Truman's Public Inquiry PM - Wednesday 22 October 2025, 2:00pm

Truman's Public Inquiry PM
Wednesday, 22nd October 2025 at 2:00pm

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.

and what's your involvement been?

You're Eilish Judith Kililiath.

You're an urban designer by background and practise

and an independent expert advisor

in urban design, townscape and heritage matters.

You're a director of the townscape and heritage practise,

TTC, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

You give us your formal qualifications at one, two.

You've got a BA in geography planning

and environmental policy

from the University College of Dublin.

postgraduate degree in urban design from Queen's University Belfast, both RTPI

recognised for the purposes of England and Wales and you've been a licentiate

member of the RTPI since 2014, full member of the Institute of Historic

Building Conservation, is all of that correct and accurate? At 1 .3 you tell us

about your previous practise working with Alternative Belfast, Forum for

Alternative Belfast City Council.

Then you joined Richard Coleman, city designer,

who will be well known from a number of inquiries,

including Chisicoke to the inspector.

And then you're brave enough at 1 .4

to tell us that this is the first public inquiry

that you act as expert witness.

Very good.

Yes, that's correct.

Not many people prepared to say that.

All right.

Can I just touch upon one or two matters further to that?

I really now don't want to go into methodology

more than we really have to,

but you explain that you were instructed before Mr. Den.

So who was engaged, if anybody,

I think we now know though,

who was engaged, if anybody, to give advice

to the developer in relation to heritage matters before Mr Dunn's involvement.

So KM Heritage were appointed and on board prior to TTC appointment on the

townscape visual impact assessment in June 23.

And do you know whether or not they've been involved in other schemes or developments or projects

for the Truman estate over the years?

Yes, my understanding from when I joined the project for the Truman Brewery and I'm also

aware of the 113 to 115 Redchurch Street with Chris Dyson Architects which was also KM Heritage

and that's also a project associated with our client.

All right and we've seen notes of certain meetings, some of which you were at, some

of which you weren't at in terms of those meetings, was there generally, the

ones that you were at, somebody there dealing with heritage from KAM Heritage?

Yes, at the meetings I was present, those meetings were regular and always

very collaborative. There may be an agenda in terms of what the focus of

that meeting would be, you know, to be efficient with time, but there was

always heritage input in terms of from one meeting to the next. BGY as master plan architects

were managing quite a substantial number of people, but people were feeding in very effectively.

Heritage was always at the forefront, so you'll be quite aware that Townscape takes consideration

of the historic environment in terms of heritage, the designations, they go hand in hand. So

of their findings, findings from TTC because we were also carrying out our own independent

research which might be helpful and in pushing the team in that respect.

There was also the selection of views which I led in terms of the scope and that was also

input was given by KM Heritage.

We agreed with Tara Hamlet officers.

that was also reviewed by GLA at QRP and with HE.

And also given the ES submission,

we also underwent a scoping report and exercise

with Tara Hamlets reviewed by TEMPO and ES consultants.

Thank you very much.

That's all in terms of that heading.

One short correction, I think,

before we begin your evidence in chief substantively.

In your main proof, I think you identify, I think it's a paragraph 6 .7, I may have got it wrong,

but you do at one stage identify that Block A was a referable application

and that there was input from the GLA. Yes, that's correct.

We all know that's wrong. Yes, that's correct.

Thank you very much.

So insofar as that error is concerned,

we know that the main site was the subject of a reference.

And we've seen the GLA's letter.

There's no GLA's letter in relation to block A.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Thank you very much.

So there is probably the highest amount

of overlap between townscape and heritage

as decision maker, you've got to put them

into separate parcels and different weightings, et cetera.

But where there is an overlap on the substance that

goes to that different compartmentalization,

I'm not sure you're going to be massively helped

by curing it all again.

I'd agree with that.

So we're going to do quite a lot of referencing back, et cetera.

East Truman site, to begin with, then.

Let's call it the East Truman site.

One of the points taken in relation to this heritage and also the townscape is the nature

and scale of blocks 3A and 3B.

You were here when you heard, you were here when the evidence of Mike Dunn was given.

Did you agree with his evidence in relation to the appropriateness of that

in heritage terms having regard to his analysis of scale, mass, bulk, et cetera?

Thank you, and I don't ask you to repeat that.

We know what the GLA has said in terms about the appropriateness of blocks 3a and 3b as

townscape buildings.

We looked at that again this morning's paragraph 26.

Do you agree with their analysis as is their set out?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

And we've also looked at Historic England and what they say, and that they have no substantial

concerns, whatever that means, but they are content in terms of not raising an objection

in relation to blocks 3a and 3b in terms of height, bulk, and massing.

Do you agree with that?

Yes.

Good.

Just could you then please briefly explain why in townscape terms you've

come to that judgement. Really I'm just looking for three or four sentences or

paragraphs identifying what you commend to the Inspector about the townscape

approach in relation to 3a and 3b. Yes, no problem. So you know part of an overall

master plan but 3a and 3b specifically have a really important role to

in terms of the amenity space they front onto,

Allen Gardens, and the frontage activation

along Buxton Street and the address to the corner

with Spital Street is highly beneficial in townscape terms.

Currently there's very poor address, if any address at all.

In terms of the massing and scale,

what's been really primary to the whole project,

but in particular in townscape, is the landmark status of the chimney itself.

So in views, we've been picking them up throughout the course, there's some that we will go through

on screen as well, but to retain the landmark status of the chimney has been of utmost importance,

and 3a and 3b make reference specifically in scale and massing.

We feel like it's an appropriate height to have reached in terms of scale.

we're still very much, you know, we're adopting something of a proud profile

within the townscape, but in terms of my professional opinion on the

architecture, it's been of considerable high quality materiality and the

incorporation of some of the reused historical fabric has been some of those

real points of authenticity in terms of recreating and augmenting the place here for the Truman

Brewery.

Thank you. Two further elements, please. Do you want to just say something? The inspectors

got the models there to a scale that you can appreciate, but do you want to say something

about the articulation, detail, breaking up into the tripartite arrangement, etc., and

and whether that represents good quality or something else.

Yes.

So on the modelling that you see there on your left, sir, you've got the separation

between block 3B and 3A, and what it actually creates is a new pedestrian passageway, important

that it's understood as a passage in terms of the industrial detailing that's been very

effectively brought through in the design.

Furthermore, there's quite a simplified grid in terms of the elevation fenestration, which

provides a really pleasant and also appropriate industrial character that these buildings

will take on.

In terms of the turn on the corner, the chamfer is characteristic detail of the area.

and then continuing along the ground level, you actually have that push and pull of the elevation,

which sets back as you approach the boiler house. So you're coming along to where you're at the

next access is between Block O, the boiler house, and 3B. There's also the stepping on that western

side of 3B, sorry 3A, which is again maintaining and preserving those views

and creating better views and framing the Truman chimney from these sort of

perspectives to the north of the site. Thank you. Next please.

Spaces, places, passageways. Let's see if there's a quick way of doing this.

Paragraph 28 of the GLA's position, they explained to decision -makers that the

the plan shows that the development be highly permeable through provision of a

series of yards and passages. This has the potential to be a positive addition

to the already vibrant brick lane neighbourhood. Each yard has more than one

route option, generally good sight lines, help facilitate great sense of safety

inclusion. The proposals provide good street level activation etc. We've gone

to that paragraph, paragraph 28 a number of times. First of all do you agree with

that. How in terms of architecture and its ability to inspire, excite and delight,

all that sort of stuff, would you place the spaces,

places and passageways that have been provided by the architects teams in this

case? I believe of high importance as part of the master plan the architects

had their individual plots but this was over arched by the master

plan architect, BGY.

So the spaces in between also Space Hub

were the landscape architects who were also involved.

So there was much input from very highly and well -regarded

design studios looking at the spaces in between, as well

as the buildings themselves.

Something I would say about the access points

is that there's been elements of hierarchy that

brought up in our discussions that actually there is a hierarchy in the new accesses and

the new permeability across the site, also stitching in with the existing permeability

around the inaccessible to the public site at the moment.

So when I mentioned that it's important to remember Cooperidge Passage as a passage,

that's purposeful in terms of it's a pedestrian way that is, you know, with the building bridges

creating this lower threshold, it compresses a space that a person is entering into the site

and then released into Cooperidge Yard, for instance, or as an example.

That's a special moment or something that should excite and delight in my opinion.

Thank you very much. Eli's Yard next then please.

You do elicit your proof at 5 .37 to 5 .39.

Again, I don't ask you to read them, but just in a couple of impressions, if you could explain

to the inspector your view of the quality of the architecture and why.

Sure. So at Allie's Yard, it's an open space. It's a hard surface, temporary market, which

does attract you know many people it's a busy a busy place but in townscape

terms it's not of a considerable high quality there's qualities in and around

that area but generally I would consider it to have very limited quality in

townscape what the proposed building will do is actually will retain much of

the yard space but an improved version of what that yard is and also some

internal accommodation to facilitate the open marketplace within the new Ellie's Yard.

And it does this by continuing built form, which we find quite appropriate from our analysis.

There was built form on Ellie's Yard, different buildings of sizable block associated with the

brewery. Wilk Street would have actually been the original route, as in it would have continued

north from where it currently still exists. It's now understood as Dray Walk, but actually

the building will reinstate some of that historic street pattern as well as establish a building

that is stepped in form so that in terms of upper level the overall dominance is basically

the perception of over dominance is minimised in that respect.

But it's part of the building identity as well in terms of strength of architecture,

the adoption of or embracing the local street art is also something of, well, it just embodies

the creative character of the area and find it quite appropriate to that location and

adding interest from both routes that you would approach at Lee's Yard including

not to mention sorry the new access into Grey Eagle Street which really is on a

local level very beneficial but also has wider beneficial effects as well in

terms of connexions through to major infrastructure junctions such as

Liverpool Street Station. Thank you. Now we know that your opposite number if you

like Mr. Reynolds, has identified a number of harms to views in the conservation area

by reference to the scale, height and bulk and mass of Eli's yard. Don't ask you about

those in principle. Do you find any such impacts, having regard to what you just told us about

the building, its size and scale, etc., do you find any such harmful impacts in townscape

terms? No I don't. I acknowledge that there is a high level of change in terms of you

know what currently exists but Sir I've talked you through my opinion on the

existing townscape I feel like there's not much in terms of quality but you

know it's also an absence of form so that's the reality of that existing

baseline. Yeah no but Mr. Frohnemann tells us that although all those views

that are identified as being harmed by overbearing, etc., are in the conservation area, he on

balance doesn't identify any harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area at

all.

Now we've heard from Mr. Dunn on that.

Can we just very briefly please, because we've done this once before, I don't spend too much

time on it, to see if there is a consistency of approach in the way that officers were

told about this or something else.

So we need to pick up a document, which is CDL3, L03,

which is Eli's yard.

CDL3?

Yes, CDL3.

Let me know there.

Okay, yep, good.

And we're going to go to Section 8, and we're going to go to Design first and then Heritage.

So we've gone to this a number of times.

I'm just going to take the witness to 846.

This is in terms of townscape.

The proposal represents, responds appropriately to its immediate context in respect to scale

and massing. Proposed building would be acceptable in respect to detail design and would make

an important contribution to activity and surveillance at Grey Eakinsfield.

Well, first, do you agree?

Yes, I do.

Yeah. And the reasons are set out to serve. Then we go to Heritage, which is over the

page. And it's all explained there. You aren't the Heritage witness. We went to this with

the Heritage Witness 860, in conclusion there would be no harm to the conservation area

on nearby listed buildings from the proposed development.

That was the cadre of officers from the director down who has expressed to elected members.

Now however theoretically you could have different conclusions on impacts on townscape and heritage,

where you are looking at alleged harms on views

all in the conservation area.

Let me ask you this.

I'll put one question before I ask you that.

Your assessment of no harm, the benefit,

and Mr. Dunn's assessment of no heritage harm,

mirror the position advanced by the local authority in terms of the design officers

and the heritage officers.

Does that come as a surprise to you, that there is that confluence of decision -making?

No, it doesn't.

And in terms of the absence of confluence between that part of the case which is represented

by the townscape witness and Mr. Frohnemann looking at the precise allegations of Mr.

Reynolds. If there was, if there was truly anything in those allegations of substantial harm or

significant harm as a result of overbearing impacts by scale, bulk and mass to views in the

conservation area, would you expect Mr. Frohnemann to be able to come to the conclusions that he did

that on balance no heritage harm. In terms of Reynolds findings, yes, I'm surprised at

the conclusion from Reynolds. Thank you very much. Can I just be clear about

about that answer.

Yeah, can you just expand on that for me?

Because there is obviously a crossover between the two.

I mean, I understand the basis of the question,

but you said you were surprised at Mr. Reynolds' conclusions?

That he was identifying harm.

Right, OK.

As long as I'm clear.

Good.

So I think you got the point.

So I'm going to move on.

Thank you.

Block J next, please.

We've just heard about block J.

Your evidence in relation to block J

is identified at 533 and subsequent in your proof.

Again, I don't ask you to read it.

bearing in mind the inspectors heard evidence on it

very recently, in townscape terms, in townscape terms,

can you explain to the inspector why you find no harm

but very significant enhancement?

Yes, so the existing building resultant from World War II

bomb damage has resulted in the cash and carry structures

which are not contextual to the character area

that they sit within and that is with scale also.

Considering the context of the area in terms of what Block J

is, where it sits in urban design terms,

it's at the end of the terrace block.

I'm not going to go over too much of the analysis

that my colleague Mr. Henley had just gone through.

But the point is that at this junction

and in the context of there being buildings of varying

scale and larger scale next to Block J that actually there is an opportunity to establish

a taller building, certainly than what exists, but also in context and appropriately alongside

the neighbouring context which are of a larger grain of building. You'll see that also drawn

through in the townscape character areas. They obviously consider the conservation area

in terms of what is highlighted as being important to the character of the conservation area,

but in terms of the townscape character areas, there's slightly differentiation between those

areas identified in the TTC reporting and the HTVIA. It's for that very reason that

there are buildings that are not of the context

that you see more consistently

across the conservation area.

Block J, second home of the building just to the south,

68 Hanbury Street, for instance,

they've become part of the kind of larger scale.

We've referred to it as Whitechapel,

townscape character area in our overall assessment.

So the point really is that the scale that Block J adopts we find highly

appropriate in terms of you know there's there's also this turn on Hanbury Street

as you come along as in it meanders a small a small bit as you're following

west towards Brick Lane and Block J does have the height of seven storeys in the

proposal, but we feel like it fits very appropriately when viewed from Spiddle Street as into the

north from Buxton Street. There's a couple of views, 14 and 15, which we can go to later

if helpful. And again, you're seeing how contextually the building sits as well as from many other

positions that we've included in our vision impact assessment. So that's mainly commentary

on scale in terms of how we've commented or tested through our design development with

Henley -Hale -Brown. And in terms of the materiality, again adopting predominantly a brick material

which is, you know, that is the material character of the area. And then with very fine detailing,

giving some fun and articulation.

And from memory it was the QRP report

that also made very strong points

on the playfulness in architecture,

which made it a very good design from their perspective,

which I agreed with.

Thank you very much.

Block A next, please.

And what I'd like to do here,

We'll try and assist the inspector here with the context and place of townscape elements

in analysis in cases such as this.

Can we look at townscape in the approach, first of all?

Can you pick up the report to committee on Block A first, please?

I'll also have to hand Mr. Keeley's proof of evidence just so we can identify that the

same approach is carried through at CDM01.

So we're looking first at the officer's report.

And we can go straight to the executive summary.

This line appears in three other places in the document.

It's the approach adopted by officers.

officers conclude that the identified harms in terms of urban design and

heritage would not be outweighed by their modest public benefits of the

proposal. So we've got a very familiar position both in terms of heritage and

in terms of townscape that there is harm be benefits. It's paragraph sorry did I

not say 1 .8 sorry sorry my fault

see that executive summary 1 .8 we could have gone to any number of others we've

got this very well known and understood position that we've got benefits versus

harm if any and we've got the same in Mr. Keeley's again a number of places but

let's go to his planning balance summary 729. All of this is going to the

questions which I'm going to ask you about townscape 729 with respect to

Grey Eagle Street, that's Block A, and Truman East appeals,

well, they're separate appeals, so we're looking at them separately.

Wide range of heritage assets are demonstrably harmed,

causing less than substantial harm.

These harms should attack great weight in the planning violence

that's set out in the NPPR.

They are not outweighed by the limited public benefits offered.

See that?

Good.

So far as you're concerned, so far as the inspector's concerned,

Is anybody in this case seriously saying that if the public benefits do outweigh the harms,

including townscape harms, is anyone seriously saying that if the public benefits outweigh the harms,

then the Planning Commission on Block A should still be refused?

Benefits outweigh the harms, should be refused.

No. So I want to explore with you please where the inspectors reached so far in

terms of the options available to him and then how Townscape factors into that

or Mike factor into that. He's the decision -maker. So we got Mr. Dunn saying

there's an enhancement of character appearance in the conservation area at

at block A, yeah?

That's his evidence, we've heard that.

I'm going to ask you where Heritage fits in,

where Townscape fits in.

Then we've got Mr. Frohnemann,

who identifies low end of less than substantial harm.

That's another potential option for the inspector.

Then in Townscape, we've got Mr. Reynolds,

who accepted in cross -examination, you remember,

and he was fair to accept it,

that in townscape terms, Block A represented an improvement

on the existing position.

Do you agree with that?

But he then went on to say, but it

fails to take the opportunities available to it.

And then we've got your analysis,

which is set out at 543.

And again, I don't ask you to read it.

But in summary, it is that there's

a significant improvement.

and you don't agree that there are reasons to refuse, as identified by Mr. Reynolds.

Just let's spend a couple of seconds at that point before we go to the next part of the

analysis. Why do you say that in those circumstances there's a significant improvement and no reason

to refuse? That's your evidence.

You'll see from the HTVIA as well that I've considered Block A in isolation but also comprehensive

as part of the overall master plan. Looking at the area and there has been

discussion about hierarchy again in the area, I think Mr Reynolds and

myself are agreed on the fact that Grey Eagle Street is a secondary street and

that it is a poor existing townscape or the quality is extremely

poor. And in terms of locating, I accept the use as in the data centre having

a low active frontage but there is some activity in the use, however limited. But in the design

and the replacement architecture, I've come to significant improvement in townscape terms

on Block A itself. This is in line with the improvement brought by currently there's that

building, regardless of the fact that it's been vacant and in a derelict state, is of

a very low architectural quality in terms of the materiality and what we've understood

of the former cold store, which was only in operation for a very short period under the

brewery, and then on its closure became vacant. But the improvement in terms of the building

line being brought forward to Grey Eagle Street in my opinion is positive in

terms of engagement with the streetscape. It is a narrow route and it has been

historically that's the type of secondary route that street is and then

the strong base that's been established by Morris & Company in the design and

the articulation and the care that's been taken and given it being a low use

low activity use in terms of, I understand Mr Reynolds was quite, you know, made quite a point about active use as being quite more animated.

But actually, in my professional opinion and, you know, from being involved in a number of projects where, you know, there is many reasons why there needs to be a blank wall

and how do we make that an attractive element or part of the design, not just

something that's uninteresting and not engaged with the building.

We do that through design, articulation, the setbacks have been very

carefully considered and thought through. The change in materiality from the

strong brick base to the metal cladding riveted and perforated steel, giving

that detailing but not unnecessarily in terms of what the building is what its

presence is on Grey Eagle Street so the building in isolation connecting through

to the retained and existing building bridge to block the I think it's it's a

high improvement on the existing landscape environment

find some harm, whether it be at Heritage or be it Townscape or whatever.

I please want to consider with you how Townscape figures in the balance, if you like. So one

of the things that expert witnesses say in front of this inspector is that

there's a pressing need for this proposal here just assume that because

it's not your evidence and it's also said in terms of expert evidence that

this building is no bigger than it needs to be to meet a deliverability and

liability etc. And in townscape terms please I just want to understand

assuming those two factors to be in play what the inspectors to make from the

fact that first the building is the smallest it could be to be deliverable

to meet a need for example is that a relevant consideration for the inspector?

Yes, I believe so.

Second, that it is a building which, as we heard from others and which you hinted at

in the last answer, is a building where deliberately form has followed function.

If that's what's needed there, then form has followed function.

In townscape terms, what's the relevance and importance of form following function in general terms and then here?

So form following function is that a building adopts its use as in it can be identified for what it is used for.

Is it a church, is it residential, is it a school?

And that is helpful in the fact that legibility, it brings that across in terms of a person's

experience.

Would they be expecting to go into that building?

It kind of gives the mental mapping in terms of how they identify the building or how the

architecture speaks to them.

and so it is helpful in terms of legibility and townscape

and it's honest in terms of architecture.

I believe there was a case, sir, that you were inspector to in Swindacott

which also understood this type of use in terms of form -following function.

I think that was an energy from waste plants

and we had some discussion about whether

the form of the energy from waste plants

should follow its function faithfully,

or whether it would be appropriate to introduce some sort of,

I think I used the word flourishes in the design,

as you know, it's happened in others.

But that was what we discussed there, yes.

Yeah, it was just interesting to understand

that perspective as well.

in Block A, the form and massing has been,

it's accommodating and from what I understand

from the experts in our team,

it is the needs of the data centre that is being proposed.

It's not frivolous in terms of architectural detailing.

It's very much a form.

There is planting that is incorporated

on some of the setback terracing,

but that's part of the, just some kind of variation

in terms of what the building is occupying.

And again, it's that attention to good quality architecture

and attention to detail that Block A embodies.

Thank you.

And we know from the committee report

and from Mr. Frohnman's evidence

and from evidence of others,

that insofar as a building of this nature

is needed here then, both those parties,

identify it as being a well -designed building for its context. We can go to the references

if necessary. I don't think it is. We've heard them. Again, is that a relevant consideration

for the inspector in this context in terms of townscape where everybody's agreeing that

if the public benefits exceed the harm, then that should be a relevant material consideration.

Why? Why is the well -designed nature of the building in its context of relevance in those circumstances?

Well, it's fundamental to good design, paragraph 135 of the MPPF,

in terms of, you know, sustainable delivery and

and the overall success of developments that we're bringing forward

and supporting for the future of growth and use.

Thank you.

Do you remember, I don't know if you were here,

but there was an exchange about the relationship between Eli's Yard

and the ability it has to enliven Great Eagle Street and the data centre.

Now this is actually foreshadowed in the reporter committee, but I don't think we need to go

to it.

Officers make the point that the overlooking of Great Eagle Street in relation to Block

A would be enhanced in the event that Eli's Yard were granted permission and developed

also.

Do you agree with that?

Yes.

So we've looked at the number of windows overlooking,

we've looked at the various activations within the frontage

and we've looked at the new Juliet balconies.

I think we need to go through that again.

But how would you characterise that

in terms of Great Eagle Street

and enhancement of the position with Block A alone?

And so as in Block A on its own?

No, no, with the both.

Really what I'm saying is,

With the both, is it better or worse?

It's better.

Yeah, good.

Thank you very much for that.

Let me just be clear.

With both, better or worse than blockade alone?

Sorry, I'm going to confuse things here, aren't I?

So both together is better than blockade alone,

is the point that I think you're making, is there?

That's certainly the question I put, yeah.

Yes.

And I think the answer was totally clear as well.

If there's a problem, it was in the question, not the answer.

The problem was probably in me following it, so forgive me.

And I'll leave that there.

Then there's been a number of viewpoints which are identified from a townscape term

in relation to all of the developments, and rather than go through it and break and go through it and break,

I think you're going to just show some views to the Inspector and identify what your position is in relation to them, and then we're finished.

Yes.

Good. Go ahead.

Thank you.

So I'm just giving – these are a very kind of summary, let's say, and just pointing on some of the views.

It's to clarify on some of the questions that have come up and also just to give an overview

in terms of townscape and visual impact, how we've been involved.

AVR London have been our specialist visualisers, so something that we do from the outset is

carry out a zone of theoretical visibility and that picks up, that helps us in terms

of our scoping and how we're both in townscape and this is where there's a crossover with

heritage as well because, and this is all following good practise guidance in terms

of identifying where you possibly would have conjunction, there's proximity and then there's

intervisibility. But this helped us understand, and this is all of the three sites that you

see there. The yellow is showing where there is any intervisibility picked up across that

whole scoped area. So you can see it's very contained. It's also characteristic of it

being a very tight street network,

obviously, Allen Gardens, open space,

that you will actually get a lot more visibility

and from vantage points like the pedestrian bridge.

That informed our selection of viewpoints.

So this was taking into consideration

townscape and heritage under the visual impact assessment.

So that had the input from KM Heritage from the beginning,

and then obviously, Mr. Dunn joined in terms of TTC heritage.

So the views that I want to highlight are specific to what's important for a townscape.

I'm drawing on Brick Lane being the very obvious, very strong, almost like the spine of the

area.

It's a very large conservation area, but in terms of the area and where the quality is,

Brick Lane is just full of character, has that real kind of, it's just highly used,

it holds the landmark of the Truman Chimney, which you start to see here. This is the crossing

with Bacon Street. It's view number three, just for anyone's reference. So you're seeing

the chimney come into view along the street. You do have that three to four kind of datum

in terms of the historic streetscape along Brick Lane here. Very active frontage. So

just for your reference as we're going through and in the HTVIA, the green dashed line is

the East Truman site. The dark blue is Ellie's Yard, light blue is Block A there on the right.

And then you continue further down, we're coming up to Slasher Street and there's the

railway bridge overhead that we're coming up to as well. Again, the chimney has this

primacy in terms of a landmark, in terms of townscape, this is where we're seeing quality,

this is where our testing, and here again there's no intervisibility, but a very important

point was, and this comes out of that ZTV analysis that I was just mentioning, but then

we're at quite an open position here because we're actually on a bridge, the railway actually

goes under this part of Brick Lane as well. And you're seeing a lot of the kind of creative

street art culture that is so prominent in the area or characterful of the area.

The proposed development rendered in this position, there's intervisibility from here.

This was a position at view number five, which was quite an informer to particularly blocks 3A and 3B,

which you're seeing the uppermost levels of from here.

There is a separation from the Block O and the Truman Chimney.

You have the historic terrace here along Brick Lane.

It was important that these buildings remain below the ridgeline of the terracing

that was also informed by the heritage consultants at the time,

but also that the blocks themselves were understanding the context, adopting that materiality or that kind of context from the area.

There's a variation in the building heights, there's also the setbacks, there's a lot more in terms of the detailing and a lot of thought gone into the design in that respect.

From the south then on Brick Lane, this is just to kind of highlight again, we're not

visible from here, but we have done a whole exercise in front of the listed fat house,

engineer's house, boiler house, because of the streetscape it's so narrow and the areas

that the proposals are coming forward, they are in the lesser sensitive areas in townscape

terms and actually we've been minimising the level of effect in terms of you know

the proposed Heights massing it's these studies that have been informing the

Heights that we've come to conclusion on and which formed the appeal scheme and

that's been to minimise the effects in the more sensitive areas of Brick Lane

and then coming to these are positions that are a bit more open and this is

view number six and it's Fleet Street Hills. This is actually an elevated pedestrian bridge

position. I'm not sure if you've been there, Sarah. So we'll have the site visit next week.

So there might be certain positions that we can kind of put together or input to where

you might want to understand more of the context. But this is a it's not a very well visited

position is what I would say. It's kind of a back route. As you can see,

there's, you know, sites that this is an allocated site, Fleet Street Hill, that's

to come forward, but this is just north of the railway line, which is

quite a strong edge to Allen Gardens. So, you know, this is a position that's

kind of a vantage point to understand what is the context. You're seeing just

Christchurch, back -dropped by the city cluster from the City of London.

You're seeing the Truman chimney there on the right. There's a dynamic

perspective that you understand your proximity to City of London,

central London, and actually there's a real contrast in terms of

this viewpoint here, which helps us understand Alan Garden's position. This

view number seven and that dynamic sort of character which is it's very what's

make what makes the area very exciting in terms of the much more kind of we're

just far more characterful in of brick Lane that the area and just embodies and

differs and contrasts with the financial district of the City of London but you

it's what makes it such an exciting area in terms of having this amenity space and the

accessibility to the City of London. The proposal does block the view from here, but I thought

it was important to point out that the reason this viewpoint was selected was to be able

to test in terms of this is a very important position to appreciate the Truman chimney

from Allen Gardens and not in conjunction with the city skyscrapers. If you walk further west of this

position the chimney will just by, you know, in terms of perspective will actually be backdropped

by the taller buildings of the city so you don't have that primacy of the Truman chimney landmark

which is what we were trying to assess and understand in this view and you can clearly see

and block 3A, the stepped profile to the west, also how the recess in the elevation, how

they're very purposeful in terms of maintaining views as much as possible while also optimising

through a high quality scheme. Buxton Street was mentioned. There is, and

this is a position in the conservation area or an approach, there's not actually very

specific locations that are kind of identified locally, but we've done our

like a dynamic sequence along here. You see the chimney in the background,

principal places back -dropping and also Brogate Tower. I should add that

these views are all done in winter and there's summer versions in the HTVIA as

well. When we go on site I think this will be an approach you'll want to have a

look at. Trees are in between summer and winter at the moment so it's kind of

helpful for you to understand that in between phase. The proposed development in Wireline here

partially does occlude the Truman Chimney but not in its entirety and that's the same case as you

move from that's the Thomas Buxton School on the right there. So as you progress further to the

west and as far as this position here it's as you get to Spidafield City Farm you would still have

some sort of understanding or visibility of the Truman Chimney, so as a wayfinding landmark,

it would still be doing its job. At this position here, this is where the occlusion starts to

happen. In our assessment, we've considered this to be momentary in terms of the full

length of Buxton Street, as in there is a point along Buxton Street where there will

be occlusion of the Truman Chimney, as we've also demonstrated in this further view, view

12 and we've shown this in rendered to kind of you know for us to understand a

bit more of the detail and on balance we you know we understand how you know

occlusion could be seen as something negative or harmful but actually there's

a lot of benefits in townscape terms ground level activation of Buxton Street

the again this expression on the corner and the detailing the it's just in from

from our perspective, the townscape benefits are considerable. And with such detailing as well, the

sawtooth roof, just to us, this is where the detailing can just bring that joy to an

architectural project or that interest as well as the building is turning the corner.

And then you come closer to Block O, the Boiler House and the chimneys, again, and it's,

you're getting much closer, off close and personal,

and in the proposal we feel like this is

much improved treatment of the townscape area

around the Boiler House

and how you would appreciate the chimney

and understanding that actually more of the sites

connected to the former brewery,

from a townscape perspective,

the identity of the former brewery buildings

that no longer exist on the site,

there isn't much clue as to what the remnants or fragments that remain on the site, that

they have that association. So we find overall there is still a benefit considering the dynamic

sequence along Buxton Street, as in we accept that there's some occlusion but there's a

lot of benefit in terms of townscape and improved views.

This was to pick up on what we were just talking about on Ellie's yard.

This is view number 36. I believe Mr Reynolds was pointing to this in terms of he felt that

it was introducing negative effect on townscape in terms of how it terminated the view along

here. In the proposed, I can accept he has his own judgement, but from my perspective

and from a professional opinion, I feel like this is a very positive addition, adding greater

interest to the backdrop of this view and route along Dray Walk where there is already

existing built form, not on Ellie's Yard itself, so I accept there's an infill of Ellie's Yard.

I find it very positive for reasons I've stated in my proof and just earlier as well, the

reinstatement of the northern portion of Wilkes Street and actually, you know, this

new building on Ellie's Yard by Marks & Company actually draws interest

further down Dre Walk. You know, the architectural detailing, it's just, it's

far more interesting just to be frank and really high quality and

sitting very appropriately in my opinion in this view as well.

And then just to finish on, this is

one of the supplementary views that was requested on Wilk

Street.

And that actually continues my point from number 36 as well.

So this is the southern end of Wilk Street.

And so the brewery building you see in the backdrop

there, that's building B, or block B, sorry.

and this is where Wilk Street would have continued along.

Just that, what I was describing in terms of

address of streetscape or introducing

some of that historic legibility within the area,

I find quite positive in terms of a relationship.

And also, again, it's improving Wilk Street

as the existing route continuing north.

And again, it's drawing interest

into the new and improved Ellie's Yard that would be established here. So that

was the last of the views to just run through.

Okay. And that's it, that's the examination in chief, thank you very much.

Thank you Mr Harris.

Yes, sir.

It's me again.

Thank you, sir.

Can I just ask, we're at half two.

How long are you Latin to be?

Are we going to break halfway along?

Yes.

I'm not sure.

I'll be a bit of time.

An hour, an hour and a half tops, I would have thought.

Well, let's see how we go.

Let's see how we go.

and if you reach a point where it would be convenient

to break about, I don't know,

quarter past three, half past three,

then let's have a break then.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Flanagan.

Good afternoon.

Miss Killar -Lee or Killar -Lay, before I get it wrong?

It's Killar -Lay.

Thank you.

Like my lone friend, I'm not going to repeat questions

put to other witnesses and stick to matters

which you specifically raise.

Just dealing first with chronology, you explain in your proof that you were appointed in June 2023,

Mr. Domino, February 2024. You were appointed as townscape consultant in June 2023, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

For all three sites at that point or not?

That's a good question because there were additions, not as the full sites at that time.

Right, so master plan main site? Yes.

Okay, so dealing with that then, if you've got the documents, just to pick up this point of chronology

still if you go please to CDD08 which is the February 2024 free app response

and if you go within that to page 12, there's a subheading,

proposals presented in July 2023.

So you're on board by then.

And it states 1 .43 proposals for the master plan prepared

by Buckley and Grey Consult architects,

and for blocks 3A and 3B prepared by Morris and Company

architects, were sent to offices ahead of a pre -application

meeting on Wednesday, 19th of July, 2023.

And if you look to the next page, you get two images.

We can see what they show, one looking north

up Spital Street, the other one a layout.

The first one is said to be image from pre -application document

11th of May, 2023.

And the second pre -application document 24th of May, 2023.

That one I think is now in the inquiry documents.

And just dealing with the master plan 3A, 3B,

We can see that by the date of those pre -application documents, May 2023,

the fundamentals of the layout and the bulk and massing of 3a and 3b was already established by

May 2023? I don't agree with that. Well look at the bigger ten, blocks 3a and 3b,

they are where they are now in the application and appeal proposal, yes? Yes

but we still underwent, there was many iterations in terms of massing that we

looked at from TTC perspective as in within our scope. I was specific about

the fundamentals of the massing and scale.

So look at figure nine, for instance,

and you can see behind the cooperage,

the saw tooth root, for instance, of 3B.

And we know from the chronology, the height went up,

in fact, subsequently, from six to seven storeys for that.

But in terms of the fundamentals of that proposal,

the scale and massing, we see what we see there.

And that's the situation of May 2023.

And that was prior to your involvement.

So you didn't advise on any of that?

No.

You advised subsequently.

And just dealing with that, I think

you can put that document away, take up the HTVIA.

And if you go to the conclusion, page 25, internal pagination,

page 254, electronic 256.

The conclusion.

Conclusion, yes.

And...

11 .2, just ask about this, paragraph 11 .2.

You say,

the effects from the proposed development have also been assessed

in light of the architects' detailed designs.

The Townscape consultancy has advised the architects

on the development of the design throughout the pre -application process

in order to ensure that any necessary mitigation is embedded

in the final designs assessed.

So the position is that you are advising on embedded mitigations,

you call it there,

mitigation on an already worked -up design

rather than the initial pre -June 2023 designs.

Yes?

So could you repeat the question?

You were advising on mitigation for worked up designs rather than what the initial design

should be.

So the design was developed when I was brought on board.

And CAME Heritage were already on board and Townscape came in in June of 23 and it was

from there we started providing landscape advice but we did undergo

further testing from the May 23 version. So is that a fair summary? You were

advising on mitigation of a worked up design rather than what the initial

design should be? I don't think it's fair in terms of the process is actually part

of what we're all feeding into. It's not that we're mitigating a design that was

fixed because it wasn't fixed when we came on board.

Or maybe I'm understanding the question in a different way,

but it was very much still in a developing state

when I was appointed.

Yes.

It was in a developing state, the fundamentals of which,

i .e. two significant scale blocks, six, seven,

eight storeys facing Allen Gardens,

that had already been established by the time you got involved?

That was being pursued when I was appointed, yes.

And those fundamentals were not up for going back to square one,

for starting from scratch?

Yes, we couldn't.

If we felt it was the wrong approach in townscape terms,

we would have said it to the client and we understood from the client

that that's what they appointed us to do.

Why not appoint you before those have been produced?

I can't answer that.

Okay, come on to that in a bit more detail in a moment.

Thank you for that.

Now I want to look at the existing

townscape, then if you go to

probably keep the HD bio, we'll come back to that. If you go to your proof, please.

And page 20.

And on page 20, paragraph 4 .26, you pick it up about two -thirds of the way through. There's

a sentence meaning, Allen Gardens is not historic. You see that?

Correct.

Allen Gardens is not historic to the area and would have originally been full of terraced

housing streets, fine grained, more consistent with the Georgian and Victorian development

of the area. These terraces were lost in World War II bombing, initially replaced by temporary

emergency housing and then cleared to become what we now know as Allen Gardens. From this

open area, the tall and modern eastern and northern clusters of the City of London are

highly visible, providing an engaging contrast with the smaller scale, older buildings of

the Brick Lane area while also creating an awareness of the proximity of the

City of London pleasingly dynamic and representative of London

and its extraordinary richness of character and progress. Just pausing

there, dealing with existing character before we get to the proposals, described

in your proof as smaller scale older buildings of Brick Lane area, that's what

you say the inspector should be considering in terms of existing

character or certainly an aspect of it? An aspect of it but in what context? In the

context of proposals to put blocks 3 and 3a, 3a and 3b there. But I'm sorry I

think I'm misunderstanding the question. The context is varied that's what a lot

of our analysis is actually you know as in it's all considerations in

townscape context and

Still dealing with this

Existing character from looking from Allen Gardens

similar

discussion or more discussion at

Going go forward to page 47 in your crew paragraph 6 .29

6 .29, you say, my reading of views from Allen Gardens

of blocks 3A and 3B differs.

In my opinion, 3A and 3B are of an appropriate scale and mass

in how they add to an existing townscape made up

of a variety of historic and more recent large -scale

buildings.

And that can be said for the immediate context alone.

When understanding the views towards the site

from Allen Gardens, it would be impossible for someone

to ignore the dramatic backdrop of the tall buildings located

in the city of London.

This is a characteristic of the townscape

that makes these views so interesting.

So they're talking about the Glass and Steel City cluster.

That Glass and Steel City cluster

is obviously not characteristic of the urban grain

of the Brick Lane area, is it?

That's correct.

No.

And the character that you're responding to,

townscape character A, townscape character B,

which everyone wants to refer to,

does not include buildings of that sort, does it?

As in the existing building?

Yes.

Correct.

No.

That's the first point.

Second point, you say that this is a characteristic of the townscape

that makes these views so interesting. I mean in fact blocks 3a and 3b from Allen

Gardens, I mean they all but occlude views of the City cluster don't they?

Yeah. So a characteristic of the townscape which you said is so

interesting is going to be obscured. So that's what I was, you know, when I was

talking through view 7 as a representative position from Allen

Gardens it was admitting that the existing backdrop of the City cluster

would be occluded by blocks A and 3B. They'll be the new address to Allen Gardens.

That's a representative position to understand the primacy of Truman Chimney.

If you move just west of that position you will actually retain that dynamic relationship with the city cluster.

Yeah. And then in the townscape areas, so we find these usefully set out. You go

back and you'll prove that page 21, I think you do, get them out for us.

And on page 21 under the subheading of townscape character areas, we get the

the Townscape Area Character Area plan.

We're within, all the sites within TCA a brick lane.

All the appeal sites?

Yes.

On the other side of Spital Street is TCA.

So I just wanna.

Sorry, Karen.

Just double cheque the map of.

It's just it's in small there.

I'd like to see it in bigger version.

Yeah, it's in the TVIA at page 71,

or 69 of internal pagination.

Yes, that's correct.

And as to what those character areas comprise, back to your proof.

4 .30 you tell us that site location TCAA, Brit Lane, bordered to these by TCAC.

These are the most relevant TCAs to this proof given the limited likely effect on other TCAs.

I'm just going to focus on those.

And if you go over the page, you've got a description of TCAA, Brit Lane. And then over

the page again to page 23, you've got TCAC Whitechapel. 435, you say TCAC lies to the

east of the site. There is a marked difference between the mixed

of this area in TCA which is industrial and of a coarser grade.

Instead, this TCA is residential, much more a regular street pattern.

It continues.

I just want to pick up 437.

A final paragraph on that page tells us that due to the more residential character,

this TCA contains a larger amount of greenery,

many of the streets are tree -lined and there are private gardens

related to the residential buildings.

The main site, the main treatment site,

is on the boundary of what you've identified as TCA and TCAC, yes?

It is, as we've discussed at some length,

low rise in its character,

particularly towards the Spital Street side of it.

The main site.

Are you referring to Whitechapel? The main site has low -rise buildings on it

also has the boiler house facing Brick Lane but as you go into the yard

the buildings are low rise. What exact area of the East Truman site are you

referring to? The open yard space? The open yard space and the buildings around it.

So the overall brewery yard I think is what it's been referred to. Yeah

Generally in that portion of the site there was either absence of

buildings, it's hard surface, yard or there's some fragmented

buildings or there's a surviving cooperage. So it's very mixed

in terms of that question but they're generally low -rise in that very

specific part. It's a point of transition in the urban fabric?

on the site itself? I think it's just been a site of decline and

hence the fragmented character that we now see on the existing site, you know, in

terms of the brewery is now over 30 years since its closure and the site

hasn't been utilised as it once was historically and so that decline has

resulted in quite a lot of, yeah, vacant surface area.

Dealing with character, it's a point of transition

from the larger, denser scale, larger scale, denser development

to the west to what you've described in TCA,

see Whitechapel to the east.

Less dense, more sporadic development.

I would see that more of not the site itself,

but actually Spittles Street is probably a good,

and that's part of the reason the TCAs start there on one side of the street and the other, rather than on a site.

But why not on the site? If the site is certainly the east side of it, generally low rise, a yard with sporadic, low rise buildings around it,

why is that not itself part of the transition?

Well just as we were discussing, there's quite an absence of, you know,

it still has something of the connexion with the brewery, but

actually the larger, as in what's described in the TCA for Whitechapel, is

the larger format residential buildings, like you were giving an overview of, it's

more residential, there isn't residential on that part of the site.

And just dealing with Allen Gardens as well in this question about townscape

character, I think if you look back at your page 21, if you want to look at the TVIA do say,

So you put Allen Gardens within TCAA Brick Lane.

Mm -mmm.

Yeah?

Yeah.

And Allen Gardens, it's in the conservation area,

but again, it's a large, open, recreational green space.

Yes?

Yes.

It's got this city farm next to it,

which also has some open space and green open space within it.

And that you put within TCAC Whitechapel.

Yes?

Yes.

Allen Gardens has at least as much in common

with TCAC Whitechapel as it does with TCAA Brick Lane,

doesn't it?

You could say that.

And on that basis, the main site is surrounded both on its north side and east side, the Spital Street side, with areas characteristic of TCAC more open, greener, less characteristic of the large dense developments into the west.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Just go south, still thinking about character.

In your proof at page 35, moving on to block J, 533 dealing with block J,

You refer to Mr. Hendley's proof for greater detail

and design, and then you go on to deal with height.

Picking up five lines from the end,

there's a sentence beginning, the overall form

differentiates.

You've got that?

Yes.

You say the overall form, this is the form of the block J

proposal, the overall form differentiates

in height from seven storeys addressing Spittles Street,

transitioning appropriately from larger buildings to the east and south

when approaching along Hanbury from the east

and stepping down to five and four storeys to meet the lower density terracing

along Woodseer Street and Hanbury Street respectively at Block J neighbours.

Just want to deal with that point transitioning,

going back to my points about transition a moment ago.

In the visualisation that you've included on page 35,

we can see the Spital Street elevation of block J.

In the foreground of the photo, of the image,

we can see on the left -hand side the five -storey block

on Hanbury Street, modern block? Yes. Okay and we can see on the other side of Hanbury Street

the three -storey block which is Bowden House, so it's been called. Yeah, yeah. We went through

the heights with Mr Hendy in terms of metres, he suggested 10, 12, the Bowden House,

the building on the other side of Hanbury Street 14, 15, I think something of that sort, maybe 16.

So we've got those buildings there, the five -storey on the south of Hanbury Street,

three -storey Boden House on the other side of Hanbury Street. We also looked at the Glashan

House, Mr Henley a bit further north, still well under 20 metres. In your text, do you

refer to Power 533 transitioning appropriately from larger buildings to the east? In fact,

There are no larger buildings to the east, they're smaller.

The reference to larger buildings is in the context of the Brick Lane finer grain.

It's larger buildings in comparison to the finer grain,

which is already identified in the Brick Lane, Tanskip, Crowns area.

So you mean the existing street block of which Block J is going to complete?

No, so the townscape character area of Brick Lane having that finer grain than Whitechapel

Townscape character area having a larger grain as in larger buildings to the east than it

is to the west.

Yes, but we're dealing specifically with height here. The overall form differentiates

in the height, back to your sentence, from seven storeys addressing Spitton Street, transitioning

appropriate from larger buildings to the east. So I look for larger buildings than

seven storeys to the east and I certainly don't find them, correct? From here yes

there is. Yes. I don't find them correct? That's correct is it? No you do find them.

Well in this image? Not in this image. I'm talking about the townscape character

area as a whole. Sorry, could you repeat your question please?

You're suggesting there's a transition from larger buildings to the east and

the seven storeys of Spital Street elevation of blockchain is part of that

transition. Yes. I'm suggesting to you that it's clearly not given that the buildings to

the east are not seven storeys, they're nowhere near seven storeys. I didn't say

there's seven storeys I said, it's more general description

of taller buildings to the east.

And so it's almost like a threshold in townscape

as you're coming to this point on Hanbury Street

and Spiddel Street.

And it's actually that junction within the streetscape

that Block J can address and as I've assessed,

adopt a taller height than the neighbouring buildings.

but not by much and so I have accepted that Block J is taller than the neighbouring second home at

90 Hanbury, 68 Hanbury which is the building you're seeing on the left there, taller than Bolden House.

That's a fact in this view but it's in the context of there being taller, larger grain

character of buildings to the east, Whitechapel, Townscape character area as we've assessed,

and then there's that transition to the finer grain

townscape area of Brick Lane.

So that was what that was explaining.

I see.

How far do we have to go to get that larger,

those tall buildings?

Actually within Block J,

because Block J steps down to a long hand,

very steep street.

Sorry, I made it wasn't clear.

How far within TCAC, the townscape area to the east,

do we have to go to get these buildings

which are taller than seven storeys?

Not very far. Deal Street, which is, well we're very close to it at this location here. Deal Street has a tall Victorian, but I haven't gone around and measured all the buildings, but it's a six -storey Victorian warehouse converted and extended and it's just here. It's within the Whitechapel Townscape Characterium.

I understand. Definitely I'm a stammer. So it's around the Brady Centre?

I haven't actually looked at that question specifically,

as in where you pick up that exact height of seven storeys,

but from the analysis across the whole townscape character area.

Okay, I've got your evidence on that, thank you.

Let's move to Eli's yard now.

Proof 537, please, which is on page 37.

Yeah.

and this is under the heading of Eli's yard, 537.

The last five lines, sentence begins,

the new stepped and ramp access, got that, thank you.

The new stepped and ramp access through to Corbett Place

and Grey Eagle Street will reopen the connexion

through this area, allowing greater permeability

and encourage increased footfall.

This new route will connect the area better

to Spitalfields and bring greater awareness

Grey Eagle Street and Corbett Place are currently underutilised and secondary street.

Now you tell us in your proof that you were appointed to provide advice in design development.

Did you, Ms Killele, ever give advice that it might enhance the, as you put it, underutilised

Grey Eagle Street if the connexion to it, the new connexion to it, was not two 1 .5

metre doorways but the sort of full width connexion we see from the south into Eli's

Yard and the east from Brick Lane? What's the question? Did you ever provide advice

on the width of that connexion from Eli's Yard to Grey Eagle Street? Not specifically

the width. On that connexion at all? On the connexion but not the specifics of

the measurement width. Okay you were instructed to provide advice in the

design development process. The design being proposed was two doorways, I'm

calling them, we're talking about 1 .5 metres or so wide each. Yeah. Did you not think to

advised that as you put it to reopen connexion, a connexion of greater

width than two 1 .5 metre doorways might better serve that purpose of activating

the underutilised Grey Eagle Street? That wasn't my opinion, as in I don't

agree. It was developed by Morrison company or you know what they were

looking at in terms of that connexion. It goes back to my points as well on Grey

Street being a secondary street and that actually it feels quite appropriate in design terms

that the access to Grey Eagle Street wouldn't be such a primary large opening that actually

it has that again it's what we see characteristically across the area is the doorway threshold access

into spaces, makes it something of a discovery going into a place and seemed right. It's

only pedestrian access and so it seems like that would be suitable in design

terms. You never challenged this element of the design, I'll take it from your answer.

We discussed it but I didn't challenge it, I think that it's a good design solution

given the design rationale behind it and my understanding of the character of the

Yeah.

Yeah, so this point about it being characteristic,

just picking up on the way you talked about it

in your proof, if you go to page 55, paragraph 7 .23.

Last sentence of 723. You say the size of routes proposed are comparable with the historic

streetscape and the threshold access is a common feature of Brit Lane, a highly appropriate

architectural feature to introduce. The two 1 .5 metre doorways, that size of

route is not at all comparable with the historic streetscape is it?

Any portion of the history, I think it is. Which bit of the historic streetscape is

that characteristic of? Well I need to look at a map to go through the different routes with you.

Through the midst of two or three witnesses by now, we've seen the widths of the various

routes to the yards on the main site. We've seen the widths of Brick Lane, of Woodseer

Street, Dray Walk, 6 .8 metres wide or so. Nothing remotely as narrow as 1 .5 metres.

Which routes are you referring to? The historic streetscape.

So there's no specific routes that you're referring to?

You refer, Miss Koula, if I may, to the size of routes proposed are comparable with the historic streets,

but you must have some routes in mind, you must have some widths in mind. What are they?

I think I understand the question a bit better. Let me explain what I meant by threshold access.

Size of routes first.

If you start with that.

Yes, so that's connected with...

My answer is what I've written and what I'll explain.

So there's access from off Brick Lane through into the the art space itself.

It comes through the...

Dreiwock?

No, no, no, from Brick Lane into the brewery.

I'm giving you an example within the area.

Yes.

It's not Dreiwock that I'm referring to.

I see.

So it's Brick Lane and you're in front of the engineer's house and there is access through,

it's kind of like a wooden opening effectively and then it's like a threshold into what is the

the brewery yard. What's the width of that? I didn't measure it if I'm honest. Okay so that's

okay we've got that one. Any others? That's the one that stands out in my mind. You say the size

of the bridge is probably the historic streetscape so that's the single bit of the historic

streetscape in terms of the connexion from Eli's yard to Greigle Street, you're saying

it's the best example of surviving historic streetscape in the area because

much of that has been lost actually through World War II bomb damage and then

also many changes over time so the landscape has actually changed quite a

lot so it was my reading of the historic streetscape in terms of OS mapping.

OK, so that deals with the widths.

Next point is about the underutilization

of Greigle Street and the secondary point, which

you referred to a moment ago.

You told me you didn't challenge the design

choice of the access between Eli's Yard and Greigle Street

being these two 1 .5 metre doorways. Did you ever challenge the design choice of locating

a building, the data centre, with necessarily inactive frontages on a street which already

suffers from, as you put it in chief, extremely poor public realm issues? Did you challenge

that design choice? Yes, as in I challenged it in that we discussed

it was quite a considered element, but as I've given evidence on, considered the use

within the combined approach to the appeal scheme, given its secondary profile, it seems

like a more appropriate place for that type of use, given that there's a need and that's

at a position where there is greater opportunity to activate and connect

within the wider area. I feel like in combination that Block A is appropriately

located and in isolation I do and have assessed that Block A is an

improvement on the townscape on Grey Eagle Street.

Mr. Gaby, your own assessment which we looked at a moment ago is that Grey Eagle Street is currently

Underutilised, yes?

I need to look back at that.

It's the last line of 537, page 37.

Yes.

Underutilised needs to be better utilised, yes?

That's not what I'm saying.

It is underutilised.

Okay, it's underutilised.

It implies it should be better utilised.

That must be fair.

That's correct.

Thank you.

To achieve that better utilisation,

you are putting a use on it which is inactive and subdued, in your words?

Low active.

Okay, and subdued.

Yes.

In terms of architecture, that's what I've come to.

Okay, so it needs to be better utilised,

but you're putting a use which is low active on it.

That is exacerbating the very problem that you identify.

It's not because it's an improvement on the existing.

If you're going to, because I'm not, the use isn't, it's not where I comment, but it's

on townscape.

If we're going to look at the existing baseline and what's proposed based on activity alone,

it is improved.

Take it in this way. Look at how you put it in your proof at 6 .13, page 43.

While I can agree the design merits outline by Talhammets in the first sentence, I do not agree

that Block A would be a dominant addition to this secondary street. Then

you say this, in fact owing to the inactive nature of this route, the muted

frontage of the proposed data centre would be an appropriate addition. You are

compounding the current inactivity with further inactivity, aren't you? No I'm not,

it's what we were just discussing on the fact that it's a secondary

Street that it's more appropriate to a lower active use in terms of like the

neighbouring buildings that are along Grey Eagle Street. You know we don't have

control over them in terms of this appeal scheme but we are introducing

something that is an improvement on the existing context and what I meant about

being an appropriate addition, as in appropriately locating on a secondary street rather than

a secondary location.

Also, it was put to me that a data centre should go on Brick Lane. I would certainly

not think that's suitable given the type of environment and how active that street is.

it's a primary street with a lot of footfall, whereas Grego Street is underutilised, they

don't use it, but that's the nature of the whole street, not just Block A site.

How is putting in an active data centre going to solve that problem?

Solve the problem of the...

Underutilisation you just referred to.

Like I say, there will actually be a higher utilisation even with the data centre.

From the incredibly low baseline, you may be right, but we're looking to solve a problem,

not just make it marginally less worse.

Yes, that's true.

HTVI a on Greigle Street now page 216

which we've looked at before obviously this is the view looking north up Greigle Street

with the data centre and the new Eli's Yard elevation we can see as well.

And in terms of the assessment here, part of the visual assessment, 10 .437, paragraph

of 10 .437 on the left -hand side, if you've got that.

Yep.

It's explained that to the left, in the view,

block A sits adjacent to the existing building next door.

It's brick -based parapet mirroring those of its neighbour,

stepping out towards the pavement line.

Above metal upper level, step back and away from the street,

reducing the visual impact and feeling of overbearing,

whilst adding visual interest.

Its ground floor facades are blank due to its proposed use as a data centre, so offers

little to the street scene.

This is the July 2024 Heritage Town visual impact assessment.

Since then, we know there have been the amendments which we looked at with the architect, indeed

and Mr. Frayman as well, moving the security office from within the building to the front

and increasing the glazing in that area. So that has changed I think since this July 2024

assessment. Yes?

This is dating from September.

This is an application document dated July 2024 on its front.

The HTVI is dated September 2024.

I think we're next.

HTVI, yeah.

It's July 24th.

July?

Yeah, and September on the inside page as well.

September?

The 3rd of September, 2024.

It's fine for my purposes. So, September 2024, after that there were early 2025, the

moving of the security office from within the building to the frontage.

And you familiar with that or not? Yeah, I'm just curious what the question is.

and the design amendment deliberately as I understand to increase activation,

the inspector can take a view on that. Just as at the date of the HTVIA and the

scheme as it then was, we can record that the assessment was that the data

centre would offer little to the Street C, yes? Little in terms of activation

So what that's completing is, yeah, it would be the address in terms of the facade activation.

Yes. Something, a building that offers little to the street scene is not going to solve

the public realm problems of Grable Street, is it?

As we've assessed, there's an improvement in terms of, and it's more than just activation,

it's the detailing and architecture, a better quality building in replacement, better address

of Grey Eagle Street. There will be an improvement. I think solving the totality of Grey Eagle

Street I think is impossible for a one -plot but it certainly will be an

improvement to the landscape of Grey Eagle Street. I'll come to improvement at the moment.

Next paragraph, same page 10 .438. To the right of the view the base of Eli's

yard can be seen with its loading bay entrances opening onto the street.

Partial removal of the graffiti wall has been made to accommodate the new

building above, the gridded facade

can be appreciated with its large industrial style adding

depth.

It is, though, a largely blank face

of the building with little animation at street level."

That was September 2024.

Subsequently, again, concerns raised,

and the design amendments were those we've looked at already.

Small kiosk on the Grey Eagle Street frontage,

and then the window of the kiosk, which opens to Eli's yard.

The inspector can obviously take a view about the effectiveness of those.

But again, Zukillea,

a building which has little animation at street level

is not going to address the serious public realm townscape visual concerns

that exist on Grey Eagle Street, is it?

I'm very curious about what you're referring to

in Greigle Street problems because from what we're assessing is there's new

access through to Elly's Yard and Greigle Street. I could help you with that.

In evidence in chief you put it neatly, you said Greigle Street where

existing townscape is extremely poor, that's what I'm getting at. Okay. And

what's being proposed is something that offers little animation at street level,

and in the data centre offers little to the street scene. You're compounding the problem

that exists, not solving it.

No, as assessed, there are great improvements introduced, including the access between Ellie's

Yard and Grey Eagle Street, and it clearly will introduce improved permeability across

the area between Grey Eagle Street and Ellie's Yard, and as I mentioned, has wider effects

as well in terms of overall connectivity across the area.

OK.

Benefit now.

You've heard the benefit a moment ago.

Same page.

Last paragraph, 10 .440.

Significance of effect.

The effect would be minor, neutral, and not significant.

And to understand this properly,

3, neutral is a qualitative element of the assessment where the outcomes can be beneficial,

neutral or adverse.

If we want to see that, reference is para 2 .80 of the methodology, but you've agreed

I'm grateful.

So three possible outcomes, beneficial, neutral or adverse.

So the assessment in the HTVIA of these two buildings in this viewpoint, the assessment

is that the visual effect is not beneficial, that there is not benefit, correct?

That's incorrect.

It says neutral.

Correct.

Okay, so I think we'll have to go to the methodology.

Page 11.

Okay, so page 11, and it's under 280.

So a neutral effect is, sorry, I'm reading from that paragraph, so it's 2 .80.

A neutral effect is one which there is no noticeable beneficial or adverse effect or

in which the effect is considered neither beneficial nor adverse overall

having made a net equation judgement. Sorry, what was the reference again?

2 .80. Yeah so you picked up halfway through. So 2 .80, effects have

been assessed qualitatively as beneficial, adverse or neutral. Correct.

So they're the three categories in their respect to their effect on

Is there any given view or area, the townscape is being assessed, there may be both beneficial

and adverse effects as a result of the proposed developments.

I was picking up a bit further along.

A neutral effect is one which there is no noticeable beneficial or adverse effect or

in which the effect is considered neither beneficial nor adverse overall, having made

a net equation judgement that takes into account both beneficial and adverse impacts.

So it's that latter part of that sentence, so it's a balance of benefits and adverse.

Yes, the overall position is no benefit.

No, it's neutral in terms of there are some benefits and there are some adverse. Adverse in

like what you've been pointing to, that there is little activation, but big benefit in terms of new permeability through the area,

improved architecture. So that's where we honestly came to a judgement or an informed judgement.

So the adverse are little activation, positive connectivity and architecture.

And you put them, you net them off the net equation that you talk about, and that gets

you overall neither beneficial nor adverse but neutral.

So overall it's not a benefit, nor is it adverse, it's neutral.

Yes.

Okay.

So it is right to say that overall there is not a benefit.

No, because again it was that latter part of 2 .8 sentence where it's the net equation,

which we just…

Yeah, I've got the net point, I think.

Good.

So I've got 10, 20 minutes to go, but it might be convenient to stop now.

Let's have a break.

We're coming up to 20 past.

We'll resume at 25 .2 if that's all right.

15 minutes.

Okay.

Until 25 to thank you mr. Flanagan. Thank you

until then

Page 217 which is view 31 cumulative

Yes, and we can see the

The street scene again is proposed,

and we can see the cumulative element in outline

behind the bridge.

And the text at 10 .441, the left -hand side,

explains that the taller elements of Bishop's Gate,

Goodes Yard, can be seen rising above the local townscape

behind the Truman Bridge spanning the road,

shown as a pink wireline in the view.

Below that, the wireline is dashed due to its occlusion.

These elements would create a taller backdrop and more of a feeling of being

surrounded by larger scale developments. I just want to deal with that judgement

there, creating a taller backdrop, more of a feeling of being surrounded by

larger scale developments. We can see in the view the relative contribution of

of the goods yard to that feeling in terms of scale of in the street city

compared to obviously the data centre in Eli's yard. Some suggest to you that the

contribution from the goods yard is relatively modest compared to Block A

and Eli's yard which are primarily responsible for that that feeling of

being surrounded by larger scale developments, aren't they?

So the reference to Bishopsgate Goodyard is as a backdrop,

as in it's a backdrop element.

So it's identifying that under the cumulative baseline

that there will be an understanding of larger scale

development or more of a feeling of being

within context of taller or modern development.

Yes, more of a context, but that feeling of being surrounded by larger scale

developments, that is principally created by the two buildings that are part of

the appeal scheme, isn't it? In this view?

So your question is that there is more alongside the developments under

cumulative? No the effect that's being referred to although contributed to by

the goods yard is principally from the two proposed appeal buildings. Well that's

the nature of the cumulative assessment and so it's the proposed development in

addition to the cumulative baseline so that's what the cumulative effect is. And

just to note that the completeness the significance of cumulative effect is

minor and then still we're still in neutral territories. Good.

So we've been looking at the visual assessment there. This is obviously a

HTVIA. There's also a townscape assessment. I just want to pick that up as well. So

you go back in the document to page 70

yeah and on page 70 the first column there's a heading assessment just to be

clear this is in section 9 townscape assessment the previous page yeah an

assessment, character area A brick lane,

I know what that comprises,

and then there's subheadings for townscape character

above 9 .5, then above 9 .9 sensitivity to change,

then 9 .10 magnitude of change,

and then 9 .11 significance effect.

And you come down on moderate to major beneficial

and significant on this TCA.

So the townscape assessment operates at that level, townscape wide,

townscape character area wide, sorry.

Yes, and also to be clear that it's scenario four, the combined assessment.

Understood.

The townscape assessment certainly here doesn't go into

the granular detail of looking at particular streets, does it?

It operates on a TCA wide basis.

Yes.

Okay, it's understood.

the visual assessment obviously does,

looking at specific viewpoints that we've just looked at.

Just to confirm, I think this is probably common ground,

the activation and animation we were looking at

in the wording of the HTVIA in Viewpoint 31,

those factors are also relevant in townscape terms as well, aren't they?

Yeah.

OK. That's helpful. Thank you.

And then, sticking with this assessment

and the qualitative element, I'm going to call it,

the beneficial, neutral, adverse three potential outcomes.

The HTBIA, authored by others but checked by you

in the same way it was with Mr Dunn, I think, for the H part of the TBIA.

For all townscape and visual effects,

you say the effect is either beneficial or neutral,

with one exception, I think.

For the townscape character areas?

No.

Or for the views?

Both.

Sorry.

If you could go with me.

All townscape and visual aspects of this assessment,

you conclude either a beneficial effect or a neutral effect

with one exception. So you're talking about the landscape

characterise and the views. I am. Yes that's correct. And just so we know what

that exception is, if you go to conclusion page 255.

And it's 11 .15 on page 255.

Under the heading of effects on visual receptors, almost all effects were found to be either

of beneficial or neutral nature with one view experiencing adverse effects.

This was also proposed development to do with the occlusion of, the partial occlusion of

the Christchurch Tower.

You're on the conclusion?

Page 255.

255, yeah.

OK.

So that's the overview.

Obviously, Mr. Reynolds takes quite a different view.

He does a set of comparative tables,

and he reaches many more adverse judgments.

I'm not going to go through those judgments one by one

with you by any means, but looking at your assessment

and your judgments, part of the rationale

that you gave for reaching beneficial or indeed

neutral, I think, in terms of that outcome,

is that what is being created is new views

of high -quality architecture.

and it's not just based on views, it's the full assessment. This is also a concluding,

so we're talking about townscape and visual, so it's character areas and views that I'm

commenting on, but we are concluding as a whole. Part of what this kind of assessment

or what my role is on a scheme advising on townscape and visual is mitigating or minimising

potential for adverse effects. That's in line with good practise guidance and

also what's intrinsic to our role. So it's part of that

process advising, identifying what's important. I was given an

overview of important sensitive townscape areas within the area

like Brick Lane and it was something very conscious from my perspective that

sensitive townscapes such as Brick Lane, we would minimise and mitigate the level of

intervisibility in terms of what was appropriate and that's why I did come to a conclusion on

many beneficial conclusions, many neutral conclusions and one adverse on the townscape

views. Understood, but I want to deal with one thing at a time. So it's obviously an important

part of the appellant's case in this inquiry, that what is being proposed is high quality

architecture. And I want to understand your judgments in the HTVIA that have been put

forward in respect of how that contributes, high quality architecture contributes to that.

So, by way of an example, if you go to, for instance, page 12.

12 of the HTVIA.

Correct. And on page 12, you get paragraph 2 .81.

And you say, by way of example,

A beneficial effect in terms of views and the visual amenity of people experiencing them

could derive from the high architectural quality of a proposal

or from providing a focal point in the list of other matters,

which is dealing with this aspect at the moment,

could derive from the high architectural quality of a proposal, yes?

Yes, but there's other policies...

Absolutely. I did preface my question with that precise point.

That's one of the factors that influences or could influence

the outcome of beneficial? Yes. Do you agree also that in judging, reaching that

conclusion of beneficial, neutral or adverse, you need not just to consider

the quality of the architecture but also whether the proposed buildings respond

to the context of the area. In their architectural detailing? No, no, and scale, massing, form,

all aspects of design. Yes, as in, you know, it's seen as a whole, it's not just one thing,

you know, the design is a lot of influence from many different considerations and architecture

is integral to encompassing it.

Mr. Dunn agreed yesterday, in respect to blocks 3a and 3b,

that he could point to no other buildings

remotely like them in the conservation area.

So leaving aside the quality of the architecture,

could point to no other buildings

remotely like them in the conservation area.

You don't, as I understand, point to anything remotely like blocks 3a and 3b, large modern

office buildings with large floor plates in Townscape area AD?

In the conservation area I can point to one in Norton Foulgate.

Norton Foger.

Morris and Company were also one of the architects on that.

Any others?

And that's just in the conservation area.

TCAA was marked because you're the townscape witness.

I was referring to TCAA.

Not in terms of the modern context,

but we do have the old Arup, Blocs Ed, which of its time

it was also cutting edge in terms of its engineering

when it was built at the time.

But they're kind of different in that way in terms of TCA.

I think there is examples.

And that's why they're just one at a time.

So Block said, Ove Aratt building.

Mr. Dunne said it's a detractor.

So we've got his evidence on that.

but that's the one you point to in terms of a compare in terms of something like

what's being proposed in 3a and 3b.

Yeah Norton -Folgate was the right example. Then we came to TCAA.

So that's not in TCAA, sorry. That's correct.

But it's in the conservation area.

Yeah, OK.

So it's still in the conservation area.

OK, so block Z, the detractor in conservation area terms,

that's the one you point to?

In terms of there being different buildings,

that's what I would point to.

But to reframe, I wouldn't say it's not the same as 3A, 3B.

OK.

A couple of final discrete points.

Back to your proof.

Paragraph 6 .7, which is on page 42.

Yep.

So 6 .7, you've partly dealt with this in chief, but just wanted to point out that this is

So 6 .7 you say proposals have clearly followed a design -led approach outlined in Mr Morris's

proof and assessed in my evidence.

The design has been reviewed and revised during multiple pre -application discussions with

Tower Hamlets, GLA, pausing there, we can strike through GLA, I think you told us.

That's correct, I've also submitted an errata to correct, so striking GLA and QRP.

Yes, okay.

Didn't do a laden sheet.

We can strike through QRP as well because there was no QRP.

This block was never presented to the QRP, was it?

That's correct.

So it was my error just because Block A did go under such a design review with Tara Hamlet's

and it was just an error on my behalf, hence the errata submission.

Okay, so this is the design led approach you're referring to.

And in your proof, you gave us three aspects of that in terms of discussions with external bodies.

Multiple pre -application discussions with Tower Hamlets, GLA and QRP.

So we've now struck through two of those three external bodies.

Yes.

And we're left with Tower Hamlets.

Yep.

And if you go to HTVIA, maybe keep that page of your proof open if you can, but HTVI page

36.

And on page 36, on the right -hand side, block A, you'll see meetings, pre -application one,

dates 19th of February 2024 feedback overview held out Hamlet's Town Hall

what's the justification for the building mass and impact on neighbours

how does building reflect and grain of area water opportunities for active

frontage passive surveillance can ways to be recovered and then key changes

listed seven lines will say proposed building push back from the street

Proposable evidence that urban grain uses have been changed over time.

Proposable explores adjacent facade rhythms and so forth.

Proposable encompasses provision for water -to -water heat exchange and so forth.

That meeting, 19 February 2024,

that was the only pre -application meeting for Block A, correct?

I don't think I'm best to answer that. That's our accounting, I can't fully verify if there was no other meeting held with Tara Hamlets. I think that's better placed with another.

Let me ask you just to see what you can or can't clarify.

So in your proof, in your evidence,

you refer to multiple pre -application discussions with three bodies.

We've struck through two of them.

We're left with multiple pre -application discussions, plural,

with Tower Hamlets.

In fact, your own HTVIA only refers to one such meeting, not multiple.

And there are, as far as I'm aware, no other...

and you're not suggesting that I find any others referred to in this HTVIA

with Loughley? None in the HTVIA but like I say I believe other other people more

relevant so maybe I wasn't you know our team weren't present at those other

meetings that's why I can't verify that point but yes you're correct in the

HTVIA we've noted the February meeting with our attendance and understanding

what those changes were. Before writing your proof and referring to multiple

pre -application discussions. Did you not cheque how many pre -application

discussions there were, what the content of them was? Well from what I understood

and like I say I've made an error in terms of what my memory was of block A

which was quite a, you know we had quite detailed revisions on it from Tara

Hamlet's. They felt we didn't have to present block A at QRP because they were

satisfied in direction, were satisfied with their review of the proposal?

Tower Hamlets were satisfied with Block A.

In terms of Block A not needing to go to QRP at the time when...

That's my understanding, but like I say, it's probably better for another witness.

So the design -led process, we've discussed what those consultations

or feedback from external bodies was.

And the output of the feedback or that process

was that Tower Hamlets, after you'd had that meeting

with them, obviously remained deeply dissatisfied

with Block A in landscape and visual terms,

hence the recommendation for refusal.

What's the question?

The question is that this design -led process,

which you refer to, comprised a single meeting with Tower Hamlets and the

output of the meeting was Tower Hamlets remaining deeply dissatisfied with the

proposal in townscape and visual terms. Not in terms of the feedback we received

there. Good final point then, just to pick up something you said earlier,

I'm sure I haven't misunderstood.

Could you take up Mr. Yeoman's proof?

So you probably have to find this online

or on the computer.

It's CDM 0 .05.

And within that page, let's put it myself.

So page 234.

Yeah, is it 3 .2 public realm scale?

Yeah, absolutely.

So public realm scale.

Remember I asked before the break

about the part of your proof where

you referred to the sizes or widths of historic streetscape.

And we can see Mr. Yeoman produces layouts here

of historic streetscape and also what's

proposed on the main site.

You can see the widths there.

We went through them already in the inquiry.

There's the broad scale of them, five, six, seven metres.

there's one dropping down from Black Eagle Yard to Woodseer at 3 .8.

To put to other witnesses,

nothing as tight as you see from Eli's Yard to Graydon Street.

You referred to your threshold doorway.

Is that on this plan or somewhere else?

It won't be because the consented Woodseer is on...

is on this plan.

Yeah.

Do you have the measurement of –

I've only got what's in front of me.

So no, it's not on this plan.

It's not on this plan?

No.

But the location of it is, it's just not marked on this plan, is that what you're saying?

Like I say, I haven't done this very specific identification.

I'm just looking –

Can you broadly indicate where it is?

I'm just trying to locate it myself.

So that when we start to have a look again, probably,

we can know what we're talking about.

It's actually through the engineers building.

So you don't see the route on this plan,

because it's not indicated on this map, basically.

It's off the map?

No, it's through a building.

understood well perhaps what on site it can be added to the places to be you

probably that's probably easiest and I think you can be taken on the size of

that route and in the historic streets good no thank you miss killer there

there's my questions thank you sir thank you mr. Clamigan miss Curtis did you

Do you have anything for this witness?

I have a couple of headings, hopefully won't take too long.

Thank you.

So first of all, I just wanted to touch

on your description of the historical development

of this area around the appeals site and its current character.

Could I ask you to take up CDM05,

which is Mr. Yeoman's proof, which I think you've already

I have a period.

Yeah, OK.

On page 39 of that proof, we can see historic maps of the area.

And these have the red line of the main site in block J,

but also, I think, do cover the Ely's Yard and Grey Eagle sites

across the left -hand side of the maps.

So you can see that historically on these maps,

it's correct, isn't it?

As late as 1945, there was housing on the northeastern corner of the main site.

And you can also see off to the west, Ely's Yard is occupied by a bottling store,

and then the Block A site occupied by terraced housing also seemingly around until the mid 20th century.

So historically on these sites,

residential and industrial uses in the area coexisted side by side.

And in terms then of the current position around the appeal site, if you could look

to page 57. So you can see the ground floor uses here of the area around the main site.

And I'm going to go back to the slide.

So here on page 57, you can see the ground floor uses of the site, including around Brick

Lane.

And you can see there the diversity of retail, cafe restaurants, commercial, and then pockets

of residential around this main site.

Is that correct?

Yes.

And then on the upper floors, again, you can see a slightly increased amount of residential along Brick Lane there to the south.

Sorry, that's page 56. So just one page back.

So for a lot of this area around the appeal site going down South Long Brick Lane, that

mixture, historic mixture of residential coexisting alongside commercial and industrial persists.

To a degree it's changed somewhat or the area has evolved within that time. But there is

still depends on what level you're thinking, but overall they sit alongside each other,

but in a different arrangement.

At paragraph 4 .31 of your proof, you describe TCAA and describe that as being characterised

by industrial buildings and also residential terraces.

And then TCAC, which is off to the east,

of course is much more residential.

Yeah. Yeah.

The point really is that,

at paragraph 4 .27 of your proof,

you refer to the area around the site

as having lost its primarily industrial

and commercial character,

and you say there's a particular detachment

with the residential area to the east.

But given both the historic development of this area

and the current uses. Historically it's correct that this wasn't predominantly an industrial

and commercial area, but a mixture of those types of residential.

So our Townscape Character Area Assessment is not based just on uses or activation, it's

a whole host of qualities and many of those are built form, so hence why we came to our

areas, the more residential of the Whitechapel TCA and C, it is certainly higher in identified

residential use or it's kind of the predominant input to character, because you don't have

much of a commercial, those different ground floor, much more active uses, just to give

that as an example, whereas Brick Lane is a serious mix. You've got a whole host of

people who live there, visit there, work, are just passing through, whereas you don't

find that in terms of character or activity or experience, I guess, is the best way to

encompass it in terms of landscape.

Currently it's the appeal site, I suppose it creates a bit of a detachment between Brick

and commercial and the more residential areas off to the east, and a way to alleviate that

attachment would be to reintroduce some residential development on the main site.

I don't really comment on use in terms of this degree. It's only contribution to townscape

character. Thank you. Just on the viewpoints then and hopefully

I think you discussed some of these in chief and I've also discussed them with Mr. Dunn,

but as a general point and as my learned friend mentioned this morning, there is a close relationship

between heritage assessment and townscape visual assessments and so views such as the

chimney, Christchurch, those have townscape impacts as well as those heritage impacts

that were previously discussed.

I just wanted to take you to the HTVIA and at view 32, which is on page 218 of the HTVIA.

So this, I think, is the only view, as Mr. Flanagan highlighted or touched on, in which

there is, if you turn over the page, a minor adverse effect identified. Looking

at the existing baseline, I think you can see that it's quite a degraded view,

I suppose, of the townscape in this area. And in the background we have only a

glimpsed view of the Christchurch spire and again assessed as low sensitivity to change.

But this is identified in paragraph 10 .448, I think is, or 10 .447 and 448, the adverse

effect really comes from the occlusion of that extremely glimpsed view of Christchurch.

So sufficiently important for the effect to be adverse even where we're just looking at

a very small bit of the spire there.

I'd just like to qualify the conclusion of adverse in this view, totally on the same

page.

It's, you know, there's very there's not really a focus to this view.

It was really about understanding visibility.

It was a view where you did get a very glimpse or a portion of the top of the spire, not

the land mark could occur and this was a position where the adversity was identified because

of that reason, because it was removing something of quality or a wayfinding element and that's

included, but in terms of the ES methodology that we have to adopt and what we follow and

set out in our HDBIA, we do identify its low sensitivity and hence why it's a minor adverse.

That's just how that needs to be calculated, but it is relevant in terms of understanding

what the overall effects are.

And then view 33, so a couple of pages over.

So this is the Grey Eagle Street existing from the north.

Again, quite a limited view of the Christchurch Spire,

but probably a bit more than the previous picture.

This, when you turn over, then is, again,

completely blocked by the Elise Yard development.

Or, sorry, is that Grey Eagle Street?

I'm losing track of.

Elise Yard would occlude Christchurch, yeah.

Elise Yard.

So Mr. Porshaw has taken issue with this image

in any event due to its positioning,

but nonetheless, Christchurch more visible in this image

and completely instructed here,

but nonetheless, the effect here

is considered to be neutral.

And I'll assume then that that's because a balancing between townscape benefits.

Yeah, that's right. So in this view we've identified on the baseline that it is of a medium sensitivity because it has more townscape elements that can be appreciated.

There is an actual street scene given we have identified that it's of low townscape quality,

but the sensitivity comes from, as you correctly identify, Mr Foreshaw, that there is visibility

with Christchurch.

Again, it's a view that's not planned, or it's going to my colleague Mr Dunn, in terms

of a view that was planned with the construction of Christchurch itself.

It is also not identified in the conservation area.

It is an incidental view in that respect.

The reason we came to the neutral, that net weight balancing in terms of benefits adverse.

Also for Mr. Forshaw's benefit, we need to pick these positions on public pathway.

we can't be in the middle of a street, it needs to be, there's a lot of in terms of

technical requirements to verify views in terms of being an actual assessment point

and it's all supported by good practise guidance and obviously we were supported, these are

produced images by ABR London. But in terms of going back to view 33, there is occlusion

of Christchurch Spire from this northern section of Grey Eagle Street and that's exactly why

we selected this position to assess and include.

So whilst we see that the new built form of Ellie's Yard and Block A are introducing a

much higher quality in terms of architecture on Grey Eagle Street, there is the occlusion

of Christchurch Spire from this incidental view.

So that's looking at that on balance.

So we're seeing benefits balanced by that occlusion

of the landmark feature.

And I think there's a few questions that came up

from Mr. Forshaw around this view and this effect.

So just to explain that fully,

as you go further south along Grey Eagle Street,

the building bridge will then,

this is just perspective and the reality

of coming closer to an object

and then it becomes larger and more, then that will include the church spire. Once you

actually pass under the bridge with the proposal in place, you will still maintain some views

of Christchurch to the south of Grey Eagle Street. So there's a portion of Grey Eagle

Street that would be affected in terms of occlusion of the church spire, but to the

There was a few views that were requested on Calvin Street and we do have two views

on Calvin Street, 27 and 28.

Their views that are a bit further, I guess a bit further west than what was noted in

the Spidipio's trust request.

But a view needs to be in context, as in the proposed development site needs to be in context

The views that were being requested or suggested that we were omitting were views that were

much closer to the site, as in right on the boundary.

And actually Mr Morris in his proof and in the submitted appeal scheme had submitted

CGIs that showed all the frontage elevation treatment which we understand was being requested.

should be. • Thank you. Just jumping back a bit then

in terms of this view, I think you mentioned this not being a view that's mentioned in

the Conservation Area Appraisal and I don't want to go through all this again but the

Conservation Area Appraisal simply refers to publicly accessible views of Grey Eagles

of Christ Church and this is a publicly accessible view, that's correct, isn't it?

Yes, but that doesn't, it's not a locally identified view.

And in terms then of the effect here,

and just comparing it to the effect

that's identified for view 32,

if the inspector disagrees as to the townscape

impacts on Grey Eagle Street and those benefits

that you've weighed in the net balance,

then the effect here would also be adverse

as a result of the occlusion of Christchurch.

Sorry, can you re -frame the question?

I assume that in the net balance identifying this as neutral that comes from

townscape benefits identified on Grey Eagle Street, this street.

Yes, yeah.

Yeah, so if the inspector reaches a different judgement on whether those are

benefits then that would, as a result of the occlusion of Christchurch, that's

negative and would take us into a negative effect.

No, as in, well, sorry, I'm not following that. Sorry, I'm just trying to think of the balance, I suppose. So benefits on

Grey Eagle Street, harm to Christchurch. Yeah. If you take away benefits then you just have the harm.

No, I wouldn't agree with that because again it comes back to the relevance of the view, this isn't

of view that's very purposely aligned with the landmark feature of Christchurch Spitafields.

Nor was View 32. Nor was View 32 and there was harm identified for that.

Correct, but there's less of a townscape quality. It's in the round, it's not just the landmark

itself.

Okay, well what's said in the HTVIA is just a reference to View, for View 32 is a reference

to the occlusion of Christchurch and I think it says that in the conclusion at 11 .15 as

well but we can move on from that point.

I think I would say that there is a danger in analysing HTBIA in too much detail like

that because I won't be doing a HTBIA, I won't be assessing the scheme in the same way as

So while a HDVI is always useful as a background,

it's not the nature of the exercise that I would do.

And the same goes for an environmental statement.

Take all that into account, obviously.

But the assessment, and it's fake to us,

is a little different to that.

So I wouldn't be going to viewpoints

and finding significance of effect

and neutral adverse beneficial necessarily in that same way.

I hope that's helpful.

Thank you.

So I think the point I was trying to make,

perhaps it wasn't clear, was just

about the relative importance of views

from various different publicly accessible locations.

Yeah, I understand.

I understand that.

The viewpoints then, and again, without going

into too much detail on this, covering views

along Buxton Street.

and so those are views 10 to 13. You've shown them on the screen but I mean we

can go to them again so from page 125 onwards.

So certainly when we get to view 11 there's prominence then of the Truman

Brewery chimney in a way that you didn't have the same prominence for, for example,

the spire in view 32. Would you agree with that?

So in views such as view 11, the Truman chimney is more prominent here than, for

32. I don't think it's helpful to compare. There are different views and

they're different landmarks. Okay and in terms of the views of the chimney here

they are completely lost from view 11 onwards. Yes. And you've described that in

the HTVIA and I think also in your proof is as being a moment in time as part of

the kinetic experience of Buxton Street. Mr. Forshaw's position as I'm sure you

know is that the description of those views as being occluded for simply a

moment in time or a momentary impact is not correct and I think looking at the

map on page 75 of the HTVIA. You have quite a big jump there from view 12 to 13 where

I think the chimney is shown as being visible again and similarly quite a big jump from

10 to 11 between those viewpoints shown on the HTBIA.

So I suppose the point that I would put to you is just

the description of the blocking or occlusion of the views

along Buxton Street as being momentary

is not entirely correct when you're considering

the westward journey of pedestrians

moving along Buxton Street.

It's quite a considerable stretch of Buxton Street

where those views will be occluded.

I believe we mean momentary in terms of, you know, usually this street is used for, you

know, you can't actually go down on a vehicle, it's blocked for much of it, so it would be

in connexion with walking down, as in walking from east, most likely down to Brick Lane,

that's kind of the journey around here and it is about a moment between 11 and 13.

Thank you, Ms. Kelly -Lowe. That's all from me.

Thank you. There was – thank you, Ms. Curtis. There was nothing specific that I had other than I did want to ask about View 32 as well.

But Ms. Curtis has covered it. Mr. Harris, was there anything in re -examination?

No re -examination. Thank you.

Thank you very much, then. I hope your debut wasn't too traumatic.

Good. Mr. Harris then, what are we going to do with 40 minutes we've got? Is it worth

using that for examination in chief? I think so, yes sir. We may not finish, but

I think we should make good use of the time. I heard what my learned friend said this morning

and fair enough, I don't want to take up any other time now on it, but if there's just

that anybody could look at that overnight on the video

and bring themselves up to date.

If they really have a pressing need to leave.

But by the same token, I'm sort of sympathetic to family

and other things.

But I think we should start.

So happy to do that.

If it is possible to draw stumps at five,

that would be enormously appreciated by Mr. Kiley.

Understood.

Well, I've understood that.

Well, let's get on with it then.

Yes, please.

We can swap over, and I'm not going

to suggest we have a break.

Let's just move on.

That didn't work so well last time.

I think we can go.

Are you ready?

Can I say, sir, because no criticism of anybody, we're doing it in a bit of a rush, in the

event that we do finish, can I technically hold the witness in chief just in case overnight

I think that I have gone too quickly and one or two things that I wanted to come back to?

I'm not saying that's going to happen, but I don't want to close that avenue off in the

circumstances where we are at 4 .21.

I've got no difficulty with that.

Absolutely, no problem with that at all.

Thank you very much.

All right.

You're Celeste McGinley, correct?

I am indeed, thank you.

You're employed by Nightfrank LLP

and you're a member of their Global Data Centre team,

a position you've held since February 2022, is that right?

That is correct, yes.

You provide strategic advice across the data centre markets.

You've developed a strong understanding of the sector

through that experience and maintain an extensive network

of industry contacts, including co -location operators,

we'll come back to what that means,

data centre developers, telecommunications providers,

and hyperscale cloud service providers.

You're a chartered member of the RICS and adhere to its professional standards and other

codes of conduct.

You have a master's degree in real estate from the University College of Estate Management,

which followed your completion of a BA in Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford

in 2020.

You provided expert occupational development and investment advice to a broad range of

clients in relation to data centres within this East London

micro -market and wider city and Docklands data centre sub -market.

Your instructions have included advisory roles for the clients

they're set out, which will become familiar

over the next couple of days.

And your work in the locality includes

advising on and structuring leasing agreements

between Bloomberg, Telehouse, facilitating

the securement of co -location capacity at one of Telly House's Docklands facilities.

You were also responsible for advising on the successful disposal of a fixed income

East London data centre as it led to digital reality acting on behalf of Aberdeen.

In addition to that, I think you helped prepare the evidence for the inquiry into a data centre

adjacent to the old council offices, the trilogy data centre, is that correct?

And we might come to that in due course. Good, thank you very much.

I've got three broad areas. So I know you've read the proof and I'm going to ask that we take it as read.

I'm going to ask about three broad areas, bearing in mind the inspectors read your proof.

The first broad area is data centres generally.

What are they?

What types are there?

And how important are they?

Sure, so a data centre is the physical location

in which IT servers are stored that will run programmes,

process data, or store data.

They're generally considered to be a building,

but it could be a campus of buildings,

It could be a data hall, it could be a room.

Since the birth of the internet, we have needed data centres in some way, shape or form.

They have grown over time as our IT use has increased.

So there have been more of them over the last five, ten, fifteen years as we have started

to put more programmes online and therefore required further data processing and storage.

Very much.

and the nature and type of data centres please.

Sure, so there's a few different types.

There's the kind of traditional largest type,

which is for the cloud where they will self -build their own

very large data centres, often in slightly more remote locations.

There's then something called wholesale colocation data centres,

where you'll have a colocation provider.

the main ones in the UK are ARC and Virtus, who will lease multi -megawatts of colocation capacity

directly to the cloud. And when I say the cloud I mean Google, Microsoft, AWS and a few sort of new

cloud providers that are starting to come through. And then the traditional original data centres

were much smaller retail colocation facilities which were born primarily to cater to financial

services who would have their own racks within their office buildings and then

around the city or the equivalent and other European and global locations be

that Frankfurt, Paris, wherever else. As their IT use increased to service

those financial elements they moved into retail co -location facilities. They'll

take on, it will be smaller than what the cloud would take on, it could be two racks

it could be 20 racks, we're now moving up to sort of 200 rack deployments for

these retail colocation facilities. So those are the key types of data centre.

Thank you and I want to ask first in this first stage about data centre

capacity in general. First of all how important to the UK economy is a

efficiency of data centre and equivalent capacity of the type that you've just spoken to?

There's a few different types of data. So the first is sort of sovereign data,

which is for organisations in the UK that need data centre capacity in the UK.

And additionally, for cloud programmes that also need to be located in the UK for all of us as

to users within this country of the cloud.

So there will be levels of demand that stem directly

for this country as is, and then there's the other element

where we want to have data centre capacity in this country

so that we can continue to secure data centre operators

as opposed to them approaching other markets.

Brilliant, thank you very much for that.

And we know that in September 2024,

through a written ministerial statement, data centre capacity and existing data

centres were identified as critical national infrastructure. Why was that and

of what importance is that to the Inspector? Yes, so it was the first new

designation of critical national infrastructure in 11 years, hugely

significant for the industry as a whole and really showed how far it had come in

of being something that was a bit cloak and dagger that nobody really understood

to actually like this is really the backbone now of what we are as a society

is our sort of digital element and particularly off the back of COVID where

IT use just increased exponentially. What it means is the government has

recognised that data centres along with other large -scale infrastructure

projects, energy projects, rail hospitals are so critical to the UK that in the

event they were to be disrupted it would have an impact on safety, security or

health. As part of that they enjoy protections or should enjoy protections

in the event that something does go wrong and there's also a responsibility

to ensure as far as possible that those services can be upheld.

Thank you. In section 11 of your proof, and again I'm talking here about data

centres generally, you identify the competitive nature of the landscape, a

The analysis between supply, demand, and take -up, and also the risks of failing to meet future

requirements and the risk of falling behind.

The expect has read it all, but help us please with a summary of that, if you can.

In general terms, I suppose the heading is why it's important and what are the risks

if enough capacity is not provided? Sure, so year on year since 2021 we've seen

increased take up pretty much on an annual basis the take -up will completely

meet any new supply additions that come online and we are aware of a number of

known requirements for further IT capacity. Now it's much easier to

quantify how much the cloud is looking for because they will sort of indicate

that they're looking for however many hundreds of megawatts of IT. From an

enterprise and retail perspective it's much harder. Like these are businesses

like all of these businesses in the UK are actively seeking their own

colocation capacity and data centres within London. But those requirements are

increasing and the size of those requirements are increasing. So as we

continue to see demand increase we need to ensure that those take -up levels can

match that and therefore the supply has to increase too. In the event that

doesn't happen on a large sort of scale level it will mean that the UK becomes

very difficult to deploy IT and in turn we can start to move away from it as a

of Amsterdam and Dublin are now very very difficult to build new data centres and therefore

to deploy IT in those markets so people will look elsewhere. And then from a national perspective

in terms of what really needs to be in the UK, we don't have a choice, we have to have

sufficient IT in place to be able to meet certain applications that must remain in key

locations.

Thank you very much.

The international global competition that you mentioned and you've just touched upon

there please, this concept of what I now know from other inquiries of flap D. Can you just

explain what flap D is to the inspector and how in terms of data centre provision needing

to be kept up to date, how that is a sort of solitary position?

So, FLAPPD stands for Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris and Dublin. They are Europe's five largest

markets by IT size. London, from an IT perspective, is considered to be the second largest market

in the world after Ashburn, Virginia. It's also one of the original markets. Frankfurt

is the market with the lowest vacancy in the world. It's often at 0 or 0 .01%. There's almost

no capacity there.

when you say vacancy can you just explain what that means? Essentially there are no racks,

there are no servers, there's nothing for you to lease in Frankfurt, it's all gone.

So Frankfurt and London are the two strongest of the flat D markets. The other three at various

points have sort of held the third place position with Amsterdam and Dublin both having sort of

their moments in the sun. They have been completely pushed to the back now and we're starting to see

what we define as tier two markets, the likes of Berlin, Madrid, Milan catch up

because it is so difficult to add new supply in Amsterdam and Dublin in

particular. That's both from a planning perspective, there's issues with the grid

and it's sort of got to a point where like a lot of the providers are like

this is too hard, like we have to find a different way particularly for our

scale deployments and to move elsewhere. So there is a risk of that happening if

the UK as a whole doesn't have sufficient IT capacity. Thank you and we

know that the written ministerial statement promised that there'd be new

provisions in the NPPF and they came in December 2024. Can we look at those

please. I think this is CDE1. You might have it somewhere else. Let me know when you're

Chapter 6, planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which

businesses can invest, expand, and adapt.

Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity.

Just pausing there, how relevant is the ability to have enough data centre capacity in the

modern economy to ensure and support economic growth and productivity?

So in order for there to be businesses in the UK we need to have data centre capacity

that allows them to function, so hugely important. Economic growth and economic growth in the

digital economy is something that the government, in particular since the Labour government

took over, have really been pushing for. Ultimately you can't have a business in the UK, financial

otherwise if you don't have the capacity to match. Thank you very much. Taking into

account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development the

approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any

weaknesses and address the challenges of the future. How relevant is that sentence

in the circumstances of this case? In terms of this location? Well just

generally for London at the minute I'm going to come to this

location under my second heading so you could answer it in in both ways

earlier London has been one of the key markets will continue to be there's a

huge amount of demand for London you can't really just choose another place

to have data centres sort of ad hoc and therefore like the strengthening of

London is also intrinsically linked to its continued growth as a data centre market.

Thank you. This is particularly important where Britain can be a global leader in driving

innovation and in areas with high levels of productivity which should be able to capitalise

on their performance and potential. Well I think the obvious, I don't ask you to repeat

your last answer. Then these are the policies that were changed or added to. Planning policy

should set out a clear economic vision and strategy which positively encourages sustainable

economic growth having regard to the national industrial strategy. Footnote 43, Invest 2035,

the UK's modern industrial strategy, identifies priority sectors for growth and support as

advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, creative industries, defence industries, digital

and technology businesses, financial services, life science and professional and business services.

Any of those relevant? Indeed yeah digital and technology businesses also linked to financial

services. I think as I've said you know it's sort of recognition that digital infrastructure

is becoming something that should be prioritised. If we also want to see continued prioritising

of financial services. They will require IT to function. Professional and business services

are the same. I mean every single industry now requires IT needs so it's all in many

ways linked to digital and technology businesses. And then the two promised additions are 86c,

planning policy should pay particular regard to facilitating development to meet the needs

of a modern economy, including by identifying suitable locations for uses such as labs,

gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.

And then this one, 87A, planning policies and decisions should recognise and address

the specific locational requirements of different sectors.

This includes making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and data -driven creative

for high technology industries and for new expanded upgraded facilities and infrastructure

that are needed to support the growth of these industries, including data centres and grid

connexions.

Well, how would you say to the Inspector that was putting into effect the promise in the

written ministerial statement to give greater weight to meeting the specific locational

needs of data centres, which are very specific indeed?

It takes into account that we need to be led by how data centres should be

deployed so clusters and networks are two words that we use all the time in

the sector. Data centres do tend to follow a clustering pattern which I

think is acknowledged here in terms of if they are you know if they are

critical national infrastructure if they are to be prioritised as a key area for

development we need to look at how their pattern of deployment actually allows

them to function and following the existing network and extending that

rather than looking at ad hoc new locations is the way to go about that.

Brilliant, thank you very much. So in all of those circumstances how would you

characterise the opportunity of providing a data centre in the

circumstances of this site? I'm going to come to the rest of the more local stuff

but looking at the national picture and what government is saying about its

importance, just if it were anywhere frankly, but how would you

characterise the weight that the Inspector ought to give to the benefit

of meeting capacity for data centres as set out in these various documents?

There's two folds to this. We need data centre capacity in the UK. It is being

prioritised as a key asset class to be pushed and to ensure that we do have

sufficient digital infrastructure to allow us to continue to function as the

bigger picture and then within that we need to ensure that the data centre

capacity that we're putting out there is fit for function does follow the

clustering or the network that's described and that it ought to and so we

need to look at actually putting that in the relevant locations to allow it to

Thank you. Now I'm drawing in the compass of the questions I ask. I'm asking now about

the specific proposal and location here. We know from the evidence, from your proof, from

its appendix which has been provided by Arup, and from all the other information, that what

is promoted here and designed here is a co -locational retail operation.

Now what does that mean?

So that is where it will be a smaller facility, so we're looking at something around 5 megawatt

mark.

By today's standards that is quite a small data centre and within that there will be

a number of customers, it could be 50, it could be 100, it could be 200 customers I

would probably estimate in a facility of this size and they will take on much

smaller reservations than that of the cloud who would easily deploy 5, 10, 15, 20

megawatts of IT in a single building. So that's what retail colocation is. The

reason why this facility is sort of earmarked for that is because it is in

the heartland of the UK's retail colocation market. The facilities in

proximity of retail colocation facilities, the city and the docklands is sort of known

as being the epicentre of retail colo capacity.

Is that what you, that's short -knit to colo, do you?

Yes, that was a slip of the tongue but it's some data centre lingo for you.

I'll remember that.

We'll all be saying it by the end of the inquiry, colo.

And help us please with this location in the, first of all I'm going to come to five

and all that other stuff later on but in the context of the City of London

because this is the City of London fringe that we're in what sort of

businesses are looking for colo retail operations sure so primarily financial

institutions but it can be any form of business services it can be any sort of

business service that is used that is used to sort of back up financial

services as a result and support their operations. Law firms have a lot of

capacity, London universities have capacity, telecommunications there's a

lot of that and then around London but it was really born out of financial

services in the financial sector. The first data centres in the UK were born

in this location in order to cater to those financial services. Thank you.

Now, how would you characterise the need for co -locational retail facilities in the context

of the supply and demand of retail co -locational operations at the moment?

So there's around 20 live data centres in the city in Docklands, Custer.

The oldest of those is the Telly House North data centre which was established

in 1994. That's where from sort of a commercial purpose the internet really

started to be used in the UK and became available to the public running out of

that data centre. So that is the stronghold from there. There has been a

campus element that has grown around that and then the second sort of key

internet exchange point was at the former interaction, now Digital Realty,

Lund one facility on Hanbury Street. So there's again been a cluster ring

around that as they've sought to extend what capacity they have there and we've

seen a few data centres sort of stem out and around from that micro location. In

terms of supply additions, it's very difficult to secure the power, secure

sites with all the elements that are required to bring live data centres

online and so really as I say we're looking at 20 data centres that have

emerged over the last 20 years. What's the sort of capacity in those at the

minute? Is it meeting the needs? There's almost no availability. There is one

facility, Telly House South, that went live a couple of years ago. They are now

fully leased up from the new data holes that they added on in the last year to

years and beyond that we don't have a huge amount that's set to come online

there's one other telehouse facility Global Switch have extended their

facility a little bit but on the whole it's just churn capacity so you'll have

data centre occupiers move out and another one pretty much immediately

move in, digital realty have very limited capacity particularly in their hand

street facilities. If you were asked again to to characterise the existing

capacity judged against the existing demand how would you put it?

Well including churn space I'd say we're 90 % occupied and that can fluctuate up

to 95 % as I say because it's churn. In terms of demand that is far, demand is

far outstripping supply. If you're looking for a few hundred kilowatts

you're really going to struggle to do that at this point in time. If you're

looking for anything around the 500 kilowatt mark which I have looked for

recently and it's very very difficult to secure. The space also needs to be

contiguous. You can't put one rack in one data centre one in another.

trying to find like space that meets the levels of demand for good contiguous

space within the city and Docklands cluster is very very difficult.

Can you explain to the inspector what the real consequences of this demand not

being met are or might be?

In this location twofold, I think one as I had said earlier the UK and the City of

London just looks like a very difficult place to run one's own IT programmes and

that won't just be a case of okay let's go and store our data somewhere else

because there's a lot of applications that need to be in proximity to where

the data is being processed and stored, it would need to be a much wider scale

shift in terms of okay let's actually concentrate our whole operations more in

another location so that we can have the IT services to support that. Or if you're

going to open up a new business and you can't get the IT capacity to sort of

secure your long -term pipeline for what you need then you may reconsider doing

that within London and look at another key financial market or otherwise.

It's not a case of those occupiers who want to be in the city and Docklands can

just move out of the city. If they did so a lot of work has to be done to bring

the fibre networks or the latency requirements that they have up to the

tiering that they would have if they were in the city or the Docklands which

isn't really feasible.

Thank you very much.

Now, you've mentioned on a number of occasions and we've seen that paragraph 86 refers to

paragraph 87 the specific locational requirements of different sectors including data centres.

If you're looking at co -location retail operator operations, what are the key locational requirements

that a site might have in order to attract a data centre operator?

Sure, so for retail colocation the two key factors are network connectivity and latency

and it just depends what sort of occupiers you're going after or you're looking for.

So from a latency perspective you're looking for the quickest links into the Internet exchange

so there's an Internet exchange point in LUN 1 and LUN 2, there's a few at Telly House

we're very, very close to the internet exchange as we speak.

And the closer you are to that internet exchange,

physically the quicker you can back and forth that IT.

In addition, if you then triangulate that as,

say you're in a data centre close to the internet exchange,

and then you've got the internet exchange,

and then you have your own premises

where you're running financial trades

or running financial programmes

or doing whatever you're trying to do,

that triangulation will be a huge amount quicker if the physical distance is

reduced. So the first element for site selection for a retail colocation

operator is where's the internet exchange. London, they're obviously well

established, we know where the data centre clusters are, but if we're

approaching a new market and there's nothing to go on then the first question

I always ask is where's that internet exchange and let's get as close as

possible.

At the last one of these inquiries I did, the inspector asked this question, so I'm

going to ask it, which is this idea of latency.

The inspector had understood that latency is important to the speed with which, among

other things, deals or transactions can be done.

And he – I think it might have been to your colleague – but he posited this position

that if you are in a position with ultra latency,

that even though you might push the button

at the same time as the chap or chap S in Tokyo

or Frankfurt or somewhere else, you get the deal.

Is that an oversimplification or is that something

which is more than apocryphal?

No, that can very much be the case.

So it's measured in milliseconds latency.

So generally you want to be under 0 .5 milliseconds for retail colocation, but some applications you want to be 0 .1 and 0 .2 milliseconds.

Now financial trading, as is the example there that you've used, is measured in microseconds, which there's a thousand microseconds and milliseconds, so it's like far, far smaller and you're measuring on a completely different basis.

So yes, that can make a difference.

Network connectivity is the second factor.

The bundles of cables is sort of my shorthand, but can you just explain in a little more detail what network connectivity is and how that is a key locational requirement?

Sure, so under the ground, particularly where we are now and then around this micro location,

there are hundreds of fibre cables which will carry various network operators or carriers,

the likes of EU Networks, Zayo, SSE, Colt, BT, there's huge swathes of them, those are

the main ones but there's also more unusual ones.

If you are in a location where there's already the established fibre network, it is far easier

to tap into that existing network.

If you choose a site somewhere in the complete middle of nowhere, completely off the fibre

backbone, you have to manually find a way to dig up the roads and bring that fibre there,

which generally isn't a particularly feasible thing to do.

So from a site selection perspective, you're always looking to tap into existing networks

as far as possible.

Thank you.

And I think probably the last thing before we finish, we've looked at those key specific

locational requirements.

The extent, please, to which those all exist in the circumstances of this case and the

sites chosen.

Sure.

So I think as data centres have become so much more prevalent and people are

having more of an understanding of it, the volume of calls that we will get

from people being like, I've got it, I've got a data centre site, it's fantastic

and you look at it on the fibre map and it's got nothing. This, when I looked at

it, is 360 surrounded by all of the fibre carriers that I would look at. Like

that's a highly, highly rare thing to tap into.

And then in addition, we're talking about it

being opposite the internet exchange.

So from a latency and connectivity perspective,

those two sort of key initial drivers for site selection,

it has both and couldn't have both any stronger.

Can we look at your page 32, please?

And there are two images there under a paragraph 1620.

Do you see that?

You just want to explain that to the inspector, please.

I don't know whether you've done another data centre,

but no.

It's coming from across.

Yeah.

OK, so that is X indicates block A. As you can see,

it's surrounded by fibre on all sides.

This is a map of just the sort of leading main fibre providers from both the metro,

i .e. fibre around London, the likes of which you've got Zayo in green and also from a long

haul perspective.

So the orange cables and the pink cables, they go on to Europe.

So you have a site there that is completely surrounded by fibre, which is great because

what it means is when you have a data centre you can't just open up one part

of it and have the fibre all come in there that's not sufficiently diverse

you need to open up on one point and then another point on the other side and

then ideally a third and the fourth point so by being completely surrounded

by it essentially as you're developing that data centre you already have the

coming in in all directions.

Now, just bear with me.

If you do tall towers in the city,

one of the things that you say is,

and it's there in government guidance,

that it enables clustering in the sense that

contact between people, they have lunch,

they do all those other things,

concept of clustering is,

if you're looking at cables,

do they cluster in the same way?

They do, yeah. So this map isn't, isn't zoomed out, but what you would see if it was zoomed

out and, and sort of a wider view of the UK is it doesn't look like that everywhere. You

start to spread out and there may be one cable like that will follow the M1 and another one

that follows the M6, but this sort of clustering where you see them all in one place only happens

and sort of key locations. And then there was a lot of talk at the public session yesterday

about the likes of having a community cafe and community in general. And this is almost

like a community cafe for data centre fibre here that we have under the ground going on

in this micro location. Like this is the absolute like hub of all of this activity.

If you had to identify the bullet point key things that a data centre requirement in terms

of locational requirements for the purposes of paragraph 87 is required, how many would

this site tick, if you like, and what are they?

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, all of my key criteria, which is proximity to existing data

centres, proximity to the internet exchange, proximity to existing fibre routes, proximity

to end users, that's a bigger factor than people think. Ultimately, especially for retail

co -location facilities where the engineers will be going to cheque the racks on a relatively

regular basis. Being close to those end users is important, it ticks off all of them.

Thank you very much. Now, when this application was decided, it was decided on the advice

of officers and officers indicated there ought to be a balance between

timescape harm and public benefits and they had entered the public benefits of

a proposal for this data centre as being limited to a number of jobs and as

overall being limited or minimal depending on which of the documents you look at.

So far, just sitting here, and advising the Inspector on the public benefit to be derived

in your world, it's not you're not a planner or anything, but in your world, do you recognise

the identification or characterisation of the public benefit as limited or minimal from

a proper development of this proposal in line with the Arup design?

No I don't think it's minimal. I think data centres bring good public benefits. I think

yes they are not the largest employer but they do employ more people than I think would

be known especially as their criticality is increasing and this type of facility

as I say requires more hands to be to be involved than the likes of sort of ones

that are leased to a single customer that kind of run themselves like this

one does require hands -on work those jobs that it does provide are highly

skilled. Theta Centre operators are generally large international

organisations who are now very aware of their sort of corporate and social

responsibilities and that they're becoming much more known in the public

eye and they are bringing programmes out that will train engineers up and that

will do certain things to actually get people into the data centre sector. There

is a shortage of, there is a shortage of employees in that sector so they're

looking to upscale and highly scale up engineers to do that.

Thank you.

I think that's it for the minute, sir.

Thank you very much.

Just in time.

Well done.

And thank you for, I hope it didn't feel too rushed.

But if you want to come back tomorrow morning, then.

Well, I haven't got to my third point yet.

So I think I'll have to.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But I stopped at the sec.

I didn't think it were starting the third with...

Well, I mean, all we need to cover then,

is everyone happy with an early start tomorrow then?

Is everyone happy with nine o 'clock?

Is that okay?

Yes, okay.

Okay, I know I'm always reluctant at nine o 'clock as well.

You get into the habit, don't you?

But yeah, let's start at nine o 'clock tomorrow morning.

Just so that I've got a mental map

As we've heard, we've put it, that's another phrase, like colo, that I've learned.

Where are we going after this particular witness tomorrow?

So yes, I wanted to raise that, and thank you for doing so.

I believe the next witness will be Mr. Kiley, followed by the Rule 6 witnesses,

and then followed by Mr. Marginson.

Yeah.

So that leaves us with, and I hope

Ms. McKinley will forgive this turn of phrase,

six and a half witnesses based on the fact

that we're almost through chief on one of those witnesses.

Yeah.

Because there are, like all parties in this inquiry,

various moving parts, it would greatly

assist if we could know now that we won't get

on to cross -examination of Mr. Marginson until Tuesday

when we will be back in any event because there are,

I think, a limited number of members of the public

that wish to address you on that morning.

If we are making good progress, obviously there

would be no issue with Mr. Marginson giving

his evidence in chief, if that's what the appellant would

prefer to do.

But knowing now, and I have had a quick word

about both with my learner friend, Mr. Harris and Miss

Curtis about this, that will be the position,

would be enormously helpful.

Mr. Harris?

Well, I think it is very likely to be the position.

But if we could do more than Mr. Marks and the chief,

then we should.

I'm just reading.

So I'm giving the learner friend the comfort

that I think it is unlikely.

But I don't think we should put a room on it.

I mean I do have a couple of other observations about programme that I might as well share with

you now.

If we get to the point on Friday where we complete examination in chief at say, you

know, 4 o 'clock or whatever, then I'd be, I'd say right, let's draw stumps.

but if we're at two o 'clock or something like that,

then maybe we might give it some thought.

Well, sir, if I still got the mic,

I have done my best to estimate timings.

And I've spoken to my learned friend, Miss Curtis,

about the same.

It would obviously be preferable not to have a witness held

over the weekend that has started cross.

And as I say, if it is the likely outcome that we would get no further than Chief, what

I am asking you for now, if it were possible, was an indication that that be the plan, given

that we have an entire week next week and plenty of time within it to complete matters.

And in those circumstances, well, I'll let Ms. Curtis to speak for her and her clients directly.

It would make things much easier to know that now rather than, as my learned friend suggests,

waiting and seeing how we get on at that point.

There is a fair amount of evidence to get through before we hit Friday afternoon.

I mean, I'm of the same view really as the Council, although I haven't looked back at

the – I've not got the indicative time to go in front of me, so I can't recall

off the top of my head how much time was originally planned for the Rule 6 witnesses, and I've

also not spoken to my learning friend about his estimated timings for cross -examining

I'm a bit in the dark as to how likely it is that we get through everything by Friday

afternoon, but similarly it would be very helpful from our perspective to have a bit

of a definitive plan.

Let's think about next week. If on Tuesday we're going to hear from some third parties

first thing would we be able to finish the evidence on Tuesday that's what I

would yes I believe so because as I understand that there are a limited

number of remaining members of the public and we would then have cross

examination and any re -examination that arises for mr. margins and nothing else

on Tuesday there would also be the advantage which I've not yet had of it

it'll be me that's questioning Mr. Marginson on this occasion,

of liaising with my learned friend, Ms. Curtis,

to make sure that there are no areas that we're both seeking to cover,

which may actually, you know, reduce the amount of time spent in questioning.

I think from my point of view, looking at the way the programme worked,

we've got a discussion on conditions and obligations.

I've not looked at any of those in any great detail yet, but I think that the draught programme had a whole day

For that it did

I don't think that's going to be necessary

I'm in my experience of dealing with these things and I'm wondering whether we could do

whether we could do the conditions and the

Site visit on the same day

I've spent a lot of time in the vicinity this side. We've had the benefit of a preliminary visit

I do want to go again in your company, but I'm not really sure I need a whole day to

do that either.

So I'll put that thought in the chat box.

Do we need to deal with them on Friday or could we actually deal with them on Thursday?

Our preference would be to deal with them on Friday to give time to produce written

closings, which I assume you'd want in writing.

But it's, and for what it's worth, we share your view that an entire day for conditions

and obligations is more than is needed, which means on any view next week's timetabling

is generous.

And I don't think there's any risk of us running out of time.

And that is, that informs the request that we make that we have an indication now that

And even if we are making good progress,

we hold over questioning for Mr. Marginson until Tuesday.

So that may be convenient.

And it may be the right thing to do.

And as I've said, I think it's the likely thing to do

in any event.

But if it's just a matter of convenience for Malone, Friend,

and the like, and I can see how it might be,

I think you're all also entitled to know, as I think Pins do and my learned friends

do, that I'm not available next week.

I'm at another inquiry.

Hence my concern that if it can be fairly done, it should be done.

But I'm not insisting on it because I've got a very good and learned junior, and that's

always been the case.

We've begun the case knowing that.

Pins have known that.

My learned friends have known that.

But it is an extra factor if it is just my learned friends' convenience.

So I can answer that.

it's not just my convenience, it's the convenience of others as well. As you'll

be aware, the planning witnesses acts as often colloquially termed sweeper. There

are often points to be picked up by the time planning evidence is given and it

would be of enormous assistance to be able to discuss matters within the

team and I think actually of assistance not just as I say to to the council but

to you ultimately so that the right points are before you.

I regret that Mr. Harris is unavailable next week,

but as he says, there is an excellent team

on the other side of the room,

and it would only be reexamination that was needed

if any reexamination was needed at that point.

I'm sorry, Mr Harris, I didn't know you weren't available next week.

Well, what was made clear was there were representations about the other inquiry and this inquiry moving

in order to facilitate it, and quite rightly they said Council's Convenience doesn't come

into it and that's it.

Right, is that what Pinn said?

Yes.

Because they didn't share that with me.

Well, I'm sorry, sir.

Well, I've been proceeding on the basis that Pinn's knew about it, but I told my learned

friend, I think, before the first date.

You may have detected a light motif at this inquiry in relation to the tempo at which

things are moving.

We on this side of the room are anxious that you should have the best available evidence.

I'm sure all of us share this view and that we shouldn't rush matters when we have three

weeks allocated for the inquiry.

As I said on the first day, it's a very important inquiry for all those concerned.

and regrettable as it is that Mr. Harris is unavailable next week,

if I may say so, it's not a reason to accelerate matters.

And we would enormously appreciate an indication now

of how you see the remaining days of the inquiry playing out.

My kind of feeling about the way things are going is that we would be fortunate indeed

to be in a position where we might start cross -examination on Friday.

We still got quite a lot to get through before we get to the margins.

And may we proceed on that basis?

I think that's, I think, I'm thinking on my feet, but in many ways I think that's

that's where we're going to be realistically. Thank you so much, that's helpful.

Well yeah, but my only slight concern is if we get to the

position by, I don't know, we might make spectacularly good progress tomorrow,

Friday morning and find ourselves in a position where you know we're writing

off the afternoon. But then I don't want to invite you to sort of slow things

down in order to... well yeah I mean inquiries are inquiries aren't they?

And in some of them sir there is a timetable and one knows who's appearing

when and one can count on that and I think on this occasion we are

requesting that in order that not just myself but others too can can arrange

their that their days and nights yeah sorry I don't want to prolong it if we

can all work with the best endeavours possible to get mr. Marsden into the

with the sparks and complete by Friday then

fair enough.

I'm just trying to be reasonable because I, you know,

I've got a very good junior.

He's been brought on especially for that purpose.

And I don't want to give him too much work,

but I don't want to make a big fuss of this either.

Well, let's, let's, yeah.

So are you able to give an indication?

difficult, but I think I've...

Being realistic, I think, yes. I mean, that's where we're going to be, isn't it?

I mean...

Mr. Kiley's not here, but

amongst other things, he...

he would be involved in discussions in advance of questioning of Mr. Marginson,

and he needs to know when to make himself available,

which is part of the reason for raising and pursuing the point now.

So then I'm clear, what we're talking about is the aim being that we deal with Mr.

Marginson in chief on Friday and then...

If the appellant wishes to, that seems to be a good...

It's what we did after all at the end of last week.

Yeah, we did, yeah.

And then so that all parties know what's coming,

the cross -examination of Mr. Marginson

immediately following those members of the public

that wish to address you on Tuesday morning.

It may be helpful just if it adds

to my learned friend's points made.

You may have noticed that my planning witness

hasn't been able to attend here for the entire inquiry

due to just constraints on my client's part

and so I probably will have more to discuss after she completes, before she gives her

residence and after she completes it, which it will be helpful to do before cross -examining

Mr. Mardenson. And obviously, due to her availability to actually participate in this inquiry, those

discussions are going to have to be held over the next few days. And so it would be helpful

to have that time to speak with her rather than sort of plough straight into things.

but obviously, as Mr Harris has said,

if that's the way things are going,

then that will be how it is.

Sure, I've got an awful lot of alternative.

Yeah, let's say Mr. Madsen in chief Friday,

and then we'll call it quits until next week.

I'd be interested, Mr. Harris,

where you're off to next week.

Is that the Peckham inquiry?

Peckham Library, yeah, that rings a bell.

Okay.

See how we get on, but that's where I expect to be on Friday, and then as soon as we've dealt with Mr.

Margerson in chief, we'll call it quits and come back Tuesday.

Okay, I'm going to adjourn for the evening.

You'll know that you can't talk about the case

with your team, but I'm sure you know that.

And I'll see you all in the morning.

What time should we start in the morning?

Did we?

We already said nine o 'clock.

Oh God, yeah, you can tell it's been a long week.

Good grief.

Okay, nine o 'clock tomorrow then.

See you there, if I remember.

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 PM - Wednesday 22 October 2025, 2:00pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry PMWednesday, 22nd October 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Truman's Public Inquiry PM
Wednesday, 22nd October 2025 at 2:00pm