Monday 21 March 2022
Proceedings came to a halt today because of the sudden unavailability of one of the expert witnesses for the heritage sessions due to be covered over the first 3 days of this week (21-23 March). These sessions will be rescheduled and we will post the new dates here as soon as we get them.
The roundtable discussions scheduled for this Thursday and Friday will go ahead as planned and will cover public transport, roads, infrastructure, environmental aspects, character and appearance, housing mix and living conditions (eg overshadowing, green space, etc).
You can keep abreast of the inquiry timetable via this link https://lbhounslow.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/InternetLinks/dm/Ea_Kua6CrftAiWeH9EiFuQMBhsiNITT2LvT3uN12dYzEdA?e=qCVncn
Friday 18 March 2022
Day 4 started with OWGRA’s only expert witness, Mike Spence, a leading independent consultant in photo visualisation (PV): in this case the representation of proposed developments in photographs for use in the planning process.
OWGRA’s Barbara Stryjak introduced Mr Spence, who outlined his background of wide experience in photography, surveying and geographic information system (GIS). He has developed the ‘industry standard’ for PV. His work regarding tall buildings is not partisan and is aimed at providing objective evidence and visualisation to show accurately what developments would look like.
Barbara took him through his proof of evidence by careful and detailed questioning. The crux of his evidence is that it appeared that much the PV submitted by the applicant was produced with inappropriate lenses, tripod and positioning, without geographic software, and not following current guidance. Images were not presented clearly enough, and shadow analysis was missing. He had produced 3D aerial imagery which showed the dramatic extent of the development. He particularly poured scorn on the assertion in the Townscape Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) that, apart from during construction, any impacts would be beneficial or neutral. He noted that in the TVIA it stated that the impact on Oaklands Avenue would be ‘considered beneficial’!
He then focused on the so-called ‘Canaletto View’ – the view of Syon House from across the river at Kew – showing that the views submitted by the applicant minimised the mass of the development rising above the roof line of the House.
Finally, he was critical of the fact that the applicant’s two PV consultants were not present at the Inquiry to defend their technical methodology.
Mr Warren, QC for the applicant, started his cross-examination by referring to the recent ‘Chiswick Curve’ planning inquiry, where Mr Spence had represented LBH in opposition to the development. The Inspector found that the extent to which the visualisations were misleading was not significant. Mr Spence responded that if they had been carried out properly, the same conclusions may not have been reached. Mr Warren suggested that the Canaletto View visualisations were correct, and that Mr Spence had subjectively used 3D modelling and that his image of Syon House and the development was not accurate, but throughout Mr Spence robustly defended his position and stated that there was limited or no evidence regarding the applicant’s methodology.
The day finished with evidence from the applicant’s arboricultural consultant, Julian Forbes-Laird. He took the inquiry through the report on his tree census of Syon Park. There were 56 individual trees, 530 in 23 groups and 3.3 hectares of woodland. Part of the site is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 50 of the trees were present on the 1864 OS map. There was a wide range of ages, some new planting and some in excess of 350 years old, and generally in good health. The majority will live out their allotted span, and there is a programme of new planting and management of individual trees. The majority will put on moderate to considerable growth. Mr Lyness, QC for Historic England, cross-examining, sought some clarification regarding the management masterplan, and Mr Forbes-Laird confirmed the continuing conservation of the SSSI, and preservation of the current aesthetic rather than creating new vistas. This evidence was aimed to prove that the trees would still be there and the implication was that the trees would hide the views of the proposed towers for many decades, but Mr Spence’s evidence from earlier in the day showed that the developments would still be seen above the tree line from Kew.
For OWGRA, Barbara asked Mr Forbes-Laird whether he could be certain that trees would not be affected by future storms. He replied that certainty was not possible given the variable factors involved, but on the balance of probability he was confident. In the recent storms, only one weakened tree had been lost. Barbara asked if he could be certain that the trees would not be affected by current or new pathogens. He replied that survey had shown a low incidence of pathogens across the site, and that the broad range of genera and species gave the tree population a robustness.
Thus, the day, and the week, ended.
We felt the week had gone well for us, considering that most of us are novices to public inquiries, don’t have the advantage of legal counsel, and are in a David v Goliath situation. Next week there will be 3 days devoted to heritage matters and 2 days to roundtable discussions about public transport, roads, infrastructure, environmental aspects, character and appearance, housing mix and living conditions (eg overshadowing, green space, etc).
You can watch a recording of the proceedings via this link:
We have prepared an index of the proceedings that will let you directly access individual contributions. You can access the index for Day 4 here
Thursday 17 March 2022
During a significantly shortened day of presentation, Marcus Adams, lead architect for the developer was introduced by Rupert Warren QC, and cross-examined by Scott Lyness QC, legal counsel for Historic England, and by members of our very own OWGRA.
Mr. Adams’ responses to questions from Mr Lyness were often less than direct requiring Mr Lyness to repeat them. In those responses he put constant emphasis on his claim that Syon Lane provides an architectural character break between the typical 1930s suburbia to the west and the “heavily industrialised Golden Mile” to the east.
With Hounslow Council’s ‘Great West Corridor Master Plan’ covering the A4 between Chiswick roundabout and Gillette Corner, Mr. Adams was keen to assert the location of both development sites as being to the east of Syon Lane. His narrative was clear: many of the original Art Deco buildings that had formerly lined the ‘Golden Mile’ had been replaced with poorer quality buildings whose replacement by high-rise residential developments should not be mourned.
Mr. Adams was keen to identify the boundary to Osterley Place (the current Tesco site); each compass point representing a different feature of the site; to the north, the water feature in a previously underutilised area of the site and the focus for the tallest of the residential tower blocks. To the east, enhanced vehicular and pedestrian access to Grant Way and the Sky campus, despite the severe limitations on car parking in the development. To the south, town houses and 5-6 storey blocks to soften the impact for those residents living along Syon Lane north. Finally, to the west a representation of the widened MacFarlane Lane as a safer thoroughfare for the pupils of Bolder Academy.
Mr. Adams insisted that the process of pre-development planning had been a model exercise in creating a landscape-led approach to Osterley Place; a sensitive transition from a large retail outlet to a pedestrian dominated quality place to live.
According to Mr. Adams, other positive features of this exciting development include the 46,000 square feet of commercial space, the Water Gardens and the grassy knoll Meander. The aim is to increase biodiversity by 10% on what is essentially a supermarket and car park!
In summary Mr. Adams wanted to present a vision of a development where:
Existing edges were respected
Existing buildings were referenced
Existing spaces were celebrated
Local buildings were used as markers of new public spaces
Under cross-examination from Mr Lyness, this utopian vision began to unravel.
Claims of Historic England’s obsessive focus on a single vista from Syon Park were deconstructed as Mr Lyness sought clarification on whether local and wider heritage issues had been a predeterminant for Mr. Adams’ practice during the initial stages of design. Mr. Adams assured the Inquiry that height and massing had been reduced and redistributed across the site. But it soon became apparent that he considered the negative impact on Oaklands Avenue to be acceptable collateral damage in the process of delivering his vision of a sustainable future. Mr Lyness pointed out, the residents of Oaklands Avenue could look forward to obliterated vistas of local landmarks, approximately 18 metres between the property boundaries and the nearest blocks just across MacFarlane Lane.
Before Day 3 ended, clarification was sought from OWGRA on the proposed clean air route from the GWR to Bolder Academy via Harlequin Avenue and on the distances between various residential blocks on the Osterley Place development (in some instances as little as 11-12 metres). Mr Adams was far from convincing in his rebuttals of suggestions that, for those individuals residing on lower floors, the lack of direct sunlight would be highly detrimental to their health and wellbeing.
In response to a further question from Barbara Stryjak on the size and scope of the Water Garden, Mr. Adams stated that “In general in the UK, we often create public spaces that are too big.” Make of this what you will…
A flavour of the proceedings may be obtained by watching this three-minute excerpt when Barbara Stryjak asked a question about net zero carbon ambitions for the development.
When asked if the final design had acknowledged the criticisms by Hounslow’s independent Design Review Panel of the large number of single-aspect homes Mr Adams gave a long answer which amounted to saying “No, but this could be looked at later on under reserved matters”.
Many of OWGRA’s concerns were given an airing on day 3 but we still have a long way to go in this Public Inquiry. It is good that at last we are able to have these developments discussed in a detail far beyond anything considered by the Hounslow Planning Committee. You can judge how things went on day three by going to https://youtu.be/7AdJq89g4qM?t=188
We have prepared an index of the proceedings that will let you directly access individual contributions. You can access the index for Day 3 here