Re. minutes - from my knowledge of public enquiries, they dont have minutes. This is one of the reasons that well-off large firms that can employ people to be there for the duration are at an advantage over individuals and impoverished community groups. It can be helpful to pick up speakers' "Statement of Case" documents, but these aren't always exactly what is said on the day and, as pointed out, dont contain the cross-examination which is often the most illuminating part.
Ruck and Maul - not on the subject of this thread exactly, but - you talk as though "feeling all at peace with the world" was a worrying and unwelcome state. I recommend you should become a little more familiar with it. Its much nicer - for yourself and everybody else - and doesn't at all stop you from disagreeing with people or having an incisive and perceptive grip on affairs.
Thank you ever so much for your direction... I am actually extremely chilled 90% of the time but some comments deserve a little ribbing, Friday or not... Being at peace is not unwelcome at all and I certainly am. This forum is not without its share of sarcasm and cynicism - just felt that a little was in order...
All of the presentations and representations are taken down at a major public inquiry, sometimes in the form of a direct transcript in the case of a major inquiry.
They are for the us of the Planning Inspector who is effectively the "judge" in this context, and are not generally released to the general public.
In the same way that a judge uses the court record to reach a jubdgement or summarise for a jury (depending on the court), the inspector uses his/her notes and the transcript where appropriate to come to their decision.
They are referred to if the planning appeal decision is challenged in the High Court on a point of law (not just because you don't like it!).
Mr forstick tried to question Mr Brett(of Barton Willmore Planning Paretnership) about a letter from the photographers gallery to Berkeley Homes ,but was repeatedly interrupted and stoped from doing so by the Berkeley spokesman .who claimed the question should have been put to there cultural witness.James Alexander.
It then transpired that southwark council had been asking Berkeley for evidence of who there cultural users might be for some time and had been refused until two months before the inquiry started when Berkeley gave southwark council a confidential letter .
Very Clevely Mr forstick tricked Mr bret into revealing that the conclusion of the confidential letter was that Berkeley was IN NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH ANY CULTURAL USER EITHER AT AN EARLY OR ADVANCED STAGE ,OF NEGOTIATION
Mr Bretts face turned white when he realised what he'd done
Team Berkeley were furious and declared it an ambush
Obviously the letter from the photographers gallery had been stating that because of the inadequacies and deficianys of the Berkeley scheme they couldn't be involved .
It will be a travesty of justice if this scheme gets planning permission
As I arrived Mr Bret was proclaiming that Berkeley Homes were London's premiere developer in london with massive experience in river side developments ,hhmm I wouldn't shout to loudly about that ,Berkeley witness DR Gilse Worsly an architectural Historian was very critical of most river side developments in London ,obviously forgetting most of them were built by Berkeley homes .
At the start of the cross examination Mr forscdick pointed out that both Berkeley scheme and the southwark plan were mixed use the difference was .the southwark plan
Was better use.
Mr. Brett said he thought Berkeley homes could have there cake and eat it,(by the end of the cross egsamenation the cake was well and truely put back in the fridge)
The word user coursed some disagreement
Team Berkeley accused southwark of trying to put all there eggs one basket with just one cultural user .
Mr forsdick pointed out that as far as the southwark plan was concerned the word cultural user meant more than one user .
Mr Forsdick attacked the Berkeley claim that no large cultural user such as an orchestra or theater would be interested in relocating to the site.by reading out Ken livingstons cultural document that stated that
Many cultural institutions were forced to work in inadequate buildings and some of London's world class institutions are struggling to maintain there programs because of inadequate facilities
The obvious implication of which is that many of them would love to move to a new location.
Especially one as attractive as potters fields .
It was a very hot day after the customary stroll along the rive at lunch time .
Mr. bretts tongue slipped, and he proclaimed that
On a day like this Potters fields will be crammed with people basking in the sunshine ,City hall and more London has attracted more people to the area .
City hall isn't a big crowed puller most people that pass it have either been to the Tate Modern .Borough market or Tower Bridge.
As I was arriving they were discussing educational use of the collage It seemed that southwark councils plan to compulsory purchase the collage for use as a school had been withdrawn (I think)
Just waiting for the change of use application to resi... Would make a lovely place to live...
BUT before you all jump on board and give me a moral high ground virtual kicking I would of course rather it were used to educate the children of Southwark. My point is just that some of these old schools make beautiful apartment buildings.
In my opinion the Berkeley presentation didn't go well ,not surprising considering how bad the scheme is,
The Berkeley side have asked for the Architect Ian Riche back to explain how a cultural user could occupy his space ,and they have asked James Alexander back to explain the undisclosed contents of the photographers gallery letter.
Apart from this the Berkeley presentation is complete