Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Tuesday 21 October 2025, 9:30am

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Tuesday, 21st 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.

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

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.

The first one, these are in no particular order, but the material that Mr Forshaw said he'd be putting in,

Webcast Finished - 0:00:08

relating to the previous permission for the data centre,

and I can't remember whether they were historic England or English heritage representations at that stage,

so I've seen those. I've seen the material that was put in about Mr Murphy,

So I've got that and I've seen that they've been added

to the core documents.

Content with that.

I've also seen this morning a list of third party speakers

for this afternoon, a list of those who are going to come

in person to address the inquiry.

I mean, how we deal with in person and those

who are joining us remotely.

We'll just have to play it by ear, I think.

I've got no hard and fast about that.

So that's fine.

We'll be doing that starting at 3 o 'clock.

Now, I did want to say one or two things about timetabling.

I rather suspect we'll be going on relatively late this evening

with third party representations.

I don't know that.

But the last time I did one of these public sessions,

I was there, I was in a town hall in Swaddlingcote

until I think 10 o 'clock.

So I'm maybe not expecting to be here

at 10 o 'clock this evening.

But I think I would appreciate a slightly longer lunch

break today.

So I suggest we adjourn about 1 .30 and then resume

about, resume at 3 o 'clock.

and the mayor's coming at half past five,

so we'll probably have a break around five o 'clock.

That's my suggestion, but, you know,

if anyone's got a better one, I'm happy to hear it.

The other thing I wanted to say was I'm happy

to sit a bit later on Friday this week.

I adjourned a bit earlier last Friday with the intention

of getting home, but I eventually got home

at 10 o 'clock because Paddington was having a shocker.

So yeah, let's sit later on Friday.

I've tempted fate, I think, by finishing early.

So I thought I'd tell you that today just in case

arrangements have to be made.

But as long as everyone else is happy with that,

I'm happy to go until 4 o 'clock -ish or something

like that.

I don't have anything else.

But I don't know, Mr. Harris, did you have anything?

I don't, sir.

Certainly, we don't suggest that anything you've said

is inappropriate.

We think it's all entirely appropriate.

Paddington having a shocker is the sort

of subtitle of my autobiography.

So I appreciate that.

I've been discussing this with my learning friend.

And we've got Mr. Dunn to completion.

Then we go back to the architects and to block J, which I think, given what you've just said,

will probably take us up to lunch, which means that probably Eilish goes into tomorrow.

We don't think that's a big issue.

We could try and get a through chief today, and I'm very happy to do that if we can, but

I don't think either of us are keen to go halfway through chief.

So, in summary, we are content with everything you said.

Thank you, Mr Harris.

Mr Wold, was there anything?

The only thing to perhaps unnecessarily remind you of is that there were certain members

of the public that had requested that they address you on Tuesday morning of next week,

rather than today because they couldn't make today's slots.

Thank you, Mr. Walder. That's a useful reminder, yes.

Ms. Curtis, did you have anything?

No, nothing further. If it's helpful, I've just heard this morning there may be about five residents

I have asked for that to be communicated to Ms Dyson.

I wonder, the list of third parties, my case officer sent it to me this morning, but I

am not sure whether it has been circulated.

I think that came from your instructing solicitor.

Ms Curtis, I wonder whether it could be circulated around informally.

I don't think that came from my instructing solicitor.

I think it came from a member of the community,

but I'll cheque who received that and make sure it's circulated.

Okay.

Just to confirm we haven't seen it.

I don't know whether the council have,

but it's no drama for us.

If we could see it at some stage, that would be helpful.

Can I impose on you, Ms Curtis,

to see if that can be circulated informally,

rather than me take a break and ask Allison to do it.

I probably should have done it earlier,

but I had a feeling it might have gone round,

done the rounds in the background and come to me last.

Thank you.

I think, Mr. Harris, we got to the end

of Mr. Dunning, chief, didn't we?

We did.

I pointed out to my learned friend

that the CMH documents formally were admitted after that,

But I'm not going to take any sort of point on that if they are at all

Relevant to the cross -examination I can re -examine on them. If not, you've got them and I can make submissions

In which case then I'm gonna handle to Mr. Wald. Thank you, sir. It's kmh unless I've got it wrong. Yes, okay

Cmh

Okay, thank you and good morning. Mr. Dunn. Good morning

So I don't know whether it would be helpful to list those documents.

Would that be helpful?

I'm hoping there aren't that many new ones, so they may well be downloaded for ease of

access by now.

But Mr. Dunn and others, I'll be referring to your proof of evidence, to Mr. Frohnemann's

In terms of the core documents, I'll be referring to CDD8, CDD9, CDD11, CDL1, CDD1, CDD2, CDA34,

CDE 9, CDA 6, CDA 5, and two of the three KMH Murphy documents, which are now ID 15

and 16.

I think that's it.

Apologies in advance if I've missed one or have even referred to one that it proves not

necessary to go to. So Mr. Dunn, can I just clarify first with you. We understand

from Miss Killar -Lee's evidence that you were instructed in February 2024, is that

right? That's right. Yeah. And you'd had no previous involvement with this, with

this scheme before that? I didn't. The Townscape consultancy did. Miss Killar -Lee

was instructed to give townscape advice. Not heritage advice. Correct. And your

advice is limited to heritage. It doesn't encroach on planning or anything else,

does it? Correct. Yeah. And were you provided with the the KMH, the Murphy

documentation at the time? I was, yes. Yeah. It's not mentioned in your proof at any

point. Is there a reason for that? No. I gave my own independent assessment of

of Mr. Murphy's documents at the time we were instructed.

I've seen no reason to put them in the proof,

but we can go through them today if you'd like.

And you don't, unlike several of the designers

of this scheme, you don't describe the scheme

as heritage -led, do you, in your proof?

I have to look.

I would say it is heritage, sitting here now, I would say.

I'll come to what your evidence orally is in a moment,

but I couldn't find that phrase.

It appears with great frequency, actually,

in the evidence of others.

But I didn't find it in your proof of evidence.

I'll accept that.

All right.

So Miss Killarlay was instructed in June 2023,

but not on Heritage.

Is that right?

Yeah.

And since your instruction, has the scheme changed for heritage reasons?

It has changed in some ways, in subtle ways, but it hasn't been a radical change.

Did the increase in heights to 3a and 3b predate your involvement?

It did.

Yeah. But those increases post -dated the involvement of KMH, didn't they?

Yes.

Yeah. And you don't identify a heritage reason for that increase in heights, do you, within your proof?

I don't. I would say, sir, it might be helpful to explain the role of a heritage consultant

at this stage. I would expect on a scheme like this that when a heritage consultant

is instructed, there is already a concept proposal. So we're not working from a blank

slate and with a an applicant like the Truman Brewery Estates who have created

and curated this place over decades I would expect architects of the highest

calibre to be appointed all of this happened and so the initial concept was

very good and that's

and ensure that all opportunities for enhancement, better revealing significance are taken.

That was done initially by KM Heritage, and so by the time we were instructed, I was instructed

to provide heritage advice.

a lot of those subtle changes had been made and the proposals in my view and I

took I independently assessed them in my view were very good. All right thank you

Mr. Dunn. The guidance that is offered seeks to avoid heritage harm does it not?

It does, yeah.

Yeah. And it responds or should respond to concerns expressed

about the scheme including by the local planning authority.

Is that right?

Yes.

Yeah. All right.

And there were a number of pre -app meetings,

all of which I think predated your involvement.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Yeah. Those meetings took place on the 19th of December

of 2023, the 2nd of October of 2023, the 1st of November of 2023, and the 6th of

December 2023. If you need to we can look at those dates but they may be familiar

to you by now. Yeah. Now the pre -app advice letters that followed those

meetings tell us that work was obviously of a scheme of this size was ongoing in

advance of those pre -app meetings? You'd expect there to be several months of

work before any such meeting would you not? Yeah. Or more or more than that? Well

it depends every case is different. Well let's have a look at what happened in

case, could you pick up... let's start with the first in time, which is CDD 09, the 19th

of December 2023 letter, if you have that.

Just getting it.

Yeah.

Let me know when you're there.

I'm there.

Oh, great.

Thank you.

And let's start with figure eight,

just above paragraph 1 .93.

Okay, just trying.

Okay, 1 .93.

Do you have a page for that?

Yeah, it is.

It's page 22 of 44.

That's the internal pagination.

I don't, I'm using the paper copy,

So I don't have the PDF page, I'm afraid.

I'm told it's the same.

Do you see at figure A, you've got blocks 3A and 3B

there at six storeys and five storeys?

So clearly, those blocks have increased fairly significantly

between this time and the date of submission of the application, yes? Yes.

And do you know specifically what heritage advice was given to justify

that increase? I don't know. That would have been given by KM Heritage. Do you know

whether any specific heritage advice was given in order to justify that increase

or those increases? I don't know but I assume there would have been. I've worked

with KM Heritage over the years and I would expect there would have been a lot of discussion.

These are iterative processes and a lot of discussion and a lot of testing goes on and

Mr. Murphy would have been involved in that.

I'm more interested in what you don't assume but what you know. You've seen the documents

that went in. Is that the sum total of the KMH material that you've seen or have you

discuss matters with Mr. Murphy?

Sorry, when are you?

Do you have, are you privy to any more material

that derives from Mr. Murphy's firm?

No.

Than we received on Friday afternoon?

No.

No, okay, that's the extent of it.

So there's no discussion in order to

No, there's nothing hidden there.

Turn an assumption into something that you know.

No.

All right.

And then moving on in the document, if we could,

To figure 12

Well actually let's pause at page 27 of 44 first

Do you see a concern expressed there or its officers being particularly surprised?

page 27 of 44 paragraph 1 .1 to 2 yes

regarding an unsolicited change in the scale of the proposals on Allen Gardens

since the pre -application meeting. Yeah. Now are we to take it that that surprise

relates to those building heights that we've just looked at? I think so, yes.

So that was an expression of surprise in relation to heights that have since been

superseded further, yes?

And then over the page, figure 12, this is page 28 of 44,

proposal of blocks 3a and 3b presented at July 2023

pre -app meeting.

And that must be the 19th of July one

that I mentioned to you a moment ago.

Now let's turn, if we may now, to the next pre -app letter,

which is a few months later, February the 12th, 2024.

It's CDD08, if you have that.

Yep.

I have it, great.

And if you could turn within it, please, to page 12.

Again, that's the internal, or page 13.

Let's start with 12, paragraph 1 .43.

Yes.

I'm there.

And then the figure 9 is what I'm looking at.

Image from pre -application document dated 11th of May, 2023.

Yes.

So that's an earlier date, isn't it?

Yeah.

an earlier date.

So the the scheme itself must date back to early 2023 at the latest.

Yes, I think spring 2023 is a fair assessment.

Well, you'd need to be pretty busy in the spring to get the material ready in the pre -application

document by the 11th of May.

I mean, I'd suggest it was early 2023.

Okay.

Yeah.

It was said, I think, by Mr. Morris that you were involved about halfway along, about 50

percent of the way along the scheme.

Were you here for Mr. Morris's evidence?

I was.

I don't recall that statement. I mean we've always been clear. I've always been clear that it's February 24

that I was instructed. Which by my calculation is about two -thirds of the way through.

Yes. Because the application was registered

six months after your involvement. Yeah.

You recall, don't you, that Mr. Morris was unaware of the involvement of Heritage Consultants.

Yes.

Yeah.

And yet he was one of the principle designers of this, the wider scheme.

He was.

Did that come as a surprise to you when you heard that evidence?

No because as I said at the beginning, well this morning, about the general process of

developing a scheme like this.

Mr. Morris and his other architects and the client

would have developed, with their experience,

having worked in heritage -sensitive contexts

in London for many decades, would

have known how to come up with a very good first initial

proposal.

And the heritage, so as I said, it's not a blank slate.

They don't have to wait for a heritage consultant

to tell them what to do. I would expect a sort of a good start and that's

essentially what they did and again I'm sort of repeating myself here but the

heritage consultant would have come in slightly after that to start to finesse

the project towards application stage. Let's be clear Mr. Dunn this is a scheme

the entirety of which falls within a conservation area yes? Absolutely yeah.

Yeah. According to the conservation area appraisal, this conservation area is one of the most important

historic areas in London. You wouldn't disagree with that? I wouldn't disagree with that, but

as I've said out in my proof there are lots of parts of this conservation area which detract

from its character and appearance. It's not consistent. There are some areas that are

absolutely of the highest quality nationwide around Fournier Street etc, but this area and

these areas that are proposed for redevelopment

are areas that detract from its character and appearance.

I'll come on to that.

But I'm asking you, in relation to Mr. Morris's evidence,

if you're right that there are various parts of the conservation

area that detract, that makes it all the more important,

doesn't it, that a designer of the scheme

should have the benefit of the expertise of a heritage expert so as best to

understand what and where the detractors are. You'd agree with that, surely?

To a certain extent, but I would also give Mr. Morris more credit and his

colleagues from BGY and others who have worked in this context over many decades

in many parts of London which are very heritage sensitive.

They are not working in a vacuum.

They understand the general principles about heritage

and how to respond to a very sensitive context.

That's the starting point.

They produce an initial concept.

And that will be, as I said, I would

expect it to be of high quality.

And it was in this case.

And then as we move towards application stage,

the heritage consultant ensures that all opportunities to enhance, better

reveal significance are taken. So that's how in my experience in London how that

process generally works. Are you suggesting that provided one has an

experienced and skilled architect it is not necessary to have early involvement

of heritage input? If I can just finish the question I see you poised to give an

answer.

Satisfied with the later involvement on a review basis,

effectively.

I wouldn't consider this a later involvement.

I would still consider this an early involvement.

But the point I'm trying to make, sir,

and I think you've probably seen this in your career as well,

is that the starting point is not a blank slate.

So it's not like a developer and his team comes to a heritage consultant and says,

we've got this piece of land, but we don't know what to do with it because it's heritage sensitive,

and we need your help please.

They will be experienced enough to start that process moving with a design concept.

And as I said, in this case, I would expect it to be of high quality,

and it certainly was from the initial start.

And it's not always like that.

Sometimes I've been involved in many projects where we've had to do a lot more,

we've had to give a lot more advice at the very early stages saying this is the wrong start,

this is, you know, the approach is not right, you need to fundamentally change.

This was not the case here.

Mr Dunn, you have qualifications and experience in heritage assessment, don't you?

I do, yeah.

Mr Morris doesn't have those features and you wouldn't expect an architect necessarily to have them, would you?

It depends. Some architects do, but it's also a lot about experience.

Does Mr. Morris have these qualifications?

Not that I'm aware of.

Alright. Within the conservation area, the brewery forms an important part, doesn't it?

It does.

And of course there are statutory obligations that are engaged where a conservation area

is in contemplation for development. And yet you would say, would you, that Mr. Morris

was led by heritage considerations without knowing of the involvement of any heritage

expert or naming one?

I can't speak for Mr. Morris, and we've heard his evidence.

But knowing Mr. Morris and having worked with him

over the years on various projects,

I am confident that he is very much aware of heritage issues

and heritage sensitivities.

And he will have begun his design ideas, his design

processes, early concepts with that in mind.

I ask you the question because you have said, despite not using the phrase, as several of

the architects do, you have said that you regard the scheme to have been heritage led.

It follows from that, does it not, that those responsible for designing the scheme should

have been led by a heritage assessment and any relevant concerns arising out of that.

It follows, doesn't it?

It does.

I will qualify that and say that I believe they were led by heritage advice at an early

stage but not at the very, very early concept stage and that's the point I've been trying

to make.

Well, we have Mr. Morris's evidence.

I think that's the extent of what I wanted to ask you about it.

Could we turn, please, Mr. Dunn, to your proof of evidence?

and 4 .2, where you deal, you start to deal with the main site.

In summary, you say the recommendation for approval

for the main site application was based on officer's assessment,

that the proposals would cause a low to moderate level of harm

to designated heritage assets,

but that this harm would be outweighed by public benefits.

And then it goes on.

You say, I generally agree with some aspects of this assessment as set out.

Now, are you agreeing with a low to moderate level of harm outweighed by public benefits?

No.

You don't identify any harm, do you?

That's correct.

Yeah.

Are you agreeing with the public benefits?

As I haven't identified harm, I haven't done that balance.

Yeah, that's what I thought to be the case, but I wondered why you were agreeing with what I suppose one would call an external balance,

which is assuming the identification of some harm, which you don't find, then the next question is, is that harm outweighed by public benefits?

So what is it that you're agreeing with at 4 .2?

The point I was making was going back to the officer's report, which is very long, and

I didn't want to repeat it in my proof, that there are lots of points in the assessment

of the proposals that I do agree with, but not everything.

That's why I've set this out here.

I believe there would be enhancement.

I don't believe harm would be caused by the proposals, but there are some points within those officers reports that I do agree with

I mean it may be slightly

unclear the way it's been worded here, but that's that's what I'm trying to let's let's make it clear

You weren't performing were you a planning balance or an external balance?

No, no and so far as the identification of harm is concerned

It is clear from both now your written and oral evidence that you find no harm whatsoever, correct?

And we'll turn in a moment, we'll turn to the officer's report and one or two other

sources in a few moments.

But before we do that, could we please pick up the quality review panel document of the

13th of December?

It's CDD 11.

Let me know when you're there.

I'm there.

Thank you.

Now, again, I'm conscious this is – you weren't involved at this stage, but you

appear at this inquiry as a heritage witness, hence these questions.

Yeah.

Apparently there are two.

Yes, I'm looking at the AM and PM.

I'm looking at the eight pager.

Oh, I'm on the six pager.

Oh, I beg your pardon.

So one is six pages, one is eight pages.

Is that right?

One is eight pages, and I suspect

that was the AM one from memory.

Has that got Tower Hamlets headed in a paper?

They probably both do, but yes.

Right.

No, I see.

No, only one of them does.

So the one I'm looking at does.

Yeah, I've got that now.

Thank you.

Apologies for that.

The first thing to observe, I suppose, on the front sheet

is that the panel included a heritage expert, didn't it?

Kate Graham.

Kate Graham, yep.

Yeah.

And then a question was put

At 13 within the master plan, did you do any heritage assessment?

Okay?

Yeah.

The answer given was this.

A baseline heritage assessment was undertaken to reflect the fact that the site includes

a listed building, the Boiler House, and sits within a historic setting, that of the Boiler

House, Christchurch, and Brick Lane.

Whilst we're adding mass to the site, this has been informed by townscape studies.

The heights are felt to work within the context.

We're working with Tower Hamlets and looking at key views, including the Truman's Chimney

and Christchurch Spire.

Now Mr. Dunn, have you – I know that you said that you were supplied with the Murphy

documentation when you were first instructed.

It's since become – or three documents associated with that have become inquiry documents.

The report itself, should we just get that up?

It's ID 15.

So am I to leave this document and go?

If you could, we're going to come back to it I'm afraid.

I just want to try and clarify with you the date of the document

The mr. Murphy document

Okay ID it's ID 15

It's the Truman brewery master plan initial Heritage commentary document. Yeah, you've got that I've got that

Do you happen to know what the date of the document is?

I don't, I'm afraid.

Now, I have asked my learned friend this morning and I'm told that if you do something clever,

you can see that it's dated June.

I'm not managing that, but do you know whether the copy that you had had its frontispiece

with the full date on it?

No, what I've seen is exactly as...

Exactly the same.

I explained to the other friend that I've taken instructions, there was no difference in this.

Right.

Well, let's for the time being assume that it was a June document.

Do you know whether it was shared with the council?

I don't know.

Or did it remain an internal document?

I don't know because I wasn't involved.

I can only assume that the reference in paragraph 13

to the baseline heritage assessment is to this document.

Is that your assumption as well?

It is, yeah.

Yeah, OK.

And what we learned from paragraph 13,

or from looking at the document itself, which

we can do in a few moments, is that what really happened

at that point was that there was a cheque done about whether

there were listed buildings. Can I just stop here? Are you back to the QRP

document? Yes I am. I'm afraid I'm going to be toggling a bit between these two. I don't

know if there's an easier way to do this but I'm kind of going back and forth so

if you just give me a sec. That's CDD. That is CDD 11. First one, yeah. Paragraph 13. Okay, I'm there, yeah.

We've looked at that but essentially the what's the document is summarised as

as listing which heritage assets exist within the development site, yes?

Yeah.

Is that the extent of the analysis that you have provided for this inquiry,

or does yours go any further than that?

Well, my analysis is set out in the HTVIA document.

And that is the analysis that Townscape Consultancy produced for the application.

It was the research and work was carried out by colleagues and I oversaw it.

But if we want to go to that document, there is a lot of history and a lot of baseline

documentation.

So it's much more than summarised here.

We will go to that document in a few moments.

You weren't the author of that document, but you checked it and you were happy with its

content. Yes. Yeah. What I was asking you for was a comparison between the exercise

that had been conducted by Mr. Murphy and the exercise that you have conducted. Mm -mmm.

Does yours go further than Mr. Murphy's? I believe it does, yes. Let's have a look at,

Before we leave this document, the heading heritage.

It's paragraphs 19 to 22.

In the quality review panel?

Yes.

And it's page five.

Oh, yeah, OK.

Of eight.

Yeah.

First paragraph there, 19.

Whilst there are several underlying principles

and what you're trying to achieve, which are informed by the historic environment.

The master plan as a whole doesn't feel like the proposals are heritage -led.

There doesn't appear to be a clear heritage message.

Would you agree or disagree with those observations at this stage in the scheme?

I would tend to disagree.

I mean, I wasn't, as you know, I wasn't involved at this stage, so I don't know all the discussions

that were had and how this assessment was reached.

But I believe this was heritage -led, as I've discussed.

I've seen the initial KM Heritage document and I agree with its findings at that stage.

So I don't know the context from which this paragraph was written and who wrote it exactly.

But Mr. Dunn, I'm slightly struggling at this point.

I'm sure it's my fault that you agreed a moment ago

that the Murphy document was what

must have been referred to at paragraph 13, the baseline

study.

All right?

Yeah.

You said that your own work, whether that

be described, that be seen as your proof of evidence

for this inquiry or the HTVIA goes further than the Murphy

document, yes?

Yeah.

And yet you say that you would tend

to disagree with the observation made at paragraph 19,

that there isn't a clear heritage message

and that the proposals are not heritage led.

If here's my question if I may if the only document available at the time

Was a baseline study

That does no more than identify

Which listed buildings are situated?

Within or near

the development sites

How could it possibly be said?

leaving aside the

experience and expertise of the designers, how could it possibly be said at this stage to have been heritage led?

I think we probably need to go look at that KM heritage document because it's more than just

identifying a few listed buildings and the conservation area. There are some

assessments made about

the quality of some aspects of the conservation area, the potential to enhance and better reveal a significance,

and the initial proposal.

Let's look at that next.

To avoid the burden of toggling between documents, let's just have a look at paragraphs 21 and 22 before we do that.

Brent, you said historically Truman's Brewery is an important site.

You'd agree with that, presumably?

Yeah.

Below, there is importance too in the linkage of the buildings around the yards, which is

now the Boiler House having once been the stables that are inextricably linked with

the Coopridge.

You'd agree that the spaces, the yards themselves, form part of the history and the heritage

value of the brewery?

No, I don't agree in fact because these yards are a completely modern situation.

So the historic yards have been swept away, so the vast swathe of open space is not historic,

as I've said out in my proof, and the informal, irregular series of yards that form the character

of the brewery when it was at its height in the 19th century are gone, are not legible

now. So that is different. I mean, I don't agree that the current open space is a positive

attribute of the brewery or the conservation area.

Would you agree that none of the historic linkage is evident in the master plan for

the site?

The master plan creates new spaces which I would say are reflective of what was historically

there. They don't try to copy those spaces. Those spaces changed from decade

to decade. I mean we've looked at a number of historic maps and gold maps

etc. and one can see that the brewery spaces grew and shrunk according to need

at the time. So this new proposal or the current proposal is something that I

would say is in the spirit of the historic brewery

arts being informal, irregular, narrow, wide, et cetera,

and not in any way a large open space.

Does that denote agreement or disagreement

with the final sentence of paragraph 20?

Well, I actually disagree with this sentence because I don't see how the historic linkage

would be reproduced in a new master plan.

Has it changed constantly over the decades?

and I don't know exactly what the context of this statement or why the statement appears as it does

And what the discussions were at the time and what was shown and and what the QRP looked like

Okay, and finally I take it from your answers that you would disagree with the last sentence of 22

The heritage storey is not presently clear. How do these proposals respond to the significance of the site?

I don't agree with that, no.

Is it because your views were shared

by those involved with the working up of the scheme

that amendments or adjustments were not

made in the course of its journey

to account for these concerns?

Was it because these concerns were dismissed?

Sorry, I'm not quite with you on that.

Yes, we've got the Q.

Can you, sir, make that question slightly simpler for me?

The QRP is dated the 13th of December, 2023.

A number of concerns are expressed within it

about the adequacy of the scheme

so far as heritage issues are concerned.

Yeah. Yeah.

You disagree with all of those.

I disagree on the basis of what I can tell

from this document.

And as I said, I wasn't present at the time.

No, I know that.

I don't know all the details

and how the discussions went, et cetera,

how the presentations went.

I do know, but by the time this application was presented

the last time to the QRP, the response

was very, very positive.

And I'll leave it at that, really.

All right, you wanted to go to the Murphy document.

and you refer to presentations. Let's look at both of those, please. The Buckley Grey

Yeoman presentation and the KMH report.

Okay. Can you give me some numbers?

Yes. So the KMH report is ID 15, and the presentation is ID 16.

So I've got KM report, KM heritage report, yes.

Can we do this in sequence or, because I don't know how to get both of them up at the same

time really.

Well we'll start with the report.

Okay.

But I'm afraid we'll quite quickly go to the presentation and then back again.

That's fine if you just give me a few seconds to get there.

So I'm on the KM Heritage Report now.

Now let's, it's a document, isn't it,

that constitutes 13 pages of text

followed by 13 pages of plans and images to follow.

Yeah.

And the first 12 pages comprise a fairly detailed account of what is within the development

sites and near them.

The 13th page, page 13 is the one I want to look at with you now, please.

Yep.

Starting at 41, the emerging master plan is described in the presentation material prepared

by Buckley Grey Yeoman.

Yep.

And that takes us, I'm afraid, to another document, which is the presentation.

Okay.

Which is?

ID 16

Yeah

And this is dated 24th of May of 2023

And if you can make your way to slide 23

Page 23 or?

I think it is page 23.

Yeah.

You've seen this presentation, have you?

You said a moment ago you don't know what happened in the presentations.

Well, here we have a flavour of what happened in the presentation.

Yes, I mean, that was meant...

I don't know what the discussion was.

I mean, these presentations, the presentation material is one thing,

but the discussions and the way it was presented

and the questions, et cetera,

that also can change the outcome

or can influence the outcome of a QRP.

I certainly don't know that because I wasn't there.

You weren't there and I'm trying to avoid with you

the making of assumptions.

So that's why I'm looking at a document

and we can see here the four founding principles.

Sorry, I'm still, I'm just looking, where are the pages?

Okay, no I've got it. So what page was it we're looking at?

Twenty -three. Okay, hold on.

Do you have that?

Yeah, four founding principles.

None of those principles is heritage. You don't see the word heritage there, do you?

I don't, no.

And then if we move on to page 66, again, we can see here an earlier version of the

3B is at five storeys. Do you see that? Yeah. So Mr. Murphy's firm were actually

not considering the scale and bulk or mass of buildings now being proposed

were they? It doesn't appear to be that, no. No. We know that we've got Mr. Murphy's

firm if you look at the front the frontest piece of this document or the

sorry, the second page, his firm features as the third page,

along with various other professionals.

KM Heritage is there.

And in any event, what we don't have,

either in this presentation or in the initial heritage

commentary document, the KMH report, is any detailed engagement with height and scale?

We don't have that, do we?

In the Murphy report.

Do you want to show me in the Murphy document or in the presentation where you have that

sort of detailed engagement, albeit for a more modest scheme at that point?

Yes.

I mean paragraph 44. He says the emerging proposers are of an appropriate scale bulk and massing

Represent a considerable enhancement of the character impedance of the conservation area in the setting of listed buildings over the present condition

So yes there, you know there are there is commentary about bulk height and mass

Do you think that's adequate to enable a heritage led scheme?

At this stage when the proposals are in flux and you know decisions are being made changes are being made

Enhancements are being made

This is may well be adequate for this stage of the process. Yes, but this seems to be a

It's a point that you've you've come back to a couple of times now in order for a scheme to be genuinely

authentically heritage -led

it's important that the designers have the benefit of a heritage analysis and

this I'm sure you'd agree with me this doesn't count as an analysis does it

you said that the HTVI contains an analysis and that you offer an analysis

but you're not suggesting are you that the couple of paragraphs that you've

pointed out on page 13 provide the necessary analysis by which a designer

could say okay I need to take careful attention here and think about that when

I'm making my design decisions that's that's absent from the document isn't it

provides a steer and a direction and guidance and the direction which the

proposals should go mr. Murphy felt at the time that the the height bulk and

massing were appropriate and that essentially giving the advice to the

you're on the right track we can move we you know we can work with this and let's

take it to the next stage that is the sort of general process in all of this

mr. Dunn does it even provide a steer isn't look at the language being used

isn't this much more in the spirit of a review or a back cheque the emerging

proposals place buildings in a positive relationship with surrounding streets

There's no hint here of this part of the scheme is heritage compliant, but this part would

benefit from the following considerations.

Here is the benefit of my expertise, my assessment, and then off you go and design it as you see

fit.

We don't have that in the document.

It's much more a review of what has already been presented to Mr. Murphy, isn't it?

It may appear as that, but there's a lot more to this process than just these sorts of documents.

I mean, there are regular meetings, there are discussions,

I mean, there are probably tonnes of notes from those meetings.

All of this feeds into that process to develop and finesse and

you know, get a detailed scheme or get a scheme to an appropriate place where it, you know,

and where all those opportunities to, you know, enhance and reveal as I've explained

are taken, and it can be presented and worked up towards application stage.

That's how it works.

I mean, you know, that's what it says.

That's correct.

But all of the other things that would have been happening in this process are, you know,

are not clear here from this document.

Mr. Dunn, if I may.

Sorry, I didn't finish your answer.

No, I'm finished.

Thank you.

What is clear is that in the applicant's own words, now

the appellant, this body of work is no more than a baseline

study.

It's not the analytical assessment

for which you now contend.

The applicant itself was comfortable describing it

in those terms.

So isn't there a tension or a disconnect between the way in which you now describe this document

or page 13?

Because it's page 13.

Until page 13, we agree that there isn't even the expression of an opinion, is there?

Are you on page 13 of the KM Heritage document?

I am.

And I'm not focusing with you on the previous pages.

Okay.

Because they are the fruits of historical research, aren't they?

Yeah.

And it's only at page 13 that we see anything that resembles the expression of an opinion.

And the applicant itself described the work as a baseline study.

So how do you explain, please, Mr. Dunn, the difference in view adopted by the applicant

then and your evaluation of what this document is and is doing?

Well I explain this as a step in a very long process where the baseline is the starting

point, some key principles are set out, the designer reacts to those principles, some

and methodically and with a lot of meetings and a lot of discussion

and a lot of input from a lot of different people

and towards an application

and at this stage I see nothing wrong with this document.

Mr Dunn, I know that you spent a good part of your career at

Historic England, didn't you? But you've been in private practise now for how long?

Two and a half years.

Yeah, and in that time have you been involved in schemes that had earlier involvement of

a heritage expert with a greater degree of analysis than we see in this document?

Probably but every case is different.

It really depends.

It really depends on what one is dealing with.

I'm involved in providing advice on some grade one listed buildings, two different

grade one listed buildings, and of course the issues are very different there.

And the advice might be different, the sequence of advice might be different.

It really depends on each case.

All right.

Mr. Dunn, in any event, Mr. Murphy's document is concerned only with the main site.

It doesn't deal with block J at all, does it?

That's correct.

So that's another reason why it is difficult to place even

the reliance that you do on this document in terms

of guiding a process that isn't looking at buildings

of the height that are now being proposed

and isn't looking at the entirety of the scheme.

That's fair, isn't it?

Well, it is fair to identify that Mr. Murphy

doesn't talk about Block A or Block J.

I don't want to assume because I don't know,

but I can only assume that that was part of the process

part of the process with Mr. Murphy advising.

OK. Mr. Dunn, we've looked at the QRP letter.

We can go back to it if necessary.

It may not be necessary.

That letter expressed a number of heritage concerns, did it not?

Yeah. Yeah. And by concerns, I mean

a concern that heritage harm

would result or will result from a scheme unless it is in some way changed

to avoid that happening. Yeah? Yeah. You mentioned the officers report it is a

long document I'd ask you to turn to it albeit relatively briefly because we can

cut cut to the chase as it were by going to paragraph 7 .261. Sorry I need a I need a

I beg your pardon. It's CDL 0 1

And sorry which which paragraph or page

It's

7 .261 but the first of those I just see that there's another

It repeats itself, but I think this happens before it repeats itself

Conclusions to heritage

7 .2...

261... nearly there.

The heritage part of this report starts at 7 .200.

I've got it now.

You've got it now, and it says heritage harm, and there are three...

So is CDL1 correct?

did I get this wrong last time?

if I give a PDF page number that might help

but I, there we are, what's the PDF number for that?

it's 110 of 3

2 -1 -3.

1 -10 of 2 -1 -3.

That ought to help us find the right paragraph number.

Anyway, Mr. Dunn, you see there three types of heritage harm identified in the officer's

report.

I do?

Yeah.

So, rather like the QRP, there were concerns about Heritage Helm expressed within the officer's

report, yes?

Yes.

And then let's leave that rather unwieldy document to one side and then have a look,

if we may, to what I hope is an easier one, CDD01, one of the GLA.

I could go on this computer actually and do that.

Hold on.

Whichever is easier for you, Mr. Dunworth.

Okay, CDD.

CDD 01 it's the 28th of October 24 GLA document

Yeah

And a paragraph that the heritage part of this starts at 34

Paragraph 34 no and if we move straight actually to direct heritage impacts

starts at 40

Yeah.

I'm there.

You're there.

A degree of harm is liable to be caused to the Grade 1 listed boiler house.

And then halfway down that paragraph, a degree of harm is also caused by the partial demolition

of the yard wall north of the site.

And then finally, this part of the proposed development and where it's caused is less

than substantial direct harm at a low level to the listed buildings.

Now, Mr. Dunn, I don't need to ask you whether you agree with any of these observations because

you said you identify no harm whatsoever.

Yeah, that's correct.

But the GLA identifies those forms of harm.

We've already looked at the two pre -app documents, both of which identify harm, don't they?

Yeah.

And then Historic England, the inspector asked questions about the letter.

You were questioned extensively in the examination in chief about the letter.

Let's start with what I hope are uncontroversial points.

If you have that letter, it's CDD02.

CDD02, yep.

Out of interest, did you ever appear as a witness in an inquiry whilst you were at Historic England?

Yes. You did. So sometimes you have the advantage of being able to ask the author of a letter

what it means. Yep. When you were at Historic England and you, I assume from my learned

friends remark that you had experience of writing similar letters to this, yes? Yep.

You would do your best to use language that made the letter as clear as possible, yes?

I would certainly, yep. Not least because it might be relied upon in an inquiry where

a witness was not in attendance from Historic England.

All right.

But can I just qualify that?

That is correct, but that's no guarantee

that the language used in an Historic England letter

is going to be drafted with that in mind.

I managed the team for a long time,

and that was really important to me,

but that was something that one had to constantly look at

and cheque the wording, say, is this public inquiry proof?

Make sure it is, if it's not.

I haven't been there since April 23.

So how these letters are written now is I

don't know exactly anymore.

Mr. Don, is that a polite way of saying that not everyone has

such exacting standards as you do.

No.

I'm just saying, I was very much aware of that.

As the team leader for all these inspectors who

are writing these letters, some of the inspectors

weren't thinking about that as much as I would have been.

I think that's all I'll say.

All right.

Do you know Mr. Young?

I know Mr. Young very well.

I managed him for six or seven years.

He's a competent professional.

Yes, yeah.

Yeah.

So on this document, if you wouldn't mind turning

to page three.

Yeah.

Sorry, let's start with the summary.

I beg your pardon.

Do you see the second?

Yeah, summary.

The penultimate sentence, some harm

would arise principally through the loss of the boundary walls and ancillary

structures which would erode the site's industrial character." Yeah. Can we take

those words to mean what they what they say that here there's an expression of

concern about harm, heritage harm caused? We can. Yeah, thank you.

And then on the third page of this document, it says,

however the views from Allen Gardens revealed,

do you see that penultimate paragraph on that page?

Eroded through the loss of the remaining boundary walls

and associated structures and their replacement

with much larger buildings.

We therefore consider that some harm would be caused

to the conservation area through the loss of these industrial features and character.

That's an expression of concern about heritage harm, isn't it?

Yes.

And again, I don't need to ask you if you agree or disagree.

We know you disagree.

That's correct.

And then over the page, top of the page.

Can I just point out that there's a little bit more in this that actually is sort of

important to note and says although we note that the animating of Buxton Street and Spital

Street and these views may have townscape and wider public benefits. So that's accepting

that there is a balanced judgement to be taken here.

Those benefits, Mr Dunn, are not the internal balance. That's an external balance, isn't

it yeah so even your your colleague or former colleague mr. young shouldn't

strictly have been weighing benefits that are not related to heritage against

any harms should he I don't think he is he is formally weighing this but he is

pointing out that there are other things to consider in the balance as you know

this is his advice to the local authority this is advising the local

authority that we, or he as Historic England,

recognise these other potential benefits.

And that's totally normal for a Historic England letter.

As I say, it's not a formal balancing exercise,

but it's just pointing out that there are potentially

other benefits that are recognised.

If it helps, Mr. Dunn, it's accepted

that one has to consider public benefits separately

in the external balance. It's not the role of a heritage expert either at an inquiry

or providing a consultation response from Historic England to conduct that balancing

act, is it? Not formally, but I don't see anything wrong with alluding to the fact that

the local authority will have to weigh up and remind

the local authority of these things.

So that is a common way of expressing advice.

In my years at Historic England, that was.

Well isn't one thing, to use your language,

wrong with doing that, that it's outside the remit

of Historic England and Historic England wouldn't

necessarily know in the necessary detail

of what those benefits are, what the nature of those benefits

would be.

It's very much, to use your earlier language,

it's an assumption, isn't it, not based on evidence

or the necessary expertise.

I think, particularly in these, the things that

are raised in this sentence, townscape benefits,

I think that is within the remit of historic England.

I can certainly give advice, general advice on this.

But as I said, this is not a formal balancing assessment.

This is just giving general advice to the local authority.

You may want to, or you should be aware that we understand

this, and we note that these townscape benefits.

But it's not just townscape.

When you first read that sentence,

you said wider public benefits.

Yeah, and it's not.

The wider public benefits aren't listed, but I think.

They're not listed, and they could be way outside the heritage

remit, couldn't they?

But I don't think it's beyond historic England's expertise

to recognise that there will be public benefits of some kind

without specifying exactly what kind they are.

Does historic England ever give townscape evidence?

In a general sense, yes.

Urban design, townscape, public realm

is considered to be within their overall remit.

You're not giving townscape evidence at this inquiry,

are you?

I'm not, no.

And then over the page, please.

Just above relevant legislation and policy, we consider that a low level of harm to the

conservation area's character would result through the overbearing scale of proposed

block J. Identification of harm with which you disagree.

Yes?

Yeah.

And then, so there are various expressions of concern about heritage harm contained in

this letter, aren't there?

They are?

There are, yes.

And then finally, and briefly, I hope, I will take you to the sentence that the inspector

alighted on, bearing in mind that the authors of these letters, you especially, but others

hopefully will try to use language that faithfully, effectively reflects what they intended to

say.

It's just that word significant at the end of the second paragraph.

We do not wish to raise significant concerns about the scale and massing as proposed.

I want to ask you this, Mr. Dundee.

between that sentence and this sentence, we do not wish to raise concerns about the scale

and massing as proposed. Are they different in meaning or are they the same in meaning?

Yeah, there obviously, with or without the word significant,

changes subtly the meaning.

But I cannot read into Mr. Young's mind

and why he used this form of words,

significant concerns or just concerns.

The point he's trying to make is he

doesn't want to raise further concerns that

would lead to an objection or to a letter that cannot support

the proposals.

Overall, and in general, we've been through this letter

more than once, this, in my experience,

is the kind of letter that Historic England writes

when they like a proposal.

This is the sort of thing they do.

They raise some concern because in their view,

that's their job.

They have to.

In Mr. Young's view, on behalf of Historic England,

they raise some concerns that are set out here.

But overall, I would look at this

as a very supportive letter.

And this is the kind of letter that I'll.

Sorry.

It's not quite the question I was asking you.

I mean, you've gone back into parsing this letter, which

you did quite a lot of on Friday already.

So I'm deliberately not going back there.

It's accepted that a letter can express either no concerns

or no significant concerns,

and in both cases, ultimately raise no objection.

This is a letter that raises some concerns,

but ultimately raises no objection.

That's what this letter is, isn't it?

Yes.

It is.

It might be a more supportive letter

if it raised no concerns whatsoever,

which is actually what you do in your written evidence,

no harms, only enhancement, and therefore no objection.

These are just points on a spectrum, aren't they?

Of course, yeah.

And both of those permutations result in no objection.

You could of course have, we have concerns

and we therefore do object.

A letter with which you'll be very familiar.

You'll no doubt have authored some letters like that.

But isn't there an easier way than a rather sophisticated

reinterpretation of these words to understand why it is

or why it was that Mr. Young included the word significant?

He did have some concerns, but they

didn't reach the point in his mind

as to justify an objection.

Is that fair?

Yeah, that's a fair interpretation.

Thank you.

Let's turn then to another topic.

So I don't know if you intended to have a mid -morning break.

I can crack on or I can pause at any point.

It would be fine if you prefer me to carry on.

I'm equally happy to do that.

Well, sir, it will be at least an hour.

I can say now and to the witness that I'm

trying to limit the number of viewpoints and visualisations

that we go to given what's already gone.

But there are some that I think it would be helpful for you

to hear about.

Next, I'll take that to the back.

Especially when you're at 11 .5.

Thanks, David.

Of the significance of a heritage asset

and the contribution of its setting is vital in understanding the potential impact and

acceptability of a proposal.

In fact, you say as much at paragraph 823 of your proof, citing as you do quite rightly

the PPG.

Yeah.

And then moving on from that, that the justification for a building's proposed demolition will

still need to be proportionate, won't it, to its relative significance and its contribution

to the significance of the conservation area as a whole.

Yes.

Yeah.

And the same principles, Mr. Dunn, apply in relation to other elements which make a positive

contribution to the significance of a conservation area, don't they?

And I was going to say, such as open spaces.

Would you agree with that?

So far as they do make a positive contribution, yes.

But that depends on what that contribution is.

Yes.

So you'd say in this case, there are no examples of that?

I would say on the development sites

that we're looking at as part of this inquiry,

I would say those open spaces do not contribute positively

to the character appearance of conservation area, correct?

All right.

In other words, then, just tracing

what we've agreed as points of, I think,

fairly trite points of principle within your discipline.

In order to do a proper heritage impact assessment,

it's necessary first to assess the significance

of the conservation area.

In this case, we're focused, aren't we,

on the conservation area.

Then second, to assess the role or contribution

of the site to the significance of the conservation area.

Mm -mmm, and then third to assess the impact of the development on the significance of the conservation area, correct

Yeah, yeah, and and just to be absolutely clear you

Do you say that the Murphy document that we looked at before we broke does all of those things?

I would say in in very general terms. I

Think it does. Yes. He's

Yes, it's it's not a very detailed document

We've already spoken about that, but he has assessed in very broad terms the character

and appearance of the conservation area and those parts which are proposed for development.

And he has some comments about those.

He suggests, and I agree with his points, that those areas currently detract

from the character and appearance.

So, yes, some assessment has been done.

Let me put it this way, Mr. Dunn.

You said a moment, a few moments ago, quite rightly, that different authors will apply

different standards to the precision with which they draught letters.

If you had been responsible for producing that report, would you have provided greater

detail or more of the analysis that we have just agreed is necessary in a heritage impact

assessment? Would you have done so? I can't answer that. This was a step in the

process. It was at a very early stage and I think Mr. Murphy's report was

proportionate to the stage at which the project was at the time. Mr. Dunn, forgive me,

there's no reason you can't answer that question. You obviously weren't involved.

No. You've described what he produced as lacking in detail. You said it's not a

very detailed document?

Well, compared to, for example, the HTVIA,

it's not a very detailed document,

but it's a very, very different stage in the process.

It's an early steer.

It's setting the direction for the proposals.

And I think for that period in which the project,

it's proportionate, and it does what it needed to do.

So I put the question again.

if you had been involved at that stage in the process,

is that the level of detail you yourself would have offered?

I can't really answer that because I wasn't part of that process at the time.

And as I said, there were a lot of discussions.

There would have been meetings. There would have been decisions to be made.

There would have been time limits, et cetera.

I really can't answer that.

The point I'm trying to make is for the peer for the time that that document was written

It was proportionate and it did what it needed to do to get this project in the right direction

You've you've referred to the HTVIA a number of times. I'd like to go to that document now, please. It's CD a 34

I've got the hard copy. I've got a hard copy as well. Oh

Well that makes three of us

I'll try and be sensitive to those that aren't using a hard copy.

Well, it runs to 300 pages.

I've got 55 of those pages.

If we need to, I can go to the rest of it.

But you've made very clear already that you weren't the author of this document,

but you checked it and agree with it, yes?

Yes.

And was the heritage input provided by your colleague, Miss Kill, no, it was also checked

by Miss Killalay.

Yes, because it combines heritage and townscape.

Who produced the heritage parts of this document, not checked it, but produced it?

Megan Townsend and Sally Whiteside.

Their names are on the inside cover.

Yes, consultants. Not within your firm.

Of course, no, that's the title. They're just consult...

They are within our firm.

Anyway, you regard the document to be robust and comprehensive, you said that.

Yep, and proportionate.

If we can go to 2 .21 within the document.

Baseline characterization.

An initial assessment was made of the existing condition of the site and its surroundings

to understand the physical characteristics.

And by the way, unlike the Murphy document, this is dealing with the whole of the site,

is that right?

It is, yeah.

And is it dealing with the proposals at their full height?

Yes.

The assessment, coupled with a historical map regression exercise and archival research

where appropriate, informed an in -depth understanding of the historical development of the site

and its surroundings.

Understanding the history and context of the relevant heritage receptors is important to

establishing their heritage significance

and the contribution that their setting makes

to that significance.

Yep.

You obviously agree with all of that.

I do.

Once you've obtained the in -depth understanding

of the historical development of the site

and its surroundings, what should you do with it, Mr. Dunn?

Well, you should use that to inform proposals.

Well, let's take it to status.

I'm not sure what you're, I mean,

that's a very broad question.

It would enable you, wouldn't it,

to understand the role and contribution of the site

to the significance of the conservation area?

Yeah, sure, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Informing the proposals comes later.

You've got to go through the three parts of the exercise

that we just agreed in principle were needed.

Isn't that right?

Yep, remind me what those three parts are.

Those three parts, Mr. Dunwer,

firstly, assess the significance

of the conservation area.

Secondly, assess the role or contribution of the site

to the significance of the conservation area.

And third, assess the impact of the development

on the significance of the conservation area.

And all three of them are important, aren't they?

A proper heritage impact assessment

requires all three to be done.

Yeah.

All right.

Just at the end of that paragraph, if you have it, the site also contains modern, low -quality

warehouse buildings with corrugated metal roofs and open yard space used for parking.

All buildings within the site are of a low to mid -rise height.

Within this site, yes, that refers to the main site.

Main site?

Yeah.

What do you understand there to be the meaning of low rise,

and what's the meaning of mid -rise?

I'd say the low rise are the sheds.

Mid -rise are, well, slightly taller than the sheds.

I would take, I mean, it's simply a factual statement.

Yes, it's a factual statement,

but it characterises the Truman East site

at the moment, doesn't it?

Yes, but it doesn't qualify it.

It doesn't say that the low rise or mid rise are particularly significant or important

aspects.

I haven't asked you about that.

We're just understanding the character of the existing.

And it is characterised by low and mid rise buildings where low rise are sheds and mid

rise are slightly taller than sheds.

That's what it says, yeah.

It's what it says and you agree with that, don't you?

Yeah, it's just factual.

5 .7, the local surroundings.

Where the historic built fabric has not survived,

the space has been infilled with large,

low -level warehousing as on the corner of Spital Street

and Woodseer Street, and modern office buildings

are seen along Hanbury Street.

Do you see that?

Was the historic built fabric anything other than low level?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

So the historic buildings that are no longer on the site or?

Either used to be on the site or are still on the site,

but date back.

They're all low level, aren't they?

No, Hanbury Street I think was before the bomb damage was certainly not low level.

I mean there are existing buildings on that give a sense of that.

That was mid -rise at least. Five storeys I think.

With that exception, low level or low rise?

Historic buildings generally, yes.

And then at 5 .10, all sites are within the conservation area, which covers most of the

immediate surroundings.

Conservation area is originally designated in July 1969, and so on.

Now you agreed before we had a mid -morning break that the brewery itself is an important

part of the conservation area.

Yes.

It doesn't get a mention here.

Can you help us with why that would be?

Let me just read it first.

Yes, please do.

I can't help you. I can only say that the brewery site is less important than the elements

of the conservation area, the very high, the highest significant elements of the conservation

area which are described here.

And which also form the focus of the conservationary appraisal.

So you've introduced a scale of importance, still important but less important than other

features.

Well I think that is absolutely correct.

And the streets around Fournier Street with the 1720s houses is hugely important.

Christ Church, it is the most important element of the conservation area.

I think there is a general scale.

The brewery is important, but there are fewer, very much fewer historic buildings surviving.

And then as I set out and we discussed around the model on Friday, there is a lot of modern

development which detracts from the character and appearance of the

conservation area associated with the brewery. Now your proof doesn't refer to

a heritage -led scheme but it does repeatedly refer to the reinstatement

of features. You're aware of your frequent use of that term reinstate

and reinstatement. Reinstatement of lost density, yes. Lost density and that's what

I want to ask you about now.

If you go to 526 and 527 and the figure ground images

that accompany those paragraphs in the HTVIA,

these figure ground plans find their way into your proof,

don't they?

Two of them, yeah.

Two of them do.

And this is to do with lost density, the reinstatement

of lost density, yes?

It's for that purpose that you've included them.

It's to also illustrate the change that has occurred in this part of the conservation

area over the decades, over centuries essentially.

What was once a very dense and fine -grained area has become very much less dense and very

much more coarse -grained over this period.

and that coarse grade and those open spaces, I suggest, detract from the

character and appearance of the conservation here. So that was the

purpose of putting that in. Now if the inspector is to have regard to the

historic density, it's necessary is it not to consider not just these

these ground plans but the heights at which the buildings sat

at these points in time? It's a three -dimensional exercise not a

two -dimensional exercise.

Yes

but there's no

enhancing better revealing

or preserving character and appearance of the conservation area

does not require reconstructing buildings of a lower scale which may

have existed 150 years ago. The starting point is the test for preserving or

enhancing. So that's that's my qualification to that answer. Let's put

it this way, if you're looking at one of these ground plans it would be

Misleading wouldn't it to suggest that a single storey shed?

represents density just because it features or influences the

The ground plans appearance you'd want to know whether that was single storey or higher

If you were interested in density wouldn't you?

Yes

but this should be seen in conjunction with all the other research that's been

done and all the other illustrations that are okay even within the HTVI we've

got and I think mr. Frohnemann took us through these images we've got images

within the HTVI that tell us what the height of each of these buildings is I

page 21 would help. Page 21. 21 of the HCI. Yeah. Yeah. Now my printout is too

small but if you have an electronic version you'll see it and in your A3

you might see it but the buildings themselves have their heights number of

storeys indicated on them don't they? In the gold maps, yeah. On the gold map, yes.

Yeah.

So that is something that needs to be taken into account

together with the ground plan if density is something

that one is interested in.

Well, if somebody is interested in density, yes, I guess so.

You would look at one of these maps.

And I think anybody who is looking at this

will understand that in the 19th century it was more dense and lower than it is now.

I think that's fairly self -evident.

Anybody who's looked at a gold map will understand that.

You are recommending to the inspector that he should be interested in density and in

the lost density or restoring or reinstating density, aren't you?

Yes.

But what I'm not advising the inspector is that that density should be of one or two storeys to reflect what was shown on the GOAD plans that we have in the HTVIA.

That's gone. That was demolished. That was an earlier period in the history of this site. It's no longer there.

If it were there, if it survived, if anything like the GOAD plans survived,

we would be looking at a completely different scheme,

because that would be a different heritage -led scheme.

Can we move on now, please, to 811, where the assessments start?

And rather like with Mr. Murphy's document,

there were 12 pages of historical research.

it's the assessment that we look at if we want to understand the analysis that this

HTVI offers. Yes?

And in fact it is the only place that we, where we would find an assessment of the significance

of the conservation area, isn't it?

Yep.

Yeah.

And you've agreed, have you not, that that

is an important element, that's an important part

of the three -stage process.

Yep.

Yeah.

So we have, I think, eight paragraphs here,

which largely consist of citations from the conservation

area appraisal.

816, the longest of those paragraphs, includes, where appropriate, those references to the

appraisal.

Yep.

Yeah

And then so far as the contribution of the site to the significance of the conservation area is concerned

We have paragraph 817. Do you see that?

Yeah, yeah

And

And then the topic moves on to contribution of the setting to heritage significance starting

at 819.

In fact, that passage or that section under 819 is not strictly relevant, is it?

Because there is no development proposed within the setting of the conservation area.

But it's important to just understand the wider context, I would suggest.

Okay.

But it's less important, I'm sure you'd agree,

than understanding the contribution of the site

to the significance of the conservation area.

I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. Dunlop,

that 817, as an exercise in doing that stage

in the process, is breathtakingly brief.

I know you weren't the author of this document,

but again, I ask you this question.

And I hope you won't say, I simply

can't answer that, as you did in relation to Mr. Murphy's work.

But had you been the author of this document,

would you have provided greater detail and analysis

on the important question of the contribution of the site to the significance of the conservation

area than we find at paragraph 817. 817 being just the one sentence, the site

lies entirely within its conservation area. Yes.

Would you have left it at that had you been responsible for this document rather than

just for checking it?

I might have added a bit more,

but I think overall this document is proportionate

to the application and what the local authority

needs to consider in assessing that application.

Tell me, Mr. Dunn, when you cheque a document like this,

if your eye alights on a part where you think

bit of additional material might be helpful. Does your role in checking

include the ability to make suggestions? Yeah of course, yeah and a lot of

suggestions were made on this but as I said overall I felt this was a document

that was proportionate fit for purpose for this application. We have that

evidence from you.

You don't need to keep going back to it.

You've said that you think that the document overall

does its job, it's proportionate.

I'm asking you very deliberately and specifically

about elements within it.

We've got here one of the three planks of a Heritage Impact

Assessment.

There's that three -stage process that you and I

discussed before the break.

You checked the document.

it's within your remit to say this needs a bit of beefing up.

Did you do that on this occasion in relation to that paragraph?

Not to that paragraph.

No.

Now, I know you checked the document.

I know you're the author of your proof of evidence, obviously.

Did you provide advice on the appropriate scale

of development for this scheme?

Start off with that question.

As a heritage advisor?

Yeah.

I, by the time I was instructed when Mr. Murphy retired, the massing and the general proportions

and proposals had been set through that period of pre -application discussions.

I interrogated those proposals at that time and what Mr. Murphy had to say about them.

And I agreed with what the inspector sees behind him.

The application that was essentially submitted was more or less where it is now at the time I got involved.

Although there were some changes that we or I inputted into, for example, the relationship

between the Boiler House and its rear extension where discussions about that, that was moved

back, set back somewhat. But overall, most of the work, this is just a fact, had been

done by Mr. Murphy before my involvement.

understood and because of that because of the previous involvement of Mr. Murphy because of the timing of your involvement and his retirement

We were told which which explained why a new professional was

involved your function was essentially one of review you were looking at what was presented to you and

and

engaging

As you have done in a in a review exercise

Mostly, yes, that's correct.

When you say mostly, in which regards were you doing anything other than a review exercise?

Well I was involved directly in all of the regular meetings and so looking at details

and I gave you sort of the example of the Boiler House and its relationship to its proposed

extension, so provided direct advice on improving that relationship.

And also in about, that was the main difference that I directly inputted into, but then it

started to move towards application, so to get everything, yeah, to review and get everything

together for that application. Yeah. So the example you give us is the boiler

building. Boiler house. The boiler house where your function was other than

simply review. The remainder was review but the boiler house was in a category

of its own. Yes. And that category was here's a part of the scheme in relation

into which we remain open -minded.

Is that the way the conversation went?

It's not fixed.

No.

And we would welcome your views on how to design it.

Sort of.

It's more like these are the proposals

that we have developed up until now.

Mr. Dunn, what do you think?

Do you think this is right?

Do you think we're on the right track?

Do you think we've missed any opportunities here?

And in this case, I said yes,

I do think you've missed an opportunity. I think it needs to be set back further

and I think you need to have some space between

the

Extension and and the listed building. I think that would better

Respect its its setting

That's that's how the process worked

Why is it if I may ask that that request for advice or that invitation to you?

Was not extended in relation to other aspects of the scheme

That's because I interrogated the scheme and I had nothing more to add.

I was content, as I've set out in my proof, why I'm content with those schemes, why I

thought that was a good response to the context, and why it would enhance, better reveal the

significance of the conservation area.

So I thought the BGY master plan was very good.

I thought the design responses from all of the architects were very good and very high quality and

There was no point in me saying oh you guys need to start again because I've you know

Thought that you can do this better. I was absolutely content with what what they had produced

Mr. Dunn

Forgive me. That is not the answer you gave less than two minutes ago

You said in relation to the other aspects of the scheme,

and the word you used was fixed, that in relation

to the boiler house, you had a function that

was other than simply reviewed.

I didn't say fixed.

I said they were at a stage, they

were very far down the line.

They weren't fixed.

DesignFreeze came after, well after I started.

So that means before DesignFreeze,

there's always some flexibility.

And if I had said, you need to fix this problem before you submit because otherwise you are

not doing all you can to enhance or better reveal or respect heritage, then that would

have been a discussion we would have had and no doubt some changes would have been made.

I just had drawn to my attention, and I know to Julia, that it may have been that you used

a slightly different phrase, had been set.

Do you remember using that phrase?

Yes, vaguely.

I asked you why the boiler house was in a separate category

to the remainder of the scheme.

And you said that the remainder of the scheme

had been set already.

Set.

Which is at odds with the answer.

Because I think this is an important point.

I want to be as clear as possible

and give you the fullest possible opportunity

to give your evidence on this.

There's one thing to say that I looked at the whole scheme,

and any suggestions that I had to make based on heritage

were up for grabs.

It's another to say, as I heard you two say a few moments ago,

that the boiler house was in a separate category

because the remainder of the scheme,

by the time you were involved, was set.

So which of those two is the position, Mr. Dunn?

It wasn't set in the sense that there was design freeze.

So design freeze is a different level of setting.

Setting a scheme, that means design freeze is obvious what that means.

The difference is the proposals were quite far down the line.

They weren't 100 % set because it wasn't at Design Freeze.

The point I'm trying to make is I assessed and interrogated the proposals at that stage,

and as I just said before, I was content with them.

And as I said, if I had not been content with them, there would have been changes,

changes, there would have been more discussions, there would have probably been a delay on the scheme, etc.

We would have gone through that process.

As it happened, we didn't need to because I was content with the design and the way they

responded to their context.

When was design freeze? What was the date of design?

I think it was May 24.

2024?

You were engaged in February 2024?

Yeah?

Not a lot of time, was there, between your engagement and Design Freeze?

No, but that's just what I've been trying to say, that the proposals were quite far

down the line by the time I began.

And Design Freeze, there was a general timeline, so we think we want to do Design Freeze here,

but had I decided that, or had I assessed the proposals and decided that there needed to be some differences, some changes,

and we need to make those changes, Design Freeze would have been later than it was.

I note your confidence that had you made observations within that short period of time, it would have resulted in changes to the scheme.

Were you aware of the increased height of blocks 3A and 3B over the course of that design

process?

Were you asked to offer a heritage view on the justification of the increasing height

against a background of concerns expressed by the Council, GLA and others, the review

panel about that very point. Were you asked to give that advice and did you give it?

I was. I was asked if the height, if I felt that the height was appropriate and if the

height would harm the significance of the conservation area or the setting of any listed

buildings. My advice was that they wouldn't and that it wasn't appropriate and therefore

the scheme as it was at that point was in my view on the right track for planning submission.

You said that the design freeze came in May of 2024.

I believe so. I mean we can cheque that.

All right, I'm going to come back to 3A and 3B, but what I'd like to do with you now,

if I may, Mr. Dunn, is look at parts of your proof that relate to particular aspects of

the overall scheme.

Yeah.

And just make sure that the Inspector and others has a clear record of your evidence.

Let's start at 9 .2, please.

Of my proof? Yes, please.

Yeah.

You make the observation there.

We're starting now with the significance of the conservation area.

Yeah.

Much of it was industrial in character

and formally included brewing.

Have you got that?

Yes, yes, yes.

Sorry.

That's important, isn't it, as the industrial buildings

form part of the legacy within this part of the conservation

area?

It's a statement of fact.

but it doesn't give a qualification of whether this industrial past in its current form is

a positive or negative aspect of the conservation area.

It's a statement of fact.

I'm not asking you simply to note what's in your proof.

I'm asking you to go further and express an opinion.

Do you regard it as important?

Yes.

Yeah, all right.

Thank you.

And we've, at 9 .4, I think we've covered already, you agree that the brewery is a key component

of the conservation area.

Would you agree with Pevsner?

There's a mention of Pevsner in the HTVIA, but only his name.

It doesn't include what he said about this part of the conservation area.

But would you agree with him that what we have here is a wonderfully complete example

of a brewery with distinguished survivals from the 18th to the 20th century and that is set out

at paragraph 216 of Mr. Frohnemann's proof. That's what Pevzner said. I generally agree with that.

He doesn't give a lot of detail. It's about the brewery and its presence. I agree it's very

important. There is a collection of very good listed buildings that are

associated with the brewery and there are a lot of other aspects of the brewery

which are less significant to the overall conservation area or

detracting. Yeah but we don't find that detail either do we in the HTVIA?

The, what, the, sorry, which detail?

You said that PEVSA doesn't give detail as to the features of heritage worth and detractors

within the brewery, but nor do we find that detail or analysis contained within the HTVIA,

do we?

Yes, I think that's fair.

And nor do we actually find it in your proof of evidence.

Well, I disagree with that, but I'm sure you'll take me there.

Well, yes, we're there now.

9 -5.

Yeah.

And here is one of the numerous places within your proof where you refer to historic density.

And that is for a reason, isn't it?

It's something worth preserving, yes?

The historic density.

Yes.

Existing historic, well surviving historic density, yes.

Not necessarily recreating or restoring historic density.

There's a distinction.

Well there are two aspects to that aren't there?

If you demolish historic density you're removing something that is worth preserving.

Yes?

That's correct, yeah.

If you replace it, or even if you don't replace it, with buildings that are significantly

more massive or of a greater scale and bulk, you depart from that historic density, don't

you?

Those are two ways in which you can fail to protect the value of the historic density

to which you here refer.

I disagree. That's very, very specific about the historic density that exists on the site.

My reading of, or my intention with this, is that density in general historically was very much, very much characterised this area.

I'm not specifically saying that historic density can only be as it was 150 years ago.

The density is an important aspect in general.

Now, I touched on the issue of spaces, the yards with you a little while ago.

Could I just ask you to turn up the conservation area appraisal, which is CDE 09.

CDE.

CDE 09.

I want to be absolutely clear about this.

In the second paragraph, areas are as much about history, people, activities, and places

as they are about buildings and spaces.

You don't disagree that spaces can be important, but you say that the spaces that one finds

within a space are not spaces.

Which page is it?

16 of 31.

Is that your area?

Yeah, areas are much as much about history, people, activities, and places, yes?

And spaces.

So you don't disagree that spaces are capable of being important features when assessing

heritage assets. No I don't I don't disagree with that. But you say that in this case

those spaces don't contribute to the significance of the conservation area is

that what I'm saying? Yes because specifically the brewery yard that's not

in historic space it is a very modern space which is the result of demolition

clearance bombing well not bombing I think in this case but clearance and yet

When the end of the brewery came, all those buildings,

or most of those buildings, were removed.

And we've got a very large open space, which is not historic.

You wouldn't agree then that the spaces, the yards, which

of course historically in brewing days

were in active use, weren't they, those spaces?

They were used industrially.

They were, yeah.

But you wouldn't concede then that any

of those spaces that persist resonate

with that history, with that legacy, that heritage?

I don't believe it's legible now.

I mean, sir, you will see on your site visit

and you will make your own judgement about the quality

of that space.

At the moment, it's a very empty, open space

where nothing happens and where nobody can get to.

So the sense that it was the eligibility of active use and brewery and industrial activities I think is completely lost now.

Let's turn to your 9 .11 please. 9 .11, your proof.

You say here the detrimental visual impact of this much larger building. Which building are you talking of here at 9 .11?

Just a minute.

I'm talking about the 70s office building on the west

side of Brick Lane.

I think it's got a number block.

Zed, is it?

Apologies.

I don't remember which number it has.

It's a very obvious building.

It's on the model.

I think it was developed in the 70s by Arup.

It's very modern, big, out of scale with everything else on that site.

Yeah, I mean, if it helps in a moment, you could point it out on the model unless the

inspector already has a clear sense.

You know it, okay.

In any event, Mr. Dunn, at 9 -11, the reason that you say it is detrimental is because

it is, it's large.

It's much larger, its size.

That's one of the reasons.

And yes, that's what it says in this paragraph.

It is also a building that is designed in a way that gives no sense, or not informed

in any way by its context, or of the listed buildings that it almost directly abuts.

So yes, there is not a lot of detail in this paragraph, I agree.

It may have designed shortcomings, but the main reason, it seems from your paragraph

of 9 -11 is its size?

Yeah, that's probably the main reason.

OK, thank you.

And of course, it wouldn't be too large

if it were of an appropriate scale.

That follows as a matter of logic, yes?

Of course, yeah.

Yeah, all right.

It's part of the Truman estate, isn't it?

Yep.

It's something in terms of heritage that could theoretically be beneficially redeveloped

with a smaller building.

Would you agree with that?

Potentially.

Well, it seems, again, to follow as a matter of logic from what you've said before.

So this is an example, is it not, of a Truman building that presents an opportunity or potential

for enhancement.

That's a phrase that was, I think, put to you in chief by Mr. Harris.

We don't need to go to it on the model.

I think the inspector knows where it is.

You know where it is.

Could we turn to Mr. Morris's proof of evidence, please?

And page 93 of it.

Can you just give me a number?

You're looking for a core document number.

Yeah, sorry.

M06.

CDM06.

Oh, yeah, I got it.

Okay.

And if you can make your way to the section on page 93, please.

It's block Z, is it not?

Let me know when you're there.

I am there, just a minute.

Page 93.

It's 93 of 297.

Yeah.

Block Z, yes, that's right.

Block Z then is the detrimentally large building?

Yes, that's the one I referred to in 9 -11 of my proof, yeah.

You were here for Mr. Morris's evidence, weren't you?

I was, yeah.

Do you recall Mr. Morris referring to Block 7, sorry Block Z, as a justification for the

heights for Blocks 3A and B?

Do you recall that?

I recall Mr. Morris explaining the general context of the area and the larger buildings

on the west side of Brick Lane.

Try and focus on my more specific question.

Yeah, but I don't know if the problem is I don't recall if it was just blocks that he was referring to or if it was the ones there because there are buildings behind that.

If you don't recall then I don't try and imagine.

I'm not trying to imagine but I don't recall exactly but I believe he was referring to the group of larger buildings of which blocks that is one.

Okay, we can cheque it as a there's a transcript and a recording but if indeed mr

Morris did do that we would have a situation where an architect was basing heights

For proposed buildings on one that in your own estimation

detracts

Due to its own scale. That's what we would end up with isn't it? Yes. In fact that but

And as I was explaining around the model, the overall general context, the wider context

of all of these sites is all about larger buildings that were developed for the brewery

that detract from the character of the conservation area.

So that is, the scale of this area in general terms

has increased over the decades.

If that's where we end up, Mr. Dunn,

it wouldn't be a good example

of a heritage -led scheme, would it?

I don't agree with that.

I think it could be.

And one, we have to remember that the proposed designs

by Mr. Morris and others are of a much higher quality

than the larger buildings that the brewery produced in the 70s and 80s.

But the overall context is, I think, informed now by those brewery buildings.

We can't get away from that fact.

They are all within the conservation area.

All right, let's move on to 914, please.

Of my proof?

Yes, your proof again.

Yeah.

You say the sprawling and undefined open space within the brewery yard is not historic.

It was formed as a result of the 20th century demolition.

It is currently partly occupied by low -rise modern sheds.

Why do you say it is undefined?

Is it not defined and enclosed as a yard?

I say it's undefined because it has become an ad hoc space due to demolition.

So it was never, it doesn't have a specific use as the brewery would have had used, the

brewery would have had defined spaces that were defined by their different uses.

This is no longer defined in the sense that things all the buildings were cleared. It is a leftover space

That lacks definition. It's not designed for anything in particular apart from open space and now ad hoc uses

so that's that was my meaning of

undefined because you've used that term in relation to blocks 3a and 3b as

helping to define

Allen Gardens, haven't you?

Yeah. Or contain it.

Yeah. But here, are you using it in a different way?

I think I, the way I've used it, I just explained how I've used it.

It simply, it doesn't have a specific, the form of that open space isn't specific to

any use anymore.

It's just a leftover ad hoc kind of incidental space that is a result of

demolition. Well the Inspector no doubt has seen it and will see it on a

subsequent site visit. In so far as historic goes, weren't low -rise sheds

always the character of the yard since the 1830s? And we know that from the TVIA

plans? Yes. Now at your 915, I think we've now dealt with your 915, those are the two

figure ground plans that you have included in your evidence that come from the HTVIA.

I think we reached a point of agreement that you need to be focused not just on the two -dimensional

view, but a three -dimensional view, if you're interested in density.

Let's now move on to impacts, please.

And for this, we look at your paragraphs 10 .1 to 10 .29.

Yeah. And I, when you mentioned yard space at 10 .1, I wasn't sure whether there you

were conceding that those spaces are important. No. No, you're not doing that.

No.

And when you.

At ten point to refer to

low rise sheds,

how in heritage terms

do you get from low rise

to seven to eight storey commercial

buildings?

Is that not quite a leap?

Not necessarily.

The point I'm making here is the low -rise sheds detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area and offer an opportunity for enhancement.

Overall, and looking at the wider context of the site and the conservation area, or this part of the conservation area as we've discussed, there is no hierarchy of building heights.

It's very mixed.

There are a lot of large modern buildings,

large footprint buildings.

The character of this conservation area and its scale

has changed hugely since the 19th century.

And the response, which is the application we are discussing

and that's part of this, forms the focus of this appeal,

is a response to that.

And in no way do I think that anything put on the brewery site or the brewery yard site

needs to be one or two storeys as was the case 150 years ago.

You say there's no hierarchy on the site.

Let's just pick off that point now.

Could you turn please to the photos, 7 to 10, in Mr. Frohnemann's proof.

Do you have that to hand?

Not yet.

So if you just give me the number.

Pages 41 to 42.

Just sorry, the, oh, I've got it here.

Wait.

You've got it?

Yeah.

41 to 42.

Page or paragraph?

It's photo seven.

starts actually on yeah 41 page 41 internal page 41 we're moving here

between Brit Lane and and along Buxton Street yeah do you there and obviously

the inspector will be familiar with this by now.

Do you there detect no

hierarchy moving from Brick Lane to Buxton Street?

So photos, which photo eight.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

I'm just inviting you to reconsider whether it's right

that there is no hierarchy based on these photographs.

My point is that there isn't a legible hierarchy

of buildings throughout the site.

And that is because there isn't a consistent buildings, or there isn't a consistent

townscape in this part of the conservation area.

So there are hierarchies in specific places.

We have historic buildings that have a higher status, I suppose, than some of the other

buildings.

But overall, in terms of heights, I don't think there is a legible hierarchy of buildings.

All right.

Let's look at Block 1.

you deal with that starting at 10 .4 and at 10 .7.

Sorry, you're back to my proof now.

I'm back to your proof.

10 .7 is one of the several places

where you speak of reinstatement.

The proposed development will reinstate

built density there?

Yeah.

Could we please look to understand

what form of reinstatement is envisaged here?

Firstly, at the aerial photograph on page 21 of the Block 3 design and access statement,

which is CDA06.

Okay, so page, sorry, just there now.

You got that.

It's a sort of elongated...

So what page are we looking on?

It's page 21 of 149.

21.

It's the block three design and access statement.

Internal page 21.

Is that the one with the historic aerial photo?

Yes, it's got a label at the bottom, location

of the proposed block three.

You've got that.

Yeah.

And can you see beneath that in the middle is the cooperage?

And then to the left of that is where block one would go.

And you see it's currently lower than the cooperage.

I see that, yeah.

By a fair margin.

Yeah.

You see that?

Yeah.

And then if we can move from that image,

just make sure others have seen it as well.

Yeah.

If we can move from there to Figure 22, please, in Mr. Frohnemann's evidence.

Okay, sorry, I have to go back to Mr. Frohnemann's.

It's on page 52 of Mr. Frohnemann's evidence.

Yeah, just a minute.

What was the number of the CDM?

Oh, okay, sorry.

And what page is that on?

52 internal pagination, okay

And can you see there where block one appears

You still got the cooperage yeah in the middle section and then that block one

Sort of towers above it

It's significantly higher isn't it? It's one storey higher. I wouldn't say that towers above it, but yes

And then finally, just to complete this exercise, if we look at view 15 on page 150 of the HTVIA,

actually I think we might see here that it's more than one storey higher.

I think it's two storeys higher.

If it is, I will, so page 150.

Yeah, have a look at it first before you agree anything about that.

Is this view 14?

It's view 15.

Oh, view 15.

It's page 150 of the HTVIA.

Oh, okay.

It's one storey, sheer storey facing the street and a setback storey behind.

There you go.

Yeah.

Yes?

So that in your book is reinstatement, is it?

Reinstating what?

I'm sorry, I'm not meant to ask questions, but reinstating...

I'm not meant to answer them, but I will on this occasion.

You've said that at your 10 .7, in relation to block one,

that the proposed development will reinstate built density.

That's correct, and that's in a general sense.

And just so that it's absolutely clear,

what I've tried to show by sending you on a paper chase

around these images is that what is proposed

is significantly taller, bulkier, more massive

than that which went before

and than that which sits to its side, the cooperage.

Yes? Yeah. But reinstating built density in a very general sense. There is, you

know, the starting point is, first of all, those terraced houses that you took

me to in the aerial photograph are long gone. What's there at the moment is a

very poor quality element that detracts from the character and appearance of the

conservation area.

Reinstating built density in a general form, in my view,

is a positive thing that will enhance the character

of the conservation area.

So that's the point I'm trying to make.

Not that one must reinstate or recreate or restore

buildings that were once there that are no longer there.

All right, let's move on to block K, please,

which you deal with at 10 .9 to 10 .12.

Yes.

Got that?

Yeah.

Now, the question I have for you there

is, how do the shop fronts at the rear facing the working

yard and in the carriageway reflect

what you describe as the building's

industrial Victorian origins, which in your own account remain legible and include a large

chimney.

The Victorian origins of the building are most legible along Spital Street, along with

the chimney.

The back of the building has been completely changed.

It's not as it was in Victorian times.

putting active uses in the backs of that building

to address the newly created yards

where there'll be a lot of active things happening,

is entirely right.

And it's designed in a way that sort of reflects

the legacy of that industrial heritage

just through the materials and the form.

So, I don't see any issue with that.

Alright, block two please.

It's a small point, but an important one I think.

10 .14, you describe this as a seven -storey building.

It's actually eight storeys, isn't it, with the plant area at the top of it.

10 .14.

Yes, you describe block two as being a seven -storey building, but in fact it's eight.

We can go to the CGI section if necessary.

I will take your word for it.

It wasn't intentional to deceive in any way.

I wasn't suggesting that.

10 .14, you say this,

unlike the existing shed on the site, the new building will provide

a permeable route between block H

and

block are enabling access into the site from Brick Lane now if you could turn up

mr. yeoman's evidence page 1 5 9 please

page 1 5 9 yes page 1 5 9 okay it's just loading

Slowly loading.

It's, oh yeah, there it is, 1 -5 -9.

He's got a section called connexion, 7 .03 .02.

to tell me when.

It's 159 connexion yeah.

Yeah.

He says the popular existing backyard market entrance will be preserved as a route to the

new market.

So Mr Dunn you say there is currently no connexion but the proposal will provide one.

And Mr Yeoman says there already is one.

Who's right about that?

I would need to look at an overall master plan.

If you want to take me through it, we can.

I understood that there were going to be connexions.

It was going to enable a better connexion through Brick Lane around the site and connecting

it to the yards and then Spittles Street.

But look if my learning friend wants to take you to the point to clarify it in reexamination

He can I'm not gonna take up more time on that there seems to be diametrically opposed evidence between you and mr. Yeoman there

Oh, I wouldn't I wouldn't say that's diametrically opposed. Sorry. It is diametrically opposed because you say there is none

But that the proposal would provide one

He says there already is one

So that is diametrically opposed isn't it

Again, I would need to have a, we can go to the model perhaps if we want to and have a

look.

Let's see what, I mean, you've got the point and it may be clarified in re -exam.

Your 1015, you say the form and massing of the building, this is still block two, would

sit comfortably within its wider context.

That wider context, of course, is the conservation area to the east of Brick Lane, yes?

Yes, but it's also the wider site that extends to the west.

And the conservation area to the east of Brick Lane is an area where no buildings are more

than three storeys apart from block H, which is five storeys equivalent, and block 2.

Yes, agreed?

I know you include other parts, but the area to the east has no buildings of greater than

three storeys in height?

As a fact at the moment, yes.

And block two would be substantially taller

in filling the yard space, wouldn't it?

Yes.

Yeah.

So when you say the form and massing of the building

would sit comfortably within its wider context,

how comfortable is that, in fact?

I, well again we can go to the model, sir, if you wish. We went through this partly on

Friday. I'm looking at the wider context of the conservation area which include a lot

of larger brewery buildings. This site, the former brewery yard site, is a mostly empty

site which for the reasons I set out my proof detracts from the character of the conservation

area. This is an opportunity for enhancement. The scale and massing, as I've set out, I

think sits well overall, and I think that's apparent when we want to go to the model again,

we can. And I, you know, compared to the existing condition, which is, you know, low quality

buildings open undefined space which is kind of a it's it's actually a well it's

part of the conservation area that really could do with enhancement and

that that is the and that the difference between what's proposed and what's

existing in my view is clear enhancement and as I said

With that scale looking overall at the wider site. I think it is comfortable. Mr

Dunn final furlong I said I take you to blocks 3a and 3b and I do that now with you

Sure, you you start to deal with it at 1017 of your proof. Yeah, and you say that

The existing site is occupied by modern sheds of no special architectural or historic interest

Correct. Yeah, can I just

Take you please to photo 18 on page 48 of mr. Frohman's proof of evidence

Page 48.

48.

Block N. Do you see that?

47.

Oh, very fond.

It's 47.

47.

Thank you.

47.

Yeah, misread my note.

Do you see that?

Block N, yes.

Now, you see the image in block N.

Photo 18.

Yeah.

Which of these two do you say is right?

That you do not regard this as a legible remnant

of the industrial Victorian origins of the site,

or that you missed it out by mistake?

It's not legible.

I mean, it is clearly a remnant of that industrial

part of the site and the industrial heritage,

exactly what it was used for and how it functioned is no longer legible because

the building is a remnant. It's not got its roof, it's not got other elements

that it would have had. We've been through the map progressions, we

know that there were buildings here in the 1880s and 90s through the various

Goad maps. Whether it was a cooperage or a washing shed or a combination of both

is no longer legible. My point is the building lacks integrity. It is a far cry from the

cooperage on Spital Street, which does have that integrity, is legible in terms of its

previous use. So there is disagreement here between me and Mr. Frohnemann and also between

and me and Alistair Young at Historic England, who also gave some interest to this.

It's got some historical interest as a remnant, but its architectural interest is gone, in

my view.

Okay, it was my mistake.

I shouldn't have used the word legible in this context.

You've used the term sheds of no special architectural or historic interest, and that is a description

that you would apply to what we see in photo 18, yes?

I would, yeah.

All right.

At your 1020, please, you consider the beneficial,

you consider to be beneficial the reuse of 1830s bricks.

Sure, yeah.

And you say the design of the block

is a response to the industrial context of the former brewery

courtyard expressed as a simple warehouse form.

Yeah.

Now are you suggesting that blocks 3A and B will look anything like a warehouse in reality?

No.

I think the point I'm trying to make is the design has been informed in a very general

sense by the industrial heritage.

It's no longer there because it's been demolished most of it, that we all know about on the

Recite. And I'm making the point that I think that is the right response for

this part of the conservation area and it is the response that would best

enhance or better preserve the overall significance of that conservation area.

And it's got a lot of interesting features in my view. I think the North

Lights, I mean we've heard about you know contrived from some witnesses. I don't

I think they are an interesting feature that adds overall interest to the design.

It might be worth having Figure 35 up as you make your comments on buildings 3A and 3B.

35 from?

This is just one of the images of blocks at 3A and 3B.

In Mr. Froneman's proof?

In Mr. Froneman's evidence. His page 64, I think.

35... You don't say, do you, that there is any build...

Oh, sorry. Sorry, is it figure 35, yeah?

It's figure 35, page 64.

Okay, just give me a sec. It's the lower of those two images.

You got that? Almost, almost, not quite.

I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to see it.

Okay.

Yeah.

You don't say, do you, Mr. Dunn, that there is any building remotely like these currently

within the conservation area?

Well, within the whole of the conservation area, I would have to cheque, to be honest.

But in the, yeah, you're correct,

in the direct or the wider environment around these sites.

I know that you were instructed relatively late,

but you've been around the conservation area, haven't you?

I have, yes.

You've familiarised yourself with it.

Yeah, yeah.

Have you, like Mr. Frohnemann, been

involved in cases within this conservation area previously?

Yes.

You have?

Oh, yeah.

So you know it fairly well.

Yeah.

Are you not able to offer the inspector assistance

by saying whether or not there are any other buildings

remotely like these two proposed

within the conservation area?

Okay, I will say I'm not aware of any.

All right, thank you.

Now, what you've said in relation to these two buildings

is that they would help to contain Allen Gardens.

Correct, yeah.

The appeal site, this part of the site, fronts a relatively small section of those gardens.

Yes?

Leaving the remainder uncontained.

Yes?

Yes, but I'll qualify that with this boundary is very important, I think, to the Allen Gardens.

It's the southern boundary on Buxton Street and this is where the undefined

nature of this open space is most evident. Would it be preferable if more

parts of the perimeter of the Allen Gardens were contained in this way? It's

contained in the north by by the railway viaduct. There are other buildings to the

west and to the east.

So as I just said out, this is the area

that is most in need of containment

in an urban design sense.

And yeah.

Would it be possible, if you're right,

if the inspector agrees that containment

is desirable in this location, in this context,

would it be possible to achieve the benefits of containment

without a structure that was, or two structures, that was so massive, bulky, tall,

could you do it with less than eight storeys? I imagine you could. Yeah. What

would be the minimum height necessary to achieve what you perceive as the

benefits of containment? Well that would depend entirely on the design and you

I don't want to be theoretical about this because I'd have to assess a design.

It would be more than two or three storeys.

How many storeys is the railway in height?

I don't know in terms of storeys, but that's a completely different context.

But you've just prayed it in aid of containment.

You said that other parts of the Allen Gardens are contained by the railway.

That is a fairly low -lying form of containment, isn't it?

Yes, but just beyond the railway are much taller buildings.

And this is where there's an opportunity for active frontages and active uses and buildings

that overlook the gardens.

The railway is just an infrastructure feature that has been there for many years and is in use and will stay there.

But this, in my view, is the best opportunity to provide an urban edge and a definition and a boundary to those gardens where it's really needed.

Would you apply the same views and desirability of the juxtaposition of an eight -storey building

or similar to other parks within London?

Would you say that any park would benefit from that form of containment?

Of course not.

It depends on the context.

But actually, the best parks and the best open spaces in London, I would argue, are

some of the best, certainly, are London squares,

are contained by buildings.

And that relationship between an urban built form,

an open green space, is world famous in London.

And it's actually a very positive thing.

All right.

But you're clear, though, that you

have to look at each site on its particular features,

and that it may be possible to achieve

what you regard as the desirable effects of containment

with a more modest structure, albeit you said it would need to be

at least two or three storeys in height. I said

I think it would be more, need to be more than two or three storeys. That's why I said at least.

Okay, yeah. Another way of saying it. And, and again I would need to qualify that with

you know having a design in front of me to assess. I mean the

consented data centre

also would contain and define the gardens, but it would do so in a much poorer way than this design,

just because of the quality of the design. So all these factors need to be considered when

coming to an assessment. All right, I'm coming to the data centre in a moment. Can we first deal

with the block J, cache and carry? Yeah. At 1026, you deal with this in your proof. When you say

that the site, the current proposal,

presents an opportunity for enhancement.

Do you mean the site itself presents

an opportunity for enhancement?

Yes.

Yeah, all right.

Thank you.

And at 1029, if you can take up your 1029, but also, I'm afraid, sorry, Mr. Frohnamen's

Figure 52, that's what we're looking at, isn't it?

Nearly there, yep.

Not easy moving between these documents.

Not always.

Okay, got there.

Figure 52, yeah.

Figure 52, and you say in your proof in relation to this at 1029, for the reasons described above,

the design of the proposal addresses its context.

And I just, I wasn't sure I could find in those previous paragraphs where it is, or how it is,

that you tell us that the block depicted at figure 52

does exactly that, does address its context.

Can you just, I may have missed it,

but can you show me where it does that in your proof?

In my proof?

So beginning of 1029 for the reasons described above and I.

Yeah, that refers to the proposed building completing the urban block between Woodseer

Street, Hanbury Street, Spittles Street and part of which forms the context at the moment.

There are the Hanbury Street buildings that exist at the moment.

And then there's the gap in the townscape, which is this site.

There's also the Woodseer Street consented scheme,

which hasn't been built but has a consent that forms part of that context.

So that's what that refers to.

So I understand that's a very helpful answer, thank you.

You referred to a gap and the completion.

it sounds a little bit like the Allen Gardens point, albeit not on the edge of a garden,

but it creates a degree of containment or completion, is that it?

Well that's part of it, as we know from all of our research in the historic maps, this

was a complete block before it was bombed in the war.

And the gap, the ensuing gap, was created.

And that was replaced by the low -lying sheds, the Cash

and Carry buildings, which, for the reasons I also set out

in my proof, form an element that

detracts from the character and appearance of the conservation

area at the moment.

because of that gap, it's like a broken tooth really in a townscape form or a

townscape sense and this proposal would reinstate the block and stitch back

the townscape which was lost after in the war, albeit in a slightly different form.

Mr. Don, let me try and be a bit clearer in my question. Yeah. There's a

Distinction to be made between putting something there to achieve what you say is desirable

plugging a gap

completing a line and

putting this there and

When I looked in your proof for a proposal that addresses its context

or for

Evidence that that had happened. I was looking more for

your comments on why this, not why anything.

All the answers that you've given just a moment ago

answer the question why anything.

My question is why this within the context?

First of all, most of the design here

is a pretty careful stitching back

of the Hanbury Street Terrace.

On the corner, I think it's appropriate and not harmful that a slightly taller

building can be designed and I think, sir, if you look at, again, our model is,

there are things on top of it, but I think if you look at the model in

addition to this view, I suggest you might agree that overall in proportion

It's not excessively tall and in that sense not harmful to the overall or to the conservation

area in its immediate context.

Mr. Dunn, I want to take you now to that part of the scheme that you placed in a separate

category earlier today, the boiler house.

You remember we had an exchange about whether your function was

one of review or something else.

And you said that the boiler house was a special case.

You put it in a different category.

It was an aspect of the scheme in relation

to which you were able to influence the trajectory.

You provided advice about it.

and you started to explain what the effect of that advice was.

As a result of your advice, there was a degree of setback, is that right?

Yes.

So let's go to 922, please.

You're approved.

No.

And it's this last bit where you say the combination of poor quality elements

forms a risk.

Forms a rare setting to the boiler house that makes no contribution to the

significance of the great two listed building.

And I wanted to marry that up, please with photo 11 on page 43 of Mr. Frohman's evidence

Let me know when you've got that.

Almost there, yep.

You can see that?

Yep.

And here you can see that the yard can be seen to belong to the former boiler house, can't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by belong to.

This is what I mean. There's a direct physical, visual, historic and functional link

between the yard and the brewery of which the former boiler house is a landmark component.

That's what I mean.

The view as set out or as depicted in this photograph is not historic.

There would have been a number of low -lying buildings in between where

this picture was taken and the Boiler House. So in no way is this an historic

relationship as set out in the photograph.

Yes, the Boiler House had a relationship to the yards behind it, but in a very,

very different form historically.

And you're aware, aren't you?

If you look at the HTVI, figure 419 then,

just to place this in context, given your answer.

It's page 23, it's I think CDAA 43, 34, 34.

Sorry, page 23.

It's page 23, figure 419, a general view

of the Cooperage yard.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Yeah. And you can see there, can't you,

that much of what is depicted in that part of the HTVI image?

Yes.

That's why the question I put to you

was based on a physical, visual, historic, and functional link.

You may not ascribe enormous importance to those things,

but they're there to see, aren't they?

Anyone that was interested in the history of this part

of London would be able to see those things.

In its current condition?

I'm not sure.

If they held up the HTVI image whilst walking around it in its current position, they'd

be able to correlate the two, wouldn't they?

Yeah, I think they would probably come to the conclusion that this is completely changed.

That that historic relationship is, yes, there was, as set out in this historic photo, this

is what it once looked like.

It looks nothing like that now.

I think they would conclude.

And you're aware aren't you that the proposal in relation to block oh

Sorry the yes block. Oh would significantly overlap

The new extension to this site on this site

Proposal for block Oh would overlap the yes if you look at perhaps

If you turn to page 49 of mr. Frohnemann's proof

Yeah.

Page 49.

Yeah.

You've got a view of the rear of the former boiler house.

Yeah.

4 to 20.

and then figure 20 photo 20 yeah it's page 49 photo 20 and then figure 20 yeah

and we've got the levels of contribution of the rear elevation to the

significance of the building yeah with red denoting a high level of

contribution yeah and the proposal will to some extent overlap or or remove from

view part of what is described here as having a high level of contribution to

significance, won't it? Yes, but it has absolutely no physical impact on that

fabric and it will enable visitors to get up close to it and there will be a

different arrangement. At the moment there's nobody can get close to it anyway

because it's it's not you know it's not open to the public and those buildings

Buildings in light yellow that are depicted on this significance elevation are simply

sheds and back, sort of rear buildings of no significance, which also don't allow an

appreciation of that rear elevation.

So I don't think in any way the fact that a new extension is going to be built on this

that will change, you will change that view,

has a detrimental impact on the significance

of this building, quite the opposite in my view.

I suppose another way of understanding this point,

Mr. Dunn, is to look at the views in the HTVI,

views seven, eight, and 13, pages 105 and 11.

So let's just turn back to that.

CDA 34.

So, 105, View 6, or—

Page 105.

No.

View 7, it starts.

Yeah.

And 8.

And then moving through these 13.

If you've got it on, it's actually quite helpful on the screen because you can flick through

them quite quickly.

Okay, then I need to...

Well...

I mean, I've got the hard copy, but if...

All right.

Well, then if you're satisfied with that.

Let me just get to 13 and I'll hold that there.

Okay.

Yeah.

And I've got the other ones.

I don't think we need to go, but it's also in Mr. Yeoman's evidence at 122.

So having looked at those, Mr. Dunn, how do you say that the significance of the listed building

will be enhanced in these views?

It certainly won't be harmed and some views will be sort of a neutral impact.

Doesn't your evidence say that there'll be an enhancement actually?

Yeah there will certainly be an enhancement in view 13 where a very high,

well first of all structures that detract from the character and

appearance of the conservation and the setting of the list of buildings will be replaced

by very high quality new design by Chris Dyson Architects in core 10 steel.

And with a new building that provides this active edge and active frontage, urban edge

and active frontage here, to my mind the removal of those buildings that tracked and that replaced

to replace him by these buildings

would enhance the character or the significance

of this building.

The cooperage, the non -designated heritage asset

cooperage, you describe at 923 as a rare survival

from the brewery's heyday.

You don't say that it's in a state which detracts

from the conservation area, do you?

The cooperage on Spittel Street?

Yes.

Certainly not, no.

No.

So how would its loss, its loss would constitute heritage harm?

It must follow.

So I don't follow you.

Look at 923, please.

923, yeah.

I think you're across purposes on this one.

I'm talking about the non -designated heritage asset, different cooperage.

The cooperage on Spital Street is the non -designated heritage asset which will be retained, repaired,

enhanced in the proposal.

Block K.

I think Mr. Wall is talking about the remains of a cooperage in view 13 next to the boiler

house.

Yeah.

Remains of the structure that may have been the Cooper Ridge or A. Cooper Ridge, as I

set out previously, that building is a remnant that lacks integrity in my view.

And I differ from some of the other witnesses we've heard from, and I know Historic England

made this point.

My view is that this building detracts from the character of the conservation area and

the setting of the listed building.

All right, last couple of points, please.

I'm gonna go very quickly on Eley's Yard

for obvious reasons.

But I do want to just take you to your 1036.

Where you conduct a sort of volumetric comparison.

You say the massing of the building would sit comfortably

within its wider context,

and is notably lesser in volume than the large building that previously occupied the site.

Yeah.

Is that a legitimate exercise for the inspector to conduct,

comparing volumetric aspects of what was and what would be?

Presumably it is because you've included it here.

No, I don't think so because I've made the point the whole time here

that one shouldn't look at what was previous on the site

to determine the exact form of what's going

to go forward on the site.

The point I was making here that this was not

an historic open space.

There was a big block here on the site

that was related to the post -war brewery.

Yes, I'd see that.

But what you put here is that it's notably lesser in volume

than the large building that previously occupied the site.

So you seem, in this case, to be comfortable praying in aid of your support a volumetric

comparison.

Isn't that what you're doing at 1036?

Not intentionally.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not going to fill the whole space and the

and just making the point there was a big building that took up the whole site.

No more, no less really.

It's not an example of you using a volumetric comparison when it lends to support to your overall argument,

but disavowing such an exercise elsewhere.

It's not an example of that.

Certainly not intentionally.

Right.

The data centre.

Yeah.

You deal with this at 929 and 927 of your proof.

929.

Yeah.

930, you say the east side of Grey Eagle Street opposite the Block A site is dominated by

a large post -war form of brewery building with blank brick facades.

The proposal would be a large post -war, I mean it's quite a bit more post -war, but post -war

building with blank brick facades, wouldn't it?

It would, but I wouldn't compare it to this existing building.

The proposed building, as I've set out my proof,

and we've heard from Mr. Morrison, his evidence, has a lot of

architecture to it. This existing building that I'm referring

to is simply a utilitarian structure

of no architectural interest, never had any, doesn't have

So there is a difference.

Yes, they both have blank facades,

but that's probably the only thing in common.

Mr. Morris, you cite, you mention his evidence.

Mr. Morris at page 69 of his evidence.

CD, can you give me a number?

M06, apparently.

M0?

Oh, CDM06, sorry.

Yeah.

You can make your way to 2 .48 .2, page 69.

Yeah.

Do you see the reference there to a fortress -like, he's talking about something else, the northern

face of Block N creates an impenetrable fortress -like boundary to Buxton Street.

This building, quite deliberately, would appear to be fortress -like, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure I'd use those words, but you're right in it doesn't have a lot of open, active

frontage is at ground floor because that's specific to its use. Yeah, of

course, necessarily by nature of what it is intended to be. Yeah. It provides

therefore no contribution to the conservation area. I disagree. You think

it positively contributes to the conservation area? I do, and I've set that out. Why? I mean

active frontages are not a test in the legislation

or the MPPF for determining whether a new proposal

positively enhances, preserves, or enhances.

This is built for very specific use.

It doesn't have active frontages because of that use,

but the quality of the architecture,

which is very specific for its use

and for this particular building is, in my view, very high.

The quality of what's there at the moment, and it's kind of a simple equation, is very, very low.

It detracts from the character and appearance of the conservation area.

It's a blighted site, essentially.

It's a ruined building that, in its current state, makes a very negative element within the conservation area.

It was never a particularly high quality or architecturally distinguished building in the first place.

So this comparing the existing condition and what is proposed in Mr. Morris's design in my view is a huge improvement and an enhancement.

I mean it might be worth just looking at figure eight on Mr. Frohnemann's evidence where we see the CGI

of the proposal. There's two images of it.

So what page is that on?

It's his page 24.

Your evidence then, now that we've got it in front of us, is that this would contribute

positively to the conservation area, this proposal.

Page 24, Mr. Fronman's evidence.

You see figures 8 and 9?

Yes.

That's your evidence, is it?

It is.

A positive contributor to the conservation area.

Yes, compared to what's there now.

And that is the starting point.

I absolutely stand by that.

Mr Dunn, I think that deals with all of my questions.

Thank you for your patience and your answers.

Thank you both.

Ms Curtis, was there anything you wanted to ask Mr Dunn?

Yes, I have about an hour of questions, sir.

So I don't know how you want to deal with this because I'm aware if we have a longer lunch break that takes us

almost up to the

The public information session, but if we have a normal lunch break

I'm not 100 % confident that I'll get through everything. I don't know the other parties have

How are you doing with re -examination so far mr. Harris I would say about 20 minutes

So far?

Maybe 15, but I wouldn't want to restrict myself.

Depends on the answers.

I think I'd...

If I'm sort of doing a balancing exercise

between a longer lunch break and finishing Mr Dunn,

I think it's probably better inquiry -wise if we finish Mr Dunn.

I don't want to leave him hanging about until tomorrow.

So let's carry on and let's try and get us.

Well, if we could finish by half two, that would be perfect.

But if we can't, then we can't.

Let's see how we get on.

Go ahead, Ms. Curtis.

Could I request a five minute break just for that?

Yeah, I think that's probably why.

Sure, Mr. Dunn, you could do one as well.

Yeah, let's say half past one.

I could use a break too.

Half one.

Those are the points about block N.

And I don't think I need to take you

to any images or maps of that, because as it's already

been discussed, we're kind of in understanding

that we're talking about the structures that

are attached to the boundary wall

at the northern part of the main site.

So block N fronting Buxton Street?

Yes.

Yeah.

So I just wanted to look at what other experts involved in this site have said about these

structures because you've alluded to there being divergences from your opinion.

So I just wanted to look at that.

So if you turn up Mr. Frohnemann's proof, and that's at CDM03.

Paragraph 5 .41, which is on page 92.

The buildings to be demolished are architecturally, largely undistinguished, although the remnant

of the former Cooperage building along the north retains some 19th century character

and represents part of the development of the brewery and its heyday, the boundary wall

that encloses the yard is characteristic of the brewery. So that's what Mr. Frohnemann

has said about those buildings.

Sorry, I'm just not quite at 92 yet, but I'm getting there.

I'm looking then at historic England, which my Leonard friend has correctly described

as the government's leading advisor on the built environment.

You've discussed it already with Mr. Wald, but in this application, Historic England

has said the loss of the boundary walls would erode the site's industrial character.

That's correct, isn't it?

That's what Historic England has said, yeah.

And they've also said, and I think you were also took to this, that the perimeter walls

help to preserve the enclosed industrial character of the brewery and the legibility of its historic

boundary and that they make a contribution to the character of the conservation area.

That's Historic England's position, yeah.

Yeah, so fair to say then that Historic England does consider that harm will arise from the

demolition of the boundary walls and associated structures.

Yes, they set that up, low level.

Consultation on previous applications on the main site then.

You said on Friday that you weren't aware of these despite, as you have said, being

team leader for the London regions at this time for Historic England? I was

team leader at that time and I have seen that evidence now. It was the letter

from Andrew Hargreaves of Historic England for 2012. At that time Historic

England London region was formed of three advice teams. I was team leader for

the Westminster and City team. There was another team leader for the North

and East team, I think, of which Tara Hamlet was part of.

So yes, what I said on Friday is correct.

I wasn't aware of that, but I also wasn't the team leader for that particular team at

the time.

And I'm just explaining this now because I wasn't sure about the timing of this advice.

So when you said then at paragraph 1 .2 of your proof that you were accountable for the

expert advice provided in letters such as these that was slightly overstated in

relation to this particular region of London? No I wouldn't say it's overstating

it. 20 years is a long time to spend at Historic England which I'd done. The

organisation restructures, it rearranges itself. We started with 14 so we went

to three then we went to one and for most of my career I was in charge of

that one team, so in terms of the advisors, inspectors, and other experts who are giving

advice, that was under my remit, but I agree that earlier there were more than one team

and they were regionally divided and I had one part of the region.

So looking then at the letter from 2012, which is Inquiry Document 12, ID 12.

Do you want me, sorry, are you taking me to that one now?

Yes.

OK, hold on a sec.

So ID 12.

Yeah.

So at this time, Historic England,

similarly to the advice they've given presently,

if you look at page two, paragraph three,

we consider the proposed loss of the boundary wall unfortunate,

although we note the intention to rebuild elements of it, it is important

that should permission be granted for the proposal, conditions are attached to

ensure it's accurate rebuilding. So at that time again, Historic England clearly

think that the boundary wall is of sufficient heritage importance that if

it is lost, conditions should be attached to rebuild it. That's what this says, yep.

And in terms of the letter dated the 25th of August 2016, that's ID13.

And at this time, were you still not the team leader for this region?

No, I would have been at this time.

So you were accountable for this advice.

Yeah.

So page one of that letter, there's

reference on the first page to 19th century workshops being

retained as part of the scheme.

Do you understand that to be a reference to block N?

I think so, yeah.

It says, in our view, the workshops

contribute to the character of the conservation area.

And so our preference would be to see the building or at least their facades retained and incorporated into the scheme.

So at this time the advice that you were accountable for was that these did contribute to the character of the conservation area.

Yes, that's what the letter says. I wasn't the author, but yes, I was accountable for the all of this advice.

And that is what the same officer, Alastair Young, said at the time.

And ID 14, then, this is the final historic England letter, dated 27th of September 2016.

So again, this can be taken as advice that you were accountable for at this time.

In this letter, again, the officer re -emphasises that the workshops make a positive contribution

to the character of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area.

That's correct.

Yeah, in this letter you refused to his previous, or refers to his previous letter, so yeah.

Yeah, so consistent position of Historic England or previously English Heritage has been that

the demolition of these structures and the boundary wall is a cause for concern in heritage

terms.

That was their position, yeah.

Looking then at the GLA position for this application, and I think you were possibly

taken to this by Mr. Wald as well, but it's CDD 01.

CDD 01, yeah.

If you look at page 10, paragraph 40.

Page 10.

Yes, electronic page 10 of CDD 01.

So again, if you see the, I think it's the third sentence, a degree of harm is also caused

by the partial demolition of the yard wall north of the site. Although this part of the

wall is 20th century, it's intrinsic to the character of the brewery. So GLA advice also,

demolition of the walls at this northern end of the site, harmful in heritage terms. And

we don't need to go to it again unless you would like to, but the officer report which

you were taken to earlier similarly says demolition of existing boundary wall

low harm so your position that you've set out has been that no harm will be

caused by the demolition of the boundary wall all the associated structures being

the workshops or block end that is correct and you volunteered on Friday

that you haven't actually done any research into the block and building

Well, nobody's done any research because it's not accessible.

By that research I meant very detailed building archaeology research to understand exactly

what that building was used for.

At the moment we're relying on map progressions and the gold maps and descriptions of that

site and what was happening on that site.

nobody has been given access to actually get a, you know, draw it and measure it

and photograph everything and see what part of this or what this remnant may

have represented. It may have been the cooperage. On a later map it's a wash shed

for barrel washing. So that's... It's on the appellant's land so it's accessible

to the appellant? I suppose so, yeah. Can I just qualify that? As the importance of

this building, or the lack of importance of this building, I've set out in my

evidence, there's no absolute need to do all this, to go and do a full building

recording or building archeological assessment at this stage. That may well

be a condition that the local authority may want to impose if this is approved.

The important point, sir, on all of this is the building is a remnant.

It's a fragment.

It lacks integrity.

And I don't think this is part of our – this is in the core documents, but Historic England's

Guidance note number one on conservation areas

and then identifying buildings

that make a positive contribution in conservation areas

is quite useful in this term.

There is a whole paragraph that stresses

that a building needs to have integrity.

That's one of the factors that's lacking here.

If the building was intact,

my position would be completely different.

Every other expert that we've just discussed,

including experts giving advice on behalf of Historic England under your watch,

have reached the conclusion either that the boundary walls

and ancillary buildings being demolished will cause harm

or that their loss at the very least is a cause for concern.

That's correct, isn't it? That is correct.

And notwithstanding that use or fit to tell the inspector on Friday

that in your view, on the basis of the limited research that you've done,

it would be irrational for the inspector to conclude

that these buildings contribute to the character and appearance of the conservation area and should be considered a

Nondesignated heritage. I didn't say it that way. I said it would be irrational because of the the the

Fragmentary condition of this building and comparing it to the cooperage on Spittles Street

Which is recognised by everybody here that makes a positive contribution in the conservation area is a non -designated

heritage asset to elevate this fragment, this ruin essentially, to the level of

significance of that other cooperage on Spittles Street that would be irrational

in my view. Well we can look back on the transcript if needs be but it may not

surprise you to hear that I will be making submissions to the inspector on

the weight that he can give to that opinion Mr. Dunn. Okay. So looking then

more broadly at the conservation area and significance. Historic England's

guidance which can be found at CDE08.

What was that one again?

Sorry, CDE08, Historic England Advice Note 12.

And this obviously sets out guidance on statements of heritage significance.

And at paragraph 10, which is on page 2.

Apologies, I don't think it is on page 2.

Yes, page four.

One moment. I have not got the correct reference. Apologies. I think okay. It may not be the

be necessary to go to this in any event because paragraph 212 of the NPBF, I think we can

agree provides that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets

and greater weight to more important assets.

Yes.

So in the assessment of the significance of a heritage asset, it's necessary to consider

the relative importance or significance of the asset as a heritage asset and that is

to the inspectors decision how much weight to give to the heritage harms overall.

In terms then of the significance of this conservation area, the conservation area appraisal and guidelines which is at CDE 09.

C D E. Yes, 09.

Yeah. Yeah.

And at page four, and I think you've already agreed with this, it describes the conservation area as one of the most important historic areas in London,

containing some of the most architecturally and historically significant buildings in

Tower Hamlets.

And the Fournier Street area comprises the most important early Georgian quarter in England,

including Christchurch Spitalfields.

So it's correct then that this conservation area is of particularly special architectural

or historic interest due to the presence of those buildings in the Georgian quarter.

Yes, I agree, and the best elements of this conservation area are amongst the best of

their kind anywhere in the country, absolutely right. But there are also lots of elements

of the conservation area which are nowhere near that high quality, which are, as we go

through this all again, but we've discussed this, they offer opportunities for enhancement,

So it's not a consistently good conservation area like, I don't know, I'm trying to think

of examples where very well -preserved areas across the board, I mean there are some in

Westminster for example which are sort of unchanged, this is very much, the variety

is much greater between really good and not so good.

And the conservation area appraisal also recognises the interesting cultural history of the area

and particularly that which comes from the different waves of migrants who have lived

in an affected area. So again that makes the area particularly special in terms of its historic

interest. And in your proof you've described the significance of the conservation area narratively

but haven't commented on the level of significance that you would describe to the conservation area

as a whole?

Well, that's because it is so varied.

It is a conservation area, so it is

designated as an area of special architectural and historic

interest.

That is absolutely right.

There are parts of it that are spectacularly good,

which I've talked about already.

There are other parts which are pretty poor.

And so I haven't made an attempt to rank it.

I'm saying this is a you know conservation areas don't unlike listed buildings don't have the grade one and two star and two

Designations so I haven't I haven't done that but I've tried to describe as best as I can

where

where those areas of significance higher significance are and where they're

Lower significance are within the whole area

So I take it then that you wouldn't agree with mr.

Farshaw's conclusion that the conservation areas of high value or highly significant

Yes, I would. It is, absolutely.

But there are elements of it which are not of high significance.

So it follows then that in accordance with paragraph 212,

if you do agree that it's highly significant,

then more weight should be given to any harms.

Overall, it is...

I'll just try to explain this again.

It's a conservation area that's rightly designated of an area of special architecture

and historic character.

It has really, really good areas.

It has not so good areas.

The parts that are not so good happen to be around the development sites, and those are

the parts which there are opportunities to enhance.

And I've tried to make that clear and I've tried to be very specific about that rather than doing a sort of blanket approach

This is overall a great conservation area in every way

Because it's much more complicated than that

Thank You mr. John, I mean that's moving on a bit to

Impacts I think but in any event moving on then to that point

the main site and

potential harms and

So we've already discussed block N and the loss of the building and boundary wall and the fact that all other experts consider this to be at least detrimental in character and appearance on the conservation area terms.

Views then of Truman Brewery chimney and Christ Church because this is a point that Mr. Forshaw has raised.

If you stay on the conservation area appraisal, page 13 of that document, and under the heading

scale.

Sorry.

So the low rise character of the area around Brick Lane it's discussing emphasises the

landmark value of Christchurch Spitalfields and of the chimney of Truman's Brewery.

page 19 last bullet point specifically refers to Christchurch Spital Fields and

the Truman Brewery chimney being identified as local landmarks and says

that views towards them from publicly accessible places should be protected.

Similarly, sorry just jumping back in the document, but if you go to page 8 which

is discussing Christchurch Spitalfields.

There's a specific reference there to glimpsed views

of Christchurch.

In the second paragraph, the church

is glimpsed from many parts of the conservation area

and beyond.

So the message, really, from the conservation area appraisal

then, firstly, that these two are both local landmarks

and views from publicly accessible locations

should be protected.

That's what it says, yeah.

And also, both Christchurch Spitalfields and the Boiler

house on which the chimney sits are themselves listed buildings, that's correct?

Correct, yeah. And Christchurch Grade 1 listed, so the highest level of listing

that could be given to a building. That's correct. And it's been described in the

appendices to Mr. Forshaw's proof as the most overpowering of Hawksmoor's three

great baroque churches of the East End with a mighty tower and spire dominating

views from the West. So would you agree that views of Christchurch spire are

clearly important to its setting

and make an important contribution to its significance?

Yes, but I would qualify that.

Some views make a more important contribution

to the understanding of its setting

and how that setting contributes

to its significance than others.

I mean, the most important views are from the West.

Hawksmoor no doubt designed that to be seen,

his West Front to be seen in views from the West.

There are some other views from within the Fournier Street streets.

There's historic streets where it can be viewed in conjunction with the early 18th century houses of that area, which is hugely important.

There are lots of other views that are incidental and make less of a contribution or less of a contribution to the understanding of significance

in terms of how it appears through its setting.

And it's complicated, long -winded.

But I'm trying to reflect GPA 3, which

is the Historic England Guidance for Understanding How Setting

Makes Contribution to Significance

and How to Assess, Then Proposals That Could Have

an Impact on That.

It's very clear that not all views are equal in importance.

And I'm just trying to reiterate that to the inspector,

to you, sir.

And the Truman Brewery Estate chimney,

again part of the grade two listed boiler house and similarly considered to

be a local landmark in the conservation area appraisal and as Mr. Forshaw

highlighted there's the tiling on the chimney itself reading Truman and so it

clearly served a functional purpose but it was a landmark that was intended to

be seen. I suppose it was intended to be seen I think it was not built for that

purpose it was built for a very functional purpose but yes it is a

landmark recognised as such.

Again, the same assessment of views

and how they contribute to understanding

of the significance of that chimney through that setting

applies here.

There are some views that are better than others.

And those are the ones we stood around the model on Friday.

So I pointed out where I think those views are.

I think they're up Brick Lane where one sees,

where that is a really important sort of

view up the road or up the street

and also one sees the former stables in the foreground

and the chimney above.

That is a very important view.

Also from Allen Gardens looking back towards the site.

So those are the really key views.

Those will be preserved as part of this application.

Just on that point about the important views,

the conservation area appraisal doesn't include

that qualification, does it?

It just says views of these local landmarks

from publicly accessible locations should be protected.

It does, and I find that's a very, very broad

sort of statement from, you know, it lacks detail.

It doesn't because it predates the national

heritage guidance on this subject, which is GPA III,

so it doesn't take that into consideration, but that is the test for understanding the relationship

between setting and significance of a heritage asset and how to assess impacts on that. This,

to me, seems very, very broad -brushed. So any view, anywhere from any public place,

needs to be protected seems to me to be unreasonable. Looking then at the impact

on views, the development proposals on the main site, these of course include

the proposed erection of block 3A and 3B that have been discussed. These will

be building on the east side of Brick Lane, that's correct isn't it? So in part

of the character conservation area, which I think you described earlier as, or agreed

earlier had buildings currently that are no higher than two storeys other than I think

block H.

Looking then at the HTVIA, which is CDA .34.

Got my hard copy here, yes.

And page 104 of the HTVIA, or I think electronic page 106.

So 104, you think of the hard copy?

Yes.

Which view is that? View 7.

And so here we have the views from Allen Gardens.

And you can clearly see reflected in this view what you've described and what's reflected in the conservation area appraisal,

the low -lying nature of the conservation area in this particular part.

Yes.

If you turn over the page, staying with the existing position, in this view the chimney

is clearly a visually dominant landmark feature within the conservation area.

Would you agree with that?

Within this part of the conservation area, yes.

Yes.

Page 105 then, so turning over,

with the proposed development,

blocks 3A and 3B here appear almost the same height

as the Truman Brewery chimney from this perspective.

I wouldn't, they don't look like they're the same height

because they're in a different place.

They're closer to the viewer,

and I think that depth of perception is very evident here that the chimney is

still taller and is the landmark. Its visual dominance is the highest point in

this local area is clearly diminished. I don't believe so and and I agree with

the views of Tower Hamlets officers, the GLA, Historic England, that the chimney

because of the way the design they're set back, they give it breathing space so that

dominance

and it's the way it's

setting in this view contributes to its significance would be preserved.

And views of the low -lying development and the horizon beyond the chimney are also lost in this?

On the on the the brewery yard site, yes

And yes, it is low -lying at the moment, but that doesn't mean it makes a positive contribution

to the conservation area.

I mean, it's for all the reasons we've discussed and I've set out, this is an area that detracts

from the character and appearance of the conservation area and should be enhanced and improved.

Well, I will take it from what you've said, then, that you don't agree with Mr. Forshaw's

suggestion that this clearly does detract from the chimney and so causes

harm to significance of this part of a conservation area but also the landmark

status of the chimney itself as part of the... No I don't agree. I agree, I agree

with the views of Historic England, GLA and Tower Hamlets officers on this point.

Dominance of the Truman Brewery chimney will also be reduced in other

publicly accessible locations. This can be seen from view 10 onwards, which is page 122 onwards.

Sorry, which view 10?

View 10 from Buxton Street out?

Yes, and views 10 to 12, you have this succession of views moving progressively further west

along Buxton Street of the impact of the Truman Brewery chimney. In both views 11 and 12 it's

correct that the views of the chimney will be completely lost. Yes they will, but again

I want to make the distinction between views, setting and how setting contributes to significance.

These views, in my view, are incidental views.

They're not particularly high quality views

in a heritage sense.

Yes, the chimney is visible and sort of

terminates the end of these views.

But these are not the views that best allow an understanding

of how the setting of that chimney

contributes to its significance.

Those are other views that I've already discussed and pointed

out in front of the model.

So as I said, just to set this out, not every view is of equal importance.

That's not an analysis that you set out in any detail in your proof.

Well we can cheque.

Do you want to take me to somewhere in my proof or do you just want me to?

No, I'm sure the point will be picked up in reexamination if I'm wrong.

Can I ask, we've got one we've got view 12 open on page 136.

136.

Sorry, this is a bit random, but the red block shown on the cumulative view on 136.

The red dotted line.

Sorry, view 12 cumulative.

OK, it's getting there.

Oh yeah, view 12 cumulative summer.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm looking at the winter one on 136.

What's the red dotted line?

Thank you.

and just in terms of these viewpoints from Buxton Street these are obviously

And I think jumping back to page 75 of the HTVIA, which sets up where all of these viewpoints

were taken, there's quite a big jump really between viewpoints 10 and 11.

So would you agree that it will be for the inspector to take a view when visiting the

as to his view of the importance of the views from Buxton Street and the representativeness

of the images in the HDVIA.

I will just add that these views were all agreed with the local authority.

So the other buildings that are not considered in your proof include the 35 Buxton Street

Grade 2 listed building.

And that's a building that's on Buxton Street surrounded by Allen Gardens sort of in the

of that open space and opposite roughly proposed 3a and 3b mr. foreshore has

assessed this as being a modest Victorian building would you agree with

that assessment and it's assessed in the HTVI a CDA 34 at page 63 the HTVI a yeah

yeah

It may be 61, it might be...

I think it's...

Yeah, wait a minute.

Sorry, my computer is...

It is 63.

My Adobe has just decided to crash at a very helpful moment.

I think possibly too many images in this document for my slow computer.

Just bear with me while I get that back up.

Is it 34 Buxton Street?

That's the listed building we're talking about, isn't it?

35.

Oh, yes, sorry, I misread that, 35, yeah. That's on page 65 of my hard copy here.

Yes, okay.

you say in the HTVIA

that the setting of the asset

does not contribute to its significance.

And that's a paragraph 8 .204.

And that the church to which the vicarage belonged

was demolished in 1951 and there are no associated structures.

Mr. Forshaw's evidence is that this isn't correct.

That there is an unlisted church school

which still exists to the east of 35 Buxton Street.

Were you aware of that?

Yes.

Well, it's not mentioned.

It is not mentioned.

That's correct.

The point is being made is whether the setting of this building contributes to its significance,

and our position is that it doesn't.

The significance of this building is embedded in its fabric, in its history, and its setting

doesn't, isn't a major factor in contributing to its significance. I think that's the point you're making.

Yes, but the point I'm making to you is that you haven't mentioned the enlisted church school,

and similarly Mr. Forshaw highlighted when giving evidence that remnants of some of the cobbled streets

that comprised the small terraced houses that used to surround the vicarage can be seen in the area around Arlen Gardens,

and that's also not mentioned in the analysis of 35 Buxton Street or its setting.

It's not because in our view the proposals wouldn't affect the

significance of this listed building. You have to figure out the

significance in the setting before you decide whether there's going to be an

impact. In that initial stage you haven't taken these factors into

account in deciding the extent of the setting and the contribution to

significance. I think we've undertaken a proportionate assessment of

this building in conjunction with what the proposals, how the proposals would

affect it and I guess that's probably all I can say on the matter. We don't

usually assess cobbled streets and they're not designated assets in any way

or cobbled, bits of cobble on a street.

I guess we can leave it at that.

In terms then of Ely's Yard,

the proposed development at Ely's Yard,

historically, and you can see that

in Mr. Morris's proof,

which is CDM06, I believe.

CD, okay, this looks like CDM06.

Yeah.

I'm there.

Thank you.

And at page 138, you can see some of the historic gold mapping for this site in the bottom left -hand

corner of page 138.

And that indicates that on this site there were buildings including a bottling store,

which I think if you look at the top right hand corner is about three storeys

in height is that yeah you're understanding so I'm just asking this

because I think it was put to you last week that views of landmarks such as

Christchurch or the Truman Brewery chimney would previously due to earlier

buildings been less visible I would just suggest that the three -storey nature of

the historic buildings of the site around the time that those structures were constructed

clearly would, they would have been more visible in the area.

In 1870?

Yeah.

Yes.

And the scale of Ealy's Yard, this has already been discussed, will be higher than many of

the buildings immediately adjacent to it, and that was discussed with Mr. Morris.

Yes, I think that's been, we've been through that.

I'm looking then at the impact of the easy art development if you go back to the HTVIA

page

191 view 23 view 23. Yes

Apologies it's 190

View 23 is important that will get me there

And this is an image that's taken from Faunia Street looking towards Wilkes Street.

So that's part of the conservation area that you've accepted is still the best preserved

parts of the Georgian conservation area.

In the foreground, yeah, where the photo's taken from.

Yeah. And clearly along Wilk Street, along this section of Wilk Street that's most

visible in the foreground, similarly well preserved. Yeah. In terms then of the

Ealy's Yard development, if you look just scrolling through, the Ealy's Yard

development itself in view 23 clearly will be visible sort of in the corner of

the end of Wilkes Street from this viewpoint and then looking at viewpoints

41 and 42 which I think are not in the HTVIA but are included at the end of

Ms. Killaly's proof.

Okay.

So that's CDM08.

CDM08, appendix, is that what?

No, I think the appendix is the summary.

Okay.

Just loading.

Still loading.

Okay, I've got it.

So what page?

It should be at the very end.

Yeah, okay, yeah.

So you can see in Viewpoint,

E. Lee's yard development will clearly be very visually dominant from this position.

I wouldn't consider that dominant. It terminates the view, but in the foreground are the well -preserved

Georgian buildings, which I see still dominate this view. So no, I don't agree that it dominates

the view.

And that will represent a change to the character and appearance of one of the most well -preserved

parts of the conservation area in the sense that it's an encroachment of large industrial

style development into that well -preserved area.

It's a change, and I think it's important to, let me just see, is the existing condition

also in here?

Because that is the starting point, is to compare it to...

This is the E. Lees Yard development currently.

So what terminates this view at the moment is a very dull industrial building of no historic

or architectural interest, which is a blank facade.

And that building contributes nothing in terms of to the significance of the very important

Georgian buildings through that aspect of their setting in this view. So that is in

my view a negative element of this part of the conservation area. Replacing it with a

high quality building such as the one we were looking at changes the view. It adds something

different but it doesn't harm the view or it doesn't harm the significance of those

assisted buildings.

In terms then of the impact of Ealy's yard from further down

Wilkes Street, if you look back at the HTVIA view 35,

which is at page 230.

View 35, yeah. Yeah, so that's the viewpoint of Christ Church that can be seen at the end

of that part of Wilkes Street there. And you can see from the visualisation on the right -hand side,

the EDC development will extend that line

of built development along Wilkes Street.

If you could compare that with Mr. Forshaw's photographs,

which are included in CDM 10.

Sorry, I just go there.

CDM 10.

And I'm looking at photographs 22 onwards.

And what page is that?

I will just find out for you.

Electronic page number 22, sorry, electronic page number 49 onwards.

So photo 24, which is the first one, 22.

So 22 onwards. Extending the line of built development in this image will clearly block

some of the views of Christchurch from this viewpoint,

won't it?

I have to, I'm trying to imagine

what it would look like in this gap.

I don't have a CGI or verified view with the proposals,

so I have to guess here.

But yes, I agree that at some point when you cross the street it probably would block that view, yes.

And a similar position, either blocking or detracting from that view of Christchurch as you move down photographs, up to photograph 24 of Mr. Forshaw's proof.

And I won't go through each of them unless you have a particular comment.

No.

Point is, this is a kinetic view.

This is the qualities of the tower

and the view of the tower and the ability

to understand and appreciate that significance

through this view and through that setting

will be preserved along much of this route.

I mean, if you cross the street and if you

go to the other side, eventually that view will be blocked.

But that doesn't mean that significance has been harmed.

That view has been changed, but most of the views

remain almost unchanged.

And so that significance remains appreciable.

You and the HTVIA assess Christchurch

being of high sensitivity to change.

But these impacts blocking views of Christchurch

you say have no impact despite that high sensitivity to change? None of these

proposed views show anything being blocked or the Christchurch being

blocked. The viewpoints were discussed and agreed with the local authority and

these are the ones that are tested. Mr. Forshaw's viewpoints are very different

and haven't been tested in the same way. On then another view, view 33 of the

So this is again views from Grey Eagle Street and that's at page 221.

And you can see just about in the background Christchurch there and then you can also see

with the visualisation of the development Christchurch blocked there.

Just comparing that then to Mr. Forshaw's images at photos 7 to 9 of his proof of evidence,

which can be found at pages 34 to 36.

Sorry, page 34 to 36.

It's clear again here that from this publicly accessible viewpoint where Christchurch can

be seen more than in view 33, Christchurch will be completely blocked as in view 33.

I just want to make sure I know where these views are and where the proposals sit before

I answer that.

They're essentially under the bridge.

I think that's correct.

But again, this is an incidental view of the spire.

This is not one of those views that best allow the appreciation of its significance to be

understood.

It's only partial.

And there are still those views from the west.

There are views from the heart of Fournier Street area where the appreciation of the

significance of that church will be understood from its setting.

There are much, much better views than this.

So yes, it will be blocked, but I don't believe that this is one of those views that is crucial

to the setting significance of the listed building.

And you're departing there a bit from the conservation area appraisal which simply refers to the publicly accessible viewpoints.

I am. As I said before, that's very very broad brushed and that would suggest if you took that literally,

you would hardly be able to develop anything within this area.

So I think that,

as I said, that didn't benefit from the guidance of GPA 3 which came out after that appraisal was set out.

So no, I think it is too vague and too broad brushed.

Well, you would be able to develop lower lying buildings.

Yes, but that assumes that these incidental views or views anywhere from within the conservation

area for within a public accessible space are views that contribute highly to an understanding

of the significance of those listed buildings and that analysis has not been set out in

the conservation area.

Just a final couple of points then, Mr. Dunn.

Mr. Forshaw has given evidence of historic sets that were removed from the main site.

I just wanted to raise this because you've repeatedly said that the open spaces on the

main yard don't make any contribution to the conservation area.

Have you seen the images that Mr. Forshaw has produced of the sets?

I have, yeah.

And at that time, would you have said that the open spaces made a greater contribution

to historic?

I would have said that the sets are of interest, are of importance, and indeed they are in

storage now and they will be reused as part of the in part in the master plan

as part of the the new public realm they're not being restored across the

whole yard in the way that they were they are I think they are being used in

an appropriate way and they enhance those new spaces that are being created

Thank you. And just a final point then. So it's been discussed at this inquiry the fact

that character of a conservationary is not just about appearance and you agree with that.

Well yes, but well yeah I'll just say that I think that the fact that the conservationary

say yes for now. And we've agreed previously that part of the character

and appearance of the conservation area comes from its unique position as a home

to successive generations of migrants that have lived in the area. That's

correct. And you can see that in the name of the conservation area appraisal

or indeed that the ward itself which is Spitalfields and Bangalertown. Yes.

Have you had a chance to look at the Runnymede Trust's Beyond Bangalertown

report which can be found in the appendices to Adam Almeida's proof? No.

Well that does set out quite a bit of detail on the rich history of Banglatown.

Are you aware of any of that history? The general history? Yes. Yes. You've not

included an analysis of that history in your proof of evidence? I've alluded to

what I've, in 9 .4 of my proof, I acknowledge the, positively,

just going there now, how the conservation area appraisal sets

out the important contribution of the area

and clearly identifies that.

So I absolutely acknowledge that.

It's not a focus of my proof because I am assessing the proposals on the character and

appearance of the conservation area in its built heritage terms.

But I accept absolutely that this is fundamental to this area.

While I appreciate then that you're not an expert, for example, on the economic impact

of this development, would you agree that in principle development that has the effect

of displacing the current Bangladeshi community could have a harmful impact on the character

of the conservation area as well, given the importance of that culture to the conservation

area?

I can't comment on displacing whether or not this displaces because that's not part of

my evidence.

Can I just clarify?

I'm not asking you to comment on that.

I'm asking you to comment on whether that would potentially have an impact on the character

of the conservation area which as I understand it is your remit?

Potentially, yes.

Thank you, Mr Dunn.

Thank you, Ms Curtis and Mr Dunn.

Mr Harris, we're at half two.

We're starting with the public session at three.

Shall we re -examine?

What do you think?

I'm thinking not because then nobody would have a break for lunch.

Now for myself, that would probably do my diet very good.

But for others, for health and just rest reasons,

I think it would be inappropriate with respect.

My learning friend has kindly indicated that

there are a number of people to speak.

It doesn't look to me looking at the list

as if we are going to be here at 10.

I may be wrong.

And I only said that because that's my personal best.

That's all.

Yeah, well.

It wasn't a challenge.

No.

And I don't think it should be taken up as a challenge.

So if we don't re -examine now, the options

are to re -examine after that session, let's see,

or to examine in the morning, please, with an earlier start.

I don't know.

I could carry on.

But I'm thinking of the witness, and I'm thinking of everybody

else in the room.

It's 2 .30 and it's going to take most of that time, so there won't be a luncheon break.

I could use a cup of coffee or something.

I take it everyone would feel the same way rather than carry on.

Yeah? Okay.

Well, shall we, Mr. Dunn, we'll put you in isolation for even longer.

and that yeah we'll start again at three and we'll take a view about when

we'll fit in re -examination but yeah at the latest it would be tomorrow morning.

Mr. Wald? That sounds fine I think we need to see how far we get today. It is

not too late and Mr. Dunn is still around and that might be a convenient

moment if we do end up sitting late very late that might be an argument against

and early start, but shall we just see where we end up?

I'll play it by ear, I think.

I'm happy with that.

So, look, we're going to resume at three o 'clock, but Mr Dunn, you're on your own, how afraid.

Until then, 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 - Tuesday 21 October 2025, 9:30am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry AMTuesday, 21st October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Webcast Finished - 0:00:08

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Tuesday, 21st October 2025 at 9:30am