Our Special Guest this week is Dr Chris Miele, Partner at Montagu Evans LLP.
Apologies for the disjointed nature of this episode. A few of us were experiencing connection issues. This should be resolved for our next episode!
Episode resources can be found on our website here: https://havewegotplanningnewsforyou.com/chris-miele-partner-at-montagu-evans-llp-s12-e6/
Have We Got Planning News for You is a light-hearted review of the month’s latest developments by five barristers from across the Planning Bar: Paul Tucker KC, Mary Cook, Sasha White KC, Charles Banner KC and Christopher Young KC.
The views expressed by our guests are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of the panellists.
Intro: 00:00
News Update with Sasha: 05:05
Chris’ Case: Gayton Solar Farm: 08:55
Paul’s Case: Woking Appeal Decision: 17:35
Mary’s Case: Tring, Hertfordshire SoS Decision: 22:38
Interview with Dr Chris Miele by Charlie: 29:24
We five friends from different chambers/firms have decided to come together during COVID-19 to do a weekly hour-long show about the latest legal, policy and other news & decisions in the world of planning.
Donate here: https://havewegotplanningnewsforyou.com/donate
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/have-we-got-planning-news-for-you/id1553297169
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2LDIo0h3riiGVjITrYXDp1?si=xgsy1WT9QGizMD8PoW1svQ
Podcasters for Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/hwgpnfy
Website: https://havewegotplanningnewsforyou.com​​
Music provided by The Ruby Tuesdays: https://spoti.fi/35CqTnl​​
Production: https://bluebearit.co.uk​
#HWGPNFY
Is that our host our host messing us around ladies and gentlemen here we are have you got my hand up h welcome to we got P news rather at because um I lost my voice in this week so rather at that I started this program U muted um can I
Start as always by um reminding our viewers um that in Li of a registration fee we encourage you to make a donation to charity we have a growing list of um of Charities we support we’ve added Winston’s wits um to our list um over the last few days uh a charity for uh
Bed children so do have a look at our list on our website and news.com uh or make a donation to a local church of your choice now we’re um delighted um this evening U to welcome U the legendary Dr Chris Ley um part of monu Evans uh R land expert and all
Things tscape and Heritage um vast intellect renaissance man really and somebody who um I could spend probably about three days interviewing but we’re going to have to try and confine ourselves to half an hour um Chris I’m going to have to ask you the usual questions uh where are you calling us
From uh what have you chosen as our theme and what are you drinking this evening if anything um uh in our offices in St marxs in the city of London um our theme tonight is London and New York and I’m drinking some San pelino lemonata ah very very nice uh yes well
You’re the opposite of of the sting song AR you’re a New Yorker in New York I’m I’m I’m on the stretch so they thinking Holding Out for now um we haven’t got Bor because he isn’t fact in America but I think he’s actually in New York uh uh last message last I heard
From he was within the Statue of Liberty um so U very well timed uh but Mary you you’re in front of some other funky looking art where were you evening good evening everyone lovely to have you on the show Chris I am in the town legal offices in London and is my gesture
Obviously to London and here is my gesture to New York the Big Apple one for real one love a lovely Apple done in wood and I’m on London’s finest tatw water Cheers Cheers Mary uh Chris how you doing I’m very well I’m very well thank you Charlie hello Chris and nice
To see you I’ve done a virtual inquiry from your offices uh in front of Paul Griffith involving a tall building in London we’ve done a few of those hav we and um uh yeah what a fabulous building that is actually just an extraordinary building yeah I amum I’m in our London
Offices the sooy hotel is just down there if you look at the picture just there there’s a a slight uh angle shot of the girin where Sasha and I like to have regular parties and um Sasha and I have been at the uh lpdf annual dinner
Uh just a table away and we’ve just shared a camp back to our Chambers um and I have to say Zach Simons was very funny when he gave his speech uh it’s been a that’s a huge event I mean s will attest to this just an enormous number
Of people at that event I haven’t got a drink which is bad news because somebody’s left the air conditioning on at 26° I can’t turn it off boiling um and that’s thank you Charlie yes I wish I could turn it to 32 degrees you used to do that when I was I
Shar the corridor with you if you remember s i do I’d come in and I’d find my my airon was either turned right up to maximum in the summer or right down to minimum wi then you Sasha had been in I know I miss I miss being able to do that Charlie the
Cooking yes Chris and I had a very nice afternoon at the land promoter and developers Forum 600 odd people there which is quite remarkable an organization started six years ago but I think it’s Testament to the strength of feeling about those involved in one side of the profession and I like Chris I’m
In London like Mary we seem to have a London Centric show tonight and it’s delightful to have to have Chris em on who we’ve all called cross-examined and enjoyed his company and insight for many years indeed so I’m actually driving through London if we speak so get see various
Landmarks along the way um so without further Ado um I think Sasha we’re going to start with you aren you you’re going to tell us um the news I am going to tell you the news and I think frankly this week for those who have not followed the national press it’s been
Pretty seminal because on Tuesday the shadow Chan Rachel Reeves gave a pretty seminal speech in the city of London she’s called The Maze Le show which is a pretty important speech for setting out Economic Policy now before all of you think I’ve had too much to drink at
Lunch they realize this is a planning show rather than an economic show it’s quite fundamental that the key theme that she evolved and discussed in Her speech was about planning reform and I think it’s really important for all of our viewers to be aware that the labor
Policy put reform of the planning system for bully at the center of their economic agenda indeed it was one of the three elements that she talked about and she asserts that planning reform her exact words is the very center of its Economic Policy so I think we should all
Prepare ourselves if the polls are right the labor party are likely to form some form of government either a coalition or majority by the end of this year according to the polls and they platform as it spoused on Tuesday was that the planning reform is at the very center of
Its Economic Policy indeed the exact phrase she used is reform of planning would be at the heart of the strategy for growth and more than that I mean this is quite a significant criticism of the current planning system she described the planning system as the single greatest obstacle to our economic
Success or just take a moment think about that if that is the perception of the labor party and the perception of the Shadow chancelor who everyone thinks might well be the real Chancellor of the ex cheer and I did see the real Chancellor of the ex cheer today in
Green Park at 8:15 running around during a Cris preparing no doubt for some run but no in all seriousness it’s pretty important in planning reforms at the very center of the economic and political argument that the labor party perceive and what is said is effectively that they have three elements and I
Think it’s very important in the light of the December changes to the nppf labor strategy is and proposal is to have mandatory note mandatory local housing targets secondly to recruit more planners and thirdly to bring forward a generational new tals so those the three fundamental elements of of Labour’s
Proposal also it is important to note that they are proposing a fundamental change to the to the National infrastructure um scheme and they intend to bring forward some quite significant changes to that so I think there are four fundamental takeaways for everyone to think about mandry local housing
Recruit of new planners and a whole trch of New Towns and a reform to the National infrastructure regim is potentially in 2025 if labor win as proposed was predicted we’ll see some Bas and if can changes to the system and that I think deserves and is rightly the fundamental
Piece of news that I wish to bring to our viewers attention this week Charlie thank you very much Sasha uh watch this stage as those policies are doubt fletched out um now uh the first uh case is um working where happily enough given we have Chris on the show um some tall
Buildings have been allowed and Chris you’re going to tell us about them no uh I’m going to tell you about solar F Oh I thought you about working T buildings some the script shall I shall I tell you about the solar farm shall I do tell us about the solar farm okay all
Right theal that I’m dealing with uh is Milton Road gayon in Northampton if we just bring up the decision uh hopefully Rob he’s got the order right yep and we can see it’s a secretary of state decision um it involves a just short of as they often are 50 megawatt solar farm
Uh it was a inquiry held by Mike Robbins um and uh as we can see um it was determined by the secretary state only SE State doesn’t determine appeals anymore apparently uh it was given to a junior minister so it was given to ad minister of State for local government
Simon Paul and um we can see it was recovered by the secretary state now the secretary of state has refused this decision and what is interesting um the inspector recommended approval Secretary of State refuses the decision is the approach that the inspector takes and then I’m just going to contrast that
With two other decisions uh that have been made in the last um the last couple of weeks so first of all um if we go forward and have a look at paragraph 13 uh the main issue was landscape character and appearance Secretary of State uh took the view that the
Introduction of the panel so the ever infrastructure um and there’s quite a bit that goes with it would introduce a fundamental change to agricultural land and considering the scale of the proposal there’d inevitably be a degree of change but interestingly agrees with the inspector the issue is not therefore
Whether there would be a material change because of course there would but the resultant adverse impacts and um uh sorry not not the material change in adverse impacts but the extent to which the approach taken to minimize any effects and then the balance um to be taken against the benefits would arise
So this is quite a sophisticated approach to to landscape issues and and actually deciding a bit like a Heritage case um about the effects and then balancing those against the benefits um and as we see uh what happened was the Secretary State adopts some of the reasoning of the inspector but then
Rejects um some other parts of it so if we go to paragraph 16 secretary of state has carefully considered the evidence of both the appellant and the LPA and comes down in favor of the lpa’s evidence as set out in the inspector’s report uh talks in particular about public rights away
Running through the northern parcel there were two Parcels to this scheme in addition to a toe path along the Grand Union canal and um the northern parcel are joined the canal and both Landscape Architects agreed as you’d expect in year one there’d be a significant effect but the appellant contended that as a
Result of the um mitigation um there would be much less uh effect at year 15 but the Secretary of State rejected that considered there’d be a significant impact for a number of years and relying on S landscape mitigation there’d be less effect at certain times of the year
So obviously winter uh and is a major consideration so he concluded that the northern parcel would be is of higher susceptibility to change from a solar proposal and considered U medium high susceptibility would be afforded so this is the language that we’re all used to in terms of landscape impact but being
Used really directly by the SE state to reach conclusions not to just say there’s an adverse impact but to look at susceptibility and then balance the impact against the benefits if we go forward again um we’ve got paragraph 29 and this is to do with Heritage assets
And uh in particular the Grand Union Canal the Secretary State notes there’s a management plan for the conservation area of the Grand Union Canal describes the overall character as being defined by the gently curving Canal the modest grassy top paath and the surviving Bridges with its setting being a
Particular note as it passes through the river valleys and uh he agrees with the inspector the significance of the Grand Union Canal Ming its history and Architectural value which includes the engineering of the contoured route of the canal and for that reason he agrees that the northern
Parcel of the appeal site is an element of the setting of The Grand Union Canal um and if we go forward the introduction of solar panels would alter that relationship to the canal an appreciation of its embankment form with Aurora landscape and that there would be
Harm to the setting of the Grand Union Canal probably the conservation area the Secretary State agrees the harm is limited to a short stretch of what is a very obviously very long linear Conservation area but he finds the harm to the setting to the Grand Union Canal
Even in that short stretch is moderate in the lower to middle end of less than substantial harm that’s language Chris obviously spends his entire professional life wrestling with um and there we see the Secretary State dealing with it if we just go forward um I’m going to speak up a
Little bit there was reference to a turnover bridge and the impact uh of the solar farm on the context of that bridge and again the setting of The Bridge um even with the planting um would be affected if we go forward again Secretary of State emphasizing a particular issue that rishy sunak was
Talking about in the House of Commons yesterday which this focus on food production so we’re all used to whether land is in best and most versatile agricultural land band and we have to look for 3A 2 and one for example um but actually um what the uh secretary of
State was interested in um when asking for further representations was whether the land was being farmed and you can see that the planning consultant Nick Pleasant wrote back and said well the land is not in food production actually um it’s being um used for animal feeds and crops that’s a theme that the
Government keeps emphasizing finally then if we come to um the last few paragraphs um I just emphasize this uh a lot of uh weights given to obviously renewable energy enhanced biodiversity creation of employment opportunities um and the fact the site as a temporary permission as solar Farms usually are would be returned to
Agriculture at some stage but you gave that negligible weight and if we just go forward again to 47 in line with the Heritage balance set out in paragraph 2 208 of the mppf the secretary of state has considered whether the identity the identified less than substantial harm to the
Significance of the designated Heritage asset is outweighed by the public benefits of The Proposal taking into account the public benefits so all that benefit of renewable energy biodiversity enhancement the Secretary of State considers the benefits of the appeal scheme are not collectively sufficient to outweigh outbalance the identified
Less than substantial harm to the significance so obviously the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area and so he didn’t apply the Tilted balance in this case as a result of not finding the public benefits test passed and we often find the public benefits test is passed in respect of Housing and all the
Affordable housing it delivers but here the secretary of state is saying no so um those are the paragraphs that I wanted to highlight but the other thing I just wanted to mention ever so briefly is that that decision was a refusal by the secretary state but he also Ed not
Far away in Northampton Shire the great whyley um uh solar farm in the green belt with apparently more Heritage harm so there’s a real consistency issue between this decision and what happened in the other SE State decision um for apparently greater harm but allowed that
One um you can find details of that the Osman Smith has done a little LinkedIn post called solar watch and um it covers and summarizes the apparent conflict between those decisions there might be a legal challenge to the decision I’ve just been talking about let Let’s uh
Let’s move on now we’ve got the lovely Mr Tucker coming in from New York to tell us about the working case thank you Charlie uh well as you can see I am not in the northeast of England at the moment uh that’s the Rockefeller Center that’s St Patrick Cathedral that’s
Madison Avenue and Fifth Avenue is just behind there somewhere um so I I have taken our guests uh attendance literally and I’ve decided to go to his Alma Mar and I’m not a million miles away from Columbia University which is thatway um but I’m going to tell you uh about uh a
An appeal decided on the 13th of March by Mr inspector shrigley to allow an appeal and Grant planning permission for 25 stories uh in one building uh involving 224 residential units um and uh and some commercial work on the ground floor I think three units uh this
Is located within the town center of woking um and uh followed a sixday inquiry which took place in January um the scheme was submitted in July of 2022 refused in March of 2023 and ultimately granted in March of 2024 two years to get a 25 story scheme
Together to be honest looking out of the window 25 stories looks extraordinarily small in this context um there were issues of affordable housing uh this provided actually the uh 40% affordable housing so the issues were actually positive issues but they were secured by 106 and also effects an
SBA also solved by uh a 106 um but there were three remaining issues uh one of which was the inadequacy of car parking um this was essentially a carfree scheme the uh minimum requirements uh for their parking standards within working burough would have given rise to 179 space
Pieces uh this scheme provided six disabled and one C Club Space I confess I always find this sort of reason for refusal completely baffling on the large schemes that I deal with um on the basis that if you’re promoting schemes in the middle of an accessible Town Center
Where your facilities are within walking distance and you have obviously excellent uh uh availability of public transport why on Earth would you want to provide more car parking and encourage people to have cars and the other uh uh issue which isight odd is the issue of amenity spaces for residents um so the
Amenity space was said to be below standard on the scheme itself um however it’s located within a town center um with lots and lots of opportunities for um Recreation on formal and informal Recreation um and that there must be an expectation that those who choose to
Live in a town center flatted scheme um will want to give rise to uh uh recreating within Town Center location it just makes sense so to require maximum standards seems a bit odd the the the the central issue seems seemed to be the issue of character appearance
Um and there was a stat of common ground which narrowed this down to height bulk and massing um it’s a town center location um it’s the location where the core strategy sought to direct uh large and tall buildings and as you’ll see from the graphic that that robs put up
Um that uh there was already consent for a number of tall buildings and it was in a location where there would be it would be read together with tall buildings um so it’s in the right location and it’s it will be read together with those those tall buildings however the cil’s
Case was that it was detached from the core of the town center and there was a conflict with a draft uh Town Center master plan that the inspector gave uh very limited weight to um uh that master master plan suggested that in this location one should have four to six
Stories well that was roundly rejected by the inspector and although he concluded that the scheme will be highly visible uh from a wide area giving rise to Major degrees of change he concluded it would act as a landmark it was uh welld designed um it would deliver
Housing in a location where the core strategy required uh 2,000 odd units it would deliver 40% affordable housing um and would be a good scheme we can see the commercial units down on the ground floor that also being a benefit bringing vibrancy to this particular part of the Town Center so relatively
Straightforward couple of an usual points in relation to the scheme as I said the car parking is pretty robust so if you’re promoting a carfree scheme this is one to look at if you’re going for a large uh uh development within a town center um and there’s no reference
In this scheme to the word beauty beautiful or high quality it was taken as a given and the inspector concluded that that change would be a benefit to the town center Center so good scheme well done to all those involved uh and uh back to you Charlie for our New York
Correspondence thank you very much thanks very much Paul I am going to start um I’m going to take you to a redro Appeal on largely open land in the green belt on the Eastern edge of tring and um on a site which the inspector said was visible from some public rights
Of way and in views from an adjoining area of standing National Beauty and actually reading this decision reminded me and I confess I’d forgotten that um areas of outstanding natural beauty were rebranded and we must now remember to call them National Landscapes and you will see here that this is another
Decision on behalf of the Secretary of State made not by the Secretary of State but this time by the minister for housing and homelessness and when you realize that this was a scheme for uh 1,000 400 homes uh and a local Center primary and secondary schools sports and recreation
Hubs public open space and sang um perhaps you’ll understand why that M MP made made the decision so this is an inquiry that was held in between March and may 2023 and the inspector’s report was received in August of last year and there was an addendum report which he submitted in November
Which covered off the ha regs um issue effectively the inspector provided the secretary of state with a shadow uh appropriate assessment now we’re in dorum and deorum had a core strategy dating back to 2013 they had a site allocations dpd born out of that strategy and they
Had ancient saved policies from a 200 full plan housing land Supply was said to be between 1.77 or 2.19 years uh according to the inspector’s report depending on whether uh you took the appellant’s figure or the council’s figures respectively but of course by the time the Secretary of State made his
Decision uh mppf 2023 was out perhaps because the Figures were so low there was no discussion about 50 sorry five years or four years or the transitional Provisions but did mean that the uh Secretary of State introduced the 20% buffer onto the requirement figure in accordance with paragraph 67 uh of the new
Mppf uh and interestingly the the Secretary of State also rejected the position agreed by the parties and the inspector which was that a um a shortfall a historic shortfall should be added to the standard method requirement figure the Secretary State disagreed with that but in the end it didn’t
Really make any difference there was still a very significant shortfall now at the end of a very long uh and detailed and Care careful report the inspector found that very special circumstances existed so I say now publicly congratulations to Chris Young and his team of 15 Witnesses um the inspector found that
The appellant evidence had shown that the council had a history of failing to meet its commitments to deliver a local plan the site had been included for release from the green belt in a regulation 18 document but that document had been withdrawn the inspector said that that the the history the
Development plan history and the failing development plan was an important factor and his determination of the appeal which carried significant weight with regard to his findings uh about very special circumstances and I’ll come back to that um in a little in a little while he attached subst IAL weight that was
The highest um measure that the inspector adopted he attached substantial weight to open market affordable homes first homes and also the social economic benefits some factors uh relating to sport Recreation education and Community benefits would serve more than the development required and so that those additional benefits were given low
Moderate weight by the inspector but the in this interestingly enough the Secretary of State preferred the word limited weight so the inspector found significant harm to openness and to two purposes of the green belt he found that there would be an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the
Surrounding area and the setting of the nearby aom and 49% of this scheme was on BMV best most vers best and most versatile um at agricultural land and he gave significant weight against the scheme as a result of that there was also some issues around designated Heritage assets
He found less than substantial harm but applying the balance 202 then now 20 paragraph 20898 now he found that the planning balance uh was in favor of the appellant now all of that all of those um waights waiting exercises uh were accepted um by the Secretary of
Of State except for one and the other point to note is that the secretary of state was clear in his decision letter that the proposal overall was contrary to the development plan whereas actually when I looked at the inspector’s conclusions I couldn’t find that there was a a clear conclusion one way or
Another on that important topic but the Secretary of State state did not accept that the related failure to deliver a local plan was a matter that carried separate weight in the overall planning balance and that is why it seemed to me uh he omitted that from his um
Consideration and overall he found that very special circumstances did not exist thus there was a protective policy I.E the green belt policy that provided he said a clear reason for refusal he considered the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and so the presumption in favor of sustainable development did not
Apply and so applying section 386 he found that the proposal should be refused and that material IND uh considerations indicated that planning permission should be refused and so it was thank you very much so Chris um welcome against the show partner monteu Evans a a large Specialist Team Works
Alongside you you’re not only a a Heritage expert but also M of the rtpi uh member of The Institute of building conservation PhD and history of architecture Banning dozens of Publications clearly I think a book on the Supreme Court no l where edited lady halil and Tom bam to Legal Legends uh
Fellow of the royal Historical Society uh Paul Hoster high-profile cases such as the Holocaust uh Learning Center British museum M&S which is while you’re on today given the topicality of that issue um and as I said you’re uh someone from greater New York who’s um Italian American has made the journey over here
And we’re interested to hear about uh that journey and the lessons the comparative lessons that that you can share with us and unconventionally we’re going to start with a question from Paul actually because that’s really going to S lead us into that issue and then I ask
My question so Rob if you can fire up all once again from America thanks guys so my question is to Chris as I sit here with these relatively modly developments uh as the backdrop what lessons do you think the United Kingdom can learn from creating cities in North America based
Upon your experience on both sides of the Atlantic well I mean I have to stray outside of my uh the Heritage topic I mean I’ll start with that in a way because um The Heritage topic sort of informs the rest of the answer to the question I mean from the beginning
American preservation always been about trying to find a viable use for historic building and in that sense it’s I think it’s really different to the way the Heritage and conservation is evolved evolved in this country but I think second main difference is that Americans have always been I think more
Comfortable with living in dense and high-rise developments I mean it may come down to a really simple-minded Delight in modernity and I don’t just mean modern style I mean you know all mod cons and the efficiencies you have from it and you know uh probably almost uniquely amongst people I work with and
Discuss tall buildings with I’ve actually lived in tall buildings and you know people live happy full lives in them you know they get married they have children they enjoy themselves they have wonderful Outlook they have the benefits uh in New York for example within any
One city block you have a whole range of services because there’s so many people that can support them and if you get the amount of public open space like and man you’ve got a fantastic Park um then you know it’s a very it’s a very comfortable way to live and a very
Successful way to live and and I think actually in this country a younger generation is increasingly appreciating that that way of living and and they’ve got to really because of the density requirements we all we all have to meet and the only way to make best use of the
Land really bigger buildings I guess the other point to make is that you know whilst I think this country can learn some things from the US I think uh the us could learn some things from this country I mean the the the standard of design in um I think in American cities
Has steadily gone down whereas the standard of design of British cities has gone up whether it’s inheritage context or you know entirely modern developments I mean there there’s a generality of course but I I think we should actually be really proud of what we’ve achieved architecturally and the landscape terms
In this country over the last 20 years well Paul can’t tell me if he’s got any follow on no he asked him I don’t how he left up um you know I I was getting a wide anage that know the main differences between how planning is done
In the US and UK we touched on that perhaps already but if you had to pick one feature of um the the American way of doing things in our exported here what would that be well I’m not sure I really would because it’s a highly legalized environment um
Well actually here’s one thing there are certain environments where rules just where planning is just treated as a set of rules you know for example relation to householder developments it’s a really straightforward series of rules if you follow UNS setback light and so forth where consent should be
Forthcoming where an area is zoned for certain kind of development so that I think is a is a uh an aspect of the American system which is which is really efficient really really efficient but when it comes to the bigger forms of development there’s the same uh
Complexities actually and in some ways a bit more horse Trading things taking I don’t want to be specific but you know we have such greater Clarity in this country for example around things like the tariffs you pay in connection with affordable housing or sill contribution and a lot of major developments United
States friends I have who work in this sector tell me it’s more just like a negotiation with not too many tariff tariffs but it will vary so much from place to face because the American system is highly decentralized as well which is I think one of its one of the
Strong parts of this country planning system is its centrality and consistency moving to to um the UK and how we do things I’ve heard we you and I have had many discussion about the difference between preservation and conservation of townscape and Heritage um any observations you’d like to make
On that subject of our VI are we too obsessed or focused um on on preservation in this country I mean by preservation you mean the the retention of absolutely as much of as possible yeah well I I think I think we are because there’s a you know conserving the built-in environment you
Really have to make very careful decisions that are based on qualitative analysis I mean for example and it’s an obvious point you know the the the timber Framing and internal features of an 18th early 18th Century House you know you work hard to try to keep that
Stuff because it’s pretty rare isn’t it and it’s rare that it’s devolving but you know uh you know a a Victorian house that’s listed because of its facade from the 1890s I mean it’s it’s the stuff it’s made from is the commonest stuff possible is that really part of the
Specialist ability it isn’t really actually and yet too often even with the benefit of the framework and the sort of nuanced way we have understanding Heritage you know people treat those more recent buildings as if they’re quite old and I I just think a different approach should be adopted and that’s
That’s what conservation should be which is about a sort of you know positive interaction with a building to give it longevity and durability yeah exactly as opposed to zero change which is well um conservation seems to be interpreted and then um building beautiful I can’t not ask you a question about building
Beautiful um how has um the what I call the building V agenda that sort of sounds a bit like loaded to I don’t mean it like that but how is that and the associated changes the mppf that we’ve seen uh recently fected the way tscape placem matters are considered in
Decision Mak has affected your job and has it been for the better the wor or it not really made very much difference in practice no it’s actually it’s made a lot difference so I mean first of all you have to remember that you know as you say the design and gender got some
History now to it it goes right the way back to you know the major government doesn’t it and it’s invigorated by the labor party with cave and so forth but in the in the late 90s and 2000s there was a real emphasis on architectural novelty to use architecture as a way to
Stimulate interest and investment in places but you know there there’s been a reaction against that because it’s led to a kind of exhibitionism and a sort of Menagerie approach almost to collections of big buildings where everyone is different it’s a little discordant some people might say in the last four or
Five years have been much greater emphasis on a contextual response so that even you know really substantial buildings like for example the one I did with Chris Young that he referred to earlier with Mr Griffith you know are having to demonstrate that you know they need to have regard to know local
Characteristics material proportions and so forth um and if and you know and that has changed the way we advise clients and the way architecture is done and it’s and it’s made it’s made a notable change you can see it already taking effect is it a good thing yeah Pro it
Probably is a good thing but you know history will come around and things will be different in another 10 years times you be sure you know because it never ta the history of taste is a history of change right there’s no there’s no your right answer yeah one I toall buildings
We we heard the uh Paul uh in the uh discussion of the woking case earlier on um they um been a lot of toall buildings cases um not necessarily easy to draw a golden thread through them all in terms of consistency or principled approach so really my question for you is is Chris
Is current policy and decision- making relating to Tool buildings working and it’s not what would you change yeah well by the way I’ve done a few things in working town Center they were on that model i’ been so which was a I have to say um but
I mean so I I guess London is that is the test bit for all this and you know I was one of the people who worked on the London view management framework back in 20045 which is the document we use you know to manage buildings and the
Strategic views um and at that point the London plan had what I would call a promotional approach which is very Loos locational and that and that’s led to a lot of dis quiet um at least well who knows the population large but in certain parts of the population I guess that matter to
Politicians um and what’s happened gradually in London is that the policy has become more locationally tight and quite specific about amount and size and London plans now are required uh London local plans required by the London plan to identify areas and indicative Heights and the trouble with that is those
Heights are being established with that reference to really you know the things you need to know when you design a tall building sunlight daylight rights of light infrastructure building orientation plot size and as a consequence lots of toall building allocations are getting adopted in local plans which are
Undeliverable um and and it’s leading to just incredible tension in the system in a way that there wasn’t before um some local authorities are being quite loose in the wording that they’re using like lambath but others are taking a strict approach and it’s it’s actually going to prevent sites from coming forward
Do you think the sh What The Shard have got per mission in today’s climate it’s hard to imagine I don’t think it was positively allocated for a tall building quite no quite uh you would you do think some of those landmarks that came uh London landmarks that came in that sort
Of era the G was little earlier um black fires Etc um quite hard to see how they were how they necessarily would have got approval in the uh in the current in the current well it’s sort of no small iron is it that they listed buildings of the
Future these buildings AR well quite absolutely absolutely um I want I move into the future and talk about tech and how that might Assist U consideration of the kinds of issues that you give on uh reg’s inquiries um know we often have photo montages of different degrees of
Granularity but about virtual reality if we go to an inquiry in I don’t know five 10 15 years time when we just asked in to to Dono visor and do a virtual walk around development I’ve done I’ve done that already actually I did the first one of those about four years ago with
Colin b um and this the the costs are becoming are reducing greatly um but you know the other thing that um you know I I’m working on in another venture is the use of technology to measure human response to change in the visual environment I mean at the moment we
Based decisions really important decisions on static images which bear no resemblance to the way we actually perceive the world and understand it through our eyes um there’s allegations of visual harm based on you know the worst kind of not even surrogates for you Vision just you know poor representations and and we make
Assessments almost on the basis that these views are like pictures or paintings and it’s not the way we see the world at all so I’m hoping that the use of technology is going to make these decisions more democratic and more inate and more reliable maybe even quite of
Time scale are we looking at for um these kinds of Innovations to come forward oh the next year and we’re gonna and we’re already beginning to use them actually but they’ll be though they will begin to feature in public inquiries in the next year to 18 months absolutely
Good I can to ask my question if I made Chris so that’s okay uh got a little connection problem there with Charlie so my question is when we look at the law and the policy surrounding Heritage assets have we just made it too complicated in terms of decision
Making well I think I think we have I mean you know when you think about all the cases that potentially bear on Heritage matters right there just so many comes up all the time you think about all the guidance that exists different stages of preparation much of it if I’m really being straightforward
Says the same thing really um doesn’t add anything particularly um and then you have you know the result the courts were weighing in about the weight to be given to Heritage impacts um which is misinterpreted all the time by local decision makers in a local planning context really rather
Unfortunately um when in fact it’s not so much about great weight yes you have to give it great weight as a matter of law it’s really about the nature of the impact and and whether or not it makes a difference to the way you understand something I mean it the actually the the
Approach we should take is super simple right why is it interesting now that’s an easy question but that is an expert judgment right that’s an you know I can do that I’ve been doing this for a long time you need to study you need to look you need to understand things um and
Then do we affect what’s interesting that and that’s it really it’s no more nor less complicated than that and you know the whole consideration around setting has just made that that really simple question very difficult and you see in all the cases the way it you know
Is it’s either a confounding or a complicating Factor um given too much weight maybe I don’t know on the facts of any one case maybe maybe not that is a beautifully elegant answer to the question and I think we’re all just nodding it’s the concept of l a
Substantial harm useful yeah I don’t think it is actually I mean I understand entirely why the framework introduced it in the context of introducing the a balance right around harm and the Very sense decision that well actually if you’re going to demolish a building let’s be
Honest you need a really good reason a listed building obviously um but as soon as you introduce that distinction you invite all kinds of complex arguments around it and the scaling of it the boundary is between substantial and less substantial exact framework was published it seemed to me pretty clear
Substantial harm is you’re knocking something down or pretty well knocking all of it down but it’s become so teased into uh describing impacts that aren’t remotely that severe remotely how this didn’t like the one of the decisions that we heard about earlier where har upan har you know it’s a
Concept that’s so broad um that arguably it’s it’s sort of meaningless really or not very helpful at least decision making but also remember it’s harm to the whole of the darn thing right that and mean that’s the test all the stat story vision is around impact on the
Asset as a whole you know and and so a moderate level that’s quite a lot actually even less and substantial harm so no agreed um Mary thank you much Charlie um I I want to take you uh Chris to the M&S um decision and to ask you what are your
Thoughts please on the whole carbon issue post um the M&S challenge and also since the um only Grand of challenge that was lost in that decision related to the impact on Heritage assets I wondered as an expert what is key in your view to understanding the impact on any setting
So sorry that’s two for the price at one but at least allows Charlie to be quiet for a few minutes yes well I think I think for all you know you planner X on the program right the main decision you need to know know is the decision by
Paul Griffith in the edth summer skills house case which is Secretary of State decision from 2020 Mr griffus um we know very senior inspector has had most of the big Heritage setting cases pitched to them right um and so he’s heard it many times from your brethren okay and
He’s distilled it beautifully in this decision and essentially it goes like this he says look in setting cases it’s only the significance that the assets derise from its setting that can be affected and that it it’s obvious the intrinsic interest of the asset is retained it’s not affected so you know I
Started out doing listing when I was at English Heritage as we were we didn’t list things because of their setting we listed them because how much there was of them and what they looked like and how old they were and then Mr Griffith says that unless an asset derives as he
Put it a major proportion of significance from its setting that it’s unlikely that the harm can creep up very high in the less than substantial scale well there it is and you know I think the the real problem is that people are using the same words and the same
Gradient for direct and indirect effects they’re hly different actually in their nature obviously because a setting a setting impact doesn’t make a building any less worthy of protection for example so maybe maybe that’s what policy should go directed at rather than Stan and less substan it don’t knock it
Down and then Direct effects versus indirect effects might be a better a better distinction in the policy was yeah I think I think so and formulated I think that’s absolutely right and it is caused a lot of Mischief at this point um actually spent a lot of time we all
Spend a lot of time obviously dealing with this point and then on carbon Mary well yeah I mean so carbon being you know well I mean M&S sorry I should say yes so I’m working on it for five years um um and people on the call know what
Happened um the only you’re right the only ground that did fail was on the challenge quite interesting what Natalie leave said is she said that on that point you know she dealt with it very shortly she said in my view it’s very important that the tests for impact on
Heritage assets do not become even more complicated and subject to an even more complex legal reasoning process than is presently the case so step away basically is what judge Le said don’t need to go there because of course we went on five or six grounds anyway but
On the carbon point I mean that really has changed things because that I what M&S crystallized for me was um the way in which or put another way there’s a whole category of let’s call it let’s use the word asset you know old thing out there which is now called a non-designated Heritage
Asset okay and there are a lot of them because guess what we live in an old country okay they’re everywhere you know that’s a wonderful thing um but they’re not listed they’re not remotely of listable quality and they don’t deserve the special attention that Al listed building or Conservation Area gets or sh
Monument Etc um and so what MNS did was it enabled the carbon argument to fold into the non-designated Heritage argument and for the two of them to reinforce the other and in that way to give more weight to the retention of old buildings which are not listed because let’s remember the principal protagonist
In this case was save Britain’s Heritage okay and the result has been consequently that you know any new sign I look at now has an old building on it of any consequence you know I don’t mean listed you look at that’s kind of interesting um I say in my expert way
It’s kind of nice um you know that if uh you instantly say to the client do you know there’s a risk here that this is going to happen but now as to what the complexities of carbon and so forth I mean look we’re all professionals on the call I’ve done a
Lot of big retention schemes so we added I’m looking at it now actually 14 Flor to a Richard seet building from the 1960s in Islington that was pretty good that you know there’s certain sites they work fantastically for the client actually because you’ve got structure there already you don’t have to pay to
Demolish it you just add to it and strengthen it it’s fantastic there are some sites where it makes perfect planning in an economic sense but other SES it just doesn’t work you know we said that M&S was one of those sites that was our case um and so but
Undoubtedly what it does is it obviously we’re going to have to do more we have to do whole life cycle carbon analysis now on buildings for major developments and if there’s a Heritage Dimension there’s going to be that added twist to it and it makes it a little bit more
Difficult I think than it maybe needs to be well thank you very much Chris for that very useful Insight thanks Charlie thanks Mary um Sasha what’s your question for Chris right Charlie yes because I just wonder in many of the cases that we all do Heritage is
Utilized as a reason for refusal the paragraph 208 or 209 and I just wonder if you’ve got any view on whether one could insert or impose some form of gayway test to ensure that what’s truly valuable is is is kind of recognized as such and crywolf doesn’t occur as it
Often does in the heritage heritage field frankly currently well it’s funny you know in uh the PPG on the designation of conservation areas there’s some there’s an admin you don’t often find this kind of thing and what the uh secretary of state has said is that when designated conservation areas local authorities
Should ensure that they genuinely Merit the designation it’s quite interesting that isn’t it there might be a similar admonition in relation to local lists okay because I mean why put something on what is the what is the Gateway test for that it’s interesting in a local context
Well it’s not been defined anywhere but I think that guidance could be crafted possibly in the framework or the PPG really to emphasize the point that when looking at a listed building it’s important to understand the relative significance of every bit of it as the basis for actually you know sustainable
Regulation of the of the built environment instead of just every bit of it and you know the framework tried to do that in its approach but it has had the unintended consequence of turning every building into an archaeological site virtually you know everything is has significance because it’s old or
It’s part of historic structure in some way but in fact we all know well any expert will tell you it ain’t all equally good you know even within the category of grade two buildings there’s a huge variety of quality and interest even within that massive category and equally within higher grades too that’s
Really interesting question I there’s a style of of an analysis for Heritage matters I quite like which is you know what are the principal contributors the significance and then what’s the effect of the development on each of those contributors which give a sort of proportionate analysis of the overall fact
But decisions need often seem that nuanced the evidence may be that Nuance but decisions seem to sort of generally tend to favor the um you know change is bad approach well I mean yeah well that that’s you saying that as the Barrister in the room arguing the case I’m gonna
I’m the witness and this is going to be played back um obviously um but but no I think I think it it well know I think inspectors do pay attention carefully when I hope they do they seem to anyway when I’m giving expert evidence and that
That that’s the that’s the way I give it and also when I meet authorities equally I mean if that Nuance doesn’t find its way into the decision I don’t um I don’t think that I don’t think that means it hasn’t been recognized necessarily decisions necessarily are
Compressed um not every aspect of a case but um and you do occasionally find decisions where there are these fine distinctions made where it’s it’s absolutely Central um I had one once which was about whether not a piece of land was a medieval clearance or an 18th
Century field and we relied on you know 16th century documents to prove it wasn’t old you know so and the inspector had to make a finding and it was Jolly important it was an a it was in a national landscape sorry National landscape that’s we I have to call them
Last question from be your your favorite uh shotgun to the Head your favorite Heritage asset and your favor building if it if not a Heritage asset in uh in the UK well um the Albert Memorial by George Gilbert Scott from the late 1860s which is the reason I decided to study
Victorian architecture so it f fond feelings for it and um and actually the Lloyd’s building which is just at the bottom of St Mary acts which I’ll tell you when it was published in the Architectural Review I picked up that Magazine from Columbia architectural Library where I was reading for my PhD I
Went to that library and we could not believe it I mean it was jaw-dropping actually and you know I’ve had the amazing Good Fortune to work with with gram sturk the architect of that building on the British museum extension which is my third favorite actually well once again Chris thank
Thank you very much the lots of um party comments in the chat um and um we are back uh in a few weeks time um with the next series and we will announce the uh 18 April uh we’ll announce our guests with we’re lining up some great guests
That that Series so in the meantime um have a good break happy Easter if you celebrate it happy holidays if not and uh thanks again Chris good night thank you Chris [Applause] Oh