Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Wednesday 22 October 2025, 9:30am

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Wednesday, 22nd October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

needs to leave because of a long -standing personal commitment at 5 o 'clock today.

You'd indicated yesterday that you were prepared to sit late.

It's obviously important that Mr. Kiley, who

is the witness on the council side that deals predominantly with the data centre,

should hear Ms. McGinley's evidence.

I have raised this with my learned friend. It's right that proceedings are recorded,

but between that commitment, getting a night's sleep before giving evidence and making his

way back here by train, it would be very difficult for him to catch up. I raise it now in case

you would be minded to draw stumps at five and then hear if there is any, if Miss McGinley's

evidence is complete, then all well and good. If not, then that she continue with her evidence

and we'd be very happy with an early start in these circumstances. But according to the

indicative timetable, Mr. Kiley is the next to give evidence after that. So I raise it

now in case it is of relevance to any procedural thinking, sir, that you might be engaged in.

Well, shall we just see how far we get?

I think that's probably the best thing.

My learned friend quite rightly has asked us to prepare our order for everybody's consideration

so that preparation can properly take place.

That's the sort of ship that passes both ways, because with the very limited time available

to us, we cannot shift our order now.

We've got lunch and various other things to prepare witnesses.

I think it's a real shame, frankly, that at five o 'clock these things happen.

But it looks as if we're going to have another truncated day.

And if we are, I'm wondering if we could press for a yet earlier start tomorrow,

maybe nine o 'clock even. I mean, everybody's here early enough.

But I understand, you know, stuff happens and people have personal commitments.

I really don't think it's too much to ask a witness to look at what is going to be half

an hour in chief, maybe three -quarters of an hour in chief on the recording.

But shall we just see where we get to and not take up further time now?

I'm happy to do that.

Let's – yeah, indeed.

Let's get to all my things and then we'll see how we go.

I'm quite happy with the shorter lunch break.

Thank you.

We have probably 45 minutes, but we will see.

Let's see how that gets on.

In the meantime, I think we press on.

Thank you, sir.

Did you have anything this morning?

No, nothing this morning, save.

Apologies, I'm going to raise this outside of the inquiry.

I think just to raise in advance, I don't think the approach that we have is going to

the appendixes to the statement of community involvement are on the core document website

and it would just be useful if those could be added.

Well done for raising it. I'm sure that could be done in the background. Good. In which

case, Mr. Harris, I'm going to hand back to you.

Thank you very much.

We need to reexamine Mr. Dunn, don't we?

Mr. Dunn, you may not remember, but you were cross -examined some time ago. This is the

reexamination. That's putting it in context.

All right, I'm going to start with what was the largest part of my loan and friends cross

examination. Do you remember, I think it was on Thursday or Friday last week, that it was

formally put to the inquiry that there was no heritage input at all before your involvement?

Yes.

You?

Yeah.

And as a result, it was formally put in these terms, you couldn't have a heritage -led scheme

without a heritage witness involved early on.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

I think we know where we are as a matter of fact, but let's just clear it up.

As a matter of fact, was that allegation correct?

No.

We know from the documents that were put in that KMH, Kevin Murphy Heritage, and colleagues

were engaged at length with officers.

We've seen agendas with their names on.

We've seen officers engaging with them.

We know that they were involved in the view assessments

and things like that.

Now the officers that are specifically identified

in those documents, Mr. Gareth Gwynn and Mr. McGillick

have been sitting in the inquiry for most of the time.

I've certainly seen Gareth, yes.

Good.

And they would have been present with, engaging with, and speaking to KMH and the other people

involved in the early part of the conversation?

Yes.

Good.

All right, I can make submissions about that in due course.

Help the inspector please with Mr. Murphy's, so far as your knowledge extends,

experience on working at and in and around the Truman Estate.

I think Mr. Murphy has extensive heritage experience working around this estate.

Thank you very much. We'll explore that further with the planning members.

Good.

I don't know, maybe it's not a matter for you, but in the ordinary course of things,

I'm going to leave that.

I'm just going to leave that.

Thank you very much.

So, that was the formal position.

No heritage expert in place moved to – of course you had an expert in place, we now

know that, but what he did wasn't a good enough job.

That's the summary.

I just want to explore that with you, please, particularly bearing in mind that shift of

position.

In this case, when was the application formally made?

The application was made in the summer of last year.

Thank you.

So we know that the KMH document that we're going to look at in a little detail, and you

were taken to in some detail by my learned friend,

was produced in June 2023.

That's two years before the application was made.

One year.

Sorry.

And it was a heritage note to guide the early process.

In fact, it's called a preliminary note.

Yes.

Can we look at it, please?

It's in the ID documents.

And it's called Initial Heritage Commentary.

ID 15?

Yeah.

ID 15.

Yeah.

Now, the Inspector will have read it all.

So I don't ask you to go to it all.

He identifies the authorship, then he identifies site history and development, breaking it

down from late Stuart Beginnings, early Georgian growth.

Then it goes to late Georgian expansion, Victorian consolidation and growth, early 20th century,

post -war changes, lots of footnotes and documentary evidence. And then the heritage context of

the site from paragraph 26. Do you see that? Yes.

Conservation area, listed buildings, locally listed buildings, etc. Now it was put to you

that this was solely a description.

Well, first of all, as a description, your judgement,

please, as to the quality of the description and the analysis

sitting around it.

I think it's good quality.

I think at this stage of the project,

it was absolutely the document that

was needed to understand the site

and understand the opportunities for enhancing better revealing

heritage significance.

Hugh, what is it about this stage of the process

and its relevance to proportionality and to function?

What was the function of this document?

Function of the document at an early stage

was to guide the proposals in the direction that

was essentially the right direction for a heritage -led

scheme.

Hugh, look at paragraph 46, please.

Just a sec, getting there.

In due course, a detailed Heritage Statement will support the planning application for

proposed development, but it's clear at this point that the proposed scheme is fully capable

of satisfying national and local policy and guidance in relation to heritage assets.

Yes.

Is that a usual or unusual process when the application is at the stage it's at a year

and a bit off?

No, this is absolutely typical.

Thank you.

Of course, having alleged there was none of this, the criticism now is this isn't enough,

and it said that it's solely description with no judgments or analysis.

That was what was put to you.

The inspector can judge reading the document as a whole, whether there is any analysis,

but can we look at paragraph 35 please?

It identifies where the value is found in conservation principles terms.

Yes now taken up in the PPG in slightly different headings but we all know that they read across.

And then 36 please. The aesthetic quality of the area around the site is however mixed.

the underlying historic grain in the surviving historic buildings

and conservation area coexist with significant amounts

of later development of indifferent or poor quality?

Judgement, analysis, or description?

That is judgement and analysis and judgement, all three, really.

Thank you very much.

How does it square with what is, in effect, the main, if not,

or one of the main, if not the main issue in this case,

as to whether this is some form of opportunity site

or whether there's some sort of hierarchy

which means you need to keep the buildings

to one or two storeys.

It doesn't say that.

It's consistent with my evidence

which also identifies areas of poor quality

where there are opportunities for enhancement.

And then it carries on,

this clearly enhances the value of the heritage assets

in the area around the site,

underlying their importance and contribution

of the quality of the overall built environment.

Agree or disagree?

Agree.

Judgement or description?

Judgement.

Then we go to 37, the master plan site.

Which site is the document they're speaking of?

The main site.

Reflects the spectrum of quality.

That's the judgement in paragraph 36.

While the part facing Brick Lane clearly

includes grade two listed form of stable block,

block O, adjacent list of buildings, the other parts of the site are considerably less heritage

significant, whether evidential, historical or aesthetic. The Coopridge building has some

moderate heritage value but has been considerably altered in a fashion that has reduced what

generic aesthetic quality it may have had. Judgement?

That's judgement, yeah.

You weren't taken to this. It was said to be description. Despite its vestigial older

ground floor elevation to Brick Lane. Block H is essentially a very ordinary

post -war industrial building. Agree or disagree? I agree. Other buildings within

the master plan have no heritage value. Agree or disagree? Agree. Judgement or

description? Judgement. The random and focused open space of the site created

over time by demolition also detracts from the conservation area. Description

or judgement? That's judgement. All right. I mean, so we'd ask you to read it all, please.

Thank you very much. Then can we go to the Emerging Master Plan, please? Now, we know

that this is the Emerging Master Plan that was presented at the first pre -app by Mr.

human and we've got that as well with KMH's corporate logo as part of the team that presented,

yes?

Yes. Can you just give me a number for that?

I'll come to that in a minute because I just want to look at one or two things before we

go there. That clearly is all presented to the local authority at the pre -app and those

those two officers who've been at the inquiry sitting in the same room with

the representative from KMH. This is what it says here, the emerging master plan is

described in the presentation material prepared by Buckley Grey Yeoman. The

master plan site offers clear opportunity to repair this piece of the

city damaged as it has been by the familiar processes of

de -industrialization to our inner urban areas. Agree? I agree. I want the

the inspector can make his own mind up as to whether that's a description or judgement.

Brewery use has left the site and will not return. Why is that important please?

Well that symbolises the big shift in the change of use over this site. I mean for decades and

centuries it was a brewery that stopped in 1988. Now it's not coming back and there will be

new uses and new activities happening on this site.

Nor will any similar use occupy the site for reasons that has been

seen such uses move to the urban periphery. Elsewhere the Truman Brewery

Complex has been regenerated and hosts uses that are more consistent with the

city now

and the Mastopan site has itself held a number of meanwhile uses.

Just that first bit, elsewhere the Truman Brewery Complex has been regenerated and

hosts uses that are more consistent.

When we were around the model, you pointed out

number of things to the inspector. Did they include that sort of idea or not? Yes.

And then it says the site is on the edge of the conservation area where it faces eastwards, etc.

The emerging proposals place buildings in a positive relationship with the surrounding streets and with the listed buildings on Brick Lane.

just a

description or not. Appropriate scale, bulk and massing

create new streets and spaces, yards and narrow passages which echo urban area, sorry, urban

character and appearance found elsewhere in the conservation area. Mr. Yeoman spoke about

that in his presentation. Can I ask you to say a little more please about the streets,

spaces, yards, passages and how they echo urban character found elsewhere in the conservation

Yeah, this is an area that has an historic street plan. There's a brick lane, it's a sort of spine that goes south to north or north to south.

elsewhere there are is a hierarchy of streets and smaller lanes and yards etc

still exist and of course as we've been discussing in my evidence and other

evidence the original brewery site was very much characterised by spaces

irregular spaces and informality essentially.

Thank you. And now we've got the conclusion. What I want you to do please is, bearing in

mind the main issues of this inquiry now, I want you to judge and to characterise if

you can the consistency of the position set out in an initial document for sure between

paragraph 41 and 45 and the position taken by HE, officers and the GLA as to

the opportunity to enhance this conservation area. I think it's it's very

consistent. Mr. Murphy identified these opportunity or areas for opportunity at

and for enhancement at an early stage and throughout the process we've seen

We've seen what HE had to say about that.

We've seen what the GLH had to say about it, and officers.

And it's consistent.

Potential here for enhancement was recognised

by all of these people and groups.

So in a couple of days, we've gone from assertion

of no appropriate heritage advice early on,

to heritage advice, which is consistent

with the later positions taken by HE offices and the GLA, if I understand your

answer correctly? That is correct. It's also consistent with my advice and my

evidence.

Thank you very much.

Then when the question was asked of you, you were asked a question about the main principles

within the human pre -app document, which is ID 15 – 16.

Can we go for that?

This was a document that was put in while you were in the middle of cross -examination,

so I don't know the answer to this question.

Is this a document you had seen before Malone and Friend took it to you in this form?

I'm not sure, to be honest.

Fair enough. This was produced for a pre -app meeting at which you definitely weren't in

attendance because Mr. Euermann's team was, Mr. Murphy's team was, as were Mr. Murphy's.

So, when you were asked the question in relation to this, unless you'd seen it subsequently,

it wouldn't have been a document you would have seen. Do you remember we went to the

Four Founding Principles, page 23.

This is the only page of the document

you were taken to in this regard.

Let me know when you're there, sir, please.

Yeah, good.

And Four Founding Principles,

the question you were asked directly was,

Nothing there about heritage or heritage -led.

Do you remember that?

I do, yeah.

And he said, well, no, not there.

And then we moved on.

Can we look at what the four founding principles are

one at a time?

Principle one, please, which is the next page.

Celebrating the existing site characteristics.

Retain and refurbish key site buildings.

That heritage thing?

Which are the key site buildings? Well certainly the Coopridge and obviously the listed building.

Well we can see what they are by going through the rest of the document because the key site buildings are identified as the heritage buildings.

Yes. We'll do that shortly. Next, principle one, matter.

respecting the historic commercial and industrial character and scale of

buildings on the site. Yes. Heritage matter? Heritage matter. Part of principle

one? Yeah. Principle one I suspect but don't know in a particular order we'll

see. Next, framing the views of the landmark Truman chimney. Yeah. Heritage?

That's a heritage matter. Creating more bridges similar to the iconic Truman

bridge spanning Brick Lane. Capable of being a heritage matter or not?

It is, yes. Opening up more gateways, creating more new

high quality yards for public use. Given what we've just seen and what yeoman were being

told about the appropriateness of recreating yards, spaces, etcetera that were characteristic

with the conservation area.

What do you think Mr. Yeoman had in mind,

having regard to that advice which he had been given

in relation to Principle 1?

Mr. Yeoman was clear that new designs

needed to be done in a way that respected the heritage

and the former uses of the site

and echoed those kind of yards that we've been discussing.

Mr. Yeoman, who was the master planner,

wasn't cross -examined about anything

other than Coopera Jallie?

Yes.

As far as we can remember, I suppose.

If, if, if, bearing in mind now you've

had a chance to read all these documents and these principles,

if Mr. Yeoman had been asked questions

about whether heritage was one of the guiding principles,

what's your judgement as to what his answer might be?

Are you having regard to the documents that

were put before you by?

he would have agreed that heritage was a guiding principle.

Again, I hesitate to interrupt, but this document was not available when Mr Yeoman gave his evidence.

It was made available, as my learned friend rightly says, in the course of Mr Dunn's evidence.

Mr Dunn was therefore the only person to whom these questions could be put at that point.

whether questions are put to subsequent witnesses is yet to be seen.

It is an appellant document.

It was open to the appellant to provide this,

particularly in circumstances in which it is claimed that this is a heritage -led scheme.

But we received these documents when we received them.

So I think it may not assist you enormously, sir,

for you to hear this witness answer questions as to what Mr. Yeoman might have said

if questioned about a document that we received long after Mr. Yeoman had given his evidence.

So I take that last point and if there is a type of rhetorical flourish in that question then you

can ignore it as an experienced, it may be a conclusion you'd reached yourself, but as to

this document being our document, it was produced by us and given to the local authority, given

to the local authority at the first pre -app when Mr. Murphy was in play.

And so it's entirely inappropriate in the circumstances where opportunistically no questions

were put to Mr. Yeoman that his principles didn't include heritage.

when they were holding a document and had officers sitting behind them that were establishing

that the line that they were – I don't mean this in any pejorative sense, but the

line that they were peddling was actually factually incorrect and misleading at the

time. Now, I'm not suggesting that it was deliberately so, but it would have been really

easy to say to the officers, have we – how would you know? This seems a bit strange.

Have we got it right? Because the officers are in the room.

Anyway, I take my friend's point and I'm going to move on.

Good. Thank you. That's the end of that issue. Then we've got the SRP process, please.

Because you remember, on a number of occasions, my friend took you to the earlier SRP.

And on a number of occasions you said, QRP, on a number of occasions you said, yeah, but

it's a process and the inspector needs to see where they ended up, particularly in this

issue of the heritage storey.

Yes.

The heritage storey.

And although you made the point on several occasions, we never went back to the later

the heritage storey point.

Can we look at, well let's do it in two places please.

Can we pick up the report committee which is CDL1 -01.

And can we go to section five, where there's

Heritage storey, position of the QRP 554.

In general, the panel is supportive of these proposals and welcomes the way that the proposals

have been revised to offer a clear link to and celebration of the heritage of the site.

That's the summary.

but we can probably do even better than that by looking at the real document, which is CDD10.

Sir?

Oh, yes, sorry.

We should change the number, really.

It's the AM1.

So is this a seven page document or?

Yeah, just good point, just bear with me.

Yeah, grateful, yeah.

Yeah, and I'm asking you about the heritage storey,

which it was pointed out in the first document, the first QRP.

Malone and Friend pointed out that they were not convinced by the heritage storey.

So let's see where they ended up.

The panel would like to thank the applicants for the excellent presentation,

which demonstrated how the panel's comments had been addressed

and the way in which the scheme was progressing.

Ambition of the proposals is to be applauded.

This is an exciting scheme and it's great to see the way it's developing.

Generally, the panel felt that the heights across the site were broadly appropriate,

although local conditions did need to be explored further.

That is a paragraph we've seen before then.

Four, five, and six, approach of the master plan based on creating a rich human experience

in a hierarchy of public realm spaces, streets, passages, and yards is welcomed.

Use of architects creates a rich and diverse architecture.

It feels like there's a collaborative approach and this is appreciated.

Now, 23 and 49, dealing directly with this, is it heritage led, is there a heritage storey?

The panel noted, this is the quote that the other friend took you to, that they had raised

issues with regard to how the proposals responded to the heritage significance of the site at

the first QRP, and the way in which heritage has informed the proposal is much clearer

now, which is good to see.

Is that the quote or something like that you had in mind?

49, which is right at the end.

In general, the panel is supportive of these proposals and welcomes the way that the proposals

have been revised to offer a clear link to and celebration of the heritage of the site.

Now in heritage terms, because you're the heritage witness, well, first of all, do you

agree with that?

I agree, yes.

Thank you.

Is that the sort of quote that you had in mind when responding to Malone and Friend?

Yes, that's the final position they took.

It was a very positive endorsement of the scheme on heritage grounds.

Thank you very much.

All right.

That's the end of that one.

Two short matters.

Next, please.

On a number of occasions, Malone and Friend said to you that the GLA and GLA officers

had identified harm to the conservation area arising from blocks 3A and 3B.

Yes.

I just want to explore whether that is an accurate position, please.

Can we go to the GLA letter, which is CDD 1?

I think the point was being taken that here was an identification of harm from 3A and

3B, and we went to the various places where that was identified, and then my learned friend

said GLA.

Let's explore that, please.

So you need that.

In terms of tall building scale and massing, we've got paragraph 25, which is on internal page 8.

Are you there?

I'm there, yeah.

The proposed heights and overall scale of the proposals are considered acceptable by

and do not raise any significant strategic issues.

The proposed heights and forms are distributed logically

across the site, acknowledging the immediate neighbours

and balancing contextual form with site optimization.

If there was a significant impact

on the conservation area might you have expected it

to be raised there, bearing in mind

that Policy D9 has a heritage limb?

I would, yes.

Yeah. All right.

Let's be fair as to where they go.

So they look at direct heritage impacts on page 10.

Are there any direct, and by that they mean physical

in the GLA speak, physical impacts from 3A or 3B?

No, no.

And then they deal with indirect impacts at 42.

Yeah.

And they say GLA officers considered

that the following levels of indirect harm

are caused by the proposed development.

In all cases, the assessment is based on the cumulative

scenario by virtue of harm caused to their setting.

So they then go on to say,

this table only indicates grade one

and grade two listed assets,

although there are liable to be impacts

on many other assets,

as well as conservation areas which require assessment.

So do they actually say at all anywhere

that they have found any harm from buildings 3A3B

to the conservation area

in the context of what they say at 26 or at all?

No.

No, all right.

In effect, they were reserving their position,

but they definitely hadn't found harm on the basis

of what we've seen there in relation to 3A and 3B.

Correct.

Now, can we turn to Historic England next, please?

And do you remember the line across examination was,

what on earth are Historic England doing meddling

in ordinary public benefits?

Do you remember that?

I do.

And you were taken in particular to one paragraph.

Can we look first of all at the summary, CDDO2?

Again, I hesitate to interrupt.

I've been checking my note.

I don't think it was put to this witness that there were harms

arising out of blocks 3A and 3B.

I did put to the witness that the GLA had identified harm and

took them to those parts of the document where that is indicated. But I don't think there's

anything between us in relation to the more specific matter of blocks 3A and 3B.

In relation to the conservation area? Yes, in relation to the conservation area.

Well, it might have been an aside, but in a sort of round -up question, you said, well,

you are taking a different view in relation to blocks 3A and 3B than the GLA, than the

Well, but if my learned friend is now accepting the miles as good a time as any to clarify the point

The general thrust of those questions was that the identification of harm?

In the documents that to which I drew the witnesses attention

Left the witness as an outlier more generally it wasn't more specific than that

There are different types of identification of harm in those different documents

Okay

They vary.

The view in relation, which asset it is that gives rise to harm varies depending on the

document.

Oh, sure, sure.

But Mr. Dunn doesn't identify any.

Any at all.

And to that extent, I put to the witness, I think fairly, that he was an outlier.

And I think that's how I took it.

Yeah, but I hope so.

But it is a while ago.

That certainly was the intention.

All right.

But you've got the point, so that 3A and 3B, which is the essence of...

Good, thank you.

Historic England, can we look at the summary?

Again, please Historic England, the cry is made by my lone friend, don't go meddling

in stuff that is not for you.

This master plan for the Truman Brewery site seeks to sensitively refurbish and extend

the Grade 2 listed Truman Brewery Boiler House and to introduce a substantial mixed use development

which would unite and enliven this currently fragmented part of Brick Lane and Fournier

Street Conservation Area. We therefore welcome many aspects of those proposals.

I come back to what unite, enliven and fragment part of the sentence mean just shortly. Can

Can we, with that in mind, turn to the paragraph that you were asked the questions about particularly,

which is the penultimate page.

And it's the top paragraph.

Are you there?

It's not paginated here, but...

No, it's not.

Is it?

Start with focal, brewery as a focal point?

Truman Brewery is a focal point. That's the one. I'm asking these questions whatever the

Inspector makes about Ray's significant concerns being used twice in this

document. There's not that point. The Truman Brewery is a focal part of the

Brick Lane and Fournier Street conservation area and a much -loved East

London institution. However, we recognise that much of the site is a poor

of the landscape value with very limited public access.

These proposals present opportunities to enliven this part of the conservation area,

another reference to that, and improve public access with high quality buildings

and public realm that draw influence from its heritage context.

We therefore, see that word?

Yes. Consider that there are opportunities presented

to enhance the conservation area's character supporting the heritage policies

of the NPPF, particularly paragraph 212. So there's a series of questions coming up now

to assist the inspector as to whether these are just public matters, none of the business

of historic England, or whether they're heritage matters. Paragraph 212 at the time is now

terms in the new NPPF. They've just shovelled in a few green belt and grey

belt policies which means it's been moved along. Can we look at it please?

It's in the section marked conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Inspector will be very familiar with it. It's now 2 -1 -9.

When historic England say, we therefore consider that there are opportunities presented to

enhance the conservation areas character supporting the heritage policies of the framework, particularly

2 -2 -1 -9 now, local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development

within conservation areas and within the settings of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal

their significance. Is that a heritage issue or is it a public benefits issue

or might it be both? It might be both but it's foremost a heritage issue.

Is this within the purview of Historic England to be making these points by

reference to enhancing the area's character in heritage terms or outwith?

No it's absolutely within their remit. Proposals that preserve those elements

of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset, or which better reveal its significance,

should be treated favourably?

Yes.

Of what importance is better revealing the significance of this part of the conservation

area in the circumstances of this case and the analysis undertaken by KMH and yourself?

It's of fundamental importance and fundamental to that paragraph 219 of the MPPF.

Is there anything here in this sentence or in the document as a whole which suggests

that those opportunities ought not to be taken because of the harms that it is alleged might

arise as a result of taking those opportunities?

So once again, I have now checked my note.

You may recall that this point was raised with this witness in relation to a different

paragraph.

It's the penultimate paragraph of the second page of the letter in which the author of

this letter says, we therefore consider that some harm would be caused to the conservation

area through the loss of these industrial features and characters, although we note

that the animated Little Street in these views may have.

Yes. That, it's the third page

of the Historic England Letter, penultimate paragraph.

That has nothing to do with paragraph 212 or now 219.

And this witness was not asked about that external balancing act in relation to the paragraph he has now been questioned about.

Well, I don't even understand the intervention.

Well, the intervention is that in re -examination one is entitled to pose questions that arise out of any lack of clarity following cross -examination.

The witness was cross -examined on a completely different paragraph that has a different meaning

in context.

The cross -examination said English Heritage should not, HE, should not overstep the mark.

This is a question which brings to the inspectors' attention that they were specifically referring

to enhancing the conservation area's character, and that is clearly within their remit.

So I don't understand the difficulty.

Because the witness was not challenged about this paragraph.

No challenge is made about that paragraph.

A challenge was made, and you're welcome, obviously,

within the bounds of legitimate re -examination,

to seek clarification in relation

to the penultimate paragraph of the third page.

I say that, although I don't think

there was any ambiguity about the answer given.

So I just, for your note, wanted to remind you

that that was the paragraph relied upon in those questions in cross -examination.

But then the point wasn't taken that they made it perfectly clear later on

when you read the document as a whole.

So I've only been doing it 40 years,

I'm really not going to take lessons on how to re -examine from a learned friend.

No, I understand.

You've got the point.

I do have the point and I do feel slightly responsible for this set of questions

having raised the issue about no significant harm or however it was put.

So I kind of feel we can move on from that.

I'm not going to make any big deal out of it, if I can put it right there.

If it helps, no issue is taken with that particular paragraph.

That really does help as well.

Good.

Peace blossoms.

Good. Thank you very much.

Let's see how long it lasts.

Next heading, please, is the internal consistency

of approach of the local authority in heritage terms.

Just want to explore that with you.

Because in a number of ways,

it was suggested that buildings 3A, 3B were too tall.

Remember that?

It was suggested that block J was too tall.

Remember that?

Yes.

And it was suggested right towards the end

that, if you like, the setting of the cooperage was harmed.

Remember those questions where you were shown?

I do, yeah.

Yeah.

OK.

Well, it's those that I'm going to ask about now.

Just from your experience as a member of Senior Officer

of Historic England over the years and now in private practise.

First would you expect broad internal consistency of approach by a local planning authority

in relation to the same site in its various emanations?

So determining applications, securing allocations,

those sorts of things.

How would you expect internal broad consistency?

Well, what do you expect?

I would be hopefully optimistic.

I think that's a fair way of putting it.

Now, in this case, we know, both in the main site

and in the Ely's Yard site that officers as a cadre, that includes the case officer,

the heritage officers, et cetera, eventually recommended approval.

Remember that?

That is right, yeah.

And I don't think we need to go to it.

It's, for example, at CDL 038 .146, sir.

But the general principle was that officers explained in the report that if elected members

wanted to overturn the recommendation, then officers would do their best.

But if they couldn't support, they'd have to go to external advice.

I don't expect you to know or remember that, but just put that there as a fact.

It's there in the reports.

Now, we know alongside this application that the Council is still acting as plan -making

authority, local plan -making authority, as the entity, it is the local authority, on

allocation sites and on framing policies, et cetera.

Here's the bit that's relevant to you.

Can we go to F05 in the light of the questions you were asked about blocks 3A and 3B, please?

CDF?

CDF05.

Yep, I'm there.

Thank you.

And could you go, just bear with me, mine's a bit slower.

Could you go -come on.

Yeah. I've got page 28.

We've looked at this before with other witnesses.

Now, the local plan is at Regulation 19 stage,

and we're told soon to be sent off to the Secretary of State.

We'll see about that, but that's what we're told.

And what we've got here is a capacity analysis which is then fed through

to the proposed allocation on precisely or nearly precisely the application site.

Yeah. Yeah.

Now, can we go to page 28?

which has got potential massing option one.

We can go to option two, we can go to any options you like,

but let's look at option one.

This local authority has undertaken a capacity analysis

which is fed through to the allocation,

which they are formally, they tell us,

to send off to the inspectorate as their considered position

and regulation 19 is the last position.

And can we look at what they are saying

is capable of being a sound proposition,

first in capacity terms and then we look at the allocation.

Unless I'm reading it wrong,

it's got G, ground plus five and ground plus seven

facing onto Allen Gardens.

Yes.

Were you here when Mr. Frohnemann was asked about this?

Yes.

And he accepted that would be contrary

to his hierarchy argument,

putting forward to the inspector.

Do you agree with him that it's contrary to that?

What we've got is GLA saying the broad disposition of buildings

is appropriate, taking, as we've seen,

no direct issue with 3A and 3B.

We've got the position of historic England,

which the inspector has.

And we've got your position that this is appropriately

the right location. And we've got the QRP, who take a broadly acceptance of the heights,

but take local points, as we saw just a few moments ago.

First question, is there an internal inconsistency here, so far as you can see, or not, in the

a thing at the emerging regulation 19 stage?

Well, there's an inconsistency in, yes, now.

There wasn't an inconsistency with officers.

Okay, thank you.

And before we do that, I'm going to do it in this way.

Can we go to the emerging plan next, please?

Which is FO06.

And it's explained in the document that the allocation which says at page 412 of 563,

so it might take you some time to get there.

412.

Are you there, sir?

No.

It's a very long document.

I've actually downloaded the whole of mine.

I don't know whether you've got that ability, but...

Mr. Dunn, are you there?

Yeah.

And can we look at 4, internal 413,

we see Brick Lane Pedally Street,

and then we see planning designations,

and they're all set out there,

including all of the listed buildings that are relevant,

the fact that it's in the conservation area

at Fournier Street,

various permissions are there set out there.

There are indicative capacities,

and they're taken from the capacity analysis

that we've just seen.

See that?

Yes.

Now here's the point that I'm going to ask you about

in relation to the main site first.

4. Massing and heritage. This is a public facing document of the local authority.

Height strategy. Appropriate height of 70 metres at the tallest point, which should

be located on Pedley Street site, with height stepping down to an appropriate

height of 39 metres on the Fleet Street hill site. That's an interesting site, but

not directly relevant here. Heights on the rest of the site should respect the

prevailing context of the conservation area, with appropriate heights of 40

metres on the Truman Brewery, Cash and Carrie and Grey Eagle streets and 32 metres on the

Osborne Street site. So looking at the capacity which is fed into that height strategy, again

consistent or inconsistent with the line taken of this inquiry that there's a sort of hierarchy

which means you've got to have lower buildings. Inconsistent. Yeah. All right. And let's do

the same exercise. There's a sort of early reveal that we've just seen in relation to

the cash and carry side. But let's do the same exercise by going back please to FO5.

And again at page 28.

Can we look at block J and what the capacity analysis, which goes on to feed the emerging

plan which relies on it, does at block J?

Now criticism was made and you were asked about the height of Block J. Remember that?

I do, yeah.

And it was put to you that it was disproportionate, caused harm, etc., etc., in heritage terms

and you responded.

Now here's the local plans position.

In terms of Block J, what's the difference between what the council are promoting, as

appropriate in all the circumstances and the case advanced at this inquiry. Very

little difference. Yeah and I don't think we need to go back to it but we saw how

that translates in terms on the cash and carry side into Heights in the emerging

plan consistent or inconsistent. With the position at this inquiry inconsistent.

Now, there are two ways of looking at this, of course.

Either Mr. Frohman is right and the local authority will have to sort it out one way

or the other, or that the offices which have put together this proposal and the position

adopted by Historic England in relation to heights, the GLA in relation to heights, etcetera,

is in the round an appropriate one.

So where are you on that, please?

I'm on, I think the local authorities position and the GLA supporting HE etc. is the right

position.

Thank you very much.

That's the end of that.

The next document you need to go to is the one that you refer to a lot of times in answer

to my learning friend for the Rule 66 party.

And it's the Guidance Note 3 from HE.

I want to ask these questions both in relation to Christ Church but also in relation to the

Truman Chimney.

And can you go, please, to page 7 in that document?

Oh, I'm sorry.

It's CDE07.

It's Guidance Note 3.

It won't be the first time you've turned to it, sir.

Page 7.

Yeah.

And so I'm not going to go to the whole document.

It identifies the step.

But there's a very particular box that was added late in the drafting, which wasn't in

the original draught.

And it's on page six, and it's got green around it.

See that?

Yeah, sorry.

I've just got to get to the right page.

It's slightly different in my box.

Page 11 of 21 or internal page 7.

Yeah, nearly there.

Yes.

I'm asking these questions in relation to Christ Church

and to agree and degree the chimney.

Being tall structures, church towers and spires

are often widely visible across land and townscapes.

But where development does not impact on the significance of heritage assets visible in

a wider setting or where not allowing significance to be appreciated, they are unlikely to be

affected by small -scale development unless that development competes with them such as

tower blocks and wind turbines.

That's the sort of scale of thing that we're looking at.

even then, even if it's a tower block or a wind turbine,

such an impact is more likely to be on the landscape values of the tower or spire

rather than the heritage values unless the development impacts on its significance,

for instance, by impacting on a designed or associative view.

Is that the reference you had in mind when you were answering questions to my learned friend?

And that is one of the references I had in mind.

The document, as you know, sir, is quite long and very detailed.

There's another section about understanding the contribution of views and a sort of hierarchy

of views, which views are important or which ones are likely to be important.

So yeah, all of this is, you know, feeds into the same general, well, the same guidance

which is contained within this document.

So, yeah.

So, I mean, the inspector will judge from the photographs

the walk around, et cetera.

But I can ask this question.

The views that you were taken to by my learned friend,

there were two views.

Are any of those designed or associative

views in the sense of the box?

No.

Can I just ask, Mr. Dunne, what do you

understand by associative?

I'd just like some clarity on that, because I've never understood that.

What's an associative view if it's not designed?

I think that refers to views that over time become associated with a certain heritage

asset.

That's my understanding.

And in the circumstances of this case, let's identify the chimney, for example.

A variety of stakeholders has identified what it identifies as part of the pre -application

process to be the key views worthy of protection or conservation as a result

of the proposals coming forward etc. Does the proposal in terms of those

identified by the system if you like cause harm to any of those views? No.

Right and in terms of any of those views are any of those views

designed or associated views in the sense of the box

Okay. Thank you very much for that

Thank you, sir, that is my examination by reexamination

Um, thank you. Mr. Dunn. That's been helpful

And I'm sorry for the break and the messing about with when you needed to be back this

morning, but, you know.

That's OK.

Thank you very much.

Mr Harris, where are we moving to next?

Block J next.

I thought so.

Shall we have a break?

Or should we do mid -morning break now?

I'm entirely in your hands, sir.

As I explained for all three of the architects, I'm just going to tender them.

Maybe we should do the formal tendering, and then maybe if there's IT to set up, that could

be done in a short break.

I'm good with that.

Let's do that then, if we can do the handover and then.

Here comes Mr Henley.

Yes, that's what we're going to do at the break, yes.

Right, here we go.

I'm going to do it this quickly.

Are you Simon Henley?

I am Simon Henley.

Good.

Maybe we can have an agenda to set the thing up.

Let's resume at 11 .15. Thank you.

Thanks.

I thought it would.

It's a long day. It's a CDA -106.

Yep.

Thank you.

I'm here. I've got the paper copy.

Thank you and if you go within that please to page 9.

Yes.

Just to establish the chronology.

So on page 9 headed planning and process design evolution we can see that the left -hand side pre -application meeting 1 October 2023 QRP 1 December 2023.

We can see the state of design broadly in the images at the top.

Then moving on, pre -application meeting 2, March 2024.

Some design changes, balconies relocated to face east.

And then finally, QRP number 2, March 2024.

and a design change height reduced to seven storeys you see from the top right

hand corner of the page yes yes so originally eight storeys and then moved

down to seven storeys before that QRP meeting in March 2024 yes okay the when

When did you start work on the project, please?

July 2023.

Thank you.

You don't mention in your proof, just by way of preference,

I'm going to refer to your proof and your rebuttal.

In terms of documentation, actually, there

was an appendix to Mr. Yeoman's proof,

which included a statement from Hendy Hale brand, your firm.

and then there was no sort of formal separate proof from you, but there has been a rebuttal

since. So that's your evidence to the inquiry in written form.

I think our proof was autonomous but was added to theirs.

Yes, understood. Okay, so you don't mention in your proof, your rebuttal or the design

an access statement that you received any expert heritage advice prior to

producing your initial eight -storey designs in particular any expert

heritage advice as to what scale and massing was appropriate at this

location the conservation area do you know and that's because you didn't

receive any such advice prior to producing your initial eight -storey

designs correct? No I disagree. Go on. Because throughout the process we were

we had both members of BGY one or two in each of our project meetings and we had

and we also attended monthly workshops on the master plan to which the heritage

member of the team would would be there. And who was that?

Kevin Murphy.

So you started work in July 2023.

We did.

We've seen in the inquiry documentation produced on Friday a document from KMH which doesn't include block J.

That I don't know.

Okay, well let's just, let me just clarify that.

The document is...

Inquiry document 15.

Sorry, what's the code?

ID.

This is an ID document, so you have to continue on.

ID.

ID 15.

I think interesting I've only got up to ten.

Okay.

Um, can I just go up there?

What's happened is

that that computer has downloaded

and it's been downloaded

at the time of the fall

and it's been 12, 17

with the disc.

So I'd like those for

Okay.

Thank you. I'm grateful. So, Mr Henley, what you hopefully have on screen is a document,

27 pages headed KMH Heritage, KM Heritage, Trumanbury Mast Plan initial heritage commentary.

This is this document, yep. And there's a date at the end of the document, don't just go to it,

2023, we've been told this is a June 2023 document. Okay. And if you go to, for instance, page 8,

Yep.

You'll see a red line which does not include block J.

Right.

And if you go also to page 10, there's another red line which doesn't include block J.

Yep.

Yeah.

So that's the document with which it's now being produced.

I think the only expert heritage document

prior to Mr. Dunn's coming on board in February 2024.

You don't produce any other heritage, expert heritage

document at this time or prior to Mr Dunn's coming on board in February 2024

do you? We don't provide any expert heritage documentation no. No so there is no

written expert heritage advice informing you before this inquiry as to what form

and scale and mass of design would be appropriate in the conservation area in

this location for block J is there? That is seemingly correct. Okay and because

there wasn't any. I can't verify that or not personally. Having not attended every

meeting I can't say whether there was but I can't substantiate any evidence

that there was. Thank you. This is your opportunity, you're giving evidence. It's

been put by the appellant this is a heritage -led scheme. I can suggest to you

that a heritage scheme is not heritage led

unless there is heritage advice prior to the fundamentals

of scale and massing and form being established.

In this case, you produce no evidence, no written evidence,

of any such heritage advice prior to the fundamentals

of form and massing and scale of block J being set, have you?

I think you assume that an architect who's been in practise for 30 years, whose office

is very close by and has a good knowledge of the area, cannot use tacit knowledge to

develop an intelligent response to the heritage, which I can explain.

What you have is a – in terms of our response, we have a building which is appropriately

scaled and our response to heritage comes in various forms, in the overall form of the

building and where we decide on the massing, on the composition of the scheme overall and

in the detail. And we know from, if we start with the detail, if I may, I mean the detail

of the surrounding area is predominantly brick buildings, spittle fields were laid out in

late 17th and early 18th century.

The early architecture reflects

the emerging building regulations

after the Great Fire of London in 1666.

We build buildings very differently

from the way we did then,

but what that established,

as is the case for much of London,

for a long period of time, is a brick architecture

with punched openings, stone sills,

either stone or brick, shallow arch lintels.

In this area, lots of wooden shock fronts.

And in the way we translate that into the 21st century,

we don't build anything like we did then.

There are complex sets of regulations

that means that buildings appear a certain way,

but they're made a different way.

So the building the buildings particular all three buildings where they ones looking at woods here Street

Henry Street or Spital Street share a common language of brickwork of

Concrete

Sills that match the sorry that contrast like the stone sill with with brickwork and matching

lintels that

compliment the brickwork and punch statements

Inside of course is likely to be concrete frames and so on

So and we can't replicate timber shock fronts because of the building regulations and risk of fire

So we reproduce them in in precast concrete

So in terms of the detail there's a huge consistency to the heritage and something in which we set out in our design acts a statement

And we explained again the DAS and maybe it's informal but that informal intuitive tacit knowledge that underpins the profession

of architecture means we are able to respond in these situations to what might otherwise be

perhaps what you might call kind of codified responses. So in that respect no

we're not relying on that codification but we're relying on a huge amount of

experience and knowledge. And then in composition... Well just can I ask you

full answer, understood. I'm asking about the process... I'm explaining our response

to heritage. I understand that, I'm asking about the process. You're not an

expert heritage professional, I don't think you claim to be.

I'm not an expert, but I work in conservation areas

because huge chunks of London are in conservation areas.

I work on listed buildings and next to listed buildings.

Understood.

I have a reasonably good working knowledge of the problem.

You referred a moment ago in master plan meetings

to Heritage, or Mr. Murphy, I think

you referred to being present.

What heritage advice did Mr. Murphy?

I can't assert that I

Assume a week absolutely clear. I can't assert that he was in those meetings

I'm assuming that he was part of the team and we were attending those workshops. I wasn't personally attend those workshops

So if I'm confusing and misleading you

withdraw that

Statement

Okay, so I was going to ask then what advice did

Mr. Murphy

give to you in those meetings or perhaps if you're gonna say someone from your

firm about scale massing being what was approaching the conservation area but I

assume giving a previous answer you can't give me an answer to that.

I'm saying I'm not relying on that advice but whether we were given it or not I'm

saying that I have knowledge and experience that enables us and I think

I've explained very well in terms of the detail and in composition the building

on Woods Hill Street is comparable in height to the building opposite 25 Woods

Hill Street which is consented. The building on Hambray Street is a storey

lower and significantly lower than 68 Hambray Street and the building on Spittles

Street is yes taller but as we detailed very clearly in our DAS and in my

presentation last week that that was set back to reduce its impact. It's clearly

Visible from the east and and I think again if we if we look at the

The boundary of the conservation area. It's an abstract thing

somebody's drawn a line around it, but the experience of being there not least because of

The presence of the banglatown

cash and carry buildings

But also 68 Hambridge Street and 35 Woodsea Street suggests that that threshold between what essentially?

17th, 18th, and 19th century piece of city,

gives way to an evidently 20th century post -war,

post -bomb damaged city.

And we're not, I don't believe it's appropriate

to build to the boundary of a conservation area

in such a way as in a sense to set up a threshold

which further exaggerates some of the problems

we've had in the inner city now well recorded over some half century. We know that the post -war

estates are a problem of ghettoisation.

I'm asking specific questions if I can have a specific answer. I'm asking about the process.

No, hang on, hang on. I know you want to give your views about the design response and entitled

to do so if I ask a question about that. The question's about the advice given. You just

told me you don't rely on any advice given. I heard that answer, but the question was

what advice was given? What advice can you tell me was given, if any, about the appropriate

response in heritage terms to the conservation area in this location? Expert heritage advice.

I'm personally not able to give you that information.

Thank you.

That's wonderful.

The – all right.

So if we look to the document we have looked at,

the KM Heritage document, that's the one document

that's been produced now.

If you then can also go to, on the same sort of theme,

go to CDD 0 .08, which hopefully will be on your system.

It is.

Got it.

And what CDD 0 .08 is is February 2024 pre -application response,

which makes some comments in respect of heritage generally.

and if you go to page 15 of the document please

thank you and there's a heading at page 15 comment on heritage assessment in the

applicants heritage analysis of pre application site this is February 2024

150 top of the page at this juncture planning offices are concerned there is

an important gap in their applicants teams analysis of the pre -application

site and therefore the development being proposed there has so far been one at

pre -application meeting with offices regarding the master plan for the site

being for the delivery of the site as a whole rather than as individual plots

since that meeting pre -application meetings have continued focused on

looking at buildings individually then 152 there has been no heritage

assessment prepared for the whole site that has been shared with officers. There

is very little reference to heritage and no substantive heritage analysis

included in the master plan proposals presented. This raises the

question of the role heritage analysis and the heritage constraints of the site

have played in formulating the proposals. And if you go over the page, more

discussion concludes though at 1 .57. See the conclusion at 1 .57. These concerns

have been set out in the council's previous letter. The applicant team are

encouraged as a bare minimum to provide their baseline heritage assessment for

the site. The discussion then needs to move to how the master plan proposals

and the approach of the individual architects is delivering a scheme that

is respectful to and enhances their heritage assets here. After that, after

that statement of almost exasperation, Mr Dunn became involved. Just pausing there,

reference you'll see Mr Henley 2 in 157, a request that the applicant provide

their baseline heritage assessment. That is a reference as I understand to the

the KMH, KM heritage study, the note, not it seems, certainly not to officers knowledge,

provided before this point, February 2024. To be clear, Council's not suggesting there

was zero heritage work. There was, in the applicant's own words to the QRP, a baseline

heritage assessment. The criticism and the continuing criticism of this inquiry

is about heritage advice guiding the form and massing of the proposals prior

to those proposals being the fundamentals being being established. So

in terms of your your process and your design you've explained to me that

prior to the initial eight -storey approach,

you referred to the master plan meetings,

no separate document you referred me to,

there was then a reduction to seven storeys plus plant

in March 2024, by March 2024, yes?

Any separate expert heritage advice

advising on that reduction to seven storeys plus plant?

I can't say one way or the other in terms of being present at a meeting.

I can say that we made that decision collectively as a design team.

I can't point at who said we should do it.

What I can say is that even prior to the illustration in the DAS on page 9,

in terms of optimisation of housing, we started with a taller building on Spital Street.

So there was a progression from a greater height.

That's not recorded because we made decisions ourselves

as a design team that a taller building was inappropriate

and working our way towards something

which we felt was appropriate,

which is then formally recorded through documentation,

both generated by ourselves and through QRP reports

and pre -op letters that shows, you know,

there was a reduction from eight to seven.

And of course there was also -

So before the eighth storey, there was a higher version.

We did start looking at, given the obligation to optimise housing on this site, that's what we did.

Okay, that's helpful, thank you. I wasn't aware of that.

So taller version originally, then eight storey plus plant, then seven storey plus plant.

The question was about can you tell me what, if any, heritage advice fed into the decision to reduce from eight storey plus plant to seven storey plus plant.

and you couldn't point to any specific heritage advice that led to that decision.

I can only suggest that there was a team decision to do that.

To do with the fact that I'm not in all the meetings.

So I can't...

I can't...

...pay one way or the other.

I've asked the question.

So...

In respect of this, then, see what the expert subsequently said.

if you go please to CDD .02, this is the Historic England document.

Yep. So Historic England consultation response 7th of October 2024.

So this is post application.

And if we just match as I'm interested in,

it's not paginated, but bottom of the first page,

historically, we say development site encompasses two parts

of land here after main plot and southern plot, southern plot

in Fawney Street conservation area, which is generally

characterised by low -rise townscape, much of it

domestically scale.

Hanbury Street, where the southern plot is located,

over the page, is lined with buildings largely

reflecting this modest scale and domestic character,

although the plot itself contains

two undistinguished sheds which relate poorly

to the domestic townscape.

Now, I'll come to modest scale and domestic character.

I know you comment on it in your proof.

Don't worry.

That's their observations on context.

In terms of their response to the proposals, the meat of it is at the top of the fourth

page for block J. If you go to that, please.

And top of the fourth page they say, regarding the southern plot, where there is limited

assessment in the HTVIA, the illustrative view looking west along Hanbury Street, Block

J design and access statement, suggests that its large seven -storey scale and massing would

be at odds with the more domestic four -storey scale of buildings further west along Hanbury

Street. While we recognise that the existing sheds and the large post -war buildings opposite

detract from the streetscape, the proposed development does not take the opportunity

to reinstate a more contextual and modest form of development,

we considered that the lower lower palm to the conservation areas character would result

through the overbearing scale of proposed Block J.

So that's where Historic England ended up after the application submitted.

And Mr Henley, I would just suggest to you that it is unsurprising to receive an objection

like that to the overbearing scale of Block J when you haven't, as far as I can see,

taken any specific heritage advice on the scale of Block J prior to making the application.

I think what I was saying was that I can't verify what advice was given, not that none

was given. Clearly by that point there was some advice.

That's Historic England. The other document I wanted to refer to on this matter was CDD .03,

please next series and this is the comments from officers at Tower Hamlets

see from the first pages these are comments December 2024 23rd yeah yes 23

December 2024 and if you see at the end they are from Vicod Lambert principal

place shaping officer conservation and design officer

as well.

And it's one, if you go to the, it's

page 10, penultimate page.

1 .59, this is block J. Site is outside the main brewery site,

presently occupied by single storey shed style building,

which houses a cash and carry.

The existing building detracts from the character

and repaints of the conservation area,

no objection to the loss of this building.

The building is to replace with an eight -storey residential

and office building in red brick.

This scale is at odds with the lower height

of the residential sections of the conservation area.

Care has been taken to try and reduce

the impact on the adjoining listed terrace

and the northern edge of the building

has been carefully chamfered to try

to reduce the impact on the adjoining listed buildings.

The overall scale of the building

is considered to cause some harm to the character

to the conservation area, the ambient height of which

is perhaps four to six storeys.

So same point, Mr. Henley.

Objections there to the scale, in particular,

of what is being proposed.

And I suggest to you, it is unsurprising

you're getting objections to that scale on a heritage,

from a heritage perspective, when

prior to establishing the fundamentals of that scale,

you can't point me to any specific heritage advice?

I think I've said that I cannot be specific,

but I also look at this and see that this is...

I think the language here is misleading.

It refers to adjoining listed buildings.

The nearest listed buildings to our site

are on the south -east corner

of the junction of Hambray Street and Brick Lane

and the building behind Stuttle House, which is up on Buxton Street, to my knowledge.

Yes.

Looking at the map. They're not really adjoining.

Yes, but being fair and looking at the force of the comments, 160 in particular,

160 first sentence isn't focusing on listed buildings, it's focusing on the conservation area.

the overall scale of the buildings considered to cause some harm to the

character of the conservation area the ambient height of which is perhaps four

to six storeys so that is a broader judgement as to the conservation area or

the part of it in which this proposal sits isn't it I was simply raising a

point because they've written it and you used it you're right that the ambient

height is well I think it actually it goes higher than six we know that there

are buildings which exceed six storeys within the conservation area and there

are buildings that exceed six storeys immediately outside the conservation

area and we are on the edge of the conservation area so I think it is

different from building within the depth of the conservation area. Inevitably we

we look both ways and we don't do that across the whole site it's not a

homogeneous response in fact it's a highly nuanced response to Three Street

Wintier Street, Hanbury Street and Spill Street. Okay let's look at that response

then if you go back to the design and access statement please you discuss this

response page 37 so this is design act statement CDA point oh seven the block

And page 37, deal with what you were just discussing.

On there.

Thank you.

And on page 37, design concept massing strategy,

which I'm interested in.

And the second paragraph, and you see the illustrations

there. The second paragraph of text on page 37 tells us that the urban block is

completed by placing another building facing Spital Street. As Spital Street is

the most open, height is added to this side and the corners step back to

minimise impact on the surrounding streets and buildings. So there's an

explanation there of the principle of why the Spital Street elevation is

is higher than those adjoining the terrace.

You say the rationale given there is that Spital Street

is the most open, in your words.

Just from a heritage point of view,

no heritage advice that that feature, the openness,

lends itself to extra height being added to this part of the conservation area?

I think the heritage response here is not the addition of the height, but it's the modelling of the building at the north and south ends,

and the effect that has on views from the west, from Hanbury Street and Woodsea Street.

Yes, indeed. So you're looking out of the conservation area, looking east?

We are looking in all directions. I mean that's what I'm saying the the the RT the

the massing of Woodseer Street and the Hanbury Street building and the smaller street building are such that

to a greater extent

The taller building is not visible

What is barely visible from within the conservation area from the West it is evidently visible from the east

Yeah outside the conservation area

Absolutely. And given the expert heritage consultee responses,

who are clearly concerned with that view looking in,

and talk about overbearing scale, that's what I'm focusing on.

But I think that assumes that this is...

I know it references other buildings,

but those other buildings are part of the setting,

to use that word, which is probably,

Given this is not a builder. It's not built yet

They're a little listed building

But our building plays a part in that setting of the setting which has a five -storey building to the north at 35 Woodson Street

And a substantial commercial

Building at six storeys to the south which is a brutalist concrete building. Yeah, okay. I'll come to those so

And you deal here with in the text the principle of increasing height on the Spittel Street elevation

Yes, you don't in this text at least

go on to answer the question of moving beyond the principle of increasing height,

why specifically eight storeys plus plants or seven storeys plus plants?

That's not something you explain here is it? No but I think architects make

drawings, we also write, we also speak but actually the interesting thing about

drawings is that they're absolute, they're unambiguous and those drawings

demonstrate the degree to which the seven -storey element of the Spiddle Street is largely invisible

from the West, from Hanbury Street and Woodside Street. So that is ultimately the test, not

words to me.

Understand that, yes, you're looking West, I got that.

I'm saying that it's drawings and models, physical, immutable things which are the basis

by which the work should be judged.

Okay, and just understand that process getting to eight storeys plus plants or seven storeys.

Seven storeys plus plants.

Yeah, a two -stage process.

So as the block specific architect, you had flexibility in terms of what height you designed

block J to?

Yes.

Well, we don't, we form part of a team.

You know, there are engineers, there are townscape, planning, heritage, everybody's involved.

It's a complex and in a way slow process with many exchanges which are some recorded and some are not.

So it's not an autonomous decision to land at seven storeys.

No, but you're the block specific architect. Mr. Yeoman specifically refers to the block specific architects being best placed to explain their designs.

Indeed. I'm simply saying we form part of a team, not of other architects, but a team of professionals.

Of course. And part of that design is the height and you are on your firm principally

responsible for making that decision as to height and scale.

Yes.

And you had flexibility as to where you ended up on height and scale.

We used our intelligence. We made drawings and physical models to demonstrate that this

was an appropriate place to land.

Yes, but you weren't constrained to, as block specific architects, build two, seven, eight,

nine, or indeed six, five storeys.

You have flexibility in that respect.

We don't think in abstract we're dealing with the physical reality.

Yes, I mean -

The impact of that building.

Of course, I think we're at cross purposes.

And in dealing with that reality and in deciding whether to, as the block specific architect,

design your building to six, seven, eight storeys or indeed higher, you had flexibility

as to that design choice? We had a client. We also had a client. So we have a brief and

the brief on balance is obviously to optimise housing. The brief didn't say give a specific

storey height, did it? No. Okay. So in that respect, you had flexibility? Yes. The height

wasn't dictated by the master plan the height was not dictated by the master

plan and all would know was the building in if the master plan was going to

complete the block that's a master plan decision that the the fact that it was a

residential led mixed -use plot that would retain the Bangor town cash and

carry that were lost initiatives and ambitions the detail way in which it

plays out is in our hands.

I'm sure I'm asking the right person these questions.

Good.

And then in terms of that response,

I want to ask you about how high you go.

So just to establish where we are on height,

I think it's formerly common ground,

if you go to the ID documents again,

this is ID 7, which hopefully might have made it

onto your system.

Thank you.

So ID 7 is the now agreed statement of common ground

for the main site.

And if you go to page 11 of that document.

I am there.

Thank you.

And the first table on page 11 gives some heights.

And we can see the third entry is block reference J.

And it's the max street height I'm just interested in

at the moment.

There's two figures given, 27 .1 metres to top of plant,

for block J and twenty five point five one metres to top of parapet you see

that yes I appreciate there's also a storey height it gives eight storeys

including rooftop plant enclosure I think in your proof you say it's seven

plus plant you know leave that aside for the moment just deal with street height

also given that that storey heights vary so we've got the street heights there

for block J, 27 to top of plant, 25 and a half to top of parapet. Keep those in mind

and you have to take up another document for this exercise. Then go please to CDL .01.

Shall I keep both open? If you can.

I think I said and then CDL point a one which is the officer report 24 meg

version see the other one yes and page 95 you can get to that

And on page 95 –

Digital 95 or page number 95? Maybe they're the same thing.

It's got an aerial photograph.

Indeed, it's unpaginated but digital page 95, aerial photograph, called figure 54.

Can you see that?

Yes.

And in the centre of the aerial photograph is block J, the application site in its current form.

and it provides some heights for the surrounding, for some surrounding

buildings. So we can see second home as it's been called is the building to the

south on the other side of Hanbury Street with the distinctive frontage

given here is 21 .8 metres you see that? Yes. Also gives five storeys I think

so other people give it a six storeys,

but leave aside the storey count for the moment.

21 .8 metres.

The other ones given here are to the north of block J,

the residential building.

Five storeys at 14 .5 metres.

You see that?

Right here.

Thank you.

And then the third height given in this aerial photo

is to the south east the five -storey building 16 metres you see that yes so

in terms of those given we've got the heights of block j25 and half to

parapet 27th to topper plant obviously exceeds those it's to be complete there

are two I think you referred to them as the residential buildings in the

foreground there's a lower three -storey one directly to the east of block J I

think it's called Bowden house yes so that's I think three or three or so

storeys somewhere between 10 and 15 metres. It's going to be 10 or 11. 10 or 11, thank you.

And then the final one in the immediate proximity, leaving aside the terrace to

the west, is the also residential block to the north east which is called

The tall residential block.

Approximate height of that?

It's going to be in the region of 15 metres.

Thank you.

So that's the immediate surrounds.

None of those buildings obviously get up

to 25 metres parapet, 27 metres plant.

and in terms of the other than second home they're all 15 16 metres or below

yeah they are they're surprisingly low for buildings of those of those numbers

of storeys indeed and and therefore need to be careful when talking about the

numbers of storeys of for instance MacLashan house because it may be five

or six storeys but only in height because they're low residential storeys

from dating from the year in which it was built significantly lower than

what's proposed for block J? They are lower yes. The response then that you

proposed fair to say significantly exceeds what's in the immediate

surroundings? The immediate surroundings. Yeah. Maybe but I don't think it

significantly exceeds the 68 Hanbury. I mean it's taller but it's not. That's the

one exception. It's not a significant increase. Okay so that's that's the one exception you. And I do

think one should be dealing with the parapet height rather than the plant

height because a lot of a lot of buildings get planning consent with a

very ambiguous attitude to what goes on on the roof both in height and in content

and actually one of this one of the things we made a conscious decision to be

is very clear about what happens on the roof of this building we know that

London skyline is covered in clutter that did not form part of the planning application.

Okay so understood so you qualified your acceptance by you disagree on second

home as I call it 68 Hanbury you say you're not significantly taller than

that but put the question again then when you are significantly taller than

everything else in the immediate surroundings you are you are not

providing a building which responds to the context the ambient height as the

conservation officer put it of what we find around the proposal but we said

this in the presentation that this is an oversimplification of the impression because within the conservation

area and immediately outside the conservation area there are simply taller buildings. It's

a bit like saying that the listed buildings are adjoining the site, well they clearly

weren't. Yes, so we look outside the conservation area.

So it depends how, no we can also look within the conservation area for taller buildings.

Yes, OK.

I'm looking at the immediate surroundings at the moment.

Just taking your first point, looking outside

the conservation area, in your rebuttal,

you refer to intentionally speaking to the modern blocks.

I'm going to go to it just to, yes.

It's paragraph 2 .2 .9.

Yes, I'm good.

So paragraph 2 .2 .9, part of the design rationale you give.

Elevation treatments of the three proposed blocks respond

to the character of streets they face.

Lower block frontages facing Woodseer and Hanbury

respond to the subdivision rhythm of these streets.

The taller seven -storey elevations facing Spittles

with its projecting string course balconies, intentionally speaks to the

modern blocks of flats to the east which form part of the townscape. We've just

discussed their actual height but taking your point here, intentionally speaking

to those modern blocks of flats, those modern blocks of flats are outside the

conservation area Mr Henley? They are. No heritage advice you got that it was

an appropriate response in heritage terms to start intentionally speaking to

those modern blocks which are outside the conservation area,

was there?

So you presume that we would turn our back

on the piece of city that the building faces?

No, I'm just asking, Mr. Hendy, well, I asked the question,

I'm asking it in a different way.

There was no heritage advice that this site

in the conservation area should start intentionally speaking

to modern blocks which are outside the conservation area

as a design response.

There may not be a heritage imperative to do that,

but there is an architectural responsibility to be inclusive

and to offer some cohesive structure and characters

in the city.

A city that turns its back on one area to another

is a city that creates fault lines.

And the 20th century city is deeply problematic

because of that.

We know about the ghettoization and the delimiting

of post -war states.

This is a post -war state.

We have a responsibility to look to that state

as well as to look to the heritage.

That's an architectural response.

It's not a matter of height and storey height,

it's to do with character and it's to do with perception.

Yes.

So we are dealing with language, architectural language.

We're not dealing with height.

Given the statutory duties on the decision -maker,

I didn't ask you specifically about those,

but heritage, that would certainly be concerned with those,

the more appropriate response would be to seek to respond to the three and four storey block

of which Block J is, the three and four storey terrace of which Block J is part,

which is within the conservation area.

So the building is a serious, it's not a homogenous design and that's intentional.

it's intentional that the building does turn to the streets that it faces.

That is an intelligent and nuanced and careful and generous response.

And as you know, as you can see, as a matter of fact from the drawings, the building on

Woodseer Street is of an almost identical height to the building on the opposite side,

which is consented.

The building on the south side is one storey lower, which has all sorts of other advantages

over and above heritage in terms of light to the courtyard and and so on as

well as aligning with the parapets immediately to the west and the spittle

street building yes is taller that is a matter of fact. Okay that brings me to

the final point I want to ask you about it's on this that the two elevations

Woodseer and Hanbury so to to do that could you go back to the design and

access statement block J and go to pages 24 and 25 please yes and on page

starting with page 24 of the DAS yes you've got the wood seer Street

elevation and you've helpfully put the heights of the existing buildings on

that we can see in terms of the existing street elevation it rises it is

On the south side, yes.

Yes, quite right, on the south side. Then go over the page to page 25. We've got

and the northern elevation of Hanbury Street.

So this is the terrace of which, block J forms part,

and which you're completing.

And we see there the heights in terms of gets up to 14 .6,

and then there's a five -storey recess right

at the current eastern end at 17 metres.

That's correct.

So three or four storeys up to 14, 15 metres or so,

excluding that recess.

Yes.

Height of the current terrace.

Are you talking about Hanbury or Woodsea?

The terrace as a whole of which the block forms part.

So that includes both.

Sorry, which are you talking about?

Hanbury or Woodseer?

I'm talking about the terrace, the urban block of which

block J forms part that you're completing.

And so looking at both the elevations

we see on pages 24 and 25, the height of that

is three or four storeys getting up to, at its highest,

14, 15 metres or so.

Yes.

It is also, but it highlights that Frohman's observation that this is a sort of domestic

scale residential street block is not, it is actually far more complex, far more fragmented

and as you can see on Hanbury Street there are, there's a section, there's a huge section

of commercial four -storey building in the middle and also that the buildings step up a brick

lane.

So this idea that the building might, that the street might be bookended by taller buildings

both to Brick Lane and to Spital Street are actually established by the brick lane elevation.

I'm not talking about the numbers of storeys and the exact height, I'm talking about the

Just touching on that bookending point, hear what you say about talking about the principal,

not the exact height. If you look at the bookend, as you call it, on Brick Lane, that bookend,

we can see from page 24, is three and a half storeys, the parapet of which is ten metres.

I guess it's four storeys.

Sorry, this is your DAS, you've called it three and a half if there's a fourth storey

man's sog.

I think we were being generous. It's four storeys.

It's four storeys and you've given here a height of 10 .2 metres. You want to add a little

bit to that, do you?

No, no, no. As I said, it's a principle, not a metric.

It's a principle but it's relevant to look at the height as well as the principle, isn't

it?

You think so, yes.

No, question for you. Question for you, Mr. Henry.

I think we've been talking about the height for a long time.

I'm not sure what else to say.

What's the answer to my question?

Sorry, what... Well...

I'm surprised, given that the local plan

is currently suggesting a higher building on our site than we proposed.

What's the answer to my question?

What was your question?

It's relevant to look at the height as well as the principle of bookending.

We can look at the height, but the effect of the height is how it is seen in the setting

of the conservation area.

It's not an abstract idea.

You place yourself in these streets and you then make a judgement about whether it's an

inappropriate or an appropriate building, because the height of the building has to

do with what is visible from admittedly a multitude of locations within the conservation

area.

OK.

So we can compare the height, the bookend on the brick lane,

10, 11, 12 metres, whatever it gets up to,

and the bookend that you're proposing

is to parapet 25 and 1 1 -1 metres.

That's a matter of fact.

Over double.

That is a matter of fact.

And in terms more generally of the height

of this urban block, which you expressly say you're completing

or to keep to that your architectural language

and concept completing, the block currently, agreed,

gets up to roughly 13, 14, 15 metres.

You told me that what's required,

your words, a careful nuanced response.

25 and 1 1 -1 -2 metres, the parapet,

is not a careful nuanced response

to a block which gets up to 13 or 14 metres, is it?

Well, I think I've explained that it's not

an abstract metric is to do with what is visible from various viewpoints in the city.

And what we're talking about here is both the figure ground plan, the plan, and the

form, and how those play out in space and in views.

So if, for example, the building extended to the bound – if the Spital Street building

extended to the current building line on Woods history and the current building

line on Hamby Street its impact at that height would be far greater and visible

so in terms of judgments that we make we made a judgement that judgement is a

complex judgement because it's not just to do with heritage reviews it has also

to do with impact or neighbours sunlight daylight at the sunlight and daylight

within that that we are making so once

Cognizant of the impact that we both have on our context but also on the quality of the homes that we create

Thank You mr. Henry, thank you, sir. Those are my questions

Thank You mr. Franklin miss miss Curtis, did you have anything

Only a couple of points

Mr Henley, could I take you to CDE 04, that's the London plan.

CDE 04, yes. I'm there. Thank you. 542 pages.

Yes, and page 122, you'll be grateful to know I'm not going to ask you to read the whole thing.

I think I'll get there. I think I'm there.

So it should be policy D5.

D5 or D2?

D5. Sorry, electronic page 122, I'll just cheque.

Yeah, I think it should also be...

The page numbering should be the same.

Oh...

Really?

I'm not...

Anyway, it's CD... Sorry, it's...

D5.

D5, I'll get there.

Thanks.

No, I'm definitely struggling.

For example, on my version, D4 is on page 132.

OK.

I think maybe it's 137 electronically.

Right.

OK.

I am there, yes, exactly.

Right.

And that's policy D5 on inclusive design, and you're familiar presumably with this policy.

I hope, yes.

And it provides that development proposals should achieve the highest standards of accessible

Inclusive design should be designed taking into account London's diverse population

And paragraph C design and access statements submitted as part of development proposals should include an inclusive design

statement

and

then para

3 .5 .2 the supporting text inclusive design is indivisible from good design

I'm it is asked for essential to consider inclusive design

at the earliest possible stage in the development process from initial conception through to

completion?

Are you familiar with all of that?

Yes.

And paragraph 3 .5 .3, inclusive design statements should, among other things, show that the

potential impacts of the proposal on people and communities who share a protected characteristic

and who will be affected by it have been considered familiar with that as well.

Yes.

So just your design and access statement, CDA07, it's just a short point, but I don't

see an inclusive design statement included in your design and access statement.

I think you're right.

And the appellant has separately submitted an equality impact assessment, which is at

CDA .20.

Are you familiar with that document?

Am I allowed to explain how the building does respond to the community?

If you could just answer my questions first.

Okay, so which document?

CDA point 20.

Sorry, C -D -O.

Right, C -D -O.

C -D -A.

That's a document dated July 2024 and essentially retrospective assessment of equality impacts

that arise as a consequence of the final design.

That's not a document which explains the way in which inclusive design or impacts on persons

with protected characteristics were embedded in the design process itself.

That's right, isn't it?

I think you're telling me that.

So no evidence in your design and access statement or proof to demonstrate that inclusive design

was considered at the earliest possible stage?

The brief for the building reflects the requirements of the community.

And certainly no evidence of compliance with part C of policy d5

Remind me what that was requirement to include an inclusive design statement

That is a matter of fact then yes, I'm moving on then from that point

So you said this morning you were instructed in July 2023

If I could go to your design and access statement, which

Apologies, I've lost the CD reference.

Yeah, I think it's CDA07 for others.

And page 8 onwards

sets out the design process and page 8 specifically key feedback points.

And this includes the pre -application meetings and the QRPs, public consultation not listed

there as one of the key feedback points in your design.

Is that correct?

That is obviously the case from what I can see.

In terms then of the brief to you when you were instructed in July 2023,

am I correct in thinking the brief was for a residential block on this site?

The brief was for a residential -led mixed -use block on this site.

Yes, apologies.

and we heard yesterday from many members of the public and I'm not sure if you

were present for all of it but about the pressing need for social housing in

Tower Hamlets. At the time you were instructed in terms of the proportion of

affordable housing units on the site am I correct that it wasn't within your

gift as part of your brief as an architect to substantially increase that

portion of affordable housing

It's not in our gift, but my understanding is that on a habitable room basis

We are doing what the policy

And

similarly on the block J site

Currently

As it currently stands there are car parking facilities for those using the bang the town cash and carry

So by the time that you became involved in this project, am I correct also to assume

that the brief that you received on the footprint of this building and its uses, it wasn't in

your gift to design the site to include similar car parking facilities?

It's a car -free development.

For the cash and carry?

It's a car -free.

As a whole?

Well, it's a car -free but with two blue badge parking spaces under the podium.

So by the time you were instructed those fundamentals were already fixed.

I can't say that as a matter of fact.

And the first public consultation was in December 2023.

So if those points had been raised by the local community in the first public consultation in December 2023,

it wouldn't have affected the outcome on those two particular issues.

I'm not quite sure through again a kind of iterative process we find ourselves

with a building like that with no parking but something of you a facility

which is not like for like but amount of space that the owner of the Bangla town

Cash and Carry is happy with, with servicing provision that he's happy with, and that the wider community are happy with.

And we have homes, which are large family homes for households of five or six people, with separate kitchens,

which are characteristics, both size, metrics and characteristics that the local population sought.

So we're not making an arbitrary mix of accommodation.

There are substantial homes,

some of which are significantly over the minimum standards.

Particularly the four bed, six person homes,

which are in excess of 10 % over.

Thank you, Mr. Henry, that's already from me.

Safe to say, I think we can probably agree to disagree

on the local community being happy with the lack of car parking facilities on the cash

and carry after some of the statements we heard yesterday, but thank you.

I wasn't here, so I understand. We did hear that point yesterday evening, and

I did note that. Mr Henley, before I hand over to Mr Harris,

can I just ask one question? Yes, Mr Griffiths.

Hopefully it's relatively simple.

You started off, you said, with a taller building

for the purposes of optimization.

Can I just ask why you started with a taller building

for the purposes of optimization?

What was the thinking behind that?

I suppose in a very simplistic way, some more homes.

What you were looking to,

when you talk about optimization,

You're thinking about optimising the number of units that you provide on the site the number of homes. Yeah. Yes

Okay, that's helpful. I just wanted to be very clear about that

What you meant by optimization mr. Harris, did you have anything in reexamination?

Good term policy d3

Bear with me.

It's on paper page 110.

I'm there.

And there's a heading, optimising site capacity through design -led approach.

Yes.

Is that the optimization you had in mind or something else?

Ultimately, the optimization is that design and then that kind of tacit knowledge enables

was you to arrive at something which is appropriate.

Q. It's identified there in A as being

an approach which requires making the best use of land.

Yes.

OK.

Thank you very much for that.

Right, back to my learning friend

for the council's questions.

Familiar.

Absence of any heritage advice early on was the refrain.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

And you said, I can't point to any written advice in relation to Block J, but there was

a team, the team was engaged.

I assume that the heritage advice was taken into account, but I couldn't say because I

wasn't in the meetings.

And I think you said that on three occasions.

Let's see what the local authority know themselves about who was at the meetings, please.

I hardly thought I'd be doing this again, but can you pick up the ID documents?

This may be one you don't have, and my lonely friend Mr. Parkinson might have to come to

you for assistance.

My ID is exhausted at ten.

So this is a local authority document.

And we put it in, but it's a local authority document.

Now there were a series of pre -application meetings, and they took place at different

days and this is application meeting number two and it deals with Plot J. Do you see that

right at the top?

And also Plot O which is the listed building.

Yep.

A heritage point.

Attendees at that meeting, do you see right at the end of the applicant's team, KM Heritage.

ID.

Yeah.

Is that the sort of meeting that you had in mind that the Heritage might have been at, although you couldn't say for certain?

It is, and it's a meeting I was not at.

Yeah, you were not at that. But we also know that there were urban design offices there.

And planners, Gareth Gwynne, Ewan Miller -McGeekin, both being at the inquiry,

no doubt to assist Miller and his friend in who was where and what, and maybe not.

Can we look at the agenda that was set, please?

By the local authority.

Meeting agenda.

After introductions, applicants' presentation of plot J, 20 minutes max.

I think that would have been provided by April.

It sits just behind you, probably.

Then we've got land use and reprovision of cash and carry, matters that my learned friends

just been asking you about, design scale and heritage impacts. How likely do you

think it would be that the heritage people who are identified as being

present for this meeting wouldn't have had something to say both on the local

authority side and on the applicant side in those circumstances?

It would very definitely have had something to say.

Unless there's any doubt, they then go on to consider plot O. Land use, heritage assessment,

design and scale. The two were quite simple and separate with KMH present at both, as

we'll see in a minute.

Is that the sort of meeting that you had in mind?

Yes.

And unless my learned friend is going to suggest that they turned up and said nothing and had

understanding of the process that you described would be likely to take place, even though

you weren't there.

That is exactly the kind of process that I referred to.

All right.

Well, we know a bit about what happened at that meeting because we've got CDD09.

So can we go to CDD09, please?

On there.

Good, you're in front of me then.

Now, we need to look at the structure of this because it makes it clear it deals with the

main site and then it deals with the two sites that we looked at earlier.

So, if you look right to the beginning, dear Julian, the meetings covered the following

parts of the proposals, master plan and overview of blocks 3A and 3B and block 2, and then

separately Monday the 2nd of October, block J and block Boiler House.

Yes.

Sort of tally with what we just looked at.

Indeed.

Right.

So, in order to deal with what was said about block J, you need to go towards the back of

document. There's quite a lot on, as you'd expect, the main site and blocks 3A and 3B.

There's a bit about should it be one application or two, and the conclusion was that it was

okay as one. Then the boiler house starts at 1 .151, and

And clearly there are heritage issues identified there.

I've got 1 .1, sorry, 1 .1, say that again, sorry.

Yes, well, in fact you're right.

The assessment starts where I said it was.

And then after 1 .165, we've got.

Can you just tell me what page you're on?

Yes, it's page 39 and 44 in both real world and iCloud world.

Yes, 39 and I'm there.

Plot J, cache and carry sites.

Yes.

And we've got land use and we've got comments on design and rhythm and then conclusions.

The material submitted today has been very useful in understanding the broad development

ambitions for a major section of the historic Truman's Brewery set to the east of Brick Lane

and additional site set outside the former brewery site, the Cash and Carry site.

The design material shed puts forward an ambitious and imaginative set of proposals for the site.

Any suggestion there that they felt the absence of heritage input was a problem for them?

Apparently not.

Anything there that suggests that the underpinning of the block J approach, whether they agreed with it in full or not, was absent a heritage analysis?

No.

Can we then go, please, the same officers who have been here, not here today unfortunately,

but been here for a lot of the inquiry, then assisted in the drafting of the report to

committee.

And so we need to look at that to see whether this –

Can you go to 176, right, to sub -par above 5?

Yeah, yeah, happy to.

Needed is receipt – well, you went to that in chief.

Needed is receipt of a baseline heritage assessment.

See that?

The comprehensive identifies the significance of the individual buildings and their historic

features, and if readily apparent, set out opportunities to better reveal, enhance the

existing heritage features.

Sorry, I missed, which clause was that?

It's five.

Sorry, one point.

It's in conclusion, and it's in conclusion to both sets, not just the block J.

Yes.

Okay?

And we've seen that or something like that previously.

But is there any suggestion here that there's an absence of engagement with a heritage team

on behalf of the applicants?

This is seeking a baseline heritage assessment, which they eventually got, and there was a

design and access statement and eventually a TVIA, all of that.

Well, the heritage team was present at the meeting.

Yep.

And will have been part of our meeting.

Good.

All right.

formed what we had collectively to say about heritage.

Thank you.

Can we go to the report to committee next, please?

Just to see whether there is this concern

that there's an absence of early heritage input.

Is this CDL 01?

It is, yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yep.

CDL 01.

We've looked at this before with Malone and Frand, Mr. Wald, but not to all bits of it.

Just bear with me.

I'm there. Thank you. It's my fault. My machine's being a bit slow, but not as slow as the operator.

We need to go to Section 7.

And in particular, 7176.

Sorry, this is planning assessment?

I'm on page 59, am I in the wrong page?

No, it's on page 94.

So block J starts on page 93.

Tell me when you're there.

There's a heading, I've got block J existing cache carry side

and then I believe it says view 17, view 18, view 19.

That's it.

Good.

And then we've got this from the officers

who were responsible for curating

all of the pre -application stuff.

176, the approach of the proposal

to complete the urban block is rational

and follows the grain of the local area.

The proposal consists of a seven -storey building

along Spital Street, four storeys along Hanbury,

and five storeys along Woodseer Street.

Hanbury and Woodseer Streets are characterised

by a lower scale and fine grain while Spital Street features some taller buildings with

a larger footprint. The proposed variation in height responds to those different contexts.

You agree?

I do.

Then they go on to say at seven storeys the building on Spital Street would be the tallest

building in this location, the proposal would be taller than Britannia House located on

the south side of Hanbury Street. However, this would not be to an excessive degree with

difference of approximately three metres between the two buildings. The building

line for the taller building should be slightly recessed on both the north and

the south sides. This offers some relief to the footpath and reduces

the visual impact on the townscape. Agree or disagree? I agree. It was me who I

specifically mentioned it was not excessive. On the northern side the

mass of the buildings cut away to the second and sixth floors creating a

sloping roof with door windows. This creates an interesting form and improves

its relationship with the neighbouring townscape.

That's nice to hear.

Well, it's their statement, actually.

It's what you are also saying.

Yes, it's great.

Just before we go and look at the overall conclusion,

because it's only right and fair that we do that,

is there any hint of a suggestion

there that there is an absence of heritage analysis which

has led to this rational urban block at this location.

No?

No.

No, I said we need to be fair because we

need to look to 7181.

Proposed seven -storey building represents a significant

increase in scale compared to the existing site.

Read this subject to the paragraph that we've just read.

While the design approach seeks to respond

to the different character of the adjacent streets,

design approach seeks to respond to the different character

of the adjacent streets and complete the urban block,

the combined height and massing would result

in a somewhat visually dominant and bulky form.

That's their overall conclusion.

You've explained why you disagree.

But are the officers at this stage,

when they're putting this to elected members,

saying, hang on a minute, they didn't have anybody

properly in charge of heritage from an early stage?

I'm going to come to that.

Don't you worry.

Is there anything there that suggests there's an absence?

No.

And there we go.

Although the detail – this does go to heritage, because look what they say.

This would be particularly evident along Spital Street, where the building would challenge

the scale of its immediate context.

As such, officers – same paragraph.

As such, officers consider that the proposal would cause harm to the

townscape and the setting of the conservation area, primarily due to its

scale relative to neighbouring buildings. See that? Yes. Okay, so there's that

disagreement, but is there a suggestion that, you know, you've got it all wrong

from the start by reason of not having sufficient heritage analysis? No. And then

we see the conclusion in relation to this. In conclusion, while officers have

regarding the scale of the building and its impact on the townscape it's

acknowledged that the proposal would contribute to housing delivery

including affordable housing on balance building J is considered acceptable in

townscape terms. Now my learned friend wants us to go to which paragraph?

yep seven point two three eight let's do that two three eight yeah I've got it

7 .238.

Yes, okay.

7 .238, subsequent paragraphs.

The inspector can read them, but it deals with block J, saying the site certainly makes a

poor contribution to the quality of the townscape.

Do you agree?

Do I agree?

No.

The existing site.

I'm sorry, the existing site does, yes.

Then we've got, I'm not sure it adds anything, but I'll read it.

It's noted that the proposed seven -storey building represents a significant interest in scale

compared to both the existing site and the surrounding townscape where buildings are generally lower

Combined height and massing results in a somewhat dominant bulky form anybody spot a cut and paste

exact same paragraph that we've just read

anything there to suggest that the

urban issue there right at the beginning starting point, which is my learned friends proposition both in relation to

to the main site, which has been proved to be incorrect,

or in relation to this site,

any suggestion that that's an absent part of the jigsaw?

No, no.

All right, is there any other cut and paste

that my lone friend wants me to read?

The rest of it.

Well, I'm gonna leave that to the inspector.

It's half of 17390, yeah, by 17390.

Yeah, okay, well, read them to yourselves, please.

And there we see what is said, but the point here is, is there any suggestion in any of

that, that there is a failure to understand heritage from the beginning?

There is.

I don't think that's what the, whatever point they are making, that's not the point they

are making.

All right.

I might also observe reading 7 .239, that it does, you made the cut and paste point Mr. Harris, but I don't, I'm not going to take any issue with that, we all do it.

It says that the scale and bulk of a building would cause harm to the setting of the conservation area, that's a different thing completely.

Completely different thing, it's not in the setting.

It's not in the setting of the conservation area, because it's in the conservation area.

Unsetting is not protected by any of the relevant status.

But I'm going to read that, that what it means

is that it's going to cause some harm to the conservation

area itself.

Because that must be what it meant.

Well, I mean, it's not really clear.

But whoever's drafted it has said what they said.

Some of it is cut and paste.

Some of it is legally and factually incorrect.

You can make of it what you will.

Two things that came out of it were that they didn't think that it was irrational or not

based on historic precedent and in the end thought that it was outweighed in any event

because of the low end of less than substantial harm by the massive benefits of housing.

That appears to be what it says, but I'll have to read that.

Yes.

I mean, obviously, that is a fairly important thing.

The consistency of you about overbearing dominance

between historical and conservation,

obviously, I sense something is potentially

at a certain point.

Yeah, well, no doubt about that.

But the point that my learned friend has now

made in relation to two parts of the case

is factually incorrect.

And he knows or should have known

that it was factually incorrect to suggest that there was

no heritage involvement in this part of the case

because the agenda was set by his officers.

His officers have been here.

And they full well know that there

was input at the early stage.

Now, submissions can be made as to what you can do about that.

But I probably said enough.

Can I pick up, please?

Yes.

Thank you.

Just on Ms. Curtis's point, you said affordable housing, I think it's 36 % of habitable rooms,

met or exceeded the relevant target, and we can see what officers say about that.

Is that what you had in mind in relation to the discussions that we were having here yesterday

about the need for affordable housing in – I don't know, maybe you weren't here.

Maybe I wasn't here.

No, I wasn't here after 3 o 'clock.

Strike that then.

Thank you.

And you said also that the needs, the inclusive needs of the local population were taken account

in the nature of your brief.

Just explain that, please.

I think what I was referring to was the nature of the homes.

There's – well, as is often the case, that people describe homes as units.

But these aren't units.

They're homes.

And they're quite specific homes.

They're large family homes appropriate for Bangladeshi families.

Three and four bedroom homes for five and six people in a household.

And they have a particular way in which they're arranged, so the kitchen and the living spaces are separate.

So it reflects what was asked of us as a particular form of affordable housing.

Thank you. And the cash and carry and its operation, please. In terms of servicing,

picking up deliveries, et cetera, any concerns from the local planning authority about that

aspect of the proposal? No, we had detailed conversations about how

the lady was. Apologies, sir. Can I clarify, the question

I asked was following from public comments yesterday about individuals going to the cash

and carry. It wasn't about servicing. That's what I had in mind.

The lack of car parking was the point that somebody made for people to turn up and load

sacks of rice, the example was given into a car.

That's the purpose of the question.

So rather than having people park there and do whatever they want to do in Brick Lane

or otherwise, if I'm turning up and I'm accepting a delivery or a bid, I'm going to

big bag of rice, et cetera.

What are the servicing requirements?

Because that's a different legal concept from parking.

The servicing requirements, the ability to do that.

Delivery from a wholesaler?

Yes.

So there is a loading bay on Spittles Street

for delivery from wholesalers.

So if I come along with the express purpose of not parking,

but of trying to load, is that achievable?

It is, and I should, I guess, say that,

I mean, it's a loading bay which I assume under all sorts of circumstances both a kind

of a retailer could be using that loading bay as much as a wholesaler.

It's a means by which to collect stuff as opposed to park.

Thank you very much.

Now, in that meeting that we looked at with the heritage witness was there, one of the

issues that was raised there and is raised in the reporter committee is the adequacy

of that arrangement, whether you call it parking, which I wouldn't, or servicing.

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt again, but what I mean is customers, parking, and this

is a separate discussion that doesn't seem to be relevant to my cross -examination that

is to do with servicing of people delivering bulk items to the cash and carry or picking

it up. I'm talking about individual customers. Yeah. So am I. So if I'm turning up as an

individual customer, I want to load a bag of rice, how does the service bay work?

That's possibly a level of detail that as an architect I can't answer, and there will

have been a transport consultant and it would have been agreed with the planners that this

was an adequate arrangement. Good.

My understanding is it's a loading bay. Thank you very much. I'll ask Mr Margin about

that and also confirm that the local authority have got no issues with it. Thank you very

much for those of my questions. Thank you, Mr Stanley.

Thank you. That's been helpful. Mr Harris where are we going next?

Can I just look at the time? Yes. Might I suggest we go to lunch next?

Let's do that. We are at a quarter to one. Can we resume at half past?

Who will we hear from after that? Townscape. Ailish.

That's helpful, thank you.

So 1 .30 then everyone, until then.

Sorry about the truncated lunch break, but there we are.

Thank you.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Wednesday 22 October 2025, 9:30am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry AMWednesday, 22nd October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Wednesday, 22nd October 2025 at 9:30am