person has yet to respond to that communication.

Yeah, that would be a convenient time.

Just one further note on the site visit.

As I said before,

I'm not hearing evidence during the site visit.

It's for me to observe.

And obviously, based on the itinerary,

you can lead me through the itinerary.

I mean, I don't have a, it's not drawn on the map.

So it would be useful for you to do that.

And point out factual things, point out the viewpoints.

But I'm not there to hear arguments between you

on other things.

So just on that, I think there's a slight imbalance in that Ms Chung's attending for

the council. I'm not sending either of my design or townscape witnesses because we've

understood that it's not a continuation of the hearing proceedings.

Can I just respond to that? So it's often common that appellant of the line witnesses

go, but we'd anticipated that might be the case. But if the appellant design and heritage

witnesses are not going then Ms Ching I think would be happy not to go to ensure

no imbalance or anything like that. So long as the people who are attending

are happy to be pointing out those aspects of the design and townscape

evidence that you want me to focus on then that's fine.

Okay then, so we'll meet again at three o 'clock for the site visit.

I suggest that we meet on the bridge.

Otherwise we'll reconvene at nine thirty next Wednesday.

So until then the inquiry is adjourned.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Interactive webcast player

Vittoria Wharf Public Inquiry Day 3Thursday, 27th August 2026 at 9:30am

Vittoria Wharf Public Inquiry Day 3
Thursday, 27th August 2026 at 9:30am