Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Thursday 16 October 2025, 9:30am

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Thursday, 16th 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.

need to deal with this morning. Mr. Ward, Mr. Curtis, in which case we'll get on.

Over to you, Mr. Curtis. Mr. Forshaw, good morning.

Mr. Forshaw, thank you. I'll start out by looking at some of the background that you've set out in section 1 of your proof.

So paragraph 1 .1, you said that you're a member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation

and Royal Town Planning Institute. In terms of your background, you worked in the planning department for Islington from 1975 until 2007,

both as an urban design officer and then as principal conservation and design officer.

And you continue to sit on Islington's design review panel.

and you've also set out that you've acted as a heritage and planning witness

for Save Britain's Heritage at several major public inquiries, is that all

correct? That's all correct, yeah. And is there anything you want to add in terms

of your background? No, I'm just going to apologise for wearing a hat, I'm hiding a

head injury. Moving on then to the substantive points in your evidence, so

To avoid repetition of yesterday's evidence, have you had the opportunity to read the heritage

proof of evidence submitted by Ignace Froniman on behalf of the local planning authority?

Yes, I have, and we were taken through it very thoroughly yesterday.

And in general, do you agree with Mr Froniman's conclusions as to the impacts of the loss

of openness on the main site and also the scale and massings of blocks 3A, 3B and J?

I do indeed. His analysis was forensic, convincing and I thoroughly agree with that.

And do you agree with Mr. Frohnemann that the heritage benefits associated with the scheme should only be given limited weight?

Yes, I think that is correct. I think the heritage benefits are greatly outweighed by the heritage harm.

And do you broadly agree with Mr. Frohman about the impact of the Grey Eagle Street

development on the conservation area?

Broadly, although we have just a slightly different take in terms of the scale of less

than substantial harm, and this is I think quite an interesting point.

Mr. Frohman finds it at the lower end because of the scale, the size of the conservation

area.

I've found a more moderate degree of harm in terms of the impact on that particular

part of the conservation area.

So we have a very large conservation area here, as you know, and how you deal with that

is a matter to consider.

Thank you, Mr. Forshaw. So in terms then of other heritage assets that you have referred

to – or sorry, the heritage assets as a whole – in your proof of evidence you've

described levels of significance to each of the assets that you discuss. Why is it that

you've done this? Well, this is absolutely fundamental to the

Paragraphs 207 and 208 of MPPF require the applicant and the local planning authority

to describe significance of any heritage assets affected. And I have done that and tried to

allocate value because really of paragraph 212 of MPPF it says that great weight must

be given to an asset's conservation.

But the more important the asset,

the greater the weight should be.

So it's very important to understand how

important the significance is.

Now, we have guidance about different components

of significance, architectural, artistic, historical,

archeological.

logical.

With listed buildings, we have grades.

Conservation areas, we don't have grades, of course.

It's more tricky.

The way I have set out in my section 4 dealing

with significance, I have dealt first of all

with statutory listed buildings.

Those are buildings of national interest.

And I then move on to the conservation area,

which is locally designated, and then non -designated heritage

assets.

So I've put them in that order quite deliberately.

And I've dealt, as you will see, in order.

First of all, with Christchurch, grade one listed building,

one of the most important early Georgian buildings in the United

Kingdom.

And I've moved through in that order.

So I have done my best to set out carefully, thoroughly,

what I consider the significance to be.

Thank you Mr. Forshaw. And in your view has the Appellant's Evidence or HTVIA

adequately described the level of significance of the conservation area

or other heritage assets? Not entirely. I think there's been a big focus on the

area and not enough focus on the statuary listed buildings and the

potential impacts on those a standalone heritage assets regardless of them being

in the conservation area or not in that respect 35 Buxton Street doesn't get

much of a mention by anybody except me I think the HDVIA says for example that

its setting is not important to its significance.

I take a different mind to that.

The importance of the eastern part of the site,

the yard to the character and appearance of the conservation

area was discussed yesterday afternoon in great detail.

I think that the applicant has underestimated the contribution that that makes,

but Mr Frohman has covered that extremely well I think.

Thank you Mr Forshaw, and why is it that you say that the conservation area itself is a highly significant heritage asset?

Spitalfields, of course, is a unique part of London.

The conservation area is large.

You can see from the map that I've put up there.

There's a great variety of fabric within it,

an amazing concentration of early 18th century houses,

Faunia Street, Princelet Street, Wilkes Street.

Christchurch, which I've mentioned.

It has the brewery, which is a remarkable collection

of brewery buildings, probably the best in London.

Although, Whitbreads might say something about that.

You've got one of the great Victorian markets,

the fruit and vegetable market, the other side west

of Commercial Street.

To the north, you've got tenements,

interesting Victorian buildings around Cheshire Street.

You've got remnants of workers housing,

the south side of Woodseer Street,

remarkable survivor, buildings that would have been

regarded as slums in the 1930s really.

Allen Gardens is part of the conservation area.

Again, of great historical interest I think.

Here we've got fields with streets beneath,

rather than streets with fields beneath.

So there is a huge variety.

But it's not just the buildings, of course.

It's got this fantastic cultural heritage, the waves of migrants

from the Huguenots, the Irish, the Jews from Eastern Europe

and Russia, and the Bengalis.

And of course, there's one building that sort of sums

all that up, which is on the corner of Brick Lane and Fournier Street, built in the 18th

century as a French Protestant church, then in the 19th century a synagogue, and today

a mosque, the same building.

The Bengali community is very, very strong in this area.

Not for nothing is Spitalfields, known as Bangalertown.

The street signs are bilingual.

Thank you, Mr. Forshaw.

So in terms then of the character of the conservation area, in your proof of evidence, I won't take

you through all of the points that were already discussed at length yesterday, but specific

points that you've raised.

You've mentioned in your proof the removal of historic sets from the main site.

Could you explain how you think that the inspector should take this into account when assessing

the significance of the conservation area on the main site?

Yes, I've put these images in really just to show what was there until quite recently

on the yard.

This is the surface material that sort of ran underneath all the sheds and whatever

that you were told about yesterday afternoon

by Mr. Croneman.

These pictures were taken in 2020.

Those two figures you can see in the middle distance,

me in the yellow jacket and Dan Cruikshank on the left,

we were there because we were asked by the Spitalfields

neighbourhood forum, which was hoping to get a neighbourhood

area adopted to do an inventory of historic fabric

in spittle fields.

The buildings, street by street, and also surface materials,

street furniture, bollards, curbs, all that.

We were fortunate to get into the yards,

and we took these photographs.

And it's a remarkable bit of landscape, I think.

And these are interesting photographs,

I think, to see.

They've subsequently been taken up.

And there's some aspiration to put some of them back,

but we'll come to that later on.

I think the question was how I should deal with that.

Well, I think you just need to know that they were there.

They have gone, but they were there for, obviously,

clearly a very long time.

The historic character of the yard

that you were told about yesterday,

that is part of their storey.

You were shown images and maps and whatever yesterday.

Those are some images of what it was like until 2020.

Thank you, Mr. Falshaw.

And in terms of the images that you've just shown,

could you briefly just explain whereabouts in the yard

each of these images is?

Well, the one you're looking at now is towards the north side.

At your back is the boiler house,

and you're looking eastwards, sort of parallel

to Buxton Street.

Shall I go back to the beginning?

That is with sort of Spital Street

at your back, looking towards the back of the boiler house.

That is, on your left hand side, is the Boiler House,

and you're looking north.

The gabled buildings, the residential buildings

that are on the west side of Code Street.

And you can see the poplar trees of Allen Gardens.

And the building on the right hand side

is one of the Cooperage buildings,

again, that was discussed yesterday.

That, again, is actually right up against the boiler house.

There is a wall there between it and the yard.

But you can see there are historic sets there.

We've covered that one.

And that's a similar view, again,

looking towards Code Street at the back of the boiler house.

At paragraph 5 .17 of your proof, you refer to neglect, which you say has been caused

to the Grey Eagle Street site. Could you explain how you think that this should be taken into

consideration by the inspector? Well, again, this point was partly covered

yesterday by Mr. Croneman under cross -examination. I flagged it up really from my perspective

my experience at Smithfield, and I've

appended the Smithfield decision there.

One of the points, if you read those paragraphs,

concerns ownership and historic neglect.

A point that has been made, I think, by the appellant

is that not much of this neglect happened under their watch,

although that watch is perhaps 30 years.

I mean, Mr. Morris described it as a continuous decay.

But I think the point of the Smithfield decision

is that it's the historic neglect,

regardless of who the owner was, that was considered there.

And in terms of the assessment of that particular scheme,

Again, I mean, I think I would agree with Mr. Croneman, were those buildings in good

condition, their impact on the significance of the conservation area would be neutral.

Although actually Mr. Morris seemed to think they might be actually of some interest.

I might not be open on that.

But it's their deteriorated state, I think,

that has brought them into the negative side of the balance.

And you've specifically mentioned paragraph 209

of the MPPF in your proof.

Could you expand on how you think

that should be taken into account by the inspector?

Well, I just think it's something

that you need to bear in mind.

If you consider that the neglected,

it's very hard to, I agree, to prove deliberate anything.

But the site has been owned by organisations

who I imagine have a rational way of deciding

how to invest money.

So decisions have been taken deliberately

to spend or not spend money.

So I can't say more than that.

Can I just ask, forgive me,

but two or nine says where there is evidence

of deliberate neglect or damage to a heritage asset,

the deteriorated state of the heritage asset

should not be taken into account in any decision.

What do you think the heritage asset is?

The conservation area,

which is part of the conservation area.

I want to be clear, that's fine, thank you.

That was the same at Smithfield of course.

It wasn't a, the buildings in question were not listed.

They were part of conservation area.

And do you have anything further to add

to Mr. Frodenman's evidence in terms of the contribution

that you think each of the sites makes

to the conservation area?

And I think particularly the Ely's Yard site,

given that that's not a point raised

by the local planning authority.

Yes, yes indeed.

I think we've covered the big site B pretty well, but sites A and C are smaller.

Site A of course is part of that dense network of narrow streets west of the brewery, Calvin

Street, Corbett Place, Jerome Street, Grey Eagle Street

itself.

The site is quite contained as opposed to the yard site.

Site C, Ely's Place.

I'm going to call it Ely's being a Cambridgeshire lad,

rather than Eli or Ellie.

It's perhaps more pivotal in a way.

It is at this crossroads of Draywalk,

or what used to be Black Eagle Street, and Wilkes Street

running north -south.

It's visible from considerable distances.

So I think it has quite a pivotal place

in that western part of the brewery.

And that's, its development is an important part

contribution to the significance of the conservation area.

And what is that sort of pivotal place

that you were describing?

Well, the existing yard is an area of open space.

The proposal is to build on part of that.

a larger building than I would recommend.

And the impacts, I think, are quite widespread.

So, I mean, perhaps I should move on to some images of that.

These are images taken from Wilkes Street.

Now, as I've said, Wilkes Street is a very important group

of early 18th century houses.

This is a view taken from near the junction

with Princelet Street.

An image was shown in the HTVI from Fournier Street, which

was further south.

But actually, helpfully, this is image 42 from the HDVI,

which was right at the end of the Pellet's design proof,

existing and proposed.

And I'm concerned about the impact here.

This junction, Princelet Street and Wilkes Street,

I mean, every day there are groups and groups of people

being shown around Spitalfields.

They're probably on Jack the Ripper tours,

but this is very much part of the heart

of this very important area.

And this new building is going to be, I think,

quite an intrusion into that street scene

compared to what is there now, which is very recessive.

In Eli's Yard itself, the scale of the buildings

is quite modest.

This is the east side of Eli's Yard.

These three -storey warehouses.

And here's another view of them, the junction with Dre's Walk.

The proposal is much taller than this.

And I think it will upset the balance of that space.

So moving on then to other heritage assets, you've referred to harms caused to heritage

assets other than the conservation area in your proof of evidence. You refer to the proposals

was causing harms to the two listed buildings,

including the Boiler House and Christchurch Spitalfields.

On that, could you describe the significance

in your judgement of the Boiler House

and your view as to its setting?

Right, I'll just move on to the images here.

The chimney of the Boiler House is a landmark built in 1929,

I think, not 1940s, but so it's nearly 100 years old.

It was clearly intended to be a landmark,

not least because of the lettering on it,

an advertisement for the brewery.

It has some artistic merit, I would suggest.

And landmarks are intended to be seen from as many directions

as possible.

And the best views of the chimney

are from the north and the east.

There are much more limited views

of the chimney from the west or the south

because there are buildings in the way.

And I am concerned about the loss of the very long views

from Buxton Street.

And these images are a progression.

I took these just a few weeks ago.

The leaves are in trees.

The trees are still in leaf.

When they're out of leaf, there will

be views from further eastwards.

I've not shown those because of the leaf coverage.

But this is from a position that is east of the former school

building on the right hand side, a church school building.

And as we progress eastwards, this is what we get.

Here we are.

We're nearly alongside the former vicarage building

now, approaching the junction with Spital Street.

Gone past Spital Street now.

The slightly torrid structure in the foreground is that former Cooperage building.

That's it.

Now all those views will disappear as part of the proposal.

They'll all be completely blocked.

and I think that harms the setting of the listed building.

Thank you Mr. Paul Hochshaw. So it follows then that you think that these

views form part of the setting then of the listed building? They certainly do

Yes, a very important part of the setting.

And could you similarly describe the significance

in your view of Christchurch Spitalfields and its setting?

Well, Christchurch, it's hard to overstate its significance.

It is one of the most wonderful buildings.

It was intended, as I've included in my appendix,

the Pevsner description, which is very florid for Pevsner.

It was intended to be awesome, or awful, actually,

and magnificent.

It's the most exuberant of all of Hawkesmoor's churches,

not just the three Stendh ones, but all six, I would argue.

The tower and spire were intended to be landmarks.

From all directions, it's square.

It's got a clock face on all sides.

There are, of course, the famous views along Brushfield Street

from the west.

But the other views, I think, are important too.

I would say that its setting is a major part of its significance.

And in terms then of the extent of that setting, could you say that it's a major part of its significance?

I'm concerned about the blocking of views from the north, down what was originally the north part of Wilkes Street

and down Grey Eagle Street. Those are my two main concerns.

And then finally you refer to some non -designated heritage assets. You refer to frontages onto

Buxton Street and the former brewery yard and say that these should be considered non -designated

heritage assets. I suppose first am I right in thinking that those are the buildings that

that Mr. Fronman has described as sort of the other cooperage

to the north of the site.

Yes, that's right.

And why is it that you say that these

should be considered non -designated heritage assets?

Well, I think they contribute positively

to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Historic England, I think, agree with that.

Mr. Croman agrees with that.

They have historic interests.

They have been bashed about a bit.

They've got a flat roof now rather than a pitched roof.

But I think they should be considered as a non -designated heritage asset.

And do you have any information on the history of those buildings or when they were constructed?

I think they're late 19th century. Mr. Croneman's proof is more forensic than mine in that respect.

He's done a huge amount of historical research

that I haven't done.

Turning then to harm to heritage assets,

you've already spoken a bit about the Eevee's Yard

development.

And do you take a different approach to the local planning

authority and the appellant and conclude

that the Eevee's Yard development

will cause harm to the conservation area?

Is that correct?

I do.

and this is where the overlap between townscape and heritage is, I think, quite opaque really.

I agree with a lot of what Mr Reynolds says about the overscale nature of the Elia's

Yard proposal, and I think as a consequence of that, it does harm the character and appearance

appearance of that part of the conservation area.

I've shown the images of the east side of Elis Ya.

We can go back to those, if you wish, quickly.

Sorry, there's plenty of order.

Yeah, there.

These are buildings, I think, of interest

in the conservation area.

They contribute to it.

They form part of the setting of Ely's Yard.

Ely's Yard is, as I've said, is I think an important part of the conservation area.

If you put a building that's too big in it in townscape terms, I would say that

is going to harm the character and appearance of that part of the conservation area.

And you also conclude that there is harm to the setting of Christ Church by reference

to views from Wilkes Street. Could you explain your position on that?

Yes. Again, I'll walk you down here, sir, if I may. This is the top northern end of

Wilkes Street just sort of inside the gate that closes you off from Quaker Street.

And we can see these images are taken from the centre of the road walking south.

Now I believe that the proposed new building will block

some of these views or impinge onto them.

So this is walking south.

These views I think will be blocked by the proposal.

Continuing south, as I've kept in the centre of the road.

We're approaching Dre's walk now, coming in from the left.

But the new building here, sort of following the building line of the building on the right hand side,

is going to impinge on these views.

It's a magnificent view of the church steeple.

And again, and here we are now much into Eli's yard now.

So you'll still see that, but the building

will occupy a lot of that space on the right hand side of the.

I think there's harm caused here to the setting of Christ

Church. And paragraph 5 .7 of your proof you've also referred to harm caused to

Christchurch and views from Grey Eagle Street. Could you explain that?

Some images show this. We might go and have a look at these in the company with

in a company site visits if one can be arranged. These are just spot

spot images and it's always better to get the continuous image when you

walking around and not worrying about camera lenses and all that stuff. See

what the human eye can see. But the proposal will block this view. This is

from further back actually in further north and Grayham Street near the corner

with Quaker Street.

So that's moving on to the next image.

So those views will be lost.

Perhaps not as important as the Wilk Street view,

because they're already, you're not seeing as much as you

do from Wilk Street, where you really see the whole spire

and its magnificence.

This is just a peaking view.

but peaking views are of some value I would say.

Moving on then to the Grey Eagle Street site, at paragraph 5 .21 of your proof,

you again refer to views of the Tower and Spire of Christchurch being affected.

Could you explain? Yes this is the view from the corner with Calvin Street.

So we have the existing building on the right hand side where the data centres propose to go.

And we have this view of rather more of the spire here.

You could say it's a chance view because of the setback building line that is all along

the west side of Grey Eagle Street. That was discussed slightly yesterday I think.

And obviously, any building that restores a historic building

line on Grey Eagle Street, that view will be lost.

I accept that.

Now, as a longtime conservation officer,

there's often great temptation to put back historic building

lines.

That may not be such a brilliant idea in Grey Eagle Street, given that the building line

has been set back by all the neighbours.

In fact, all the buildings except the old pub on the corner of Quaker Street have all

been set back from probably the 1970s onwards when the current building was put up.

So were the established building line to be kept, then that view would remain.

If the building is brought forward, that view will be lost.

There we are.

And at paragraph 5 .22 of your proof, you disagree again with the level of harm

to the conservation area that's caused by the Grey Eagle Street development.

Could you explain why you consider that the proposals will cause a moderate level of less than substantial harm?

Yes, I want to find that image from Mr Morris's evidence.

I think this is the view that really makes me think that there's more than a very low level of harm here.

I mean, this is a very alien intrusion into the area,

put it like that.

It's something sort of landed from outer space.

It will be visible from quite a number of places.

It'll be visible from, as you enter Ely's yard from Wilk

Street, visible from Corbett Street,

Corbett Place from Hanbury Street, that junction, view 30 I think in the HTVIA.

Again something we'll be able to see on a site visit because it's a continuum of

views. As a conservation officer who is responsible for many years managing the

conservation and regeneration of Clark and Well, I'm very aware how important it

is to control scale and height in a conservation area.

This proposal, I think, is grossly excessive

and will harm, to a considerable degree,

this part of the conservation area.

And potentially, it sets a precedent

with similar scale and type of development

elsewhere in the conservation area.

That's why I've attributed the level of harm that I have.

On in terms of the main site development then, at paragraph 5 .30 of your proof, you discussed

the impact of block 3B of the development on views of the Truman's Brewery chimney as

viewed from Buxton Street.

I think the HTVIA describes this as a momentary impact.

What's your view on this?

Well, I disagree that it's momentary

and I've shown you images that shows a continuum of views

for extensive length of Buxton Street.

And again, we can go on site and see that.

So it's not a momentary view.

And what impact do you say that this will have on the significance of the Boiler House?

It will reduce its landmark quality. And given that its landmark quality is very important

to its significance, that's harmful. You also, which we haven't discussed so far,

referred to impacts on 35 Buxton Street.

And this is another heritage asset

where you consider that there is less than substantial harm.

Could you set out your views on the significance

in the setting of 35 Buxton Street

and also the impact of the main site development?

Yes, 35 Buxton Street is the former vicarage

of All Saints Church.

It lies very close to the junction of Spittles Street

and Buxton Street.

I think its setting is important.

It does have a setting that contributes to its significance.

It still, of course, has the former church school

next to it, the other side of Shuttle Street.

Allan Gardens, the streets beneath,

those small terraced houses are all swept away.

If you walk around Allan Gardens to the north and east end,

you can still see remnants of the cobbled streets.

It's quite poignant, I think.

There is a history there.

These things you can't actually see,

but if you understand the history and the significance,

I think these things are important.

Now the proposal puts a pretty big building on the corner of

Spital Street and Buxton Street.

It rises vertically on Buxton Street.

The Vicarage Building is a modest building.

Demure, I think it's described as by Pevsner.

But it was at its time, it was a building of some status.

It's three storeys.

It has some architectural detail.

I think it's going to be overpowered, really,

by the proximity and scale of the proposed corner building.

The 20th century housing block opposite it

is considerably set back from the street by about six metres,

I think.

And it's nothing like as tall as what

is being proposed on the corner.

That is my argument there, that there will be, I think,

I've described as quite a low level of harm,

but there will be harm, I think.

In terms of the cumulative harm of the proposals,

you've said that in your view there

will be a medium to high degree of less than substantial harm

to the conservation area.

Why do you take that view?

We've got four applications here.

And I mean, this is an issue, sir,

that you will need to perhaps address at some stage

is how you deal with these four applications cumulatively.

But the scheme was sort of put in as a package

by the applicant.

I think they were sort of divided up

by the local planning authority into separate plots.

But they were, I think, clearly intended to be sort of one

scheme.

The EIA covers the whole lot, et cetera.

So there is a cumulative harm issue, and I think the level of harm is therefore quite

widespread in the conservation area.

In terms of the harm that, for example, I identified in Grey Eagle Street, the data

centre, which I think is quite severe in that particular bit of the conservation area, we've

We've got issues of harm at Block J,

loss of the views of the Truman Brewery of Christchurch Spire.

I think there's a cumulative issue here

that will need to be addressed.

And just finally on the heritage aspects of your proof,

You've said that you consider that paragraphs 215 to 16 of the MPPF not met in respect of

the appeal schemes.

Is that correct?

That is my judgement.

I am relying on other evidence in terms of other planning benefits and planning harms.

So that will need to be pursued with other witnesses in terms of planning benefits, weighing

that balance.

But the judgement that I have come to is that the paragraph 215 test wouldn't be met.

216, of course, is the complete demolition of what I consider to be a non -designated

heritage asset which is the North Cooperage building and that is

something that also has to be considered. Sorry if I may just to be clear I read

I read your proof obviously but you've done a balancing exercise in

effect to reach your conclusion on 7 .5 and 6 .1. I have yes but I accept that you will want to go into greater detail with

that with other witnesses. Sure okay well you might get some questions about that

but we'll see.

Sorry, Ms. Curtis, I just wanted to be clear.

Yes, and I mean, you're relying in part then,

I think, on Ms. Manchanda's conclusions

as to the benefits delivered by the appeals team.

Yeah, yeah.

Your proof also covers certain design

and townscape matters, and of course,

you've set out in your proof that you have,

or you also have a background in urban design.

I've already discussed some of your issues with the viewpoints that were selected in

the HTVIA, so I won't repeat that.

But in your proof, you discuss your view that the public realm offered as part of the appeals

scheme is inadequate.

You've heard Mr Burrell's evidence on this point.

Do you have anything to add to that evidence?

Yes I do.

and I do include quite a lot about this in my proof,

various aspects that weren't really touched on

by Mr. Burrell in any great detail.

The amount of open space that is being offered overall

compared to the footprints of the buildings

that are being proposed, I think is very small.

It's disappointing, I think, that the scheme is proposed to be gated and not 24 -7.

I have had experience with another brewery site in Islington, the Callum Brewery.

It's completely opened up, new streets going through it, reconnecting it with the neighbourhood.

Nothing is gated.

People can walk through.

It has some quite narrow alleyways, but you just need some good lighting and people walking through it.

There are many other examples in London. The Kingsthorst Railway Lands, they were all walled and fenced off of course,

and now they've been magnificently opened up to the public 24 -7.

Paternost Square in the city is open all the time.

You can just walk through it, even though it's private land.

So I've not seen any justification

as to why this scheme needs to be closed off

for certain hours during the night.

I think there are missed opportunities here

to reconnect the site with its historic neighbourhood.

We've seen through all the analysis of historic maps

So there used to be streets running through West and East

Brewery side.

They were closed off by the brewery for security reasons.

Understandable, probably.

People want nicking alcohol.

Those reasons have gone away.

The proposed opening from Ely's Yard into Grey Eagle Street,

I think, is particularly obtuse.

Quite difficult to see it's there.

Why not just have a simple wide opening

that people can walk through rather than dog legs?

Mr. Morris, giving his presentation,

showed actually how Dray's walk actually lines up with the front door to his building.

Well there would have been an opportunity to actually carry Dray's walk right through to

Grey Eagle Street. Making it easy for members of the public just to walk through the site.

I feel that the whole scheme has been designed to sort of lure people in and trap them there

really, spend their money in the activities within the scheme,

rather than opening it up as a true bit of public realm.

I'm also slightly critical of material,

the reuse of historic materials.

Again, I've referred to this in paragraphs 541 of my proof.

and perhaps need to refer you to the core document CDA 09,

pages 90 to 91, which covers reuse of materials.

I did actually put some images up here just

so the public can see these.

There's the paragraphs here.

Start quite promisingly about wanting

to reuse stuff that's been taken up.

And photographs we can see on the right -hand side,

a pile of the stuff with actually 35 Buxton Street

in the background, rather charmingly.

It's the bottom paragraph that I then get concerned about,

which is that owing to current accessibility standards

that historic sets will only be used in low pedestrian areas,

and that where they're going to be used

in high pedestrian areas, they've got to be refinished.

There's a great danger of losing pattern of age

when you start doing that.

And then over the page, the visualisations

about what they might do with some of this stuff.

Well, on the left, there are some of the granite sets.

I don't think that's a particularly historicist way

of using granite materials.

And on the right, we've got a pile of slabs,

I think, to make a bench.

Well, I hope you bring a cushion, because it's

a pretty cold thing to sit on.

Again, I'm not entirely happy that the historic materials are

going to be as sensitively used as they should be.

Paragraph 5 .47 of your proof, you also

refer to there being substandard residential accommodation

within the development.

Did you want to comment on that part of your proof?

Yeah, this is something I brought up

because I included, because I think

it's sort of a consequence of the excessive bulk of block J,

which English Heritage have concerns with,

I have concerns with, Mr. Frohman had concerns with.

One of the results is that, and this

is quoting from the planning officer's committee report,

paragraph 7318, that a considerable amount

of the social housing is going to have

substandard daylighting.

That is probably, although I'm not a daylighting expert,

but it is probably a consequence of the building being too tall.

But as you say there, you're not a daylighting expert, are you?

So you're relying primarily on the officers' report?

I'm relying on the officers' report.

Just drawing it to the attention of the inspector,

something you here should consider.

You conclude that the development proposals will breach national and local planning policies

on design. Could you just summarise your position on this?

Yes, section six of my proof I've set out the criteria that are in the MPPF. Let's

There are actually six, rather than five, I couldn't count.

But I've set them out there.

And why I think, how I think the proposals are deficient,

I don't think the scheme will add to the overall quality

of the area.

I don't think it's visually attractive as a result of design

and effective landscaping.

Not sympathetic to the local character

and historic environment.

Well, that's all down to harm to heritage.

Does it establish a strong sense of place

to create a welcoming and distinctive place

to live, work, and visit.

Well, not a lot of living.

It doesn't optimise the potential of the site

to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount

a mix of development, including green and other public space.

I don't think there's enough public space.

It's an overdevelopment, not an underdevelopment.

and the mix of use will be considered by other witnesses.

Does it create places that are inclusive and accessible, promote health and wellbeing?

Well again that's down to sort of accessibility, how it engages with the community, how the

community, the local community will themselves engage with this development.

and again I expect you'll hear more about that from other witnesses and third parties.

Just finally then, you've heard Mr Burrell's evidence about the alternative community master plan for the site.

What is your view in heritage and design terms about the appropriateness of that proposal compared to the Eppin schemes?

Well, like Mr. Kroman, I agree that the site capacity study is very high level, is very

blocky capacity study. I think what Mr. Burrell has done in his model, and so I would like

you at some stage to have a look at the model. I don't know whether we want to do

that in the round at some stage. I remember we did that with

Marks and Spencers when Mr. Pilbrow did his presentation with the model. A huge

amount of time and energy has gone into these magnificent models behind you and

it would be quite good to use them at some stage. I do take the time to have a

but I tend to do it in breaks or at the time.

Well, just going to Mr. Burrell's model,

because he has made a worthy effort

to show what or how the capacity study could be developed

into some sort of a scheme.

Now, he said it's nothing like a finished scheme.

But in terms of comparing that with the application,

So I would say that it would cause less heritage harm.

It retains the North Cooperage building.

Thus, it would retain, I think, more views of the chimney.

The blocks are far more fragmented, much more broken

up than the proposed blocks 3A and 3B.

And in that sense, it reflects some of the smaller grain

that was referred to yesterday as being an important part

of the character and appearance of the conservation area.

A larger open space is provided in the middle of the scheme.

The pedestrian links through are far more straightforward.

There's a clear east -west route from Brick Lane

to Spittles Street, wide open street that anybody could

walk through day and night.

So it's more permeable.

There's less massing.

Block J actually is included in Mr. Burrell's model,

if you look at it.

And again, that is broken up.

So it's much less of a mass than is proposed by the Henley scheme.

Beyond Mr. Burrell's model, of course, the capacity study looks at,

or includes, the Grey Eagle Street data centre and suggests that as a residential site.

And I would suggest that a residential building there will cause less harm than the data centre.

It's going to have windows in it for a start.

Just a point on storey heights, because you'll

see Mr. Bull's model has got, I think, some buildings of six,

seven storeys.

But they're residential storeys, of course,

perhaps three metres per storey.

So probably lower than the commercial storeys

that are proposed under the current scheme.

But I would stress that the model is just

an initial attempt done in his own good time

to show what it could be.

It would need much further work on it, I'm sure.

So that's where I would leave it.

Thank you, Mr. Foreshore. No further questions from me, but if you wait there, I'm sure some

questions will come from my learned friend.

Mr Harris, would you prefer to have a break now before proceeding?

It would make sense.

Yeah, OK. I've got 10 .59. Shall we say 11 .15?

Thank you.

Yeah, until 11 .15, everyone, then. Thank you.

I was disappointed in your waves of immigrants that you didn't remember the Welsh dairy

men and women who have played an important part in the way that the conservation area

work and the inspector will see as he goes around still the yards and the shop fronts

of the Welsh dairy men and women who used to keep their cows outside St. Albans,

bring them in on the train, put them in the yard, many of which still exist, milk

them until they were dry and then send them back and transfer another one. So

it's just as important that the Welsh get a look in in this part of the world.

Indeed, of course the Welsh were everywhere, not just in Spitalfields.

was always this and will always be. Absolutely. And just one other thing about cows. I saw

this amazing programme the other day about people used to keep cows in their basements. Yes.

Extraordinary. There we go. But only for periods. All right. Second, Mr. Forshaw, I promised

the Inspector, as we all did, that we wouldn't re -rehearse points that have already been

taken. So although I was sorely tempted in a lot of respects, I am not going to rehearse issues that

are already, if you like, in issue between the parties. So I'm just going to rehearse with you,

if you like, for sure specific issues. And the first of those is Christchurch, the approach

to setting impacts, Ely's yard, Eli's yard, and the importance of being accurate.

There's the sort of heading, Christchurch. It's a grade one listed

building isn't it? Yes. It's at the same time, I think you've stolen my words,

powerful and awful in the true sense of both those words. Much of its

significance clearly is intrinsic and in its fabric and in its history and in its interiors,

but setting is an important consideration too, isn't it?

It is.

Yeah.

And when you're looking at setting impacts, what you have to do is properly to calibrate

the importance of a view to the setting and significance of the building.

And the more important the view, the more the significance the asset relies upon

in terms of its significance in that view, the more weight to be given to the impact, beneficial or harmful.

Correct?

Yes, I mean I would say that any view of a landmark needs to be considered carefully.

Yes, and accurately.

Yes.

Okay, good.

Now in this case, the views chosen and agreed to by the local planning authority were chosen,

I'm sure you'll agree, with care and with proper attention.

I can't say otherwise.

Thank you.

And we know that as a grade one listed building,

there is a statutory requirement for Historic England

to be consulted.

Not necessarily on setting, I think, because that's very much down to the local authority

to determine where they refer it to them.

We needn't have an argument about that, because in this case the local authority did consult

Historic England, didn't it?

Yes, they did.

Do you want to remind the Inspector what the result of that consultation was in relation

to the...

They decided to make no comments.

Thank you very much.

But didn't express a view either way. They put the normal caveat on.

What they said was we don't wish to comment on this application.

But that doesn't mean they support the scheme or...

No, but one would have thought in relation to a grade one listed building,

if they had a concern about the setting, then they'd have expressed it.

One has to assume that Historic England operate in that way.

Maybe, although I don't know whether they were aware of the views,

for example, from the north end of Wilk Street.

Well, we'll have a look at those.

Can I just be clear, are we talking about the ED's yard?

Yes, we are.

So it's CDL03 and it's set out there.

I'm hearing from the witness that it's the view from Wilkes

Street in particular that he's concerned about.

We can come back to Grey Eagle Street with other witnesses

if necessary.

Because the view from Wilk Street is dealt with in what was identified as an appropriate

viewing position by conservation officers in the TVIA, isn't it?

Well, there's one view is provided in that.

Yes.

I accept.

But what I say in my proof, that that's not adequate.

We need more views and now I've provided some photographs.

Yes, you've provided some photographs and you've talked us through them and you explained

to the inspector how at various points Eli's yard would obliterate the view of the church.

I just want to cheque that for accuracy.

Now the inspector can do it on the site and we invite him to please, maybe in the adjournment

for lunch, but that's a matter for you sir.

But it's critically important, isn't it?

Particularly bearing in mind that historic England

haven't objected, Mr. Frohnemann hasn't objected.

And we'll come back to Mr. Frohnemann's position in a minute

to take this stage by stage and to ensure accuracy.

Now, I wonder if you could put up the images that you put up

establishing where you said there would be loss of the view.

Okay, let me just go back and find that.

Just so that the inspector can calibrate that against the actuality.

Just give me a moment.

Yes, there we are. That will do.

Just move back one.

The inspector can go to anyone he likes.

That's the first one, the next one.

And again, and again.

OK, we've got the run there, haven't we?

Thank you very much. Can we go to VUE 35 in the TVIA, please?

So I think it's as close to photo 26 as we can probably get.

What's the reference please? Yes a CDA 34 vu 35 which is on page 231

Now I've got a careful note that in your evidence in chief you were explaining to the inspector that at a

number of points but including this one

The view would be obliterated

This view is taken from the east side of Wilkes Street.

All my views were taken from the centre of the road.

I understand. I understand.

And of course this is a matter of judgement for the inspector having regard to what he sees here and what he sees on the site.

But from this viewpoint, it's hard to see how, first of all, clearly the viewpoint here

doesn't show the church being obliterated in terms of a view, does it?

Not from this point, I accept that.

No, good.

I mean, that's why I went and took some alternative photographs to, I mean, I could have taken

from the west side of the street where it seemed to me fair to take them from the middle

of the road.

Yeah, fair enough. But the inspector can go on to the site with these photographs and

walk around. But we've got to be really careful, haven't we, to be accurate about what we're

saying, about obliteration of the view. And in particular, if one were to move towards

the centre of the street as the inspector can on site, he'll then have to form a judgement.

Yes, he will.

Yeah, good.

Okay.

All right.

But we do know that with the benefit of all of these, there was no objection from historic

England.

And one of the other reasons I'm considering putting to you is this.

Up until really quite recently, and that's in the mid to late 80s, there was another

building on the Eli's Yard site, wasn't there?

Yes.

Yeah, so you didn't mention that to the inspector nor is it mentioned in your proof, but it was a very substantial building wasn't it?

It had a big footprint

It I don't think was anything like as high as the current proposal. I think you're wrong on that

well, I'm not so sure I'd looked at the verse that the

Images the aerial photographs. It seemed yes said there's a bridge across I think yeah

but it seemed to be similar height to the buildings on the east side of the yard.

I can ask Mr Dunn to deal with the height, but we do have an image of it.

So if you look at, let's just bear with me, it's in Mr Morris' proof of evidence, at page 138.

Tell me when you're there.

This is with the red circles, isn't it?

Yes, that's right.

Well I had a pretty careful look at that.

Yeah.

And it seems to me that it's a similar height

to the buildings on the east side of Ealy's Yard.

Well, one can see it's a substantial building

and would clearly have a look at it.

Do you have that page, sir?

I'll just wait for you to get there.

It's not, it wouldn't be invisible, would it?

The buildings there would, I'm sure it would have some impact.

Of course at the same time north of there you've got the little terraced houses that

were still there and you would have had views probably of the spire.

I mean, this is historic stuff of some age.

The site has been like it is for, I guess, about 40 years.

Well, since the 1980s.

Yes, well, 45 years.

So when we're talking about important views,

views that are the inspector will want to take into account

is, first, the accuracy of the picture you painted in chief.

And that will let, I'm very happy for him

to deal with that on site.

But I ask him to bear in mind the absence of objection

from anybody else in that context.

First point.

But second, the fact that this isn't a view that clearly

has been designed or a view from a 17th or 18th century

location, but a view that for a large part of its life

would have had an even bigger Wilhe building on that site

than that which is proposed.

I challenge the large part of its life.

I mean, the church has been there for 300 years.

Yes.

A building that was demolished in the 80s.

How long was that there for, I wonder?

All right.

Now, Mr. Frohnemann, whose evidence

you adopted in large part, having regard to the TVIA

views that we've looked at and all the other circumstances,

finds no heritage harm on his internal balance

from Ely's yard, correct?

That is correct.

And as I've said, I disagree with him.

I understand that.

But if it was truly arguable and accurate

that there was a harmful impact on a grade one

listed building and its setting,

if it was truly arguable,

I'd say with respect to Mr. Frohman, he would have argued it, wouldn't he?

I think he's missed it.

He missed it?

I think he missed it.

All right.

Well, much of that depends upon the accuracy of your analysis, which I needn't go into

in any further detail here, but I'll ask Mr. Dunn to produce evidence in respect of that.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Block A next, please.

Now, my learned friend had a go, and then the inspector had a go of asking you to explain

what it is you're asking the inspector to do in relation to this.

And now I'm going to have a go, because I don't think anybody in the room knows what

you are saying in relation to it.

Paragraph 209 of the MPPF indicates there are certain circumstances in which decision -makers

should disregard states of dilapidation, et cetera, yes?

Yes.

And the PPG takes it further, doesn't it?

And you're aware of this, because the PPG

introduces, if you like, what criminal barristers call

two types of mens rea.

And the first type of mens rea is that there is

deliberate neglect, yes?

And the second is where there's evidence that that deliberate neglect is for the purpose

of enhancing the prospects of getting a planning permission, isn't it?

Now, I know you're following it closely.

The recent Wimbledon High Court case considered this carefully, didn't it?

And it made clear that you needed both of those mens rea and clear evidence of it in

order to engage NPPF 209.

Yes?

Right.

I'm just going to ask you this.

Have you any evidence at all that first,

prior to my client's ownership, there

was deliberate neglect of any of the building on Block A?

Any evidence?

I have no evidence.

You have any evidence that all that time ago,

when the building ceased to be watertight, et cetera.

There are no duties on a landowner to look after

a non -listed building in this respect, are there?

Do you have any evidence that even if there was neglect,

which you've got no evidence of,

that it was for the purpose of enhancing the prospects

of getting a planning permission

that was 38 years off in the future?

I can't say that.

You can say whether you've got any evidence.

I haven't.

Thank you.

Same with the screen.

We haven't got any evidence.

The question is now, I think, whether the condition of the building is being held as

something that is to be put in the balance of harm or improvement to the conservation

area.

Well, the condition of the building

is the condition of the building is a fact, isn't it?

Yes, but how has it got that way?

Well, that's what I'm going to ask you.

You see, there are two options for the inspector.

He either takes it into account,

as we say he must as a matter of law,

because it's the position as it stands,

or whether he disregards it,

because it's the result of a deliberate neglect

for the purpose of enhancing the prospects of gaining planning permission.

Now, I'm going to ask you formally, on behalf of the Rule 6, Sixth Party,

we've had the answer from a learned friend quite properly,

are you formally making the case that the dilapidated condition

should be disregarded by this Inspector having regard to NPPF 209 and PPG 14?

I'm certainly suggesting, sir, that it's something you should consider.

Yes, I've got that.

Are you formally making the case,

that's why I asked the question,

Anne Malone and her friend tried and the inspector tried,

are you formally making the case

that the dilapidated condition should be disregarded?

Because if you are, that's a step on

from anything else you've said so far,

and I will call evidence.

I consider my -

I do not have evidence.

So I'll ask the question one more time.

Are you, as part of the Rule 6 -6 team, because we haven't heard from a lonely friend on this,

are you formally making the case that the dilapidated condition should be disregarded?

I think it is a matter that the inspectors should consider.

I can't say any more than that.

If it helps.

I think in the absence of any evidence as you put it out, I would be on, how can I put

it, I'd be on dodgy ground, I think, if I did. If I disregarded it in accordance with

paragraph two and nine, I'd have to have evidence as per the PPG to allow me to do that. And

on the basis of what I've heard and read,

I don't think I have that.

So I'd be on, if I did that,

I'd be asking for trouble, I think.

Right, okay.

I mean, I merely share my thoughts with you.

I painted this with the Smithfield case

for you to look at,

and I'm sure you have looked at that carefully.

Yeah, I'm familiar with that one,

but I think that was,

well no, be careful.

No, I'd need to read it again.

But yes, okay.

I hope that helps.

It does help, sir, and I'll move on.

Can I deal with the issue of sets, please?

And you deal with this at 541 of your proof.

And what you say is, you describe the sets,

and wouldn't it be wonderful if they could be reused as part

of the proposal, yes?

Yeah. Good.

Now, you know the sets were removed during the pandemic

for operational and safety reasons, but they were also safeguarded, weren't they?

I hope so.

Yes.

Well, all right.

I've seen correspondence which suggests that your organisation are aware of that, but would

you take it from me that they are all safe and safeguarded?

Yes.

Yeah, good.

Thank you very much.

And it was always part of this proposal to reuse those onsite in so far as was consistent,

for example, with DDA regulations and ensuring there are no trip hazards and that the site

is accessible to all, wasn't it?

Yes.

Okay.

Now, what you say in paragraph 541 is that it would be great if, as part of a landscaping

scheme, for example, these could be used.

There is already a condition requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme.

It's condition draught condition 19.

But if you in particular thought that it was necessary, subject to the constraints that

I've outlined to have them reused in the public areas

in an appropriate and safe way, that could also be achieved

by a condition, couldn't it?

It could.

Yes, it could.

What I was slightly alarmed about

were the illustrations in which I displayed.

But they're illustrative only.

And the local authorities got to the point.

Those are the illustrations provided

as part of the application.

Yeah, for sure.

But also provided as part of the application

is an identification that the sets would be reused.

But that's a matter of detail which can be properly left to the local authority.

And if the inspector thinks it's appropriate, and we'll draught him one if necessary,

a specific condition that the sets be reused in that way.

And that would be a benefit to the proposal, wouldn't it?

Well, certainly if a scheme is going to be approved,

the conditions are very important and I'm sure that the trust and other local

people will scrutinise the conditions applications when they come in.

Yeah, all right, thank you very much. Okay, planning balance next please. I mean this

is dealt with in the evidence of Mr. Marjesen in particular the need for the

site to be open to the public and fully open to the public other than between 2 a .m. and

6 a .m.

That's the provision.

You understand that?

Yes, I do.

And so when the inspectors asked about gated community and all of that, really, all that

is happening here is that for security and good order and in association with the Metropolitan

in police, there is to be no public access,

but only for those four hours, 2 a .m. to 6 a .m.

Yes?

I understand that what is proposed,

but I don't really understand why it can't be 24 -7.

Right, so really what you're saying to the inspector

is that he should place significant weight

on the fact that it's not open to the public

between 2 a .m. and 6 a .m., is it?

Yes.

It's not a generic gated development, is it?

It's open for the same hours as the public parks.

Well, it's going to be a gated development,

because you're going to have to close the gates between 2

and 6, wondering what to do.

Well, exactly.

That's it.

Ideally, you'd have no gates at all.

Yeah.

Right, I've got the point.

So hopefully you've got our point as well.

I'm not going to take up the inspector's invitation to,

in effect, cross -examine you at great length

on your planning balance exercise

because you've got your own planning balance witness coming,

haven't you?

But you have formed a planning balance and you've put

into it what you see as heritage harms and you've chosen to look

at public benefits in your proof.

Where do I find the weight that you give to the provision of much needed workspace in accordance with the GLA response?

Where do I find that? Public benefit of, I mean, hundreds of millions of pounds of benefit to the way the city operates,

the city fringe operates, that the GLA thought so worthy of support.

Where's that?

I have not done a detailed weighting exercise,

but what I am aware of in the balancing

is the great weight that must be given to heritage harm.

Yeah, well, that's only one limb of it, isn't it?

And you'd also have to have regard

to what the Secretary of State's advice is on, for example,

ensuring that the city can continue

to function with appropriate data centre capacity?

Where have you considered that?

I've not considered that.

But others will.

So can I suggest to you

that your planning balance is a bit one -sided,

a bit lopsided, Mr. Forshaw?

I've, you can describe it as that.

I've done what I have done and I will leave it to others

to make the case on those other planning matters.

But it is, forgive me, it is dressed up

as a full public benefits versus heritage harms analysis,

isn't it?

I have done my assessment.

I can't say more than that.

All right.

I'm going to suggest to you that really little weight can

be done to a job half done.

Little weight can be given to a job half done.

I'll be left to the inspector.

Yeah, you got it.

I get it.

All right.

Next, please, can we pick up your proof and see what you say about the alternative options,

as you call them.

It's paragraph 8 -1.

Let me know when you're there.

Yeah, I've got it, yeah.

Okay.

It's up on the screen.

I'm grateful, thank you.

Now, can we look at what it says?

Eight two, the site allocation for Brick Lane,

I think that should be, no problem,

in the Tower Hamlet Straff Local Plan

contains an alternative vision for the sites.

This is for a residential -led regeneration, et cetera.

There's a high level guidance on design for development further illustrated by a model

made by SBL for the site covered by PA.

You want to say this alternative is likely to involve much less harm.

Now, I don't want to go into this in any great detail, but we know that another witness in

team and we've heard from him already has put forward that proposal and has

explained that that's something that the inspector should give weight to. I just

want to benchmark your concerns therefore as you've expressed them so

far. In order to understand a the weight that should be given to your concerns

but also the weight that should be given to that the inspector will need to know

and understand what the impact of that, or indeed the block

model contained in Pedley Street site capacity assessment,

what the impact of that would be, for example,

on the view from Allen Gardens.

Yes?

Because you're not saying that that's

a heritage or townscape issue that would kill that stone

dead.

It's not what you're saying at all.

No, I tried to go through some of that in my examination

to describe the model and how that

differs from the application.

OK, but the inspector's going to have to consider how it.

We don't need to go through that again, do we?

No, no, no, no.

But the inspector has to consider also

the internal consistency in saying on the one hand, well,

look how outrageous that is.

That's a type of relationship in heritage and townscape terms,

which is unacceptable.

But here I am supporting a scheme

where we've got largely the same.

Well, as I said early this morning,

I think the scheme that's shown in the model

is not as harmful as the application process.

But that's hardly the point, is it?

What we need to know.

Well, it is the point.

That is the point I'm making.

I've got to understand that.

But the Inspector therefore should consider,

I think you're agreeing,

the impact on the views from Arlen Garden,

the views of the chimney, for example.

We went through a significant line of questions

on that this morning,

and he'll have to consider the views on the chimney,

the impact on the conservation area as a whole,

and whether that benchmarks the nature of your concern

or the Council's concern,

or whether it's more consistent with the position taken

by officers in Historic England.

All that's part of the consideration, isn't it?

Yes, good, excellent, thank you very much.

Yes, I think in those circumstances,

that's all I need to ask, sir, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I mean, I've exhausted my questions.

I did most of them in examination in chief,

for which forgive me was Curtis but did you did you have anything in

re -examination no nothing further in re -examination sir thank you very much

mr. foreshore it's been helpful

mr. Ward would it be worth dealing with mr. Reynolds before in chief before

lunch I think mr. Flanagan is going to be dealing with that witness but yeah if

Shall we have a short break then while you set up? Good. I've got 11 .46. Let's say 10 minutes, let's say 5 to 12.

Thank you Mr. Foulshaw, thank you Ms. Curtis.

It wouldn't be an inquiry without seeing everybody else answering.

Mr. Reynolds, in terms of documentation, you've got a proof and an appendix, yes?

Correct.

Let me just introduce you to the inquiry.

As you set out in your proof, you hold a master's degree in urban design from the University

of Westminster, postgraduate diploma in landscape architecture from the University of Gloucestershire,

Chartered Landscape Architect with the Landscape Institute and recognised practitioner with

the Urban Design Group, 25 years of experience in private practise consultancy, providing

advice on urban design and landscape and visual impact.

You co -founded Tapestry, you also tell us, just summarising, you're an expert advisor

and Urban Design to the Northern Ireland Minister of Advisory Group and Chair of

Design Review Panels in various London boroughs and you are also over the page

Deputy Chair of the Landscape Institute's Knowledge and Practise Committee. By way

of summary that's all correct I take it? It is yes. And you also given your proof

of evidence the the declaration correct? Correct. Good so with your leave given

we've had a fair bit of design and townscape evidence already, I'm going to take the

proof as read and just deal with the evidence under some headlines. I'm

grateful. So Mr Reynolds, on that basis, if we start please with the Grey Eagle

Street proposed data centre, can I ask you please, in light of the evidence in

your proof and the proofs you've seen from the appellants, to firstly say what

you consider to be the particularly relevant matters of the existing

character of the street and still dealing with public realm to start with

give your views on how the proposed data centre impacts or otherwise on that

character in public realm and activation terms please. Sure well I mean as the

inspector will no doubt have already seen because I think you did you probably

were there on your site visit on Monday whenever we were it's a pretty poor

quality street. It's very much a kind of secondary route. There's poor public

footways. People generally have to walk in the road. There's actually quite a lot

of traffic down it. I think it may be a cut -through of some sort from somewhere

certainly. Whenever I've been there, there have been a lot of vehicles going down there.

Blank, blank facades, very little surveillance. Lots of opportunity to

improve it.

There is some street art.

In fact, a couple of times I've been there,

there have been street art tours wandering around,

looking at some of that street art.

But I think generally, it's a pretty poor quality street,

certainly compared to some of the others

in and around the area and within the conservation

area in particular.

And I think it's probably notable

that within the context of this particular application that London Plan

Policy D8 which is on public realm was one that was cited whereas it wasn't

cited in the other reasons for refusal.

Good so that's the existing character then if you can talk please about how

what's proposed relates to that and you can pick up the following points.

London Plan Policy D3, activation, natural surveillance and perception of safety

and antisocial behaviour matters you mentioned in your proof. Yeah sure so I

think it's taken as read by everyone that the existing building on the site

isn't particularly good quality isn't particularly beneficial and

certainly doesn't do anything for the street although perhaps it does

contribute as a canvas for some of the street art.

But I think that the fundamental starting point on anything

is London Plan Policy D3, the optimising site policy.

And that policy is very clear in its wording

that optimising site capacity means

ensuring that development is the most appropriate form and land

use for the site.

And I think that what's fairly clear from the scheme that's

propose and as I said out in my proof I do not think that a data centre is the

appropriate land use for that particular site. They are very difficult buildings

to integrate into their surroundings you know they they require effectively large

blank facades they're not particularly attractive buildings normally you can

Yes, you can certainly do things to the facade to try and improve them, but fundamentally they're they're blank buildings

They're partly for security partly for operational reasons

and they certainly

Aren't really known for activating their surroundings

I mean you can do things in fact if you look at the other data centres on

Truman brewery estate for example, some of them have retail units at the ground floor, which does provide a little bit of activation

but certainly the proposal

that's been put forward here for Block A

doesn't do any of that activation.

I note the comment that was made

that the curated public art could be seen

as a way of activating the street.

I don't agree with that position.

I think activating a building facade

means designing it in a way that it engages people,

creates a lively, human -centred,

human -friendly environment.

I think it could be seen as contributing to animation of the street

But I think that's a very different thing because that's more about the appearance and how the building looks

Urban design context

Where you've got dense walkable areas and Truman brewery estate

More broadly in the brick lane area and the conservation area is a very kind of walkable estate

Certainly for there at the weekend as you know hundreds of thousands of people

wandering around over the area. So I think that there's a lot of potential

on Wayeagle Street for improvement both through the data centre and obviously

we'll talk about shortly on Eli's Yard but I think between those two sites and

in combination there is scope for it and that includes things like improving

natural surveillance you know the kind of eyes on the street principle Jane

Jacobs, very much kind of urban design 101, I think there is some real scope

for that which a data centre is fundamentally not going to be

compatible with or able to deliver. And I know that the Metropolitan Police in

their consultation response, while they don't necessarily make any comment as

such, they do highlight that there are issues around antisocial behaviour and

and crime on that street at the moment.

And specifically in terms of what's proposed,

we had some evidence yesterday from Mr Frohman

looking at the data centre access with the security office.

And some reliance placed on that, I think, in the appellant's evidence

in terms of new activation.

You'll be used on the contribution of that

and whether that would address the concerns you have.

Yeah, I mean very limited.

Certainly the revised scheme that was put forward

is an improvement over the original submission,

but I think it's a marginal improvement on what

was a marginal benefit.

I suspect this isn't a shop that's

going to have people going in and out of it frequently.

It's a security office that might have, I guess,

a security guard occasionally going out and wandering around

or the occasional visitor during the day.

I'm not sure what the plan is. I think you know the point was made by Mr.

Freindman and his evidence that you know originally that use was considered to be

suitable for within the centre of the building in a windowless room so that

doesn't suggest that it's something that's going to generate a high level of

activity and footfall. Thank you. Turning then, still on the

Eagle Street data centre scale and mass and can ask for your views on on how

that what's proposed in terms of scale and mass and height and design

contributes or otherwise into townscape terms and perhaps we can deal with it in

two stages first dealing with the Grey Eagle Street frontage of the proposed

building and then turning the corner onto Calvin Street. Yeah sure so I mean I

I think it's probably a point we'll touch on a few times.

Obviously there's a continuing issue, if you like,

between talking about storeys and heights in metres.

Clearly the data centre storeys

are significantly higher than other buildings.

I mean, we'll probably come onto the game

when we talk about residential versus commercial.

So I think, and agree with what's set out,

I think it's in Mr. Morris's proof

where there's a diagram that shows the heights

of various existing buildings in the immediate vicinity of it in metres and

states there that actually because of the kind of exaggerated storey heights of

a data centre it's probably more useful to talk about it in metres which I would

completely agree with and that that diagram which is I reproduced it in my

proof I think it's on page 236 of Mr. Morris's proof really shows how what's

will be significantly taller than anything else on the street, taller than

the existing building that's on that plot, taller than the British telephone

exchange behind it and certainly taller than what's on Calvin Street which I'll

come on to in a minute. And there's not really much you can kind of do about

that because the use of the building as a data centre requires those

floor -to -ceiling heights it requires those two tall storeys requires things

like the plenum vents that front on to Great Eagle Street and they're just you

know a necessity a necessity part of the brief for being a data centre but they're

not really compatible with a tight -grained urban street within a

conservation area and that's why I think it's not a compatible land use with that

with that site.

That said, there's not really been any attempt

to make the storey smaller.

I think there's been limited attempt on Calvin Street, which

I'll come onto in a minute.

But the setback, for example, is much smaller

on Grey Eagle Street.

So it goes up to the top of the two -storey,

and then it sets back.

But it sets back a lot less.

It's a lot less noticeable as a setback.

And then you have a sheer height above that.

I also think that the building line,

and we heard a little bit about that this morning,

the historic building line, which is effectively

back a footway versus the current building line, which

is set further back than that.

This building goes somewhere in the middle,

so it will step forward of the existing building line,

but not quite as far forward as the historic building line.

And I think that is a bit of an issue.

It creates some awkward corners.

I think the facade treatment creates some recesses,

so things like where you've got the plenum vents.

They're set back slightly, creating

the kind of slightly difficult, awkward corners

that secured by design officers always

kind of request you not to have where sort of antisocial activity can can be

undertaken. Moving on to Calvin Street I think I find that the front a little

confused there's a diagram in the the DAS page 52 where it sort of talks about

the logic and the design behind that facade.

But in my view, it doesn't really align with anything.

You've got these, you know, it talks

about the scale of the residential buildings

next to it.

But the overall height of the building on Calvin Street

is more than double the height of the residential buildings

immediately next to it.

And even though they've tried to break down

the facade with these false windows and other things that

are of a more human scale, you've

then got these two massive loading bay doors that

are effectively pretty much the full size

and height of the adjacent residential building.

So I don't think that it's successful in the way

that it's tried to kind of mediate

between the residential buildings adjacent

and the industrial character of sort of round the corner

slightly more into Grey Eagle Street and although the upper floors are set back

which does provide some benefit in some of those immediately local views I

think the overall scale of the building is still perceptible and certainly the

treatment of that facade which doesn't have any you know it's a residential

street I think on the other side it looks like there are historic probably

historic retail units that have now been converted into residential so you've

sort of got shop front type scale.

But what you've certainly got is that strong rhythm

of doors and entrances and what have you,

and you lose that completely.

You've just got these two large loading bay doors

and I think it's a fire exit entrance.

So you kind of lose that rhythm

that you get on the street otherwise.

Good, thank you.

So staying on Grey Eagle Street, but thinking

about the cumulative streetscape,

townscape implications with the Eli's Yard proposal,

which obviously he got an elevation on,

Grey Eagle Street, I can ask you to discuss

this aspect of the cumulative, these two bits of the scheme.

And perhaps to do so, we could look at the design response document for Eli's Yard,

which shows how they've sought to address activation issues.

So that's CDD13.

And within that, CDD13.

the

Start on

page seven and if you can just go through to page nine and

Perhaps the best of you explain

What you understand is going on there and your views on the successfulness and of that

If that were to come forward in addressing these concerns about Grey Eagle Street

Yeah sure so obviously you know focusing on the data centre building there is a

clear relationship and cumulative issue between the two buildings on Grey Eagle

Street they both front onto the street they're kind of opposite each other on

the street and I think that really compounds a number of the issues and the

in the townscape terms, which we'll touch on a bit more

in a moment, and also on the public realm.

Comes back to policy DA of the London Plan,

which is in a number of parts, but talks about encouraging

and exploring opportunities to create new public realm,

ensuring public realm's well -designed, safe,

accessible, inclusive, attractive,

mutually supportive relationship between space and surrounding

buildings, and ensuring buildings

or of a design that activates and defines the public realm,

provides natural surveillance.

So I think there's lots of really relevant stuff

within the wording of policy D8 that applies here.

And what's shown in this document

is how the original design for the Eli's Yard scheme

effectively had no active frontage windows at all

along that frontage.

it had I think a fire exit door and that was it and a substation through the

design response and following the design officers comments that was

amended so there's now a cafe unit on the corner which kind of opens onto

Eli's yard but has a window that overlooks Greigle Street and then a new

retail unit has been inserted into that side of that building. I think that in

combination with the proposed amendments to the security office and entrance to

the data centre as I said a moment ago are a minor benefit over what was

originally submitted but I still have fundamental concerns about the quality

of the public realm on Grey Eagle Street. I think it's a great missed opportunity to

to really enhance it.

It is part, and I think there's diagrams in,

I forget what it is, the DAS or one of the proofs,

that talks about Grey Eagle Street

as a kind of route to and from Commercial Street

and that kind of wider connectivity

into and out of the conservation area.

Actually, it is popular, there's a lot of street art,

a lot of people go there at the moment.

The new connexion through to Eli's Yard

will hopefully drive more people

and make more of that connexion.

but I don't I'm not convinced that those fairly small changes will make a

meaningful contribution to improving and enhancing the public realm quality on

Grea Eagle Street itself. I think you know the retail unit actually I would

query its viability and whether anyone will want to take it on if it's the only

retail unit on the street it's relatively small in size and you know

It's a gesture, but I'm not sure that it's a realistic one.

And then there's kind of more profound issues

where you've got the ramp.

And I'll talk a bit more about the connexion

when we come onto Edi's Yard in a moment.

But you have that ramp running along parallel to the facade.

I don't know whether you noticed when you were out there.

Because of the historic, I think Mr. Forshaw mentioned

this morning, the old alignment of what

was called Black Eagle Street, which effectively ran

the Dray Walk continuation.

There's actually no footway.

The footway kind of stops where Grey Eagle Street

would have started, and then it kind of doesn't restart.

So actually at the moment, the road, the carriageway

runs right up to the boundary wall.

And there's no suggestion of new footways or anything

to kind of rectify that.

And I'm a bit concerned that it's sort of dumping people

slightly into the carriageway with no real meaningful

improvements to how that street works.

And I think it's a really fundamental point

that a lot more could have been done on Great Eagle Street

to really improve it by looking at the public realm

more holistically as part of both the schemes.

As they've kind of were developed and brought forward.

And I think actually just sort of one thought

that came to me a moment ago,

that I made the comment around public art

on whether public art is a way of activating or more a way of animating. I think at the moment

along the eastern side of the street that's basically a 150 metre long wall of graffiti

and street art. I don't think anyone would say that's 150 metres of active frontage. You'd

probably say exactly the opposite, it's 150 metres of completely blank dead frontage. So I think that

just emphasises the point that both public art can

be a very positive thing.

I don't think it's something that creates activity.

Thank you, that's helpful.

Come back to the connexion in a moment

when dealing with Eliza Yard.

So if you park your thoughts on that.

Just finally on the data centre, if you go,

please to your appendix A, I have it at least behind your proof.

It's called Townscape and Visual Assessment Comparative

Table.

Perhaps you could just, in a moment, just introduce it,

maybe self -explanatory, just introduce it,

what you've done here.

But also, could you pick up perhaps a couple of the key views dealing with this data centre

and Grey Eagle Street part of the scheme?

The obvious ones I think might be 31 and 33, but if there are others, obviously, please

go to those.

Yeah, sure.

So just by way of introducing the table,

what I've effectively done is taken the table from the proof.

I think I'm right in saying it's

option four, which is basically the cumulative table with all

the schemes, assuming they all come forward,

which seem to be the most logical one to use

as the basis.

And then what I've done on the table is the top line,

which is effectively a cut and paste of the assessment

table from the HTVIA. The row underneath in green is my assessment and I've just

highlighted in red where my assessment varies from the assessment that's been

undertaken so it's kind of a fairly straightforward comparison table really.

In doing that I've used as I always tend to do in these things that the kind

of approach methodology that's been used by whoever's done the HTVIA

assessment so that you're not having to worry about different methodologies in

terms of how to approach it. I think the only comment that it might be worth

making here because partly this is an issue around cumulative impact which I'll

come on to in a second is I think I said out in my proof at 4 .4 .9 a slight kind

of query concern I have around the way cumulative assessment is dealt with in

the HTVIA because the way that it's looked at is you've got an assessment of

the kind of the scheme and then cumulative schemes which are

effectively you know things like for example the Bushesgate goods yard in

some of the views which we'll come on to later on but the assessment doesn't

seem to assess both together it seems to be an assessment of the other scheme by

which I mean if it's identified as a significant adverse impact on its own

and then the cumulative for example you maybe you can't see the cumulative

scheme it then says the cumulative impact is nothing but actually it's

still the original you'll still have the baseline it just won't be better or

worse if you like so that was just something that I flagged as an issue on

that it's really worth just pointing out before I start talking about so I

I think, yeah, as suggested, there's probably two views

that are worth looking at.

View 31, which is the view along,

along Grey Eagle Street looking north.

So again, the kind of, I suppose,

the word of caution on this is, this is the scheme,

so it doesn't include the modifications

that were made in the design addendums.

documents but I think what it does show, let me just change my view so that it's

more useful, what it does show is how the the development of both sites in

combination will make a significant difference in terms of the height, the

the massing, the enclosure of those streets and I think it's one where my

my assessment is probably more different than it is on others. I'm not, I don't

think it's a low sensitivity, I think it's, I've put it as a medium sensitivity.

Partly that's because you're within the conservation area so I think that has to

be taken into account when you're assessing the sensitivity of it and my

opinion is that that is a large magnitude of change against that baseline

view it's I don't think I would I would say that's a medium change which leads

to the moderate to major assessment in terms of the magnitude and I think it's

an adverse change I think it it alters the balance of the street between the

width and the height and the enclosure and it makes it feel quite quite

oppressed and that is kind of worsened by the lack of activity at a ground

floor and I think while as I said that the amendments that have been made are

sort of a benefit over what you see there I think they're a very marginal

benefit and it's still fundamentally not going to make that street the kind

of quality of public realm that it could and should be. And then just moving on to

33. Again I think this is one that was maybe touched on this morning. It's this

is one where that you lose the view of that you can see there on the left -hand

side of the Tower of Christchurch which will be blocked by the Eli's Yard building.

And again even you know at this point you can see that upper level of the data

centre even though it's set back from Calvin Street. I think there's you know

it's quite a significant increase in the height and the massing on that site and

even from this angle you can see the the kind of step up in scale of the Eli's

Yard scheme over and above the existing data centre building which is sort of in

the foreground of that view between you and that proposed building.

Good, thank you. So there's nothing more on that. It's going to turn then to Eli's yard itself, going into Eli's yard and looking at the proposed building.

So similar exercise please, if you could start with existing character

townscape and explain how in your opinion the what's proposed the building

proposed relates to that townscape and the impacts upon it please.

Yeah so obviously at the moment it's an open space fully acknowledged it hasn't

been an open space but that's certainly what it is as we see it today. I think it

was it was shown this morning in the photographs the buildings around it are

kind of varying in terms of their height but generally they're fairly low rise

certainly the buildings on the where are we get my bearings on the east side of

which aren't all that high.

It plays a function, and we'll talk about the views

in a minute, but as an open space,

particularly when you look along Dray Walk, for example,

it's kind of obvious as a space at the end of that view,

and I think that's an important part of its function.

and the proposed building is a significant new insertion into it it's

very tall it's taller than the other buildings around it and I think that

it's it will have an impact on the the character of Eli's yard as a whole.

Perhaps just dealing with those views then we've obviously looked at the

the Greigle Street views 31 and 33. Yeah. I'm gonna invite you to do the same exercise that you did with your

comparative table.

I've got three

views down kind of going round the new building to ask you about. Yeah. Any others please mention? The first perhaps is view

36 which is starting from the east and then after that if you go to the south, please.

Yeah so 36 I think is a really important view so this is sort of looking

along Dray Walk it's taken to the side a little bit I suspect that's

because you couldn't stop in the middle to take a photograph because I know

whenever I've been there it's been a continuous flow of people up and down

there but this is one where I think it's really important from an urban design

perspective that you have at the end of that view a site of the open space I

I think, again, thinking about the urban design

concept of serial vision and Cullen's focus, really,

on the experience that you have as you move through the built

environment, I think it's really interesting.

And again, when we do the site visit next week,

what was it, the week after, whenever the next site visit

is, it will be useful to think about that as we walk along

there is actually how the estate reveals itself to you as you walk around it.

And what this view shows is that you've got the activity of the ground floor, it's a very busy

route, it's a very popular route and it's open at the end and that openness draws you towards it

and attracts people to the end to kind of explore what's going on. Certainly on the weekends there's

is a kind of busyness at the end there, which again acts

as an attractor and to draw you through.

And I think what is shown in view 36,

and there's also one of the views, which again, I think,

we saw earlier on this morning in the architect's drawings.

It's more of a close up view, sort

of from the other end of Dre Walk looking forward,

if you like, is that that's lost.

And actually, what you end up with

is a very significant building.

you sort of see its full height pretty much on this line you lose all that

of market hall activity aspect that the part of that ground floor does provide

what you're basically looking at is what looks like just an office building at

the end you get the door of the office building there's no sense at all that if

were to walk to the end of that you would kind of have the yard and all that activity and and the

vibrancy that comes with it and I think particularly on that view that's why my assessment on it

I think in the in the proof it's put down as medium sensitivity which I agree with.

It's been suggested that it's a medium magnitude of change I think is actually a large magnitude

of change it both in terms of its height, its enclosure of the view, its termination of the view

it's the focus of the view. I think that has to be considered to be a large

magnitude change. And in my mind that's moderate to major and it's adverse. I think

there's a kind of tendency within the HTVIA that everything is beneficial and that seems to stem

from an approach which is if you can see the new buildings, the building's a good design,

therefore it's beneficial and I don't take that as the correct approach. I think you have to look

at it in terms of what the view is now and is it genuinely a benefit or not and

in my view that's not a benefit to have that at the end it's definitely an

adverse impact which is why I've drawn it out as being a kind of significant

adverse change. And then the other... Just just pausing there, you mentioned an

architect's drawing or something of that sort as I understand it's... tell me if it's

one but Morris Morris is mr. Morris is proof yeah you've got that yeah and if

you go within that to watch away into it page one nine five yes correct that's

the view that I was referring to I think that sums it up really well that when

you look at that you get absolutely no sense that you've got either the yard or

the market hall the kind of enclosed yard element of it to me that just looks

like a kind of courtyard space that's ending with an office building at the

end of it there's no sense at all of kind of what's going on around the

corner in that view I don't think it would draw you along it

Thank you. Sorry, you were going to, I think, go south and the views I had down, there were

the additional views, 41 and 42 or? Correct, yeah. So there were two additional

viewpoints that were submitted, 41 and 42. So they're not in the HTVIA, I think behind

It's Killele's proof.

You may have them elsewhere.

Yeah, I've got my standalone document.

Again, we did see these this morning,

and they were talked about.

Just on the assessment point, so I've done an assessment.

There isn't actually an assessment of these.

They've kind of been put into the evidence,

but they're not on the table because they were produced after the table was produced so that's why I've kind of got the NA on my

assessment table, but

clearly very high sensitivity, sorry high sensitivity

As was mentioned it's probably one of the the key

locations this road junction within the conservation area

It's you know very popular with tourists as a as a heritage location

I think that the insertion of the building at the end is noticeable. What you've got at the moment is a fairly low, certainly lower than the roofline of the existing residential buildings.

It's a fairly bland, blank wall. Yes, there's a fire escape stair, but it's a sort of a nothing end to that view.

and what you get with the insertion of the building is it's far more faceted

it's it kind of it draws the eye if you like which actually diminishes then the

the view of the housing along the street and from that point of view I've

assessed it as being for medium magnitude of change and because of the

high sensitivity I've ended up with moderate to major and again I think

That's an adverse change over what's there at the moment.

That sort of visual competition, if you like,

that you get from that within those two viewpoints there.

They're sort of similar.

They're just one slightly further away than the other one.

But I would say that the nature of the change and the impact

is the same in both.

Good.

And then the other aspect of Eli's yard

I don't want to ask you about is the connexion.

And to do this, it might be best to go back to that design

response document, which was CDD13, please.

Yeah.

And in CD D13, if you go to page five,

you have the yard and some arrows

showing the new connexion.

and you also, if you go further into that at page 13, you have a layout view which includes,

shows you the ramp down, the new ramp down to Grey Eagle Street and what's proposed

in the yard.

So comment on that please in terms of effectiveness, permeability and any other matters you want

to mention.

Yeah, sure.

So yeah, it's something I've touched on in my proof between I think I start at 4 .2 .19

and actually I've got a figure that's a re -provision of that diagram from page five.

As I say in my evidence, I think that the connexion is definitely a benefit and I think

it has the potential to be a really significant new route into the Truman Brewery estate from

Commercial Street and kind of from that side and that part of the conservation area.

However I think the link as it's proposed is lacking in a number of areas.

I think it's not a direct visual connexion and again that was something that was touched

on earlier on by Mr. Forshaw.

So you've kind of got effectively

there's two openings.

One of them is parallel to the frontage of the Eli's Yard

building.

So if you're sort of stood in a square

and looking towards Grey Eagle Street,

it's sort of round the corner so that you don't necessarily

see that you've got that connectivity there.

And then the other one, which is sort of in the flank wall,

But as part of the new landscape scheme that's proposed,

there's some tree planting and landscape

we propose in front of it.

So actually, I think from a lot of places,

if you're stood in Eli's yard and you're kind of looking

across, you won't even see that there's a gap there.

And you'll be relying on sort of people using

it to draw your eye to it, which is far from ideal.

And certainly won't maximise the benefit of it

and won't draw people through to Grey Eagle Street

and help to provide that level of activation

that I touched on earlier as being

both really, really important to it.

It's also fairly constrained.

I think from measuring off the plan,

they look like they're about 1 .5, 1 .6.

I think on the ramp, there's a landing

with a wheelchair turning circle shown

that's measured at 1 .5,

so I've assumed that that's the width of the ramp.

Sure, I can be corrected if that's not the case,

You know, which doesn't seem very generous.

Certainly in light of the volume of people

that you have around Truman Brewery on a weekend,

that seems quite stingy.

And I don't see why it couldn't have been

a much broader opening that flowed out.

I appreciate there's some level change issues,

and they would need to be looked at

how they could be dealt with,

but effectively you could deal with them within Eli's yard,

so that you could say step down,

so that you were at the lower level

by the time you reached the wall.

And I think, again, just looking at some of the visuals this morning, there's one of,

which we'll talk about shortly, but there's a view of the proposed scheme around the back

of the boiler house where there's the new connexion to, I need to get my lanes right,

but that laneway that's got quite a big gateway and it kind of draws you in.

And I think something equivalent to that here is a real kind of entrance to the, you know,

to say this is an entrance to the treatment brewery estate

is a really missed opportunity on this site.

And I suspect, to be honest with you,

that part of the reason for that could well be,

and one of the reasons that both the design changes

that were made post -submission on Block A

and on Eli's Yard were relatively small -scale changes

that have made an improvement,

and I think that that comes to something which we'll talk about a moment around

design review and the need for design review as part of the process. Clearly

the Truman East site went through a design review process, these two schemes

didn't go through any design review process and I kind of feel that had they

done these are the kind of improvements that would have been drawn out much

earlier in that and while they don't have to whereas the other one did because

it was a GLA referable scheme.

I think there's an issue with the height

of all of these buildings,

that they're all around the 30 metre mark,

and they seem to have been kept just under the 30

to avoid the additional scrutiny

that comes with tall building,

but really that additional scrutiny is very much around,

well, one of the things that it's around

is the way they meet the ground

and their relationship with the ground

and how they activate and interact with the public realm,

And I think it's almost a shame that that was was not addressed at the design stage because I think some of these issues could have

been

resolved earlier in the process

Good thank you for that. So then turning to the third for three sites the trumanese site

Again, Mr. Adams, if you could discuss salient points of the existing character relevant

to your assessment.

And then perhaps dealing with the two stages.

Firstly, blocks 3a and 3b.

And if you could discuss scale and mass and height.

And look at we can, you could highlight the relevant viewpoints.

And then we'll come to finally block j after that.

starting with 3a and 3b? Yeah sure. So obviously very different kind of part of

the estate, very different character. I won't go into the detail of it, we've

heard a lot over the last day or so about the character of that part of the

estate. I think the key things for me are the relationship it has to Allen Gardens,

the relationship it has to the residential beyond to the east and I and

as I said in my proof it's very much a kind of transition point if you like

between the estate and the residential that lies beyond it and that is one of the reasons why

I have real concerns about the scale and mass of blocks 3a and 3b as they're proposed.

Some of that is probably around I think you know I'm not going to get into the detail around

uses but I think you know this is an example of where because they are

proposed as commercial buildings residential buildings with the same

number of storeys would probably be I mean you're probably looking about a

metre per storey difference I guess very roughly so you know they're gonna be six

seven metres lower which is effectively one or two storeys lower so actually

there is an impact on the the appearance and the scale and matting of those

buildings as a result of their their use. I think the way they're designed and the

model to your left there is very is very useful we've already touched on this

issue around storey heights I know there's a lot of discussion around

whether they're you know seven plus plant or eight or how that's regarded I

think the way that they've been designed the plant isn't in an enclosure set back

from the roof it's got a full height facade it reads as a storey of the

building and therefore I think you need to address the building as being an

eight -storey building and that I think is is a kind of design decision that's been

made I agree with a lot of the comments that the design officer made as well

around the sort of the double storey appearance of part of it I think that's

It's really fundamental to almost accentuates

the height of the building.

There's discussion in, I think it's in the DAS,

talks about for block three, talks about this bookshelf

and looks at sort of the rhythm that you

have on some of the other streets

within the character area.

And I don't really think, although they kind of suggest

that they've tried to do that here,

I think the scale is just completely different.

It's not a human scale that it's done it.

So you end up with very long facades.

They're not broken down to the kind of grain.

You don't have that, the kind of bay level of design

that you get on either the industrial buildings

or that comes through into the residential buildings

further down and that accentuates the scale

and the massing when viewed from Allen Gardens.

And if we turn to the views, I think,

View five is the first, I think.

See what page that is.

Okay, yes, actually no, sorry,

this is the further away one, isn't it?

So, yeah, so view five is from Brick Lane, looking across,

and I think this is one where that the kind of the additional height that you

get as a result of these you know touching on just that kind of extra

couple of storeys that you get these being commercial buildings rather than

the residential sort of really starts to pop up so you see there I think

particularly in the winter view but even in the summer view you know it it's a

noticeable change within that view.

I think in my assessment,

let me just double cheque what I said.

Yeah, so this is one where I agree with the sensitivity,

medium sensitivity.

It's assessed as being a small magnitude of change.

I think that's a medium magnitude of change.

I think when you look at it,

particularly when this is one where I think

it's really important to kind of be there on site

and look at it and you when you appreciate the scale of the buildings in

the foreground but they've got that sort of slightly odd arched roof feature on

them and then you sort of look at how much taller the building will be than

that I think this is one where it does become much more noticeable and there

will be I think a medium magnitude of change within that view it will be quite

noticeable and I don't think it's a beneficial change I think it's certainly

an adverse change on that viewpoint.

So that's what I've recorded in my assessment.

I think then probably the next one is seven and eight.

So yeah, so these are the views from Allen Gardens.

So I think there is quite a few of them

because there's winter and summer views for both of them.

I think, again, agree with the assessment of these being

high sensitivity change.

I think I was quite struck by, in the accompanying text

in the HTVIA, it talks about the relationship with

and the view to the city of London

and the kind of tall buildings, the tall building cluster,

sort of the glazed skyline of the city of London,

and I think there's actually a really nice juxtaposition between that sense of those tall buildings.

You get the clear view of the chimney, the kind of much lower buildings in the foreground,

both in terms of the existing brewery buildings and also the residential that's to the side of Allen Gardens.

And there's a real sense here of being close to the city but not in the city.

You get that real kind of balance between the two.

And with the proposed buildings, that's completely obscured.

So you basically lose, I would say about 99 %

of the view of the city cluster in view seven.

Even more so in view eight, it disappears completely.

I think in both of those, there's a cumulative impact

where one of the towers from the Good Yard site

will appear within the background of those views.

but I think they kind of really start to foretell a change in scale which isn't

appropriate in my mind for somewhere that's this transition point between the

lower rise, the residential areas and the kind of city beyond it. I think it needs

to be a more gradual change in height and that lower buildings along this

frontage, more broken down, kind of more human scale and again potentially this

is where a change of use would be beneficial if it was residential you

might have things like balconies and a very different format to that facade and

it would it would really create a much a much better relationship between the

OpenSpace and the Truman Brewery site.

And then next view, talk about is view 12, I think.

So again, yeah, view 12.

So we're looking along Buxton Street here.

It's something we heard a little bit about again earlier on

So you've got quite a nice juxtaposition here

between the chimney and the kind of city towers beyond.

And I think this is one where you then get the corner

of block three appearing.

It's a significant step up in change,

quite an abrupt step up in change

from what you kind of see around it.

I'm not sure about the sawtooth roof.

I know that's a kind of, I feel it's a slightly contrived

industrial building factory aesthetic and I don't know that it's appropriate

for this and while the the lower height element on the actual corner itself

which obviously has been done to partly respect the cooperage building around

the corner I think what you see from here is you don't really get a sense of

that it kind of you because you get that full height of the the mass behind it

There's kind of limited benefit really from from reducing that height when

viewed from this side certainly when you look along Spiddle Street which I think

one of the views will in a moment it's a different situation but from this view

you don't really get benefit from having that reduction in height on the

corner.

Next view, 13 and 14.

Yeah, so 13, looking further along, this is the one I was just referring to a moment ago

where you've got that kind of the big entrance way, it's sort of marked as an entrance into

the site.

This is one where actually, I think this might be the only one where I actually said that

I think it's better than what was in the HTVIA.

So again, yeah, this is assessed as being medium sensitivity,

which I'd agree with.

Highlighted here is a medium change.

I think it's a large change.

I think the removal of the wall and everything

that you see on the left -hand side,

appreciate the differing views from my heritage colleagues

around the kind of value of that but I think purely from a visual and

townscape point of view what you see there is a really really large change in

the view not not a medium and I totally agree that I think it's a beneficial one

in townscape and visual perspective so to my mind that would be a moderate to

major beneficial impact not just a moderate beneficial one and I think

that is important to kind of highlight that

as being a positive from the scheme.

And then view 14, which is sort of from the corner looking,

corner of Buxton Street, looking down Spital Street.

And again, this is one where you get a sense here

of the significant, the mass on the corner.

Again, I don't really think that that sort of setback

that's made after the third floor,

You don't really get a major benefit from it.

I think you still get a strong sense

of the massing that sits behind it.

Yes, the parapet line continues through,

but I still think from a townscape perspective overall,

that's quite a significant change.

And we'll come onto Block J in a minute,

but I think it's also very noticeable in this view,

the increased height on Block J

at the sort of end of Spital Street,

as you look down there, you can kind of,

you see that Spital Street block of Block J

at its full height, and I'm sure we may well

come back to that in a minute, and that, again,

is why I've said that it's a large change

and not a medium change, and I think

it's an adverse change as well.

And then I think finally, just to go to view 34.

which is on page 228 onwards.

So this again is kind of looking along Quaker Street,

so you're sort of looking towards it

with the boiler house in the foreground

and then the scheme in the distance behind it.

And this is one where in terms of the assessment,

So this is one where I agree with the sensitivity of the viewpoint. I agree with the magnitude

of change but I don't agree that it's a beneficial change. I think it's an adverse change that

the building as proposed clearly in my view sort of starts to compete with the prominence

of the Boiler House building. I think again that was a comment that was made

I think it was by Mr. Frohnemann yesterday that was sort of talking about how that

was the stables block as it was when Bill was very much seen to be the kind

of the public face and everything behind it was subservient to it and I think

what you see from this view is that that that shifts around and suddenly the

proposed development becomes the dominant feature in the distance in that

view with the listed building in the foreground becoming the secondary

building and I think that's an adverse townscape impact. I'll leave the

heritage impacts to others.

That's it on the views. Thank you. Just before you go to block J, there are some

comments in your proof about going inside or adjacent

to blocks 3A and 3B in terms of grain, scale, and rhythm.

I think you've talked about the chimney lane, opening

an entranceway, gateway as you called it.

There's also cooperage passage.

Any comments on that?

Yeah, so I mean, this is just really around.

It comes back partly to use, I guess, partly around hierarchy and the nature of the public spaces.

I think I'm saying with proof that, broadly speaking, I think the public realm and the way that it's been designed is pretty good.

But I do have a concern around the hierarchy.

So what we've got here is where Chimney Lane is the wider of the two streets,

But it comes out and terminates on, to be frank,

quite a horrific residential building

on the other side of the road.

And a lot was made in the presentations we heard,

the opening architects' presentations about

the importance of the link with Allen Gardens.

And I fully agree with that and that route through

and that pedestrian connexion.

And yet the physicality of that connexion

is that it's much narrower.

You don't get the same benefit.

It's also pretty inactive.

There are active uses on the two corners.

But actually, once you start to go down it,

you've got the core of one building

on your walking from Allen Gardens into the site.

You've got the core of one building

on your right -hand side.

You've got the loading bay of the other building

on your left -hand side.

So there's not going to be the activity and the precedents

that we're shown and we talked about,

and things like Dre Walk as a precedent of that quite

intimate space, which it is quite an intimate alleyway,

but it's lined with shops and bars and restaurants

and activity, whereas this won't be that.

And I think the window which was suggesting

some visibility of lorry tyres and the loading bay

as being a moment of delight, I thought,

was again kind of quite a poor attempt to justify why that space was

the way it was and I suspect that there's an element of the use coming to

play in that. I think if it was residential it wouldn't need a massive

loading bay on the ground floor. I think the original pre -app drawings which are

included in one of the documents show that there wasn't originally a loading

bay on the ground floor of that building so I'm not sure what the kind of design

development was that introduced the loading bay onto that corner but I think

there's a real missed opportunity there to have more active uses to draw people

down that as a laneway and it's quite you know because of the nature of the

commercial building is quite a deep a deep laneway and then when you look up

You've also got the bridges that go across above.

And again, we heard a lot about those over bridges

as being a character of the Truman Brewery estate.

And I would agree that they are quite a characteristic feature.

But they are on their own.

And I think if it was one at the first floor that was across,

I think that would work.

But actually, what you've got here

are effectively one at the first floor,

and then a whole raft of them at pretty much every single level.

And that's not any, there's nothing of that character within the estate at all.

They're at most kind of one and a half, two storeys in height. And that's right

above Brick Lane which is the kind of you know the main, I think it was

described as the spine through the conservation area this morning. So I

think it's very different. Yes, you know, nice feature if there's one of them at

one level but I think having masses of them actually detracts from from that as

as a concept, as an architectural concept.

Thank you.

We then do turn to block J. And if you can first

deal with the context, the character, the urban block

which has been completed, and explain your views on how

the proposal relates to that.

And I think there's one particular viewpoint

viewpoint 19 any others obviously discussed them as well but you wanted to

highlight yeah a couple of things on this I I think obviously you know

residential is an entirely inappropriate use as I said it's you know we're in a

transition zone here I think if you look at the rest of that block it's actually

quite interesting the morphology of it because the Hanbury Street frontage

you've got retail ground floor with residential, possibly

some commercial, I'm not sure.

But it could be either.

I think it's mostly residential, certainly now residential,

above it, over three or four storeys.

And I think the sort of, if you like, the block J in three

parts, I'm not sure why the decision was

made to put a gallery on the ground floor of the Hanbury Street and then to

put a retail unit on the Woodseer Street because actually accepted that there's a

consented scheme for effectively retail frontage on the other side of Woodseer

Street as part of the brewery but certainly at the moment and on the south

side of Woodseer Street it's entirely residential with a sort of former

warehousey kind of industrial building immediately next to it there's no

retail on that frontage at all so I'm not really sure why it was felt that

that was I would thought it would almost be the other way around you'd want the

retail and the retail street and the kind of art gallery on the other street

but that's just kind of one observation comment was made around the commercial

element I don't think it's appropriate I commented in my proof I think it

causes some awkwardness within the courtyard

I quite like the courtyard and the way that that works as part of the residential but I think it could be improved by having

A an all residential block I think scale

Largely of the two

smaller blocks

On the two streets is it's fine. It's really the scale of the much larger block at the end

That I I find

overpowers really Spital Street. It's not a primary street, it's very much a

secondary street. It's residential along one side of it. It sort of it marks the

end of the commercial area and I think what's proposed is a lot taller. I think

if you look at the second home building on the other side which in the

presentation we heard was talked about as being a six -storey building but

actually if you look at it it steps that down so that the frontage is I think

three might be four storeys and it effectively carries on the roof line of

the sort of more traditional shops next to it which is sort of ground

floor retail with three storeys above it so I think this site almost doesn't do

that it kind of expresses its full height to all that so certainly to the

Hanbury Street side and to the Spiddle Street side it has that slightly peculiar

sort of downgrading on the other side where it's opposite of residential building but I feel

this is somewhere where an all residential scheme would have worked a lot better.

I'm not convinced about the argument made around building frontages and the importance of building

line because actually it sets that back so again you know where you most perceive building line is

as human eye, as kind of human eye level,

when yet at the end you actually pull it in.

You've got the sort of colonnaded balcony structure.

So if you're walking along Hanbury Street

towards Spital Street, the front disappears

because it's pulled back.

So I would have thought if you were really concerned

about building line, you would have that

as a retail frontage all the way to the edge

of that building.

I'm not sure why it's pulled back.

It says about generosity of footway,

but I don't think there's a particular issue with footway width there. I think there's some cycle parking provided

I'm not sure whether it was to accommodate an element of cycle parking

But yeah, I'm just not I'm not convinced and I think if you look at view 19

That really emphasises the kind of scale particularly of that end

element to it

and how much larger it is than the buildings around it,

particularly in the winter view where you can see

the residential building that's sort of

on the opposite corner of Woodseer Street,

which is significantly lower.

You can see the residential,

the existing residential buildings

on the other side of Spital Street, much lower.

You sort of just about get the corner

of the second home building in this one,

but I think that is a building

which is just too much scale and massing at that location which should be marking

a transition point rather than being a kind of hard stop which is how I'd

describe it there and that's why I think in my assessment yeah so that's one

where I'm saying that it's it's large I don't I don't see how you can consider

that change from the single -storey Cash and Carry sitting in acres of parking to

that solid mass to be a medium change to the view I think it's a large change to

the view and I think it's an adverse change because of the quantum of

building that's shown in it.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

That's what I had to ask you.

Anything further that I've missed before I – no?

No, thank you.

That's the evidence in chief.

Thank you very much, Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Reynolds.

I'm obviously going to suggest we have lunch break now.

We're at 5.

We'll resume at 5 past 2.

Mr Harris, do you have an idea how long we might be in?

Yes, I think about an hour maybe, sir.

I already indicated to my learned friends last night that we'd certainly be looking to carry on with the evidence further after that, subject to re -examination of course.

Is everyone content with that, Mr Wahl? Excellent.

So who will you be calling first, Mr Harris? Just that I know now.

I think it's likely and more sensible to be Mr. Yeoman because he speaks to the wider,

but as I explained to my learned friends, you've given us the very helpful opportunity

to present.

So as usually would happen in these cases, I would stop and then tend him for cross -examination.

And I see no good reason for not doing that this time.

I can pick up the points that are raised in re -examination.

so I'm minded to tender as opposed to take further time.

I'm content with that. Mr. Wall, do you want to say anything?

Absolutely, yes. It sounds very sensible.

Ms. Curtis?

Yes, yes.

Good. Okay, well, in which case we'll convene back here at five past two and see how we get on.

Excellent. Thank you, everyone.

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 - Thursday 16 October 2025, 9:30am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry AMThursday, 16th October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Thursday, 16th October 2025 at 9:30am