Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Wednesday 15 October 2025, 9:30am

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Wednesday, 15th October 2025 at 9:30am

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

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.

in the inquiry. There's nothing in particular I want to talk about before

we get on with things other than to say the usual reminder if you do have an

electronic device could you please make sure it's set to silent please. Thank you.

Mr. Harris, Mr. Ward, was there anything you wanted to, Ms. Curtis, was there

anything you even needed to talk to me about before we get on with things? So

just two short points if I may. The first relates to the statements of common

ground, which I gather are in a state to share now.

They've been finalised, which I'm pleased to say you very

kindly said that, provided you had them by the end of the

inquiry, well, we thought they'd be more helpful.

And the parties have worked hard to get them ready.

And they'll be shared with you through your office and, if we

may, posted on the portal as well.

Thank you very much.

I do appreciate that.

Thank you.

The other point, sir, just very briefly, if I may, and I

I hesitate to return to the dreaded topic of the timetable as I just thought it might

help you if I clarified the Council's position.

I did have a conversation with Mr Russell yesterday and we have always felt that the

three weeks that have been allocated for this inquiry were sufficient, were ample.

We noted that after the CMC you'd allowed an extra, a reserve day for evidence left

over the first day of the third week.

And having seen the evidence that was exchanged and the number of witnesses,

some a little over a fortnight after that note that you, sir, produced,

the council took the initiative of liaising with the parties

to see whether there was an agreement that that three -week period would be sufficient.

I think all parties were agreed that it would be sufficient.

We then put together an indicative timetable that allowed principally for limitations

on availability by the Rule 6 party witnesses.

So the only thing I would say by way of clarification is this.

This is obviously an important set of appeals.

It's an important inquiry for the council,

for the Rule 6 parties, for those members

of the public attending, and of course also for the appellant.

Our concern is to make sure

that you have the best available evidence upon which

to form your views.

So we would, there seemed to be an emerging mantra yesterday

that it was necessary to complete evidence within a two -week period. We

don't hold that view. Of course this is a matter for you, sir, but we very

much, we would be very much concerned if we proceeded at a breakneck speed,

including, I suppose, unnecessarily early starts when there is much that goes on

behind the scenes and evidence in any way being cut short.

Clearly, it's a matter for the appellant,

how the appellant chooses to adduce its own evidence.

But I would be concerned if there was an emerging ambition

to complete all evidence within a two -week period

when we have three weeks allocated for this inquiry.

The third of those weeks, it seems

that there is ample time there to complete site visits,

discussions on conditions and obligations and other matters.

So I say that, of course, one must make efficient use of time.

But I wouldn't want there to be an emerging ambition

to do whatever is possible to make sure

that the evidence is completed within a two -week period.

I hope that's clear.

Yes, it is clear and certainly I would make it plain that I certainly wouldn't want to

cut anything or anybody short in the way that evidence was presented. It needs to be heard

properly. I understand that and I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice that in the interest

of speed when we -yes, we do have three weeks in which to -in which to deal with the inquiry.

Mr. Harris, was there anything you wanted to say about that?

No, I don't think there's anything that's changed since yesterday.

Our point was a really clear one.

This is just as important to the applicant as anybody else.

And we should seek to avoid unnecessary hiatuses.

We started at 10 yesterday and finished at 3.

Fair enough.

I did point out to both my learned friends that we'd probably be in that position and

that it would be sensible if we could get Mr. Burrell on,

but Mr. Burrell disappeared.

And I'm sure there were good reasons for that.

But if we can avoid those hiatuses and gaps,

then we should.

And I agree with you,

that if it is possible,

with all due fairness and appropriateness

to finish the evidence in the first two weeks,

then we shouldn't shy away from doing that.

That's the point.

Ms Curtis. Just a couple of points. Firstly, I fully agree with the position set out by

Mr Wold as to the need to give the fullest consideration to this possible. Secondly,

I just wanted to highlight, following on from what Mr Harris said, that I didn't have

a conversation with the Appellant's Council yesterday about the possibility of Mr Burrell

appearing and I didn't have any indication before it was communicated in the inquiry

as to the length of time that it would take for the appellant's design presentation.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Well, I'm not sure that's correct because I think you were copied into all of the emails,

which specifically said that, look, there's a very good chance we'll finish.

And unless the email didn't reach you, in which case that's an apology.

Apologies, that may have been me missing it then. I thought you had a conversation.

Sorry, no, it wasn't a conversation. It was an email from the night before.

I didn't want to make a point about it yesterday

because we were moving along fine.

And I think we'll continue moving along fine.

Perhaps we should move along now.

I was thinking the very same thing.

It's always interesting to be spending time talking

on the table when we could be getting on with it.

But yeah, I understand what everyone's saying.

And clearly, I appreciate, Mr. Woolworth, your points.

But at the same time, I'm always concerned about having a relaxed start.

Relaxed is probably the wrong word, but you'll know what I mean, to an inquiry.

And then find us sort of being pressed for time towards the end.

It's happened to me before.

So we'll just keep an eye on it and we can talk about time table as we're going on.

But yeah, I think we know what we're set to deal with today.

Was there anything else anybody needed to raise?

In which case, Ms. Curtis, I'm going to hand over to you

and your witness.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Burrell, you've set out your professional background in Section 1 of your proof of evidence.

Could you summarise your experience and expertise for the inspector?

Yes.

Oh, and Mr. Burrell, could you put one of the microphones in front of you?

Is that better?

Can you hear now?

Good.

It might be better if we move across one.

I think it is very important that we use the microphones because I think it's linked

to the camera, isn't it?

Okay, so I can be seen where I need to be seen.

Good, okay.

So first of all, apologies for yesterday.

I'll have to be drawn away.

So to commence, obviously my CV and my experiences is listed in my evidence, but I thought it

might be useful to actually go through partly my experience and also the reasons behind

and context behind my involvement with this particular campaign.

And there's also a model which is attributed to me as well.

Because I think in doing so, I can explain my experience

as well as the evidence I can give.

Because it won't be forensic, to quote a word

I've seen a lot in the documentation.

Because the first thing to say is that I'm not a commission.

I'm an architect, but I'm not commissioned

and with the brief from anyone to perform all the tasks which I know are required in

an inquiry such as this.

So that's the first thing to say.

And I am familiar with working, in fact, in Spitalfields as part of a team, as the architects

are here many years ago with some quite – architects John Miller and Kala Traver and all sorts

of people.

So I know the territory which we're in.

So the reason that I'm involved with this particular inquiry,

as a trustee for the Spillipus Trust,

is following work I did on a campaign for Smithfield

Market, which the Spillipus Trust were

perfectly involved with.

And after the success of that campaign,

the trust asked me to get involved with Northern Folgate,

which is Blossom Street, which went to a full planning

assessment under the mayor of London, who actually then

changed the approval that Townhandwort gave.

So I began working quite intensively in Spitalfields.

And soon after that, I was invited

to become a trustee of the trust.

I had previously worked in this area

as well on Spitalfield Market as part of a team.

And I have past experience of working

on projects around the East End, White Chapel,

whopping the thesis on Rownton Houses, et cetera.

And found myself, in fact, having

done lots of student work on projects,

actually being commissioned as an architect.

So as a trustee, we began the trust

looks at all sorts of occasions.

and actually is looking around the whole area in terms of what's going on in terms of conservation areas,

projects and consulting with all parties and working with the planning authority and residents

to understand what the projects entail and if there's any risk to the area.

So that's the background and so the work that I've been doing as a trustee is all for a boner work,

It's simply doing consultation work with residents and analysing planning beliefs with other trustees.

Otherwise, in terms of my experience, working experience, I've always had an involvement with historic buildings as well.

And that's been quite varied.

In fact, I think when I was introduced to the CPA as a member of the advisory board quite a long time ago now,

I was introduced as someone who was

an expert on Victorian piers and lunatic asylums,

because I was a trustee of the West Pier.

And I'd also done a lot of groundbreaking work

on the reclamation of historic asylums as new settlements,

which I won quite a few awards, and we

changed government policy.

So I was very being typecast in terms of projects

I get involved with.

But most projects have different dimensions,

whether it's historic buildings, or buildings at risk,

or urban design and planning, et cetera.

So the background is there, and as working experience

over the years and current work, I

am involved with quite a practise involved

with some very large, great one listed building works.

And it seems again time passed again,

because I think in the FT the other day,

we were working on St. John's Smith Square,

and we're billed as being experts

on restoring historic listed music venues, et cetera.

So I have quite a bit of background

in terms of this type of project.

Having said that, when it comes to advising or becoming involved with schemes

and talking with residents, producing maybe an alternative scheme,

there's a reason for why that comes about.

And although we're here and a lot of the work that has been put into the public realm

and being assessed is to do with the assessment of the current scheme.

And I haven't been through detailed analysis of all those drawings.

There are a huge number of drawings.

And from my experience working with schemes, there are a huge number of drawings.

And so anything, any comments I've made in my proof or anything that comes,

could be inferred from the design that was put out,

the talk to residents about as a alternative should it be a residential proposal for that site.

I'm aware of the policies and legislation that surrounds design these days because I'm

a working architect, but I know that there's no way that I would actually have a chance

or the time available to analyse and do a site analysis or in fact to analyse all the

work that's being put out because there's this huge amount of work and it has to be

done properly.

So I'm relying on other witnesses and proofs

that will go into detail with that.

Having said that, I think I might

just go to my first slide, which doesn't seem to be here.

Can someone get this slide up?

So sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Burrell.

but are you proposing to speak about the alternative development scenarios for the appeals site

that you've created?

Well, I was going to go on to say that, just to mention, that the starting point for becoming

involved in this particular scheme was to do with visits made to the site and the area

with other trustees to look at the historic fabric and review it.

I think Alec Falshaw will be actually talking about those particular visits

and during that visit that I actually started to look at the plans

and the openness of the whole site.

Yes, that's what I was going to go to next if I put that slide up.

So, does that...

You just wait one moment, Mr. Farrell.

I'm not sure it's...

Is that on right now?

It's plugged in.

You're in to my list, plugged in.

Yes, in class.

Sorry, can I just be clear about what we're about to be shown?

Yes, apologies.

These were images that are in Mr. Burrell's proofs or in other parts of the evidence,

but we thought it would be thought maybe vainly that it would be quicker to get them up on a screen rather than turning to all the documents.

But perhaps I'm content if it's all in the evidence.

That's fine. I just wanted to cheque.

No, there's no new images.

They're all there.

All that's helpful.

Shall we? Shall we have a we better have a little break while this is set up rather than sit here in the house.

Apologies, sir.

I thought this had all been set up in advance.

I've got 10 .18. Shall we have a short break until 10 .30?

Yeah.

Get it set up and then we can carry on.

I'm grateful, sir.

Okay. Until 10 .30, everyone.

It was actually working. It was there. I expected to see it there.

It was there. When I last looked it was there, now it's not there.

Yeah.

So you can change the slides.

He's in this one.

I just think he's over there.

I think we are now sorted on the technology front.

I think we're all here, so let's just carry on.

Go on then.

Okay, so.

So one of the early visits to the site when it was opened,

and also the whole area, was by the trust,

really looking at and proposing an inventory of the buildings

and all the historic elements in the area.

At that point, given the ongoing discussions,

there were already to do with the area improvements,

the conservation issues, and other planning issues,

and needs, et cetera, between the various mean

to organisations and the trust.

And also, there was also talk when I first

got involved about a master plan and doing

an overall view of the site.

So at that point, I produced a very draught analysis

or inventory of the sites that were clearly

available because they were evident from the street.

And I think the incentive to do that

That was because I'd done a previous study for Islington on 125 of their own estates

across the whole borough and found about 8 ,000 homes which they currently use as their inventory

of stock of potential sites for ongoing residential projects.

We've completed three of those already.

So I was aware of the process of going through looking at sites in terms of their capacity

and how one deals with the conservation issues as well.

And at the same time, I was also working

with the initiatives on World Barrow of Greenwich

to look at the same issue.

The JLA were funding studies across the area

to look at capacity and character analysis

of all the boroughs to see what the potential was

for intensification.

This was about four or five years ago.

So it was part of something I was involved with anyway,

And it seemed applicable to actually start to apply this to the sites in the area.

And I hadn't actually, until around that time, actually seen the main area of the Truman

Brewery site behind the walls, because generally speaking, it's not a public space you can

walk into.

And it was quite extraordinary to actually experience the vast amount of space.

and obviously one's potential.

I've known the Brick Lane and Spitalbros area

for a long time as a visitor mainly,

I think as a student,

and knew sort of how it worked

and I've seen it in its various forms

for perhaps 20, 30 years.

So I was familiar with how it had changed

over a period of time.

So, having looked at the site in these terms and knowing there was also an ongoing discussion

with Ta Ambitz and various organisations about bringing together a master plan and an overview

of the site, I produced this layout plan which just showed, as I had done in Islington and

other barriers of follow suit, looked at the capacity of the area to see how one

could actually not only just provide new buildings and intensify it but also

do what I call remediation which means taking this, remedying the site and

repairing the site and building back the city because clearly there are a lot of

gaps and voids in quite a lot of urban areas and in particular this area has

has all those gaps which are well known and now being exploited and I've

actually used this principle in Islington to put for what I've called

grey land as opposed to brownfield sites and not grey band. In fact I did present

to the parliamentary advisory committee on this issue and I used the word grey

land not grey band but they slightly misconstrued it but it is it is still

an ongoing possibility of remediating cities and putting communities back

bringing streets back in particular,

and actually intensifying whilst within the character

of the area, especially when it involves

land that's owned by the local authority,

because they already own the land.

And I've lectured and have been writing about this.

And in fact, I'm leaving this afternoon

to make another lecture in Germany on this very subject.

So it is an ongoing piece of work

that I've been doing, partly commissioned,

but on this particular site, wasn't commissioned.

and it's just part of being a trustee in the area.

I think that's probably what I need to say

in terms of how I got to the point

where we have this document, it was a document,

which we did make available to the local authority,

and they used it as their tender source

for obtaining quotations to commission consultants

to carry out a proper analysis.

Thank you, Mr. Burrell.

And in section four of your proof,

and also in figures one to five of the appendices to your proof, you set out

save brick lanes alternative development scenarios for the appeal site and I'm

correct Ante that those relate to what we're sort of referring to as the main

appeal site rather than the block J or A or Great Eagle Street, that's correct?

Yes, it is a central site, I mainly had time to spend looking at it, yes.

And you've said at paragraph 4 .3 of your proof that the proposals, your proposals,

are community endorsed. What do you mean by that and what engagement did you have

with the local community in preparing your alternative master plan? Well there

always are lots of discussions going on with the trust -app with various affiliated

groups and informal conversations etc. I think soon after having produced this as

a notion, there were a series of meetings set up and talks with how a consultant would

actually carry out consultation and follow it through to some sort of conclusion where

there was a consensus.

And so that was set up as an ongoing part of the SPD consultation.

I think it worked out very well in terms of there was a lot of talking going on about

that.

And it was during that time when we weren't commissioned, we had this notion of plan,

we were also taking part in those conversations at various venues around the area and within

the trust itself and other affiliated trusts and members.

So and there were also a number of exhibitions about with other documentation which is not

in this group because there's so much of it,

diagrams, aerial views, and documents produced.

And so it's been an ongoing series of documents,

and publicity, and writings about the area

to raise awareness.

And also, I think from my perspective,

having been involved with the area for a long time

but not in detail, has resulted in the last, I suppose,

for or so years, there's been, I think, a greater involvement

of a greater number of people.

Because I have actually tendered for projects in this area

nearby in Chicksend Estate for East End Homes.

And I've built schemes quite close by.

And it's always a daunting task when

you have to say, how will you do a consultation with residents?

Mainly local authorities, but how would you

do the consultation?

Because it is a very diverse area.

And it's quite difficult.

for me to necessarily understand.

So you always have to think very carefully,

how are you going to do that?

So how are you going to get to people?

I've encountered it in other areas.

I've worked in Brixton when I cut my teeth in Brixton.

Same thing, you know, they were very opinionated.

Lots of people were very, very interested

in what's going on.

You had to get around them all and just really make sure

that everyone was on board.

And so I think that's, so over the,

so in the classic consultation,

you know it has to be done a certain way

if you're really going to involve residents.

and it's time consuming, you don't get it right first time, you probably have three phases.

And so this got set up more informally, but it started to get more formal when the SPD

was being discussed and there were arranged sessions which complied very much with what

Hamlet's expectations were about ongoing communication.

So we were part of that really, and quite a lot was done, first of late. This is almost pre -modelled.

When the model came along, that sort of toured around. It was installed for several weeks

sometimes and people were on drop -in centres or it's photographed, it was talked about, etc.

And I mean as a volunteer organisation and volunteers, you do what you can when you can,

but you don't necessarily have a remit and the resources

to simply do what you'd like to do.

But it was certainly there as just a starter sketch,

if you like.

And in a sense, part of the reason

was not simply to put it forward as necessarily there was no,

it wasn't on land owned by the council or anything like that.

But it was actually aware of offering a critique.

And I suppose that's what it's doing now, a critique

of the kind of development that probably should take place

in this kind of site, given all the criteria and all

the constraints, et cetera.

And it's been followed through and the model's

been made because there was quite an emerging

discrepancy between the assumptions behind what

is generally regarded as acceptable and workable

and urban design in a city like this and a site like this.

And what was emerging from the current brief,

and I've been quite explicit in my evidence,

to say that I think there's a real problem with the brief

in terms of actually offering detailed remarks on it.

Because there's lots of it just missing,

and there isn't the ammunition.

And I saw sympathy in a way to the designers

having to grapple with just one or two uses,

or more than that, but very much a dominant use.

And I don't know what their brief is, particularly.

But I mean, point of view of the ideal brief,

this is what this is trying to show.

Here's a sort of starting point for which you can actually

start to assess.

And looking at the local authority evidence on design,

which was that proof of evidence was produced quite a long time

after this was actually prepared.

And so in addition to actually my reading,

what they're assuming to the current propellant scheme is,

I'm also reflecting on what they might actually

have said about this proposal too as an alternative, which

is meant to show a marketer say, well,

here's another way of doing it.

There are certain characteristics

which I think are important.

And I think it stands up pretty well because this was done well

before any of the principles of the spelt

and I think there is one option in the detail analysis that was done and commissioned by

the council, option two, which shows...

An apologies, Mr. Burrell, to interrupt there, but when you're talking about the options

there, are you referring to the options in the Brick Lane and Pedley Street Site Capacity

Assessment, which is core document F05?

That would be prior partners, yes, thanks.

Yeah, that's that one there.

Because that particular analysis is quite close to the work

that I had done for other boroughs

when commissioned to look at the capacity in detail.

And so I was interested because this was not

done with lots of data, lots of a team.

It was me taking a sort of informed view

and what people were talking about,

what their priorities were,

and what the issues were to do with movement

and what kids would do, what families would do,

et cetera, et cetera.

And just building in a very starting sketch

as partly as a brief and partly as a test

and a starter, basically,

knowing that there was an ongoing process

which was being carried out by local authorities

to actually get to a consensus.

Thank you, Mr Burrell. And you've touched on it there, but how then do your proposals,

which can be seen in the photos to your appendix, in your view, reflect the needs of the community

as they were expressed to you during your engagement process?

Well, perhaps I go to this particular, yeah, this slide, these two slides here, which are

existing, this is the main site, and they show as existing and a series of

buildings as may be proposed. And in terms of hearing the brief that was

coming from residents and particularly the mayor actually in terms of his

aspirations for family accommodation, soon as you have family accommodation

children going to school, they're playing, need to be suited by, need to be overlooked,

they need spaces they can understand.

Or I'm working with a designer, someone in Warsaw,

who's written books on cities for children.

I mean, they see the city completely differently.

And so, and they have to find their way around,

even in currently now, whatever's happening at this site.

And so, people are going from Brick Lane

across to another part of the site.

They've got to find their way through the current proposals.

And I'm thinking, well, how would City for Children

actually assess that?

So there's lots of issues.

And I think what I was trying to show here is that it's not to do with filling a space

up with buildings. I can go into more detail about what I think is happening there in terms

of a heritage -led approach. It's actually more to do with thinking about the space.

And I think what the Prior and Partners document post -CEPD has revealed is the fact that London

And it's very much a series of blocks, city blocks.

And I think which means there's a perimeter, the streets,

the prime public space with its buildings,

new buildings, or existing buildings, restored buildings.

And then the space behind is invariably,

and this whole site was all the sites

around it were all series of blocks, residential blocks

200 years ago.

The interior of those blocks becomes space, not roads,

or may become a muse, may become a walkway,

but it's basically space,

because the buildings need spaces behind them.

And so, in terms of it having much more residential -led approach,

that sets up a whole series of criteria

which have a real impact on how you look at an urban block,

the dimensions you've got,

and how much building you can fit in,

how much space you can fit in,

how much visibility, how much privacy, etc.

et cetera.

And it starts to set up a series of options

on how you might divide that block up.

And it's to do with those type of logical analysis, which

you have to do, which determines what type of residential,

if it is residential, or maybe even if it's office,

what type of offices do they have outside spaces?

Are there very amenable offices?

Sorry, that shouldn't have gone that way.

And so on this particular model, I

was keen to make sure that those spaces were there

and they were tied to buildings.

And also the buildings themselves

were of a scale that people could relate to.

If it was going to be primary residential,

they'd have buildings you want to live in.

They're buildings which have probably, ideally,

double aspect and the possible quadruple aspect.

So terraces, whilst they're traditional and very much

in the area, aren't always good because you've

got backs and fronts.

With pavilions, you have two fronts and sides.

You get lights and air, et cetera.

So, but there's obviously a hierarchy of street frontage and spaces at the back.

It could be on this particular model I've shown here that rather than feel nervous about

not giving away the interior, the private interior to the public, and I think a lot

of the scheme currently is actually deemed to be sort of public access, but it could

be locked up at night or it's limited.

It could be that in fact that some of that space doesn't have to be, it could be shared

private.

It doesn't have to be fully public.

The main thing is it's space.

And I think it's interesting to see how historic buildings

and places have actually picked up on this aspect too,

that the heritage and the quality of the area

is as much to do with the spaces and the street frontages

as it is actually to making places or the spaces

or the alleyways, et cetera.

And I can come on to the aspect of why

I think the buildings are, the site is filled with blocks

and the reasons given, which I think are not valid,

and why this approach is much more comes from needs.

And just, I mean, basically good city design.

There's countless documents out there

on how to look at city design in terms of blocks,

typologies, aspects, and the requirements for housing,

if you should go that route, are endless.

They're very, very strict these days.

You have to be really, really careful what you're doing,

and it's very controlled.

But it has to be done.

If people are going to live in cities,

and there's another good reason why that should happen.

So I think in terms of satisfying,

you mentioned in the last one satisfying the public.

People are nervous about walking around streets, kids walking

around streets at night.

Are they got safe routes?

Are the routes overlooked by people?

Are they overlooked by bedrooms or rooms

that people live in at night?

Or are they overlooked by cameras and office spaces?

Or in one case, then you've got false balconies,

which at nighttime probably won't have office people

on them.

So these are really basic, basic rules of urban design

which are out there.

And I mean, everyone has really been signed up to it for years.

And it's what you do.

If you don't do that, let's see what the answer is.

But there are simple, basic rules of urban design

being written about, and written about, and written about.

And it's not rocket science.

It's absolutely basic.

And it's common sense when you talk to people

and they don't understand forensic detail.

They don't understand all the nomenclature

that the architects use.

They don't get it.

They talk about very basic things.

And that's where you get the message about,

especially if they're not going to live there,

going to shop there, or they're going to play there,

or they're going to visit there, or they're

going to find their way around and wayfinding.

They talk the very common sense language

of how you get around the city, how you live in the city.

And so all the chat that us architects put out,

it's sort of interesting if it's interesting.

Otherwise, it's just forget it.

So that's why I think this sort of model

does actually start the conversation.

And I think it's true to say, and I'm not sure

in the room, that I was surprised that people really

perked up when they saw something that was like, hey,

we get what we're talking about here.

And what's this?

what they engage with the ideas, because it's

engageable, because they know it's

to do with living in the city.

I think if it's a large office floor plate,

it's quite hard to imagine what 50 metres of floor plate is.

So I've just explained it going on a little bit,

but it's to do with why this model was simply just used

as a tool, as a starting tool, to actually engage people

and get feedback.

And if they said, look, we don't like it,

there's too many and odd enough whatever,

you could just take it down.

It's not a pristine model.

It's not finished.

It could be changed like that.

And it has done, and it could do.

And that is the essence of engagement.

When you meet the residents, you get their brief,

you do a scheme.

They do like it, they don't like it.

You change it again.

You go back and say, it's that close to what you want.

It's a three -stage process.

It takes quite a long time.

It's quite demanding.

You won't always hear what you want to hear.

But if you really want to, get a scheme that's right

and get everyone working together, that's what you need to do.

So it's the client who becomes like a patron,

it's the designers and then there's the users.

And it works well, it works really well.

Thank you, Mr Burrell.

Moving on then specifically to the appeals schemes,

at paragraph 4 .4 of your proof of evidence,

you've said that the level of consultation carried out by the appellant

in your view was cursory.

Could you explain your views on that?

Well, I don't know how many consultations I've done over the decades, I suppose.

I started doing this 50 years ago in my practise.

I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's, I went to quite a few of these, and so did other trustees and other residents, etc, etc.

And I've seen the post -it pads, you know, here's a scheme, what do you think?

And it's the same old stuff that you say.

It's not that difficult to read again what they will need.

What they can talk about is mainly its uses.

Residential was there a lot.

But a lot of the post -it paths were put there.

But they were put on a model that was finished.

It was absolutely finished and quite tricky to understand.

It was quite small scale.

I think there are some consultations

I didn't go to, which sounded a bit more engaged.

But I mean, you do have to sort of roll your sleeves up

if you do pre -do consultation.

And I don't think that necessarily,

I didn't see any evidence of that happening here.

And it's not how everyone wants to work.

Some architects don't want to work that way.

Some clients don't want to work that way.

Local authorities probably do because they sort of have to,

because it's all enshrined in all the things which you're

supposed to do as a plan application.

That's why I said, you expect the client and the architects

to be asked to actually participate in that,

because it's what is expected of you by a local authority

that you have to work through that.

So, but some of the meetings I went to, it was just, it was slightly anaemic.

I mean, they were just simply post it, Paz, and what do you think?

And I know the comments were made, but I didn't see any particular changes or hear of any

future sessions coming, let's get together with a working model, etc.

So I think it was not, it was done, it just happened by the way.

And there were lots of well -intentioned, good intentions, but I don't know that people really

fully engaged with it at all. Thank you and in terms then of the building

footprints you've made comments at paragraph 4 .8 of your proof of evidence

about the massing of the buildings and this is also a concern that's shared by

the local planning authority. Have you had an opportunity to read the evidence

of Mr Reynolds who's the local planning authorities design witness? Yes I have

And do you agree with Mr. Rednold's evidence when it comes to the scale and massing of

the development proposals?

I have to, yes.

And it was quite interesting to read, because I was already reflecting on what we've been

thinking of too.

And I think there's some of the wording and points made in there to do with mention of

My apologies about the scale of buildings and the number of buildings and introducing

even occasional residential buildings to animate the facades and the industries.

I thought it was pretty comprehensive and very much what one would expect from, you

know, so there are countless design guides there.

There's a problem with London Plan, there's lots of design guides.

You almost don't need to be a designer.

You can just keep the guides.

I'll follow the advice.

There's lots of advice out there.

And if you break away from that, then it's

got to be a good reason for it.

I'd state it for otherwise.

But I mean, I think looking at the comets made,

in particular, things like, obviously,

all the blank cassards with five graffiti.

But I mean, how much do you need for graffiti, et cetera.

I think the scale of the individual buildings,

the heights, OK, the heights of the heights,

but the scale and footprints to buildings

as very bulky buildings.

And the point I've made, of course, on that,

and I agree, is that if you have buildings of a certain depth

that are very deep, they're very hard to change.

And I think if this gets built as a set of concrete plates,

an office floor is about the most basic banal building

there is.

You need a core and a floor plate.

That's all you really need for an office floor.

It's just a floor plate.

Residential is much, much more tricky.

But I mean, if you've got too much depth

and you've got a big concrete floor plate,

you might convert it to a department store,

but you wouldn't turn it to housing very easy at all

because you've lost the space at the back too.

So that's the real concern, seeing a scheme

from a board like this, where there's

no re -enrichment of the open block and the space you've

got on the block, the depth of the buildings,

the depth for lighting, for privacy, overlooking,

getting kids down.

I mean, so I thought that all the comments were pretty comprehensive and, in fact, extraordinary

as to how much of the scheme was able to be assessed in quite a negative way over such

a large area.

It was quite surprising, actually.

There are lots of justifications.

Thank you, Mr. Farrell.

You also made a comment at paragraph 5 .6 of your proof about there being a lack, in your

view of a coherent urban design vision in this case. What do you mean by this?

Well again I think in Reynolds proof at the end he does actually elude to this and I think

probably our own planning witness. I mean it's an opportunity at the site and when I

first saw this site I was astonished. I'd seen the streets, I'd known the streets when

I was a student going to, drinking or going to Indian restaurants. I knew the streets

But I didn't know there was this vast area at the back.

And I thought my first thought actually was, my god,

some architect, some lucky artist is going

to get a fantastic chance to do a brilliant scheme because look

at the space here.

And look at what's outside.

Look what could be done.

Look what you could do here.

And it just seems that's your natural reaction as a designer.

Wow.

And you see the space.

And you've got the streets, et cetera.

And so I think there's quite an expectation of what

an amazing site this could be.

Because you've got the space in a quite dense area, urban area,

next to a dense area.

But they're in the edge of where commercial spittlefield becomes

more residential and lower key.

And that's brought up in the same evidence, too.

So I think, and you'd expect, given all the movements,

the wayfinding, where it's connected,

what you can see, whether it's a listed building,

or it's landscape, or open landscape,

or what the Luftwaffe had contributed,

all that stuff together.

You'd expect there to be some idea coming forward

to actually animate the scheme and also do

what is also mentioned in the same proof.

And I sort of mentioned it is the word hierarchy.

Because there are principal streets.

Brick Lane is obviously principal

because it's name and its association.

So it's not a grand boulevard.

I mean, you can see the word boulevard anywhere

in this description.

But I mean, there's no real words or ideas

or thematic threads in this proposal written about

or drawn or spatially conceived, which I think people could

really relate to.

And people don't relate to a dissected analysis

of every brick and whatever, which if you mix together,

like in a recipe, you get sort of dark maroon -y brown colour

if you mix it all together.

They don't get that.

that they see, they're looking for some idea about what

the space is like and how they can relate to it.

Where is the main space?

Is there a main space?

So I think it's really sad that I

think in following the idea that it's heritage -led,

in other words, there are existing big buildings,

there are narrow alleyways, and there are bridges across,

so we do more of that.

I don't think that means you've denied yourself the opportunity

to deal with the spatial aspects.

and introduce something sort of fresh and new there,

because things have to move on.

And so that's the disappointment.

And I think, well, there's no, I don't see any vision there.

You can go beyond that and go over the top and do it wrong.

But in this case, I don't see it at all.

I see a lot of filling up with what I think is almost

like a known pastiche.

I think the word, I think it's collage,

as mentioned in Mr. Bales's brief,

It's a collage of things, whether it's a bridge,

or it's a pattern, or it's a brick,

or it's a splay, or something.

And I don't know.

I don't know why the bridges are there.

I think Fortas mentioned the fact,

well, do you need these bridges?

Because he values the ones that maybe are quite interesting.

But do you need these bridges anymore?

Because it's not an industrial brewery

that finished brewing 20 years ago, or brickworks anymore.

That's all gone.

So why are you?

Is it a pastiche of all these urban elements

to make it look as if it's part of the scene.

But if you're filling it up as well, end of storey.

End of storey.

That's what you've done.

Thank you, Mr. Burrell.

And you've already touched on this,

but in terms of the public realm on the site,

you've said in your proof and this morning

that in your view the appeal schemes failed

to unite the sites with 24 -7 open public spaces.

And you've also said at paragraph 8 of your proof that the appeal schemes fail to exploit

the opportunity offered by the very open nature of the site, and you've mentioned that today.

Just turning, if you can, to core document A09.

And that's the appellant's landscape and public realm strategy.

I may have to, you may have to ask the question without referring to the, can you just refer

to the point, the point you're wanting to make?

I was just going to ask you to comment on the public realm that is proposed to the scheme

and why you think that the appeals schemes fail to make use of the existing open space

on the site in light of the public spaces that are proposed.

I do know the point you made.

Again, I think Mr Verens refers to it as well, is that there are sort of public spaces within

the scheme and I think I've said that those schemes are quite small and they're quite

enclosed and they're sort of doglegs.

you can't see all the way through very simply,

not straightforward.

And I think there are hard spaces in terms of actually

softer landscape.

I believe that they're not necessarily fully open

public thoroughfares.

They're actually quite likely going to be controlled.

And this is not uncommon.

We've had it on other schemes that we've

looked at in the city.

And so people are never quite sure if they can go there or not.

And so I just, I mean, I haven't gone into detail on it

because I just think it just needs completely reassessing.

The core public spaces, and that again is mentioned

in the LPA's evidence, are the extant streets.

They are given public spaces.

That's the street is our street,

although there is one street, of course,

which actually was a public street

and it's now, it's owned by the, it's in Truman Brewery,

actually took over years ago, Ali will refer to it,

and it's blocked at one end.

So we've lost that one.

But the streets themselves are the ones

where that's the prime public space.

There are other opportunities to introduce spaces,

but it needs a revisit.

And it's more difficult to do if you've only got one or two uses

or half a dozen uses for predominant use.

And so the landscape strategy, I think in my group,

I mean, I looked for it.

And it is edges and tops and balconies and not very much,

really, which is surprising.

Because I think in all the early consultation drawings that

were done as part of exhibitions in various places

around Spitalfields, there were a number

of landscape public spaces suggested and put forward.

And in fact, I think one of the quite joyful things

about arriving in Spitliff is when you see what seems to be obsession with it, oh it's

just a car park, we're going to tidy it up in the centre by the Leeds building.

I mean that is a very vibrant, busy, open, great space and I think on the early sketches

we talked to people about we showed it as a line with trees like a very conventional

public green square which will still earn its money.

It's not lost space to the public, it's actually, it earns its keep because it is

actually somewhere you want to go, you want to see it,

and you can orientate to.

So I think that's why I expected the optimum to see more

in terms of landscape, whether it's hard or soft,

and more mention of quite understood and urban design

elements, whether it's boulevards or squares or trees,

whatever.

I mean, it has to be super original every single time.

They're there.

People get them.

They know where to go.

They can find their way.

They're attracted to them.

They have other, obviously, benefits

in terms of ecology, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So that's why I think the public realm,

you have to search for it.

You have to really search for it.

Allen Gardens, there could be no less there.

But again, Allen Gardens has got a wall to it,

which you can overshadow it certain times of day.

And it's just a wall.

And then you've got to penetrate it and go through it.

So why put the wall in the first place?

by treating it in another way.

So I mean, there were lots of ways

of looking at this scheme.

And I feel a bit sad that it isn't much more

optimistic and interesting.

And the opportunities aren't actually

which are spelt up by the local authorities aspiration.

The opportunities aren't picked up.

Because I also think that they, we've

had this many times of things we've done as commissioners,

that they're quite commercial.

If you do a great scheme with open spaces

and places upon the goatee.

They earn their keep.

They're not just, oh, well, yeah, we've lost the floor plate.

But floor plates are not being rented like they were anyway.

Everything's changed.

All the policies that we're currently looking at

in terms of the scheme have actually changed dramatically

over the last five years while I've been looking at this

because of COVID, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And it's all, so there's lots of ways of looking at this.

And I think there's a much more imaginative proposal.

And that's why I think people feel quite strongly that,

hey, should we just slow down a bit

and make sure we've got the brief right,

make sure everyone's on board.

And maybe we could all agree a scheme that we all

think is really good.

And we're talking for, I'm thinking of clients becoming

patrons and really, there's a whole mention

about curating all the spaces by the landowner there

and creating the art, et cetera, et cetera.

Well, I'm not sure if it's really much curating,

because there are lots of spaces all over London.

and sites like this.

I mean, not quite the same as Brit Lane,

but there's South London, there's Camden.

Been there for a long time.

It's not that unique.

It is special because there's other attributes

apart from the obvious ones.

But I think there is an opportunity, I think,

to create something even better.

Sorry to pause.

Would you want to make it a full screen, John?

I don't know.

I've lost my full screen.

I think it's all right because you're not referring to the images right now are you

Mr. Farrow?

OK, but possibly there is, with some of which I've finished,

probably, to sort of start to finish,

that I could actually go to show this image here, which

isn't very big, is it?

But this shows, in fact, how the spatial aspects are

the key spaces, as I see it, and I think how people see it,

because they can occupy the space.

they do right now.

The buildings themselves, I don't know the dialogue

that we've had with the buildings.

They're important if they're too high, or they're too dark,

or they're too repetitive, or don't

like something you want to live in.

But generally speaking, they're much more interested in space

is the aspect of views, the sunlight, daylight,

how the wildlife works, how they get across the place,

are their kids safe, whatever.

If you're going to live in this area,

and family accommodation is what's

been talked about since I've been involved with this scheme,

this political trust.

And it's the man's aspiration, too.

And I've worked, I've actually done

schemes for Chixan State years ago,

and talked with those residents,

and seen the problems they have.

Nothing's happened since 2008.

So there's lots of issues around there,

and this could be a fantastic opportunity

to actually sort those things out.

And it's to do with the spaces and the streets

and the public spaces, we've already got.

and then an assessment of how you use those central spaces in the Middle East world.

As has been said, there were spaces there.

And it was interesting when I first saw the whole space to be really inspired by the bigness of the whole thing.

But also having gone back and then seeing all the inscriptions on the floor,

where the bats were, where the rails were, where the yards were, where the entrances were, you could read the plan.

It's like going to a Roman city and just seeing all there.

But then within days, they were gone, completely gone.

I took photographs, I think, with Alec Walshaw and Dan

Cruikshank.

And I thought it was amazing.

But then, so it looked like it's a real possibility

of using some of those as part of the meaning

and also part of the heritage approach

would be to actually reinterpret those.

But we lost the same street, historic street,

visited street paving in Northern Folgate.

It just got torn up.

And in fact, most of that scheme was actually gone,

was demolished.

The floor's placed with chains.

It's really not a refurbishment, it's actually a rebuild.

Sorry, sorry, carry on this file.

Oh, sorry.

So public spaces.

So in terms, sorry to interrupt.

Just in terms then of a final point, so you referred to the spittle fields in

Banglatown SPD in your proof of evidence and it's appended to your proof. You're

aware of course I'm sure that the document was quashed by the High Court.

Just turning to page JB 37 of your appendix to your proof of evidence.

What is your view of the proposed footprints and massing set out in the SPD?

Well, I was quite so closely involved with that towards the end, but I mean, some of them I would actually want to think about with other people and discuss and see how they really work.

But one or two, and there's one in particular, there's one option two, which, yeah, residential option two on page 28 of that document.

Sorry, are you referring to the SPD or the site capacity assessment?

Well, it's the Brick Lane Pedley Street study which I mentioned.

I was referring to the SPD.

I think they quote it as being from the SPD Docker.

Anyway, so some of those sites in there I think are fine.

Some of them we haven't had time to look at in detail.

I think one would want to just cheque again.

But they're on the right lines.

And the good thing about it is it's to do with more than,

it's to do with the scale of the sites, which have been put up.

It's not to do with putting massive buildings

and filling up space.

It's to do with the right, and it is mentioned,

I think, in the opponent's proof about to get

the right nice scale of building for the right uses,

which is great.

But I mean, the thing is, what uses?

And I think it's the buildings in the area generally,

apart from the massive buildings that are true and very

own, of a certain scale.

As a residential, they're very small.

But there's a gradation.

And it's brought in lots of proofs and advice

about respecting those differences.

But you need bits to slot in to fill certain things.

You can't just have one idea.

You've got to have a series of flexible units.

And I think we did a complete analysis on Norton -Folgate

and split the whole thing down into all its elements.

And the gold plans, which are included in the appellant's

evidence in the old maps, show the scale of what

life used to be like there.

And so I think it's the SPD is on the right lines.

It does need to be looked at in more detail.

And I think it needs a more discussion

about the type of usage.

But I mean, the scale of the spaces,

and the scale of the buildings is a key aspect

of actually having enough flexibility

to do what you need to do.

As soon as you impose a huge building,

even though in sort of historic terms it's done before, let's do it again.

Well, yeah, but that was for a different reason.

It was done for a brewery and those times it's changed.

And so why would you do it now at that scale?

And so that's why I mentioned topological analysis,

which comes out in the LBA's brief too.

And I think it comes out in the number of sites.

I think we found 40 sites in the first run -through in that small area.

It's a bigger area now, 40 sites, 40 buildings.

That's a lot of buildings.

Whereas here, we're talking about, I think,

was it six, seven, what is it?

A handful.

And it's the same problem that happened.

It's happened now in Norton Folgate,

where the site had about 30 buildings on the goat

land historically.

OK, it's historic.

But now, that got changed into about five buildings,

good architects.

I know that some of them I've talked to them,

with them or I taught them.

OK.

But it means all those entrances and doors and street

frontages, et cetera, were on 60 buildings.

So now I've gone down to six entrances

because it's six buildings is being aggregated.

And so no one, you lose something.

And can you let it?

So I think that's why there is hope in the thinking

what goes forward if more sites come forward

as part of a holistic plan.

the right scale, the right size, the right uses, and I think the right engagement with

as many people as possible to actually get the right solutions.

So just to conclude then, when you refer to the SPD and your evidence, is it then mainly

the fact that it's on the right lines and the types of uses that you're supportive of?

I think I don't, because I haven't had time to do a lot of detail on this and that is

one thing I haven't had a chance to analyse in detail so I didn't go too far with that

and I didn't pick out lots of illustrations but I mean I know it's on the right line.

Obviously it's going to get reviewed or needs to get reviewed and it's part of a different

programme though too so but I mean it did, it was based on a lot of talking with people

and quite reasonably and well -summarised events

where conclusions were drawn from what people wanted to see

and happen in the area.

And I think there's no reason why those,

the feedback from that process that couldn't happen

because it's not one person deciding,

no, that's what we're gonna do, or we don't wanna do it.

It's actually to do with, well,

let's see if we can facilitate this

because what are the bigger gains?

And I think that's why there's hope in that process.

And that was going on at a sort of a pace

when an arrangement was devoted to that.

And then suddenly, we've actually

stopped because the current proposals we're now

talking about come online, come to appeal.

Here we are now dissecting every little detail.

And we're not talking about, I think, some of the big issues.

We're talking about the detail.

Adding the item, detail, detail, detail,

which we can all talk about if we've got the stamina,

but Joe Public, or whatever, but they won't get that.

They won't get what all that's about.

It's just because they're interested in other issues

that we ought to be talking about as designers

and building owners and planners, whatever,

which they understand.

I mean, there was, I think, an article in the FT

last weekend before about, you know,

so what is design, what is good design and bad design,

How do we deal with it?

Who are the good designers?

How does it all work?

It's an ongoing debate out there.

And I think it shouldn't be much a closed shop.

It's very much, we need to connect.

And these schemes need to connect.

And I think the process of going through it,

as we were doing by talking to people,

and there was a huge head of steam now, I must say,

when I first started being around Spitalfields

and wondering if I got a project to do in Spitalfields,

how would I do it?

because it's a complicated, tricky, sensitive area.

But in fact, having worked through this

and met so many people, you realise

it's not one person that will unlock a language

issue or the culture issue.

There's a whole load of people out there who

actually are now taking part.

And in fact, I think in terms of internally in this project,

I mean, it's exhausting because you don't send out a flyer

and no one comes up or they'll bother.

They all bother.

And I get 30 WhatsApps a day, at least.

So there is a huge, huge interest.

I can't emphasise that more.

And people are here.

They're watching.

They're engaged.

And they're saying some really intelligent things.

And they really get it and try really hard

to actually see what can come out of this in a positive way.

And I just, in one hopes, that if you can put together,

it should be possible.

Because it's not anti doing anything.

They want things to happen because nothing's

happened for so long, it looks a bit down at here.

I mean, how much graffiti and tap can you take everywhere?

It's not a reason to say it's OK.

I mean, things need to be done and need

to be sorted and agreed.

And I think that's the big opportunity now.

And why I think people are so nervous and worried

that everything gets frozen into big buildings,

that they just don't see where they fit in.

I think that's probably me.

Thanks, Mr. Burrell.

And if you wait there, I'm sure that one of my learning friends will have some questions for you.

Mr. Harris, you're up 10 past 11.

Would it be worth having our morning break now rather than break the cross -examination?

I think so. So I can get it all done in one go then.

Okay.

I'm going to suggest, I know we had a short break earlier,

but let's break until 25 past, and we'll get

on with cross -examination.

Until 25 past, thanks everyone.

You might want to put up on the screen.

Same for you, Mr. Burrell.

CDL01, which is the committee report on the main site.

CDD01, which is the GLA stage one.

CD11, 8 and 9, which are the documents relating

to the SPD Mr. Burrell spoke to.

and the NPPF, which pins tell us never to put on a CD list

because they don't want the CD list to be too long.

They live in a different world.

So you've probably got yours somewhere separate, sir.

I don't think we'll need to go to it, but just in case.

Mr. Brereault, some general points first.

So the heading is general points.

And for the inquiry as a whole, so I'm not going to cross -examine any witness more than

once on the same topic, because I don't think that's useful use of inquiry time.

So there are certain things that I would otherwise be taking up with Mr. Burrell than I'm going

to be taking up with other witnesses.

So I hope that's understood.

Mr. Burrell, you only refer throughout your document, and my learned friend kindly indicated

that this was the case to one application site and one part of one application site.

That's the main site, if you like, that you've done your alternative for. That's correct,

isn't it?

Yes, I think I do make some general comments which would include the other sites as well.

Yes, but I don't see any specific criticism

of Eli's yard or Block J, for example.

No, I didn't go into detail on those buildings.

Well, you certainly didn't go into detail.

You didn't go into it at all.

And throughout the document, there's

a reference to monoculture and absence of housing.

Of course, Block J is a largely residential -led development

that you don't refer to at all, isn't it?

No, not specifically, no.

Thank you very much.

All right, I'm going to concentrate on what I saw

as the two areas of your evidence arising

out of examination in chief.

The first is the housing -led programme,

to put it in the inspectors' terms, housing -led

or workspace arts employment -led,

and the failed process that you referred to.

You said there was a failed process, insufficiently thorough,

not enough consultation, all that sort of stuff.

I want to deal with that as the topic A.

And topic B, I want to look at your potential alternative,

the SPD's potential alternative,

in the light of your answer to my learned friend

that you thought that was on the right track.

I'm going to look at scale, bulk, mass,

consequences of that right track,

whether there's a consistency of approach to that.

from the Rule 6, sixth party, or indeed the local authority.

So they're the two areas, housing -led or workspace,

and how that was reached, criticisms of the approach

and the thoroughness of the consideration.

And second, your potential alternative,

or the SPD's potential alternative,

and the scale, bulk, and mass consequences of that.

And that will be it for us.

Can we start with housing -led or workspace art employment -led?

You deal with this at your proof at paragraphs 2 -3, where you say there always have been

houses here and the appellant should honour their obligation to put more houses here.

Do you remember that?

Paragraph 2 -3.

And then at paragraph 4 .2, you say that your housing -led, community -led proposal is compliant

with up -to -date national and local policy.

Remember that?

Yes.

And then what you did in chief and you did in the proofs also was to explain your concerns

about the process and how the application had reached the stage it has when it's now

before him as the decision maker.

I won't try and summarise it, but we all sat and listened.

Now we're in a town and country planning public inquiry, aren't we?

I see your colleague nodding, but I'm not asking him.

He's right, by the way.

And the thing about...

I don't use my colleague, but anyway.

You do?

Well, that's a good thing.

No, he's not my colleague, actually.

He's a journalist.

He's not my colleague.

Yes, well, there we are.

You'll never say just a journalist.

Land use planning inquiries operate within statutory bounds.

Yes.

There are policies and procedures.

There's government guidance.

And that government guidance really starts with the duty on the applicant to engage at

a pre -application level even with the local authority and relevant bodies, doesn't it?

You need to speak up a little, I think.

I think I just heard the...

And that duty is set out in very clear terms in the NPPF, and the importance of it is highlighted

there because it's important, the document says, to get the fundamentals right quite

early on, otherwise you end up wasting a lot of public time, money, cost, etc.

Correct?

Yes, I understand that.

Sure.

All right.

Good.

And the duty continues, and I don't think we need to go to it so clear it is, that an

applicant should formulate and present the application based on and having regard to

that pre -application engagement.

That's what the guidance calls front loading to avoid delay and cost.

That's the term.

And when an application is referable, as in this case,

referable to the mayor, you'll understand

that from Norton -Folgate.

Then the mayor has a duty to set

out his strategic consideration of the application as well.

Correct?

Yes. Yeah.

And in this case, we know there were very, very many changes

in the application before the inspector and the applications before the inspector

as a result of both pre -application consideration and consideration with

stakeholders etc after the application had gone in. Have you read Mr.

All right.

Well, when you get a chance, if you look at sections 7 .11

through to 7 .35, he sets out in very clear detail

the changes that were sought by various stakeholders,

the changes that have been drafted into the application

now, and the changes that were thought not appropriate to make

and the reasons why.

And it follows from the fact you haven't read that,

that you were unaware of all of that process, correct?

Are you talking about changes in the design or other written documents?

Changes in the design, yes.

Well, shall we just have a quick look at it, please, because it gives a feel.

So if you've got Mr. Marginson's evidence, which you should have,

as in Rule 6 .6 party.

You don't.

One second.

I wonder if the Rule 66 party could provide their witness with the relevant evidence.

I think it's here.

Yeah.

It's Chapter 7, sir.

Chapter 7.

It seems to me the reason I'm asking these questions is it's easy to make a sweeping

allegation of failing to consult or failing to react or failing to have regard to what

the rules, the practise, and the policy say we should do, but you should familiarise yourself,

shouldn't you, to be fair, with the process that has actually happened?

I think I was referring to the primarily to the consultation with people in the area,

in the community effectively.

Yes, but of course the local authority represent the people in the area

as a local planning authority having regard to the development plan

and other material considerations.

That's their function.

That's what Parliament has said they are there to do.

All right.

If you look, and maybe you need to do this after the cross -examination, but...

7 .75, yes?

Yeah, from 7 .11 right the way through to 7 .35, there is a list of a very significant number

of changes, alterations that were asked for, that were provided.

And for cases of this nature, it's a very significant alteration as a result of the

engagement process.

But you wouldn't know because you haven't looked at it.

I will look at, see what, does it make design changes?

But you are aware that all of us in this room who sit and do these inquiries the whole time

are bound by a series of statutory requirements for consultation, which I don't understand

and your saying has been breached in any way,

no submission of that nature,

requirement to engage in pre -application discussion,

requirement to proactively engage with officers,

Historic England, the GLA, everybody else,

and I don't understand you to say

that that's in any way been breached

in terms of a policy requirement,

and to have regard to the consultation responses

that we get.

Correct?

No, I understand the process and the complexities and the obligations.

I understand.

The series of cheques, consultations, etc., is to make sure that at all various stages

an application doesn't go flying off in the wrong direction, like the wrong programme or

the wrong use, for example, and everybody's wasting their time.

There's also a requirement, isn't there, Mr. Burrell?

when officers of a local planning authority have formed a balanced judgement on an application

as a whole for them to advise elected members as to what that judgement

and recommendation is, isn't there?

That's their role, yes.

Yeah. Have you in this case read the report that they carefully drafted after all

of that pre -application stuff after all of the consultation,

the act of proactively considering the application,

running to 200 pages?

I probably haven't read all the 200 pages,

but I'm aware of the core arguments that they make.

Good. Then can we go to the reporter committee, please,

first, and this is under the heading of housing -led programme,

has it been thought through, et cetera,

or works based arts employment.

C -D -D -L -0 -1.

C -D -D.

C -D -L -0 -1.

Oh, sorry, did I say that?

Yes, that's right.

Do you have that, sir?

Now this is a report dated the 31st of July, 2025, which was prepared specifically to advise

the inspector.

So if you look, for example, at Executive Summary 02,

A public inquiry is scheduled to be held on the 14th of October for an estimated period

of 12 days.

The Council will be a party.

The purpose of this report is to seek the committee's resolution on how it would have

been determined.

C02?

Yes.

If I start the list of building consent applications, it's been assessed.

Then you're looking at the wrong one.

So CDL01 has an executive summary.

Have we got the copy?

We can provide you with a hard copy, I think.

That helps.

One that's been selected for me, if I kindly select it for me,

doesn't appear to be the correct one.

It's the previous one.

It looks about right.

It looks similar.

Keep going.

0-2.

There we go.

I got it.

Right, yep, got it.

So this is the position, not just of one officer,

This is the position of the corporate director of housing and regeneration to the strategic

development committee.

This is the full cadre of council officers, and they're reflecting clearly the history

and various other things that have gone on.

And they are producing this for the purpose of informing the inspector of what the council's

position is and what elected members, in their opinion,

should say about this site, the only site

that you've got concerns about expressed in your proof.

Yes?

OK.

And I'm looking at the first element of this,

the element of the programme or the use, which is, you say,

hasn't been thought through, inappropriate, insufficient,

et cetera.

05.

All of the application site is located within the Brick Lane District Centre.

That's correct, isn't it?

I'm not going to go to the detail of this.

I heard what you said about the detail being for others.

But that big picture we can all agree, this is a town centre.

The Tower Hamlet City Fringe activity area, yes?

and the GLA City Fringe Opportunity Area.

District centres are locations to be promoted as vibrant hubs containing a wide range of

shops, services and employment.

And that's a quote from the policy which I'm going to pick up with the local authority

in due course.

Activity areas and district centres, officers, advised elected members, provide opportunities

for purpose -built office buildings with ground floor retail and leisure uses.

The activity areas in particular have the potential to accommodate substantial employment growth.

In this context, a commercial -led or commercial -only scheme is in accordance with the land use policies

of the local plan and the London plan.

See that?

Now, that's the position they're adopted, bang up to date by officers, but they go on

to consider Block J beneath as well.

Because what they're telling elected members is, if this was commercial only, it would

still be in accordance with the local plan and the London plan as at 31st of August.

Look at 6th.

There is a critical need for new homes in Tower Hamlets.

You'd agree with that.

The borough has the highest housing target in London as housing waiting lists in excess

of 20 ,000 people.

The town centres are inappropriate for location for mixed use schemes with new homes, subject

to a scheme overall supporting the function of the town centre.

That's this town centre, isn't it?

The proposed new homes would make a contribution to the housing demand in the borough.

The proposed land uses are in accordance with the local plan and the London plan.

So looking at the way in which this proposal has been put together over those periods

in consultation with the GLA and others, as at the 31st of August in this case,

officers were recommending really, really clearly, this is the summary,

we're going to the rest of it in a minute,

that not only could it be a commercial only scheme and still be in accordance with the plan,

but the addition of housing where appropriate meant that both uses were fully in accord

with the development plan for this centre with its particular role, correct?

Well, you say that I'm not a planning lawyer or planning officer,

but it doesn't mention quantities here particularly

or that other schemes also might be approval.

Well, with a great service back, as we see, it does and it did.

But clearly, officers, when they wrote this very short summary,

were well aware of what was being offered where and how

on the main block and on block J, wouldn't they?

They'd have been aware of that.

Yes, they may have been aware of it,

but I'm not clear in my own mind as to...

what applications they have to actually consider other alternatives as well.

Because there's other conflicting demands and policies which they presumably also have to

take account of with this London Plan of the other policy documents.

So this doesn't seem to be there's any great, there's any differentiation of the quantity

or the scale of provisioning.

Just as those things are okay in accordance.

but it doesn't mean to say that other things, if you come along with a different use,

they also could be deemed to be approvable.

The thing about planning policies is that there's always a policy lurking somewhere

which you can rake out, whatever side you're on, to actually make it work for you.

Well, I'm not sure that's right in this case because of what the High Court has said

about it not even being rational to say that a residential -led use.

We'll come to that next, please.

But taking up your point directly, did they take our submissions into account, etc.?

Turn to page – it's not paginated.

Where are the offices?

It's paragraph 426.

Same document?

Same document, yeah.

Pictures.

I'm getting there, so I'm having no mouse today, so I'm having to do it with my hands.

I'm having trouble hearing you, Mr. Brown.

Sorry, I can speak. No, I'm getting there. My mouse isn't here today, so I'm having to do it with my hands. I don't want to skid off the page.

We've lost it off the screen as well. I don't think that matters. Are you there, sir?

Yeah.

Four point?

Twenty -six.

Right, okay.

Housing.

The proposed levels of housing are inadequate.

They are reporting here the Spitalfields Trust.

You're a trustee of that, aren't you?

The proposed levels of housing are inadequate in terms of meeting the needs of the local

community.

the Spitalfields and Bangalotown SPD and the draught local plan site allocations expect more housing.

The trust disagrees with the applicant statement that there would be a conflict between more housing and the night -time economy.

One of the things that was said about conflict as well as fundamentally inconsistent with the role.

But so that's your point, isn't it? That's a neat encapsulation of your point.

What this point is doing is saying, in effect, it's giving the elected members the reason

for refusal that they eventually adopted derived

from the spittle fields trust concern or something like it.

The proposed levels of housing are inadequate in terms

of meeting the needs of the local community.

That is how the second reason

for refusal is eventually drafted in broad terms.

The trust disagrees with the applicant statement, etc.

So this is the, to use the inspector summary,

this is the housing led preference to employment led.

So they clearly had that point in mind, as you'd expect them to, because of the emerging

plan.

Okay.

All right.

I think that's enough from that document.

I can take the balance of that up with others.

It's just this procedural point that you were making that just not enough care has been taken by the planning system here.

Can we look at what the GLA said please? CDD1.

Did I say the planning system isn't taking enough care? I don't think I said that actually.

Well you intimated that not enough care had been taken.

I intimated it isn't good enough is it? I mean I was talking about the care in relation to consultation with the neighbourhood and people.

But we've agreed you're not taking a point that that was in any way inappropriate or unlawful are you I?

Would have expected that to have been

Saying that that's what people feel and

Understand and that's what the one of the issues is yeah, and it's not legal. It's not policy. It's not technical really

It's just a fact they just you know it was

It was it was sped through and wasn't very effective

I tried to participate in it.

All right, well, I'm not even going to rise to sped through.

Can we look at CDD1, please?

This is the GLA Stage 1 report.

I'm grateful to your colleague.

Now you'll know that the GLA is the strategic authority for London.

You've been involved with some of their caseload over the years.

and they deal with land use principles as part of this legal process

that an applicant is required to go through, stage one,

on page six of the document, paragraph 16.

The site is located within the Brick Lane District Centre.

We've agreed that.

It also sits within the London planned city fringe opportunity area as well as Tau Hamlet's

local city fringe activity area designation.

That's all at one with what officers, advised elected members, isn't it?

City fringe opportunity area.

Yeah.

Okay.

The principle of a commercial -led development.

On that city fringe area, we've been referring to the encroachment into the traditional 19th

century streets, etc., across London.

There's diagrams in my proof in that too.

And it's been going on.

And I think it's been written about in books about the thresholds of Bishopsgate, the thresholds

of Brick Lane, and the thresholds have been push, push, push.

So I think it needs a bit of a reappraisal of some of this.

We can do many things at this inquiry, Mr. Burrell, but the inspector's not going to

re -applays the boundaries of the opportunity area development framework

or the city fringe. I fully understand the protocols of what's possible here but if you're asking for

what people actually think and feel this is the fact. So if it can't be done now it

probably possibly needs to be done because you don't say nothing to say

well I'm sorry okay we believe you it has to be said because it's changing out

there and people are feeling it. Yes well that's what planning is about it's a

It's about change and making sure that it's done in the right way.

But you pick up a point that I'd like to maybe explore a little more with you because you

say the concern about the relationship between the city and residents and the need for a

buffer, et cetera, is something that you pick up in your proof, isn't it?

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Because what you say is, at the minute,

commercial activities, unbuffered local residents,

there's a tension.

Yeah.

But what you're proposing by putting a residential -led

approach forward is the immediate parachuting

of a agent of change, namely the residential position, into what is a

vibrant town centre and is meant to have that function enhanced. I totally disagree.

Can you see how I might think that though? Yeah I can. So would you agree for

example that this part of the Truman Brewery that we're looking at here, a

part of, I think it was the inspectors application B,

but you know the one we mean,

is at the heart of the potential expansion

of the brick lane area.

Brick lane runs right through it.

We can walk up it from outside of this inquiry.

I disagree totally.

Disagree with that.

It's not at the heart.

Most accounts I've been meeting talk about it being

the threshold and the edge

both the intensive commercial area of split courts and what is open or residential,

and historically was all residential.

So I think that isn't what I'd be to be a common except to you.

Understood. I've understood your line there.

But we've seen the series and overlaps of allocations and identifications.

It's in the town centre, it's within the fringe opportunity area,

it's within the activity area, and we've seen what they are meant to provide.

You do appreciate, don't you, that making a residential -led position there has the potential

at least, given what you say about these uses buffering up against each other and colliding,

to create more collisions, to more agents of change.

Do you even see that?

You're wrong.

I don't because that isn't what I observed from doing city centre schemes where you introduce

residential and you have to introduce spaces to the distance and you also have

to introduce people who live in places day and night and they it's a common

cliche supervised passive urban space etc it doesn't work that way introducing

people helps the situation not reverse and I've done schemes written to them

where they had ASBO problems they couldn't put up closed circuit cameras

if they get the closer cameras get some people living there and you'll find

what's going on and that's what the Ely building you know putting out balconies

on the offices because there's problems at night but of course there were because

there's no living there just put some people there and people will not do

things so that's the that's very the paradoxical situation but that's why you

have to do it carefully and that's why I said the public spaces the street is

this prime space it's public space already and no one owns it's these

public space alright and it's on that in which you you can that's where you can

begin to, and Woodsea's another example where it needs to be really carefully done.

Woodsea has got planning permission hasn't it? I know it has, I know, but the

arguments, the same argument follows about you have to do it really carefully, but you have to

understand the dynamics of how people live in cities. Am I right, I think I am,

that the Woodstree Street development which has planning permission

granted by this local authority also is a business led, artist led, workspace led development.

Thank you very much.

Can I turn to the other aspect of your proposition about residential led though?

What do you know about the actual evidence of the nature and extent of the support for the city

that set out in paragraph 17 of the committee report that we're now looking at?

Sorry, this is the GLA stage one.

You see it says the principle of a commercial led development is supported

by London plan policy SD6 which gives support for mixed use developments with an element

to residential within town centres and high streets.

That's what we say we are.

The provision of new employment floor space,

this is talking about this very application,

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.

Now as part of it may it maybe you can't answer this but as part of your

suggestion to the inspector that despite all this stuff we've gone through this

should be residential led did you give any consideration or your team give any

consideration as far as you're aware to the loss of the support that this area

could provide for the city? You mean losses more workspace or backup

workspace and just the loss over also loss of workspace loss of income again

you know we're talking mean generalised areas volumes what extent I mean do you

need these small -scale industries and people working workshops and that you

know I've got I spent most of my student life living Fitzrovi which is the

classic area where you're living you're working and there's workshops and it's

all the time you space I understand how the dynamic works but if you just

generalise and actually say yes therefore you cut the housing out and

And then you put huge and quite large floor plates in there

because you've got these plates full of people doing

all this.

That isn't how it has worked unless it will work,

because there are smaller industries.

And they come and go.

And they work on small spaces, street accessible.

And it implies a different morphology or typology

for the city.

And I think on Woodseer Street, I've

done some sort of other different version

of Woodseer Street for live, work, and smaller scale,

getting light in there.

Is it a question of the intensity, just how much?

It's not to do with generalisations

and applying policies.

It's when it comes to design, how much do you mean?

And if you look at the scale of these cities,

you can have these things.

You can have your mixes, but how much?

And unfortunately, policy, like laws, has to be coverall.

They don't go into that, and I understand why.

It's complicated.

Shall we just deal with floor plates,

and then I'll ask the question I did again,

because you didn't answer it with respect.

Which one again?

Floor plates.

I'm presuming because you haven't read Mr. Marginson's evidence of this inquiry,

even though you are a Rule 6 sex party,

that you haven't read his rebuttal of your points on that either.

Am I right?

I haven't read all the documentation.

I'm not asking about all of the evidence,

just the stuff that's directly relevant to the points you're now making.

Because he looks at what you say and there is evidence from agents

that this is exactly the floor space that the market wants,

and there's evidence that these floor spaces

are ultimately extremely flexible.

In which building?

In the buildings that we're talking about.

All of these buildings.

All of them.

Yes, well, you'd know if you'd read the evidence,

wouldn't you?

Well, I have actually looked at the division of floor spaces

to see how they might divide up.

Yeah.

And we have the same thing in Norton -Folgate.

And there's a difference between having 34 square metres

of space with light back and front and street access,

than having that amount of space on the fifth floor in a deep plan office with windows that

are 10 metres away.

It's different.

Well, maybe you should read the evidence and you can see how it is said that you're wrong

on that.

All right.

Specifically addressed for you.

If I'm wrong.

All right.

Do you know, I'm just going to say this once, but being a Rule 6 party brings with it many

benefits, but also some responsibilities.

And one of the responsibilities is to assist the inspector by reading the evidence that's

been put in by other parties.

It's not a theatrical point.

It just makes my job so much easier.

I know.

I fully understand that.

I'd love to have done it, but it's

been a real problem for all Rule 6 and the campaign generally.

Because the times go to the degree of fifth,

and that's another issue.

But we're doing our best.

We're doing our best.

Can we pick up your proof again, please?

Because we've looked, if you like,

the heading up until now is why the proposal is in accordance

with the development plan, which is identified as up to date by officers as recent as August

in a document prepared for this inquiry.

I just want to look at what you claim now in relation to the alternative, the residential -based

use.

And at paragraph 43 of your proof.

We're just finding my proofs right.

Sorry, which paragraph are we talking about?

It's 4 .3, I think.

4 .3, it's on page six.

And you tell us that the scheme which

you introduced via my learned friend

is community endorsed, et cetera.

And it's based on extant local and national planning policies.

I'll ask others about the national policies.

It's just the local ones I want to look at here.

Because I'm going to suggest to you that couldn't be further

from the truth.

I think I said at the beginning, and I said again today that on the policies, because

I haven't had chance to go through all the policy documentation, I'm not a fan or whatever.

So if I've overstated this case here, it would be rather to pick that point up.

That's one way of putting it, overstating the case.

But you see, your group were seminal, if I may say,

in persuading the mayor to produce the SPD.

And we've heard a little bit about that.

I can ask others about how that came about.

But as you say in your evidence at 411,

that your boundary, your use, all part of the picked up

by the council department for the tender,

the SPD was approved, et cetera.

I don't think it's a bare claim

that the Spitalfield Trust were instrumental,

if not seminal, in that sort of SPD

coming about when it did.

Am I correct?

Well, it could be.

There are other people talking to me about this.

And I've talked to other boroughs who are doing the same thing,

local boroughs, for doing because of the work I did in Islington.

So it's not a particularly big issue, but I mean,

it's something which...

There was an ongoing process in talking about a mass play anyway,

when I joined in this, so this just moved along.

All right. I just want to explore a little further this proposition.

I'm not going to go into the detailed policies, I'm doing that with other witnesses.

is that this thing sitting next to the inspector here

is based on extant local policies.

It's very easy to look at because it's

based on a residential -led programme as opposed

to a employment -led programme, isn't it?

So I'm going to look at it from the very biggest

picture possible.

I've gone into space here.

I'm not looking at the detail.

Yeah, I mean, I'm taking my starting point here in terms of policies, that there are

London plan for the general policies about increasing residential combination in London

and principles.

But isn't there a simple point here?

If you made a planning application for your residential -led scheme, it would be contrary

to the development plan, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure we actually – it was every intended to make a planning application.

That wasn't the purpose.

But in that scenario –

Yeah, but that's a hypothetical scenario, which is, you know, I don't think it's particularly

helpful because if it was a commissioned planning application, we'd have to go through the whole

mill of all the, what we're doing now.

And we know that sometimes it's okay, sometimes it's revision or it's undergoing revision,

or it doesn't make sense and people will take issue with it.

You can take issue with it, just because they're there doesn't say that that's it forever.

I mean, so, and the purpose of that deliberately wasn't ever to actually say, and I never promised

it and said, hey, this week and we can submit this.

There was never the intention.

It's simply just to start to explore what happens.

And I understand what you're saying.

And clearly, you know, it's nowhere near ready for that.

And I know what it takes to do those sorts of schemes.

I've done them.

I've gone up the road here.

It's much more complicated than that.

And you need everything in place.

The thing is, things aren't in place.

The policies aren't in place.

I'm not sure that lots of things aren't ready to accept it.

You've got to start somewhere.

And the role of, I think, the community around here

and the bit of trust and other organisations

are part of that as to try to move the thing along,

is to actually expand and explore the dialogue.

And I think there was a danger, and I sense the danger,

as an architect producing what looks fairly credible.

But I said that this is not a scheme.

It shouldn't be criticised as a scheme because it's purely to show certain principles and

it's, I think, to do with the type of policies, the scale of development and the other issues

that come about and why it contrasts with another, a different type of brief, which

is what we're confronted with, to the different type of brief.

And that brief really harks back to, for example, old policies which are beginning to get reviewed.

I mean, things have been reviewed in the last five, ten years, things are changing.

Work patterns are changing, all sorts of things are changing.

So I think it's not a static situation.

And I think it's unfair to actually say,

well, we'll take it through a policy evaluation.

That wasn't the purpose,

and it was never intended to be that,

and it never stated to be that.

I was quite clear about that.

But it does actually raise some issues

and to show what might be like a control.

This is what cities used to be like.

It needs to push them here and there, et cetera, et cetera.

But it was part of a process which has got stalled in a way,

because this application's come forward.

It's gone to an inquiry.

Something's been quashed.

There's a process going on.

The residents are exhausted, because they say,

we consulted three or four times, and it's already.

So they're exhausted.

Too much consultation.

Well, no, it goes through rounds,

because there's this plan, then it's quashed.

Then it comes again.

Then we do the, I mean, for them, it's just like,

Didn't we say this before, three or four times and three or four years ago?

Right, Mr. Burrell, I didn't interrupt because it was the inspector's question that you weren't

answering, not mine.

So anyway, I hope I didn't answer it.

I sort of agree with you, yes, you couldn't submit it.

It would fall foul of current policies potentially.

And it is a challenge.

Well, good, thank you for that.

shall we see how far short it falls

by looking at what the council themselves

said and agreed in the High Court?

By looking at CD 11 -9.

This is the quashing order and the statement of reasons

which are incorporated by reference.

Yeah, which document is that on?

CD 9, and you can look at CD 8,

which is just the quashing,

which is signed by solicitor for the defendant.

That's the council.

Have I got this right?

CDH, CDH 8 and 9.

CDH.

Does that come after the numbers, does it?

CDH 8 and 9.

Oh, CDH.

I think the draught consent order might be CD8 -J07 if that helps.

Have I got that wrong?

Draught consent order is H07, I think.

It's only one page.

Very short.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And is the statement of reasons then CDH08?

Sorry, no, it's the other way around.

Statement of reasons.

So draught consent order with statement of reasons.

Thank you.

That's really helpful.

Can you look at the statement of reasons document,

whatever it's called?

It's got statement of reasons written on it,

and that's incorporated by the judge in his order.

Are you there yet, sir?

Yes, I've got the page, yeah.

I've got the CD.

Statement of reasons.

I've got the statement of reasons, yeah.

I think it's in CDH07, if it helps.

Yes, that's right, sir.

Yes.

Why can't we have the screen?

Well, I think they've just died.

Yeah, it was.

I don't know.

The text seems to have happened before.

Probably needs just a refresh.

All right.

Really, this answers the inspector's question,

but sort of in Trump's.

So if you look at, this is the SPD

that you refer to several times and an X to your inquiry document, your proof, and which

also you've explained to the inspectors on the right track in terms of what it shows.

I come back to that.

But in terms of the use, the use, which is what this order was aiming at, do you see

that the SPD was challenged, paragraph 2,

SPD is unlawful, it should have been prepared and adopted as a development plan document.

Ground 2, the council heard in concluding that the SPD did not conflict

with the adopted development plan pursuant to Regulation 83, etc.

One of the things that you've got to do when you produce an SPD

is make sure that it is in broad consistency with the development plan.

So it's really looking at the inspector's question.

If you put this application in as residential -led,

you'd be contrary to the development plan.

We heard your answer on that, but it goes further,

because look at paragraph nine, and what the council...

Just to say that model was produced long before the SBD was actually launched.

I've got that.

I'm talking in general terms a residential -led scheme,

not necessarily what's shown in the model.

It's just as a principle.

And this is dealing with that principle.

Look what it says.

In relation to ground two, the defendant, that's the defendant, who took legal advice

and were advised that they were advised by leading counsel that the SPD could not have

been lawfully adopted even as supplementary planning document for the reasons set out.

Regulations require any policies contained in a supplementary planning document must

not conflict with the adopted development plan.

no reasonable planning authority could have reached a judgement

that the SPD did not conflict with the adopted development plan.

So that's the council agreeing that not only is a matter

of judgement it would conflict,

but no reasonable local authority was even capable

of saying that a residential -led proposal would do anything other

than be conflicting with the adopted plan here

in the circumstances where the plan makes clear,

this is the authority signing up to this,

that employment and commercial town centre uses

are to be the priority in the area of the SPD.

See that?

Yeah, I mean, not meaning to implicate anyone here,

but in terms of, I don't know, my involvement,

possibly other trustees too,

I mean, I did see the pro forma,

which set out the terms of reference for doing the CPD,

in terms of what the procedure would be

the local authority would have to carry out,

they'd have to create a certain procedure

to get it approved as a formal document.

And so, as at that time a consultant was reading

what the process was, my understanding was

that in fact the council was well aware of what they had to do

and I said, well okay, the work has to be done

by a consultant, has to go through to a document, and then the council is pretty clear what

they have to do to get it actually signed off.

But we sort of, I mean we, I mean generally, we weren't involved in detail in that document.

It passed on to two people.

I'm not asking about details as I said.

So we, and we're not obviously lawyers or planners, so we were following the outcomes.

We weren't necessarily following the protocols, and it was used to us, but I mean, and I hear

which was saying, but it looked to, from what I saw,

as though that everyone,

the council in general, the procedure was understood.

I thought, okay, well then, what are they doing?

And you can only go so far with these things as a,

as a sort of a,

I can only go so far with the questions, Mr. Burrell.

You say in your proof that your proposal and the SPD

are both based on extant local planning policies,

And I'm suggesting to you that they aren't and couldn't be,

and that it would be unreasonable and perverse

to say that they are.

And that's a position signed up to by the local authority.

Yeah, no, I didn't say which planning authorities

I was referring to.

And I'm not sure I actually specifically knew.

But I mean, I just, I was talking about,

there's lots of documents out there

that talk about the priorities behind planning and policies

and where things are moving.

Good, thank you for that.

Now, whether it is, I'm going to turn to the second issue now, which is your scheme there,

the SPD, the capacity study that was undertaken, which you said to my learned friend was on

the right track.

Remember that?

I was probably saying that in relation to what the alternative is in front of us in

terms of the two tracks, which is the preferable track.

No, no. She took you to a page in the SPD. I had it up, she had it up, the inspector

had it up, and she said to you in terms, what do you say to the inspector, what do you say

about the SPD. Is it broadly on track? Remember? Yes, and I think I also said that...

I just want to explore this with you, please. Sorry?

So, I also said that in fact there were some aspects of the SPD which we had another chance to go through.

You were asked to look at JB 037, which is in your own document.

Do you have it?

Just trying to find it.

Do you have that, sir?

That's the page that we were on.

And I wrote down, as my learning friend asked the question,

yes, this is on the right lines.

I don't know whether the inspector's got a note,

but that's my note.

Okay. Now, we know that in terms of use, in terms of use,

a residential -led provision would not only be contrary in conflict with the development

plan, despite what Maloney -Fren said for the Council in opening, but be so in conflict

that no reasonable planning authority could assert that.

So let's just deal with use there.

I'm going to ask you here about this indicative identification of the opportunity in terms

of bulk, scale, mass, and in particular its relationship to Allen Gardens.

This is 4 .2 you're talking about.

B2, on the right track, on the right line?

No, I think I haven't said that.

I said there was one view that I thought was, but generally there are other aspects which

are.

I don't think I actually referred, this is an appendix to my document, it wasn't actually

part of my proof narrative particularly.

It is, you see it's an appendix to your document.

I know it is but I don't refer to it in specific detail in my narrative as far as I recall,

there wasn't the intention anyway.

But I haven't, and I have actually said that there are issues, some issues with that document

which we'd like to actually look at it further.

But there are one, through another diagram,

option two of this particular view, which does actually...

Well, there's no option two.

Option two is in a completely separate document.

You were asked about the SPD,

and your proof contains analysis of the SPD.

No, I don't analyse the SPD in my proof.

All right, well, we can...

I've not done that.

I mean, I've yet to do that, in fact.

Oh, really?

Yes.

All right.

I don't think you can fight on my narrative.

If I've actually really, I have to cheque them.

You're going to have to judge what

weights to give to your evidence.

And when you say to my learned friend,

the SPD is on the right track, you're

saying you've not even looked at it or analysed it now, is it?

No, I have looked at parts of it,

and I have found parts of it which I've identified today

in what I said that actually I would go along with.

And they're consistent, I think, also with comics made

by the Paring Authority in terms of the types of things

to do typologies, building widths and space on the site,

which could have set up a new system.

I'm sure there are things in there.

But we're looking here at the main buildings

that make up what is suggested to be an emerging allocation.

Are you happy with that?

No, you may be looking at that, I'm not.

I haven't actually anywhere said,

I think this is on the right lines.

I've said actually I have a concern about some of that

because we haven't actually viewed it

because the process was stopped effectively.

And has to be gone through the examination in public with an inspector.

Yes, we understand what's going on now, but in terms of along the white lines,

it is rather vague, maybe non -specific comment,

but it actually does say something.

All right, you were also then asked about the capacity study, weren't you?

Yes.

And you said option two is on the right lines.

Shall we look at that, please?

CDF05.

Is that four point, has that got a four point number?

CDF05.

And you took the inspector, there are two options, option one and option two.

Option two is on page 29.

Yeah, I've just found my CDF.

I've got CDN too.

Now the main point in design terms.

Panel's moved to

that they want to place weight on a residential first position

in terms of the programme and the use.

And they rely on the SPD, which is quashed,

and on an emerging plan.

So we're entitled to look at the emerging plan

to see what they are saying to the inspector might

be acceptable.

The trouble with it is that their design issues

with our scheme, particularly at this point, relate to an alleged overbearing nature with

Allen Gardens, for example. Probably the biggest point made against the scheme. What is the

emerging plan and this capacity exercise put immediately adjacent to Allen Gardens, please?

There are a series of options as far as I understand.

Yeah, but you like option two, so let's go with that. Let's not just try and flitter

option two I'm happy to live with that page what page you're looking at I just

want to find the same page page 29 what's that what what's facing on to

and gardens there.

I'm not sure that one I saw earlier on.

No, it is a building on there.

Building?

Yeah, but I've said, I've said you can't ignore what I said.

I said that to me, why it's on the right track here is that it's showing buildings of a typology

and a depth which creates two spaces at the back which can relate to those buildings and

a building depth which has some future flexibility.

And that's the main, that's the right track value.

But in terms of actually making a wall or allowing gardens, why would you do that?

I don't think I've ever said,

we think the SPD is actually the reason, it's great.

I haven't done that in my group at all, you won't find it,

because we haven't reviewed it, it got quashed,

we haven't had time to look at it.

So there's a lot to be sorted out, then, is there?

You're not so happy with it.

What's useful about this document is that it does actually go into

the floor areas, the heights and the U -cells,

and there's lots of basic... You need that information, I know,

because I've done pretty much a parallel analysis

I mean, whole of Islington, actually, is a huge document.

So you need this information.

We haven't had that to do a model to talk to residency.

We can only sort of in very general terms

and see what's happening outside.

And that is the limitations of being Rule 6,

and we haven't got a brief and haven't got time.

But I'm not trying to sort of get out of things.

And I'm trying to be measured and say, well, yes, there's

certain aspects.

At least it's talking about smaller buildings and rates

to the scale of the area.

And that comes out in other people's evidence as well.

So that's the encouragement I see here.

But it's not the end of the storey.

I'm not saying that.

And I don't think you'll find I have referred to it

point by point in my proof.

It was added into appendix into my proof

because that was the best place for it to go.

But I know there are the potential issues.

And it's part of an ongoing discussion.

So I wouldn't want to be misled by anyone on this.

No, no, no.

Well, I was just picking up on what you said in evidence in chief, that this was on the right track.

My friend seemed to enjoy that response.

Well, it's not terribly specific to what I know, but that's deliberate.

No, okay. Should we look at your proposal then, which is next to the Inspector?

And can we go to your Figure 5, which is one of your appendices?

It's appendix five.

It's JB5.

As you quite rightly point out, this is the work of someone else.

But you've produced this model, haven't you, which is sitting by the inspector?

And in terms of some of the criticisms we're going to hear later from Mr. Forshaw,

and also from the local authorities witnesses, I want you to concentrate on the building

facing onto Allen Gardens, which presumably you do think is an appropriate approach.

The two buildings I think I put on that model I showed there. I'm trying to get my aerial

picture of the photo of the aerial view up on my laptop, not behaving very slowly.

Do you have that image there?

OK.

And we look at the scale, height, mass.

And the inspector can just turn through 45 degrees and see it.

You see it's appropriate to put eight storeys facing

the large spaces, don't you?

If it's a small footprint like that, it's more of a tower.

It works in different ways.

I can ask others about that and its impact on the conservation area along with all of

the others.

The height of that building was meant to be comparable to the building on the other side

of the street.

Which is also eight storeys and further into the site you've got a succession of nine -storey

buildings.

One sees that from the marked up plots and storey heights which come over the page.

Now, when considering anything that might be coming forward, whether it's your alternative,

whether it's the SPD that you say is the right start, whether it's the block capacity that

underscores the emerging plan.

And there's not even a resolution

to send the local plan to the inspectors yet, is there?

And there are outstanding objections from the GLA

in terms of general conformity.

It's going through a process now.

I don't know what the date is.

It's changing day by day.

In respect of any of those,

the inspector, if he thinks this is relevant at all,

will need to see whether there's been a consistency of approach

to the way Allen Gardens is treated

or other parts of the development are treated in what is an emerging plan

that is yet to be discussed. Correct?

Yes, I don't understand the point you're making. You're just talking about storey heights.

That's a bad thing in itself. At Christchurch, you take a bit off.

It's not just to do with heights. It's to do with proportions.

It's to do with all of those things, and that's what's shown on these documentations.

I'm not going to waste time spending a lot of time on your alternative, but can I ask

this, please?

We know from all of our work that residential starts in London are at an all -time low.

We know that the mayor is considering emergency measures to reduce the fast track portion of affordable housing, for example.

We know that there are very large sites that are stalled. Correct?

I don't pander any information on that.

Has any deliverability or viability analysis of your, I'll ask this of others as well,

or the capacity study or anything that might be in an emerging plan that might be submitted

in due course ever been the subject of a viability analysis?

Did you consider viability in doing this?

Well, obviously, the viability will be a dialogue.

There are private sites, quite a few private sites.

Yeah, yeah.

So we haven't had the benefit of time to actually engage with private landowners.

So just bear with me for a second.

Am I to understand that you've done no consultation whatsoever in relation to that plan,

were the owners of the 10 acres of the Truman estate?

No, I think we're midway through a process of actually...

Is the answer no, Mr Harris?

We haven't talked with...

Have you had or engaged...

Sorry, yes please.

Can I just be clear about that

because I want to make a proper note.

You were asked about a viability study and whether you talk to the landowners.

Is the answer to both of those no? Can I just be clear?

No, we haven't gone to that point. We haven't been commissioned to do a project.

Yeah, I understand, but is the answer the same for the viability study?

We haven't got an instruction to do a viability study.

I mean, the Tower Hamlets have engaged another consultant, another brief and a fee to do that study.

Do the viability study?

Well, I think the document by Prime Partners does...

This is a capacity study where they raise all sorts of issues.

For example, even on this capacity they say these floor plates are too deep, possibly for residential use, etc.

They've done all that.

It doesn't surprise me.

There's only been one viability analysis in any part of the emerging plan.

I'll pick this up with Elle's.

And that's on certain strategic sites, not this site.

In terms of…

Not this site.

In any experience I've got to go on viability, which potentially could be applied to these

sites, even though they're not local authority sites.

I have actually done it in conjunction with local authority, and done four schemes that

actually built now where, and that's completely different though because the

land is owned by local authority, the land costs are different, etc, etc, etc.

But in terms of the physical potential and physical viability of doing it,

I mean I know that these sites are available and not only in London but

nationwide. They're all out there ready owned by local authorities so

So that's a separate issue.

And in fact, I think the site area was actually

expanded to include local authority sites

after the first tranche of work we did on the private sites.

But no, I mean, that piece of work,

we haven't got the capability to do that.

But what we can do is actually look at vacant sites

and rundown sites and Brownfield, Grayfield,

or what you would call it, and say, well, what about that?

And that's what people are saying.

And so you can't just say, well, we can't even think about it.

because it's maybe not viable.

I mean, they're there for year in, year out, decade in, decade

out.

And the city needs remediating.

That's what this is to do with in terms of how I see it

and how we talk to people in the area

and to improving the area.

And there will be issues, of course

there will be private landowners, land values, deals,

all that stuff.

We know it's all complicated.

Your planning witness who comes later says,

great way ought to be placed upon the emerging development

I just want to just absolutely confirm this before we go any further.

You haven't undertaken any viability work, which is central to the issue of soundness

and delivery, correct?

Well, we have –

Really, the inspectors ask the question, so I'm going to ask you –

No, no –

An expected answer.

We just volunteered with the community.

I mean, we –

That brings responsibilities.

Well, yes, but who would expect – but we're the brief.

We're part of the brief as much as anything else.

Who would you expect to actually commission a variability study

and actually put this into motion? Us?

They haven't done it.

I want to be certain that you haven't done it,

you haven't contacted anybody on the site.

The emerging plan, we are told, takes your analysis, among others,

and pushes it forward via a quashed SPD.

The inspector at the eventual examination in public, if it comes,

because it's not even yet sent and there's no resolution to send it, if it comes, we'll

want to know whether it's deliverable.

Well, I'm not a planner.

You have to start somewhere.

I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of opportunity sites and sites identified by planning authorities,

and they don't do that either.

I mean, I've got one in the north of England, and you know, no one's done it far better.

They know it's an opportunity site because all the characteristics are there.

if I need to put together, and I'm

working with the person who owns that land,

to bring it together.

But it's on their chart.

It's an opportunity site, and it's been there.

They haven't done a biobased study.

But it's desirable policy.

And I think what we're working at here is, as an area,

we're trying to work out what desirable policy might be.

If it's completely non -starter for a reason to say, well,

what can you do?

I mean, we know there's a reality out there,

but you have to start somewhere.

And so we're just starting that process.

I'm going to make the submission that you have not engaged with the developer

and not considered viability at all, unless you tell me I shouldn't do that.

In terms of the brewery and on their part of the site,

no, we haven't had an opportunity to do that.

Well, I don't think perhaps people have in the trust in the past.

I've been around forever.

I don't know, there may be another answer to that question.

I don't know whether somebody has tried to do that.

I really don't know, but it hasn't taken place yet.

no reason why it shouldn't actually, but that's not what we're about.

It's not to do with job getting, it's to do with actually creating a dialogue.

So if it could be, great.

See, in the meantime, you're asking the inspector to turn down this,

it is already award -winning regeneration of the site for that which is sitting next to him.

So what's award -winning, sorry?

A proposal, did you not know?

No.

All right, well I'll make sure that Mr. Margerson tells you about that.

Could I just ask one last thing please, nothing to do with the cross -examination, but the scale of the model.

Could you sit down with our team and explain and work out what the scale is,

because we think these models are to different scales and the inspector should be aware of that.

I think it's 1 to 250.

Well, we can do that outside of the inquiry.

Thank you, sir, that's all I ask.

Okay, as is my habit, I've exhausted the questions I had as well.

Was there anything in reexamination as Curtis?

Nothing in reexamination, sir.

Thank you then.

Thank you, Mr Burrell.

Did he meet this afternoon?

Could I just ask, did he meet this afternoon?

Doesn't look like.

I think you're finished with now.

Okay.

I think that completes your evidence if there's no reexamination.

I've got to travel. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm off to Berlin.

We're moving on to Mr Froman next.

Is that right, Mr Ward? I've got that right.

Probably used well to have our lunch break, isn't it?

It's about a final call, sir.

Yeah. Mr Harris, content with that?

Well, the alternative would be to do in chief,

but then we'd need a break in order to let Mr Froman set up,

so it hardly seems worth it.

I'm content either way, but whatever.

So it's probably slightly more convenient

to have our lunch now and then deal

with Mr. Froneman's evidence in chief afterwards.

OK, I'm happy with that.

Let's resume at, if my watch is correct,

because I can't rely on it.

Yeah, let's resume at 20 to 2.

Until then, thanks everyone.

That's an hour.

Webcast Finished - 2:23:47

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 AM - Wednesday 15 October 2025, 9:30am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry AMWednesday, 15th October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Webcast Finished - 2:23:47

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Wednesday, 15th October 2025 at 9:30am