Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Friday 17 October 2025, 9:30am

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Friday, 17th 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.

Two things. The first was arrangements for the site visit and some suggestions about

where and how we might go about that. What I'm going to suggest is rather than me sort

of set out how I wanted to do it, what I'd welcome is if the relevant witnesses could

get themselves together and draw up an itinerary, and then we can all follow that if the itinerary

is agreed. That's the way we'll do it. I mean, I've spent a lot of time in the area because

I've been staying locally anyway. So I don't think you'll be taking me anywhere that I'm

unfamiliar with, but it's as well that we do it all together in accordance with an agreed

schedule. So I'm going to leave that with you, if that's okay.

Yeah.

It makes sense for us to put a little roadmap on that for you.

It's going to be a kind of what the people call a kinetic experience.

So we're going to walk around.

So I'm happy to do that in accordance

with your agreed wishes.

I've got no strong views

about what order we should do it in or anything else.

So I'm happy with that.

The second thing was from the council about remote access

to the third -party session.

I'm grateful to the council for facilitating that,

because I think, you know, I don't want to preclude anyone

from taking part.

and I'd hoped that having a public session starting at three

and going on as long as it took might do that.

But if people find that difficult

and want to join us remotely,

I'm perfectly happy to do that.

So I'm very grateful to the council for facilitating it.

And yes, I do think it would be a good idea

if something is put up on the inquiry website

so that anybody can get in touch with the council.

I think the message said something about setting up

one of those teams meetings or something,

so there's a link and people can join.

I'm quite happy to do that.

I think it's a good idea.

I've got nothing else.

Mr. Harris, did you have?

Well, not really, sir, but it's just a heads up

on where we might reach today.

I've had useful and reasonable discussions

with my learned friend who I think has spoken

to my other learned friend.

And we're of the view that the natural thing to do today

and for other reasons, but really,

I think the natural thing to do today would be to seek to try

and finish Mr. Morris and to hear Mr. Dan in chief,

and we think that will bring us adjacent

to your time to leave.

I'm content with that.

That's all been discussed among, perfect.

Thank you.

I do like it when other people make these decisions for me.

Excellent.

Good. Well, Mr. Wall, Ms. Curtis, did you have anything you needed to raise?

I have only one matter that my mother friend and I also had a quick word about, which is

this issue that you raised on day one about the possible permutations in relation to granting

of permission for one of the sites or two of the sites rather than all three of them.

If it were helpful to you, it might be if there were a few spare moments left over today

of assistance for us to have at least a preliminary discussion about that, subject to whatever

instructions are taken by.

It's just something that occurred to us that might be helpful for you to hear.

Happy to have that discussion.

It's just something that struck me.

That it's been presented to me as one scheme,

but it is broken down into three elements.

And being broken down into three elements,

there are inevitably some permutations.

So I'm happy to talk about it, because I'm just

looking at it from the, well, when I thought about it,

I was looking at it from the outside.

Obviously, we're all involved in it now.

So it's not quite the same.

But, yeah, if there are any complications or any difficulties about that, then I think

I'd want to hear them.

Good.

I agree.

That was my idea for a time filler if we needed one.

And if we do, we can get that.

I think it's fair to say at this stage that I don't think either of us anticipate wildly

different submissions being made to you in relation to that.

I think it's reasonably straightforward.

forward. There are three separate applications. Each can be granted or refused. You can grant

one, grant two, grant three. It's the process that you need to go through in order to do

that that we'll be helping you with. You mentioned also the issue of a split decision. I don't

think strictly speaking any of the – it wouldn't be split, but I think there is

– we did look at, because you asked us to, the potential for the main block, which has

got two sites to be split.

So theoretically, as a matter of law, that might be possible.

But we don't think so in the circumstances of this case.

When I say we, I'm talking about this side of the room,

but I'm not sure my bonus friend takes a different view.

The cash and carry needs to be relocated.

That's the Councillor clear on that, and we agree.

That would need to be relocated to the main site.

And I think, therefore, in those circumstances,

is a split decision is practically not

likely in those circumstances.

Does that make sense?

It does.

I mean, it does.

I merely raised it because I've come across this situation

before where dealing with schemes that are on split site.

And I was told in that case in Woolwich some years ago

that I couldn't, if I could have,

I would have permitted or recommended

that one of the sites just go ahead, but the other didn't.

But I was told at that inquiry that you can't split it

in that way because the viability and dynamics of one

site depended very much on the other.

So there was just no point in doing it.

They're inextricably linked.

It made it easier for me.

I think it's very case specific.

And there will be some cases where clearly you can

and the courts say that you can, and other cases

where for the factual matrix that exists, it doesn't occur.

I hope we'll be able to provide you with an agreed

position in relation to that across all three of us.

Well, so I'm not sure whether you, shall we return to this or?

Yeah.

Yeah, well, there's just one addition, but I'm very happy

to wait until either the end of the day or next week.

Oh, yes, no, it's just if you are considering a grant in relation

to one or other of the constituent elements of the overall scheme, it will of course be

important to understand when it comes to balancing benefits against harms, which are site -specific

benefits, and then in addition to that, which are the synergies that may exist between different

parts of the scheme.

I'm sure that's achievable, but it needs some thinking about.

One would need to be very careful with that.

Yes, quite.

I agree with that.

Well, and we've got the position, haven't we,

where in this case officers recommended a grant for two

of the three and a refusal for the other.

So that's an exercise, if you like, in one way or another,

and whether you agree with it or not, that's been undertaken.

Maybe we can return to this later.

Is there anything else?

Mr Flanagan, I'm going to hand back to you then.

And Mr Morris.

Thank you, sir.

Morning, Mr Morris.

So turning to Eli's yard now, if you

go to your proof of evidence, please take it up at page 170.

Thank you.

And on page 170, you see a layout proposed for Eliza Yard, the building and the open

space.

and we see the connexion which Mr. Reynolds gave his views on in evidence

in chief and if we go over to the next page we get some explanatory text page

171 paragraph 3 .40 .2 on the left -hand side. The new connexion West to

Grey Eagle Street and Corbett Place,

more effectively knits the yard into a wider network of streets

while maintaining its pocket -like quality

as an urban space.

Mr. Reynolds, based on some of the drawings,

estimated those two doorways, portals,

whatever you want to call them, were about 1 .5,

1 .6 metres wide each.

Sound about right?

Sorry, roughly.

That's correct.

Thank you.

So that's what's happening.

That design rationale to more effectively knit the yard

into the wider network of streets,

wouldn't that design rationale be better enabled

by opening up Eli's yard properly on the west side here,

as it was until the 1970s with Dray Whort continuing,

an actual street or at least passage going into Grey Eagle

Street?

We did consider a number of options for this location.

I think where we've landed, whether you believe it

or whether you've kind of sort of accept it or not

or believe it or not, is an idea of trying to maintain

the enclosed sense of the yard.

We felt that was quite important.

There was a number of options about having a more visible opening, a wider opening, a

grilled opening, but I think on balance we felt that by having a sort of more discreet

opening it would still create that kind of sense of enclosure which the yard, for us,

it felt quite important that it did maintain that.

Obviously Draywalk and its position as it came through into Grey Eagle was in a different

place, so in this place it's definitely a sort of secondary or support or complementary

to the main route here in North Hanbury.

Yes, okay, but we've heard from Mr. Yeoman, we've seen it in his evidence, the master

planning rationale on the main site with the two, indeed three if you count Black Eagle

Yard, the three yards and the lanes and passages from those to the open space to Spittles Street

to Buxton Street, those reflecting the lanes

and passages in the area, five, six, seven metres wide,

all of them.

On the one hand, the appellant is saying,

well, that's what's appropriate.

That's the character, five, six, seven, indeed, slightly more,

metres wide.

Here in another part of the Truman estate,

we're told that 1 .5 metres wide, that's inconsistent.

precisely with Mr Yeoman's...

Well, there are other means of getting into and out of the estate, aren't there?

So at the moment what we're focusing on are the key passageways,

but there are other means of gaining access into all parts of the estate,

and the widths of those are at all different sizes and scales,

some gated, some not, some with doors.

In this case we already have two primary passageways of different dimensions,

scales, compositions, experiences, openness and closeness from Hanbury

and from Brick Lane entrance up Dray. So this again this is a complement to that

not intended to be an extension of that. Yes I see that so coming from the south

from Hanbury Inn and as you say to Drayth Walk, though both of those seven plus

metres wide or so I'm just going to put you Mr. Morris that that this new one

reflecting near a historic street, Black Eagle Street.

This new one, there is a particularly acute need

to open up because of the problems

from which Grey Eagle Street suffers.

So where there is, despite that acute need,

I'm gonna suggest, for greater permeability,

arguably greater than even you,

where it's proposed on the main site

with those five, six, seven metre openings,

passages, you've gone the other way and it simply doesn't serve what's necessary

in character, townscape, public realm terms. Well again I beg to differ.

Without wanting to repeat myself the reasons that it is in the composition

format that it is is because everything I've just described to you. Good okay

We'll turn then to scale.

On this in your proof, if you go to,

can we have a look at page 236?

236, did you say?

OK.

Okay. And on page two, three, six, on the right hand side you've got a drawing

which indicates storey heights and then on the left hand side you've got a

diagram with heights and dimensions and in your text at the top 4 .14 .1

I think you'll help me say please note storey heights vary, a clear indication of

surrounding building heights can be seen from the following pages of section 3. So

I'm just going to deal with metres at the moment because of your fair qualification

about storey heights varying.

So looking at the drawing on the left hand side with the heights in metres, we can see

the space where the proposed Eli's Yard building will be.

and looking around it, I'm going to start with the buildings directly fronting Eli's yard.

So to the north of the proposed building, 21 metres, that's the existing data centre.

To the east, directly fronting Eli's yard, 19 metres.

Heard from Mr. Forshaw about that.

To the south, Eli's yard directly fronting, 19 metres.

So on those three sides, we've got 19, 19 and 21.

And then finally on the west side, a slightly more complex picture, because we've got the telephone

exchange at 19 again, got the derelict Block A building at 17, and then I'm going to suggest

partly fronting or behind Corbett Place, we've got Jack's place at 26. Mr Morris, with the exception

of the partial elevation of Jack's place which fronts the corner of Eli's yard, all

those buildings directly fronting Eli's yard are 19 up to 21 metres. The proposed

building is 29 metres, almost 50 % taller than everything else fronting Eli's yard.

50 %?

Yes, going from 20 to 29, 19 to 29.

OK.

Question?

Yes, OK.

But that's factually correct.

Correct.

That simply doesn't knit into the existing character

around facing Eli's yard, does it?

Well, again, knitting isn't just a question of height, is it?

Knitting is a question of all sorts of different things.

I've got to ask one thing at a time, though.

So I'm on height at the moment.

OK.

So in terms of height, I would say

that the building isn't grossly out of scale with its surrounds. You'd fail to pick out

block G, sorry, block C, which is at 30 metres, which would be higher than what we're proposing.

And obviously what we're not proposing is a single mass at the 29 storeys. It is articulated.

It steps in two critical places. The plant, which is at the highest point, is stepped

in. So again, absolutely it's higher. And we all know that because we can read the figures.

but the approach that we've taken is one to integrate the scale of the building through

a whole number of different moves in terms of datums and alignments and parapet heights

and set downs in order for it to knit in, mindful that it is of an increased height,

but we believe that it's an appropriate scale and that the scale of the site can handle

it.

Yes, I see Block C at 30 metres. I was careful about that because I was focusing on those

buildings which directly, if you're standing in Eli's yard, that are directly in front

of you. In block C, I see it there, it is not directly fronting Eli's yard, it's

slightly set back, isn't it? Well if you take your view that that height

is a problem, then there are many instances across the existing estate where you have

the juxtaposition of scales, are those an issue? What you're suggesting is that everything

should effectively be at a similar scale and it's clearly that's not how the estate works.

The estate is a sequence of blocks. The heights are appropriate within their context and they

frame different spaces. Some are tight streets, some are open spaces, some are broader streets.

All of these blocks are kind of in some ways, lots of them have been there for some time,

are responding in some ways to the setting they're in.

So in your words, the height ought to be appropriate to its context, the words you just used. So

The starting point is to look at the context and the context here is the the buildings we've just discussed around Eli's yard, right?

That's the what you're talking about. There is the absolute immediate context. Yes

Okay

Just dealing with that still on Heights proposed building is 29 metres on the Eli's yard

It's slightly higher on the Greigle Street elevation because of the drop in street height.

So that's Eli's yard, 29 metres.

Block A we discussed yesterday.

Block A at the tallest point of the building is also 29 metres.

26.

Parapet, if you include to the top of the building it's 29.

The highest point of the building if you put it like that.

Okay.

looking more widely into the schemes before the inspector block 3a is 29

metres yeah and block 3b is 28 metres yes that's correct yeah okay so despite

the separation and distance between those block a 29 he lies yard 29 block

Block 3A, 29, Block 3B, 28.

There is a tall building policy in Tower Hamlets

which applies, which kicks in at 30 metres.

So it's right that you've kept the buildings

across these three schemes just below 30 metres

to avoid engaging that tall buildings policy, yeah?

I don't believe that's the driver, no.

Not the driver but it's...

Well it's a default position isn't it, that we don't end up in a situation where we're

GLA preferable for its height, but that wasn't a driver.

Actually what we're talking about here is a sequence, and again as we know all of the

buildings have different floor heights, different configurations, different construction techniques,

and they're not all within a metre of each other. If you take the difference between

two of the blocks, there's a sort of four or five metre difference, isn't there, from

the 26 metres on Block 8 to, say, the 29 metres on Block 3, there's a three metre jump. So

again, I hear what you're saying, I know what you're trying to suggest, and I don't believe

that was in our frontal lobe that we were trying to do that. Everything here was about

trying to get the right amount of weight and height in the context for each of the sites

independently and they all have different floor heights, different terrains that they're

dealing with, they're stepping down in different ways and we've landed in this place.

You said it's the default position not to go above 30.

I didn't say that, no. I said by default we've landed below 30. I didn't say by default we're

seeking to get below 30.

So again, we've landed as a consequence

of the design process below 30.

Yes, but it's not a coincidence

that they're all just below 30, is it?

It'd be an extraordinary coincidence if -

Maybe it's an extraordinary coincidence.

Well, I mean, Mr. Morris, you say maybe,

but I'm trying to understand because they're not -

Give me a chance.

Yeah, sure.

They're not adjacent to each other.

Block A, Block Eli's yard,

they're close to each other, the street separates.

But Block 3A and 3B -

Well, let's just take Block A for an instance.

If we've got the floor to ceiling heights,

floor to floor heights on Block A, 5 and 1 -1 -2 metres.

So we'd assessed the potential scale in that location

based on all of the analysis that I talked to you

about yesterday to arrive at a certain scale and mass

to take into consideration place and knitting

in the whole kind of daylight, sunlight matters.

And again, you end up with a proportion of building,

and it sets itself.

So we didn't feel that we could take the building any higher.

And it sort of sets itself at that sort of 26 metres

plus the parapet because of the floor height.

So there isn't space to put another floor in,

which would have taken over the 30 metres,

because we've judged at that time

that the scale of the building at that scale was appropriate.

No more than that would be appropriate.

So you land at that sort of significantly below the 30

Well, you did originally have another storey,

so just to be clear.

No, I know.

I know.

But I'd say we weren't trying to, as maybe, again,

I'm not trying to sidestep the question.

But again, it wasn't a driver.

So we did present it as a taller storey.

And the storey came off through discussion,

through the pre -app prompt consultation.

Yes.

You say it's not a driver.

and you told me maybe it's an extraordinary coincidence.

I mean, I want to put it to you that it clearly was an influential factor in your design process

to remain below 30 metres.

Again, I just repeat the answer that I just gave a moment ago,

that it wasn't a frontal, it wasn't a driver.

An influential factor?

It wasn't a driver.

My question, influential factor?

I can't say for a fact either one way or the other to be honest with you.

We weren't trying to design a series of blocks to sit below a certain datum because that

wouldn't be good planning.

The driver here is actually site specific, context specific, programme specific design.

And again, we've landed, it may be if you take a look at the setting of much of the

blocks that there is a sort of scale and we're trying to sit within that sort of shoulder.

buildings over 30 metre would be clearly out of scale so and it just seems to

happen that the 30 metre is also the threshold so there's a sort of you know

coincidence of those two factors. I mean we're designing many

buildings over 30 metres it's not it's you know genuinely not a thing that we

shy away from but in this case it wasn't none of the buildings were deemed to be

appropriate at that scale so we've landed you know some way below.

It's implausible that they all land just below.

It's absolutely plausible because we've presented it in that way.

There's three separate applications with three contexts,

three different structural make -ups,

sectional configurations, and they're not all just underneath 30.

Some of them you could probably get another storey on

if you'd squeezed it, but we didn't.

You were aware of the 30 -metre tool building policy when you designed it.

Everyone in the industry is aware of that as a factor.

It's a known, if you know what you're doing,

then of course it's a factor.

Everybody knows it.

Building up to just below the 30 metre threshold

is not a design -led approach, is it?

It's approach that avoids a threshold in policy, which

has to be a particular line drawn somewhere, doesn't it?

Sure.

It's a dimension in policy.

Yes, so if the inspector were to find that building

Buildings to just under 30 metres despite the different context and character on the west and east side of brick lane

Was influenced by the tall building policy that would not be a design that approach would it

The

Finally on Eli's yard, I've been looking just now

at the building, Eli's yard, as it faces Eli's yard.

Obviously, there's another elevation

which we looked at yesterday, which

will face Greigle Street.

Correct, yeah.

As I say, essentially the same height,

although the street level's a bit lower, so it's 30 metres

around 29.

Just dealing with Grey Eagle Street and Eli's Yard elevation on Grey Eagle Street,

the consequence of going up to 29 metres, not just on one site, but on more than one site,

is that on Grey Eagle Street you get two 29 metre buildings facing each other across the

narrow with the Grey Eagle Street, yeah?

Yeah.

I mean, in elevation, yes.

In a sort of dynamic sense, the buildings

don't present themselves as a full sheer 30 metres,

as you know.

So again, just being clear, that's what you're saying.

Understood.

Yes.

And Grey Eagle Street, I think, agreed by everyone

to be narrow and suffering from public realm issues.

putting to... Sorry, just let go of that again. You're making a connexion between the width

of the... just say it again.

Bury Eagle Street, agreed by everyone to be narrow.

Yeah. And suffering from public realm issues.

Onto that, you are putting not just one, but two buildings which rise at their highest

point setbacks you've explained to 29 metres dealing with the cumulative

impact of both important we do have regard to both yeah it is a justified

concern that that the combination of two 29 metre elevations there is going to be

overbearing and oppressive well again it's a sort of quite narrow position

you're taking because the two buildings set at a slight juxtaposition to one

They're not a direct place.

It isn't a directly appropriated tightening of that space.

It's offset.

The Elley's Yard pushes the building in.

So effectively where the wall line currently is,

that's removed and the building is pushed in, increasing

the width of the centre of enclosure to Grey Eagle

by a further 2 and 1 -1 -2 metres.

The building for Block A pushes only the lower storey elements forward by three metres, the

rest of the building is still set back. And then on the upper levels of Elly's Yard, the

building, you know, the top level and the plant level all push back as well. So again,

it's a judgement on that sort of compositional hole. It isn't just as straightforward as

saying there are two 29 metre buildings pushed tight to one. It isn't like that, I don't

I think there's more nuances

Yes, it has to be judged we've got the visualisation viewpoint 31, but it's the places we get to it

Yeah, okay, so the inspector can take a view on that

Finally then on Eli's yard. I

think I think one of the things you say is the that the

Grey Eagle Street elevation of Eli's yard

At ground floor level

a benefit particularly after you the amendments you put in so there's going to be a retail kiosk on the corner and one further down as

well proposed

and

You also obviously talk about the link and as I understand it what said is that at least in part is

that that

Greigle Street

Ground floor

elevation of Eli's yard plus the link will bring benefits to Greigle Street in

terms of public realm and activation. It's the two kiosks and also the

elevation above with its projecting balconies and Juliet's and so forth so

where there is none there is obviously an exponential increase in activity.

Understood. That's what you say and I mean it's clearly that is a fact.

Yes.

Bear with me.

And you've explained your views on that just now.

And you rely on that to address some of the public realm

issues that exist at present on Grey Eagle Street.

Yeah.

And you rely on that to address those issues which are not

addressed by the data centre, because the data centre doesn't

offer the activity of kiosks and the link bringing people

from Eli's Yard.

Although it does have activity, doesn't it?

There is none at the moment.

So by fact, if there is a sort of 24 -7 operation

that there is activity there, albeit of a marginal scale,

but it's more than there is now.

Marginal scale, yeah.

So the data centre brings activity of a marginal scan.

I think you say Greigle Street elevation, Eli's Yard,

will produce more than marginal.

You just explained it.

So the data centre would not be acceptable in public realm terms

without Eli's yard and the Grey Eagle Street elevation of it

and the public connexion, the pedestrian link coming forward,

would it, even on your case?

Again, I can't make a judgement on that.

And I think it's up to the powers that

to take a view on that. As far as I'm concerned, I think you could land a data centre on its

own merits, given the obvious benefits that it brings to a site which has been derelict

for 30 years, which is clearly a detractor. The public realm out the front of it is definitely

a detractor on the conservation area and how the public realm works and the data centre

and its proposals improve all of that. Yes, I mean, we've got to be careful about improving

a baseline which is very low and improving it by for instance you just

said marginal gains on the basis that you're not materially dealing with the

issues that exist well the marginal gains that I talk about is purely to do

with the the in and out activity of the building but obviously there are other

benefits aren't there to the building being being brought forward yeah I was

Talking purely that module again is purely about footfalling

and out the front door.

I'm just dealing with footfall.

But given the public realm issues, dealing with activity,

given the limited amount of foot from a data centre,

dealing with that public realm issue in public realm terms,

you do need, I think even on your own case,

Eli's yard to come forward to make it acceptable

in public realm terms?

No, I don't think so.

Good point.

Good. Turn to the main site now. Go in your proof, please, to page 47.

It's the principles of massing. Yes, exactly.

So principles of massing principles and we've got three illustrations there,

three steps. Step one is extrude form, step two break, keep, bridge, passage, step

3 divided into 3, and there's more over the page.

So just want to start with step one.

I based these questions on, obviously,

there are further steps.

But I think I'm going to suggest to you

it's important to see your starting point, because that

will influence what comes after.

So looking at step one, step one is

to extrude the form we see from the last line

in the bottom left -hand corner, two eight storeys.

In text above that, so 2 .26 .1, top left of the page,

you explain that the massing design for block three

is described in six steps on this page and the next.

These steps take into account key master plan routes,

the ability for passive ventilation,

and townscape considerations.

refer to massing observations later in this chapter. No reference there to heritage, is

there, despite this apparently being a heritage -led scheme?

Correct in the text, yes.

You would expect to see heritage as a key influencing factor in your step one, if it's

a heritage -led scheme, didn't you?

It was, it's just not written in that way. Obviously, when we're performing this, I mean,

And again that's a really banal step to be honest with you. Again it's a sort of starting

position. It's like a sculptor having a block of stone and gradually creating something

magical out the back of it. That's the starting point. So it's almost a sort of, I don't quite

know how to describe it, but it's a sort of half toed dip sort of thing. But in the context

of everybody in the master plan.

It's like everybody doing it at the same time.

So it's a judgement on the ambition of the master plan,

the understanding of the master plan,

how that relates to its external context.

All of the architects, of which there are five, doing

similar moves at the same time, trying

to work out how the schemes are working towards one another,

gradually building a narrative about the buildings over time.

So it's a sort of, it's a, I mean,

I don't quite know how to say it more than that,

it's a first strike in the sand on which you then start to sort of drive in, push in, press

into as a consequence of all of the other factors that are at play, heritage being a

critical one as well.

I'm going to put you, you say it's essentially banal, first step, but it's a really important

one because you extrude to eight storeys, step one.

It comes from the master plan, that's what I'm saying to you. So again, the master plan

has a, as we know, with all that's accepted, there's a sort of degree of shared acceptance

of the figure ground of the master plan. So the master plan, that figure ground comes

from these critical moves that, as you can see, as we go through these key steps, start

to push the building in, step the building down, and actually cut this cooperage passage

in there as well, which wasn't in the first move. But again, it's sort of in the background

there's an ambition of the overall master plan.

Yes, but just going back to my point, it's not banal.

It's really important because you extrude to eight storeys,

step one.

I could have extruded to 10 storeys.

Hang on, hang on.

I've just tried twice to ask the question.

Give me an opportunity to do so.

It's you extrude to eight storeys,

and to use the sculpting analogy,

yes, there's lots of chiselling that goes on afterwards.

But you never come down from eight storeys.

That original extrude up to date storey influences everything

that comes after in terms of the scale and mass, doesn't it?

It has an influencing factor, yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

What we don't see here is any option analysis.

No, here's a five storey version.

Here's a six storey.

Here's an eight storey.

Here's how we might respond.

And you've just gone up to eight, and I accept that there's clearly significant work that's

gone afterwards.

But block 3A, here as we see it over two years later, is still eight storeys.

Block 3B is 28 metres, a metre less.

Nothing's changed in terms of total math since then, has it?

The drawings are a relatively simple way of describing at a macro level a huge amount

of work I guess. So on the face of it, it looks like we've done very little, but again

we did actually quite a lot. You can see just behind you the extensive inquiry that we went

into as we explored the scheme in its proportions.

Was there an option analysis with different storey heights

to which you extruded?

Yeah, there were lots of analyses

about where the buildings would step,

where the cuts would step, how the buildings would step in.

Absolutely.

No, no, but in terms of initial step,

you extruded to eight storeys.

Don't see any, well, this is an extruding to five storeys,

six storeys.

Is that done? Why don't we see it if it is?

Like I say, this is a very simplified version of the process. Again, in the background there

are lots of wheels spinning and we would have been looking at lots of different options

for the site. But actually landing on one that was in this sort of ballpark and driving

that and as I say it's not in isolation you know we're not designing any of this

in a sort of bubble we're designing it in the context of all of the other plots

sort of spinning at the same time so it's a judgement and assessment of that.

Okay still on the same subject if you go on to page 93 please.

93.

Which is the section, yeah?

Yeah, so this is the section, massing and scale, the headings are still on massing and scale.

And we see from the text at the top of the page, 2 .71 .1,

the section through the site context illustrates the relationship between the massing of the proposed master plan and the massing of the existing Truman building, Truman Brewery buildings.

The heights of the new buildings are demonstrated to be comparable to the existing Truman Brewery blocks,

as well as maintaining similar distances from the Truman chimney.

Block 3B steps down to the east to the left of the drawing below towards the Stuttall House.

So the text there explaining that you're drawing a comparison between obviously the 3A and 3B, the new buildings,

and the existing Truman Brewery blocks.

And we see that in the section below,

blocks Z at the front in the foreground.

And we can see block D and C behind it.

Keep that in mind, if you go over the page,

it gives us an isometric view.

And we can see the chimney.

We can see block Z, block C, block D, those blocks

that you were illustrating on the previous page with which you

were drawing a, you were saying were

comparable in terms of height.

Mr. Morris, we can also see here that the townscape

to the west of Brick Lane is different to the townscape

to the east of Brick Lane.

You do get these blocks to the west of Brick Lane

that are 28, 30 -plus metres high, block Z, C, and D.

You look to the east of Brick Lane, and you don't get blocks of that height, do you, at

the moment?

Correct.

So the one big one, as Mr. Frohman put it, is block H, we can see there.

It's quite striking on site.

Even that only goes up to 20 metres.

is we can see the lower buildings off Code Street

at 12 metres.

Stuttle House gets up to 20.

What you're doing is transplanting

the height from which we see on the west side of Brit Lane

into what is a different character and context

to the east of Brit Lane, aren't you?

It is a different character and context.

clearly been at pains to sort of explain is the opportunity, I guess, or the condition

that is presented by Anna Gardens here, which doesn't exist on much of the rest of the estate,

this vast open piece of land, and the opportunity to better frame it. So it's a sort of, again,

it's a balance of, as you pointed out, a subtle house at 20. If you look at Brit Lane as well

on the northern stretch of Brick Lane above the boiler house, the buildings do step down

as well at 12 metres. So again, there is an existing play of heights and juxtapositions

which work really well as a sort of composition across the whole estate. And again, it's

a judgement, isn't it, against, if you go back to that drawing that you pulled up on

the previous page, about an assessment of the scale and blocks across the Divide, the

emphasis to the church, 3B stepping and I guess an acknowledgement of Stuttle House

as well as it sort of drops down. And then in the foreground of 3A and 3B you do have

this vast open landscape which you don't have in front of Block Z. So again it's

a sort of, I absolutely appreciate what you're saying and again I can't sort of fully disagree

with you about the sort of sense of the scale of these buildings move across but it's

in a different way, with a different context,

and with a different opportunity and setting.

But how is that heritage led when we've agreed

the historic character is different on the east side

and the west side?

And how does it respect the existing character?

If you're taking character from a different part

of the conservation area, and essentially transplanting it

or bring it into somewhere where the existing character is different and in heritage terms

is different.

Yeah, I mean I guess you're looking at it again from a sort of macro position on scale

aren't you? But heritage is more than just a sort of discussion about scale, there are

many ingredients which are at play at the same time. And the notion of the heritage

led approach is one of, again, contextual analysis, it's about sort of material understanding

and analysis. It's about compositional games. It's about form, rhythm, and so on and so

forth. So that's how I would respond to that question.

Which ingredient of the heritage historic context gave rise to eight storeys? Simple

question.

the reading of the context, the setting of the Allen Gardens and the surrounding estate.

Which you've just sort of pointed to me in the section below when we're looking at the

western section, block C, block D, block Z, you know there's a scale on the estate that

exists within a context which, you know, surrounding the estate there are again lots of streets

with different scales which works perfectly well doesn't it?

Which ingredient of the historic context gave rise to 8th Street?

Isn't the Truman Brewery the historic context?

So that's the west of Brick Lane.

It's in the wider context, isn't it?

So that's it, that's where you get it from.

The Truman Brewery building is in the west of Brick Lane.

Yeah, I suppose so.

And also again, repeating again so that it's clear and it's setting, which is unique.

which is obviously Allen Gardens, which has a kind of heritage and legacy all of its own.

Come back to Allen Gardens.

The process, the stages you went through, we also get some explanation earlier in your proof.

Could you go near the beginning to page 24, please?

24.

Yeah, it's page 24.

It's pre -application number one meeting.

And so we looked at this yesterday

in terms of chronology.

just looking a bit now in terms of height and scale.

On the text on the left, 2 .5 .1, you tell us some of the feedback

received at pre -application number one stage.

2 .5 .2, below that you say the emphasis of the meeting,

that's the meeting on the 19th of July 2023,

focused around the subject of public realm and the ground floor

with limited discussion about massing and architecture.

That's what you say there,

limited discussion about massing and architecture.

I just want to look at the feedback from that meeting.

So for this you'll need a different document.

It's CDD .09, please.

CD CD D. Yes

And then within CD D. It's number zero nine

And it's a letter from Tower Hamlets a pre -application letter dated 19th of December 2023

yeah, and

You've got there I take it yeah good. Thank you and within that if you go please to

It's page 27, paragraph 1 .122, bottom of page 27.

And so what paragraph 1 .122 says is officers are particularly surprised regarding an unsolicited

change in the scale of the proposals on Allen Gardens since the pre -application

meeting. The proposals include in the quality review panel presentation have

surprisingly increased the scale of development on Allen Gardens. This is a

sensitive location forming the edge of a public park within the Brick Lane and

Fournier Street conservation area and forming the setting of a listed boiler

of the listed boiler house and iconic Truman's chimney. The new version creates

a greater scale of development that is less sensitive to the setting of the

Truman's estate buildings and the Truman chimney. Officers do not support the new

version of the proposals. And then over the page we get two illustrations. The

first one is figure 12 proposal of blocks 3a and 3b presented at July 2023

pre -application meeting.

Let me just take a moment to see the scale of 3A and 3B

there in terms of number of storeys and generally.

And then figure 13 below, proposal of blocks 3A and 3B

in quality review panel pack, December 2023.

So there were subsequent work was done.

I'll come back to that in a moment.

But just dealing with where we are now,

what we see in these drawings and this feedback,

the height was increased after the July 2023 meeting.

And the feedback is just quite strongly suggesting

not felt to be appropriate.

Don't mention that in your proof, do you?

In terms of the chronology, as I said, we've got a lot of information on the plots. We

talked about it roughly yesterday, didn't we, about the timing, which I've sort of got

some clarity on. So we were running a sequence of assessments, that's called feasibility

studies on each of the plots in turn, each of them ending with a very high level conversation

about principles of the direction of travel up until the point in which the full team

was engaged in August. So effectively it's a sort of, let's call it preliminary pre -app

sequence of processes. So the pre -app back in July was pre the full team sort of proceeding

at pace if that makes sense.

And then if you look at, in terms of your,

the note here on 1 .122, subsequent to that,

the following Pre -App meeting pushed the building down

by a store across the entire site

as a consequence of that feedback.

One thing at a time, I said I'd come to the subsequent step,

but I'm just trying to understand this process,

this what is suggested to be a heritage

and design -led process. And what happened is in July 2023, you presented a scheme at

pre -app stage. Subsequently, you increased that scheme in height, which officers commented

critically on. Firstly, that is not something that you explain or deal with or give the

design rationale for in your proof, is it?

Sure.

So what we don't find is why it was felt appropriate to start

at what we see in figure 12, six storeys,

maybe going up to seven for block 3A.

What was the rationale to go from that initial six,

seven storeys, up to seven to eight?

A process, that's all I can describe to you, it's a process of inquiry and investigation,

again taking everything, again without wanting to repeat myself, which I'm not going to,

but again everything I've said, it's a continuous process. This is some distance before we're

submitting an application requiring multiple sequences of conversations, pre -apps, QRPs,

meetings with officers, our own internal thinking, and a kind of team -wide investigation.

So it's a case of constantly finding. The design process I guess isn't linear, is kind

of what I'm getting at. It doesn't sort of land in a particular way. You're constantly

trying, and you propose something and then you react to it. So this is a case of trying

to work out where that threshold is in terms of the approach to the project to find the

So again, it sort of, it goes upwards, you take a view, you have a conversation about

it, you get pushback, you drop the scheme again.

Yes, it may not be linear, but trying to understand whether it's design and heritage led, it's

important to understand if it's coherent.

And a moment ago we looked at your proof where you said the first step was to extrude to

eight storeys.

Yeah.

And what we see here at July 2023 is actually not an eight storey scheme.

It's a lower scheme.

That's why I'm saying.

Hang on.

You subsequently increased.

So what was it?

Was the first step extrude to eight?

One to six?

That's why I'm saying the diagrams are sort of a very

shorthand version of a kind of process, which is obviously

much more complex and nuanced than that,

as is demonstrated by the drawings.

So that reference to extruding to eight storeys,

that's an after the event rationalisation.

It's a post rationalisation, yes.

But what we're trying to do here is to, with those drawings,

rather than it being a guide, is to sort of demonstrate

on a simple level how a building of this nature has evolved.

But obviously, as I'm trying to say,

there are many other things happening

which is too difficult to get into a simple linear diagram.

The next stage

If you go back to your proof at page

25 yeah

Is that we've got another drawing and to be clear this is a

Son of different drawings the what two ones we were just looking at in the pre -app response and on the left -hand side

you say feedback from the quality review panel number one meeting third of

December 2023 regarding block three is summarised as follows compression in

height of QRP number one scheme required and then so it's the one over the page

that's different apologies if you go over the page you get that the

compression, I think, illustrated by the dotted lines.

Is that right?

So just dealing with it in turn, on page 25,

indeed, at the top right -hand corner,

we see scheme as presented at QRP1.

This is the one.

You increased it, the officers observed.

And then as you told me a moment ago,

there was some compression afterwards.

And that compression was not a reduction

in the number of overall storeys. It was a compression of storey heights. Yes?

Yeah.

So you never went back to the six and seven storey version, did you?

No. Again, it's a ... Yeah. I mean, I think, again, it's one of those things where I think

we've tried to sort of tackle this in previous proofs and conversations about the danger

of talking purely in storey terms.

I think this is what we've done here is found ways.

So again, just to be absolutely clear,

you can construct a building.

And I think it's quite an important point to make.

You can construct a building of many different materials.

It could be made of timber.

It can be made of brick.

It can be made of stone, steel, and so forth.

And all of those have an implication

for the overall buildup of the structure, which obviously

has an impact on heights.

There's a sort of optimum that you're looking for in terms of clear heights for projects

of this nature to get good daylight in.

So again, we were continuously looking at and appraising structural solutions here.

By reducing the overall build -up of the structure, you can pull the thing down.

And again, as we've demonstrated in the DAS, what we've landed here is a sort of hybrid

solution of, again, driven by carbon where we've got sort of timber and concrete at play

to bring it down.

Yes, I understand.

Hence the reason why we've landed there.

I see that.

So you started with the one that we saw in the QRP,

no sorry, the pre -app, six and seven.

You went up, officers were critical.

You then, there was some compression which we see there.

And then I want to take it on to see

the reaction to the compressed version.

So,

the what we see on page the text on page 26 we've got the image we just looked at

the text is that the title is QRP number panel number two feedback and two point

seven point one says the comments on the previous page informed a scheme

presented at QRP number two on 26th of March 2024 so March 2024 is where we're

now at, where reduction in height and more considerate responses to site heritage features

were well received by the panel. The panel had the following comments. The panel very

supported the proposal overall. And bullet point three I'm interested in because it's

about scale. Generally comfortable with heights. Massing changes since QRP1, well received.

I just want to have a look at that.

So if you call documents, again, if you go to CDD,

and it's CDD 0 .10.

And there are two CDD pages out.

Well, just get the document first.

It's CDD 0 .10, but the first of the two,

it was one called AM and 1 PM.

If you've got the, get the AM one please, CDD .10.

So it's still the same document

that we were talking about earlier, yeah?

No, it's a new document, CDD .10.

CD...

I might need some help actually on just navigating the...

If someone's able to help with the information.

Thank you.

Don't seem to sort of push the...

So the document again is CDD .10.

CD...

And as I say, there are two CDD .10s.

The first in the electronic title of it has AM.

So the QRP.

QRP, yeah.

Sorry for the delay.

No problem.

Point 10, did you say?

And then with it, so just to be clear,

you've got a document headed QRP panel tower

hamlets 26th of March, 2024.

Correct, yeah.

And on the first page, the paragraph on starts with,

we saw a typical massing.

Typical mapping.

Mapping, sorry, yeah.

Yeah.

OK, so this is some of the feedback from the QRP

in the second QRP session, March, after the compression.

So we've got questions, clarifications

is the first heading on page one.

And then if you go down to page three,

there's a heading comments.

And if you look at paragraph three under comments,

it says, generally, the panel felt

that the heights across the site were broadly appropriate,

although local conditions did need to be explored further

and responded to as described in these notes.

So as the QRP have suggested, I'm

going to look further on into these notes.

And on the same page, there's a subheading, key comments,

if you've got that.

Yeah, and under key comments if you go to paragraph 14, please

Which is on page 4, yeah

and paragraph 14 QRP

Say in views of the proposals from Allen Gardens

Panel members felt that all three visible blocks were the same height

They felt that some variety in the Heights was required. It was suggested that the Heights need to reduce towards the east

and that block 3a would ideally be reduced in scale.

Some panel members felt that these blocks would ideally

be residential overlooking the path and so forth.

Just dealing with the scale and mass.

That's what they say in paragraph 14.

And then also relevantly, we have some comments

on the next page under the heritage subheading,

paragraph 24.

We've got that.

And on this front, Paragraph 24 QRP say, whilst there is much to recommend the scheme, members

noted that there are still reservations regarding the height of the proposals within the conservation

area.

There are still elements of the scheme which feel too high, given the low -rise nature of

the brewery buildings and the character of the broader conservation area.

So that's the QRP's position after the compression.

They still have concerns, reservations as to height,

don't they?

Yeah.

And after that, to finish off the chronology,

deal with it carefully in turn.

Deal with blocks 3A and 3B.

After this March 2024 you did not reduce the height to the east

Any more

Not significantly now

You didn't reduce the overall 20 metre height of block 3b

No, and you didn't reduce the overall 29 metre height of block 3a

That's QRP.

And then the final document to look at, as the QRP say,

is the other expert design and heritage input

we're getting at this stage is from expert design evidence,

is from the offices, the play shaping offices.

So that's CDD 0 .03.

So different document please.

CDD 0 .03, correct.

Let's see, got it now.

Place shaping comments.

Exactly so.

And just to understand what these are,

place shaping comments, the date of the comments

we see on the first page, fourth row,

is 23rd of December 2024.

And just to see who is making these comments,

if you look right on the end of the document,

principal place, shape, officer, conservation,

and a design officer as well.

So conservation and design commentary.

And if we, within this, back on the first page,

under the subheading built form urban scale massing in form,

there's a handful of paragraphs to look at.

It's paragraph 1 .2.

Buildings wrap around the corner from official street

to Buxton Street, extending along most

of the block of Buxton Street.

The majority of the block would rise

to eight storeys with lower sections

positioned next to the neighbouring heritage assets.

The block is quite deep and extends significantly

south into site, potentially overwhelming

the adjacent public realm, particularly next to block two.

Eight storeys, the buildings exceed

the height of their surroundings,

appearing monolithic in mass and scale from Allen Gardens.

Just pausing there, I accept you take a different view,

Mr. Morris, but the view being taken by conservation and design officers in the

council is Allyn Gardens does not support an eight -storey elevation. That's

what they're suggesting. And then 1 .3... So these comments are post the

submission? Yes, these comments are post submission. December 2024.

Yeah.

1 .3, while there are several large industrial buildings

within the conservation area, paragraph 1 .3,

the proposed buildings would be much larger and more visible

due to their positioning along Allen Gardens.

Just pausing there, going back to the points

we discussed about west and east of Brick Lane,

taller buildings to the west of Brick Lane, absolutely.

But they're less visible, partly because you

don't have the open space and reviews from Allen Gardens there. And then it

continues 1 .3. Local plan policy SDH 1 emphasises that new developments must

ensure scale of buildings complements their surroundings fitting appropriately

within the context of the area. National Design Guide highlights well -designed

developments should be demonstrably informed by the scale of nearby

buildings considering existing patterns of built form and scale. At the proposed

scale the buildings would not be in keeping with the character of the

conservation area. The Truman's chimney which currently rises above the

surrounding rooftops giving it prominence serves as a local landmark

and plays an important role in the area's identity. The proposed development

however would obscure views of the chimney along Buxton Street diminishing

its prominence due to the competing scale of the proposal. And then finally 1 .5

the scale and bulk of the buildings can be seen in view 7 from Allen Gardens

where they are fully visible but in incidental views such as view 5 from in

front of the railway bridge on Brick Lane the imposing scale and uniform bulk

of the proposals is clear when viewed behind the existing townscape. So some

fairly clear views there from the design and conservation offices. Mr Morris, in

your proof you say that your proposals take account of officer feedback.

I mean it's what you say but it's clearly right that to the extent that

did make amendments in response to QRP or other input or pre -application input

it has not allayed the concerns of these offices has it? On the context of those

words no. Thank you Mr. Morris those are my questions. Thank you sir. Thank you Mr.

Flanagan. Mr. Harris did you have anything in the

examination. Oh, sorry. Forgive me. Forgive me. Ms. Curtis. I'm sorry.

That's okay. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Morris.

Not too many from me, and I don't want to repeat points that I went through with Mr.

Yeoman but thought it only fair to raise a couple of them with you.

You heard the discussion I had with Mr. Yeoman yesterday.

Would you agree that generally there is provision in national planning policy that consultation and engagement with local communities is an important part of the design process specifically?

Yes.

And the process that you followed in terms of community engagement in the design context you've set out in your proof.

If I could take you then to page 134 of your proof.

This is where you deal with public consultation for Ely's Yard.

And again, similarly to Mr Yeoman's proof, you summarise the fact that those consultation events occurred

and refer to the statement of community involvement, but don't set out how that engagement affected your design of the proposals.

Is that correct?

Sorry, repeat.

In your proof you don't set out in this page how that community engagement played into the design process specifically.

And then at page 227

you have a similar page which I think is

pretty much a cut and paste with the same photographs for block A on public consultation and feedback

where you essentially say the same thing. You don't explain how

specifically in the design context, those consultations played into your design process.

And that's about it in your 297 proof and we don't have anything specifically for block

three there. So insofar as public consultation played a role in the design process, it wasn't

so important that you felt it necessary to set up any narrative in your proof of evidence.

No, I can see that.

The consultation, so again, the reason why we haven't sort of, I guess, broken all out

is that all of the blocks in time -as -time are happening at the same time.

So the consultation process was, in my mind, it was on site, it was in a publicly accessible

space that was clearly marked and advertised, consistent, managed I think very professionally,

lots of key data. And the feedback I think generally was broadly positive as well. So

I guess in terms of how the scheme evolved from those, it would have been directed by

the nature of the feedback as well.

Yeah.

Thank you. I can speak to Mr. Marginson more about that process.

But I mean it is the case that in terms of the level of response in the surveys to those consultations,

and we can go to the SEI if you want to, but there wasn't a significant volume of response

for example, to the volume of individuals who have engaged in this inquiry process by

other means.

Yeah, which is interesting, isn't it?

And similar question then to that asked of Mr Morris on the point about the local identity

of the area. Again, sorry, Mr Yeoman, your proof is remarkably silent on the influence

that you think the local Bangladeshi community in Banglatown has had on the identity of the

local area surrounding the appeal sites?

I mean, that doesn't appear to have featured at all in your forensic approach to design.

Yeah.

Do you want me to answer that?

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I think I was sort of thinking about this yesterday when you were speaking

to Mr Yeoman.

I think the principles of his answer are sort of similar here in some ways, that if you

think about the influx of different cultures and people

through anywhere in London.

A large part of the fabric of London is historic,

has been there for some time, and is continuously

reappropriated over time.

So I think what we've been looking

at largely in a lot of this is a fabric -based analysis.

So it's about how do we create buildings

which echo and extend and draw upon the setting that they're within,

knowing that if we build buildings which have a durable frame,

carcass -scale shape,

that all manner of activities can take place with them over time.

So we're trying to effectively build sort of non -specific,

if you get my drifts, not overly complex buildings,

but buildings which can basically take that ongoing continuous change

where a variety of cultures can wash through them.

But that's not something that you specifically thought about before yesterday?

I didn't think specifically about raising it in my proof, but that's the principle here.

It is in the proof. We definitely talk about durability, long -term flexibility, adaptability,

and I think every, you know, Brig Lane is proving to be an adaptive place that can support

and accommodate the rich narrative of this part of London, and has done for generations.

I'm sorry, it wasn't designed to be a Bangladeshi use in some ways, but actually clearly it's

a place that can accommodate that in many other ways.

In terms then of the points about the site being heritage led, Mr Yeoman has referred

to the sites as a whole being heritage led and I think you agree with that approach following

the questions with Mr Flanagan. Just looking at the blocks specifically that you have been

involved with and I'm interested in the historic uses of the site really. I mean

you can see from page 32 of your proof these are some of the historic maps for

the area on which block 3 will sit. Yeah. You can see there that right up

really until the mid 20th century there was residential use on the northeastern

and corner of the site.

And then again, with Ely's yard, there was, I think you say,

paragraph 3 .8 .1 of your proof at page 137.

Historically, there was a mix of industrial and residential

uses on the site as well.

And then similarly with block A, we can go to it again,

but page 230, again, up until the mid -20th century,

a mix there of residential and industrial uses on your site.

But that aspect of the heritage and historic use

mix of each of those sites didn't

influence your design of the scheme at all.

I mean, indirectly, it all does, doesn't it?

And again, I know what your line of questioning

is trying to get at.

I mean, our brief is clear.

The programmes, the briefs, and the instructions which we took

were clear.

And in trying to place, and the building is, sorry,

the city has continuously transformed its business.

It's constantly undergoing adaptation and change,

as can be seen by the brewery site itself.

It's undergone change continuously.

So yes, when trying to place a building in its context, you try as much as possible to

draw on that, the reference points of history, trying to see how they may have an impact

on your reading of that site, whatever the previous use would have been.

And you mentioned there the brief. I mean, essentially the brief that you were given

didn't allow you to undertake an assessment of whether residential uses would be more

That's not the brief that we took, no.

So in relation to Block A, yesterday you said that the brief was a data centre, but now

you're saying that the brief did allow you to consider whether to put residential uses

on that site.

No, you didn't say that?

Why did I say that?

Apologies.

So the brief that you took did not allow you to consider putting more residential uses

on these sites?

being absolutely specific, the schemes that we presented here are as a consequence of

the, directly as a consequence of the briefs that we received. So it was a data centre

and two offices with ground floor range of uses. Residential wasn't in the brief.

Thank you. In terms then of Block 3 specifically, just looking at page 91 of your proof, what

We've got the elevation on Buxton Street facing Allen Gardens.

And you can see some of the uses that are proposed, including restaurant, cafe use.

But a lot of these windows overlooking Allen Gardens are going to be office spaces, aren't they?

Correct, yeah.

And if I can just take you back to CDD 10, which is the document that you were previously

looking at with Mr Flanagan.

CDD 10?

Yes. So that was the design review panel.

Which point?

It's the one again that starts on that. We saw a typical mapping of movement. And I just

wanted to look at paragraph 15. 15. Yes.

Some panel members felt that these blocks would ideally be residential

overlooking the park. As noted in the presentation the development along this

frontage would have been terraced houses and this residential use could be

reflected in the current proposals. A residential use here would ensure an

active use well into the evening and over the weekend.

So Mr. Burrell's concern there about,

and Mr. Forshaw's concerns about inactive frontages

to Allen Gardens shared there by the design review panel,

or certainly not inactive frontages,

but residential uses would have provided

more continuous surveillance of the park from that location.

That's what it says, yes.

And just finally on the adaptability point.

So when discussing the adaptability of the buildings with Mr Yeoman yesterday, he said

that individual block art architects had carried out analyses of tenure splits for individual

blocks.

And I think in your design and access statement for Block 3 and in your proof, you've referred

to these in relation to Block 3, and we can go to them if we need to, but those demise

splits that you've produced are only for tenants using that space as an office space.

That's correct.

That's correct, yeah.

So you haven't undertaken a breakdown of these sites?

So we have done analysis of the blocks

to understand how they could be, over time, converted.

So again, it's to do with the position of the core,

the distances from core to facades, the grid, would they.

And again, the grids can change.

Cores can change sizes, so on and so forth.

So again, there's a judgement here on, again,

on multiple levels.

So again, it's not the line of questioning

and where you're going.

It's kind of quite a narrow one in the context of, again,

many things happening simultaneously.

So we've got, again, heritage setting,

the technical aspects of building, carbon as well,

sustainability, adaptability.

So it's a sort of whole smorgasbord

of different considerations to land

in this particular place, taking into account the potential

for ongoing change.

And so the core is placed in such a place that would allow for, I think, a range of

different uses and functions to easily be accommodated within.

And we've done some very high -level tests just to cheque that in the studio.

In terms of the information that you've put before this inquiry in your proofs design

and access statement, you've done the demise splits for continued office use.

You haven't produced anything to show that these are spaces that could be used as actual

spaces.

And at no point were we asked to do so in the wider sphere.

Again, we've done them in the background, but we haven't done them in the public sphere.

Well, these concerns were raised by the Rule 6 party, and you could have addressed them

in rebuttal evidence, but you didn't.

Thank you, Mr Morris.

Thank you, Ms Curtis.

And apologies again for overlooking.

I'm sorry.

Mr. Harris, correctly this time, do you

have anything in re -examination?

I'll use that.

Are you happy to see anything?

Yes.

Mr. Morris, I'll deal with it in the order

that the questions were asked.

You were asked a number of questions

by my learned friend about policy D3.

Do you remember that?

and you're aware of that I'm sure from other inquiries and you gave the answers that you did.

In terms of D3, D3 deals with the nature of the development, optimising the nature of development

and also deals with land use and we'll deal with this with a planning witness.

But in coming to the appropriate land use for the site, the policy requires you to have regard

to identified needs? Again, more for another witness later, but so far as you're aware

in terms of this case, is there any real doubt as to the fact that there is a very pressing

need for data centres of the type proposed at this location?

and categorically, yeah.

Thank you very much.

That's the end of that issue.

Eli's yard, please.

The access into the site from Grey Eagle's place

was described by Mr. Reynolds as a very significant benefit

in principle.

Do you agree?

Yeah.

And why?

Because it creates that positive connexion

to a part of the street which is clearly locked and set outside of the internal space.

And again, it forges the right scale link, I think, between the street patterns and this new set piece of urban space.

Thank you. You explained a little in evidence in cross -examination why the

party of the access is as it is. Yeah. And I heard that. I just want to explore with

you some aspects of that please. That there's a concept in architectural

theory of compression and release and travelling through space. Can you just say

a little more about that, please,

and whether that's of any relevance

to the circumstances of this case.

I tried to explain that in questioning,

that there are clearly some very direct and much grander roots

and passages which feed the yard as it currently stands.

So Draywalk and the main entrance of Hanbury.

And you may take a judgement on both of those,

about whether or not they are both primary,

or there's a primary and slightly secondary,

and I think there is.

It's about this idea of how you move through spaces, how spaces are revealed to you.

So what this site isn't is a pattern of broad alleyways.

It's a tapestry and a network of much finer grain routes and passages, which the master plan is really echoing.

And so this is an opportunity here to do so in a much more subtle way, make that connexion

between those two street patterns, playing with the level change, introducing those new

functions on the ground floor which kind of anchor the corner and anchor the grounding

as you come down that ramp.

So again, it's one of those, again, it's the right sort of scale to bring the right pattern

of people into that space.

Thank you.

During lots of these inquiries you come across a lot of terms and there are French, Italian,

Latin terms for what I would call discovered views or discovered spaces.

Is that a concept that exists and if so, how relevant is it to the circumstances of this

case?

It does exist.

it's an absolute characteristic of the estate.

And clearly the main site, I suppose,

Resendetre is about expanding that.

And again, our interpretation is to broadly bring us

into the setting of Eli's Yard.

Eli's Yard, how we place the building,

how it reacts to its connexion to Grey,

is also an extension of that same philosophy.

Thank you. Then in terms of the operation of the route in, has any concern been expressed

in relation to the comfort in terms of any other development control issues that the

local authority and Transport for London have assessed the scheme against?

Not to my knowledge.

Thank you.

And we saw yesterday, and I don't suppose we need to go there again, what the position

of the GLA was in relation holistically to this smorgasbord, to use one of your terms,

of accesses, egresses, et cetera.

Did they raise any issue in relation to such matters?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Thank you very much.

I think we got that yesterday, sir.

It wasn't fair.

I know that Eli's yard wasn't.

Eli's yard wasn't, no.

No, sorry.

You're absolutely right.

I withdraw the question.

So strike that from the record.

But we can go to the officer's report, if you like.

And were any of these points against the proposal

taken by officers?

No.

Good.

Maybe we should go to that.

I'm grateful to my lonely friend.

Be wrong to get factual things wrong in all respects,

in all respects.

So let's go to the officer's report in relation

to Eli's yard.

Just bear with me.

Thank you very much.

So you need to go to CD -L03.

And the consideration of design is at section 8.

And in particular, consideration of this particular part of the case, which is the only question

asked by my learned friend of Mr. Yeoman, is at 8 .43.

And this is what officers of his authority say.

A proposal for a new building fronting onto GES is an opportunity to contribute to additional

activation and natural surveillance to improve the experience on the street. The

treatment of the west elevation had been amended during the course of application.

The proposed frontage of a number of elements that would contribute to active

frontages and surveillance. Then first bullet point please, the proposal

introduces a new pedestrian route from Eli's yard onto GES. The existing brick

wall would be cut back to create a new route with a ramped walkway dropping

down to GES, down to the side of the proposed building.

There would be a second entrance via some steps onto GES.

Any criticism there?

Any criticism at any time when you

were engaged with the local authority in relation

to these matters, pre -app, post -app at any material stage?

No, good.

Thank you very much.

Now, some suggestion is made by Mr. Reynolds

that the nature of the route itself wouldn't be noticeable and therefore

might be confusing. Could you tell me something please about the way in which

signage, branding, identification is used throughout the Truman estate? Yeah it's

It's evidently everywhere, isn't it?

It's a graphic means.

Again, a lot of identity, a lot of labelling, a lot of buildings,

forms, and entrances are all.

It's a site which is awash with graphic identity, isn't it?

Yeah, why wouldn't that be the case here?

It wouldn't.

And finally, he raises the really strange combination

of dog, leg, and tree.

Do you remember that?

Yeah.

If and insofar as the inspector believes

that the dog, leg and tree is somehow inappropriate.

How easy or simple would it be for the local authority

to take control of that by a submission of some sort

of scheme to seek if they think it needs improving

or if the inspector thinks it's a point at all

to get rid of the dog, leg and tree?

Yep, very easy.

Thank you very much for that.

Good.

Thank you very much.

That's the end of that issue.

Heights now please. This was asked in the context of Eli's Yard but strained into other areas.

The questions were put broadly. Just straightforwardly, in Morrison Co. or indeed in any of the architects' firms that we've looked at here,

Tell us about your own experience and what you know about others.

What role does the threshold in a policy document, a blue policy document, play in your architectural

judgement as to the height a building should be in context?

It is a governing factor.

It's always on the table for every decision -making.

And do you then design to the context or to the book?

I would say it's simultaneous, isn't it? It's both.

Thank you. And the suggestion here is that somehow you were designing to 29 metres to

avoid the consequences of a policy at 30 metres. So let me ask you this. At Eli's yard, there

the scheme started significantly above 30 metres.

Why was that?

Because we were exploring opportunity, optimisation.

It was a sort of...

absolutely trying to find the best fit on the site

with everything taken into consideration.

Thank you very much.

And now back to the document we looked at earlier.

We looked at it just in the context of that passage.

Can we go to CDL 3, please?

I want to put the questions that were put to you in the roundabout Eli's yard into

context of how they were assessed by the local authority for whom Melina Friend acts. Can

we look again at section 8? And it's under the heading assessment.

which is 837.

Are you there, sir?

Do you remember my learned friend did this thing

of looking at adjacent buildings

and said it was 50 % higher, et cetera, et cetera.

And you said, well, it's a lot more complex than that.

Let's see what officers who've been guiding the height,

including the reduction, say about it.

It's in the location characterised in part

by Truman Brewery Estate, et cetera.

mix of buildings, etc. I'm reading from however, the proposal would be a similar height or

lower than other nearby buildings. Do you agree?

Yep. And while substantial in scale, it would be

in keeping with the industrial scale of the surrounding context. Do you agree?

Correct. And is that what you were being told in meetings

with officers which went on over several years? Yes.

The building would have a chamfered corner and several setbacks to open up views into

the yard and reduce the visual impact of the scale.

Explain to me how those changes, how those modelings came about.

Again, through iteration, you can see from the models

that we have here, the process of architecture

is a continuous one of testing outcomes, I guess,

and playing those outcomes through a group of organisations, whether they be statutory

or in terms of the team, continuously assessing against the criteria which are beyond just

about placemaking. But as I said, there's lots of many different policies and aspects

to take into account. And you continuously model and change and adapt schemes to find

the right fit, and at some point you have to stop, and the application is at that point.

Thank you.

839, the proposal delivers a contemporary scheme that successfully references the surrounding

industrial character.

While not the most innovative design approach, it's nevertheless a successful approach that

would contribute to the vibrancy and activity of the yard and wider estate.

Well, first of all, do you agree?

A hundred percent.

Second of all, there's a sort of implied criticism that doesn't go very far that you could have

been more wacky.

Yeah.

What's your answer to that?

Well, I think it's almost back to some of the questioning I had earlier about, and I

guess my answer being consistent there, which is about I think what we've tried to do

here is to design a sequence of buildings which do fit entirely within the context.

They're not alien.

They clearly have drawn upon and referenced and deployed

a whole range of material, moves, textures, rhythms,

details, which would mean that they sit appropriately

against the context they're sitting in, which is largely

on the, say, on Eli's and Blocher,

sort of an industrial context.

So the building is trying to be, it

The main feature is the square or the yard.

The main feature is people.

The main feature is that richness and vibrancy of cultures in the space.

And we're just a sort of backdrop to that, a supporting mechanism.

So again, secondary to that.

Q845 next, please.

Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposed building would introduce

some beneficial new activity and a significant amount of passive surveillance

over this part of Great Eagle Street.

The proposals are welcome in this respect.

Help me please with the way in which officers sought to alter, increase, enhance and secure

that level of passive surveillance over Great Eagle Street.

On Eli, from Eli?

Yes.

So again it's to do with, if you look at, if you spend any time looking at the plan,

it's again, it's a conversation really about the core.

and it's pretty banal, but the core effectively sets up

how much space you get around the floor footprint

so that you can get people in them.

And it's about, we could have slid the core one way

or the other, we could have put the core,

I think it was picked up in questions yesterday

about whether or not we could have pushed

and turned the entrance round and so on and so forth,

but we've landed in a place where the core sits

to allow for activity to run all the way around it,

so the core sits on the northern part

against block B. And then it wraps function and programme

and activity around it on all floors.

Further development of that came where

we were asked to perhaps reconsider

the level of activity that we brought into that Western

flank.

So we introduced the kiosk and the retail corner ground floor

and actually pushed some additional balconies,

Juliet balconies, rejecting balconies, out onto Grey Eagle,

just to increase that level of surveillance and activity and connexion.

Thank you. I'm going to ask this question again later

about Buxton Street and the overlooking of Allen Gardens.

But just for now, do you want to tell you something to the Inspector

about the pattern of use of workspace in and around the city fringe?

Are we talking about 9 to 5 or are we talking about something different?

Yes, very different. I mean if it was our own office we're almost there 24 -7. So it's

a sort of absolutely a kind of range of uses. I think the creative industry has a different

time frame, long working hours. You know the difference between life and work is very blurred.

It's almost one in the same. So you do spend a lot of time in the office. You do spend

a lot of time with colleagues, the pattern of use

and your coming and going from the office

is no longer a sort of nine to five pattern.

It's very flexible.

We work in a completely different post -COVID dynamic

where people are sort of coming to and fro

at all sorts of hours.

Thank you, and we go to the conclusion then, please.

Bearing in mind the questions that you were asked

by my learned friend.

In the same document?

Yes, 846.

These are the officers, some of whom are in the room,

concluding that the proposal responds appropriately

to its immediate context in respect of scale and massing.

The proposed building would be acceptable

in terms of detailed design

and would make an important contribution

to activity and surveillance at Great Eagle Street.

I know you'll say you agree to that,

but that's the conclusion

that the inspector should note, isn't it?

No, all of that is just in townscape terms.

The questions were asked and were put to you

on the basis that there was harm arising

from height, bulk, mass, et cetera.

Now we're in a conservation area.

In a conservation area.

Was that an important part of the discussion

that you had with officers

in relation to height, bulk, and mass here?

Of course, yeah.

So shall we see what officers said

about conservation area, please,

which starts over the page 847.

So they very carefully set out.

The statutory requirements now we know as an absolute fact

that Mr. Fronoman finds that there is no harm

to the conservation area, its character or appearance

on a balanced analysis as a result of Eagle Eye's Yard.

and he told elected members, in effect, that he couldn't support that.

So what does that say about the concerns that were being put to you by Malone's friend

in relation to height, bulk, mass, and that?

On his own case, could they go to the issues of character and appearance of the conservation

area harm?

Well, I think that the feedback here is as clear as it can be, and is my understanding

as well. So this idea of that sort of heritage -led approach, design -led approach, place -making

approach, I feel like we landed in a really strong place, and I think it's echoed there.

Look at 856, 8 .56. The conservation area appraisal states that the architectural and urban development

and character varies across the conservation area and has evolved over a long period of

time. You were asked a number of questions about that, east, west, etc. We'll come to

that later. The variety in the conservation area includes fine -grained buildings such

as those around Fournier Street and the complex of historic and more recent industrial buildings

which are part of and around the Truman estate. Are we in the former or the latter?

Sorry, repeat that again.

Sorry.

Yeah. Are we in the fine -grained area

or the more recent industrial building area?

Eli's Yard.

More industrial.

Thank you.

857, the proposed building sits within the Truman Estate

and has been designed to respond to the industrial scale

and character of the estate and this part

of the conservation area.

It goes on to deal with views,

which I can deal with with another witness.

The conclusion is set out at 860.

In conclusion, there'd be no harm to the conservation area or nearby listed buildings from the proposed development.

Again, in discussions with officers about height, shape, bulk, mass, etc., how important was that consideration?

Very important.

Yeah. Does Mr. Frohnemann agree with you on that point at least?

Yes.

Okay, good. Thank you very much.

That's the end of that issue.

Building 3, main site.

You were asked about eight storeys and you were asked how it came about and you said

it comes from the master plan.

So how important, see Mr. Yeoman wasn't asked about any of this, how important was the master

plan analysis to the general shape, height and disposition of the buildings on the main

block?

It was vital.

Yeah.

And although he wasn't asked any about this, he explains in his proof and in his presentation

the importance of the fractured nature of the site, the existence of Allen Gardens,

the need to respond to Allen Gardens to create an edge to appropriately face Allen Gardens.

was any of that work that he'd undertaken and wasn't asked about relevant to your analysis?

Of course. I mean, again, just to expand on that, and again, some of the questioning also

is that the master plan was an extraordinary piece of work, our involvement in sort of

picking up the bass on, as it were. So again, it's not a continuous thing, it's not a sort

of complete start. It's a continuous process. As I said in examination, it's a case of all

of the plots being kind of evolved at the same time. So again, you're not doing an isolation.

You're not doing something else. You're basically picking up the baton of the work that's been

sort of set as a foundation of the scheme through the work that's been in the master

plan.

Yes. And the master plan was the product of Mr. Eumann or Mr. Eumann and a team or what?

A team.

Yeah, yeah, a team.

Important to get these facts right, as we'll see,

from the next witness.

Thank you very much.

One last point then, I think, please, from me.

I want to put the criticisms that were put to you

in terms, and fairly, by my learned friend,

into some context, particularly in relation

to blocks 3A and B. Bear with me, my computer shut me out. Here we go. So you need to go

to CDD 10.

CDD 10.

10, yes.

It's the quality review panel, AM.

Officers working massively hard at Tower Hamlet, sending out two responses in one day.

Yes.

And I want to look at the overall comments to begin with, which Malou in fairness did

take you to, but I want to explore with you the context of the criticisms that come later

with this in mind.

Do you see, generally the panel felt that the heights across the site were broadly appropriate,

appropriate, although local conditions did need to be explored further and responded

to, as described in these notes.

So in terms of what you took from that as to the general architectural party of the

disposition of buildings generally, what was that?

That it was supportive of where we were.

And I guess I also, just to add to that, I sit on many QRPs and many DRPs and members

in those review panels are free to speak their views.

And you never get, it's very rarely you get a full 100 % consensus in those rooms.

But there is a general position and at the same time there may be some other reservations

at the same time.

Okay, and now we've got an experienced inspector looking at it in any event.

But the local conditions that they there speak of,

which my learned friend took you to,

in terms of other stakeholders at this stage,

were historic England, for example,

expressing concerns about the height at this location

at about this time or not.

We know that Mr. Yeoman and his team had considered the master plan and we'll look at that with another witness shortly.

But this is February 2024. What was Mr. Den advising the now appellant about the appropriateness first across the site in broad terms

and second about the

He was advising that

Where we were landing was appropriate

very much

Good, okay

Activation and allen gardens you've already answered the question about workspace and

Activation and how the pattern isn't nine to five. I don't ask you to repeat that

But between the two entrances to the scheme, if you like, the main entrance, which Mr.

Reynolds really likes, and the Coopridge Yard, which we spoke of earlier, the pavement is

set back.

What's the programme of uses along that part of the pavement?

In the proposal?

Yes.

To be cafes and restaurants and things like that that can equally spill out onto that

street?

How would you judge that in terms of active use and relationship to open space?

I mean, it's extremely active, isn't it?

Yes. All right. Thank you very much. So those are the questions I ask. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Morris. There's nothing specific I need to ask, so that's all been covered. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr Harris, we're going to call Mr Dunn next.

Yes.

Do you have an idea how long he might be in?

I think he might be about an hour and a half.

He wants to take you and I think we should spend the time on the models.

Okay.

You will note, sir, that the models have been changed to the existing position.

Right.

So if you want to spend some time in your adjournment having a look, that's a new thing.

and we can put the proposed buildings back in as well.

But I know that Mr Dunn would like you to, if you like,

come around the table.

We might need some assistance with the camera

to get us all in.

Did I say an hour and a half?

So I think that's it.

Yeah, happy with that.

Shall we break until, shall we say 10 to 12?

Is everyone happy with that?

Or would you prefer a little longer?

10 to 12.

OK, until 10 to 12 then.

Thanks, everyone.

Thanks, Mr Morris.

...out in 1 -1. I want to spend a little bit of time on them.

You're a conservation specialist. You hold an MA in Building Conservation from the University of York,

a postgraduate degree in Building Conservation from the University of Germany.

You have a BA in History from the University of Minnesota

and a postgraduate diploma in Urban Design from the University of Westminster.

You've been a full member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation since 2000.

Is all of that correct?

That is correct.

You've been professionally involved with managing change in the historic environment in England for over 25 years.

You worked as a local authority conservation officer and then joined Historic England in 2003 as an inspector of historic buildings and areas.

And in 2005 you became the team leader in the London region. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And your ultimate responsibility as team leader, Greater London Region, did that involve you

in undertaking large -scale developments across the capital?

It did, yes.

And give us a for instance of the nature and type of the work that you undertook for that

20 -year period.

I gave advice on big schemes throughout London, as you've mentioned.

I also managed the team of inspectors and other specialists.

Major schemes that I had, direct involvement, include Kings Cross, Regent Street proposals,

the former Regent Palace Hotel, for example, which was some time ago, but that was a pretty

early major scheme. What else? Norton -Folgate, for example. So that kind of

level of project. Some public inquiries I've been involved in. You will remember

Sir Chiswick Curve and Whitechapel Bell Foundry and what else?

such as Citron also in that area.

Good.

Thank you very much.

You joined the Townscape Consultancy as a director in 2023,

and you tell us of your experience of public inquiries.

You also tell us that you were instructed in early 2024.

Now, just carefully, why were you instructed in early 2024?

Because the previous Heritage Consultant, KM Heritage, that's Kevin Murphy, retired

essentially.

Thank you.

Mr. Murphy, KMH, was first instructed in this case in February 2023.

I think as a result of some questions that were asked yesterday, you've checked that.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Yes.

So, KMH were part of the team way before the first pre -application.

Yes.

Am I right that they took part in the pre -application process?

That is correct, yes.

Am I right that along with conservation officers of this local authority, they chose and identified

the relevant views for the case.

Am I right that they undertook significant work

on significance and the appropriateness of the principles

of the design presently before the inquiry?

Yes.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Now, in early 2024, all those facts being the case,

What did you see your role? You clearly, because of Mr. Murphy's retirement, inherited his role.

Yes.

But in terms of the work, what did you do?

Well, my work was essentially, or initially, to assess what Kevin Murphy had done.

There was a high -level document that he produced. They had carried out baseline research.

They had worked with the architects on the general principles of the scheme.

So my initial role was to understand what had been done up until then.

And as it happens, I agreed with their approach.

I agreed with that document.

And then start to shape the proposals further, leading towards an application.

Yes. Thank you very much.

So, first of all, is it correct to say, as was put to Mr. Morris, that there's no heritage

involvement in the master plan at all prior to your involvement?

No, that's incorrect.

How would you characterise the work undertaken in association with officers of this local

authority, who unfortunately weren't here yesterday to put my own friend right, how

would you characterise the nature of the work

and the extent of that work?

I think it was what one would expect from a proposal

of this importance.

There was a lot of input, as I understand it,

from day one through heritage input

through Kevin Murphy at the time.

There were meetings with officers,

and there was that iterative design development

process considering heritage throughout that period.

Thank you. When you took over the role, what did you see your role as being? Did you just

adopt everything or did you start afresh and make your own judgement?

Well, I made my own judgement, but it was also very important to see what had gone on up

until that period and assess the documents that had been produced. And I generally agreed

they were higher level documents. And then, as I said, to make my own judgement to start

develop the scheme further.

All right.

Thank you very much.

That's the first issue, you and the nature of your involvement

and the factual position.

Second, please, approach.

How do you approach matters of importance in heritage terms,

having regard to the statute, having regard to the guidance

and the case law?

What's your general approach in cases of this nature, please,

Mr. Dunn. My general approach and I learned this through my career at

Historic England is the first step is to understand significance. That is the

crucial first step to do that diligence to understand the heritage assets that

are being affected, and then to make decisions that safeguard those assets, but also look

for opportunities for enhancement where necessary.

And that's how I approach this.

Thank you.

How would you characterise the nature of your research and identification of significance

in general and where would the inspector find it in particular?

Well, the HTVIA, there's a lot of research in there that underpins that document, underpins

our approach. That was a team effort at the Townscape consultancy. I worked with colleagues

on that. I oversaw the document. Others did some of the research, but it's all contained

within that document.

Thank you very much.

And we've got your proof of evidence before the inquiry.

Yes.

And now your evidence here.

Thank you very much.

So first heading was you and Mr. Murphy.

The second heading is approach.

The third heading is the main site.

Could you pick up the NPPF, please?

Can you give me a reference just to...

Oh, what's the CDE reference, please?

Given it's in the section dealing with heritage...

Oh, CDE, is it?

I can read it to you because you'd be very familiar with it.

It's paragraph 219, and it says, local planning authorities should look for opportunities

for new development within conservation areas, world heritage sites, and within the setting

of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance.

Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution

to the asset or which better reveal its significance should be treated favourably.

I just want to explore that with you, please.

What do you think that's telling decision makers as to whether conservation areas are necessarily no -go areas

or whether there ought to be different considerations?

Well, there ought to be different considerations.

NPPF also makes it very clear that not every element of a conservation area contributes to its significance

and there are areas for enhancement that the decision maker should take into consideration.

Thank you. So there ought to be active searching out for new development which would enhance,

come back to that later, or better reveal. Yes.

Now again, we've got a very experienced inspector who's done lots of these cases. You've been

in a number of them as well. But what do you say to the inspector, better reveal, means

in that context?

Reinforce those elements of significance which have been identified and take those opportunities

to improve areas that currently detract, for example.

And in terms of better reveal, although it may not be the sole context, is public accessibility

or the ability of the public better to understand historic significance by being able to get

close to it, etc., of relevance?

It is, yes.

Why is that?

Well, that offers a, well, if you can't get to an area, you can't see it, you can't understand

its significance.

At the moment, the former brewery yards are inaccessible.

It's hard for the public to understand what's there.

The cooperages can be seen from Spittles Street,

but that's about it.

So there are huge opportunities here

to better reveal the significance of the place.

Thank you.

Now, in your proof of evidence,

you point to something in the conservation area appraisal

that Mr. Frohman didn't, which is at paragraph 14 of your proof.

And that is that the SPD or the Conservation Area Appraisal.

Yes.

Can you take paragraph 14?

Yes.

Oh, no, it's page 14, isn't it?

Yeah, I'm sorry, sir.

No, no, no.

If you go, please, to page 14, it's paragraph 9 .3.

I'm sorry.

And there are a number of bullet points.

And on the right -hand page, page 15, also in 9 .3,

you referred to the Conservation Area Appraisal, the SPD, as identifying as it

does opportunities and potential for enhancement. Yes. And that's the heading

and as we saw yesterday I think so we don't need to go to it. Under the heading

there are various sites within the conservation area that are anticipated

by the authors of being, if you like, candidates for enhancement.

And one of those is the Truman Brewery site, is that correct?

That's correct.

Do you agree with that judgement in very broad terms?

Absolutely, yes.

That it is a candidate for enhancement?

Okay, good.

Well, bearing that in mind, I'd like to look at the characterization of the area's significance

in your proof, please.

So we need to go to, there's a number of paragraphs, but let's start with 9 -6.

9 -6. I'll ask you a few supplementary questions based on what you say there.

The Georgian enclave around Fournier Street appears in stark contrast to the former industrial areas further north, which include the appeal site.

These areas, that is the peal site areas, are generally characterised by a fragmented

townscape resulting from a combination of factors that include bomb damage, post -war

slum clearance, the late 20th century demolition of structures associated with the former Truman

Brewery. Let's just pause there. Fractured townscape, what do you mean by that?

That means that these areas have undergone a huge amount of change, simply

not well preserved in contrast to the Georgian enclave that you pointed me to.

There's no consistency to the townscape. It's hugely varied and

There is no historic, I guess, consistency to it anymore.

Then you say this.

A number of architecturally poor quality, or at best

architecturally indifferent, post -war buildings

of much larger scale and footprint

now characterise areas that were previously

occupied by buildings of smaller scale and finer grain.

Yes, that refers to the industrial buildings

of the post -war period that were, as the brewery expanded, were the result of that.

Thank you.

The previously densely built -up areas remain open and unbuilt and are now taken over by

ad hoc parking and other temporary uses. Why is that relevant and important?

These are leftover spaces of poor quality that detract from the character of the conservation

area in those places. And you say it's in these areas, that reinstating lost density

offers the potential to improve the townscape and enhance the significance of the conservation

area overall. Yes. Consistent or inconsistent with what the SPD says? Insisting. Alright,

we'll come back to that in a minute. Those buildings which are on the site which are

agreed either to have no or very little architectural or historic importance.

Are they already the subject of a grant of planning permission for demolition?

On one side, yes.

There's a data centre site along Buxton Street, yes.

Thank you very much.

And before we go to the model, because I'm going to ask you to go to the model, when

Can you identify the area as fragmented?

Of what importance to that definition and the identification of an appropriate context

is the existence of Allen Gardens?

It's very important.

Allen Gardens is an important open space, but it's not an historic open space, and it

lacks a definition.

I think it lacks an urban edge and we've heard from the architects talking about this.

I agree with that.

I think it would benefit from that urban edge along Buxton Street.

Thank you.

We looked at it a bit yesterday.

In terms of scale our presence, in terms of grain, in terms of all the other things that

go to make up character and appearance. How would you characterise Allen Gardens? Is it

fine grain? Is it coarse grain? Tell me about it, please.

Allen Gardens is an open space. It's not fine grained. As I said, it's an important post -war

modern space, but it lacks definition. It lacks enclosure. It lacks a lot of detail

fine grain essentially. Thank you. One last element before we go to the model.

At 914 you say that the open space within the brewery yard is sprawling and

undefined in its present position and it's filled with modern sheds used for

and refuse. Why do you say it's not historic in terms of its nature and extent, please?

Well, most of it has been demolished since the post -war period or probably since the

brewery closed. We know from our research and the map regressions and the gold maps,

et cetera, that it was once much denser and it was full of buildings that came and went

that were associated with the brewery.

Nearly all of those are now gone, so this wide open space that characterises the area

now is not historic.

That is a very recent situation.

There are very few historic buildings associated with the brewery.

I mean the Boiler House, the Grey Tew, the Boiler House is well known.

And then there's the Cooperage along Spittles Street.

There are some remnants, but those are the two principal historic buildings that in this

part of the brewery remain.

Thank you.

There's Figure 2 and Figure 3, which is on page 18 of your proof.

What do you ask the inspector to draw from that, please?

Yes, these are figure ground plans.

The first one is from the late 19th century, just demonstrating the sort of density and

fine grain of the area. And then the second one is as recent essentially, showing how

that fine grain has been coarsened and how there are many more open spaces within that

part of the site.

Thank you very much. And just to complete that point, if you pick up Mr. Yeoman's Proof

of evidence, which is CDM05.

Hold on a sec.

This might be a long wait.

This is a big document.

And you go to page 39, internal.

Not there yet.

Hold on a sec.

CDM05.

Oh, yeah.

Hold on.

And page?

It's page 39, internal to the document.

I don't know what the PDF says.

I've got a hard copy.

Do you have that, sir?

It's very slow here too. There we go. Apologies. No, no, I think most people are in the same

boat. I've got mine downloaded onto my computer which is much quicker. I'm getting there.

39. Why don't we go to the market and see if we can get a little bit of a better view

model now and then we can come back that when it's uploaded. I'm nearly there.

Okay, yeah, I'm there. Well, it's that you've seen it before, sir. It's historic.

It's the map progression and we'd ask the inspector to look, for example, at

1894, which is the top right one on the page,

which when you venture to see it, it reads there.

How would you characterise this sort of disposition

of functional buildings, et cetera, that are there shown?

In the one on the top right?

Yes.

Well, informal, essentially.

Oh, well it's densely, oh okay, there's residential in the northeast corner and then there are

a number of brewery buildings and informal spaces and yards in between them.

Yes, oh you see it there.

And then if you bring yourself right up to date, first is there ever an absolute consistency

of approach or are these snapshots which are all different in time?

Well the current sides, can you repeat that?

Yes, if you look at the progression, starting whenever you like, you start in 1792.

No, I see what you mean now.

Is there a consistency or is it a changing picture?

No, buildings kind of came and went as were needed at the time historically by the brewery.

Thank you. And then look at the current map. Your analysis of that in the proof is that

it's sprawling and unhistorical. Do you stand by that or not?

I stand by that, yes.

Why is that?

Well because most of the buildings have gone and the open space is much bigger than it

ever had been historically. And it doesn't compare to when the building was in use and

all of the buildings that were required to make that brewery function.

Thank you.

Just before we go any further, since your involvement with the case or even before,

insofar as that's relevant, has there been any guidance from Historic England as to the

nature and extent of that part of the main site and its historic importance.

Guidance from Historic England? Yes, in terms of pre -application discussions

which you might not be able to tell us about or engagement post -application.

Well Historic England also recognise the potential for enhancement of this part of the site.

They also realised that the townscape was degraded in many ways and they set that out

in both their pre -application letter and their post -application letter.

That's the point.

Okay, brilliant.

Thank you very much.

Shall we gather around the model because I don't think we've seen it with the extant

buildings in it.

I'll just ask you to explain to the inspector a little more by reference to the models.

It is you say what you say.

On the camera setup to see this.

I think the model is really useful for demonstrating how this area has changed over the decades

and centuries. As set out in the conservation area of appraisal, there is an historic shoot

pattern that dates from the late 17th century. But the fine grain of what's very densely

populated mostly residential, that has changed hugely.

It's almost illegible.

There are remnants.

There are crews.

But you see how the brewery expanded toward the west.

This is all post -war.

There are huge blocks that are on the site that were once

populated by small -haired housing.

So completely different range on the side.

But also on this side, these buildings are much bigger than historically.

And there is a sense of some, there are short pockets of buildings here, along Rick Lane, the district buildings for example.

But there are a lot of townscape gaps.

And so in summary, the area is not particularly consistent.

And I find it difficult to see or very easily see

a sort of hierarchy or a legible hierarchy of buildings.

It's such a variety.

There is no, we know historically there was,

as we heard from Mr. Fung and yesterday,

that yes, these were lower -rise buildings than along here.

But that situation is no longer a stand.

Things have changed, usually, in hierarchies.

It's difficult to even open the desk.

Can you say something about Allen Gardens?

If you don't have it, yeah.

So this is Allen Gardens.

This was also once housing in the 19th century.

That was cleared.

I think there was bomb damage here.

And there was an emporing over there.

Open space was created as a whole.

Again, it sort of just fades out.

It lacks that frontage.

Right, we might come back to the facility,

and see if that signal is getting wrong.

Yeah.

So that's the existing character and significance.

In your proof, you then identify that there are here opportunities to preserve and conserve

that which is best about the character and appearance of the conservation area

in terms of those buildings with some historic importance. Your judgement

please as to what those buildings are and whether the proposal takes up that

opportunity if you like. Yes well the buildings directly affected by the

Exposals are the Boiler House, which is grade two listed, and then the Coop Ridge, which

is unlisted but everybody agrees is, and I certainly take the view, is an important building

that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

So those buildings would be directly enhanced and conserved and enhanced.

There are other buildings around the site that are listed, but in my view their settings

would not be affected by the proposals, so they would be conserved in that way.

In terms of the listed building and its setting and the non -designated heritage asset that

you've there identified, in terms of their preservation in the particular circumstances

of this case, the statutory test will all apply, what weight would you invite the inspector

to give to those preservations or enhancements?

Considerable weight and importance.

Yes.

Now, in terms of this part of the site, and bearing in mind what you've just identified

as the opportunities to conserve or preserve are, there's this concept of heritage -led.

Yes.

bearing in mind what you've heard and read in the master plan documentation and in your involvement since you became involved in

early 2024

An appropriate characterization of the proposal or not. Yes

Why is that?

well as

and this started before my involvement with Kevin Murphy, but I

Absolutely give Kevin Murphy credits. He understood

the importance of understanding the significance of this part of the conservation area,

which is where the proposals are, and understanding the potential for enhancement and better revealing

significance. And that's how the proposals were framed from the very beginning, and that's how

they were developed. And I came on board later and continued that process. Thank you very much.

In terms of taking the opportunity to enhance character and appearance and the ability to better reveal, please,

I want you to explain to the Inspector what it is about the proposal that achieved those ends, which in your proof you say it does.

Well, the most obvious one is the Boiler House.

The grade two of this building, which the proposals by Chris Dyson I think are very

high quality.

They conserve the really important elements of that building and they improve those areas

which should be enhanced.

There are some very modern partitions, et cetera, within the building.

those will be removed and a very high quality design will be put in their place and the

building will be made open to the public.

I think that's really important.

So that's the first one.

I think the cooperage and integrating that into a proposal or the proposals is very important.

And then generally opening up the yards again with these spaces that the master plan proposes,

these informal, irregular, interesting spaces.

They're not formal spaces.

That's really important.

And the public access to the area.

Also, you know, I could go on.

I think the, well, I'll leave it there for now.

Yes, that's fine.

Thank you very much.

We've looked at the spaces and the places,

the new buildings, please, in terms of their impact

on the existing character and appearance

of the conservation area, and in particular,

the council's aim at buildings 3A and 3B,

and how you judge their impact on the significance of the conservation area and its character

and appearance, please.

Yes, my judgement is they would enhance the significance of the conservation area, the

character and appearance. I think they're very well designed. We've heard a lot about

their height and massing. I think, and we can look at the model with those buildings

inserted again. I think a balanced judgement needs to be taken about the

one

through the general scale and I think this is a very comfortable scale and I

think Mr. Morris's design is very high quality and combined with the master plan

so yes we've got buildings that in my view would enhance and I think they all

play an important role in enclosing Allen Gardens and when it would improve

that open space by giving it an urban edge with active uses etc. Thank you we

will come back to the model with the buildings on I just want to take it a

little bit further at the minute what is said by those who oppose the proposal

example, is that the loss of Block N is a harmful loss. Do you agree?

I don't agree. We've done our research. We understand that Block N is a remnant of the

historic brewery. It may be part of the late Victorian cooperage. It's difficult to know

exactly because one would have to do research on the building itself. We haven't done that,

But it is a remnant of the old brewery, but it's a remnant.

And that is the point.

It lacks integrity.

And to put that as a, or to consider it

as a building that contributes to the character

and appearance of the conservation area,

to elevate it to the same way as the cooperage

along Spittles Street.

And I think that would be irrational.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Frohnemann's analysis, please.

Mr. Frohnemann's analysis as we now understand it

is that the footprints of the proposed development,

which we see in front of the inspector,

the footprints of the proposed development are acceptable.

Do you agree with him?

Yes.

Yeah.

And indeed the groundscape and the disposition

of the buildings and the spaces and places is acceptable, but he thinks

anything that's bulky or massy and upends the hierarchy of the

brewery would be harmful. Now first thing, first of all do you agree with the

identification of harm that Mr. Frohnemann proposes?

No. Why not?

Well, as I said out a few minutes ago, I think

Mr. Morris's designs are

appropriately scaled. I think they are very high quality

and I don't think they upend a hierarchy.

For one, I don't think there is a particularly legible hierarchy here

anymore since all the post -war changes that have happened in this area. Already

block H has sort of upended that. That is a very large footprint building, a large

blocky building adjacent to the brewery yards. I don't think that the

fact that there were lower scale buildings here in the 19th century are

in any way a sort of strict kind of straitjacket in terms of looking forward in building that

one must build at that scale. I don't agree with that. I think one has to look beyond

a balanced judgement of the wider conservation area and I think, as I said before, I think

that is the scale that those models to your left represent is the scale that we're looking

is the right one.

Thank you very much.

There are three elements in your proof which speak to this,

and I'd just like to turn to those, please.

They're on page 27.

Can you give me the paragraph?

Yes, 10 .22.

10 .22.

Yeah.

10 .22 deals with the new urban presence,

which includes active uses at ground floor

results in a positive intervention that would enhance the significance of the

conservation area. It would do so by removing detracting elements such

as a blank perimeter walls and modern shed structures and replace them with

high quality new architecture that in contrast to the previously consented and

implemented data centre actively engages with the surrounding streets and spaces.

Is that broadly the point that you've just made already? It is, yes. I'm going to ask you then to

that. Then you say that Allen Gardens itself, Allen Gardens within the conservation area,

yes? It is.

Yes. Allen Gardens itself would benefit from the proposals. I just want you to explain

that in a little more detail, please. Well, as I've touched on a little bit, Allen

Gardens is a modern, reasonably modern open space. It's not an historic open space. And

It lacks an urban edge along Buxton Street.

I've set out here in my proof that the proposed development of 3A and 3B would provide that

urban edge, very high quality buildings, and create that relationship, which I think is

a relationship in every great city, really, in terms of open space, parks and urban parks,

is high quality buildings fronting onto open spaces.

And that would achieve that here.

And I think that would be a very positive aspect.

Thank you.

It would essentially enhance the conservation area.

And you tell us that, or you remind us

what the GLA in their stage one report

said about this aspect of the case,

that the proposed heights and overall scale of the proposals

are considered acceptable by the GLA officers and don't raise any significant strategic

issues. The proposed heights and form are distributed logically across the site, acknowledging

the immediate neighbours and balancing contextual form with site optimization. Now insofar as

that's relevant to character and appearance of the conservation area and heritage matters,

do you agree? I agree.

And then the third point is the chimney.

The third point is the chimney and the impact of the proposal on the boiler house.

We talked about the fabric, etc.

The iconic chimney, please.

Your judgement as to the proposal's impact on that, is it harmful?

Is it not harmful? What is it?

It's not harmful.

The iconic chimney is absolutely a crucial part of the significance of the list of buildings.

It's visible in lots of different places. The proposals 3A and 3B have been specifically

designed and the master plan to ensure that that chimney has visual breathing space, I'll

call it, and so it's not challenged in important views from Allen Gardens and along Buxton

Street.

Thank you very much. At paragraph 1024 you refer to the well -known guidance in GPA 3

in relation to setting impacts, etc. Did you just want to explain to the Inspector if and

why you think that the proposal complies with that guidance?

Yes, sir, you'll be very well aware of GPA 3. That is Historic England's guidance on

assessing impacts on setting or significance due to changes in the setting.

In this case, the setting of the chimney that contributes most to its significance are from

closer views from along Brick Lane and from Allen Gardens. Those are the views that are

of a heritage asset is of equal importance when it comes to dealing with setting.

That's set out in GPA 3.

And those views which allow the best understanding of significance

in terms of the combination of setting and significance

are those views I just mentioned, Brick Lane, Allen Gardens,

and those would be preserved.

Therefore, significance would not be impacted through changes to the setting.

Are you the only person who thinks that, that there will be no harmful impact?

No, Historic England agrees.

Well, let's look at your paragraph 1024, where there's a very helpful and compendious setting out of the position by officers of this local authority.

officers concur with the assessment of the GLA and Historic England that from

Allen Gardens the chimney would remain the dominant feature and retain its

landmark status. So we've got the cadre of officers including the conservation

area officers. We've got Historic England and we've got the GLA in terms of the

Now, can we pick up please the Historic England letter?

There would have been a time when you would have been drafting this.

Yes, the inspectors asked a question about it and I want to look at it with all that

in mind, but first I want to look at what they say about enhancing the conservation

area or not.

So it's CDD02.

Are you there, sir?

It's coming.

Let me know when you're there.

Yeah.

So under the heading, Historic England's Position, the Truman Brewery Master Plan, is this paginated?

I can't see it. It's the penultimate page. See, the things have slipped since you were

there, Mr Dunn. Top of the page, dealing just with the issues that we've been looking at

before we look at the document holistically.

The Truman Brewery is a focal part of the Brick Lane

and Fournier Street Conservation Area

and a much loved East London institution.

However, we recognise that much of the site

is of poor townscape value, you agree?

I agree.

With very limited public access,

better to reveal, et cetera,

these proposal present opportunities

to enliven this part of the conservation area and improve public access with high quality

buildings and public realm that draw influence from its heritage context.

We therefore consider that there are opportunities presented to enhance the conservation area's

character supporting the heritage policies of the NPPF, particularly paragraph 212.

Now that's the paragraph we began this examination in chief about, the one that says enhance

and better reveal. Mr Dunn, in terms of the component parts of that, reading it as Historic

England right, what do you say to the Inspector that saying about the proposals and whether

they harm or enhance or what do they do?

I think Historic England is saying the proposals enhance.

Yeah.

And in terms of the nature and extent

of the enhancement, the inspector will make his own mind up,

but what do you read in terms of Historic England

and the nature and extent of this opportunity taken

from that paragraph?

Historic England believe that the proposals do that.

they do better reveal and enhance.

Thank you very much.

And earlier in the document,

they specifically refer, we best look at it I suppose,

twice to this concept of fragmented.

So can we look to the summary of the whole thing?

Is that at the beginning?

Yes.

I'm happy to read it all out for context.

the master plan for the Truman Brewery seeks to sensibly refurbish and extend the Grade

II listed Truman Brewery boiler house and to introduce a substantial mixed -use development

which would unite and enliven this currently fragmented part of Brick Lane in the Foreign

Industry Conservation Area.

If the Inspector agrees that that's exactly what it would do in those terms, again, the

weight to be given to that overall.

When we're looking at other identifications

of potential harm later on,

but that big picture that they paint,

the weight to be given to that overall, please.

Considerable weight.

We therefore welcome many aspects of these proposals.

Then it says this.

Nonetheless, some harm would arise

principally through the loss of the boundary walls

and ancillary structures,

which would erode the site's industrial character.

Let's deal with that.

We have in part already dealt with it,

but the loss of the boundary walls,

which Mr. Forshaw speaks to as well,

the inspector will see them on the site.

How would you place that in comparison to the transformation

of the currently fragmented part of the site

by a substantial mixed use development

which would unite and enliven?

I would give that low weight.

Why is that?

Well, in terms of the way Historic England put it,

they mention it.

But overall, their advice is very positive.

They have seemingly done a sort of internal balance

of enhancements versus harm.

And they come out very much in favour of the enhancements,

in favour of the proposals.

We'll have a look at that later on.

Your judgement, please, as to whether the loss

of the boundary walls and ancillary structures

actually erode the industrial character.

I don't agree with that.

I think they don't erode.

As I said out, they're a very low quality.

They're fragments.

I think at the moment they detract

from the character and appearance of the conservation area.

There is consent to remove them already

through that data centre.

So I think that's a material consideration.

So far as you're aware,

in terms of that data centre permission,

was that ever identified,

that loss of those boundary walls, et cetera,

was that ever identified as a harm

that should stand in the way of even the data centre?

Not that I know of.

All right, thank you very much.

Then please, over the page.

And again, it's wrong to try and read these documents as if they were statutes.

I'm sure as somebody who's written that you'd agree.

But let's look at it carefully as we should.

Second page, penultimate paragraph, which deals with the former stables block,

the Vat House, various buildings within the conservation area character, and Allen Gardens.

And then says this, the rest of the main plot has a fragmented industrial character containing

a large car park and a mix of buildings.

Of particular note is the former cooperage, etc.

We note that the cooperage has been identified as a non -designated heritage asset and recognise

contributes positively share that view.

What I'm asking you here is the fragmented industrial character point.

Again, do you agree?

I do.

Let's go back then to the parts of the document right at the end

that the Inspector asked Mr. Frohnemann about.

Now when you read the document as a whole,

looking at Truman Brewery first paragraph and the consequence at the

end enhance the conservation areas character supporting the heritage

policies of the NPPF see that yes what do you draw from that I think you've

probably already said that historic England is supportive yeah thank you and

Is that in terms of the bel foundry, the starting point of all this, in an internal balance, etc.

Where would that go? Would that be a benefit or not?

Sorry, what do you mean?

Enhancing the conservation.

Oh, of course, yes.

Good. Then we've got the next paragraph.

We note that this would be a large and dense development.

However, taking account of the robust industrial character found in this part of the conservation area,

which contains existing unconsented buildings of similar scale to the proposals,

as well as the limited visual impact of the key views of the Boiler House and its chimney,

we do not wish to raise significant concerns about the scale and massing as proposed.

First of all, do you read any identification of concern in that letter?

I don't, no.

But let's assume you can read it in two ways.

Let's assume that significant, no significant concerns means that there might be some concerns.

In terms of the way this letter is structured and the significant benefits that flow from

the paragraph above, what do you invite the Inspector to say even in the event that that

somehow identifies some limited concerns?

I think I would suggest that this is a positive letter.

It raises a few issues, but overall and on balance

and whether they've done the internal balance

consciously or not, they have strongly come out

in favour of the proposals.

Thank you.

And then look at the next paragraph.

Don't wish to raise significant concerns

about the scale and massing.

Then you read the next paragraph.

If the exception to this is proposed Block J,

we come to Block J in later part of your examination

in chief, which is located within a more domestic part

of the conservation area, we consider

that a low level of harm would result

due to its overbearing presence, they say there.

So the low level of harm is in contradistinction

to whatever is in the paragraph before.

So in the paragraph before, if that's

an exception in that paragraph, what

What do you say to the Inspector about this sort of letter identifying that as an exception

to the rule which is set by the rest of the document?

By the rest of the document identifies no harm or enhancement.

And then, the Inspector is right, of course, to look at significant concerns, but let's

see if that's a phrase that appears anywhere else in the document.

Can we look at the boiler house?

Mm -mmm.

Yeah.

Now in terms of everybody at this inquiry, nobody is asserting that there is harm from

the Boiler House proposals.

They are at least conserved or preserved or enhanced.

Let's look at what Historic England say about that.

The proposed alterations and extension to the Boiler House appear well considered, clearly

informed by the heritage significant plans that have been included in the submission,

we consider that the key elements of significance, particularly the stable block, landmark presence

of the chimney and a lofty industrial character and surviving features of the interior would

be preserved through the redevelopment of the boiler house. We therefore do not wish

to raise any significant concerns.

So when they say any significant concerns there, do they mean any concerns?

Yeah, I don't think they mean any concerns.

Yeah, they mean no, we have no concerns, essentially.

Should you read this document in the same way in respect to the same phrase repeated

in the same page in the same run of thoughts?

Yes.

And then let's see if the recommendation helps us.

Historic England has no objection to the applications on heritage grounds.

They're not doing the balance.

So I very much hesitate to intervene.

You asked for an interpretation of this letter.

I think some of the questions that are being put to this witness are a little bit leading.

I think that you perhaps would benefit more from just having the witness's take on the

letter without having particular answers suggested to him.

But I'm sure it wasn't intended that way.

No, it wasn't.

We got the head of London Historic England here and the Inspector specifically asked

to assist him on the contents of the letter.

And I've taken instructions from Mr. Dunn,

and we're trying to deal with this

in an expeditious way as possible,

in direct response to the inspectors questions.

So the answers aren't coming from me,

they're answers I've discussed with the witness,

and I'm just trying to find the best way

of the inspector to understand them.

We could put in a submission if you like,

but in any event, I've finished.

We've raised the point, sir.

I think a neutral question may be of even greater assistance to the Inspector.

Right. And let me ask you neutrally, do you, how do you read this letter overall,

particularly having regard to that recommendation at the end?

As a positive endorsement of the proposals.

Yeah. Do you identify in that any significant concern in relation to the main block,

in relation to the main block, which is significant

or less than significant or other?

No. No. In relation to the listed building

where the same phrase is used,

do you identify in this any harm whatsoever?

No. No. All right.

Good. Thank you very much.

That's the end of that.

Can I go back to my characterization of Mr. Fronman's analysis, please, where he accepts

the footprints are appropriate, the groundscape is appropriate, but he doesn't like any bulk

or mass that would append what he called the hierarchy, and you've explained that position.

Is there anything about that hierarchy that you've said doesn't exist?

anything of that identified in Historic England's letter which refers to

fragmentary and opportunity for enhancement etc. Can I please very

briefly and we probably don't need to look at it but we've got the council's

approach to the scheme through the emerging plan and the emerging plan is

is at regulation 19 stage but has not yet been submitted.

So it's a formal document by the local authority

and the inspection can judge the weight to be given to it.

But it's got an allocation on the site,

which is consistent with the quashed SPD

and clearly has very, very significant,

and we needn't go any further than that,

but elements of building in terms of height, bulk, and mass

facing onto Allen Gardens.

So in terms of the local authorities consistency

of approach here, is that consistent

in their own emerging documents

with Mr. Frohnemann's analysis that the footprints are okay

but any bulk height and mass which upends a hierarchy

would be inappropriate?

No, that's inconsistent.

Inconsistent.

Why do you say that's inconsistent?

Well, the emerging SPD has identified a heightened mass and the principle of building along Buxton

Street and fronting Allen Gardens and proposed Block A, 3A and 3B is consistent with that.

and they are taller than that low scale that Mr. Froniman was talking about in his evidence.

Thank you very much.

Good.

That's the end of that.

But while we're doing that, Mr. Burrell's alternative, please.

I don't want to spend too much time on this,

but your judgement as to how it fares in terms of comparison to that which has been considered

by offices, considered by Historic England, considered by the GLA, how does Mr. Burrell's

alternative fit with, if you like, the constraints in heritage terms that inevitably apply to

I consider those proposals, and I accept they are sort of conceptual. They're not designed in any detail.

But just judging from the model, sir, that's behind you,

I would have a number of concerns about their impact on heritage assets.

And I can explain a couple of those.

There's quite a tall block

proposed directly behind

the listed

boiler house, I think which competes with its height, it encroaches upon that building,

I think it would harm its setting and therefore its significance.

There is the same situation alongside the unlisted building of Merritt, the Coopridge,

where there's a sheer flank elevation hard against that building.

I think that would also be detrimental to its setting and therefore significance.

In terms of the layout, there's a sort of formal garden square proposed in the centre of the

brewery yard or near the centre, which I think is completely at odds with the historic development

and the history of the brewery, which is all about informal spaces and irregular spaces.

and this proposed formality, I think,

goes against that grain.

Finally, I think there seems to be a proposed

tallish block along Brick Lane

at the corner of Woodseer Street,

which I'm, we haven't done the view studies,

but I suspect may interfere with important views

of the chimney along Brick Lane.

And I'll mention, notwithstanding

that that site already has consent for another development, the Woodseer Street

Scheme. And that yeah those are a few of my concerns. Thank you very much.

Two more headings to go. Block J, I want please, your analysis of this in terms of

its heritage impact is set out in in your proof and you identify it as

harmful. I just want you explain to the Inspector why you say it's harmful and

the extent to which it is harmful. That's the existing cash and carry.

The existing buildings on the site are well they're low -lying sheds. They're

just down the road so sir I'm sure you've had a look. They are completely

at odds with the rest of the run of Hanbury Street. They were built after the war. Poor

quality, they don't really fit into any sort of coherent townscape and there are a gap

in the townscape and for all those reasons they detract from the character and appearance

of this part of the conservation area.

Yeah, thank you.

There's always room for judgement, et cetera.

But how sure are you that that is an appropriate assertion

and characterization in the circumstances of this case?

Is this a close run thing, or as Basil Falti would say,

is it bleeding obvious?

Yeah, it's obvious.

All right.

So that's the existing condition the inspector can make his own judgement in relation to that.

The impact of the proposal.

Now here there is a difference between you and Historic England because as they say in

their letter that's the one place where they identify a low level of less than substantial

harm apart from the loss of the wall which we've also discussed but in broad terms.

When you look at the impact of the proposal compared with the impact of the existing,

how would you identify that?

The proposals would definitely enhance the character and appearance of the conservation

area.

They are again very carefully conceived and carefully designed.

They stitch back lost density, lost townscape, reinstate density that was lost after the

war. They repair Hanbury Street and they offer a block on the corner which is of high quality

and is fitting I think for that site. It's a corner site. It will be, I don't want to

talk about landmarks, etc., but I think a building of that scale is appropriate for

this site and overall there is a much much better urban situation and therefore enhancement

of this part of the conservation area. Thank you. The one thing that is raised by

objectors and is mentioned by Historic England to be fair is the scalar differential between

the tallest part of the site and other parts of the nearby conservation area. I'm sure

that not lead to harm compared to the existing condition? The test set by the

House of Lords as it then was. Well the existing condition is very poor

quality and is a detracting element of the conservation area so the proposals

put something back which I said is high quality and given the huge variety of

of heights and juxtapositions within the estate and the wider conservation area around it.

I'm very confident that the height as proposed is appropriate and would sit well within its

context. Thank you very much. Block A next please, again in heritage terms. Again, I

Existing buildings, existing buildings.

Forget their condition for the minute.

The existing buildings in any condition

are they positive, negative, or neutral

in terms of character and appearance

and significance of the conservation area?

Negative.

Why do you say that?

They are very large, utilitarian buildings

of no particular interest.

They are very coarse grained.

They offer, well, they're simply, they don't, they're neither, they neither display architectural

or historic interest, I think is the point.

And then of course there's their condition.

Come to their condition in a minute.

Yeah, and one other thing is the way they're set out

in the street, and Mr. Morris talked about this

in his evidence, lead to a lot of wasted space,

sort of what's used for car parking

and other antisocial behaviour.

So overall, particularly Block A makes

a very negative contribution to this part of the CA.

Thank you.

One of the things that's said to be something of merit is the fact that they are robust,

et cetera.

What do you say about that?

I wouldn't use that term robust.

That implies something positive.

And I don't think these buildings have that or this building has that.

I mean, I looked it up in the dictionary, actually.

It means strong and healthy.

And I know that's different when you're applying this to architecture, but it implies something

positive in my view when one uses the word robust.

So I wouldn't use that term.

I would just use utilitarian and functional.

Thank you.

And then their condition.

Yes.

I think we're sort of there, but in your experience, is this the sort of case where Historic England

or anybody else would properly suggest that this condition has been brought about as a

result of a deliberate act in order to enhance the prospects of a ground -to -planning commission?

No.

Is it close?

No.

All right.

Thank you.

So what do you say about the condition in terms of the contribution that is made by

the buildings, which we've already heard?

Does the condition make that better or worse?

Well, much worse, yes.

Thank you.

And in terms of activity, please, how does the existing premises activate the character

and appearance of the conservation area or better reveal the conservation area's significance?

It doesn't.

And the proposal, please, again, this is set out in your proof, but if you could please

summarise to the Inspector why in heritage terms you take the view set out in the document

that this is a significant enhancement of the character and appearance of the conservation

area.

Yes.

I say that because the existing starting point is the current condition and that's not just

the condition of the building but the situation on this site, which is a very clear detracting

feature from the character and appearance of the conservation area.

What is proposed is a very specific use,

and we'll hear more about that next week

from Miss McGinley about the need for a data centre.

But Mr. Morris has designed a building

specifically for this use, which in my view

is very high quality, and would be,

put very simply, a much better offer than what is there now.

And in that regard, would enhance the character of the conservation area.

And I just wanted to say one other thing about, there's been a lot of debate about the lack of active frontages.

And I agree that there will be no or very little active frontages with the proposal.

But not every building in a conservation area requires active frontages.

That's not a test in the act or in the NPPF.

We heard from Mr. Reynolds about this site yesterday and I agree with him that this is

a secondary street, so it's very different than Brick Lane, very different than other

parts of the estate, which are very active.

And this is, I think, as we'll hear next week, this is a critical infrastructure building.

And it wouldn't be the first in a conservation area.

There are lots of historic buildings throughout London which are much loved and very well

known that have no active frontages.

I mean, if you think about the Bank of England, that's the obvious one.

There are other things like Battersea Power Station, Bankside Power Station, those kinds

of buildings which were built for a very specific use, and that specific use doesn't include

active frontages.

So I guess in summary, the specific use is needed here, which we'll hear about, and Mr.

Morris's response in design terms, in my view, is very good.

Thank you very much.

That's it in terms of questions from me.

Do you want to?

We don't need to but you want to take the inspector through the the model with the new buildings in place

I'd be happy to if the would you find that

Yeah, it will take a few seconds to engineer I'm going to ask mr. Yeoman to do it

So could we maybe because we've got a I think there are all those models are gonna be put in place carefully

If we could just sit here quietly for a few minutes

So if while we're waiting for that to make best use of time, I could just raise two points.

You know, I am in touch, so I will be able to see that before we resume on Tuesday.

I see it's done now, but in response to the points that my learned friend made, can I

now confirm that the Council agree that Mr. Murphy was instructed when he was instructed

and that he did engage with officers, that he did agree the viewpoints with the conservation

officer and produce the document that is going to be presented to you. So it's really not

what Mr Flanagan was saying yesterday, the first time anybody was involved was here.

I don't want to have to go and chase that down again if that's now accepted.

I simply can't answer that. I'd have to take instructions.

Mr Gwynne was here.

I mean, I asked Mr Morris about it, so I asked questions to which I got answers.

You formally put to him that the first time anybody with any involvement in heritage on

a heritage -led scheme came in early 2024 after the application had gone in.

But the simple point is that Mr. Murphy had been involved since June 2023, and indeed

for years before that acting on behalf of the heritage of the Truman estate and

engaging with Mr. McMechen and other other officers. Can I suggest we deal

with it in this way? We'll look at all the documentation, we'll clarify the

council's position when we resume next week. There was a question put to

the witness and the witness gave his answer and there'll be a record of that

But obviously, this is a matter that could and will be raised with Mr. Dunn as well.

Yes. Good.

Thank you.

I'll say no more.

Right. It's all set up and the floor is yours, Mr. Dunn.

And I think so that then will take us to approximately the right time.

So I'll just say a few things about the model we've been working on.

First of all, you were talking about the chimney setting in the room.

I mentioned that some of these are more important to others for understanding how that setting

I'm not sure if I'm on the scale.

I have to be clear with the state overall,

wider context.

My position, I don't think any of these buildings

that we've been talking about are excessively tall

compared to the other.

I'm just giving you a juxtaposition,

impression, release, character,

but it's a state of the time.

I was going to raise it just after the point that my learned friend made on information,

but I may have missed this, but I've been told that a point was put to the witness about

the Historic England objections to the existing data sent to consent on the site, and apologies

if I'm wrong about that, but if that's the case, could we have the copies of those letters

before the inquiry?

But there was an English Heritage Historic England objection at all. Now, I think whoever

misheard and told you that I'd been, got the wrong end of the stick.

Okay, thank you.

I'm not aware of a Historic England objection.

I was at Historic England at the time.

Talking about the data centre that has permission now.

Exactly, yeah.

Right, okay.

So yeah, I do have some questions about that, but probably not now.

But it is something that I'll want to understand.

I mean, as I understand it, there is a permission, and the permission has been implemented.

But, yeah, I'm going to ask planning witnesses about that in due course, because I do want

to know a little bit more about that.

Just if it would be helpful.

I've been told that there are some letters that exist.

I know Mr. Dunne just said he wasn't aware of them, but if it would be helpful for you

to see them, sir, Mr. Forshaw says that he does have copies, but it's not.

I wouldn't say I wouldn't be interested in them, but all I would say is that permission

has been granted and it's been implemented.

But it would be interesting to see, I suppose, what they did say.

I've got no problem with that.

So yes, if you'd like to put them in, Ms. Curtis, if you have them, they can come in

next week.

Inquiry documents.

Good.

Would it be worth us having a brief chat about the ins and outs

of the different schemes, as we said we might?

I just ask out of curiosity, really, but the more I think

about it, the more there does seem to be something

that I need to understand

about the way different decisions could be made

on different aspects of the scheme.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the data centre,

Block A, is standalone.

It doesn't rely on anything else.

The block in Eli's yard, standalone,

that doesn't depend on anything else.

So they're quite straightforward, I think.

The decisions on those two could be made separate of each other.

The complication, I think, is the main site, because there are different buildings within that, and also on a different site.

It includes Block J, doesn't it?

Yes, the red line encompasses that.

So, yeah, Block J could work as a stand -alone, but that would be a split decision?

It would be a split decision and I think for reasons I outlined earlier, it would not be practical to do that

because there'd then be nowhere for the cash and carry to be relocated to and we aren't identifying a place.

So that's the only split decision and I think in order for you to make a split decision, we would have to ask for it,

the local authority would have to.

And I don't envisage there's a circumstance

when that would be likely to happen.

So as we see it, and the way the ES is set up,

is that all three of the planning applications

can stand or fall on their own merits.

In the event that you're minded to grant more than one,

then you'd have to have full account of the effects,

benefits, harms, et cetera, that apply to the combination of whichever more than one

you decide.

And if you are to grant all three, then you have regard to all of the benefits and all

of the alleged harms, et cetera.

It's actually reasonably straightforward, I think, subject to this split decision point,

which I – you did say this was just a preliminary position, and I certainly would wish to sit

down and discuss that with my clients before stating a formal position.

But I think it's really relatively quite simple.

Three applications, each can stand or fall on their own merits.

There will be in combination effects that you will need to take into account depending

on which of the permissions you grant, if any.

Does that make sense?

Which, to be fair to the local authority officers, is exactly what they have done.

I would be saying that that's the correct approach to take, the approach that they took.

I would be saying in relation to Block A that they failed to properly weigh the public benefits,

et cetera, but they had no difficulty in coming

to the conclusion that they should recommend two

of the three for a grant.

And if they'd taken the view that the public benefit balance

as they saw it led to sufficient public benefit

to outweigh the lower end of less than substantial harm,

they could have granted all three.

And it would have been a perfectly competent set

of permissions as a result.

It is right historically, I think, so that you pointed

out that the whole thing was thought

of as a potential regeneration of the scheme as a whole.

But the local authority took the view it ought

to be three separate planning permissions,

and I think they were right.

And I think that judgement is reflected

in Mr. Marginson's proof now, which results

in the position that I've just explained to you.

Mr. Wall, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Not really.

I think we would agree with that.

I would just, in the interest of clarity, I suppose spend a moment on what's meant by

stand alone.

And I think that my learned friend Mr. Harris made it clear when he said that there may

be in combination effects because you'll recall that Mr Flanagan asked Mr Morris

about the knock on effects of a grant at Eli Eli's yard on the acceptability of

the data centre yeah well there was a reason for that line of questions and it

does relate to this so you may take the view so that the acceptability of the

data centre is to some degree contingent on success elsewhere.

that was made into active editing of the machine

or the CDM, three each,

then that made the dataset certified.

If you did that, you would have to have some mechanism

where the dataset is adapted and the CDM is set

to tie them together in the same way.

If you got to that point, that's the point.

And that's exactly how the Section 106, three different Section 106s work.

And that mechanism can be drafted and included in surprise it isn't already.

You will see from the ES that various scenarios are spoken to.

And in those circumstances, those various scenarios can be reflected in the relevant

Section 106s as well.

But it's not a matter of can it be done, because it can.

It's a matter of should it be done, and has it been done.

We can assure that it is.

And in all of the circumstances, if that

is a conclusion that may be one of the conclusions

that you are entitled to reach, et cetera,

then we would argue it's not appropriate.

But a blue pencil type provision can be put into a section 106

in the usual way.

These are the things that need to be discussed with clients and also with

my own friends team but insofar as we're filling time. Well, so yes. That's just I

think a sensible approach. And we will I'm sure all do our best to progress

those discussions before the conditions and obligations session that's tabled

for the third from last day.

I'll probably scratch my head about this a little bit on the train going home, so perhaps

we can come back to this point if there's anything telling that I come up with.

But it's helpful to know that they are standalone.

And that maybe the application on the main site,

there is no real way of untying one bit from the other.

Since you asked about split decision,

the only truly split decision.

We'd have to be happy that it was genuinely severable,

wouldn't we?

Yes, I think that's broadly the test.

So yes.

Okay, well look, I'll let that discussion take place.

Is there anything else we need to do with today?

Well, if not, I hope you all have a restful weekend.

I'm travelling back on Monday, as I said.

So if anything does crop up and you need to talk to Allison,

she'll be in touch with me on Monday morning.

Start time on Tuesday morning?

Should we start the week with the 10 o 'clock and then see how we get on?

Depends what time I get here on Monday

Sorry go on. No, no, no, sir. I just I

Wanted to make sure that whatever comes in from mr. Murphy. It finds its way to you as well for for Tuesday

I should add, Mr. Dunn, you'll understand that I think under the rules as they are now.

That's right.

So I've explained to Mr. Dunn, he's taken off all the WhatsApps.

He is dealing with another matter on Monday.

Right, connected to this, but he knows he's not to discuss this case at all with anyone.

That's reassuring. Thank you.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Friday 17 October 2025, 9:30am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry AMFriday, 17th 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
Friday, 17th October 2025 at 9:30am