Truman's Public Inquiry - Tuesday 14 October 2025, 9:48am

Truman's Public Inquiry
Tuesday, 14th October 2025 at 9:48am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

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
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.

I'm a member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation.

And I am the Inspector Appointed by the Secretary of State

to conduct this inquiry, excuse me, and to determine four appeals

bought by Truman Estates Limited and Zaluf Limited against the failure of the Council

of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to make decisions

within the prescribed period on four applications.

You'll have to bear with me because I have to read these out.

The first, which I've called Appeal A, that's 3367041,

I think, concerned an application for the demolition

of existing buildings on the site and the construction

of a new building comprising 5 ,200 square metres GIA

of use class B8 floor space for use as a data centre,

reaching a maximum height of approximately 29 metres,

41 .78 metres AOD.

That's on land at the corner of Grey Eagle Street

and Calvin Street, London E1.

The second, which I've called Appeal B,

and I think that's 336 -7172, relates to an application for,

and there's quite a lot of this, but bear with me,

demolition of existing buildings and structures

and buildings not including the Boiler House

and Cooperage buildings, which will be refurbished,

construction of five new buildings comprising approximately 35 ,000 square

metres GIA of residential office, retail, food and beverage, community use,

supermarket, microbrewery, market space, event space and public toilets of use

classes EA, B and G, use class F1, F2, suite generous and use class C3 reaching

a maximum height of approximately 29 metres again 42 .78 AOD and within that

Block O, the boiler house is to be retained and refurbished with a new extension to the east

and a viewing platform to provide event and exhibition space, that's in use class F1.

Blocks 3A and 3B on Buxton Street, construction of new buildings, part two, part three, part six,

part eight storeys with a maximum height of approximately 29 metres to provide food and

drink cinema, event space and public toilets, use classes EB and Sui Generis.

At ground floor and office use, use class EG1, that's Roman 1 on upper floors.

Block K, the Cooperage building on Spital Street, retention and refurbishment to provide event space and microbrewery at ground floor,

use class suite generous and retention of existing art studio space at first floor, use class EG3.

Block 1 on Spital Street, construction of a new building, part single, part three storeys to provide retail,

use class EA at ground floor and office floor space use class eg1 on upper floors block to

construction of a new seven -storey building with a maximum height of approximately

29 metres to provide a market space use class E and public toilets we generous at ground floor and

office space use class eg1 on upper floors

block J

demolition of existing cash and carry building on spittle Street

Woodseer Street and Hanbury Street, construction of a new part 4, part 5, part 7 storey building

with a maximum height of approximately 27 metres to provide retail floor space, use

class EA at ground floor and on upper floors 44 new homes, use class C3 fronting Spittel

Street and Hanbury Street.

Office space, use class EG1 fronting Woodseer Street and the provision of public accessible

routes through the site from Brick Lane, Buxton Street and Spital Street, landscaping, a vehicle

servicing and loading bay and two new publicly accessible squares.

And the site address for that lot is Truman's Brewery, Land Fronting, Brick Lane, Buxton

Street, Spital Street, Woodsea Street and Hanbury Street, London E1.

The third one, Appeal C, that's 336 -7179.

An application for construction of a part four, part five, part six storey building,

maximum height of approximately 29 metres to provide market space, use class E at ground

floor and 4 ,500 square metres GIA of offices, use class EG1 on upper floors and the creation

of a new landscaping and pedestrian link and the site address for that is Ely's Yard, land

by Grey Eagle Street and Dre Walk.

And finally, the fourth appeal, appeal D,

that's the section 20 appeal,

and that relates to an application

of a listed building consent for, put simply,

works to the Boiler House

and an extension to the Boiler House.

Sorry about all that, but one does have to go through it.

There are some opening formalities that we need to attend to

before we can get on with hearing evidence.

The first thing I need to say is if you do have an electronic device, can you please put it to silent?

Thank you.

And the second and important point I need to deal with now is appearances.

So I'm going to ask first of all who appears for the appellant.

May it please you, sir.

My name is Russell Harris.

I'm a KC.

I appear for the appellant.

We've reduced our appearances to a schedule.

and I'll ask that they be handed to you.

I'm gonna read it all out verbatim.

So I appear for the appellant alongside Mr. Parkinson

who's handing out the schedule, the expensive Asher.

I propose to call the following witnesses.

At present they're set out in the document

in alphabetical order.

Michael Dunn, sir, to deal with heritage.

Simon Henley to deal with design, in particular, block J.

Elish Killaly to deal with townscape.

Jonathan Margeson to deal with planning.

Celeste McGinley to deal with data centre evidence.

Joe Morris to deal with design, specifically blocks A,

main block 3A and B, and Eli's Yard.

and Marti Omen to deal with the main site master plan

and building two.

Those are the appearances for the appellant.

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

And for the council.

Yes, the appearance is coming around.

I'll introduce myself and my junior.

I'm Richard Wold.

I'll respell the surname. It's W -A -L -D.

Sorry, you need to...

Is that working? Yeah.

I'll respell the surname. It's W -A -L -D.

Together with Mr Flanagan,

we appear for the Council.

We're instructed by Ian Austin at the Council,

and the appearances are set out

on the first sheet of the opening which you're soon to hear.

They are Mr Ignace Frohnemann on matters of heritage,

Mr Paul Reynolds on townscape and design,

and Mr Mike Keeley on matters of planning.

Thank you, Mr Wall.

Thank you.

And for the Rule 6 party.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Flora Curtis and I appear on behalf of the Rule 6

Party instructed by Emilio Miranda -Graham and Susan

Ring of Good Nuff Ring Solicitors.

Our appearances are Adam Almeida on matters of economic impact,

Alec Forshaw on matters of heritage and townscape,

Dr. Tanzil Shafiq on matters of cultural impacts,

Saif Osmani also on cultural impacts,

Seema Manchanda on planning and John Burrell on design.

Oh, Flora Curtis, apologies, I may have been

turned the other way.

Thank you, Ms. Curtis.

That's helpful.

Are there any third parties here who would like to speak at the inquiry?

inquiry.

What we've done in timetabling the inquiry is arrange

for interested persons, third parties,

people who are not connected with the main parties

to speak next Tuesday starting at 3 p .m. So we're going

to have a public session when anybody who does want

to make representations to the inquiry can.

So you don't need to register an interest today.

All you need to do is turn up next Tuesday for 3 p .m.

And I'll just deal with you all in turn and we'll go on as long as we need to go on.

So that's the plan.

I hope that's acceptable.

If there is anyone who can't make next Tuesday for any reason, then do let me know and I'll

try and accommodate you before then or after then.

We're sitting for three weeks, so we should be able to fit you in somewhere.

Excellent.

I'm fully expecting that quite a few people will want to speak next Tuesday.

Yes.

Well, as I said, we'll be starting at 3 PM.

But when we'll finish is as long as it takes.

Yeah, I could do any morning.

If you want to come in and probably not this morning,

but any other morning, draw my attention to it, let me know.

I'm perfectly happy to accommodate that.

And you can speak before we get onto

any of the main witnesses.

I'm content with that.

I want to make it accessible, obviously,

so I don't want to stop you.

I understand, yeah, three o 'clock.

Yeah, school pickup time, and then,

yeah, there's what goes on afterwards.

Fine, no problem.

Good.

In terms of how the event's going to work,

once I've finished my opening remarks,

we're going to hear opening statements

from the main parties, first the appellant,

then the Rule 6 party, then the council.

Then we're going to move

on to the appellant's presentation on design

and the arrangements of the different schemes.

That's today.

Now, I did set out a draught timetable in my,

after the case management conference.

I've seen some correspondence this morning

about the timetable and the need to set it out in detail

so that people know who's on when.

I'm happy to go along with that up to a point, but I do want

to try and make the best use of inquiry time

in the first two weeks.

so that we don't load ourselves up with too much to do in the final week.

I don't know, Mr. Harris, was there anything you wanted to say about time?

No, sir. I'm very grateful to Mr. Wall's team who put that together,

bearing in mind certain constraints that Ms. Curtis has had,

and we're very happy to be flexible.

I raised the same point as yourself, though, in that we shouldn't, apart from next Tuesday,

which should be written in stone, I think, apart from that, the inquiry should proceed

at the pace that's appropriate.

And if it means moving things forward, then we should do that.

So apart from that, I was very happy and grateful to Mr. Wall's team.

I did suggest to him that I thought because of the nature of the overlap of quite a lot

of the witnesses, there was a clear potential, at least, I'll put it no higher than that now,

for us to finish all the evidence in the first two weeks.

And if we can do that, then we should.

But otherwise, we are very happy to be flexible and reasonable to accommodate the constraints of witnesses, but also members of the public.

Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Harris. I mean, it would be my preference to finish the evidence in the first two weeks, but it takes what it takes.

Mr. Wall, did you want to say anything about timetabling?

I don't think there is anything that needs to be added to that.

Obviously, we will do our best to avoid duplication given some degree of overlap between witnesses

and also to make best use of time.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Ms Curtis?

Nothing additional to say save that the Rule 6 parties, witnesses that are currently scheduled

in week two to start from the 23rd in the afternoon have informed me that because they're

participating in this inquiry voluntarily alongside other commitments, it will be quite

difficult for them to come a day early.

So I appreciate that still allows some flexibility if, for example, they're in the morning rather

than the afternoon, but moving a whole day earlier may not be feasible for them.

I suggest that we play it by ear, really, and we see how we're getting on, see what

kind of progress we make.

And yeah, if people do have constraints, I understand.

So do we, sir.

But what we're keen to avoid is having a whole afternoon off

or having a whole morning off.

And we're very happy to box and cocks our witnesses.

And I think Mr. Wald has told me that his witnesses

are available for the whole time too.

So I'm sure we can deal with Ms. Curtis's

potential difficulties, which we understand,

without having a hiatus,

which would be the worst of all worlds.

I think that's right, but I'm happy to be flexible.

But yeah, if it means moving a witness, yeah,

we can see how he gets on with that.

Excellent.

Thank you.

I'm grateful.

In general terms, just, I mean, most of you will know this,

but the way this tends to work is

that a witness will be called.

They will give their evidence in chief, and we'll see some

of that after we've heard openings today.

There will be cross -examination from the other side.

Almost inevitably I'll have some questions.

And then there'll be re -examination,

and then that concludes that witness.

We'll move on to the next one.

So we'll do it all in that way in accordance

with the timetable.

I want to be clear, too,

that I'm accessing all the inquiry documentation

electronically.

I've got two devices which I've managed to connect to Wi -Fi, so I should be okay.

And I'm on the Council's website.

I've tried to keep it as paperless as I can from my side.

I'll leave you to deal with it however you wish and however witnesses want to wish it.

There's no compunction on everyone else to try and do it that way.

There is, I think, some documentation in the room for the public if you need to access

any of the paperwork.

I wanted to ask, too, about whether the inquiry was being live streamed or recorded.

It is.

Good.

Okay.

Excellent.

So the inquiry has been live streamed and there will be a recording available in due

course, presumably.

On the subject of that, when a translator picks his or her microphone on,

when they take the microphone off, is it handled by the next round?

Yes, I would stress that it is very important that you use the microphone.

Good.

As I understand things too, the appellant is providing a translation

of the architect's presentation later today,

and there will be a translator present for the public session next week.

And we've left it at that, as far as my understanding is concerned, Mr Harris, is that right?

That's all correct, sir, yes.

Is there anything from the Council on that, Mr Wold?

Translation services?

Ms Curtis?

No, sir.

Thank you.

I'm not using the microphone.

Yes.

I have seen some draught statements of common ground

which are within the core documents.

Can I just ask Mr. Harris where we are with completed versions?

And if I've missed them, forgive me.

No, you haven't missed them, sir, but they are close at hand.

They are close to completion.

There's been a passage of exchange between us

and the local authority,

and I think there's a further meeting today.

I wouldn't want to offer you them today,

but I think you will probably get them tomorrow,

but they'll be with you in a time when they're most useful

because there are more things being agreed.

Greatful.

Mr. Wall, did you want to say anything about that?

Nothing to add to that summary, no.

We did talk at the case management conference

about the possibility of a statement of common ground

between the appellants and the Rule 6 party.

Has there been any progress with that, Mr. Harrie?

I'm not sure about that, sir.

I think we were aiming to get the local authority,

State Department of Ground, to begin with.

I'm gonna suggest to my team,

particularly since you raised it,

that we try and get to my friend Ms. Curtis's team

a draught of that and allow them, obviously,

the time to see what they can sign up to or not.

Can I leave that with you, Ms. Curtis?

Yes. And your team?

Excellent, thank you.

I only ask because statements of common ground are enormously useful,

and if we can cut out things that are agreed between you,

then obviously it saves everyone a little bit of time.

But good. I have seen the Council's letters of notification of the appeals

and a volume of representations in response.

I'm not going to go through them individually.

I don't think that's a great use of inquiry time.

I will, of course, consider them all very carefully,

and I will read them, or I have read them,

along with the representations that were made at the stage

of the applications which came

in with the Council's questionnaires.

In terms of the area itself, I'm reasonably familiar

with the area of the appeal sites, but I was grateful

to be able to make a preliminary accompanied site visit

to the sites themselves and the general surroundings yesterday.

That was useful and will enable us, I think,

to get through the evidence more quickly.

We will, however, need a further accompanied site visit,

most likely in week three after we've heard the evidence,

but we can make arrangements for that in due course.

As far as the plans before me are concerned, again,

there are an awful lot of them, so I'm not going to list them all.

I think we'd be here for some time.

But they are or will be set out in the statements of,

or the statement of common ground.

I'm going to be working on the basis

that the lists therein are correct.

But of course, we'll return to this matter when we talk

about conditions.

Mr. Harris?

Yes, so I can confirm that the draught statements

of common ground have been checked in terms of the plans.

I knew you'd ask this question.

And both parties are agreed

that they are the relevant plans and all of them.

I'm grateful.

Now, you may have seen, or after we've heard the evidence,

we are going to need to discuss any conditions

that would be necessary to attach to any grants

of planning permission and or listed building consent.

I think during that session, I will also want

to explore the possibility, and I'll raise this now,

of split decisions.

There are, well, not split decisions,

but there are four separate appeals.

So there are options for each of the four.

And I want to talk about, you know, whether A can go ahead

without B or B go ahead without C and so on.

You'll understand.

I want to talk about that too.

I would stress that that discussion is perfectly

normal procedure.

It doesn't mean I've made my mind up or anything like that.

The purpose of it is to make sure

that if planning permission

and all listed building consent is granted,

Appeals are allowed, in other words.

Then none of the conditions come as a surprise or a shock

to anyone, everyone understands the basis

on which it will be made.

Again, I'm hoping there will be lists attached to the statement

of common ground, and we can use those lists

as the basis for discussion.

With three planning appeals,

there will be three sets of conditions.

There will be a separate set of conditions for the list

There will be some overlap, I'm sure, and some repetition,

but that's inevitable if you've got a number of applications

and subsequent appeals.

We can talk about that in due course.

Similarly, we will need to discuss any planning obligations,

whether that's through the form of an agreement

or a unilateral undertaking.

Again, I want to see what those obligations are.

I think, well, it may be that there's one,

106 agreement or one unilateral undertaking

or there may be different ones.

I don't know.

I haven't really covered that.

But we'll need to talk about that in due course

and I'll be assessing those obligations against the test.

So if the council hasn't already, they might want to think

about a civil compliance schedule.

Excellent.

But that will be in week three, so we do have some time.

I've seen no preliminary indications

that any might be forthcoming, and forgive me if I've missed

them, but if there are to be any applications for costs,

then we will hear them after we've dealt with closing.

So that would be the last thing we do at the inquiry.

Now, I probably do need to cover this.

It is fairly obvious, but the venue,

Fire exits are clearly marked and that way.

So I've not been told that there's going to be a fire drill.

So if the alarms go off, then we'll have to leave by one

of the exits.

The facilities are in the foyer,

which you probably have come across already.

Those more familiar with the building than me.

And there is a cafe, should anyone want any refreshments?

Good. The main issues before me,

I'm going to set these out bearing

in mind what was discussed at the case management conference

and having read the evidence.

Put very simply, I think these are the effect

of the different elements of the overall development

and works considered singly or individually

and considered cumulatively on the character

and appearance of the area.

That's put very simply, as I said, but it does encompass,

It encompasses the design of the proposals, the way they relate to their surroundings,

and any attendant effects, whether direct or indirect, on heritage assets,

that listed buildings, non -designated heritage assets, conservation areas,

the setting of the wider setting of other listed buildings in the vicinity.

So I want to explore that.

I think that's the main issue.

There are also questions to explore, I think,

around the mix of uses proposed.

That's the housing versus office question that's

in the evidence, and their effects on local businesses,

the living conditions of local residents, in particular,

in relation to the data centre.

We will also need to explore any planning balance

that might be necessary when one has gone

through those questions.

There are many other matters too that have been raised.

Those are the main issues, I think.

But I do want to stress that just

because I haven't mentioned it, there may be other issues

that people want to raise,

and you're perfectly free to do that.

We will need to explore that in the evidence, but I do need

to give the appellant the opportunity to respond

to anything that hasn't been covered in the evidence.

So if you want to raise something else

that I haven't covered, feel free.

There's no problem with that, but we do have to deal

with that properly in terms of fairness.

We'll need to consider all that in the context

of the development plan and the emerging plan, obviously,

as well as any national policy

in the national planning policy framework and elsewhere.

Now, is there anything else any of you wish to raise

at this stage?

That's pretty much all I have.

Mr. Harris?

Just one, Matissa, and that's the presentation part of the event.

You identified how ordinarily things would go with me calling evidence in chief and then

learning to French cross -examine and then re -examination.

I think the way the timetable works, and I think the way it was intended at the CMC,

is that the presentations are sort of free -standing and then the architects are recalled for examination

in chief if necessary.

I doubt there will be much, if any.

And then their evidence is subject to cross -examination.

But that's not at this session.

Does that accord with what you anticipated?

That does fit in with what I anticipated, yeah, forgive me.

And can I say, sir, just, I mentioned this to my own friend,

but there are five architectural houses involved.

And we thought a proportionate approach was necessary.

So the presentations you're going to hear are from Mr. Eumann, who is the sort of

master planner of the main site, then Mr. Morris, who will deal with blocks 3a and

3b over your left shoulder, and then Mr. Henley, who will deal with block j, and

then again from Mr. Morris, who will deal with Eli's Yard and the data centre.

That's, if you like, the running order, which we thought made sense given the nature

of the objections.

If at any time you want to hear from any of the other architects, I don't invite you

to say that, but if you do, then we can make them available.

That's very helpful, Mr Harris.

Thank you.

Mr Wall, was there anything you wanted to add?

Was that pretty much what you were expecting?

No, that was our understanding as well.

Ms Curtis?

Yes, that was our understanding as well.

Is there anything else anyone wants to ask before we get on with things then?

Good. In which case, Mr. Harris, I'm going to hand over to you.

Thank you very much.

I am going to read from a text, and there are copies of the text.

This is being live streamed.

The last time I did an inquiry with this audiovisual gentleman,

I managed to leave my microphone on the whole time, which

meant that I was the star of the show in default. Sorry.

I'll make that.

There will be other copies of this, sir.

And I've asked that this be translated as well.

And that will be available in the early part of the inquiry

also.

But there are a limited number of copies for people

at the minute with more to come.

And so these are our opening submissions.

So this is an appeal about a unique and remarkable place.

It's a place where generations of hardworking economic migrants,

like almost all of us in this room, including me,

have created a multilayered, multiethnic,

London -specific spatial ecosystem truly unlike any other.

That means that the area makes a quite irreplaceable contribution

to London's economic, social and cultural commonwealth.

That contribution has to be fully understood and fully valued

and I hope you'll have seen some of that at least

on the site visit yesterday.

It is a contribution of a type which is only

and could only be made at this location

and which is strategically and indeed nationally

and internationally important.

The estate sits cheek by jowl with the city's eastern cluster

and its planned and consolidating cluster of steel and glass.

And this remarkable and inimitable visual juxtaposition

that you can see just outside this building, created by that relationship,

is as exciting and is reflected in the functional relationship

between the city's pinstriped high finance and the more edgy cultural,

artistic, tech and entertainment industry, which all bleed into each other at this

place with remarkable consequence. And what results represents the critical and

globally important contribution of this part of London, an important town centre

and activity area in development plan terms, to the wider economy and cultural

life of the country.

And within that environment, the Truman Estates

as owner -occupier for the last 30 years

has played its steady evolutionary hand

in promoting and strengthening that unique role

that the area performs.

In many ways, its curation of its land holdings

has been responsible for a large part of how the area functions.

It knows its patch, and it polices its authenticity well.

ten minutes from Crossrail and not a Pret -a -Manger in sight is a proud boast.

And it's common ground that the time has come for the estate to play a yet larger

role in meeting the needs of the capital and beyond because as you'll have seen

there are significant underused brownfield parcels of land that are at

the heart of the existing quarter which are neither making the best use of their

location, nor as we'll see are they reflective of their history or significance.

Such sites need to make a bigger contribution on both fronts. There should be a literal

opening of the doors to the underutilised and private areas of the site. And they should

do so in a way which seeks to strengthen and to maximise the benefit of the existing uniqueness

of the place rather than in a way which dilutes its contribution or turns its volume down.

With this in mind, the Truman Estates has brought together a sheaf of internationally

renowned architects, all of whom, as you'll hear, have profound and deep -seated local

connexions.

And what they've done is they've produced a series of routes, spaces, uses, and buildings

that achieve the enhancement of this exceptional place.

And it's clear from much of the truly independent analysis

of this work that there is,

that there's a true freestion of excitement across London

about what has been achieved

by this thoughtful cohort of architects.

Rarely will you have seen

the London -wide statutory consultation community

so clearly excited by the prospect

of the transformative consolidation of function achieved by these applications.

As you've indicated, the proposal is now represented by three planning applications,

the first of which has an associated listed building consent before you.

They are the main site redevelopment and reuse and its listed building application

over multiple blocks and buildings which has the potential to create a new

and well stitched in heritage led heart for the area.

Eli's Yard, which introduces a new gateway to the brewery

in a way which enhances the ability of the site

to strengthen its signature contribution.

And Block A, which adds a positive contextual building

to part of the conservation area, which is clearly harmed

by its existing state, as you have seen

on the site yesterday.

And at the same time, meets a nationally important need

for data centre infrastructure at this location.

All of these applications, all of these applications,

save that relating solely to Block A, were recommended

for approval by the cohort of local officers who,

over several years, have been guiding

and curating the transformation of the state.

They found that the multiple building main site proposals

and Eli's Yard were all in accord with the up -to -date development plan, both as to use

as proposed and as to design, and would both transform and enhance the contribution of

the area.

You will know that in relation to Block A, low levels of less than substantial harm to

the conservation area were found, and it was said that the limited public benefit associated

with the proposed colocation data centre did not outweigh that level of harm.

Now, so given the urgent national need for data centres of this type and the clear guidance

in the new NPPF given as to the weight in which data be afforded in policy and in recent

cases too, the suggestion that a data centre of this nature on this profoundly well -located

site should only be afforded only limited weight is clearly awry.

Even if one were to accept, which for reasons set out below you should not, that the development

harms the conservation area in a limited way compared

to its existing condition, which is derelict and harmful.

So in summary, paragraph 18 is a summary of our entire case,

really.

The large moving parts of this determination

establish that first, elected members' reasoning leading

to the overturn of officers' clear advice

to grant in relation to the main site in Eli's yard

is confusing, inconsistent and flawed as to judgement.

We say, sir, you shouldn't support it.

The Secretary of State would not expect you to support it.

And B, the recommendation of officers to refuse

on the data centre application, which was in its own right,

dependent on a finding that the public benefits

from the data centre were only modest or limited,

both of those words were used, was plainly incorrect

and should be overturned.

And the Secretary of State would expect you to do that too.

I turn to the main issue, sir.

These were the issues you identified at the CMC,

but I think in essence they're exactly the same.

The Inspector having regard to all of these matters identified

that the main issues fell into two broad headings.

You set them out in this order, design and heritage impact.

You've extended it a little now, but I think that's broadly the sum of it.

And matters relating to use and its consequences.

So although the matters of design and heritage impact would appear

to be the most obvious first matters of consideration,

the objectors proofs, as you've now noticed,

have raised the suggestion that the brewery regeneration

at the heart of the unique and powerfully producing area should

now, on the main site at least, be residential

or residential -led, which is, it's accepted as contrary

to the provisions of the development plan.

Such a suggestion is new, at least in the context

of this multi -year pre -app type engagement.

And we say it's unreasonable in all of the circumstances.

We say it's clearly contrary to the provisions

of the development plan and advice given

to the appellant throughout by the planning system,

whether it be locally, strategically,

or from any other quarter.

It's inconsistent with what has led to the framing

of the application that sits before you.

We also say it's plainly inappropriate given the existing remarkable uses of the area

and the contemplation in the development plan for its future function.

So, with the greatest of respect, I propose to reverse your order and to deal

with that new suggestion first.

Nature of use, subtitle, turning away the development plan's preferred mix of uses

and an appropriate housing contribution to boot.

So at no material stage were the principles of the proposed land uses and their consistency

with the development plan, supplementary, regional or local guidance, or indeed,

I'm bound to say common sense, ever seriously an issue in this case.

The proposals at this inner core unique city fringe, town centre, action area location

to provide workspace led town centre type uses consistent with the existing provision

with an appropriate element of residential development at Block J were always supported.

Thus, the aim to build on the unique success of the existing land uses

of this location was rightly agreed by planning offices at all levels in London and at all times.

Now, sir, I don't know whether you'll be asked to look at the video of the determination.

If you look at it, it's three and a half hours of your life you'll never get back.

but maybe you want to look at it,

but officers told elected members and the world

in their report on the main site

and in the committee meeting clearly and unambiguously

and on several occasions that in the context of the scheme

and in the context of its multiple designations

in an up -to -date development plan

that at this particular location,

at this particular location, a commercial -led

or commercial -only scheme would be in accordance

with the development plan.

That advice from officers is accurate upon a proper construction of the policies

and the weight which we expect you to give to the particular type of workspace

which creates the specific benefit and culture of the area and which has been supervised

and curated by Truman Bury over the last 30 years and more.

Truman received precisely the same advice from the GLA in relation to the main site,

which was in one of the most glowing Stage 1 reports you will have read that the principle

of commercial -led development here is supported.

Again, the specific nature of the proposed use

and this location was critical with the GLA saying,

and I've emboldened this and I'm going to read it out for members

of the public and those watching online.

The principle of a commercial -led development

in this location is supported by London Plan Policy SD6,

which gives support for mixed -use development

with an element of residential

within London's town centres and high streets.

The provision of a new employment floor space could

support growth of the expanding cluster of digital creative businesses in the

city fringe or growth of businesses providing support for the traditional

financial and business sectors located in the city itself. This is

also supported by London Plan Good Growth Objective GG5. This spatial

judgement of the strategic authority on the singular ability of this place to

serve such a critical multifaceted strategic and national role should not go unheeded.

Those now representing elected members' overturn of this clear and unambiguous position,

set by strategic and local officers and followed in good faith by us, seek to rely now on an

as yet unsubmitted emerging plan policy and allocation for the site to set aside the clear

an obvious development plan policy and land use justification for the site to continue

and to enhance its present workplace -based contribution.

It is said that a draught and as yet unsubmitted allocation, which would encompass most of

the application site and ownership of the appellant, should now somehow in the debate

that you framed, workplace and residential

versus residential -led, be given moderate weight sufficient

to result in a refusal of a permission for a proposal

which self -evidently accords

with the adopted development plan

and whose workspace -led shape has been directed, supported,

and driven throughout by the planning system.

Now, sir, this is an unusual proposition.

It's generated from elected members, and we say it must fail.

It must fail because the emerging policy has not

yet even been submitted for consideration.

It's not beginning to be on that route referred to in the NPPF.

Second, it's been the subject of objection notably,

but not only by the applicant,

the appellant who owns 10 acres of the relevant land.

Third, there's no allegation, nor could there be,

that this application is premature to an

and yet submitted plan.

Neither is there an allegation actually that the relevant

and most important policies of this plan which make it clear

that employment and town centre uses are to be the priority are

in fact out of date.

Officers in the GLA are clear that they are fully applicable,

relevant and up to date to this application.

and those representing elected members do not ever, even now, say otherwise.

And the reason they don't say otherwise is this.

If the policies on use were or are said to be out of date, then what would be the result of that?

The result of that would be that the tilted balance in favour of the proposals

in NPPF paragraph 11 would come into play.

So in summary, sir, on that second of your point,

which I've put first, the authority is not asserting

that its plan is out of date in this important respect,

nor is it accepting that the tilted balance was applied

as a result, meaning that the weight must continue to be given

to the adopted plan, but apparently is nonetheless

asserting, using elected members' rationalisation,

that its emerging but as yet unsubmitted allocation for the site,

which is the subject of a root and branch objection, should prevail over the approach urged

on the applicant by officers and you, by officers of both authorities.

That's the GLA and Tower Hamlets' officers.

Now, sir, I say this is a muddled approach to the decision -making process,

which simply has not been fully formed or thought through by elected members

or by those representing elected members.

And that approach reflects a similar failed attempt

to sidestep proper engagement

with the development plan process,

which you'll hear about shortly from me.

Now of course, sir, of course,

it is said that there is a housing crisis in London,

and there is.

We accept that and we rely on that fact.

Housing needs across London are,

as a very important inspector said

in a very recent case, colossal.

That's you, sir.

But officers of both authorities are and were only too aware

of the existence of and scale of the housing crisis

when advising members of the compliance of the proposal

with the development plan at this matchless location.

And when officers who are sitting

in this room correctly advised officers very recently

that minimal weight should be given

to the emerging plan and its allocation.

Second, such a crisis does not and cannot mean

that the housing automatically becomes a preferred use

on any site in London, ousting any other use,

much less on a series of beneficial, bespoke, economic,

cultural, and social delivery sites such as those

which are in front of you here.

See, the proposal does in fact, does in fact provide housing

on a part of the site where that is appropriate while retaining in full and

enhancing the land use associated with that area of the land the cash and carry.

And tellingly, so tellingly, the impact of a refusal of this application on this

basis will ironically likely result in the loss and non delivery of housing

during any part of the period when housing is most needed on the part of

most suited and appropriate to provide housing.

And finally, in relation to this issue of is it housing

or is it something else, is it workspace,

the workspace that's created the existing unique culture,

there has, put simply, been absolutely no proper

or thorough or independent consideration of the impact

of significant housing -led development in the heart

of the globally important cultural and entertainment area,

which is critical to the supply

of smaller specialist city fringe needs

and one of the key designated nighttime economy hubs

in the area.

Finally, and I need to raise this,

the attempt to step outside of the development plan

for political purposes has something of a history.

In September 2024 and in the face of these applications,

elected members purported to adopt an SPD,

seeking in effect to impose the provisions of the emerging plan,

suggesting the need for housing -led growth now as supplementary policy.

You'll know that the High Court quashed the SPD and it did so on two grounds.

The first was that it was unlawful to seek to introduce new policies for this area

outside of the development plan process by the creation of an SPD.

And second and tellingly, the court in a judgement that reflected a consent order that the local

authority themselves signed up to said no reasonable planning authority could have reached

a judgement that the SPD did not conflict with the adopted development plan in circumstances

where the plan makes clear that employment and commercial town centre uses are to be

a priority in the area of the SPD.

Thirty -nine.

In such circumstances, it's now surprising and confusing

to see the council by its elected members arguing

that an untested preference for housing -led development,

which has been declared by the court to be so contrary

to that plan that it would be legally perverse

to argue otherwise, should now nonetheless found a reason

for refusal of a proposal

which brings a policy -compliant mix at this remarkable occasion.

Such muddled thinking should not prevail.

The aim and thrust of the policies

for the spatial one -off

that Truman Brewery remain appropriate and valid

and urgently in need of being met.

The land use proposal clearly accords with this strategy,

which is not suggested to be out to date,

and thus the framework, applying the framework,

planning permission should, subject to the issues, design

and heritage, which I turn to,

be granted without further delay.

to those issues.

I don't know whether you're old enough to remember it,

sir, but the Chief Inspector's Guide

to Advocates has long been archived.

It's advice that inspectors are not likely to be assisted

by long submissions.

It also said all long cross -examinations on the quality

of architecture remain sound.

Added to that, sir, you're to hear from three

of the relevant architects soon enough in a part

of the inquiry process, as you'll know,

introduced by Inspector Grey

to allow the decision maker to hear direct from the scheme architects without the distorting

cypher of this lawyer.

So this part of the opening will be short and in comparison prosaic, sorry, but one

of the many joys of doing mostly architecture cases is the ability to see into the minds

that those that have a talent for changing places and spaces for the better.

I deal with the main site first.

The main site is the centrepiece of the regeneration product.

It has been master planned by Buckley Grey Yeoman.

The telling of the tale of the master plan,

which you're about to hear, is an exemplary one.

The existing main site is introverted,

closed off in private, you needed consent

to go there yesterday, and yet, in spatial terms, open,

sprawling and underused.

It consists of buildings, many of which have no quality or historic significance or residence

and have in fact got the planning permission to be removed as a result of extant consent.

There is little evidence in that space of the historically dense and fine -grained urban

structure that previously existed.

This is clearly part of the conservation area which presently plays a limited role in the

historic significance of the area.

And in planning terms, it's at the heart

of this singular area.

It's a criminal waste of space.

It's what the NPPF calls an opportunity area

in a conservation area.

Block J, cash and carry site,

sets apart in a more residential context.

It was planned first by the Luftwaffe,

which destroyed the end of the urban block,

and then completed by the erection of a low -slang

and exceptional utilitarian cash and carry store

of no heritage or townscape value.

Mr. Yeoman will explain in relation to that main site,

north part, south part, how against that background

he began with defining logical and clear routes

to open up the eastern part of the site

to better reveal that which was of historic significance

to the public for the first time.

Next came the identification of spaces

associated with the routes, which

better reflected the historic disposition of scale

and spaces in the brewery.

So not large sprawling car parks,

but rather spaces that excite and delight.

He then turned to the buildings which framed those spaces,

starting with the retention and literal embracing

of its heritage buildings.

The claim heritage -led has never been better used.

Anything that was of true significance in historic terms

has been used and enhanced.

Thus early decisions were made to retain, enhance and reuse all of the buildings with true historic significance within a denser and more historically appropriate framework.

Block 1 by Carmody Croock is a three -storey building which reestablishes the building line of Spital Street.

You see it has a warehouse aesthetic. It's entirely appropriate to this part of the conservation area and along with the other buildings reinstates density where presently there is,

and I'm using Historic England's terms here, fragment.

This is a clear enhancement to the conservation area.

And it's the building that you see in the picture.

Block K, which you'll have seen yesterday,

is the existing Coopridge Building.

It's a non -designated heritage asset

and positive contributor to the conservation area.

Again, the proposals are placed in the hands of Carmody Croock,

and there is a skilful retention and light touch enhancement

of the building, which can only be seen as enhancement

of both the asset and the conservation area.

Block 2 is handled by BGY itself.

In functional terms, the building provides a permeable route into the site from Brick Lane,

where at present there is impermeability and hostility.

The building is part of the programme of better revealing the significance

of the conservation area.

And there it is over the page.

Used brick, recycled metal, concrete frames, all things that you will have seen

on the site yesterday carefully created street art, all pick up on the industrial character

of historic buildings, again forming part of the overall enhancement of the conservation

area. Block O by internationally renowned but very,

very local house Chris Dyson provides an extended and enhanced use for the retained listed boiler

house. Consistent with the singular brick lane contribution to the area, it will be

used as an events and exhibition space.

A new Cawton extension to the listed building

replaces low value utilitarian additions.

Overall clearly beneficial.

Though members were carefully told of all of these

that the proposal would result in a beneficial impact

in terms of sensitive refurbishment to the listed building,

creating new views and routes and a new public accessibility

into currently inaccessible parts of the building.

Historic England advised that all of the key elements of significance of this listed building

would be preserved, and that's self -evident and correct.

You should have little difficulty with the statutory test in relation to this building

and its setting.

Blocks 3A and 3B by Morrison Co. replace low -slung, modern -shed buildings of no particular architectural

or historic interest and which are presently also clear detractors. The proposals would

result and are designed to result in a substantial change to this part of Brick Lane. They would

fail insofar as they did not bring such change.

Allen Gardens is a cleared housing site and now represents a townscape feature of remarkable

scale and openness. And as such it calls for and can accept higher volume at this corner

location, what you hear Mr Yeoman call the missing jigsaw element of the site. Historic

England note that the development hereabouts would be large and dense, but they were clear.

And remember, we have pre -apps with them, we have applications with them, with the GLA.

They help steer the proposal.

They were clear that taking account of the robust industrial character found in this

part of the conservation area, as well as the limited visual impact in key views of

the boiler house and its chimney, we do not wish to raise significant concerns about the

scale and massing as proposed.

Interestingly, in design terms, were the council to go down that route, were that to pass through

the examination process, then the emerging plan allocation is modelled upon a very similar

urban volume at this location.

The proposals create a new and enhanced frontage onto Buxton Street and the open space of Allen

gardens, which would now have a clear urban edge and better

boundary definition, as well as providing very much needed

overlooking.

Throughout the planning of these blocks,

the relationship of the development

with the relatively modern but important and iconic Truman

Tower was central to the disposition of the buildings.

And a successful solution, after many iterations,

was forged with the assistance and input

for conservation officers, GLA officers, and Historic England.

Elected members were told in terms that officers concur with the assessment of the GLA and

the assessment of Historic England that from Alling Gardens the Truman Chimney would remain

the dominant feature and retain its landmark status.

That reasoned consensus of those most deeply involved with the application and its iterations

is commended to you.

Internally the buildings respond to and literally embrace their heritage context in a subservient

and touching gesture.

It's the building off to the right.

This is a fine and exemplary piece of optimisation

at an underused part of the area.

Block J. For the reasons set out above,

the existing block, Cash and Carry, makes no contribution

to the character and appearance of the conservation area,

though its use is central to the operation of much

of the way the area operates, and that use is replaced

and enhanced by the proposal.

and the operator of that, Cash and Carry, is a supporter of the scheme,

as noted in three of the committee reports.

The location of Block J on the southern part of the site,

with its significantly different context, speaks to the appropriateness, yes, here,

of providing, where appropriate, residential use as part of the overall proposal,

entirely consistent with the development plan.

The job of providing the housing and affordable housing at this location falls to Henley Hale -Brown,

who you'll have come across on Edith Samersgill.

Mr Henley will explain exactly how his proposals repair the street from its disfigurement by German bombs,

and then seeks to responsibly optimise the contribution to housing,

having regard to the varying contexts and constraints of the various parts of the site.

Now, sir, given the concern

elected members have expressed in this very case about the need for further housing,

you would be forgiven for saying it might appear churlish and inconsistent to be turning away

much -needed housing without the gravest and most substantial harms being occasioned by a

brownfield housing development which replaces a clearly harmful existing feature in the conservation area.

But so that churlishness passes into unreasonableness when the overall quality,

ingenuity and adeptness of the architectural party produced by Mr. Henley is explored.

This is not a development with substantial failings.

This is design -led architecture of the first order and it should be celebrated, not criticised.

To suggest that this housing application should be turned away in a housing crisis,

in any reasonable circumstances, much less in that housing crisis is wayward.

Historic England remind you, sir, that much of this site is a poor townscape with very little public access

and that these proposals present opportunities to enliven this part of the conservation area

and to improve public access with high quality buildings and public realm that draw their

influences from the heritage context.

Officers explain to members that the proposals to complete the urban block are rational and

positive and all of this is true.

Eli's Yard.

The existing contribution of this plot is the creation, I don't know if you saw it yesterday

but is the creation of an unhistoric, conspicuous gap in the townscape,

following the demolition of a large, dense industrial building,

bigger than that which is now proposed.

The area is a clear detractor in the conservation area,

and Morrison Co. replaced this void with a six -storey building

with a market space at ground floor, flexible brick -lane -type workspace above,

and a more appropriately scaled public space.

The block is carefully sculpted to reflect its various context and to

protect sensitive views and would be smaller than the building which

historically stood on the site. Materials are contextual and appropriate

and members were told that this building would be acceptable in terms of scale,

massing and detail design and would make an important contribution to activity

and surveillance at Grey Eagle Street. Recent suggestions that a very distant

glimpse of the spire of Christchurch harms the setting of that wonderfully powerful church,

or I'm afraid badly aimed. Neither historic England nor officers share that opinion, with

officers reminding members that there'd be no harm to the conservation area or nearby

listed buildings from the proposed development, and they were correct.

Block A. There are twin drivers to the case in relation to Block A. Two matters need to

be considered carefully as part of the determination of this application.

First, the existing contribution of the block, that's what you see on site, which is self -evidently

entirely negative.

And second, the critical national need for the proposed use, which is central to the

nature of the design demanded at the site.

A failure properly to analyse these essential elements of the project will result in a faulty

conclusion.

As with the other blocks, the existing contribution of the site

to the conservation area in which it sits is central

to a determination of the application.

As a building in the conservation area,

as a building in the conservation area, the senior,

but not obviously your only concern, is the character,

appearance, and the significance of that asset,

which must be given considerable weight and importance.

And I notice that's how you framed the first issue.

The existing building on the site

is a 1970s industrial former coal store.

It has no intrinsic heritage significance,

and additionally has been derelict and roofless

for well over 30 years,

well before Truman Estates even purchased the land.

It's a harmful element in the conservation area,

and any suggestions to the contrary

represents an inappropriate and incorrect starting point.

Now, sir, at no time during the entire application process

was it ever suggested that the site's clearly harmful condition

had been brought about by anything other than the passage of time

and the absence of a beneficial use before the land was purchased.

Not by HE, not by GLA, not by any relevant conservation or planning officers.

that is of course consistent with the evidence.

The building's not listed and there'd be no positive duties

on any previous landowner in respect of a building

without a beneficial user and no historic significance.

But, but, several witnesses at this inquiry,

notwithstanding the fact that they realise these facts

in an entirely inept way with respect,

indicate that while they can point to no evidence of A,

deliberate neglect, for B, the purposes of enhancing

the case for a planning commission, which

is what the PPG says and what the Wimbledon judge recently

called the rogue test, they accept

there's no evidence of that.

But they do hint and insinuate that you, sir, may wish

to consider this possibility.

Well, so such an approach is, I'm

going to say, lily livid and inappropriate.

If such an allegation that Para 14 of the PPG is engaged

is to be seriously made, it should be set out clearly in a Rule 6 statement, then reported

by the clearest evidence of the relevant intention. And of course there is and can be no such

suggestion, there's no evidence in this case that that PPG or NPPF paragraph is engaged.

It follows, doesn't it, that the existing condition of this part of the conservation

area is the condition against which the statutory test relating to preservation or enhancement

falls to be considered and that there should be a finding that the existing condition is

clearly harmful and significant, so to the existing character and appearance of the conservation

area and that's its significance.

Second then there's the pressing need for the use or programme of the building.

So the UK has a fundamental shortfall in data centre capacity.

It's soon to lose its place in the league to Germany.

It places at a potential and significant, it places UK

at a significant international disadvantage

with massive consequences for the UK economy

and this is recognised by government.

Such a potential is particularly the case for the competitiveness

of the City of London which requires data capacity close by

and with limited functional latency to remain competitive.

The weight to be given to avoiding this consequence

and to meeting the need for further capacity

at the right location is and has been considered by inspectors

and the Secretary of State.

That weight has consistently been expressed

to be very substantial.

You won't find a case

where those semantic descriptors haven't been used.

This is particularly the case

where the data centres are proposed in locations

which have an adequacy of power

and can provide the relevant latency conditions.

There are very few locations where such conditions exist

and which have the capacity to meet the needs

of the City of London.

The application site is one of those locations

and is an appropriate use for the site having regard

to the provisions of the development plan.

There is, as we'll see, in fact, no evidence

that there's any other site capable

of meeting this structurally important national need.

Even now, the Council does not allege

that the proposed use at this site, at this location, is inappropriate.

Of course, the nature of the use proposed will drive the design of the building in which

that use sits.

The use of a data centre inevitably brings with it architectural constraints and security

requirements.

And it is within this twin context of A, the existing contribution made by the site, derelict,

harmful and the critical need for and design consequences which flow from the

provision of a data centre that the proposal before the decision -maker

force to be considered. In terms of design, the design needs to be fit for

its purpose but has also been specifically designed as you'll hear by

Morrison Co for its particular site and surroundings. In terms of height and

massing, the building responds to the height of existing buildings and it

re -estates the historic edge of the street. The scale of the proposal steps

down on Calvin Street to address the scale of the brick terraces and its carefully articulated

brick bays reflect similar devices employed across the brewery and allow for both street

art curated and informal.

The upper parts of the building reflect the more modern use of the building and are high

quality and interesting.

If and insofar as the concern expressed about the building is lack of security, then clearly

such concern is misplaced.

the identification of data centres as critical national infrastructure places a significant burden on operators

to ensure that they are not the subject of attack or engaged in any form of antisocial behaviour.

They will be manned 24 -hour high quality surveillance of the building and all of the streets and spaces it addresses.

Which brings us to impact and balance.

Considered accurately, the proposals represent a clear

improvement in the character and appearance of the

conservation area compared to its existing position and an

appropriate townscape response to the meeting of a nationally

important need.

For the Council, which clearly employs the wrong starting

point at the minute, the allegation made is that the

proposal causes harm, but only at the lower end of less than

substantial harm to the conservation area and associated townscape harm.

Now, even if this were to be the case, even if the public benefits associated with a new

use at this critical location simply cannot be said to be either limited or moderate,

the balancing exercise undertaken by all of the objectors on this point undervalues or

ignores the public benefit of a development which will help to ensure the international

competitiveness of the City of London.

When this particularly important matter is taken into account, any level of heritage

or townscape impact reasonably identified would be substantially outweighed by the public

benefit associated with the provision of this important data centre.

Now, sir, as you indicated, we've concentrated in this opening on your two main issues.

That doesn't mean that we devalue or don't take seriously or don't respect other positions

that are set out, and we will address them as appropriate.

Cultural impacts, equality assessments, consultation concerns, they will all be dealt with in evidence

and submissions as appropriate.

Suffice it to say here that the pre -application consultation

process went above and beyond what was required

by policy and guidance.

The equality impacts of the proposal were carefully

and transparently assessed through the application process

in accordance with good practise.

And no such concerns were identified

by legal officers of this authority.

We say they shouldn't detain the decision -maker here,

but we will be dealing with them and advancing more detail

in relation to these matters in due course.

Which brings me to the overall conclusion.

The Truman estate occupies a very particular spatial niche

in London's makeup and in the way that many of us

see and enjoy London.

The proposals in the round further

that unique contribution by making

the most of the heritage assets that remain

and by redensifying and reawakening

the underused Brownfield sites, unlocking

a myriad of heritage and public benefits in the process.

At the same time, the proposals at Block A provide critically needed data centre capacity

at possibly the best remaining data centre location in the capital for the purposes

of the city cluster's needs, a benefit which must be given very significant weight.

Finally, it makes an appropriate and significant contribution to meeting housing needs

on an appropriate site away from the heart of the main town centre site

without dimming the bright light of that wider contribution.

For all those reasons, sir, we say Planning Commission for this important series of proposals

should be granted without further delay.

Thank you. And thank you for listening.

Thank you, Mr Harris.

Mr Wall, would you prefer to have our mid -morning break now, or would you prefer to press on?

Sir, I'm relaxed, but I heard someone in the audience.

Well, let's have a break now.

We'll resume at half past.

Is that okay?

Until half past 11, everyone.

Thank you.

Webcast Finished - 1:13:20

If you could take your seats, please.

I'd like to resume the inquiry.

Mr. Wald, I hope people coming in and out aren't going to cause too much disruption.

Are you happy to start?

Whenever you're ready, sir.

Yeah, well I am, so...

Sir, perhaps just while those who are about to take their seats do so,

I could just pass on that, as you know,

so the Council is hosting a document resource

on its website.

I'm conscious that as inquiries progress,

documents are handed in.

They too will be hosted there.

If they could be emailed to Kevin Crilly.

So we'll try and keep a running list of those available for all.

That would be most helpful if that can be arranged. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Just to be clear then, I've taken in three documents so far.

So I've called the Appellant's List of Appearances ID 1,

the Appellant's Opening Submissions ID 2, and yours, Mr. Wold, ID 3.

That's what I've got so far.

Yes.

Thank you.

So, Sarah, I'll now deliver the Council's opening submissions, a copy of which you and

others now have.

The sites which are the subject of these four appeals lie at the heart of the unique and

important Brick Lane area.

The Council has been working to support regeneration opportunities within the area, including within

the Truman Estate, for many years.

in order to realise the potential for sustainable redevelopment

which both meets needs of Tower Hamlets diverse communities

and respects the sensitive historic and cultural context.

The three planning applications and one listed building application

which have now been appealed were made in August 2024

and were being actively progressed by the council

when the appellants decided to appeal on the 16th of May 2025.

The appellants had submitted an environmental statement addendum as recently as the 11th of April 2025,

which was in the process of being reviewed by the Council's appointed consultants,

when the appellants chose to appeal and the appellants have continued to submit further environmental information

after the making of the appeals.

And that material, sir, forms part of the inquiry

documentation that is before us.

The appellant's timing appears to have been driven

by a desire to progress in advance of the council's

emerging local plan, with which the proposals

are not in accordance, and hence prevent the future

of the sites being examined through the forthcoming

plan -making process.

The sudden decision to appeal while further information was still being

considered contrasts with the appellant's not having taken forward any

significant redevelopment of these sites throughout their many years of ownership.

Indeed the Grey Eagle Street site, also referred to as Block A, has been vacant

for over 30 years and has been allowed to become empty and ruinous to adopt the

phrase used by the appellant's heritage expert, Mr. Dunn.

But to clarify, sir, and in response to my learned friend,

Mr. Harris's point, no, NPPF point is taken

in respect of that, as I hope is clear.

Reports on the appeals were taken

to the council's strategic development committee

on the 31st of July, 2025,

in order to seek the committee's resolution on how it would have

determined the applications if it had had the opportunity to do so and to

determine the basis of the council's case at the inquiry. The committee

resolved that it would have refused planning permission and indicated its

putative reasons for refusal delegating the detailed drafting to officers.

In summary, those reasons concern the following three matters.

First, in relation to the Grey Eagle Street, appear.

Townscape harm by reason of excessive bulk and scale,

and failure to deliver high quality public realm,

heritage harm, failure to demonstrate delivery of sufficient biodiversity net gain,

and this third reason has subsequently been resolved

by provision of further information from the appellants,

which is an example, sir, of the submission

of further information after appealing

to which I've given reference a few moments ago.

Second, Eli's Yard appeal,

townscape harm by reason of height, bulk, and massing,

and the building failing to respond appropriately

to the character of the Truman Brewery estate

and surrounding streets.

and third, the Truman East appeal,

first, townscape harm by reason of scale and massing,

second, heritage harm,

third, failure to deliver sufficient housing

being commercial -led,

and making a disproportionately low contribution

to meeting acute housing need.

Those are the principle issues

as between the appellants and the council on these appeals.

In respect to the listed building consent appeal, the Council does not object to the proposed works themselves,

and in the event that planning permission were to be granted on the Truman East Appeal,

the Council would not object to listed building consent also being granted,

subject to a Grampian -style condition preventing implementation of any of the works authorised by the consent,

until a planning permission for those works is granted.

So turning now to the third of the appeals indicated above,

the Truman East Appeal, really because it is the largest

of the appeal sites, occupying a significant area

to the east of Brick Lane.

It was historically a yard associated with the brewery

and was characterised by low -rise buildings.

It is still largely open or occupied by low -rise buildings and offers potential

for sensitive development and regeneration as recognised by the

emerging local plan in which it features as part of

allocation 1 .7 Brick Lane and Pedley Street. It is a site of strategic

importance given its scale and location. The council's objection to the Truman

East appeal scheme falls into two main parts. First it concerns the scale and

massing of what is proposed. In townscape terms the site is at a point of

transition between the more commercial uses to the West, including larger scale

denser development, and the lower rise residential neighbourhoods of White

and Bethnal Green to the east. Directly to the east are loosely spaced

residential blocks and to the north is the valuable community open space of

Allen Gardens. Much of the main site to the north of Woodseer Street is an open

yard contributing to this change in the urban fabric. The appeal scheme proposes

to insert into this context a significant quantum of development

comprising new blocks and extensions, several of which the council does not

object to. Blocks 3a and 3b however comprise over development which is

harmful in a number of ways. These buildings which together occupy the

largest plot in the Appellant's master plan present largely uninterrupted

elevations rising to 29 metres onto the open space of Allen Gardens. They would

create an overly monolithic and overbearing frontage and would not

integrate coherently into the more modest scale of the surrounding

townscape or its grain and rhythm. And so we will no doubt be looking at photo

montages that illustrate this point but the one of these appears in the

the opening just above paragraph 64.

In heritage terms, the main site currently makes an important contribution to the significance

of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street conservation area.

The yard and low rise buildings represent the historic morphology of the conservation

area illustrating how the brewery functioned and how the townscape was

historically arranged. It serves as a subservient backland to the brewery's

grand historic frontage on Brick Lane. The extent to which the yard has been

covered with buildings has varied over time but this low -rise nature has not

unlike the area to the west of Brick Lane. The scale and massing of blocks 3A

and 3B would erode the historic character of the brewery and disrupt the

established townscape hierarchy of the conservation area. The form of blocks 3A

and 3B does not meaningfully relate to anything in the conservation area aside

from, in the general sense, the use of brick. They present a stark and

homogenous appearance. The proposed block J to the south of Woodseer Street

likewise rises sharply above the finer grain urban block of which it forms a

part. It does not respond adequately to the local townscape or heritage

character in terms of scale, mass and form. The council's second main objection

to the Truman East scheme concerns the land use.

The Council will present evidence

that the proposed development fails

to optimise housing delivery

on a strategically significant brownfield site,

contrary to national, regional and local planning policy.

The application delivers only 44 residential units

within a 35 ,000 square metre mixed -use scheme with residential use comprising

just 14 % of the gross internal area. This represents a disproportionately low

housing contribution given the site's location, accessibility, policy context

and housing need within Tower Hamlets. The Truman East site is not located

within a preferred office location within the Tower Hamlet's Local Plan of 2031 adopted in January 2020,

where office development is actively encouraged and safeguarded.

As such, there is no policy basis for prioritising office use on this site.

Instead, the site is located within the Brick Lane District Centre,

the Tower Hamlet City Fringe activity area and the GLA City Fringe opportunity

area. These overlapping designations establish a strong planning framework

that supports mixed -use intensification with a clear emphasis on housing

delivery. The site is highly accessible with a PTAL rating of 5 to 6a, adjacent

to Allen Gardens and surrounded by residential uses to the east and south. It is a large,

well -located Brownfield site with significant capacity to contribute to borough -wide housing

targets, including affordable and family housing. These designations, combined with the site's high

accessibility and proximity to existing residential streets and open space, create both an

opportunity and a policy expectation

for substantially higher levels of housing delivery,

including affordable housing.

The policy position is supported by evidence

of overwhelming and acute housing need,

with the council having the highest housing target

in London, combined with land supply constraints.

The evidence in respect of need for employment land,

on the other hand is much more nuanced.

A picture of overall oversupply across the borough

and even in respect of supply suitable

for small and medium -sized enterprises,

an equivocal position at best.

The council will say that the harms in respect

of townscape and heritage

and in failing to optimise housing delivery

lead to conflict with the development plan as a whole,

which conflict is not outweighed by the benefits presented by the appeal scheme

so that the appeal should be dismissed. Turning now sir to the Grey Eagle Street

appeal or Block A. This site at the other side of the Truman estate is on a street

which suffers from poor public realm with an almost total absence of active

frontages, a lack of overlooking and natural surveillance, narrow pavements

and antisocial behaviour issues.

The Council has two main areas of objection

to the appeal scheme.

First, a large data centre building

is the last thing that this street needs.

Data centres are inherently inactive buildings,

given that they create limited footfall

and have large blank frontages

which do not provide for any natural surveillance.

The present data centre is no exception with a single entrance and security

office offering no meaningful activation and large blank elevations

compounding the unwelcoming pedestrian environment that exists at present.

It is said by the appellant that an active use at the ground floor is unfeasible.

That does not correspond to what is seen in other data centres nearby, but in any event,

to the extent that this is the case, then it is part of the objectionable nature of seeking

to introduce this land use into this particular street.

Secondly, the significant bulk and scale of the development would result

in a visually intrusive and incongruous form that causes harm to the townscape.

The scheme is significantly taller than the prevailing scale of development in the immediate

vicinity.

On Grey Eagle Street, the base of the proposed building would step forward from the existing

building line and blank elevations would rise above it to a considerable heights, much of

will appear as an almost sheer vertical face. This form and appearance also means

that the appeal scheme fails to integrate with its conservation area

context and harms the character, appearance and significance of the

conservation area. The Council recognises the need for data centre capacity, that

data centres bring important economic benefits to London and the country more

widely and that locating them in the city in Docklands meets operational needs.

This does not mean that the data centre needs to be here however on this

particular street and at odds with the vibrancy of the activity area and

adjoining town centre. The significant townscape public realm and heritage harm

is not outweighed by the benefits.

And so I note here in passing,

in the appellant's opening and elsewhere in the evidence,

the appellant doesn't go so far as to say

that there is a locational need in this particular location.

But rather that the location is well suited

on the appellant's case to a data centre developed here.

and we will be exploring certain evidence,

the extent to which an alternative location

might meet those acknowledged needs

referenced at paragraph 18 of the council's opening.

And then finally moving to the Eli's Yard appeal.

Eli's Yard is a distinctive and vibrant open space,

serving as a flexible multifunctional area that supports market activity,

cultural events and informal public use, including as a spill -out space for

visitors and attracting huge numbers of people at weekends. The immediate

surroundings are characterised by predominantly full -plot developed

buildings with little in the way of open setting. The yard offers a relief from

that and provides an inviting sense of openness, adding character and positively

contributing to the townscape. Historically significant amounts of it

were occupied by buildings but that has not been the case for decades. Any

development needs to recognise and respect its value in the present

condition. The council will say that the proposed building does not do this. Its

height, bulk and massing would result in an incongruous and overbearing addition

to the local townscape. It would rise above any of the existing buildings

facing Eli's yard. The appellant refers to it as comprising six storeys plus

plant but significant caution is needed when assessing this building or other

buildings subject to these appeals on the basis of number of storeys when the

actual height reaches 29 metres in Eli's yard and 30 metres on the Grey Eagle

Street elevation where the street height is lower. It would be an over dominant

form, harmfully reducing openness and visual permeability in Eli's yard and in

views from Dre's walk to the east and Wilt Street to the south. The scheme

introduces a pedestrian connexion to Greying Eagle Street but only through

too narrow and ungenerous openings in the existing wall which fail adequately

to improve visual or physical permeability.

They represent a missed opportunity to use the vibrancy and footfall from Eli's Yard

to activate and enliven Grey Eagle Street.

This compounds the harm caused by the Block A scheme in terms of failing to activate the

public realm.

There is also cumulative harm in the heightened scale of the Grey Eagle Street elevation of

the Eli's Yard building, which would see the 30 metre elevation of the Eli's Yard

building directly opposite the 26 metre elevation of the data centre across the

narrow Grey Eagle Street, adding to the sense of over dominance and excessive

scale. The benefits of new market space and workspace in the Eli's Yard building

are recognised, but they do not need a building which is harmful to the

landscape in order to house them, they fall well short in the Council's assessment of

outweighing the harm.

And so, sir, to conclude, for all of the reasons given above, the Council will say that the

appeal proposals are in conflict with the Development Plan as a whole, and that other

material considerations are insufficient to outweigh the conflict and harms.

Nor would granting planning permission accord with the duty in section 72 of the Planning -Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act of 1990

to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The Council will therefore, and in due course, invite you, Sir, to dismiss these appeals.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ward.

I should normally say that we don't have rounds of applause

at public inquiries.

Yeah, it happens.

Ms. Curtis, I'll hand over to you.

Thank you.

Mr. Miranda -Graham is just bringing

around copies of the statement.

I'm marking this one up as ID4 just for the purposes of the website.

When you're ready, Ms. Curtin.

Save Brick Lane Campaign is a coalition of local community groups and the Spitalfields

Trust.

The campaign has its roots in and is participating in this inquiry to speak on behalf of the local community living in and around the Spitalfields and Banglatown Ward.

The campaign's aim is to ensure that the development on the Truman Brewery estate meets the needs of the local community for genuinely affordable homes and workspaces.

It has taken a leading role in assisting the community to engage with the local planning authority on matters concerning the local area

including the Brick Lane Master Plan, the Brick Lane site allocation in the emerging local plan and the three planning

applications and listed building consent that are the subject of these appeals.

The Spitalfields Trust was itself established in

1977. It is a building and preservation trust which campaigns for this historic environment.

It was established as part of a campaign by architects, architectural historians, and

journalists to save the early Georgian buildings of Spitalfields.

It has undertaken many of its own projects to save, repair, and restore historic buildings

in the area.

It has its own long history of campaigning on behalf of the local community to achieve

the best possible outcomes for major development sites in one of the most important historic

areas of London, which contains some of the most architecturally and historically significant

buildings in the borough, which comes from the conservation area appraisals there.

The important contribution that the local community has long made to the preservation

of the spittle fields in Banglatown area is expressly recognised in the Brick Lane and

Fournier Street Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines, which

recognises that the quality of the townscape in the conservation area is, in part, due

to a committed local community which

has acted to protect and restore historic buildings at risk.

That commitment has continued in the years

since the appraisal was adopted.

Save Brick Lane comes to this inquiry

to support the council's case set out

in its putative reasons for refusal and its evidence

before this inquiry that planning

permission for each of the appeal schemes

should be refused.

It is also participating to raise its own concerns

about the design of the proposals

and their townscape impacts, the impact of the proposals on designated and non -designated

heritage assets, and the cultural and economic impacts of the proposals, particularly on

the local Bangladeshi community. Save Brick Lane's position is that the appeal schemes

fail to grasp the opportunity to deliver a mixed -use residential -led master plan for

the main site that will benefit the local community and reflect local culture and identity.

Save Brick Lane's main concerns, which form the basis for its case before this

inquiry, are set out under the relevant subheadings below, which I will read out

now. SBLC is supportive of the council's design and townscape position that the

development proposals undermine the character of the local area and will be

overbearing and incongruous by reason of their height, bulk and massing, as Mr.

Wald has summarised. Save Brick Lane also challenges the

the development proposals in this case are truly community or heritage led.

Save Brick Lane's own alternative vision for the main site, designed by Mr.

Burrell in collaboration with the local community, is an example of what a truly

community driven master plan for the main site could look like. The

appellant's failure to effectively engage the local community in the design

process has led to proposals that are disconnected from the context and

identity of the area around Brick Lane and therefore represent poor design that

is not in accordance with the National Design Guide, Planning

Practise Guidance, or relevant local plans.

The appeals scheme similarly failed

to grasp the opportunity for the development sites

to deliver high quality public realm that

will be attractive for members of the local community

to use, as also required by London Plan policies.

In terms of the townscape and visual impacts of the appeals

schemes, Mr. Forshaw will highlight

that the Appellant's HTVIA fails to adequately describe

the visual impact of the proposals as viewed in particular from Buxton Street,

Grey Eagle Street and Wilkes Street. The selective viewpoints used in the HTBIA

downplay the harmful visual impact of the schemes. On heritage, SVLC supports

the council's case that the development proposals on the Grey Eagle Street and

main sites will fail to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of

the conservation area and will result in less than substantial harm to its

significance. Save Brick Lane agrees that the limited public benefits of the scheme

are insufficient to outweigh that harm. The proposals are therefore contrary to

the NPPF, the local plan and the London plan. SBLC's heritage witness Mr.

Forshaw will further demonstrate that the appellant's HTVIA and heritage

evidence failed to recognise the harm that the development proposals will

cause to heritage assets other than the conservation area, primarily also by

reason of their scale and massing.

This includes harm to the setting of one

of London's most important 18th century churches, Christ

Church Spitalfields, and to the grade two listed boiler house

with its iconic chimney.

It also includes harm to other designated heritage assets,

such as 35 Buxton Street and the total loss of the boundary wall

fronting Buxton Street.

The Ely's Yard developments, or Ely's Yard development,

will cause less than substantial harm

at the low medium end of the scale

to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

As Mr. Porschel will explain, the height and scale

of the proposed building will detract

from the character of the conservation area,

as seen from Wilkes Street and Grey Eagle Street,

in particular.

The appellant's heritage evidence undervalues the contribution

made by the Grey Eagle Street and main sites

to the character and appearance of the conservation area, which

is a highly significant heritage asset.

The neglect of and harm caused to those sites

under the appellant's own ownership

clearly brings paragraph 209 of the NPPF into play.

Save Brick Lane's case is therefore

that these additional factors strengthen

the case for refusing planning permission for the appeal

schemes on the grounds that the public benefits of the schemes

do not outweigh the identified heritage harms.

On cultural and economic impacts,

Save Brick Lane's witnesses will highlight the potential

that the development proposals have

to erode Brick Lane's distinctive local culture,

particularly that of the prominent Bangladeshi

community, and to negatively impact on local businesses.

Mr. Osmani, a local resident who grew up in the area surrounding

the appeal sites and is one of the founders of the Bengali

East End Heritage Society, will speak

to the importance of Brick Lane as the world's first

Banglatown in the global west.

He and Dr. Shafiq will speak to the Bangladeshi community's

concerns surrounding the proposed redevelopment

of the Truman's Brewery estate and their sense of isolation

from the planning process to date. Save Brick Lanes witnesses will also highlight the potential

for the development proposals to have a harmful effect on existing local businesses, drawing

on the Runnymede Trust's Beyond Banglatown report and evidence of the impact of similar

redevelopment schemes. These potential impacts call into question whether the proposals accord

with relevant planning policy, including London Plan Policy GG1D and I. Save Brick Lanes witnesses

will further argue that these impacts, which will have a particular effect on the Bangladeshi

community, give rise for a need for user to carry out a robust analysis of the equality

impacts of the appeal schemes pursuant to section 149 of the Equality Act.

While the public sector equality duty is not a duty to achieve a particular result in the

planning process, this does not mean that the three equality objectives set out in the

duty can simply be ignored.

The impact of the development proposals on these objectives, particularly by reference

to the impacts on the local Bangladeshi community must be assessed rigorously and with an open

mind.

By reference to those objectives, Save Brick Lane's witnesses will argue that the development

will fail to advance equality of opportunity between the Bangladeshi community and others,

and will fail to foster good relations between the Bangladeshi community and others.

On housing, Save Brick Lane agrees with the Council that the appeals schemes fail to deliver

sufficient housing on strategically important sites that have been identified as suitable

for housing in the emerging local plan.

In that regard, Save Brick Lane's witnesses will argue

that substantial weight should be given to the Brick Lane

and Pedley Street site allocation

in the emerging local plan in light

of the extensive consultation that has been undertaken

for that particular policy

and the proceeding now quashed Spitalfields

and Banglatown SPD, and in light of the policy,

having few objections of substance,

save for those put forward by the appellant itself.

That site allocation envisages housing -led mixed use schemes on the main and Grey Eagle

Street sites, which together are assessed as having the capacity to include 345 new

homes. The appeal schemes, which will deliver a total of only 44 homes across three sites,

are plainly inadequate in the face of an acute national and local housing crisis.

Save Brick Lane's planning witness, Ms Manchanda, will also highlight that the housing that

is proposed in block J of the appeal scheme falls short of the requirements

of policy DH2 of the local plan when it comes to the delivery of affordable

housing and housing mix. On community benefits in the planning balance Save

Brick Lane's witnesses will finally speak to the appeal schemes failure to

deliver sufficient benefits for the local community. Save Brick Lane's view

is that the appellants promise to create new jobs, workspace, community space and

public realm is unlikely to benefit the local community

to the extent that has been claimed by the appellant.

The vision set out in the appellant's public benefits

statement is equally based on inadequate engagement

with the local community, and therefore,

fails to reflect local wants and needs.

For all those reasons, Save Brick Lane's position

is that the limited benefits associated with the appeal

schemes are clearly outweighed by the harms that they would cause.

Save Brick Lane will argue that the proposals are contrary to national and local planning

policy and that there are no other material considerations that would justify granting

planning permission in this case.

In this inquiry, you, sir, have a choice whether or not to grant planning permission for development

proposals so that we say are harmful, poorly designed and have been rushed through the

planning process.

As a result, they do not reflect the needs, aspirations, or identity of the local community.

Members of the local community who object to these proposals are not NIMBYs.

They are not against the redevelopment of the Truman's estate.

To the contrary, they are supportive of that redevelopment so far as it reflects the residential -led

vision set out in Mr. Burrell's community master plan and in the emerging site allocation.

For these reasons, which will be explored, of course, in more detail at this inquiry,

save Brick Lane will respectfully invite you, sir, to dismiss this appeal.

Thank you, Ms Curtis.

Ms. I'm conscious of where we are at 12 o 'clock.

You'll obviously need some time, Mr Harris, to get set up.

I'm thinking aloud, would it be worth an early lunch break to allow that to take place or would we be better pressing on?

Well, so I'm thinking it might be worth it and for yet further reason.

That is the screen upon which it will be shown.

There is a screen at 90 degrees to that for the members of the public.

But as the most important person in the room, you are probably the furthest away from it.

And I think we might be inviting you and indeed Malone and Friends, Malone and Friends team,

if they want to get closer, to sit closer to.

And that's the sort of furniture rearrangement which probably could benefit from a short

adjournment or indeed the lunch adjournment.

What do you think, Mr. Wolfe?

So we're, again, relaxed.

It seems sensible to have an early lunch and allow all that to go on during the lunch hour.

British?

Yes, I would agree.

Okay, well look, I'm going to, we're just after 12 o 'clock, coming up to five past.

So let's have an hour for lunch.

We'll resume at five past one and we'll move on to the presentation.

Are you content for us to move your table, sir, or do you want to have sort of oversight of that?

I'm just having to move the chairs.

Oh, okay.

Then that's fine.

That's fine.

Until five past one then, everyone. Thank you.

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 hChaptcha.

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.

Truman's Public Inquiry - Tuesday 14 October 2025, 9:48am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public InquiryTuesday, 14th October 2025 at 9:48am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Webcast Finished - 1:13:20

Truman's Public Inquiry
Tuesday, 14th October 2025 at 9:48am