Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Thursday 23 October 2025, 9:30am

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Thursday, 23rd October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

We're going to just do a short recap of the position we'd reached yesterday.

We were going a bit of a counter, but no complaints.

So first question, having regard to your evidence and that which we heard yesterday, is there

a pressing need for data sensor capacity general in this part of London?

Generally in this part of London? Yes. Do you understand there to be any doubt or

concern or issue with that between any of the parties of the inquiry? No. Second, is

there a pressing need specifically for what we now are all calling colo data

centres. No, there is a need for quality centres. Thank you. There is a pressing need for...

Just with that in mind and with both of those things in our memory, can we go to your proof

at 7 .10, please? I'm not going to ask you to read it, but at 7 .10, 7 .11, and again at

723, we'll come to that one.

You deal with high density computer new end users.

The inquiry might not be familiar with those.

Do you just want to explain what they are and how they feed into the pressing need that

you've identified?

Sure.

So this is very new.

In the last sort of 12 months, this is something that we've all become much more aware about.

AI as a general concept has been discussed for a number of years and is very much upon

us, this sort of era of AI, but what that looks like is continuing to unfold.

So 710 and 711 in particular reference something called GPU as a service.

What that exactly looks like, I don't really need to get into, but essentially it's when

company's lease space from someone who's able to provide an AI higher density

type compute. So rather than this being something that's in remote far away

large data centres for example in the Nordics which I think is a concept of

this is what we think about when we think about AI data centres, this has to

be in proximity to end users and has to be in London and there have been a

of sort of large deployments over the last 12 months from some of these new

GPUs as a server type service type entities and the likes of which are core

weave and the city and docklands as a location where they have chosen to

deploy a significant amount of their London capacity which in turn is

essentially their European capacity so what that looks like in terms of this is

that while we have the traditional financial customers, while we have business services,

while we have all of these colo customers that generally deploy in the city and docklands,

we're also seeing a route to new market entrants coming through and also looking to absorb

space in this location.

Q, and does that reduce or enhance or increase the need?

It dramatically increases the need. So across London and specifically in this location,

by the end of the decade we could easily see our anticipations for demand

doubling as a result of AI and GPU. Thank you. And in terms of co -location can we

look, we didn't actually look at these yesterday, but can we look at 811 and 812

where you explain among other things the dense urban environment and stringent

planning constraints means that construction of large hyperscale data

centres is highly limited and therefore the benefits of and the ability of

retail colocation to take up the slack? Yes this has never been a hyperscale or

wholesale cloud market. The city in Docklands that's there there are

starting to be developments of that sort and the wider East London piece that can

benefit from the connectivity of the city in Docklands but historically it's

been more of a West and North London thing that has been where the cloud has

historically deployed because fundamentally there isn't the land there

hasn't been the land here to be able to build 50 100 megawatt type deployments

and it also it just doesn't fit you couldn't put that amount of capacity on

any sort of sites in this micro location and what that does mean however is the

cloud do still need to have pockets of capacity in and around where the

financials are and where the connectivity is. So while all of the data

centres within Tower Hamlets are focusing on retail co -location and the

likes of HSBC and Lloyds Bank and Deutsche Bank and all those people

listed, they will also have to take on on -ramps and pockets of capacity for the

cloud as well. Look at 812 where you explain that and you say consequently

retail co -location providers in the city and Docklands are operating at full

capacity reflecting the intense demand from the concentration of financial

services in the area. Is that is that the same thing that you were just saying?

Indeed yes so these data centres they will have hundreds of co -location

customers within them because all of these businesses will need some form of

compute like people aren't really running their own data centres anymore

there was an era where all of the banks and financial services had their own

smaller enterprise data centres while some of that still exists on the whole

we've moved away from that and they will instead deploy more sizable chunks

within the retail co -location facilities. So hence why they're at full capacity, safe return.

Thank you. Next question. Is that need that you've just identified and the reasons why it's getting

bigger the whole time, is it a need for just one more facility or for a substantial number of

facilities? Substantial. Right. In your rebuttal proof at 2 .13 you don't need to look it up,

you say there's a demonstrable requirement for multiple sites to come

forward urgently. Just explain that to the Inspector please. There is no

roadmap to a sizable amount of additional capacity coming online within

the city and Auckland's catering to retail co -location. So we know because

there's a long lead time on data centres in terms of getting the power, getting

the transformers, getting the generators, getting it up and built. So it's not a case

of tomorrow there's going to be a whole new wave of supply that comes online

that no one's heard about. We know what is predicted and what is coming forward

and that roadmap isn't showing a huge amount of capacity and isn't showing

sufficient for where we think demand is going to be. So therefore it's not a case

of one circa five megawatt facility is going to solve the problems for the

of the decade and into the next one, there needs to be more capacity on top of that.

Thank you. And again, we didn't go to the figures yesterday, but let's do a little bit

of that now. At 11 .10, you explain current known requirements for London market are listed

below. These are near term requirements in need of servicing by readily available capacity

or IT with a go live date in the near term consistent with what you've just said.

Two questions about that. These are the current known requirements. Are they

standing still? No, not at all. Which way are they going then? Upwards for sure and what this

also doesn't take into account is retail colo requirements because they cannot be

quantified in the same way. We can get a sense of how much the cloud is looking

to deploy. We can get a sense of, you know, if it's large -scale social media

requirements or cloud as mentioned because they will be actively put out

into the market in terms of this is how many hundreds of megawatts we'll be

looking for over the next few years and you can kind of work that out. When we're

talking about retail enterprise, this is all of these individual businesses

making strategic choices about how much IT compute they need for the next five

ten years and there's millions and millions of businesses in the UK all of

whom will have not requirements of this size but could be 20 kilowatts could be

200 kilowatts could be two megawatts so you can take the known requirements and

add essentially a huge amount more on top of that to cater to that subset in

the market thank you just looking at the known requirements that we've got at

this present time for near term requirements is 825 megawatts.

Are these facilities facilities that also need power, low latency and cable connexion?

Cable I've got what the exact term is, but sufficient clustering of cables.

It will and it'll somewhat for some of them they will be less connectivity and latency

driven than retail colocation would be. As I say the cloud tends to deploy the

bulk of their capacity and larger facilities but the argument that like

fibre can go completely out the window doesn't stand like they still need to

have some proximity to the wider London network. Thank you but for colocation

there's a difference in that ultra low latency is important. There is yeah. Okay

And at 11 .11 and 11 .12, you identified the consequences of failing to meet those identified

requirements.

Just summarise that for us, please.

So if we cannot provide the critical IT capacity needed both for the cloud, for the new cloud,

for GPU and for financial services, then ultimately, like business in this country cannot continue

in the same way and they will need to look at deploying their compute in other locations.

How would you characterise that scale of need please? Need is great. Thank you.

Can we look please at CDH06.

This is a fairly recent inspectorate decision.

I'm not going to go to it in relation to the facts.

I just want to have a look at the approach.

Can we go right to planning, balance and overall conclusion, please, page 17.

Now this was a case that you were involved in, I think, in that Knight -Frank produced

Day report which was put before the inquiry.

What page was it, sorry?

It's page 17.

Is that right?

And I think you co -authored the need report.

We did, yeah.

And I wrote the report, yeah.

Good.

Thank you very much.

Now, this was a case where Tower Hamlets came to the inquiry saying only moderate weight

should be given to the meeting of the data location need.

you remember that? I do. But on the first day of the inquiry they indicated that

having regard to your evidence that they would say substantial weight that's all

recorded in CDH8 I think we need to go there as a matter of fact and let's see

what the inspector did with that he found that the development wouldn't harm

I suspect you can look at that in terms of data centre.

104, it would also provide much needed affordable housing

and purpose -built student accommodation

in the context of a housing crisis in London.

It would also provide data centre facilities

which would benefit nearby world financial and business

centres.

Given the importance of this to the UK economy, he found,

this would be a benefit that would

disperse from the local economy to the wider national one.

Now, in the circumstances of that case,

do you agree with that judgement?

He goes on to say, both of these benefits

are afforded very substantial weight in favour of the proposal.

So I'll put the question again.

In the light of the evidence in that case,

do you agree with the weighting that the inspector gave there

because of the benefit to the financial and business centres

and the UK economy? I do. Right. Is there any reason in the circumstances of this case,

it's a colo, why that should be any different in terms of its contribution to the meeting of

the need that you identified? No. Right. Since Inspector Parker's decision, which wasn't so

long ago but some time ago, that's 2023, can you help the Inspector please with

a the the supply demand position in terms of appropriate space for data

centres and co -location centres and B government policy yes so from a supply

and demand perspective we are not we're not further forward in terms of how much

life supply we now have the scheme the mulberry scheme hasn't been realised

yet. So we're no further forward from a supply. Demand has continued to increase

both in terms of steady increases from financial services which has now grown

as a result of a number of institutions looking to take on larger deployments

than previously. So as I say rather than it being 20 racks it could now be 50

etc. And then as mentioned in the discussion we've got the likes of Core

even these GPUs or service type players who have deployed within the data centres

and the London Borough Tower Hamlets in a very close location to the Mulberry

scheme in particular and so that has pretty much absorbed any remaining

capacity that was available in this location. Thank you very much. All right

that's the end of that. Next heading is is there any reason to limit the

substantial benefit because of the allegation of alternative sites?

No.

Let's just pick this up.

If you're right that there's a demonstrable need for multiple further sites, even if there

could be identified an alternative site, would that reduce the need at this site to make

the best of that situation?

It wouldn't reduce the need, no.

there's a need for this site there are need for further capacity as well but it

doesn't do anything to change the fact that this site is required thank you can

you pick up mr. Keeley's proof please

Can we go to paragraph 642?

Tell me when you're there, please.

Do you have it, sir?

He's coming.

Here.

It's on page 55, so.

So what Mr. Keeley says, I can ask him about his expertise in due course, but what he says

is there's no demonstrable locational imperative for the centre to be located on Grey Eagle

Street site as there are other sites in the local area where such a use could be successfully

located and not result in the same landscape and historic harm.

Well, just picking up that last, the last part that we dealt with first, even if there

were such a case, would it mean that there was no need at this location now in the way

that you've outlined?

There would still be a need.

Thank you.

But does he actually identify any other site in the local area at all?

Not specifically, no.

Thank you.

We know from your proof at section 13 .1 that Knight -Frank, that's you, with your knowledge

and experience, have conducted a comprehensive desktop review of existing and potential sites

that might meet the specified requirements for a colocation.

The analysis confirms that the proposed development site is uniquely positioned within the City

of London, it's the only location within this micro market that can leverage the exceptional

connectivity infrastructure, particularly access to the digital reality interaction.

How do you say that?

Interaction.

Oh, interaction.

Wow.

Internet exchange point within the Truman Brewery estate for a retail colocation facility.

Mr. Keeley doesn't identify a site.

You've done this search.

I just want to explain that to the inspector, please.

Sure, so there's a number of things that you need to be looking for as part of

the data centre site selection process, partly because these are critical

national infrastructure but even predating that, there are certain

attributes that data centre operators just will not deal with, will not handle.

There's flood risks, there's flight path risks, there's coma risks. You just want

to explain what coma is? Sure, essentially proximity to a hazardous or explosive

site. If you ask me to say exactly what COMA stands for, then that's a different question,

but essentially like dangerous proximity to dangerous materials.

So there's a number of those attributes. There also needs to ideally be vacant possession

on the site or a very near term route to vacant possession. Data centre operators don't want

any asset management play. The whole sort of purpose of bringing data centre capacity

to this location, or London generally, is speed to market. Ultimately, everyone is chasing

a power on date as soon as possible. So you want a site to be as simple, essentially,

as possible to energise it. So when we look around the entire borough, it's not a case

of you can just pick a site and go with it, there's a number of things to consider. And

as I say, it's a big commitment looking to do a data centre development. They're not

surprise things that are just suddenly announced and come out of the ground. We have a very

good view of where data centres will be developed over the next three to five

plus years.

Good, thank you very much and what Mr Keeney goes on to say is that in line

with encouragement given in the NPPF to identify suitable sites for uses such as

data centres as part of the need to facilitate development that meets the needs of modern

economy. The emerging local plan directs data centres to local industrial locations and

local mixed use employment locations. Figure 16 on page 232 shows locations of these designations.

Now if we go to figure 16 on page 232, so we need to go to the emerging local plan.

which is CDF6.

And it's page 232,

both in terms of actual page and

the internet page.

What we get there is just an identification of the employment hubs and locations in the

borough. Yes?

Indeed.

Yeah. And their selection arises from, as we see if we look further down the document,

an evidence base which was the Tower Hamlets Employment Land

Review in 2023.

And we've got that document as well, which is CDFO4,

which is an employment land review, March 2023, prepared by Ramadus Consulting, the

CGS Consulting. I think you've looked at this document.

Yes. Is there anything in there dealing with the

locational requirements for data centres as they are now known or understood or at all?

Is there anything about data centres in there? No. All right. What weight

would you ask the Inspector to place upon Mr. Keeley's suggestion that data

centres have been catered for by these industrial identification of general

locations in the plan by reference to a database that didn't consider data

centres at all? Therefore limited, non -existent. It's a case of they

haven't thought about data centres as part of the preparation of that so how

can it be fairly considered? Yeah well we look at policy e .g. six with another

witness but just as a matter of record I think you know and understand that there

are objections to that policy not least from data centre operators.

From a data centre point of view does that surprise you or given what you've

us about data centre requirements merely directing them to places which the review

has for other purposes thought appropriate is that is that consistent

or inconsistent with what the NPPF says about taking specific locational

requirements into account for data centres? No it's not consistent and I am

not surprised at all that data centre operators have made their view on that

known and as I say they are highly location driven and the existing data

centre operators within this borough who are the world's most critical retail

colocation data centre operators need to select their sites based on latency and

based on network and based on where their established data centres are so it

doesn't at all surprise me that they have views on that.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Just while we've got it in mind then,

can we go back to CDF06?

And to figure 16.

As we've just outlined,

These are just general local industrial locations or local mixed -use employment locations.

They've been identified without reference to any data centre requirements.

How does this exercise here of Mr. Keeley pointing to this map for those purposes compare

with your comprehensive desktop review of existing and potential sites in 13 .1 of your

proof?

So the local mixed use employment location to the southeast, the orange coloured blob there, those are data centres.

That is where Mulberry is, that is where Telly House is, that is where Global Switch is.

So it's quite, you can't put data centres where there are data centres. That is an established data centre location.

The other sites working through them, some of them have flood risks, some of them have coma risks.

The ones to the north and the ones to the south, particularly the ones towards sort of

Wapping Way, are not strong from a fibre perspective at all. The ones up towards Victoria Park as well.

There's a need for more DCs here but these sites in particular do not fit with what I would

be looking for as part of a DC site selection strategy. Thank you and even if

there were such sites there would they reduce the need in any material way

given the nature of the supply and demand issue that we looked at earlier?

No. All right thank you. Last heading then please relates to the nature of the

building itself. At Mr Keeley's 6 .44, let's deal with size and scale first.

What Mr Keeley says is the appeal site is clearly capable of being reduced in size to meet the

Council design, townscape and heritage impact objectives.

In your evidence, you identify that the

volume of the proposal is

at its minimum viable.

Do you just want to explain the difference between you and Mr.

Keeley in that regard?

Sure. And so with no disrespect to Mr.

Keeley, I didn't really understand this one in terms of

The site at 5 ,200 square metres is smaller than the Digital Realty, Lund 1 facility.

The word campus has also been used to describe the addition of Lund 2 and Lund 3, which makes

sense like they are a campus, they have clustered together, the digital realty infrastructure

is shared across those facilities, like they're not, they can't fully be considered free -standing

data centres.

So that's one part of it.

The second part of it is in general, like data centres are hosting more IT now and if

you're hosting more IT the expectation would you would also be getting larger.

So I think the site and the architects have done have done a great job of

balancing the available land with maximising as much IT as you can get in

this location to make it something that does fit the market and that can provide

a meaningful amount of colocation capacity. Why is this size and scale at

the lower end of the deliverability threshold as you explain in your proof?

So say an average business nowadays requires half a megawatt which is 500

of that. Ten years ago they could have required a tenth of that if even that. IT uses are

going up so therefore that needs to be done and data centres need to be able to cater

to that. The other thing with data centres is they rentalize it on a per kilowatt basis.

So at say 200 pounds per kilowatt they will lease out that facility. Now a lot

of the work and the investment will be the same regardless of this is a one

megawatt or a five megawatt data centre. They're still going to have to do the

work to bring the fibre in, the shell and core costs will also still need to be

there. It's not going to be a hugely different quantum of generators for

example to match a data centre of that size. So in order to make it financially

viable they need to be able to rentalize as many kilowatts as possible in that

building to make the economics of building a data centre which is an

expensive thing to build and operate work. Thank you very much. The other point

made I'm not sure whether this is still maintained given the questions that were

of others at this case but the other point that Mr. Keeley makes is that

there ought to be room or potential for significant active other ground floor

uses. One please your view on that especially post CNI as to whether Mr.

Keeley is right or wrong on that. Truly, completely and absolutely no mixed use

and data centres nowadays. No operator will take on the operational risk of

that occurring both from a security perspective in terms of people being

being able to access the building and from a fire perspective and from the

perspective of being able to maximise the area as discussed so that they can

rentalize it on a per kilowatt basis. It's not a case of there's an

in the UK. There's really sort of 20 that are very active and of those 20 they are

not going to take on the operational risk of having a cafe, a whatever on the

ground floor, any form of mixed use for DC. Thank you. That may be said, well just

look around there are data centres and they do have mixed use. What's your

answer to that? They are older data centres that were forced into expansion

within the existing shell that they were in. A key thing to understand with data

centres is once they are in and established, particularly retail

colocation ones, due to the fibre, due to the number of customers in them, it's

very very difficult for them to move. So the London One data centre across the

road has been established since the early 2000s, you can't decide to move all of

those customers, there could be 300 customers in there, into a new

freestanding non -mixed -use building and so they have to work with where they

have been established but easily over the last ten years and especially over

the last five and then even more since data centres classification is critical

national infrastructure we are not seeing mixed -use buildings is

freestanding independent data centres that can run and operate themselves.

You last point, just as a design, the building in terms of its function, how

would you characterise the success or otherwise of it in data centre terms as

a design? It takes off all of the qualities that I would look for and a

data centre design and a data centre test but it has adequate redundancy, the

generators are on the ground floor which is preferable. The basement has been maximised

from a locational perspective it's got two points of entry that's critical taking the

loading bay into account. It's used the relevant required floor to ceiling heights that will

allow modern racks to be able to be fitted. It's taken into account everything from a

design perspective I would want to see.

Thank you very much. Those are the questions I ask in chief, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Harris. Thank you. Mr. Wold, or is it – yes, it's me, the illness occasionally.

Okay.

Yeah. So I should say, I was – I've had given to me this morning, and I should probably

mention this, a plan that simplifies the ones that Mr. Harris took us to. It may be that

we can muddle through with the ones that we've looked at.

But I suspect this might speed things along.

So I don't know if I could share that.

If there are any points that arise from it,

of course Mr. Harris can deal with them and re -exam.

Well, it's not the way it works,

but I don't want to kick up a fuss.

It's not necessary. It's no more than is

in the documents we have, but in simplified form.

It's that plan on the,

in the local plan that we were taking to it.

I think it's page 232 of 563.

But it's quite a busy plan.

And this is simply a version of it

that combines the extant local plan with the emerging plan

and the sites that Mr. Harris asked Mr. McGinley to refer to.

I should have drawn it to the attention of everyone

this morning.

It was given to me recently.

Should we see where we get to?

If there's going to be new stuff coming in, and it sounds to me as if it's quite a bit

more than what's in the emerging plan, then I've lost the opportunity to discuss that

with the witness.

But if my little friend is assuring me that it's nothing more than that, I note that Mr

Keeley doesn't refer to anything other than this plan and doesn't attend to individual

sites at all.

So all I've done is extracted from the proposal map those allocations so that they stand alone.

So it's not new information, it's just a simplification of that match to take out the business.

Do you want to put them in and have a few minutes to look at it?

Sure, but I can't speak to my witness about it, so that's another point.

I would take no exception to Mr. Harris.

If he felt the need, speaking to his witness,

about this and only this.

Well, let's have a look, shall we?

Let's put them in then and then we'll have.

And is there anything else other than this?

Thank you.

Let's take them in and then we'll have a short break.

The line's to be helpful.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

No, no, no.

I know.

You're a bit easier, sir.

Thanks very much.

Can you show, um, Celeste's got one?

Yeah.

Would you like a little time, Mr. Harris, to have a look at this?

Um, well, I don't think so.

I mean, I can see what's being done, I think.

Um...

Oh, sorry.

So I will ask Mr. Kiley to comment on this as well.

So there'll be an opportunity to.

Well, that's rather the point that I'm making.

We've got Mr. Kiley's evidence insofar as it relates to alternatives

and no alternative site has been identified, rather the reference

across to the Tower Hamlets generalised plan.

If there is going to be further evidence from Mr. Keeley in relation to individual sites,

which I don't know, it looks as if there might be,

then that's not the sort of evidence

that should come after this witness.

So it's not further evidence,

as Mr. Kiley has just made very clear,

and I too have made it clear,

this is existing evidence in simplified form

to make your life, and I would hope the life of others,

a little easier.

Right.

So I'm very happy if that's all there is,

but I'm just looking at it,

and the key and various other things which

aren't before the inquiry, suggests

that there may be detailed exposition about those sites.

Now at the minute, what we've got very clearly

is just an allegation that there are other sites

in the local area where such use could be successfully located.

We've got a rebuttal.

There's nothing there.

So if Mr. Keeley is going to give evidence

about specific sites, then that's not really appropriate.

he's giving those after the witness that we've now got in the witness box, who's done the best that she can with the evidence that's before the inquiry.

So with that sort of,

it's not a warning, but with that marker down. So you'll hear from Mr. Kiley and his name is pronounced Kiley rather than Keely.

Sorry, sorry. In due course about

how this might assist you. It's provided for that purpose.

Should we see how we get on?

Yes. Yes.

And then if you do have an issue, then you will let me know.

Thank you.

In which case, Mr. Woolsey, shall we start?

Thank you, sir.

Good morning.

Ms. McGinley.

Good morning.

Can I start with, in broad terms, the evidence that you give,

It's data centre evidence, yes?

Yes, it's data centre.

You're not offering any evidence on heritage, townscape or planning, are you?

No, data centre.

And nor on law. I know you have a degree in law.

Yes, which is separate to any of this.

I ask the question because at 4 .9 of your main evidence,

you express this view.

It is my professional view, you say, that based on the nature

and content of the application submitted,

the council should have granted planning permission

for the appeal scheme.

Purpose of his proof of evidence to set out the planning

and market justifications

for why permission ought now to be granted.

Well, of course, that is a matter now for the inspector

to determine based on a lot of evidence that by the end

of this he will have heard.

You offer an important part of that jigsaw puzzle but you're not really in a

position to express a view more generally as to whether planning

permission ought or ought not to be granted are you? It is my professional

view from a data centre perspective that in line with the need for data centres

in this location and the attributes of this site as a data centre from a design

perspective that the elements that I look at on it and what I'm looking for

from a location perspective that there should be planning permission here just

within and I'm commenting on that within my remit and my area only. That's my

point Miss McGinley, the remit within which one must look at this in order to

determine whether or not permission should be granted is quite a bit wider

than that. One has to have regard for example to the fact that the proposal

sits within a conservation area, any other constraints that apply, a whole

range of planning policies that will come to in due course with which you do not engage

in your evidence.

No.

You appreciate that, don't you?

I do.

So it's not really for you to express the view, is it, about whether permission should

be granted or not.

You can give market evidence, you can give the evidence that you offer as to the need

for data centres generally and more specifically, but you can't offer a view as to whether permission

should be granted, can you?

I can offer a view in terms of as I've said the market justifications from a

data centre perspective as a wider point like the for going into the structure of

that sentence and I know that it's for the inspectors take a view that's why

he's hearing three weeks of evidence I understand that and it will be his

decision and but from my perspective for data centre like I'm putting across why

I think there should be a data centre.

Let's try another one.

1441, please, of your main proof.

Yes.

The council has erred in its decision -making

by failing to give appropriate weight

to both national planning policy

and recent appeal precedent.

Did your law degree involve public law?

Did you do any module in public law, administrative law?

I did, yes.

Are you saying here that there has been a public law error committed or an instance

of unlawfulness?

I'm not, no.

No.

So what view are you expressing here about erring in decision making by failing to give

appropriate weight to planning policy and precedent?

Are you giving the view of a lawyer?

I am not, no. To be very clear, no. So within the remit of your evidence, what

view are you advancing or are you recommending here to the Inspector?

I'm recommending that in line with the Mulberry decision, as we discussed in my main evidence,

and in line with national planning policy, in particular the MPPF and data centres classification

is critical national infrastructure, that is what's being referred to. From a vocabulary

perspective, if there is error on my part in terms of how that's phrased, then I'm not trying to

step beyond my remit on that front in any way, shape or form.

I do want to be clear about your remit because as I said we're going to be hearing from planners in

due course. My intention is to ask matters of planning, those responsible for planning

evidence matters of planning and not you matters of planning. Agreed. And that

includes decision letters such as the Mulberry Place decision letter. That is

a planning decision, the interpretation of which is better offered by those who

have expertise and experience in planning. Yes? Agreed. All right. Now when

were you, I don't think you say this in either your written or your oral

evidence but when were you first involved in this? July of this year. July

2025 and we know that the at the pre -app in there was a data centre pre -app did

you look at the documentation that preceded your involvement that relates

to the data centre? Yes. Yeah and only the data centre is that right? I have looked

in terms of, you know, research and understanding the full context of what is going on here

and but my focus has been the data centre.

Mr Morris was responsible for the design of the data centre, wasn't he? And he was involved,

we know, from as early as spring 2023. Have you ever been, have you been, is this your

first inquiry? Have you been involved in planning inquiries before?

This is the first inquiry that I have been a witness

Yeah

But as mentioned I have been involved in a number of inquiries before and the preparation

I see and in relation to any of those have you?

offered a view on

Suitable locations for data centres. Yes. Yeah

In this case by contrast

It's clear from the date of your involvement

you were presented with a fully worked up scheme weren't you? Yes. A data centre

in this location and your function was one of review. Yes. Yeah understood and by

that point it was it was too late I mean as you said it was it was too late to to

do much about it yeah? Yes. Yeah.

Now, let's turn to the topic of need.

I don't think there's any issue between the parties on national need.

The specific need depends on who comes along, who is it that rents the racks, isn't it?

Yes.

And you advance a view based on your professional experience that the data centre, if it went ahead,

and after it's, I think you call it the switch on date,

could be leased to multiple occupants or users

within about a year.

That's what you thought.

Judge, that's based on your knowledge of the market.

And the business model is essentially to provide racks

and then to see who comes along.

Exactly. Yeah. And to that end it is important isn't it to have as much flexibility or to

be able to offer whatever range of functionality a given user might require?

Yes. Yeah. Now this is not designed for wholesale or single customer use is it?

It's not. And that's something that you refer to there are such users but this is not what it's designed for.

It's not per se but there is the ability within the internal configuration of a data centre

and how dense you decide to make the racks to modify it to be a single user should you want to.

Okay but that's not the expectation.

That's not the expectation and it's not my expectation for this location for what they would do with it either.

Now you say at the beginning of your proof that data centres can serve as the foundational

infrastructure enabling a broad range of critical internet activities including financial trading,

online shopping, social media, music streaming and online gaming.

And perhaps the list goes on beyond that list.

It does.

And this data centre would be available to anyone that wish to use it for any of those

purposes or even those that you've not listed.

Yes.

Yeah. And whilst you...

Subject to the business model of the operator deciding what type of end users they want to have.

It's got to make money.

Indeed.

Yeah. But whilst you advance a view as to when occupancy might occur, or within what time period

occupancy might occur, you don't advance a view presumably because one would need a crystal ball

to do so about who might come along. It could be any of those or any of those not listed

in those categories.

It could be. So just for clarity, what I envisage, but I don't have a crystal ball, but based

on location, what I would most likely expect to see will be a co -location operator who

does retail co -location, the likes of which would be in the neighbouring facility, Digital

So an operator like that, who could then lease out to one gaming company, four financial

services, two law firms, one cloud provider.

It's not necessarily just one of those.

Some of them require, have different locational needs than others, don't they?

So a law firm, for example, would require, would have different latency demands or speed

demands than a financial trader.

Yes.

Yeah. And the financial trader is the most extreme case of latency and speed demand,

isn't it? Yes.

Yeah. Now we've touched on this and I don't want to do it more than very superficially,

but you will appreciate, and this is really why I asked the question how you felt able

to offer the inspector a view on where the planning permission should be granted.

You are aware, albeit it's outside your expertise, that at this site and at any site, you've

looked at other sites in other cases, there are constraints.

Those can come in the form of a conservation area, which is what we have here.

They can come in the form of areas of outstanding natural beauty, other designations, and so

on and so forth.

Yes.

Those are not matters that you have been asked to consider

or have considered, are they?

Constraints.

Those constraints.

In terms of the conservation area and so on.

I give that as an example because it's

a key feature of these appeals.

I haven't been asked to consider the conservation area.

And you do refer to critical

I've got Mr. Marginson coming.

That is not a planning policy, is it?

It's a designation. It's a designation.

It is not a designation

which has the effect of trumping other constraints should they exist. It has to

be weighed in the balance, doesn't it? Is my understanding. Yeah. Now again, I don't

want you to attempt to answer a question if you if you don't know the position,

but merely by asking the question of you I will signal to the appellant team that

This is a question coming for Mr. Martinson,

if you're unable to deal with it.

Do you know why it took the appellant

as long as eight years to clear conditions

on a previous planning permission for a data centre?

One that was granted in 2016?

I don't.

You don't know about that?

Because I know about the site, to be clear.

I don't know the historical context in terms of.

You know the site, but you don't know

about the delays associated with that site.

I'm not familiar with the backstory hugely in general

on that site.

The reason I raise it with you, Ms. McGinley,

is that much of your oral evidence

and some of your written evidence,

but more of your oral evidence,

was directed at the great urgency,

which we currently face in terms of the provision

of data centres generally and of this type. Now you would expect an applicant for a data

centre that succeeds in that application to move swiftly if possible, wouldn't you?

Indeed. I would expect them to move swiftly as has also been mentioned in my oral evidence.

data centres are difficult, complicated asset classes, the process is not an easy

one. So I'm not going to comment on that specifically because I don't know the

backstory. It's not an overnight process. That's very clear, I will save those

questions for later. Now in terms of benefits, the benefits that

you describe are not really local benefits, are they?

It depends.

I mean, it's unlikely, isn't it,

that a local restaurateur would want to use

one of these racks.

No, that, yeah, and that's not how it works either.

It's more, I suppose if one used an older analogy,

it's that they'll sell store units, aren't they?

Where the user might not be in the immediate vicinity

of the storage? Well it depends, some users will be in proximity to the storage. Even

those users wouldn't be from the immediate local community would they? So if you're using

a local example, say a local restaurant, they will buy into programmes or store their data

within a provider who will then acquire data centre space. So it's not a case of anyone

represent any one individual leasing space in a data centre. Now, if they are a local

business owner, they may be less latency dependent, which I think is what you're going for there.

But there will be other businesses, and that locale, that are more contingent on being

close to the data centre itself.

All right, but it's not the purpose. It's not the intention, is it?

It's not the purpose but we need to have, I mean the Internet Exchange is at

Henry Street, is at London, so everyone benefits from proximity to the Internet

Exchange. So there is an argument to be made as well that

on an individual level but that's not really the crux of why you want data

centres close to the Internet. Thank you and I think you say yourself at 1143 that the

the data centre or data centres generally typically require fewer full -time staff than

factories or retail hubs so it won't be a local employer of staff will it to any appreciable

degree?

I don't agree with that they do employ employ more people than is being let on and there's

no reason why that couldn't be local and so it's not going to be as many jobs as a big

whereas saying like entirety yourselves you need a way to talk to others, so it's not

really for me visual which is why I decided to write An organisations without example

if not 10 engineers on site and there's engineers on site overnight that need to

be trained to operate and manage that facility. All right, can I ask you some

questions about scale? Thank you. At 130 you describe it as having a modest scale.

Presumably there you mean by the standards of data centres? By the standards

And obviously you have an expertise in these matters.

Someone walking past it that doesn't necessarily know what it is would think it was a large

building and might describe it in the terms that Mr. Yeoman used.

I'm not sure whether you were here during Mr. Yeoman's evidence, but fortress -like.

He referred to another data centre as fortress -like.

But that would be the impression that one would gain from the building without your

perspective or expertise yes we agree that perhaps I mean I can't comment on

what people would other people would think walking past that you you've

you've cited the mulberry place decision letter and I don't want to go into the

planning aspects of that weight that the inspector they're attached to certain

matters but just by way of example this proposal is for five thousand two

square metres of floor space isn't it? And that's about 56 ,000 square feet by my

reckoning. The Mulberry Place data centre which you refer to at 113 of your

evidence is roughly 376 ,000 square feet.

Yes.

Which is about six times as large.

So what we're dealing with here is a data centre as compact as it can be.

Which means that either the designers have done a fantastic job of limiting the extent

of the building, or if the inspector takes the view that you shouldn't, that this scale

of building is inappropriate in this location, that it just shouldn't be here at all.

I mean, those are the two possible outcomes.

But your evidence to the inquiry is that it couldn't be smaller.

My evidence is that, yeah, it couldn't be smaller.

They've balanced the available area with putting together what would be a product that fits

the market.

Have you considered, have you looked at the comparative floor spaces of this one and the digital realty ones?

Yes.

Yeah, and I think Mr. Kiley deals with this himself at 6 .44.

And Mr. Kiley says here, and I need to put this to you, you've given your evidence about

it being as small as it can be.

Mr. Kiley says that it can be reduced in size, but that it is of this size in order to achieve

commercial flexibility or for commercial reasons what we were talking about

earlier. What do you say to that having regard to what has been achieved by

digital Realty data centres in the vicinity? So first of all the digital

Realty data centres are interlinked LUN 2, LUN 3 are inherently extensions to

London one. Whereas this is a standalone facility. This is a standalone. Yeah okay so no interlinkage.

There's no so there's no interlinkage so the original facility is of quite a similar size

from 5200 versus 5400. Lund 2 and Lund 3 is extensions. Now when you're extending a data

centre and turning it into a campus you can benefit from sharing infrastructure, you can

benefit from sharing communal spaces, you can share the NOC which is essentially the room where

you monitor all the equipment like you have more to play with because you

almost have to look at one one two and three from a size perspective added up

like that is the campus that is the digital Realty City campus and our site

or sorry blocky and what they have done there is designed a city centre

essentially is the term we would use in our and the sector a city centre data

centre that maximises the area required while also being able to meet the market.

So it being the kind of minimum size that it can be and it being marketable

go hand in hand.

When you say that it's a standalone facility and that there's no

into linkage.

It's obviously quite close to existing data centres.

Could there be interlinkage?

Or is that a decision that's been

taken that it will be a standalone facility?

It wouldn't be a decision for the landowner to make.

That would be a case of the only way I feasibly see that working

would be if Digital Realty chose to acquire the facility

and do the work itself to find ways of linking it.

But no, in principle, we can't go on the basis of it being anything other than a standalone

data centre.

And I think you said in chief that your site or Block A was quite small and made a proportionately

small contribution to – you said it was quite small.

It is, yeah.

It follows, does it not, by being quite small that it would make a proportionately relatively

small contribution to meeting the need for data centre capacity compared to a bigger

one.

Now you've said in chief that every little bit helps, but is that right, that compared

to a bigger data centre its contribution to meeting data centre capacity is relatively

small?

No, they need to be split out in terms of a bigger data centre and it depends how big

you would be referring to here could be catering to a different type of demand.

So we could build multiple hundred megawatt data centres across the UK and it would do

nothing to satiate the demand for retail colocation. Now in terms of the overall

levels of demand for retail colocation circa 5 megawatts is a step in the right

direction but there will be a need for further beyond that. It's also about

securing the pipeline so if we're able to lease up the 5 megawatts here in a

a 12 -month period, there will then be further capacity required before that and after that.

All right, you've mentioned demand.

I want to turn now with you to the topic of demand, please.

Demand and supply.

Can we have a look at 7 .6 of your main proof of evidence and 7 .7?

Let me know when you're there.

You're there?

I'm here.

Thank you.

While the demand for cloud service undeniably dominates a significant portion of the market,

it would be a mistake to overlook the potential of the retail and enterprise colocation market.

So that's very helpful.

That's very clear.

the demand for cloud services constitutes the majority

of need or demand, but it would be a mistake

to overlook the rest of it.

Yes.

And by the majority, is it an overwhelming majority?

What proportion is cloud service demand?

So London is a pretty much 50 -50 split cloud and retail

colo market at the moment.

It's moving towards sort of 60 % cloud,

particularly off the back of COVID,

and everyone using cloud services.

That doesn't mean that the other 40 % is any less critical.

It's just that cloud is physically larger.

And the data centres themselves, and this

is more what the comment in terms of overlook is,

the data centres are smaller.

The cloud ones are bigger.

They're more pushed out there as a result,

I think when people are starting to understand and hear about data centres, it's much bigger

ones that they're thinking of.

But actually, these smaller retail facilities are just as key.

Well, you've made that very clear at 7 .6.

You refer towards the end of that paragraph and elsewhere to the city and Docklands area.

That is the key area, isn't it, for the financial institutions?

Yes, for retail.

So data centres situated within that area could supply the financial services sector.

If they're within the city in Docklands cluster.

By cluster, you mean, maybe now is a moment to have a look at that plan that went in so

that we have a better sense of by cluster do you mean anywhere within the

perimeter of this man the city and Docklands cluster then is is what so

it's primarily around the key internet exchanges and original city and

Docklands facilities, which is one, the Taly House North Campus at East India Dock, and

two, the Lund One Interaction, now digital wheel -to -wheel facility at Hanbury Street.

Okay. Well, we've got it in front of us. This plan, and you were taken to a version of it,

or a busier version of it within the local plan, identifies sites where, well, local employment

locations and local industrial locations. And in your desktop research that you've

referred to, has that gone into the inquiry, that work?

No, I don't. I've looked at these sites or a number of these locations I know myself.

It's from my experience and expertise perspective. I don't have a single one.

You took the ones listed here, have you? I have, yeah.

And you've compared them to your fibre map. Do you remember we can go to it but

image with some of the different colours of

Fibres some of them heading off to Europe and other ones going elsewhere

You you've compared the two have you I have I've looked on the fibre map. Yeah, and you've considered

vacant possession you've you've considered those other factors that

for

I haven't looked at vacant possession for every single one of these.

If you look at, for example, area two, that's not a site, that's like an entire section.

I haven't individually gone through every single thing because I cannot.

And the work that you did, are you able to share that work with us? Do you expect the

inspector to take it into account in this inquiry? What I am giving and what my understanding of why

I'm here to offer data centre expertise based on my data centre experience, a big part of my job,

my day job on a daily basis that occurs is I will receive a call from someone with a site and say

for example it's in location number one and they will say does this work for data centre and then

I am able to tell them yes or no. So that's an exercise that one would normally conduct

if you were advising a client about where to aim or where to go to find a suitable site for a

a data centre, yes? No, the opposite of that. So the operators generally know where they want to go.

Right. It is a case of landowners who bring a site and say, does this work for data centre?

All right, we'll come back to that in a moment. Can we, before we leave this part of your proof,

look at 7 -7? Yes. You say over the past 12 months, several of Europe's leading financial

institutions have secured colocation space ranging from half a megawatt to three megawatts

in London and other key European data centre markets and financial centres. This provides

unequivocal evidence that the retail colocation market is not only alive but experiencing

a resurgence. So over that 12 -month period, there's been something of a resurgence.

There has, yes.

And can you help us in understanding what caused the drop that was followed by the resurgence

over that relatively short period of time?

So financial institutions originally would have had their own data centres, generally

sub one megawatt where they would run IT themselves.

Not all of them, some of them have always been in colocation, but many of them did that.

And that stemmed from when the internet started to be used more widely as part of financial

service programmes, they would have stored it within the office space itself.

When that became larger, they went into their own buildings.

Now it's costly, it's difficult, it requires staff to run and operate one's own data centre,

hence why the colocation model became so popular.

What then sort of happened was the birth of the cloud and more applications went on the

cloud.

So there would be a split between retail colocation and the cloud.

Now, while cloud isn't going anywhere,

it's very expensive to run all of your applications on the cloud.

So we've seen a much larger surge now in terms of those types of institutions

putting more on colo, both from a cloud cost perspective,

but also there's a control element that when something's in the cloud,

and it's a bit more removed when you know that your racks are in this digital wheelchair

building or that telehouse building, you can go to those racks and you can see them and

therefore rather than it being a case of perhaps they would have deployed two racks or five

racks, they'll now deploy 50 racks or 100 racks.

So Miss McKinley, you've observed over a period of 12 months fluctuations in the market.

Yes.

Of the type that you've described.

Yes, of that type, yeah.

Yeah, I mean it is a market that is constantly changing,

isn't it?

It is constantly changing, yes.

And it is difficult within this market

to know what state it will be in in 12 months, or 24 months,

or 36 months time.

That's fair, isn't it?

Just the way that your 12 month inspection of what went on

revealed fluctuation, there may also

be fluctuation in the years, the months and years to come? In terms of the

broader piece, no. Demand is expected to increase and just because

financial institutions were split between cloud and retail didn't mean

that there wasn't other demand for retail and just because they're doing

more retail now doesn't mean that other people don't have more demand on cloud.

When you take the whole data centre piece, we know what direction it's

going in terms of the individual choices of, say, Deutsche Bank.

I don't have a crystal ball on exactly what

that's going to look like, no.

I mean, it's notable within your evidence.

We've looked at that reference to a 12 -month period.

But at your 9 .9, for example, this McGinley,

you take a period here in the last 12 to 24 months.

in which you observe market conditions, yes?

Yes.

Now you've explained once a data centre is put in place,

it's very difficult to move it.

Yes.

Because it is so dependent on other things.

So the inspector will need, won't he,

to weigh up the market fluctuations

over the relatively brief periods that you've observed them against a proposal

which if it went ahead it would likely be there for many many years to come.

Yes? The data centre would be there for many years. Thank you.

And that is why it's so important isn't it to get the right location? Yes. Yeah.

Now, I think you, there are various references in your, well, let's start with this.

The site is in a highly accessible location, isn't it?

It is.

Yeah.

And this is a point that Mr. Marginson makes.

Anyone who's been travelling to the inquiry venue by public transport will know that there

are many options.

Those are generally not necessary for a data centre as they would be for a facility that has a greater number of people moving in and out of it.

That's right, isn't it?

No, I don't agree with that at all.

So why would you need the Elizabeth line so urgently, so much for a data centre of this type?

for the engineers to get back and forth to that data centre on a regular basis,

for the relevant IT individuals who manage the data centre portfolios within these big

financial institutions to get back and forward from the data centre. There are more visitors

to a data centre than I think is being alluded to. But you're not giving us a number are you?

You don't identify the number in your written evidence and you haven't touched on it

in your oral evidence? No because I mean it's like anything I think it will depend on the day and it

will depend on it will depend on many factors but all of those companies that deploy in a COLO

facility will have a few dedicated engineers who are responsible for that particular data centre.

They will go and see it on a regular basis. There will often be tests and assessments where they go

and they cheque how the data centre operators.

The data centre operator itself will often have people

come around from a sales perspective.

Like there's a number of reasons why people would need

to go and visit a data centre.

I have regularly with clients got the Elizabeth line

and various other methods of transport

to go and see data centres.

All right, you refer at 811

and 812 of your main proof to the unsuitability of data centres in Slough and Hayes, that

corridor of data centres which exists in the UK, the need to have data centres within the

city in Docklands area.

yes so Slough and Hayes to be clear unsuitable for financial and suitable

but anywhere within the city and Docklands area suitable the city in

Docklands is suitable like that data centre location Slough and Hayes is a

cloud heartland there's some retail in Slough but what in general the Slough and

Hayes area is cloud and the city in Docklands is generally retail colo but

The, we touched on this earlier because it's not necessarily the case that all the end

users will be requiring financial services.

So there may be some that could make do with data centres further afield, yes?

Perhaps some, but if they don't have latency concerns and there's a good

chance that they have network issues that they're looking to do. Ultimately if

someone's looking to deploy in a retail colo facility there's generally a reason

for that, otherwise they will tend to deploy via the cloud.

And you provide a plan at your page 13, figure 2,

of data centres spread out fairly widely across the city.

And this is not even including the Docklands, is it?

This is just the city.

Sorry, did you say at 13, 2?

Where did you say?

Your page 13, it's the figure 2 underneath.

So in terms of new data centre capacity, you want to be as close as possible on this map.

and number five actually those are both pretty critical facilities and network

points. What this shows is a number of older data centres, Lumen for example

six and seven, that have deployed in other locations around time but

ultimately if you're looking for something that's very like well

connected from a network perspective and extremely low latency then you want to

be as close as possible to that internet exchange point which is at number two.

Can we have a look at figure four please?

On your page 16, London fibre it shows a relatively dense fibre network

throughout the city and Docklands doesn't it? It does. Yeah and that

opportunity in data centre terms is not restricted to the the Grey Eagle Street

it is it exists elsewhere as well. The fibre itself yes like fibre doesn't

just end it it keeps going until it doesn't so yes we're in a highly fibre

And then finally on this point, your proof at 3 .1, you're saying, yes, your reference

to close proximity to the Telly House campus in London Dockland, which is in Blackwall,

wasn't it? Yes, on East End of your dock. At 12 .1 of your proof, the requirements

attributing to viable data centre development in London include the

following and you've got at the top of it location. You need to be within a 20

kilometre radius of one of the core availability zones for large -scale

facilities and within a 10 kilometre radius of core network facilities for

retail facilities. So this is generally it will need to be completely

disregarded if it is in excess of this. The availability zone doesn't

work if it's in excess of 20 kilometres and you're going to have like no fibre

for network F beyond 10.

Now I draw your attention to that part of your evidence

because you said in relation to your figure two on page 13

that we would need to be two or five,

both of those being relatively close to the proposal site.

But the indication at your 12 .1 is that a wider ambit or focus for a search would be

suitable or acceptable, no?

Not necessarily to develop a data centre there, no.

But in order to sort of consider that as the bare minimum criteria, you're not going to

have good network connectivity if you extend beyond that 10 kilometre radius.

Now if you look down at number 10 where Vodafone is, there is network there but it's not as

strong.

So from a site selection perspective there's a lot of operators that's not going to work

for at all and therefore like it needs to be in proximity to that internet exchange

and to the more intense and dense area of clustering.

And this is an exercise that you have conducted but you've not shared the fruits of those

labours with the inquiry?

For these sites?

Looking at alternative sites, assessing their suitability.

Even though you made very clear at the beginning of your answers to me,

that the recency of your involvement in this case meant that there was not much you could do about it.

But you were nonetheless conducting an alternatives search exercise, were you?

For what purpose?

Why were you looking at alternatives if you were faced if you were presented with a fait accompli

You were given a proposal a worked -up proposal. Yes for greying your Street

Why did you even bother if you say that you did it?

To look at the suitability of alternative sites in the city in Docklands

so it's partly a case of running the exercise but also as

As a data centre, as someone working in the data centre space, you are aware of all potential

data centre development opportunities at all time.

It is actively part of my job to find new data centre capacity.

So it wasn't a case of I hadn't looked at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in a year

and then thought, let me go out and attempt to find sites.

it's a case of constantly being like where are their sites coming up with

vacant possession where is their availability to do a data centre where

is the fibre network it's a live and ongoing exercise that's occurring all

the time all right let's have a look at the first the local plan the current and

the emerging local plan let's start with the current place which is

CDF 01, adopted in January 2020.

Look at page 100.

And there is the busier version of the, I think you were taken to this in chief.

Not to the adopted.

Okay, so forgive me.

I'll start with the adopted and then we'll go to the emerging.

Yeah, I think it's page, yeah, so we need to go between page 100 and page 106.

If you look at page 106, do you see policy EMP4, 4D provides a range of units to meet

the needs of small to medium enterprises and capable of supporting v8 uses such as data

storage within the Blackwall LEL.

So there's a specific reference to Blackwall there.

And then if we turn to the emerging plan

Which is CDF 06

And we've got the plan that I think you were taken to at 232, figure 16.

And then the relevant policy, we'll find at page 250 of that.

Policy EG6 data centres.

Oh, I'm not going to hide this list though, does he?

Forgive me.

No worries.

Excuse me.

I'm just having something checked, so I'm going to come back to that rather than use

up inquiry time.

Now on the topic of clusters, you've made clear that the proposal would be a standalone

facility.

Yes.

It wouldn't form part of a cluster, would it?

It wouldn't form it would be part of the city in Docklands Custer. Yes, but it wouldn't

derive benefit or

Interconnect with those data centres in its immediate vicinity. It would benefit from the network

It would benefit from the infrastructure which is which assists them and being there

But it wouldn't interact with those data centres as some data centres interact with each other

So it wouldn't benefit from the infrastructure?

It would have nothing to do with the infrastructure.

It would benefit from the network which has been grown there over the last 20 years.

It wouldn't interact in terms of the mechanical and electrical or anything like that?

Yes, so there's no need for it to be in close approximation to those existing facilities

in order to interact with them, is it?

Is there?

There is from a network perspective, yes, 100%.

It needs to be in proximity.

So where the data centre campus,

the digital reality campus is,

all of those fibre providers,

and because digital reality are retail co -location provider,

they have a huge amount of carriers

going into that building.

If you are in proximity to that,

you open up the ground underneath you

and you have the ability to tap into that wealth of carriers under the ground that Digital

Realty have grown and accrued through their customers over the last 25 years. If you move

further away from that, you do not have the ability to tap into that wealth of carriers.

All right.

I suppose this is a reflection in your rebuttal if we can pick that up at 2 .24 please.

Yes, you say, to build a suboptimal or undersized facility would risk premature obsolescence

and undermine London's global competitiveness.

and that's another way of saying that it can't be any smaller.

Yes.

Yeah.

Now on design and the possibility of mixed uses,

you were quite categorical that you couldn't have a mixed use.

Yes.

And my learning friend Mr Harris said that it might be put to you,

as I'm now putting to you, that there are data centres nearby,

some of which have only recently been completed,

that do have mixed uses.

And at that point, you referred to the designation.

Are you saying that because this one would be a post -CNI data

centre, it couldn't have mixed uses or ground floor

active uses of the type that we find,

for example, at Dray's Walk?

it's not just the CNI designation but that is a factor in it. So let's start

with the DNI why should that make any difference at all to whether or not you

can have ground floor active frontages? So critical national infrastructure one

of the key elements of it is security both in terms of mechanisms being in

place to ensure that those facilities are designated CNI are critical and

but there's also a responsibility of the owner operator,

my understanding, who's running the CNI,

to be as secure as possible.

So why would you include something

that is going to reduce or limit the security

of your facility if you can avoid it?

Were security concerns less or less important

before the DNI designation?

In my view from an IT perspective,

of, no it wasn't that they were less important, but they were just as important.

But CNI goes even further to say that they're very important by literally spelling it out

within the CNI designation.

But in reality, the vital importance of maintaining security at a facility such as this existed

before the DNI as it exists after the DNI.

Yes.

Yeah.

So the active frontages that the inspector has no doubt already seen and will see during the site visit,

in your view are features which place at risk the security of those data centres?

They can do, yeah I think having mixed use does, they could place it at use.

like you have an element that you cannot control. Ultimately data centre operators want as much

control as possible. If you have a mixed use building and you have a shop or a cafe or a

restaurant or whatever operating on that ground floor you cannot control how they are operating.

So why would you want to give up that element that can therefore reduce your security?

Your view is that you can't manage both things.

You can't achieve active frontages in all the townscape

and public advantages that come with that

with the functioning of a data centre facility.

You can't do them both at the same time.

Digital Realty are operating those data centres

and have been for a number of years.

And I know Digital Realty very well

and they're doing fine there,

but from a new data centre perspective, no.

like you cannot and no operator sorry from a new data centre perspective you

can't get from from a data centre like anytime probably in the last ten years

like we're just not seeing mixed -use frontages and in any way shape or form

and previously like the likes of the digital realty campus has been made to

fit into a mixed -use building I think you know digital realty it's a

an efficient and responsible operator, you don't know there to have been any problems

with it mixing ground floor active frontages or a mixed use with their data centres, do

you?

It's an operational risk though all of the time, both in terms of securing customers.

The first thing they're going to say is you have mixed use on the ground floor, you have

whatever element downstairs and also from them they have to constantly be monitoring it from

an operational perspective and digital realty or any other data centre operator I have no doubt

would rather not be in a mixed use build. All right would you give me a moment I'll just cheque this point.

This plan is the basis for these you just need to know what they are.

For you with with planning experts, but without going to that then

Miss McGinley, can I just?

Do you still have a copy of that plan in front of you? I do. I think it should be in queue

Sorry, I ID 17

And you said that in your desktop

study

You'd considered these sites these ten sites and you you found that they were unsuitable

And can I just understand from you why each one of them was unsuitable?

Sure.

OK.

One, five, three, six and seven.

But that's not the main reason why.

But one, five, three, six from a fibre perspective, it's not as strong.

There are a couple of data centres, much older legacy builds around the warping area that

attempting to secure modern customers is something that they've really struggled with.

Sorry, which ones are you dealing with?

You're dealing with a batch altogether, are you?

I am.

One, five, three, six.

Numbers one, five, three and six.

Yes.

So Cambridge Heath, Fish Island, Tower Gate East and the highway.

Yes.

Right, what was the problem with all of those?

Location from a fibre perspective.

So your fibre map, when you lay it on top of that, shows that there isn't enough fibre

to work with, is that it?

Not enough to select something as a data centre site, no.

Okay.

And we have in your evidence a fibre map at Figure 2.

That's page 3 of your rebuttal.

Do we have any other fibre map to work with?

No, not within my...

But when you did this exercise you had a wider ranging fibre map.

I have a platform where we essentially take all fibre information that we can source and

that is available.

There are websites that you can go on and look at fibre.

Well let's stay for the moment with what we do have before us.

In your main proof of figure four we looked at this a few moments ago

We have London fibre

Existing network and expanded network

So are you saying each of those sites one five three and six falls if you if

you place them on this map in areas with inadequate fibre? Inadequate is the word

yes so it doesn't mean that there's no fibre ultimately there's fibre

everywhere and but there's inadequate fibre for a retail colocation facility

that will be able to secure an operator that wants to tap into that network and

as a result like whopping is not a data -centred location like Cambridge

Heath is not a data -centred location whereas around the brick lane area is.

And when you reach the conclusion that the fibre available is

inadequate, what is the threshold for adequacy? When is there enough?

you need to give yourself as much as possible and able to be to secure an operator who in

turn need to give themselves as much as possible to be able to secure retail colo customer.

So some of those retail colo customers may have 20 fibre providers that they want to

tap into. Some may have three. So rather than it being a set threshold, it's unlocking the

maximum amount that you can to base police oneself.

Right, so that exercise, that assessment of adequacy

of fibre in relation to sites one, five, three, and six,

we don't have the benefit of it.

We hear what you're saying now,

but if the inspector wanted to satisfy himself

that those sites had inadequate fibre for a data centre,

He wouldn't be able to look to any documentation would he?

He wouldn't, no.

He would be taking the view of a data centre expert.

Have digital realty built up fibre at any of their sites?

They have, yeah.

So is that an option if you find a site which a data centre expert such as yourself concludes

currently has inadequate fibre?

That is what you have to do.

That's what you have to do.

And indeed, is that the basis upon which at Figure 4 you have existing network and then

expanded network?

Is that completely different locations?

So that expanded network is, what this Figure 4 is, is a really good example in my view

of showing you how the fibre spreads out of London, west and east for like a particular

network that is being expanded to the east you can see that in the other colour

but more the purpose of this map is to show you the direction it spreads out of

London. Okay fine, so then just sticking with the example of a digital realty

where they have needed to do it they have built up fibre in a particular

location. In general works yeah they have and we're expanding fibre networks

across the UK all the time now, like we have to, but it takes years. You are trenching

the road and you're physically putting fibre in, that's how that works.

So in relation to those sites, one, five, three and six that you have deemed unsuitable

through an inadequate fibre supply, that option, arduous as it may be, would be a possibility?

To add more fibre to the system, it's important for me to have someone cheque whether every

single road, brook, nook, crally, every single easement that you can get the fibre out to

all of these locations.

As digital reality, as digital reality have done.

not to be clear digital realty have not gone ad hoc to any location that has no

fibre if you look at their entire they have followed routes where they can

extend existing fibre networks you're trying to minimise how far you would

need to add fibre no miss beginning I wasn't asking you that I'm just saying

that digital realty is it is an example of an operator that where fibre was

inadequate have taken measures to improve the adequacy of the fibre? Yes.

Yeah, all right. So any other basis upon which you concluded that sites 1, 5, 3 and

6 were unsuitable? Marketability. Those are not data centre locations. So even if

you build the fibre out, it is not a case of data centres can just go

anywhere. The operators have a pattern for deployment and within the

city in Docklands it is specified clusters it's not a case of you can just

choose to put a data centre in Hackney Wick because you want to. On what

basis did you dismiss the remaining sites? Seven and eight are also off pace

from a fibre perspective in terms of where I want them to be. Off pace? Yeah

they're just not where from a fibre perspective it's far inferior. There's insufficient fibre.

Insufficient. So same reason as the other ones. If you give me a moment I'm about to to add to that.

Additionally they are both subject to flood risk from a water perspective. The same applies for

five and nine. There's also flood risk element there. Eight is also in proximity to coma.

So there's a number of factors contributing to all of that.

Number two isn't a site, it's a whole area that I have looked at as far as possible.

From a fibre perspective it doesn't appear as a sphere from a fibre perspective, it runs

east outwards along that main mile end road so a lot of the sites particularly

to the south you would again be subject to inferior fibre also as far as I can

gather there's no to be clear like with data centres as I've mentioned there's a

number of things that you're looking for from a vacant possession perspective

there's nothing that I saw relevant scalar size with upcoming VP that would

work for that. I haven't, as far as I can gather, there's nothing with plans that could

make it work for data centre. I think there's alternative uses intended for that location

number two.

Okay, but the fact that it's an area, it's quite a, you can see from the map, it's a

fairly large area.

It is, yeah.

Means that there is, there's more work for you to do on your desktop analysis on your

study because there's more potential within a larger area.

Yes, so my understanding of that area is that there are plans for alternative uses for huge amounts of that area

As opposed to a site with vacant possession that benefits from far superior fibre

Being the Truman site. Do you mean non data centre uses? Yes

And when you say huge amount we can hear from mr.

Kylie about this but what what what amount of that area are you saying is

already taken up with other uses to preclude data centre use? So I've looked

at it from a desktop analysis perspective and the area is developed

with a number of other buildings like many of them being hospital and other

relevant medicinal and medical type facilities. Yes but it was just when you

say huge amounts are taken up do you I mean what are you basing that on is

there any is there any area left for data centre development within I'm not

aware of a single area and that where you could develop a data centre but you

research that did you it did and so much as like I've done

Right, I think there was some, we've still got Blackwall to deal with.

Indeed, so that is data centres.

And how one wants to put further data centres on top of existing high quality, highly network

connected data centres, I'm not sure.

So there are already data centres there.

That's the area four that's like highlighted is data centres. That is a data centre location.

And could further data centres be located there?

Well the Mulberry consent has been granted and beyond that the area is pretty maxed out.

Telly House it's a stronghold for them. They've had to open up a data centre called Telly House South

which falls just south of the area highlighted number four because they

can't get anything else and the immediate campus locale and global

switch also fall within number four they have reached a point now where the

global south the global the global switch south facility is their car park

that they have commenced turning into a data centre so it's pretty packed

All right, any others that you've dismissed?

Yes, nine subject to flood risk.

Again, that one's right on the water.

And 10, another element of data centres

which hasn't really been a relevant consideration here

because it's not close, but ideally you don't want them

on the rail or train lines.

And this is on a rail or train line, is it?

It is.

My understanding of site 10 is it's on the line.

But to be clear, the constraints that you identify in relation to these 10 sites do

not include that the area itself is too distant from the end user should that end user be

a financial end user, let's say, for sake of argument.

That's not what you're saying, is it?

Well, it is.

that's why I'm seeing sites one five three six and seven and eight are also

included with this or not are not data centre and twos twos off as well they're

not data centre locations like all of that is that is argument number one if

you're asking for specifics on each of these sites though these are all the

other reasons that follow do you mean that because of the location of fibres

is that the location of fibre and the location generally like data centre

operators want to be in proximity to other data centres if you put a data

centre site to them and again Hackney Wick will use as the example though

they'll look at you like like you're mad Hackney Wicks not a data centre location

all right last last question for you or a couple of questions you were at the

Marlbury Place inquiry, were you?

I wasn't in attendance, no.

You weren't in attendance, but you were involved in it?

I was.

Not as a witness.

And we have at CDH 09, a copy of my line of friends

closing at that inquiry.

Yes.

So let's start in this closing at 97, if you have that.

Yes.

Important consideration here as mentioned above is the Council's resolution to grant permission for the Global Switch data centre on the very site next door to the appeal, a height of 56 .8 metres.

This site is outside the TBZ and provides a carefully considered datum outside the TBZ against which to judge the nature of the stepping down towards the edge of the zone inside the zone.

and how many megawatts or floor space area was the global switch data centre

next door do you know that new one will be 40 megawatts all right and if you

move down through the document.

All right, Ms. McKinley, those are all my questions.

Thank you.

Just a couple of questions, some of which

have been touched on, I think, by my learned friends,

So hopefully I won't keep you too long.

The section of your proof on localised impacts and benefits, I think, starts from paragraph

1143 onwards.

Yes.

And I think this is a good point, but you've referred to in paragraph 11 .43 to the fact

that data centres create high value specialised employment opportunities for IT technicians,

engineers, cyber security experts and facilities managers offering well paid roles that support

the local economy.

Probably quite an obvious point, but for members of the local community to benefit from those

job opportunities, they will have to have that particular expertise, won't they?

unless it's a training programme, in which case they would be trained to have that expertise.

And you haven't commented in your proof at all on matters such as current levels of educational attainment

or English language proficiency among the local population?

I haven't.

So you're not able to say whether in reality it's likely that local people will benefit from that small number of jobs that are delivered?

In terms of educational and language, no, as I say I haven't looked at it.

And paragraph 17 .9 onwards, I won't necessarily go to it unless we have to, but you've referred

to the limited on -site staffing but the economic value of the data centre being in supporting

thousands of other digital businesses and services. There you're primarily referring

to jobs in, for example, the City of London and perhaps further afield, not necessarily

local independent retail or hospitality businesses.

I mean the data centre in essence yes that's what I'm referring to there in

terms of data centres support businesses those businesses are located in the city

of London and so yes it will largely go to what I'd take a big step towards

encouraging economic and job growth in that field that being said like a data

centre and a location will still have staff that will need to use the

amenities and the shops and the establishment of that local area.

And the construction phase jobs then that you've referred to 11 .44 also in the localised

impact, those are obviously temporary jobs.

Those are.

So overall benefits for the local community in terms of employment opportunities from

the scheme will be either temporary or fairly limited.

And from an employment perspective, limited.

My view on it, as I've said, is I

think they take on more jobs than is being implied.

Whether or not that's from the local community

is hard for me to comment on because I

don't have a crystal ball.

What I have said is I think data centre operators,

it's a new sector, right?

So ultimately, they are now starting

to put all the social and HR mechanisms in place to integrate themselves better in the

community. And as their profile is becoming larger, they're doing a huge amount more on

this. They are becoming very aware of the role that they play. So as a sector, it's

catching up to doing this. And I would like to think that an international data centre

operator that does choose to be in this location takes the step towards doing that. I know

that they are doing that in other locations.

And yes, you've touched on that, paragraphs 11 .46 and 11 .47, where you've referred to

operators taking steps to integrate engagement in corporate social responsibility, the promotion

of STEM learning and bridging the digital divide.

But unless any of that is somehow secured by reference to the future operator, the decision

whether to pursue those types of initiatives will essentially be down to the individual

operator who happens to come along.

It would be yes

So overall localised benefits identified in those two paragraphs in so far as they will be felt by the local community a largely hypothetical

Benefits that would rely on the goodwill of the operator what I would say though on that

Yes, but what I would see on that though is across the board it is being reflected

So this week telly house have broken ground on the telly house West to facility

in Blackwall, that's the former travel lodge, they have taken steps towards

integrating themselves in the community, that will be the seventh state centre

that they have in that cluster so they're a big part of Tower Hamlets by

extension. Microsoft have broken ground on their campus in South Cardiff and

again like a big push is being made in order to see those economic benefits

trickle down to the South Wales community.

And in the section on localised impacts, we heard, and I'm not sure if you were here for

any of it or all of it, but the members of the local community during the public information

session on Tuesday discussing the impact in terms of the amenity impact on them of living

in an area with an increasing number of data centres, and your proof doesn't assess any

of those issues, does it, in terms of the localised impact?

My proof doesn't.

notes on the need of data centres. One key element that I saw being raised was

the Greygill Street particularly from the, there was a few people who I

think lived there and we're talking about the security of it. Data centres are

highly secure facilities and so in terms of the public benefit of that, that is

something that I would see being realised by a data centre being

constructed on that street. Thank you that's that's all for me sir. Thank you

Miss Curtis. Can I just ask one thing it's somewhere in your proof and I'm

feverishly trying to find it. You talk about the issues around, this links

back to your last point Miss Curtis, that local people raised about noise. That was

noise, as I'm understanding that a lot of that is directed towards noise from

the existing facility and it's kind of felt, I don't want to put this, how can I put this?

Yeah the feeling seemed to be that the new facility would create more noise, exacerbate

the problem. You've dealt with that in your proof, I don't know how can I find it, but

can you just outline the difference between the way the new one might operate and the

way the O1 might operate, the way that your one operates.

Should we get that right?

It will be twofold.

One, design efficiencies since the inception

of the other data centre, and two, mechanisms in place

to reduce noise.

So there are things that you can do that a data centre operator

can be led by through the design process and the build process,

and in particular, the fitting out process.

That's the key part.

So when they instal those chillers,

You can put sound barriers on the chillers.

There's ways that you can enclose that noise

that is being done across the board

on more city location type data centres.

And because my expectation is this will likely be a retail

colocation operator who inhabits this space, they will, therefore,

be used to doing that with the chillers.

And then the other element is if we are talking about data centre

from the year 2000, as is the case at Lund 1 compared

to what will be a data centre of this time. The efficiencies have moved on a huge amount from a

cooling perspective. Chillers are becoming quieter and different systems are being used.

So in this one what's been adopted by Arup who have led on the technical design front,

it's a closed loop system. So in essence you have a pipe that goes the whole way around the data

hall, this is very simplistically put, which runs cold water round the racks in order to

keep them cool. And because that's the main method of cooling it rather than the chillers

being on full blast all the time or as a chiller you should be reduced because you have the

closed loop, that should therefore reduce noise on the whole.

I think your conclusion was that the new facility would be a whole lot quieter than the existing

if I put it very simply. Yes. Mr. Harris you have anything in re -examination? A

little sir yes first point is that you'll find that evidence at 17 .24 page

36 but the direct answer to your question is not much.

Thank you.

The cross -examination began in reference

to your magnificent jurisprudence degree.

Congratulations.

But the point was put to you that it

wasn't for you to do the overall planning balance, et cetera,

which you accepted.

I just want to look at that, please, in a little more detail, having regard to the answers

that you gave.

The section in your proof said that you thought the local authority had made an error or erred

in giving limited weight to meeting the need for data centres.

And we know that the reason for refusal, Mr. Gwynne was here earlier, was that there was

an identification of a low end of less than substantial harm in heritage terms, not for

you, not relevant to you.

But it was said that that was not outweighed by the limited or very limited or moderate,

depending on which part of the report you look at, not outweighed by the

limited benefit of meeting data centre need. All right, now these are the

questions for you. In terms of the need for data centres, forget your

jurisprudence qualification, are you qualified to advise the inspector on the

existence of need for data centres? Yes.

Thank you.

The extent and urgency of that need, having regard to government policy and your knowledge of the market,

are you qualified to give the inspector that advice in terms of extent and urgency?

The consequences of failing to meet that need, are you qualified to give the inspector guidance on that?

Yes.

The benefits of meeting that need in data centre terms, are you qualified to give evidence

in relation to that? So far as you're aware, is there anybody else in this inquiry who's

so qualified? Mr Kiley qualified to give evidence as to the existence of need from a technical

point of view. I'm sure Mr. Kiley's qualified at many things but not on the data centre

site that I am dealing with. Thank you very much. That's the end of that issue. Next issue,

you were asked about when you were first engaged and you said July 2025, sort of a theme arising

here. Before your involvement in the scheme, were there other, and indeed are there still,

other data experts engaged in the project? Yes, Arup have been heavily

involved since the start and Arup are very active across the data centre space

and had been providing technical consultancy and amongst other consultancy

from an early point is my understanding. Thank you. Now we've got from Arup at

your appendix A document which explains to the inspector how the data centre is

configured and how it's operationally appropriate etc. Have you discussed at

any stage the nature of your evidence with Arup who've been involved from the

outset? Consistently yes I've discussed with Arup. I've had a number of meetings

with Arup at the time I was brought onto the project. I think when you have an approach

from someone who is advanced in terms of a scheme and in terms of a location, you want

to get as much evidence as possible. I knew the location was strong off the start. It's

the type of location that I am a data centre broker. It's the type of location that you

want to be landing on your desk. You want to find sites that can benefit from latency

in connectivity like this.

And then I got up to speed on the technical front

with the work Arup had done.

And I'm very comfortable with the work they have done.

And Arup are a firm that I generally

recommend for data centres.

Thank you.

So in terms of your knowledge when you came on board,

Arup were there.

Let's switch the telescope round the other way.

You said you've been in consistent discussion

with Arup.

tell the inspector please whether Arup take the same or a different or a

nuanced or whatever view of the evidence that you set out for his consideration

in the context of this inquiry. Arup are wholly agreed with what I have said both

in terms of need for data centre and in terms of the technical and latency

requirements for the centre operators and end users. Have you for example

discussed the scale of the proposal and what you said was a proposal that was as

compact as it could be. Yes we have discussed that and it's not a

coincidence that the scheme is the minimum size that it can be. Mr Morris

and the team have worked hand -in -hand with Arup to design something that

maximises that land area but is technically sound as well so they work

together and my discussion with Arup has been a case of going through that and

seeing how they've done that and all of the things as I've mentioned earlier

that I would want to see as part of a data centre scheme the two points of

access the loading base the adequate floor -to -ceiling heights the redundancy

is all included.

Thank you very much.

That's the end of that issue.

The point was put to you that this was a standalone and you said it was a standalone but could

be extended but that would be subject to land ownership and the like.

We got that.

Then it was put to you that it was quite small and therefore its contribution was proportionately

small. Do you remember that? And you disagreed with that. I just want to explore that disagreement

a little further, please. In functional terms, in latency terms, in proximity to the City

of London terms, would you describe the contribution as quite small?

It is by modern standards in terms of data centre proposals and schemes small.

The impact that it will have, particularly given we are at capacity in terms of facilities

immediately around that Internet exchange point and that can benefit from that network

connectivity, the impact it will have should not be underestimated.

Just because it's small doesn't mean that it's insignificant.

I think we've also gone, like, data centre scales from a megawatt perspective have gone

sort of mad over the last couple years and there are a lot of large scale schemes out there,

but around five megawatts of IT, it's not insignificant.

You can still do a huge amount there. That can still capture a lot of customers.

So there will be more required because the demand like far exceeds five megawatts

But that doesn't mean that that five megawatts is

Insignificant like it should be there to absorb some of that demand you explained in an answer to the inspector that

Well almost all of

Colocation sites are necessarily constrained

Small and because of where they are and likely to be the mega sites

If you took the view that because they were small and didn't make a massive contribution because of their

Tightness or their smallness or their compactness if that was a reason for a fusil in in all cases

Where would where would we end up?

we wouldn't have the internet and the way that we have today and all of

The trades and like big financial events that have occurred

within London over the last like 25 years wouldn't have amounted to anything because

Ultimately, like they have been done through small retail colocation facilities and the city in Docklands cluster

so if we were to dismiss them just because they're small just because they don't seem as like big or exciting as these

Shiny cloud data centres, which are you know?

50 100 200 megawatts we're talking about nowadays, then we wouldn't be where we are today

Thank you for that.

Next issue, do you remember my learned friend said, well, everything's constantly changing,

fluctuating up and down, et cetera.

You're pressing the position as at a snapshot today.

Who knows, it might be different in a few years' time.

I just want to explore that with you, please.

Is there any indication that demand for data centres of any description is likely to drop

significantly or at all? No, and in terms of the fluctuation, what I hopefully came

across when I was elaborating on that is demand for data centres hasn't fluctuated

in that sense. What the fluctuation was is how much financial services are

deploying in their own facilities compared to the cloud, compared to in

retail colocation facilities. In terms of the overall data centre demand piece

that has gone up.

Can we look at government guidance and data on this please?

732 of your proof, page 10.

You refer there, give the reference to

UK government's recent research paper, August 2025.

Up to date?

Yes.

Data centres, planning policy, sustainability

and resilience underscores the critical importance

of data centre development as a key component of national digital infrastructure.

The paper highlights the necessity of timely delivery of data centres to meet the escalating

demand driven by emerging technologies such as AI and increased digital services.

It emphasises that data centre planning policies should actively facilitate sustainable and

resilient development in strategic urban locations with high fibre density and proximity to key

economic hubs.

How much of that is you and how much of that is an accurate paraphrase of the document?

Both I would like to think.

It is an accurate paraphrase.

And do you agree with it?

I do, yeah.

And what does it suggest about fluctuations in the downward direction?

that fluctuations in the downward direction have not been occurring and are not expected to occur.

Okay, thank you very much for that.

And finally then, you were taken to, I think this is the adopted plan, not as Malone and Friend said when he put it in, the emerging plan.

I think this is just the adopted plan.

Extracts.

Yes, but the...

It's from the adopted plan.

The missing documents that we'll make sure is added.

The proposals map, which helps you understand which site is which, is missing from the inquiry

documentation.

Well, this witness can't be asked about those because they're not before her.

But this is the adopted plan.

This is an identification of the adopted plan's local employment locations and local industrial

locations.

Yes?

This is dated 2020 at adoption and we know that the evidence base upon which it's based

goes back to 2018.

Are we in the same data centre world comparing 2020 to now?

There's similar characteristics but we have advanced beyond that, yeah.

Thank you.

And in terms of the local planning authority adopted plan, are you aware of any consideration

of the up -to -date locational specific needs identified as appropriate to have regard to

in the new NPPF dated December 2024?

No, not that I'm aware of.

I'm not aware of any consultation with the data centre operators in particular who it

would be relevant for.

Thank you.

I'm just looking at the evidence that is actually before the inquiry.

Then we've got the emerging plan, which we looked at in chief, because it's the document

that Mr. Kiley refers to in his evidence.

Can we look at that evidence, please?

It's at his proof of evidence, and it's at 642.

This is how he puts it, there is no demonstrable location imperative for the centre to be located

on the Grey Eagle Street as there are other sites in the local area where such a use could

be successfully located.

I'll ask him about his expertise in relation to that, but has he identified a single other

site in the local area where such a use could be successfully located?

No, he's not identified a single site.

Thank you. And then he goes on to say, in line with the encouragement given in the MPPF,

EG6 directs data centres to local industrial locations and local mixed use, see figure

16 which is the one we did look at in chief. We know because it tells us on the

front page of the document that those choices were made by reference to an

employment land study dated 2023. Did it deal with data centres at all? No.

Then Mr. Keeley please. Does he identify any sites that are relevant to the

inspectors consideration in the circumstances of this site as an

alternative. He does not. Thank you. Is there any reference to anything other than that

reference to various local industrial locations that we've looked at? Does he deal with, for

example, any sites that are available, that have appropriate latency, that have appropriate

occupancy or have appropriate electricity? No. All right thank you very

much for that. I think that's it. I was going to ask the question about noise

but the inspectors asked that. Thank you Mr. Harris. Thank you.

Ms. McGinley, that's been very useful and another another debut at public inquiry.

We're at 11 .37. I've received, I'm not going to suggest we have another break, but I have

a message from the office that I probably do need to share with you. I think our appeals

have been recovered. I'm not surprised. We're in front of the Secretary of State now. I

I think you knew, didn't you?

Only just a few moments ago.

But yes, when I get an email with PCU in the bar, then,

yeah.

So I thought I'd share that with you in case anyone in the room

didn't know.

So I think they've recovered all of them, as they would.

So what I'm going to be doing now

is a report for the Secretary of State rather than an inspector's

decision.

So you'll understand the implications of that.

So the final decision is not mine.

It's with the Secretary of State.

It does have some implications for the amount of work

that I have to carry out afterwards,

but there we are, occupational hazard.

Can I just ask who's going next, Mr. Kein?

Should we have a short break while you set up?

But can we resume at quarter two?

Is that all right?

It's only five or six minutes, but hopefully that'll be enough.

Until quarter to then. Thank you very much. Thank you.

The first part of the inquiry. How many times did I do that? Hundreds.

Mr. Harris. Too familiar. Mr. Kiley, your chartered town planner with over 40

years of experience? 50. 50? Yeah. Right well we need to make a correction in

your introduction. Well 50 as a planner but perhaps not as a charter. Well I hadn't quite finished in

local government. Yeah. Most of that in London. And you've spent nearly 14 years to service

head level and above. That's correct. In the last 11 years you've worked in

independent practise as a planning consultant,

primarily in terms of your qualifications.

You have a bachelor's degree in town planning.

You're a chartered member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

And you used to be the president of the Planning Officers

Society and are now the chair of its board.

That's great.

And then you set out your experience at 1 .3.

Most of that experience, but not all of it, involves advising local planning authorities.

It does, yes.

And you give us your local planning authority CV at 1 .4.

Those who are interested can look at that for themselves.

And you've set out further experience of advising other authorities in the paragraphs that follow.

That's great.

Now in terms of your role in relation to these now called in appeals, you recovered.

When were you engaged?

I've not got the date in my head, but about two months ago.

And you have a good familiarity with the site, the area more generally?

Yeah, I have a very good familiarity with it. I used to be the head of development decisions for Tower Hamlets between 2006 and 2009.

I dealt with quite a lot of stuff in the area, the hospital, the All Gate East Master Plan

was something I was involved in the initiative of that, dealt with various things in the

immediate area.

Did much of those three years or so at Tower Hamlets involve you in projects within this

conservation area?

The only one that there was it was a very busy time so the smaller stuff

didn't often come across my desk and there was an awful lot of that going on

the only one that springs to mind is the minaret for the mosque. I do remember

being involved closely with that because of its iconic position and status.

Now Mr. Kiley you produced a main proof of evidence and a rebuttal proof of

with your leaf so I'll take those as red and I'll just ask you to work your way

around the the wider scheme if you could starting with Grey Eagle Street. Okay the

main concern there as we heard from the last witness is the issue of the data

centre. The issue for me is the weight given to data centres generally is

absolutely clear and we take no issue with that but that isn't a get out of

gaol free card that you can locate a data centre everywhere because there's

great need as the inspector well knows you have to weigh up all those issues.

I'm sure I'm going to be questioning this, but I'm not a data centre expert, I'm a planner,

but nor am I a whole load of other experts, but that's part of the job, is to take the

evidence that you receive from a whole range of people and assess them and to see whether

or not they sort of hold up.

And the areas of concerns for me were that the way the operation of the data centre is

been described is it's a spec data centre for want of a better term that

they provide the facility which is the guaranteed power the the heating cooling

latency etc etc and and you put your kit in that building as opposed to something

that is designed for a specific need and therefore has to be sized to meet that

need so this is sized for commercial reasons and probably understandable I

don't criticise that at all, which suggests to me that there's

the potential for flexibility there,

that it can be altered in size.

The problem we have is we're putting a data

centre in a sensitive location.

So if you put a data centre in the moat

around the Tower of London, it would

be quite clear that planning patients

and shouldn't be granted for that.

The harms clearly outweigh it.

It's a silly example, but I think it illustrates the point

that just because it's a data centre

doesn't get you over the line.

So we have a location which is a conservation area.

We've heard a lot of evidence on that.

But we also have a street that's not activated.

There's no pointing out along the street

because it doesn't take you anywhere.

But there's a huge opportunity for that footfall

that's probably coming from the west,

the Spittlesfield area which and the Broadgate area to bring people into the

attraction that and the great attraction as we've heard I agree with that that

that is the sort of Truman estate the brick lane offer and and to key the two

key things to achieve that in in in place making or townscape terms if you

like is to improve the conditions in that street,

because we've heard that there's antisocial

behaviour problems, but also make that connectivity

into the heart of Brick Lane, which is the link

through Eli's yard.

And the landowner hasn't really

coupled with that in what I would call

in an enthusiastic way.

You could say they're throwing Grey Eagle Street

under the bus, they're not trying to activate that street,

they're not trying to convert it into a magnet

to bring people through, to bring footfall through

to make it successful.

You've heard Ms. McGinley's evidence about activation

at ground floor level and security concerns.

Yes.

What do you say about that?

It really doesn't make sense to me.

So it's perfectly feasible to construct a building

using concrete or whatever materials

to insulate one part of the building from another

in terms of fire risks.

I've managed building control over many years.

I'm not a building inspector,

but I've come across these issues

and I understand how they can be resolved.

So the notion that you absolutely can't do that isn't correct.

It may be desirable not to do that and I think it's no stronger than that.

But we've got a data centre that seems to be being completed in Dale,

let me just get the right name,

is a combination of an extension to a building and a conversion of a building and you've

got bars and restaurants on the ground floor. We'll see it on the site because it's there.

So, you know, it's on the east side of the Lond 1, Lond 3 cluster there at the other

side of the wall. So, so...

evidence. It's photo five on page 31. I'm sure you'll have seen this. We may not need

to turn to it. Sorry, Mr. Kiley. Yeah, so in terms of the ability to alter the size,

as I say, it's a spec thing, so from that point of view,

it's got to be theoretically possible to do that.

Whether that's possible to do from a viability point of view,

we haven't had any data or evidence,

we haven't had a viability appraisal on that,

so we've just had assertion, if you like,

a bit from an expert witness,

but we haven't had any flesh on that bone.

And in terms of,

activating the ground floor it seems to me that that that is quite possible to

do and we see other data centres and and the the concerns about security etc can

be dealt with in my experience through through design you can insulate it from

fire spread and and and you clearly have security of entrances etc etc based on

that experience are you aware of problems that have arisen where data

centre developers have combined uses with data centre above and activated frontages

on the ground floor level?

Well I've not dealt with any personally, but I've seen them on the site and I've just explained

the Dale Walk one. The other one I would draw your attention to is the Planning Commission

from the

Reference was it 16. I

Want a three two that's located within the main site yard

so planning permission was granted and

Technical start was made implemented as people have described it

Fronting Buxton Street and golden such like sir and it's granted in 2016. So

2016 was a date of the application. The permission was issued in

21 I think it was and the conditions were discharged in 24 and

presumably a fairly swift technical start was made before the permission

run out. Why such long delays along the way? I don't know fully. I asked the

and there seemed to be the applicant were dragging their,

well, the people who had to sign the 106 agreement

were dragging their heels,

and the Council had to threaten refusal.

I think it's not certainly the standard in my day,

I think they're still doing it,

to when you get a recommendation to committee,

you have the recommendation to refuse planning commission

if the section 106 isn't signed within a certain deadline.

So I think they had that ability to do that and that brought things to a head and it was signed.

But it was a five -year period. But that building has other uses on it.

That was the initial period of delay. Was the appellant one of the signatories to the Section 106 agreement?

Well it's on their land so yeah I haven't checked that fully but I would expect that to be the case. I can cheque that if it's necessary.

What about the subsequent period of delay after 2021?

Well, there was a planning permission issued and it was only when it was coming up to expiry

that the activity happened. So if you look on the

this, you know, the electronic stat reg, you can see all those dates of all those applications to discharge conditions are

prefix 24.

Okay.

Thank you.

You were talking about mixed uses, ground floor use combined with data centres.

Had you said what you wanted to say about that?

Can I just be clear about that?

Are you telling me that the data centre that was approved

has other uses on the ground floor?

Yes, sir, I give the detail in my rebuttal. Let me just find it.

Yes, so it's in my rebuttal, bullet points under Para 4 -1 -3 on page 11.

Other uses on the ground floor, use class B1, which they described as Enterprise, and

D1, training floor space.

So that's a more recent example of mixed use than the Dre Wark example?

No.

Well, it is what it is.

It's got a storey from 2016 to 2024

in terms of when the applications was put in

and when it was implemented.

The Dre Walk one, when I was on site a couple of months ago,

there still seemed to be building works going on.

It was on the site last week,

and it looks as though it's getting towards being finished.

So it seems to be a data centre that's,

At least in part. I've got the full details of it, but at least in part if not in in totality

Is is like this year?

Okay, can we now move on to size or scale then other aspects of design?

And I want you to help us with the the plan that we've discussed with Miss McGinley

Yes

So start off with size

So I've touched already on that in terms of my understanding of the way it operates would

suggest that there isn't a specific need that it is designed to meet.

It's a range of racks that are rented out, as you described it, sort of self -service,

self -storage type of thing.

So from that sort of functional perspective, it would seem quite possible or probable that

less rats could be provided.

Obviously that might not be commercially desirable.

And in doing that, by reducing the size of the building, we can address some of the harm

impacts that were articulated by Mr. Frohman

and the other witnesses.

The other sort of concern is the sort of,

if you like, fortress -like appearance.

Now the building that was described as fortress -like

at least had fenestration, it had glazed windows.

This building has what I would call blind windows

and whilst it's architectural detailing, I don't take issue with it.

In terms of what it appears like, it appears like a brick box, albeit a pretty brick box,

but it seems eminently possible that you could alter that design to make it look more like a building that may be inhabited,

You know just so that in in the street scene. It's not it's somewhat less fortress like

Okay

Do you want to take us now to the look to the local plan certainly so

What I've produced is is that document really just to help you serve because the proposals map

You know in a place like Tower Hamlets is almost useless as a PDF

trying to work out where the boundaries are and what's what, and the different colours.

It's bad enough in a rural area, but in an area like Southampton City it's impossible.

What I would suggest, sir, is when you're looking at those things, the interactive map, you can switch off the layers.

I'm sure you've done it before, but down upon the switch of layers, I've switched them on and things become crystal clear.

In effect, that's what we've done here is the

Current plan has got the interactive map the emerging plan. I don't think that's ready yet

So we've switched on those two designations

So you've got local employment locations, which they're now calling local mixed -use employment locations

and local industrial locations and and they're the same on on both the

existing plan and the emerging plan and

And those are the areas that officers now are directing people towards if they're looking

for data centre sites.

These are the preferred locations.

That's not to say a data centre can't go elsewhere like any designation.

This is the plan will result in a policy that says, yeah, they should be fine here, but

other sites will obviously have to be addressed on their merits.

Now, Mr. Kiley, you said at the beginning of your evidence in chief that you're not

a data centre expert, but that what you do is take the evidence and assess it.

Did you have written evidence of the search for alternatives that we heard about in chief

in advance of this inquiry starting?

Did you hear Ms. McGinley's evidence as to why each of these preferred sites was inappropriate

or otherwise unacceptable?

Yes, I did, yes.

Obviously, yes.

And doing your job of taking the evidence and assessing it, how do you assess that?

Well, I think at best it's sort of cursory high level.

I don't think it's been assessed in any detail and I think she said as much herself that

you know it was her sort of general knowledge of the area and the subject that enabled her

to make the comments that she did.

So I think all I'm saying sir is that the council's local planning authority

have these locations there are locations within which b8 uses would be acceptable

data centres generally are considered to be b8 uses it's not always quite simple

as that but I think in the vast majority of cases it's a b8 use therefore you

know the the planning policy framework are directing people towards these

The emerging plan in response to some governments, if you like, changing policy in respect to

data centres has a specific data centre policy that's trying to assist.

And that policy has actually got strong support from the GLA.

In fact, I think for what I've seen, they want it to be worded a bit stronger in terms

of ground floor active uses but they're supportive of the policy. So what is the

direction of travel between the adopted local plan and the emerging local plan

so far as data centres are concerned? I mean I think you can detect a

clearer policy basis emerging but in substance you know that that policy

basis was sort of implicit anyway because a data centre is a BAU. So in

terms of directing them to particular locations I don't think I would say that

there's a massive change. I was going to ask that next. Is there anything in the

emerging plan? But it's the policy, the specific policy that deals with the data

centres that is new and one of the things it grapples with is the impact

that they have on the surrounding area

and the need for activation and place -making benefits.

Is Grey Eagle Street within one of the preferred locations?

No.

So is there anything site -specific,

so far as these appeals are concerned,

that supports the appeal in the either adopted local plan

or the emerging local plan?

No, there isn't.

All right.

Anything else that you wanted to say about the data centre in Grey Eagle Street?

No, I think that covers it.

All right. We may not need to dwell long in examination in chief, but I want to take you now to Ely's Yard.

What do you want to say in addition to the evidence, your written evidence on that?

So the Council's main objection there is a townscape objection. I don't give separate evidence on that.

And the planning policy issue around that isn't disputed. It's whether or not it delivers what it needs to deliver.

and others have given evidence on that.

And I'm happy to agree to that.

The only point I would draw attention to,

and it's in relation really to the Grey Eagle Street site,

is a point I made earlier about the trying

to activate Grey Eagle Street,

trying to give people a reason to go down there,

and a key part of that is that link into Eli's yard

and what's been produced is not what I would describe as a successful link that people are going to naturally see and use.

It's rather odd actually, in fact, you've got a couple of steps.

I think the difference in height is about three or four steps.

Obviously that's a design challenge, not that difficult.

but you sort of have to go in and then turn left to go up it.

And it seems very odd to me that that was done.

It doesn't seem as though the person designing that

was looking to activate that link

and draw people into Eli's yard from the west

and bring footfall onto Grey Eagle Street.

So that's the only point I think I would want to make

and that's important in terms of the two sides.

All right, let's move now Mr. Kylie to Truman East please.

And again, in addition to your written evidence,

which, what would you like to say in chief?

Okay.

The main issue here is the desire for housing,

and it's the policy framework around that.

I see in terms of assessing that and applying the development plan as a planner, I see there's

three parts to that, sir. And I'll summarise the amount of failure high level and we can

go into the detail later because I think it would help you to understand my thinking.

So we have the sort of land use position for what's proposed.

And I think when you read that and you're reading the London Plan, which is, you know,

general and high level, but specifically the opportunity area planning fragment, which

has been produced under the plan, which is specific to this, well, this wider area, it

goes into Hackney as well.

You're looking at the local plan as well.

And that, if you have an application that's 100 % commercial, the plan supports that.

If you have an application that's 100 % residential, the plan supports that.

And if you have an application that's a mix, you know, in purely land use terms, the plan

supports that as well.

So the plan does not say it's got to be residential, the adopted plan.

It's got to be residential led, nor does it say it's got to be commercial led, sir.

So that's my phase one.

If you then look at the policies nationally, regionally, locally, with respect to housing,

you know, we're in a housing crisis and, you know, we've been having alterations to the

provisions, its policy provisions, its guidance provisions for the last decade

or more in order to try and address that. So those policies are very, very

important and we need to give them considerable weight as they're regularly

given in planning decisions. The third element of that, sir, is in order to

understand those policies and the extent to which they're up to date.

I think you need to look at it in a more sophisticated way rather than the simplicity that more than

five years old and dismiss them.

I think you've got to unpack them.

And if you look at, if I have to deal with housing first, you've got when the GLA started

in the beginning of this century,

it produced its first plan in 2004.

London's housing need was considered

to be 30 ,000 homes a year.

The last London plan had it up at 66 ,000, more than doubled,

and the next London plan will have it at 88 ,000,

i .e. the mayor is adopting the standard methodology

which produces 87 ,992. Even though technically the Mayor doesn't have to do that, I can go into that if you wish,

but certainly that's what the GLA are doing. I know that because Jules Pike, the Deputy Mayor, said it at meetings

when they were introducing towards the next London Plan and I did a bit of work for the GLA in the Local Plan team

a little while ago and I know they're actively working to try and deliver that

figure. So we've got nearly a tripling of housing need in London and that's really

very significant and yeah all the fallout that goes with that is well

understood by everyone in the room and you heard some really quite harrowing

first -hand first accounts from local residents to demonstrate that this is a

national problem that is extremely acute in this borough.

You then need to look at the commercial side of it.

So we, if you like, I do it in sort of three eras.

The 2015 when the OAPF was adopted,

2020 when the plan was adopted, and now.

So in 2015, we come out of the global financial crisis.

We had Office of Residential PD that came in in 2013,

made permanent in 2015.

You had a growth in the economy,

and it was particularly significant in this area,

in the city and its hinterland.

And you had that sort of growth of the city fringe.

and certainly that was my sort of experience of it

at the time.

And you had that threat of the floor space

that would be attractive to SME creatives, et cetera,

et cetera, being converted into residential.

And there was responses to that,

and the policy framework was written in that context.

You then, as you move forward, you've got Brexit,

that you've got the COVID et cetera,

and a change in the demand for commercial floor space.

And in fact, I think the evidence between the two parties

isn't a million miles apart.

The demand for floor space in town hamlets

has produced significantly, there's an oversupply,

but most of that is your large floor plates,

particularly in Canary ball.

That's not the place in the city from my experience

and I have quite a lot of knowledge of that.

And you're seeing quite a bit of growth in the city

and starts on the large sort of floor plate.

So, you know, there is that change.

But the,

a dependence position and certainly the work

that Croydon have done, sorry Croydon,

to Hamlet's have done, has clearly told them

that you need to be careful on the SME demand.

There's still a demand for that.

Vacancy rates are low in certain areas

which suggests that there is a demand.

Now that's, I think you need to sort of unpick that demand.

It's often for relatively small areas of floor space.

And I was reading the rebuttal proof for Mr. Marginson

and particularly his appendix.

That there's quite a lot of useful information in there.

And it read to me that there's actually

quite a lot of opportunities in the area

to meet that demand.

One of the particular things and it's not necessarily met by new build in fact quite often that that sector

You know likes something a bit quirky and and what have you it's you know, it's it's it's it's

It's the nature of that sector and I think it was

appendix C, which is Bell core

Who gave examples it's in para five three to five seven where they're upgrading

Class B or C or whatever, upgrading unsuitable,

if you like, premises into Class A.

And they found that very successful.

I think they said they had four or five offers

and relatively quickly.

So what I'm saying, sir, is that when you look

at the policy framework, it doesn't particularly support

one land use or another.

All those land uses are possible.

And so this is an area that's trying to manage that transition from the central business district,

well business districts, both in Canary Wharf and in the city.

And it's Hamlet's next door, it's residential hinterland.

And this area is that area of transition.

So it's how can we meet the commercial needs and how can we meet the residential needs?

And in that balancer I felt it clearly came down to the meeting the residential needs.

Yes we need to meet the commercial needs as well but there are other ways in which to

do that.

that need isn't quite as pressing in fact I think in some way away from being as pressing

as the need to meet housing need. So sort of a long explanation but I think it's helpful

that you understand what was in here when I was looking at this and agreeing to give

evidence on behalf of the council. Right, thank you Mr. Kiley.

Do you want to pick up any other aspects of the the city fringe opportunity area?

Well I think it might be useful if I just go through the key policies just to

sort of explain what I've just said at a high level.

Shall we take up CDE05 then?

Which one is it?

It's CDE05, it's the OAPF.

Yeah, it's slow.

And let's turn to page 28 of that.

It's twirling

Your connexion fast enough it's I've clicked on the folder and I'm just

I've got an extracted act so I can deal with that.

Yeah, so I've got the extract.

Yes, it's PDF 28 of 109.

Do you see para 3 .7 there?

Yes.

Do you want to comment on that?

Let me just refresh.

Yeah, so as CAD and Tech City expand, there is a need to ensure that development facilities,

sorry, facilitates economic growth where demand is likely to be strong, increasing levels

in the floor and floor space will be required to accommodate this growth sustainably.

erm... say the... the...

the appeal site isn't in the CAS, it's outside of the CAS.

So the page at the bottom is 28, but yeah.

Ah.

This is because we all try to open it at the same time.

That's odd, and mine is...

Is it 40? It's 28 and 28.

Anyway, page 28 at the bottom of the page there.

So what does your 40 get?

Oh, I think we have different documents.

Anyway, we're all on 3 .7.

Have you said what you wanted to say about 3 .7?

What do we get from that Mr. Kiley?

Well I think as I said earlier the challenge for Tower Hamlets is to manage this city fringe

area, this transition between the city central business district and the rest of the borough

which becomes increasingly residential the further east you go.

although there's other uses, but it is a residential area.

And this strategy, as it says at the beginning,

is striking the balance between employment and residential.

That's what the strategy is all about.

OK.

Let's now turn to CDF01, the Tower Hamlet sub -area.

That's the local plan.

CDF? CDF 01. Oh yeah. And within it, page 202, vision for city fringe. Yeah I think

By 2031, the city fringe will become a more attractive place to live, work and visit.

Yes.

What, if anything, do you say this offers the inspector by way of relevant policy?

So the, let me just finish on the OAPF because it leads into this, is that when you're looking

In a Strategy 3, under 3 .9, further down the page, it sets out the policy framework in

terms of protecting employment and otherwise promoting residential.

This site is in the inner core area and what that does is with, and it says, I think it's

in the second sentence, within the sites designated

as priority employment land by the local council.

Development proposals effectively need to be

commercial -led, not lose commercial floor space.

So there's a strong presumption for not just commercial,

but increasing commercial in those areas.

And those are the local employment locations

and the preferred office locations. Now I've, they're in the plan but again trying to find

them in in the diagrams on the plan is virtually impossible but I've gone on the interactive,

just this was just for myself, the interactive proposals map and downloaded those. They're

locations. So you've got the Bishops Gate Road corridor which is a

secondary preferred office location slightly to the west of the site the

other side of commercial road. You have the Whitechapel local employment

location which you saw earlier. There's a special office location around Allgate

it's two areas and then going further south you've got Tower Gateway East local

employment area and various ones at Tower Gateway not far from the Tower of London.

So there's no site that, both sites are all, none of those sites include the appeals site.

So that's the OAPF and what we were being referred to if you like is where the borough

takes its City Fringe Opportunity Area and produces what it calls its Sub Area 1 City

Fringe Range of Policy. So it's embedding the strategic guidance in the OAPF into the

development plan and translating those policies into a development plan document.

So shall we now turn to sub area one?

Pages 202 through to 205.

Yep.

It's CD F01.

What page are you going?

It's 202 PDF and internal.

Yeah, do you have that?

Yeah, I've got it.

Okay. Again, question put. Where does this take the inspector in your view?

So you can see the vision there on page 202,

and it's the headline, as you've read out,

by 2031, the city fringe will become a more attractive place

to live, work, and visit.

It's all about balancing the commercial

with the residential.

If you go further on, there's the diagram you referred to,

And then you've got a little illustration there and

for

Residential it says they expect there to be but there is potential for over 10 ,000

residential units

10 ,000 -334 as a minimum

And then the other thing I would draw your attention to

is over the page, on page 205 at the top,

in terms of meeting housing needs.

Six and seven provide a range of housing typologies

that create sustainable places to live, work and play

and maximise provision and deliver a creative approach

to on -site communal and private amenity space,

including children's play spaces.

It's a crowded borough and we're having to think very smart

in order to provide sufficient open space.

I think when I was working at Croydon, we worked out

if you did the six -acre space standards,

to meet that we'd need six tower hamlets.

So how do you recommend that the inspector

deal with those provisions,

and what weight do you say should be attached to them?

Well, I think what they're doing,

and that whole policy area,

is taking the guidance in the London Plan,

which is the OAPF, which is, what's it called now,

local plan guidance, I think is what they call it these days

and puts that into a development plan document.

And the GLA clearly supported that.

It was considered to be in general conformity,

hence why it was approved by the inspector

and adopted by the council.

All right, let's go back in the document to look at the Brick Lane District Centre

and the policies that are relevant to to that starting at page 116 please.

Okay.

This is policy D. TC2, protecting retail in our town centres.

Okay.

I think we need to start STC1 which is the strategic policy just before it

Yes, you'll find that on 109.

So that sets out the sort of hierarchy of centres. There's quite a lot of them.

the ones that are relevant, that cover the appeals side.

So it's within a Tower Hamlets activity area.

Must be a strange policy.

As far as it is a policy, it's set out in that table.

But it hasn't got a separate policy for it.

It seems to be, well, it's been explained to me as a series

of areas to deal with the transition

between both Canary Wharf, the city, and their hinterlands.

And I think if you look at the proposals map

around Canary Wharf, it makes more sense there because it sort

of wraps itself around the Canary Wharf sort

of business district.

So that's what it's there for, and you can see there the function.

So it's provide areas of transition between the scale, activity and character of the centre

activity zone and Canary Wharf, major centres, support a mix of uses which make a positive

contribution to health and wellbeing and to promote active uses at ground floor level.

So that's pretty much it.

There's not much else in the rest of the plan.

And it's also within a district centre,

which is the Brick Lane District Centre.

So that's a fairly standard sort of town centre classification.

The next policy, or the next series of policies,

then set out those, so DTC2 all the way through to C,

sets out the usual range of policies that are designed to manage primarily

the ground floor activity of a district centre to ensure that its vibrancy and

vitality are either maintained promoted or in harm. Do these policies support or

not support the proposals well in a sense that they're silent because they're

focusing on on the sort of retail and other town centre uses that typically

take place in relation to the street or to a parade or shopping centre it

doesn't say you know it doesn't have a policy for residential above the shops

It's not a policy for commercial above the shops.

You don't have a policy for everything.

You don't really need that.

Your other residential policies

and your other commercial policies

is where you go for that guidance in terms of it.

And in fact, putting a flat above a shop,

in most cases, this permit development

has been for a while,

but it doesn't seem to be taken up that often.

it these policies are silent because that's not the issue they're grappling

with they're grappling with the vitality vibrancy issues of town centres and

generally they generally deal with the activities that go on on the ground

floor yeah fast food takeaways markets financial and professional services you

know banks and building societies retail outside of town centres you know town

Centre first policy in so far as it applies in a place like town Hamlet and

market so the policies really don't help either way because it's not grappling

with that that issue those issues are grappled with elsewhere okay so far as

residential is concerned what were officers saying in the in the pre apps

Well I've been through those and in the pre -apps they certainly do, it's clear that they were

seeking more residential.

Shall we find an example of that?

You go to CDD 09.

It's the pre -app of the 19th of December, which is by now an old friend.

24 of 44, paragraph 1 .106.

I'm just twirling, yeah.

Paragraph...

What page is it?

It's page 24 of 44.

Yeah, I've got it.

It says here, the proposal from the applicant team is to redevelop the site and provide a residential -led development.

The applicant team are aware that one of the expected objectives of the Brit Lane SPD is

to encourage more residential development in the area, particularly social housing.

The local plan policy encourages commercial and residential uses in district centres and

the city fringe.

In this respect, the proposal for a residential plot is very much welcomed in principle.

So what observations, if any, do you have about this part of the pre -adventure?

Yeah, just to give you the context, they were discussing Plot J, the Woodseer Street, Middle

Street, Hanbury Street plot, which is part of the main site application, but not in the

main site, where effectively that development was residential -led.

there was an office component, but it was the smaller element.

And they're making the point there

that with respect to the main estate, and principally,

I would assume, referring to blocks 3A and 3B,

saying that additional housing in the main estate

would be the local planning authority's expectation.

All right.

Mr. Kiley, in opening, the appellant's opening includes reference to the council's consent

order.

Yes.

Albeit, that particular part of the opening was not read aloud.

But let's assume for now that it remains a part of the appellant's case.

And so I want to ask you about that.

You're familiar with the High Court order that is referenced at paragraph 38 of my loan

of friends opening.

And actually it does, in fairness, it features also in Mr. Marginson's evidence.

He says at paragraph 514 of his proof with reference to the High Court consent order,

which quashed the adoption of the counsel's SPD, he drew attention to paragraph 9, which

says this, no reasonable planning authority could have reached a judgement that the SPD

did not conflict with the adopted development plan in circumstances where

that plan makes clear that employment and commercial town centre uses are to

be the priority in the area of the SPD. I'd ask you to comment on that please.

Yes, very familiar with these processes I've been stung by it myself some time

ago back in 2012, 2013 and actually you know probably most SPDs would fall foul of regulation

five. Certainly when I run into difficulties with it I raised it with the chief plan of

Steve Quartermain at the time and unfortunately it's taken some time for government to respond

and I think their solution is supplementary plans which is sitting on the schedule seven

and the allura hasn't been activated yet.

So it is a problem that the way the system is set up

doesn't allow you to respond to emerging things

in a meaningful way.

You're heavily constrained.

And often that means you have to do a DPD process, which

isn't necessarily always the best route.

Now, in dealing with this, the fatal ground

was the first one.

They were producing what the legislation calls a DPD,

and they were producing it using SPD processes.

Therefore, that was fatal.

That was the high -velocity bullet to the head.

The second ground sort of flows from that.

It is more a procedural point.

Now, I've looked at it.

Obviously, the wording was put in

by the people taking the action.

the council having lost on the first point probably didn't pay much attention

to it but insofar as I can discern that that is true there is an area within the

SBD master plan and it's an allocation which is allocation 4 .7 called Osborne

Street it's on pages 80 to 83 of the document that's been crossed and that

statement in the consent order is correct in relation to that site because

it's within the central activity zone there's a finger that comes out do you

So again this is a extract of the central activity zone from the map and this finger

comes out.

Sorry.

Sorry, you'll need to take, you'll need to take.

Hang on, I need to get the reference for others.

So it's on the proposals map but when you look at it sir you won't be able to discern

this very easily which is why I've just extracted it to make it simpler.

I think it's CDF02.

So yeah, the appeal sites are here, Whitechapel's down there and this area comes out.

Hang on a second, Mr. Cuny.

Perhaps it's easier to go to...

Is it 02?

No.

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry.

He got it.

What's this scene?

What's this document, man?

What's the core document reference? CDM 17

I mean I can perhaps help by just sort of describing it so you can obviously cheque it

on the interactive map later, but the boundary of the Caz

in the vicinity of Brick Lane, the appeal sites,

sort of runs down from, down Commercial Street.

But rather than then turning east along Whitechapel Road,

it turns east along what's known as Wentworth Street

and Old Montague Street.

And it's only a little bit further along,

I think it's great, great Auric streets that it then goes south and joins Whitechapel Road.

So there's a little sliver of land between Commercial Street, Whitechapel Road and old

Montague Street that's within the CAS.

And within that area is this allocation in the Master Plan which they call Development Site 4 .7 Osborne Street.

So in that sense, that area is one that promotes an office preference, because it's in the

CAS, and that's an allocation for a residential development, which is in conflict with that,

and therefore would justify that statement.

I suppose the other thing I would say sir is that as I said earlier, I think the development

plan when read as a whole in relation to the appeals side rather than this particular part

of the master plan is tick for residential, tick for commercial, tick for mixed use.

So for a document to say it's got to be residential or residential led it is is is is different

and therefore not not in conformity with the plan so that that would be my commentary around

that statement.

I don't think you can read it.

It's a granularity point sir in that you can't read it that it applies across the whole of

that area.

It only applies as far as I've said that the current policy framework supports a whole

range of things and this narrows that down.

But there's a specific conflict with Osborne Street because it's in the CAS.

How should one read it within our appeal site?

So within our appeals site, what you're looking at is a development plan document which fell

foul of development plan document production procedures and therefore fell away.

It doesn't tell you anything about a development management procedure, sir, to determine a

planning application because you go back to look at the development plan and as I put

earlier tick residential tick commercial tick mix use but you have to go further

than that as I explained in my opening sir to look at the plan as a whole and

look at it in terms of its chronological context in terms of how the pressures

that we're trying to address as local planning authorities have changed in

that area over the last decade yeah decade plus but particularly the last

decade I started it from 2015 when the APF was adopted.

Mr. Kiley, anything else you wanted to say about the High Court, the consent order?

No, no I think it's all covered.

Could we move on then to the emerging local plan and the weight that you say should be

attached to it generally and to relevant policies within it more specifically?

Yeah, so the, obviously the inspector be familiar with our 49 in MPPF and the weight, and this

has always been a difficulty and it's one that certainly I've discussed with government

in terms of the old system, when you were examining a unitary development plan or whatever

it was you were looking at objections. The concept of soundness didn't exist and that

enabled you to judge weight because if there was an objection it got a good bit of weight

and you could move on and make decisions on it. So with the sort of legal tests that we

now have on the 2008 system that sort of fell away and the wording in paragraph, I can't

when it was changed, it's trying to grapple essentially with that problem and it's always,

but it's not as satisfactory as it used to be because of the soundness test. So what it says,

as you well know sir, is how far it's got along the process. So we are, we've finished Reg 19,

what the council has, I don't work for them anymore, and they've been to cabinet to get

that signed off that was last week that it went to cabinet and it's on its way

to full council in November I can't quite remember the date but I know I

gave it to 17th yeah it's yeah towards the third week in November so it's

proceeding and that's where it's got to the other thing we need to look at is

objections I think the wording uses to the relevant policies so you know what

objections are there to the policies that bite on the appeal proposals and I

deal with this in my rebuttals at section 2. So I've had the policy team

provide me with all the objections that relate to this area or touch on this

site. They're listed on page four in summary. They're attached as an appendix. Some of them

are verbatim because they're, you know, a website form submission. Others are letters,

emails and they've been attached. I summarise it there and I do a sort of higher level summary

of the following page under powers 2 -4 onwards. In effect, apart from the

applicants both... is it Zelluth? Zell -off? Zell -oof? However you pronounce it and and the

Truman estate. I don't find in there specific objections to the matters

that you're grappling with. There's four that state their support for the

allocation that's Blue Coast Capital, I am Land, Workspace Group. Those three also

offer other comments but they're not objections. They're sort of comments

about various points of detail and Ben Ireland who just supports it. There's

matters protecting their interest,

but nowhere in those is a clear statement

that they object to the allocation.

The only specific objection,

apart from the two parties at this appeal,

is Abdelmihir, who just says the site isn't sound,

doesn't explain why that's the extent of his objection,

the site isn't sound.

Now I think he actually ticked the box

to make that submission.

So my submission, my point is that in applying the MPPF weight, what you have are no specific

objections to the matters that you're grappling with, the principle matters that you're grappling

with, other than the appellants.

And I think because of that, the weight increases.

And that's what's powerful to know.

And what what so far as these appeals are concerned what what?

What difference does it make?

so I think

that the

Evidence that was or the submissions that were made was that the weight is limited minimal etc. I

Think it moves it up. I

Probably should give you my scale sir, but so I I sort of start minimal go limited

moderate, significant, substantial.

As most of us say, it'd be nice if it said that

in the MPPF, wouldn't it?

But there we go.

So I think for minimal, it moves it up to,

I think, moderate weight.

We've learned that these appeals have been recovered.

What's the future likely progression

of the emerging plan. So assuming it gets approved for Council

to examine it I imagine the inspector it's quite busy so you know it on my

previous experience I'm not sure I would give a realistic timetable but I think

There well certainly I heard from the forget the guy's name who leads on this in the inspector at there

At the at the Oxford conference that he's put in significant extra resources

So hopefully it will proceed at pace which is what everyone wants particularly government. So

Just to cut a long storey short you would hope that by the end of next year

Or certainly the early part of the following year. You will be adopting a plan if everything goes smoothly

But as I say, it's very hard to give a...

Can I invite you now, Mr. Kiley, to make a few remarks on housing demand and commercial

demand?

Yeah, I probably covered most of that in what I was saying in terms of my sort of high level.

you know, having looked at the land use policies relating to commercial, having looked at the

land use policies relating to residential, then looking at the chronology of how those

issues have changed over that period from 2015 or 2004 when the first London Plan came

in. So, you know, you've got 30 ,000 homes a year as the need identified in the first

London plan and the next one will have a figure closer to 90 ,000 so it's

tripled and and then the change in a commercial thing which I think I've

covered sufficiently so okay for you I don't think you've come on to the

capacity study yet or building Heights so can we conclude with those two yeah

topics yeah it's really just to clarify for you sir because so I mean I've

commissioned schools with these things and it's important and the document explains it

and I explain it in my proof and in the rebuttal of what these are for.

The documents used in order to help you write a plan, you identify sites invariably for

residential but it doesn't have to be, it could be for other uses and you've got to

write a plan that says, yeah, I'm going to allocate these half a dozen, dozen sites,

whatever they are and they're going to produce X number of homes and you've got to have

some evidence for that.

And that's what these things do.

So you normally employ an architect to do that work.

And they're doing a high level study

of the area, of its characteristics,

to produce that evidence.

So I set it out in my proof, really, sir.

And I think, let me find it.

So yeah, so it's in section three so in doing that

They use certain assumptions and I set that out at para 3 .4

So ground floor storey heights because there could be all sorts of things going on

They've allowed for sort of four to five metres for that because it could be office community areas etc on the ground floor

And then for typical floor storey heights above, for offices, they assume 4 to 4 .5 metres and

for residential 3 to 3 .5 metres.

They also make an assumption that a residential unit be 100 square metres.

Again, these things are, produce conservative numbers so that they pass the test through

the examination on it.

100 square metres you're talking three bed units and larger.

So the probability is, and it's always the probability

in my experience with these things, you know,

you say we're going to, I mean, I said we were going

to build 10 ,000 homes in the centre of Croydon and, you know,

we really expected to build about 15 ,000 homes, but, you know,

this exercise that Macrina -Lavington done

for us produced that number.

So it's always going to be conservative.

That's the nature of the process,

so I'm sure you're aware.

So what I've done is is is to take those those imports and if I get the top I

haven't got the document up yet so what I think it's useful to look at it so

what was it again which one are you looking for I'm looking for the study

capacity study CDF 0 5 CDF 0 5 yeah and within it I think you want pages 27 yeah

and on. So, but why it's loading, so there's on whatever pages there's there's three

theoretical schemes if you like, where the capacity that they're envisioning is is sort

have boxed out, and they're on pages 27,

which is a commercial scheme, and then on 29 and 31,

residential schemes.

Now, the residential schemes only

vary within the way they deal with the central blocks.

So the blocks on the periphery, and we're particularly

looking here at all these proposed blocks 3a and 3b,

are the same between the two and I take those indicative heights and convert

them into building heights using the assumptions that were made in the study.

Oh we've got block 3a and 3b. 3b is on the corner, 3a is next to it. In there you

can see that block 3a is G plus 5 so that gives you a building height because

it's residential of between 19 to 22 and a half metres block 3b on the corner G

plus 7 I'll just deal with those two main heights obviously this step down

back that produces a building height of between 25 and 29 point 5 so if we

compare those I'll deal with 3b first the proposed scheme on the corner is

27 .8 which is obviously within that range 25 to 29 .5 block 3a at 29 .3 which

is slightly taller is between 10 .3 and 6 .8 metres higher than what's shown in

So the evidence that was given to say that somehow this support the applicant scheme

misses the fact that these are residential heights and that's obviously a commercial height.

And so if you just so you can see it if you flick between page 27 and page 29

so if I'm taking to page 27 and ask you to look at the the block on the right

hand side to remember that the street spittles straight you've got on the on

the bottom page 27 you got G plus 2 and G plus 5 and if you then click on 29

using the thumb line on the left you can see the G plus 5 which is the step down

which should be the same height as the other one, but if you flip between two,

you can see the G plus, the blue G plus five is quite a bit higher than the yellow G plus five.

I mean, it just illustrates the point I've made with the actual numbers.

So, the actual height of the blocks on the schemes illustrated on page 29 and 31 are

significantly different to the commercial blocks and are significantly different to

the application scheme. I just thought it was useful to make sure that we're precise

about this document, what it does and what it shows. So it's a document to produce a

plan. It might be the very starting point for your pre -app discussions. There'll be

a load more work to be done in terms of chiselling and refining this and also deciding on the

housing mix and quite different numbers would emerge from what's in the plan and that's

pretty common if not you know certainly in this part of the world always the case.

Mr Kylie thank you those are all the questions I had for you in chief.

I think two hours might do it, sir, depends on the answers, obviously.

I'm not going to go through all of the documentation that I'm going to go through with my planning

witness.

I'm just going to be on a higher level than that.

But I don't want to promise more than two hours.

I'm just wondering about, shall we resume at 2 o 'clock?

Well, I'm thinking a truncated lunch would be...

Shall we say 10 to?

Yes, thank you.

Forty -five minutes like yesterday.

Okay, until 10 to 2 then. Thanks everyone.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Thursday 23 October 2025, 9:30am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry AMThursday, 23rd October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Thursday, 23rd October 2025 at 9:30am