Mitti's questions:

- What was the public's opinion about the "contaminated rubble" sourced from different construction/demolition sites
- How was the above mitigated in order to satisfy or calm the general public concern?
- Considering that the design did not consider an ecologic function of the site, was the idea in the end brought in to reduce the concerns in regards with the possible contamination of the materials used as infill?
- the engineering part only talks about the details that are visible as result. Was truly the design and technical detailing about what it can be seen today or it was more comprehensive and detailed than it could be accomplished?
- Considering that the first phase was financed by the infill site, which were the organisations to finance the phase two works? Council, HLF, Government Grants)
- The engineering participation in phase two is not very clear apart from the crib wall installation. Techniker/Peter Brett Assoc. were employed to provide the engineering consultancy by the Landscape Architects. Once this has been accomplished in the first stage were the same companies involved in the second stage? In either of the stages what were the contractual relationship between the designers and the engineering companies?
- How did the engineers influence the design? Were the engineers employed to provide the solution or they were involved in the design stage as well? The later is not confirmed as there is no evidence the two engineering companies taking credit of any involvement. Not in their portfolio, nor in other documents.
- What was the planning involvement in the whole design? Considering the visual impact of the scheme on the surrounding area how did the planning process influence the design? What were the issues they had to mitigate and what was the engineering response to that?
- Could we get hold of a copy of the planning application to see the details and the visual impact assessment and how this impacted the consultation process?