Truman's Public Inquiry PM - Thursday 23 October 2025, 2:00pm

Truman's Public Inquiry PM
Thursday, 23rd October 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

three things you needed to get right. First was to find out where the case was, second was to get there before it started,

and third was to get people's names right.

You can go a long way on that.

I'm used to it. There was one guy I found me out my second from the nose.

I didn't know how to use the collie.

That's how I remember your name. I threw a couple of bullets at him.

Hello, Mr. Russell.

Alright, can we start with things that...

Because you're the local authority planning witness for these purposes.

And although it's really clear from the reporter committee at this inquiry, we'd better clear

out of the way points that the local planning authority are not taking.

So the local planning authority, all this is in the reporter committee, but the local

planning authority is not taking an equalities act point against the proposal, is it?

No, they're not.

The local authority has considered its public sector

equalities duty.

It's reported in the report committee that it's been discharged.

And you're not taking a contrary view on behalf of the local authority here, are you?

No, I'm not, you?

The issue of the adequacy of consultation, both at application and subsequent stages,

is considered also in the report to committee.

You're not taking an adequacy of consultation point, are you?

No, I'm not.

And as for the processes leading up to this inquiry and at this inquiry, nobody, at least

on behalf of the local authority, is taking an adequacy of consultation point.

Not that I've been talking about, no sir.

Finally, adequacy of environmental statement or environmental impact assessment, that's

no part of any local authority's case and it's so certified in the reports to committee

where they are relevant.

That's my understanding, yes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So the first heading is land use and meaning of the development plan.

We have a development plan led system, don't we?

We do.

Yeah.

Section 38 .6.

Yeah.

And the purpose of the development plan system is, among other things, to give developers

a degree of certainty as to what might be appropriate in terms of development in a development

plan area?

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I think it always has to be a starting point because there's

other material considerations in Section 36, but the idea of the plan is to clear out the

as much as you can in advance so we can have an efficient and effective decision taking process.

For that and other reasons Parliament has put into place regulations and policies which one follows

in order to ensure that among other things as you've said development plans are sound.

Yes. Good. And if, for example, there's a shift in emphasis in relation to policy anticipated

or proposed by politicians, then the way in which the development plan works is it requires

those insofar as they are to be developed to go through a system of consultation, testing,

further consultation, testing and eventually assessment by independent

examiners to ensure that the eventual development plan is sound in the sense

that it is consistent with national policy and meets the other requirements

to soundness. Yes. Good. Thank you very much. And as you accept in your proof, in

the circumstances of this case and as we heard from the mayor the emerging plan

has a different preference in the sense that it specifically prefers a

affordable residential led development approach for the area well a

residential led approach and the affordability would obviously be a

matter to determine through the DM process in the way it normally is done

Good, well that's fine.

But I think we heard yesterday or the day before,

I think it might have been yesterday,

that the overwhelming preference of this different strategy

is residential with a view to including substantial elements

of affordable.

Well, I think the policy generally throughout the country

is to optimise affordable housing and the MPPF says that you're required to meet that need.

But those decisions, when it comes to the DiEM process, obviously have to be properly tested

through the viability process and the guidance in the PPG.

And also the nature and extent of the affordable

will have also to be considered in terms of its soundness.

Well, you would propose your policies and they would be tested and part of that testing

is a high level viability appraisal on it.

But those policies would also have to be backed up with need evidence.

But that's fairly routine.

All routine and would all have to be in general conformity

with the London Plan as well.

Yes.

Good.

All right.

Do you regard to the MPPA?

OK.

So that's all very helpful.

We've got a development plan process.

There are regulations that people

have to go through to ensure that what might be coming

is sound and consistent with central government advice.

The development plan, please.

Now, I don't want to spend too much on this,

but there was an extraordinary part

of your examination in chief relating

to the meaning of the development plan

and the relevance of a consent order.

Do you remember that?

Yes.

I just want to look at that, please.

Because the meaning of a development plan policy

is a matter of law, isn't it?

That's what the courts have said.

Yes.

Kept us all in business for years.

The meaning of development plan policy

is a matter of law.

And here in this case, we've got a High Court judgement

based on a consent order, haven't we?

We have.

Yeah.

And that High Court judgement is as good as a High Court

judgement between parties which were inter -parties

and fighting each other.

In fact, in many ways, it's better

because it's a consent order.

But in legal terms, it's an order

of the High Court which is binding on all of us here,

isn't it? It is, but it's not one that was contested. Therefore, certainly in my experience

of these things, the issues were not particularly unpicked. And as I explained, there were two

parts to that. The first one was the fatal part. The second one was also the fatal part.

Well, if it was won or lost it would have still been fatal.

And as I said, I'm trying to help the inspector in that I think you can read too much into

that in the way you're expressing it, that somehow it's a judgement from the High Court.

It was consented and I don't think it was examined in any detail.

Right, well let's just consider that.

That was the point I was making.

Have you taken instructions, because you know, some of us on this side of the room are on

other side of the proceedings, have you taken instructions as to whether the council took

leading counsel's opinion as to whether there should be a consent order or not?

So I had a discussion with officers in the planning department about the extent to which

they were involved in that and they had hardly any involvement.

So come back to the question, please.

Are you able to confirm that leading council was asked to consider, particularly by the

mayor, whether the SPD should be quashed or not?

I haven't got that information.

Can you go away and get it, please?

And if my learned friends have got it, then you can take it from them at any stage of

the process.

I'm going to suggest to you that Guion Lewis, K .C., was instructed to consider the lawfulness

of the SPD and he did consider it and he gave what looks to be clear advice. We were told by the

solicitors acting for the local authority that that is what was happening and that we would abide

further instructions after that advice had been given to the mayor. Were you aware of any of that?

No. Okay. Can we look at the terms of the order please? Bearing in mind, as we should,

unless I'm mistaken, which I'm not, that at all material times the local authority

had leading counsel's opinion on this consent order.

Yeah, I've got it downloaded.

So it's CDH07.

I've got it downloaded already.

Now, this has at all material times been mentioned in the proofs of evidence of Mr. Margeson,

correct?

Yes.

Yeah.

It's identified in the reports to committee, the quashing of the SPD by consent.

The fact that the SPD should be given no weight at all in the officer's reports, and the

little passage that we heard at the back end of your examination in chief is not even foreshadowed

in either your proof or your rebuttal, is it?

So I don't understand.

There's no, remember you took the inspector

through various parts of the SPD and tried

to explain how that meant that the order of the court

didn't particularly apply to the SPG area as a whole.

There's nothing of that in your main proof

or your supplementary proof, is there, rebuttal?

Now, at the point of writing those, the need to go into that wasn't apparent.

When I got the supplementary proof from your planning witness, I sought to try and understand

what might be the reasoning behind that statement.

So that's your reasoning, is it?

It's my reasoning in order to help the inspector.

What is it in the development plan that could have resulted in that?

And that's what I gave at this moment.

All right, well, we'll come to that.

Now, we received a request for the statement

of facts and grounds from the local authority

just a couple of days ago.

That's correct, isn't it?

So you hadn't seen the statement of facts and grounds

at all until that stage.

Is that right?

The other day, that's right.

That's the other day, right.

And so this thing, which is your reasoning,

does that come about just in the last 24 hours there?

No, no, no, no.

So I was going through that reasoning in my head

and asking for the statement of facts and grounds

was a product of that in order to try and understand it.

So you came up with this sort of exculpatory position

without even seeing the statement of facts and grounds?

No.

Must follow?

No.

The evidence I gave this morning was a result of me thinking

about that, researching the development plan,

getting the facts and grounds in order to help the inspector to consider that in what

was hopefully the right way.

Okay, well you've agreed that the meaning of the Development Plan Policy is a matter

of law.

Let's see what the courts have said with the assistance of QC on this side, QC acting

on behalf of the local authority and signing a formal court order to this effect.

So you need to go to CDH7, please.

Which document is that?

Sorry, it's the consent order, which is then incorporated in the judgement of the court.

Yeah, I've already got that.

Right.

Do you have that, sir?

Good.

Okay.

Do you see, paragraph 2, the claimant challenged the decision on two grounds.

They weren't cumulative, they were separate and independent.

Ground 1, the SPD is unlawful as it should have been prepared and adopted as a development

plan document.

Ground 2, the council erred in concluding that the SPD did not conflict with the adopted

development plan pursuant to regulation 8 .3 of the 2012 regulations.

regulations. We go to paragraph 7, it deals with the first point. The defendant, that's the council

isn't it? Yes. With advice from Guion Lewis KC, accepts that the SPD contains policies falling

within each of the categories and is there for a development plan document. The defendant accepts

that it erred in law in preparing the document as a supplementary planning document. Yes. Okay,

yeah ground one. Yeah. It doesn't say and by the way this is the fatal bullet and we're not

bothering about anything else, does it? No. So we read this on its face. Ground 9, in

relation to Ground 2, the defendant accepts that the SPD could not have been lawfully

adopted even as a supplementary planning document for the reasons set out a statement of Facts

and Grounds 59 to 63. Yep. They're the ones you saw just yesterday.

Yes. All right. So we think you should see those

in the circumstances of this case, and we'll put them in.

I don't need it for this cross -examination.

I need me to get them up, no.

No, there's no need to get them up.

Save to note that they don't, in any way, shadow, or form,

deal with the issue that you took

a learned friend and the inspector to in terms of saying

there's some sort of narrowing of what this means.

And then it reads like this.

If I could just correct that.

I never tried to narrow what it meant.

I tried to understand what it meant, what in the development plan would result in that

conclusion and what I explained to the inspector was what I found that would fit that conclusion.

Yes, OK.

Let's see.

I think, Ms Curtis, you can…

Sorry, we haven't received a copy of those and so if the local authority had them a couple

of days ago, could we just have them as soon as possible, please?

It was a direct request and I'm going to take that as a direct request as well and

we've got them in hard copy here if you'd like to see those.

I have to say that the office was copied into the request, and they sent them to me at the

same time and asked me if I'd asked for them, and I said I hadn't.

So I haven't looked at them.

So they're in my inbox, but I haven't opened them.

That's really helpful.

I think we're all agreeing you could look at them, but I don't ask you to adjourn because

it's so straightforward, really.

Paragraph 9 couldn't lawfully be adopted as a supplementary planning document.

This is because Regulation 83 of the 2012 regulations requires that any policies contained

in a supplementary planning document must not conflict with the adopted development

plan.

Here's the consent order.

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 in the area of the SPD and if you go to that was my

difficulty yeah if you go if you go to statement of facts and grounds it's made

clear that the area of the SPD is the whole of the SPD, isn't it?

That's how that reads, yeah, normal reading of that.

When I looked at the whole of the area in the SB, that's not what I found.

That was my difficulty.

And that's why I tried to help the inspector in that, because I don't think, I couldn't

find the policies that apply to the whole of the SDP that say that.

Well, that's maybe you saying the judge got it wrong or Guion Lewis got it wrong.

But they have, they do get it wrong.

But importantly, you're not inviting me to go behind the consent order.

Not at all, sir.

Good.

So my position is that the whole of the SPD is in conflict with the development plan in

that it prioritises residential whereas the development plan doesn't.

It says commercial or residential or mixed.

So there's no prioritisation.

But the specific thing about employment -led

is only on that bit that's in the CAS.

So that's what I found when I did the examination.

So I'm not saying this is wrong.

I think you can put a gloss on it, which isn't right,

when you go underneath it and look

at what the documents actually say

and what the policies say.

OK.

Well, all sorts of issues arise about what

what the inspector can and can't do but you're not asking the inspector to say

that paragraph 9 on its face is incorrect. No I'm not saying it's wholly

incorrect I think you need to partially incorrect you need to understand it

okay and not put a gloss on it that perhaps isn't there. Well you see I'm

in it well is it fair to say I'm in an even more tricky situation in relation

that because in due course I have to report to the Secretary of State now so

so you know it's one thing it's one thing doing an appeal decision it's

another thing entirely reporting to the Secretary of State I mean arguable the

other the other element for me so is this this goes to a development planning

process and and and the regulations that surround that and and and it kills a

or not a development plan document, an SPD document,

because it wasn't prepared correctly.

You're obviously in a development management

decision making process,

and I don't think that conclusion,

that a proposal is in conflict with the development plan,

helps you because that's just one part of your process,

and you'll need to take a view on that yourself,

whether the development is in conflict

with the development plan,

and then apply the other material considerations.

Those aren't part of this.

So that was the evidence I was giving

to try and understand and get beneath the skin of this,

to get the detail correct, rather than the gloss,

that what a very short paragraph,

that as I understand it wasn't particularly examined

in this sort of scenario as part of the process.

The council said we're wrong and fine.

And on its face, it's correct, but I think you can take it too far

in a development management decision -making process.

Clearly, still going to have to take your development plan.

Of course, and I've just tried to help with what evidence I can find

to get under the skin of it.

Okay. Just the last part of the sentence couldn't be clearer.

Employment and commercial town centre uses are to be the priority in the area of the SPD.

That's the position that the court found.

The court went further than that and said it would be Wensbury unreasonable

to take any different view in the circumstance.

Correct?

That's what it says.

Yeah. Good.

But I don't agree with that as I've explained.

So just explore how you then took that further in relation

to the very clear provisions of the development plan

as they're set out.

Now, remember, this was a judicial review of the SPD,

or a statutory challenge to the SPD.

This was a statutory challenge to the SPD brought

by the appellant in this case.

Yes?

Yes.

And so it would have had in mind the interests of the appellant in ensuring that the development

plan system and the SPD in relation to its interests were not being unlawfully manipulated,

wouldn't it?

That would have been its incentive for doing this.

I can't say what its incentives were.

I mean, but that, nobody throws money at lawyers for nothing.

That could have been one of them, yes.

There may have been others.

OK, well, that's part of the context that the Inspector will want to bear in mind as

well. Thank you very much. And we're all agreed, aren't we, that whatever this ruling means,

and it's really clear we say, binds the Inspector in terms of that which is relevant to his

determination of the case.

It is what it is, but the Inspector still has to look at the development plan and apply

And if he finds it different, then he's perfectly entitled to go down that road.

He doesn't find the inspector to interpret the development plan only in that way if he

finds something different.

Oh, there we are.

So I go to the development plan, but what I don't go to is the SPD.

Exactly.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, that's there.

It's gone.

Thank you very much, sir.

Good.

And I just want to, I'm going to go through this in greater detail with my own planning

witness.

But I just want to pick up a couple of things that

sort of underpinned the analysis that we

heard for the first time in your evidence in chief.

Can we start with the OEPD, please, CDE05,

which you relied on heavily?

Sorry, what was the reference again?

What's the document? I've probably got it downloaded.

It's the Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

Which I've got as CDE5.

Yeah, I've got the document.

City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

Do you remember we went into it

and we looked at City Fringe Area,

It's one of those documents that's just bear with me.

It's on page 28.

Yeah, strategy three.

That's it, strategy three.

Now, the first thing to notice about this

is not part of the development plan, is it?

So it's not really on the point so far

as the point you were trying to make

about the way the development plan should be considered.

It's not part of the development plan, is it?

No, it's guidance.

It's not part of the development plan.

Yes, I said yes.

Good, thank you.

And in paragraph 3 .9, which is where we went to, we went to part of it and then you explained

to the inspector what you thought it meant as part of this, if you like, the court order

doesn't apply to this part of the land, it applies to a very small part of the land.

The inspector can make...

Not quite what I said.

Let's look at what it says. We are in the inner core area, aren't we?

And therefore we are 3 .9 bullet point 1 in this document.

Inner core areas where demand is expected to be highest. That's S, isn't it?

This is where development proposals for employment and floor space will be encouraged and supported

in order to support the process of the core expanding and prevent supply diminishing.

That's talking about employment floor space, isn't it?

Then it says this, within the sites designated as priority employment land by the local authority,

development proposals which result in a net loss of employment proposals floor space should be refused.

That's all right.

OK.

That's that sentence.

Yes.

That's dealing quite clearly with priority employment land

sites, isn't it?

Yeah.

And what it's saying is, if you lose employment,

then you'll be refused.

That's right.

Yeah.

Then look at what it says.

We're not in one of those areas.

No, I know.

But then look at what it says.

Any development proposals, not just those in that area,

any development proposals, including refurbishment

and demolition and redevelopment on these sites should provide the maximum viable amount

of employment land and floor space possible. The aim, this is inner core areas, should

be to achieve an employment led scheme and one which results in an overall increase in

employment floor space compared to the existing amount. Next, elsewhere, development should

seek to re -provide at least the same quantum of employment.

Now, are we talking about our site now, elsewhere?

No, we're not.

Elsewhere?

Well, hang on.

So let me answer that.

So the policy identifies that it's

applicable within those allocated sites.

And then it goes on.

any development on these sites, i .e. the allocated sites,

it's not any development within this area.

I'm not arguing that, it's the elsewhere.

Elsewhere, please, that's what I'm asking.

Elsewhere in the inner core area, that is us.

Well.

Elsewhere, yeah.

That is us.

Development should seek to re -provide

at least the same quantum of employment floor space.

Yep.

And support an overall, appropriate overall balance

between employment and residential floor space. Strong consideration should also be given

to developing employment -led schemes and to the opportunity to provide an overall uplift

in employment floor space through more intensive redevelopment of the site. So, clear, strong

consideration should also be given to developing employment -led schemes. That's S, isn't it?

But it's not saying only that.

Good. Thank you very much. That is one reference that you took us to in chief. The second reference

was to STC 1, which is in the development plan.

Yeah. Supporting a network and hierarchy centres.

Yeah, that's it. Just bear with me. Because you went to that, but you didn't actually

go to what is meant to happen in those areas. So we need to go to CDF 1. And to page 109.

which we did go to, but not fully.

I'll hand it to you.

I'll you that yet, sir.

Well, I'm struggling as well, so just bear with me a second.

It's quite an important – oh, I've got the wrong document.

You've got it there.

That's it.

Thank you.

Do you have it, Mr. Kiley?

Yeah, I've got a print of 109 in the following pages,

but if you're going to take me further, then I've got it open.

I think that'll do.

That'll do.

Good.

It's policy S .TC1.

Yeah.

S .TC1.

Yeah.

Are you there now, sir?

No.

Oh.

T1.

Yeah.

Well, it's policy ST1, and there's a box.

And you said, well, it's not like an ordinary policy.

And then you looked at.

No, that was only in relation to activity areas, not the hotbox.

OK, fair enough.

STC 1 has got...

1, development is required to support the role and function

of the borough's town centre hierarchy

and the provision of town centre uses

in line with the principles set out below.

Yeah?

And then there is a list of district centres.

and one of the district centres is Brick Lane, and this is the bit we didn't go to in chief.

Well I did say the Brick Lane District Centre was in there.

You did, you did, but what we didn't do was look to see the role and function that all

development is required to support. And what we got is District Centre, Brick Lane, promote

as vibrant hub containing a wide range of shops, services and employment. That's

what it says isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Doesn't mention residential. Well I did touch on

that so in that these policies, this is a strategic policy that then leads into the

detail policies that deals with the retail activity and if you look at all

the policies it covers out. I don't think but Mr Russell is saying that the

policy is saying you can't have residential in your district

centres.

No, it's not saying that.

But if, as I understand your evidence correctly,

you're saying that the High Court was wrong to identify

that the priority was for employment -led,

you're saying that if you read these policies together,

they support residential -led.

And I'm suggesting that's nonsense.

And if it wasn't nonsense, then the court

could not have come to the conclusion he did.

Let me explain what I'm saying, because that's not

quite what I said.

All right.

Well, I said was that if you read all these policies that

deal with the various designations or policy

sort of layers on this site, if you had a 100 %

residential development, there's policy support for that.

If you had 100 % commercial, there's policy support

for that.

And if you had a mixed use, there's

policy support for that.

When I read all those policies as a whole,

it doesn't say it must be residential led or it must be

Commercial led. It's it's dealing with that transition from the

central business district in the city and

the hamlets to the

If that was right, the High Court would simply never have quashed

the

SPD because the SPD said in effect a mixture but residential led

It was argued and the local authority agreed that that was not even inconsistent, but not

even arguably consistent with the development plan when read as it is.

See the point?

Well, of course I see the point.

And I saw that point some time ago and tried to understand it.

And I've given evidence on what I've done to try and understand that.

And I've done that to help the inspector so that he can properly understand the development

plan as a whole and not simply rely on a statement

that I would suggest had very little scrutiny.

Because it's not strictly speaking correct.

I don't know what the contempt of court rules are about that.

And I'm not giving you a warning or anything.

But we've got to proceed, haven't we, on the basis

that something that is a consent order

hasn't subsequently been challenged

is not something that has not been

given a deal of consideration by a high court judge.

All I'm saying is that that was a decision in the context of the development plan process

and we're now in a development management process and the Inspector has to come to development

plan afresh and not be polluted by something that may be wrong.

Well, I mean, I'm not going to go into that again.

Polluted is an inappropriate word and might be wrong.

Well, the Inspector can form his judgement on what he's here.

Absolutely.

And I've just sought to put him there.

Now as I understand how you put things,

you say that the development plan,

despite what the High Court said,

a 100 % housing or even high percent housing position,

you say would be in accordance with the development plan.

On the appeal side?

Yeah.

Yes.

Right.

That's where we differ.

But where we don't differ, I think,

is you say that a employment -led, which we say

the only thing that's consistent with the development plan because we agree with the

court, you are now saying and agreeing that an employment -led development would also be

consistent.

Yes, I said that in my opinion.

Yeah, no, no, I know, I just want to follow that.

Yeah.

Okay, all right.

So let's pick up the NPPF then, please.

NPPF?

Yeah.

I've been at so many inquiries that this has got various CD numbers on it.

Is it CDE06?

01. CDE01.

Funny enough, I've got it downloaded already.

Yeah, thought you might.

I presume you want paragraph 46.

No, I'm going to go to paragraph 11, which is much more important.

Oh, yes.

Which is the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah?

Now, at no stage in your proof or in your rebuttals or anywhere, not in the Rule 6 statement,

does the local authority claim that its own policies in relation to the determination

of this application are out of date?

No, and I've not said that in these terms.

I think I was careful to explain to the inspector in my three -part presentation of, if you like,

my planning arguments, that what I was doing is to understand the policies in the context

of the chronology of those policies and the issues relating to commercial development

and residential development over that time and the extent to which you should apply those

policies in the knowledge of the environment within which you're working and making decisions.

So it's not a out -of -date point in this narrow sense.

Well, except what we've got is a suggestion

that there should be something residential led,

which we say is contrary to the plan.

Don't have to reopen that debate.

And we say we've got a proposal that

is in accordance with the plan.

And you're not saying that that part of the plan is out -of -date.

Your analysis to the inspector, you're

saying even if it were 100 % commercial.

Let me finish the question.

Even if it is 100 % commercial workspace, city fringe type

stuff, that would be in accordance

with the development plan.

With that part of the development plan.

But my point is the development plan needs to be read as a whole

and read in the context of the environment that

exists in this part of London in terms of the interplay between.

Well, I'm just finishing answering your question.

Yeah, probably.

The interplay between commercial activity and the housing

crisis, effectively, for want of a better way of putting it.

Just so I've got this right, because I'm

going to make submissions on this in closing,

or I'm a lone friend of his, you're

not saying that the development plan in relation

to these matters is out of date?

No.

No, I'm not saying it in the narrow paragraph 11 terms.

But what I'm pointing out is that the OAPF policies,

and I know it's not part of the development plan,

but it's got its roots in the London plan

and then formed city zone one, I think it was called,

city fringe, core growth area one.

So that thinking and that guidance

found its way into the development plan.

That was done at a time where the world was very, very

different.

and I also, and there's the sort of later evidence

in terms of office demand in the area,

and there's also the housing issue.

So, yeah, you could say that the development plan,

the local plan is five years old, just over five years old.

The borough is reviewing it as it should do,

and it's putting in place new policies.

So there's an indication there that the council thinks

that parts of the plan need to be updated.

That's different from out to date, though.

It's different from out to date in narrow paragraph 11 terms.

But it's out to date in that the world's moved on,

the evidence is saying something different,

and the local planning authority responding in that way.

That's what I'm saying.

OK.

Well, let's see whether that's an argument that's

available to you given the structure that we all

have to work within for the purposes of this inquiry.

The NPPF is another material consideration, obviously.

but it's also given a special status because it comes from government and all

the authorities make clear that up -to -datedness of policies involves a

consideration of whether the tilted balance applies and all of those other

things. Yes? Yes. Right. So let's look at paragraph 11 please because the

inspectors got to work within this framework. You can't just make assertions

that things have altered. This is the framework that if the inspector doesn't adopt, he probably

will be making a legal error. Look, for decision making, the presumption in favour of sustainable

development, approving development proposals that accord with an up -to -date development

plan without delay. Do you see that? Very familiar with that.

Yeah.

So you're not saying that the relevant policies are out

of date.

You're not saying that they're not up to date.

We are in 11C territory, aren't we?

That we've got a policy that is employment led.

It should be granted without delay, subject to heritage

and all of the other issues that we're talking about.

But in land use terms, am I right

that you are not saying that we are in D territory but we're in C territory.

We're in C territory and the development plan needs to be read as a whole.

And you also need by law to take into account other material planning considerations.

Yeah, coming on to those. Don't worry.

So this can't trump the law. So it sort of, I know what it says, but it could have been worded a bit better.

Well, it could.

But we all know why it was worded the way it was.

All right, well, I'm not even going to take up that invitation.

But the inspector can note that our scheme, which is not 100 percent employment -led, but

our scheme, which is employment -led, looking at all the stuff, even on your analysis is

an 11C.

If he agrees with us and the officers and the court that the development plan is a development

plan that prioritises employment, then we're still in 11c, aren't we?

We are in 11c, I've already agreed that, and the development plan needs to be applied and

that is guiding the decision making, we're not in the tilted balance.

We're not in the tilted balance.

We need to apply the development plan as a whole and take proper account of the other

material considerations that's what I'm saying. Yeah I've got that I've got that

but we're not we're not in the tilted balance and the policy in the plan is up

to date. I was just really interested in where we go from here to be honest Mr.

Keeley because we got a Kylie sorry we've got an emerging plan that you say

ought to be given moderate weight to should that trump the adopted

development plan which is not up to date.

It's not a simple case of trumping.

You need to consider all those factors, weigh them in the balance and come to a proper planning

judgement.

If you want to summarise that as trumping then so be it, but that's not the language

I would use.

Well, I think we are entitled to know because you're careful not to say it in any of your

evidence.

First of all, you don't...

Sorry, Mr. House.

Yes.

The way I heard your evidence this morning, what I took from that was that

you were suggesting that the emerging plan was an other material

consideration that one might attach more weight to than the adopted plan. Is that

fair? Yeah that's one way of phrasing it. I didn't quite phrase it like that. I

like represents the judgement by the council as a local planning authority

when it grapples with the latest evidence in terms of housing need and

commercial floor space need and is a logical and sensible reaction to that as

a local planning authority while it's trying to grapple with this

transition area where there is demand for both commercial floor space and

additional housing and therefore if you like it represents the sort of latest

position and that seems to me a sensible place within which to make the

planning decision by giving that appropriate weight and you know I see it

as a sort of, as I said, this sort of chronological analysis

of the policies in their context of the evidence

and the matters that were happening

at the time in the commercial market

and the residential market.

And therefore, the conclusion is a result of all that.

I don't think you can do these things as simply as, that's

out of date, this is new, da -da -da, this is at this stage,

whatever.

You have to sort of look beneath the bonnet of all these things

and understand them and give them the right consideration

to come to a proper planning decision.

That's how I'm looking at this.

I think that's helpful.

I'm sorry.

No, sir.

That's exactly how I read your evidence

when it first came about, which is

why I'm interested to see how you play or explain

to the inspector he should adopt 11C or 11D.

But you're crystal clear, aren't you,

that this is not a tilted balance case.

and you're not saying that the development plan policies for the area

which are employment led according to the court, you're not saying that they

are out of date? They're not out of date in paragraph 11 D terms.

I think I've explained it. I think the Inspector understands where I'm coming from.

Thank you very much.

And just one last time, because I just want to make this absolutely clear in the result

as a result of some of your answers.

If the inspector agrees with officers and with the GLA and I'd say with the court that

the preference for employment -led at this location is up to date, then 11C, subject

to the issues of heritage and the other things that we've been looking at in terms of landscape.

I've taken this discussion to just be about land use.

Yeah, exactly.

Well, that's very fair.

Then C says the inspector should approve without delay, because that's what the presumption

in favour of sustainable development?

I've already answered that.

The law says a bit more than that.

Yeah, no, no, no.

But of course, it makes it clear, doesn't it,

that the NPPF is framed in terms of compliance

with the development plan

and unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

That's all baked into this.

This is another material consideration, isn't it?

And it is telling the Inspector

that because development needs to come forward for economic and other purposes,

approving developments that are called with an up -to -date development plan strategy

should happen without delay. That's the guidance, isn't it?

That's the guidance and it's a little bit partial in terms of what the law requires inspected today.

OK, I now understand it. Thank you very much. Good, thank you.

Yeah, excellent.

Good.

I want to look how others, apart from the court, have looked at the adopted plan and

the weight that it's to be given, please.

Okay?

So we need to go to CDL 1.

This is the committee report and it is the strategic development committee report of

the corporate director of housing and regeneration.

Yes.

so I know you're very familiar.

Well, just to help me, I've not read this in detail.

I've skimmed it because I'm not here

to do a compare and contrast between what the officer said

and what I've said.

I've skimmed it.

I understand their case.

I've looked at the thing afresh, and that's

when I made the decision to assist the council.

But the inspector just might be guided.

I don't think it helps the inspector whether the officer's

got it right or I got it right.

And I'm going to struggle to do that because I've not read it

that closely.

Well, I'll give you the time that it takes.

It's up to the inspector to decide what's relevant.

But I would have thought what the experienced cader

of officers on the ground were telling elected members

might just have some degree of materiality compared

to your analysis, which we've just

heard for the first time in your examination in chief.

But there's a limit to how much that's

to a decision that was taken by the council that disses from it and therefore I would

think it's much more helpful to the inspector to concentrate on my evidence rather than

what the officers thought at the time which may or may not have been right.

Yeah just come along with me for the purposes. Humour me please if you will.

I'll do my best. Yeah. There is a section in the reporter committee

that we haven't gone to yet called land use. Yeah.

I will tell me where it is and I'll find it.

OK.

I'm genuinely surprised that you haven't familiarised yourself

with the officer's report.

But I'm used to reading these things

and I read them very quickly.

I've read thousands of these in my career,

but I haven't gone through it forensically,

analysing whether they're right or I'm right.

So I'm going to assist the inspector as far as I can,

that with that caveat you don't normally get that these days but there you go

sorry where do you want me to go to well let's start with planning assessment

section 7 please Mr. Kelly and you see 7 1 then has this

and paginated.

No, but on the.

Oh, I've got a paper copy.

On the side.

I can't help.

Seven.

Yeah.

Okay, I'll try and find it.

Thank you.

I'm grateful.

Yeah, I've got it.

And you see there's a section there called land use.

Yes, first section.

Now, this is the, as I said, the report of the corporate director of housing and regeneration.

We've also had two of the officers who fed into this report at the inquiry for, I don't

think they're here now, but for large parts of the time, haven't we?

Mr. Gwynne, for example.

Yes, yes.

He was here this morning.

People are now.

Not here now.

And this cadre of officers is on the ground, knows and understands the development plan

and also had input on appropriate land use from the GLA, strategic authority, didn't

it?

Okay.

I want to take it fairly.

It's quite a long session.

but it deals with land use starting at 7 .2.

And it reminds us of what the NPPF says about the planning system

and in particular what it says about sustainability.

And then it goes to town centres. Do you see that?

Yep. And it looks at what we've already looked at.

7 .5, district centre should promote as vibrant hubs containing a wide range of

shop services and employment. And it goes to activity areas. The inspector can can

read that. Then it goes to new development within the central activity zone.

We're not in.

which we're not in yet exactly, then policy STC part three,

major new development must contribute positively the

function vitality and viability of the major centre,

district centres in the Columbia Road

and Red Church Street, et cetera.

Then it sets out policies relating to employment,

making it clear in policy in 710 that new

or intensified employment floor space will be supported

within designated employment areas, the Tower Hamlets activity areas, we're in

that aren't we? Yes. And identified site allocations. Then there's the local plan

city fringe sub area. I won't read all of these out. Then we've got the GLA city

fringe opportunity area which we looked at earlier. The members were reminded

of the inner core area at 715, correct?

And then there was a local plan residential use policy referred to, correct?

And of course we know because we've already looked at it

that residential uses can be appropriate uses in the district centre,

brackets, sorry, quotation marks, where appropriate, yes?

Of course.

Yeah, good.

Thank you.

Any use where appropriate.

And then there's an assessment, isn't there?

And the assessment goes on for pages after pages,

includes reference to the draught local plan.

Yes?

Yes.

And the fact that it prefers to have a residential -led position.

Yes.

Officers told elected members at 7 .40,

given that there are unresolved objections to the plan,

it carries minimal weight.

That's what officers thought.

you take a different view and we'll cover that with you later.

Then again, several more pages, but the overall conclusions, 767 and just above.

Yeah, concluding paragraph.

Yep.

The package of benefits set out above is welcome.

The proposal would result in new jobs and spending by workers at businesses in the local

area.

The proposal includes affordable workspace, et cetera, additional programme of skills, employment

with funded council post is welcome, all of that.

Now, there was at this committee a very vocal assessment

that it ought to be led by residential development.

And officers were well aware of that

when they drafted the report, weren't they?

Yeah, of course.

Yeah.

And on a number of occasions in the report, as we'll see,

but also in the number of occasions during the debate.

I don't know if you've sat down and watched it.

I think you said you did.

Oh, right, sorry, it must be another witness.

Time and time again, officers reminded elected members

that this was unemployment -led part of the borough

and that even if 100 % of the development

were employment -led, that would still be in accord

with the policies that we've just looked at, didn't they?

I don't know. I'd take your word for it, but I wouldn't argue otherwise.

I wasn't there.

OK. Well, there is a quote in the opening to that effect,

and it's in the report to committee,

and you accept that that's the position that they held?

Yes, it's their position, yes.

And just so that we can understand how out on a limb you are

when we look at the court, when we look at the offices,

when we look at the GLA, the GLA response, which we got separately, is also reported

in this document, isn't it?

Of course it is.

In terms of land use.

Of course it is.

And it makes clear that a commercially led proposal is not only in local plan terms but

in strategic plan terms an appropriate approach to the site.

Yes, that's for their view and as I've said that that's supported by the development plan

as is the other permutations.

It's not saying that thou shalt only put a commercial led scheme on this site.

But a commercial led scheme is supported by the development plan.

We disagree with that.

The two things are different.

Yeah, we disagree with that and we've seen what the High Court has said.

Can we go to 516 which is where that's set out?

This is the GLA on land use.

The principle of a mixed use development with an element of residential is supported.

There they're having regard, no doubt, to the London Plan.

In neither of the references have we looked to, is there a hint that either the London

plan or the adopted plan is out of date?

No.

And when dealing with the emerging plan, officers tell elected members that it's to be given

minimal weight and that the SPD is to be given no weight?

Yes, I've read that.

Do you disagree with them?

You say what about the...

I've already explained why this is important.

Yeah, yeah, but I want to understand where you put it then.

SPD, no weight?

SPD, no weight, yes. It doesn't exist.

So you can't give weight to something that doesn't exist.

Yeah, and that's a very good legal analysis.

I know, it's one of my strengths.

Yeah. So, good. Thank you very much.

It must be in the blood, my son's a lawyer, so...

Yeah. Good.

Now, let's look at this reporter committee, please.

The reference that I referred you to earlier is, it's in 05.

Could I just finish the one you've just taken me to about the GLA?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So if the application was 100 % residential, that would say the principle of a residential

development within an element, you know, is supportive.

No, it wouldn't.

That's my point.

I'm not saying, they're not saying that this is the only thing you can put on this site.

They're saying this particular set of land uses is supported.

There's a whole range of other land uses

that would be supported.

That's the point I've been trying to make.

Yes, I know.

I'm sitting out here on a limb.

There must be something wrong with me.

I need to take more water with it, perhaps.

No, no, no.

Only in your world.

And let's bear in mind that there were pre -application

discussions with the GLA.

And the GLA drove the application

towards being commercial -led because of the importance of this type of development to

the City of London which drives a large part of the national economy?

I can't comment on that because I wasn't at those meetings that whether they drove it.

From what I've read of their comments that wouldn't be a correct description. They were

given advice as a strategic planning authority. Yeah, well we better look at what they say

then. At the end of the day the decision has to

taken in the context of the development.

CDD1, let's look at what they say in relation to that,

because frankly, that's just simply incorrect.

Sorry to take up your time.

I didn't think it would be a problem.

Because what you're in effect saying, they just

said the same about residential.

That just plainly isn't right.

So CDD01.

Yeah, it's open.

Paragraph 17, page?

Internal page 6.

The principle of a commercial -led development in this location is supported by London Plan Policy D6,

which gives support for mixed -use development with an element of residential within London town centres and high streets.

The provision of new employment floor space could support growth of the existing cluster of digital creative businesses.

Now let's change that sentence.

The provision of residential -led floor space would support the growth of expanding cluster

of digital creative businesses.

Wouldn't work, would it?

Or growth of businesses providing support for the traditional financial and business

sectors located in the city itself.

This is also supported by London Plan Good Growth Objective GG5, growing a good economy.

It's not saying that we'd be just as happy with residential here, is it?

No, but that's not what it's dealing with. It's commenting on the proposals and it's saying that the proposals are acceptable.

As I said, if the proposals were residential, that would be saying these are supported and it will help to deliver the capital's housing need.

I think you're putting a gloss on that.

So it just isn't there.

We can see what they say.

commenting on the scheme in the context of the London plan.

If I could finish, it would be a lot quicker if you let me do that.

If the proposal was different then the the GLA will be commenting in the context of the London plan on those proposals.

What I'm saying is the development plan as far as it applies to this site does not say it must be commercial led.

It doesn't say that.

All right, good. I'm not going to go back over that, thank you.

Turn to the emerging plan next please.

Can we look at the stage at which it's reached?

It's not yet even been submitted, is it?

No, it's not got to Reg 22 yet, but it went to Cabinet, I think it was last week,

to sign that off and obviously that decision is run for full council and it's scheduled.

I think the date's the 17th of November, but it's there on their pats.

Yeah, okay

And we already know that we've been at this stage before this is the second regulation 19 stage, isn't it? Yeah the regulation

19 mark 2 was to deal with a limited range of policies to address comments that have been made on it

Yeah, and what's the mayor's position on the continued?

Reference to a fast track which is in excess for affordable housing which mayor

sorry what is now oh the mayor of London mayor of London you will know has

produced a housing document which in effect says that local authorities which

have a fast track above the mayor of London's fast track are going to be

considered to be out of general conformity with the plan well that will

be a matter to be considered in the examination and those policies can be

Right, okay. And so that wouldn't potentially even result in a further delay while the Mayor

of this borough considered his position as against an allegation of out of general conformity

with the London Plan?

No, I'd be surprised given the various advice that the Planning Inspector have had from

government over how they deal with plans and the desire to get plans put in place, that

as a policy would be one that I would have thought could have been dealt with as a modification

rather than it's fatal to the plan and sends it back several stages.

So it's not uncommon for policies like that to be adjusted.

You then do a limited consultation on that and then you finish off the examination and

hopefully move forward with a plan that can be adopted.

So, I mean, it's speculation,

but certainly in my experience,

that I'd be very surprised if that was a fatal issue.

It would be a matter to be dealt with in that process.

All right, well, we'll see, shan't we?

Because, you know,

it may be that the data determination's pushed off

as a result of what we've had today.

Do you know, one of my questions,

I'm just going to say this now,

one of my questions for you on data centres

was we shouldn't be surprised, even at this stage,

if there was a recovery of this appeal

because every single data centre application

has been recovered.

Just a.

We don't know why it's been recovered.

No, we don't know.

No, no, no.

So that speculation.

I think there is a reason given in the letter.

Oh, I haven't seen it yet.

I haven't read it yet.

Yeah, it just says because, well.

Does it just say because?

It's because, well.

Yeah, I've seen them.

It says it's of national rather than local significance,

I think, off the top of my head.

That's what the letter says.

I think if you look at it, that's

what the other data centre call -ins will

have been saying as well.

Anyway, I can now scrub that out.

Things that the inspector has to have regard to.

Stage.

and in terms of stage it's not even yet a submitted plan,

and form a judgement as to whether...

It's on the way to that.

It's in...

Well, then I'm right.

It's in that lane.

It's on the way to Reg 22.

Not yet submitted, and we'll see.

That's really where we are, because you can't say anything more than that.

In terms of objection, I can deal with this more fully with another witness, Mr Margilton,

But at the very least, we are agreed that the major landholder of the site, which is

the subject of allocation 1 .7, has formally objected on a range of matters which will

need to be considered by the examining authority.

Yeah.

And this inspector can't pre -judge, literally can't pre -judge that consideration by his

fellow inspector, can he?

Not, obviously not, no, but he's grappling with the same issues in terms of judging this

planning application.

Well, I mean, is that right?

Because it's, you know, it's, it's, it's all in the mix, yeah.

Well, it's not all in the mix, is it?

It's not all in the mix.

Is there a housing application apart from Block J before the inspector?

No.

Well here's the point.

The application is being said to be refused because it would be better as housing.

Yes?

Well I think I'm putting it simply.

It is. Well I'm a simple man. I'm putting it simply.

I've explained the reason why it's being refused.

Well it's being refused because everybody is saying it would be better off as housing.

But that application is not before this inspector, is it?

No, it's not.

What's the inspector to make of this?

How does the inspector know whether or not a housing -led allocation

will eventually be recommended or adopted?

How does he know?

He can't know that.

He can't.

Obviously not.

And I'm not asking him to predict that.

How can he know whether the economic impact of housing,

say on the City of London, on the national interest

that's important for the City of London,

look at the call -in requirement and call -in explanation,

the national interest in ensuring a fully functioning

city fringe, how is he going to know

how the subsequent inspector's gonna deal with that.

We're not really dealing with that at this inquiry, are we?

There's no housing application before him.

No, but the development plan grapples with those issues

and sets out policy framework in order to strike the balance

as the strategy says, striking a balance

between employment and residential.

That's what it's all about in this area.

you're dealing with the transition from the city to the Hamlets.

Well if that was right you wouldn't even need an emerging plan would you?

If that was right you wouldn't need an emerging plan.

Let me ask you this.

Sorry can I just ask though, listening to that exchange,

doesn't the point you make about thinking about housing on the site,

doesn't that go to the amount of weight that you might apply to the emerging plan?

Yeah, of course.

So one can't prejudge what a colleague would do, but you'd still have to think about it

in order to reach a conclusion on how much weight you'd attach to the emerging example.

Exactly, sir.

I've not got that wrong.

No, you've not got that wrong.

I'm understanding.

But it goes much further than that.

That's what I was saying earlier.

Well, let's see then.

In my summary.

Let's see.

So, for example, one of the things that this inspector might want to consider before turning

away something that is compliant with an up -to -date development plan would be the delivery of

of housing and affordable housing.

So that's got to be considered because delivery of housing,

if this is going to be turned away for housing,

then there ought to be a pretty good case

that housing is actually deliverable on the site.

Otherwise you're losing something that's clearly

in accordance with the development plan

for something that's not.

Where's the evidence on deliverability of housing

at this inquiry that this inspector can grapple with?

Where is it?

Sorry, I'm not quite sure the point you're making.

Well, let me just ask this.

Let me just finish, then it might help you.

And so I don't think anyone's saying

you can't design a scheme that's housing rather than commercial.

And I don't think anyone has said that building housing here

is unviable.

Well, where's the evidence that it's viable?

Because large tracts of London at the minute,

even with very low single figure affordable housing is simply not being

delivered because it's not viable.

But we're dealing with a very different issue which isn't specific to this area.

We're dealing with global economic problems, we're dealing with

post -Brexit etc. etc. You know the reason why we're not building housing in London

is to do with those issues and until we're through those as an economy

and there's confidence in the house builders,

you won't see this.

It's not the fault of the planning system.

It's not intrinsic in terms of these sites

are intrinsically unviable.

They've become unviable because people aren't buying houses.

The cost of building those houses are great.

The, what's he called, the fire regulations

and the problems that they are causing

and the interest rates and Brexit, workforce,

of course, cost of materials, the list is as long as your arm.

That's the problem at the moment.

I've also heard evidence about, at inquiries, not here,

but at inquiries about the inability of housing

associations to take on affordable housing,

because they simply haven't got the funds to do it.

Well, exactly.

So in 2011, I think it was, their funding was cut by 70%,

80%.

And then what followed from there was a cap on their rent.

So their income has gone down.

And then what went on top of that was quality homes.

I've forgotten the correct term.

And the fire cladding and all those things.

So their money has not only been cut,

both in terms of grant and income,

but their expenditure has gone elsewhere.

So in the past, on other recessions, if you like,

I think we're probably in a recession,

although technically it might not be,

you had a counter -cyclical reaction

in that the housing associations bought land and developed

because they had grant.

They haven't got that now, so we're, I was going to say,

screwed on both fronts, but we are.

The private house builders and the public house builders,

for want of a better expression, are

struggling for those reasons.

But one of the matters which an inspector

has to consider at an examination stage

is deliverability isn't it because a development plan needs to be sound and

one of the tests of soundness is the ability to deliver. There is in

respect of many parts of this emerging development plan economic analysis which

goes to deliverability there isn't in relation to this allocation is there?

There is evidence that's being produced in relation to housing, housing need.

To this allocation?

No, to the plan as a whole.

Okay, alright.

And then we've got not only a landowner that is an objector, which goes to the weight that

you give to the emerging plan, but we've got a landowner who's expressed no interest in

providing housing, doesn't fit his business model

and all of those things.

Are you saying that you could enforce or require

the landowner to, in effect, curate a housing estate?

Are you suggesting CPO, for example?

Well, that's a tool that's available to the council.

I can't speak for the council in terms of what

they might decide to do.

But the applicant, the developer, the landowner,

is producing some housing.

I don't think it's an anathema to them.

Okay, so when deciding what weight to be given to all of this, the Inspector should first

look at the stage, second look to see whether there are objections which have not yet been

sorted out, and third to look to see whether a development which was housing -led was consistent

with the NPPF. Yep, they are the three tests. Now where is it in the NPPF that says that

active workplace development consistent with the development plan and with the city fringe

should somehow be usurped by housing? Where is that?

You wouldn't expect the NPPF to say anything about that.

Well it does say that. For sites for example that are employment sites which no longer

to have a purpose or allocation sites which are unlikely

to come forward for employment, it

is said that in those circumstances

you should look to housing.

But there are two great limbs of policy at the minute,

aren't there?

The first is meet the supply of housing.

What's the second?

I don't know.

Give me a clue.

Economic growth.

Yes.

Economic growth.

Yes.

And that, if you like, summarises the issues that the council have to grapple with in this area.

It does.

They have to grapple with both.

But the NPPF in the chapter Making Best Use of Land makes it clear which sort of sites should go from employment use to non -employment use and indeed specifically residential use.

Correct?

Does that?

Yes.

Yes, and it's quite common for sites like this to go to residential use.

Well, then in terms of the employment chapter, the employment chapter makes it really clear

that development which generates economic growth, particularly economic growth which

is relevant to the sort of city fringe that we're looking at here, is to be supported.

There's nothing in the NPPF which suggests that that sort of employment land should be

lost for housing, is there?

And the development plan responds to that by identifying those areas that should be

protected in that context but, as I keep saying, the planning challenge here is to manage that

transition.

I've understood that.

Striking the balance between employment and residential.

I've understood that.

We need to meet the NPPF as a whole, not just the little bits that you want to draw attention to.

Paragraph 49 says three things.

It's the stage that you've reached, and we're not even at the first formal stage of submission.

It's the nature of unresolved objections, and then it's the way in which the development plan,

the way in which the proposal complies or doesn't with the NPPF.

When read as a whole.

Yeah, when read as a whole.

Now you can't just go back and say, well, actually, what I'm thinking about is the development

plan.

That's circular.

What one has to look at is whether there is any guidance in the NPPF in terms which suggests

that employment land, which is set out in an adopted development plan, which you do

not say is not up to date, which clearly the GLA at this inquiry are telling the inspector

can play an important role in economic growth, should somehow notwithstanding that be usurped

by a residential led development in the city fringe in a core?

Well you wouldn't expect the MPPF to put it in those terms.

So you need to read the MPPF as a whole, read the policies relating to housing provision

and then take a balanced view on where the right planning judgement and the right planning decision lies

between those two policies that are in tension, if you like, on this particular site.

intention. Yeah, okay, thank you. Because we've got to strike the balance between employment

and residential in this area. That's the strategic strategy from the GLA. And you don't accept

from me that where there is guidance as to where the tension should, if you like, fall,

is set out in the NPPF and is specifically related to sites that aren't performing a

purpose that's no longer likely to come forward. I think there are four of those. This isn't

one of any of those four, are there? Is it? I don't see how the MPPF can give critical

advice in terms of such a local issue, in terms of balancing those tensions. It sets

the overall national planning policy framework and it's for the local authority, local planning

authority to take that forward in terms of its policy framework.

All right, let's just leave that there.

Would that be a sensible time for a break?

So I'm doing okay in terms of timing, I think, maybe a bit behind.

I'm happy to go on, sir.

that you give to the emerging plan in your world which is moderate and beneath moderate

was limited and belief that was minimal I think. Is that how it went? Your little...

Let me double cheque it so I've got it right.

It was, so we start with minimal, limited, moderate,

significant, substantial.

There you go.

Good, thank you.

And we've got an adopted development plan

which isn't out of date.

So you never did, where in the compendium

of your analysis that comes.

Where is that then?

Sorry what?

The adopted plan.

Yeah.

Where do you put that?

That's your starting point.

I know it's the starting point.

The inspector is entitled to know, I think, where you ascribe weight in relation to that.

Not out of date, it's the starting point, it's the development plan.

Moderate weight to the emerging plan.

Are you saying that the adopted development plan should be less than moderate weight?

That's not how it works in my brain.

No, well I'm asking you, please have a go.

Well no, I'll explain how it works in my brain.

So that's the starting point, the 38 .6 starting point.

Full weight.

Well, if you want to say that, but let me give my explanation.

So that's your starting point and that's you should make the decision in the La Maire development

plan.

You then look at the other material considerations and you weigh them up amongst themselves to

see where that takes you.

But it's not, this isn't a mathematical exercise.

No, no, no, but it's just like this.

I don't ascribe the development plan weight in the sense that you describe public benefits

weights and harms weight, it's the starting point and that's what my

decision should be unless everything else tells me that that's not the right

decision and I should make a different decision. Yeah but I'm going to... And you weigh all those

things up you know in quite a detailed basis and actually giving words to them

obviously doesn't doesn't help frankly. Well hang on you're giving me... We've gone down that rabbit hole

unfortunately. It's quite a rabbit hole because you've driven us down there and it's not a rabbit hole. No no no I'm not talking about today I'm talking generally.

Right. Let's just try and consider that, shall we? You very often have in inspectors' decisions

and indeed in High Court decisions an analysis which says I give the development plan full

weight, significant weight, moderate weight. It's not an unusual concept I'm putting to

you, is it, having done this for over the years?

I'm not saying it's not unusual. What I'm saying is that's not how I work.

Well, have a go, please.

No, I won't. Sorry. I won't.

No, no, because it's...

I've explained how I work and that's how I work.

I'm going to say to the Inspector...

I'm not going to play the game.

I'm going to say to the...

I'm trying to make this a mathematical exercise.

Sorry, sir.

I'm sorry.

Go on.

I'm going to ask you one more time.

Okay.

And just, see, we need to know, because what you're saying is, on the policies most relevant

to the termination of this application, you're asking the Inspector to give moderate weight

to an as yet unadopted plan.

There's an element of gap in logic

that I think you need to fill in.

So are you saying to the inspector

that he should give more weight

to the moderate emerging plan than the adopted plan?

And if so, what weight do you say on those issues

the inspector should give to the adopted plan?

I don't think it's an out of the way question and it's one that's grappled with at every inquiry.

Well, I've already answered it but I'll have another go to help the inspector.

I want to know the weight that you're giving to the adopted plan.

I've already explained to you that's not how it works in my brain.

So the starting point is a development plan and that's what the decision should be.

You then need to look at the other material considerations,

understand them properly and weigh them properly.

It's not a mathematical exercise.

Some of the adjectives are, you know, they don't particularly get you there.

It's a planning judgement and then you take the judgement

about where the decision should lie.

The development plan is the development plan

and that guides the decision -making.

That's what section 38 .6 says.

All right. Well, you've heard what I'm going to say about submissions...

I understand, but as I say, I think we've gone down generally this rabbit hole of making it into some quasi -mathematical scientific process and it's not that at all. It's a planning judgement.

All I'm asking you to do is exactly the same to the adopted plan, which you accept is not out of date, doesn't give rise to the tilted balance, ascribing weight to the relevant policies, as opposed to the emerging plan which you find it easy to ascribe plans for.

So that's not, in my world, how I read the law, Section 38 .6, and what it requires me

to do.

That's good.

I put it to you, Mr. Kylie, previously, didn't I, that what you're inviting me to do is take

account of the development plan, obviously.

Obviously.

But maybe regard the emerging plan as another material consideration that might take me

in another direction.

Absolutely, sir.

Yes.

So the fallout from that is that you are asking me to ascribe more weight to the emerging

plan, if you want to put it this way, than the adopted plan.

In applying the adopted development plan, you have to properly understand those policies.

Yeah.

And you need to understand them in terms of today, not necessarily when they were written.

And that is a process of change over time in terms of the commercial market and the

housing market.

And when you do that, the emerging plan says to me, this is the direction of travel in

that in this area, on this particular site,

the requirement for housing is a stronger requirement

than the one for commercial.

We struggled to find enough sites for housing

and that's the storey of London Plan Housing Planning.

You know, the need is here and the identified sites are here

and it'll be interesting to see

what happens in the next iteration.

So that's always a struggle.

There isn't that same degree of struggle

that's, you know, commercial sites aren't readily available, etc., etc., and we've

got an oversupply. I accept the SME element to that. I'm not saying that

there's not a demand. So they're different issues and it's important, I

think, in making the decision that you understand those issues and it's

within that context of the understanding of the policy basis, the dynamics of

those markets and what's coming forward from the local planning

authority as a response to that evidence, that says to me that that's where the decision

should lie.

Now, you know, it's dressed up in weight and all this, that and the other, but I don't

find that as helpful and that's not how I work my brain in terms of making planning

decisions.

Yes, you have to weigh things up and how important they are, but that's only part of it.

There's more to the planning judgement than just those elements.

I understand.

Thank you, sir.

Mr Harris.

Yes, so I think you've got the answer to my question eventually, but I'm grateful for

that. Can we look at block A?

I'm here to help the inspectors.

Yeah, yeah, we're both here to help the inspector.

Not necessarily you.

Block A.

Sorry.

Block A. Both you and the local planning authorities who considered this, we've seen the range of

positions. Mr. Frohman, for example, says it's less than substantial harm at the

bottom end of substantial harm. Yeah. And says that in order to overcome that

there needs to be benefit and the benefit is either limited or moderate

from the data centre. Yes? Yes. Let's assume that the inspector along with

every other data centre, of course they're all different, but let's assume

for the purposes of this question, let's see if we can short circuit it, that the

inspector believes having regard to the policy and the expert evidence that he's

got that he concludes along with previous inspector and all indeed the

other inspectors and secretaries of state who consider this so far.

You mean about Mulberry, is that when you say previous? There's Mulberry, there's Drogda Farm, all the

call -ins that we might now have to look at as a result of what

happened just before lunch.

Because they set out the Secretary of State's position,

do you see?

So just come with me.

Less than substantial harm.

You're doing the balance.

We've got less than substantial harm

in terms of heritage, which is the senior designation to be

given considerable weight and importance, lower end

of less than substantial harm.

Let's assume now you're asked to do the balance.

with a conclusion that the inspector might reach,

that the benefit is either substantial or very substantial

as opposed to limited.

Just want to test where you are on that.

So the benefit of the data centre.

Yeah, nationally.

It's nationally important as the last inspector found.

I think the language was significant in the document,

the MPBF, but anyway, it's up the top.

Let's not fall out over adjectives.

Yeah, let's not do that.

So what's the answer?

Sorry.

So the question is, you have judged this

on the basis of the evidence that's been passed to you,

which is that you give only limited public benefit

to the meeting of a need.

Just cutting through everything else for the minute,

assume that the conclusion is that it's

substantial or very substantial.

Where are you then?

OK, so let me answer it.

The provision of a data centre nationally, it's important.

Let's leave it at there, significant or otherwise,

whatever you describe to it.

But you then have to do all the other planning balances.

And principally here, we've got the townscape placemaking

elements in terms of Grey Eagle Street, which we've already

discussed.

And you've got the separate arms for the conservation area.

but they're a similar sort of thing.

Plus there's the physical impact of the building.

And you've got to weigh them in the balance.

So I don't think the government's position

isn't that if someone was proposing a data centre

in the moat for the Tower of London,

that anyone will be arguing.

And that you'll get a planning commission.

So it's an important land use,

but so are the other things.

and statuatly we need to give great weight to the conservation and heritage harm.

So it's an exercise you have to go through.

Go through it then.

Lower end of less than substantial harm.

You've got a finding potentially that's available to the inspector

of substantial or very substantial public benefit

as a result of the data centre and all of the things that we looked at this morning.

Okay, where's your balance? That's the question.

And set against that...

No, no, no, where's your balance? Come on, you said it needs to be a balance.

I'm answering it. I'm going to give the answer in the way you want, but it will be my answer, so I'd appreciate it if you let me answer your questions.

Go ahead if you do.

So set against that public benefit, the general national public benefit, are the specific issues

on this site. It's a site that suffers, as we've heard, from antisocial behaviour. Essentially it's

a it's a route that there's no pointing going on there's no real destination for people. And as I

earlier the opening up or the linkage of this route, Greigle Street,

into the Brick Lane -Truman area magnet, you know, destination, is a crucial

townscape place making opportunity and coupled with that is putting uses on

that street that activate that street more than a data centre will. So

So those are harms that are quite significant,

and in the context of the character and appearance

of the conservation area, are to be given great weight

in the planning balance.

So that's the way that's been approached.

You haven't even hinted at the answer to the question.

Oh, sorry.

It's my answer to the question.

No.

Well, I'm going to ask it again, and then I will comment.

But you've refused to answer this question also.

It's a very straightforward thing.

I mean, everybody agrees that the thing to do is to judge any alleged harms against the

benefits.

At the minute, this would be the only decision that anybody has seen that gives minimal,

little or moderate only weight to a data centre provision.

I'm asking you, as the balance witness for the local authority, to say what your position

would be, because, you know, this could shorten the cross -examination very easily.

what the position would be in the event that the inspector or the Secretary of State,

who has expressed very clear positions on data centres,

is that the public benefit from meeting that identified need is substantial or very substantial.

Do you understand the question?

I understand the question.

Answer it, please.

And I've already answered it, sir.

I'm happy to help you further if there's anything I can help you with, but I've already answered it.

Which bit of it have you answered?

I've answered it.

Would you at least accept that it would be a reasonable conclusion to reach that if you

did attach that amount of weight to the provision of a data centre it could outweigh the harms

that you've identified?

I said at the beginning that I agree that it gets significant weight.

That's the national position in terms of data centres and it's theoretically possible that

it might outweigh it, but it's not a sort of get out of gaol free card, it outweighs

everything every time.

No, I understand that.

I gave the somewhat crass example of a data centre in the moment around the tower.

I don't think we would be arguing it.

So there is that balance there and it's not going to get you out of gaol every time.

And I explained the reasons why I don't think it gets you out of gaol in this very important

site which has a part of it that's not functioning well and there's an opportunity for it to

function well and that's quite important and as I said earlier my

understanding of data centres and how they operate would suggest to me

that those things are possible. It is possible to isolate other

activity, a cafe, a restaurant or whatever it might be from the rest of the

building so there's no risk of the spread of fire. It's possible to do that.

I know that because I've, you know, managing the sort of building inspectors and they've

explained those things to me in different scenarios.

So you know, all those so -called constraints are I think desirable positions, but they're

not ultimate, you know, absolute positions in that you can clearly isolate one use from

another in terms of the spread of fire and the security issues can be readily dealt with.

The door is the door.

The fact that it's a cafe next to it

doesn't make it less secure.

I'm following.

Good, thank you very much.

Let's see whether we can go this far.

I think you said in the, your evidence in chief

that you agree that there is a substantial need

for data centres in London.

Yes, yes.

Thank you.

Do you also agree that there is a demand

which is significantly more

than just this site could provide?

Oh yes, of course.

In other words, you would need this site in association with probably many others in order

to meet the need.

Yes, there will be need for other sites.

How many I don't know, but it's, yes.

Good, thank you.

That's really helpful to how one considers alternatives later.

Good.

Do you agree that there are very specific locational requirements for the sort of data

centres that this one is intended to be? Yes, I appreciate the need to have power,

to have access to a fibre network and surely there's other elements but they're

the primary ones as I understand it. You've already said right at the

beginning to sort of spike my guns you said or hinted that you're not a data

centre expert. Is that correct? No, I'm a term planner. Yeah that's good. I'm not a data centre

expert. I know we do have one expert in applying other experts views to planning

decisions you know I'm an expert in that sense. Okay and is this your first data

centre case? Yes yes. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. But I've dealt with

storage places before. Yeah yeah yeah B8 and that's okay. Thank you. Do you agree as a

matter of fact that the proposal site meets the very specific locational

requirements that were identified. In terms of your written evidence can we please pick

up your proof? I've got a note that it's 641 but that may not be out of date.

641. Just bear with me.

So my data center... 642.

Oh, okay. Start 631. 642.

Yeah. Yeah.

You say there is no demonstrable locational imperative that the centre be located on the

Grey Eagle site street, but that's like Proposition No. 1.

As there are other sites in the local area where such a use could be successfully located,

You don't identify any of those sites there, do you?

No, I don't.

No, good. Thank you.

Can we then please pick up the emerging plan?

You want to know what was in my mind?

Not really.

OK.

I can only cross -examine on what's on the paper.

Sir?

I mean, if you want to expand on your answer...

Yeah, I would.

I mean, we've already dealt with the broad locations

where the council is suggesting data centres go,

and I appreciate that's not specific sites.

But there are two specific sites.

There's the one that's got planning permission

not far away, and there's the one that got planning

permission in Mulberry Place that I'm aware of.

So there, it's not like there's nowhere else

that you can put a data centre.

So those were the two in my mind when I wrote that.

Thank you.

So the one that will be in effect part of blocks 3A

and 3B here, which was applied for planning permission

in 2013 I think?

16 I think you'll find.

I don't mind, somewhere then between...

That's the reference, it starts with 16 which normally

suggests when it was made.

OK, but there we are, 2016 hasn't been implemented since...

I can go through that again, sir, if you want,

but you know the chronology of that particular one.

Not particularly, we've got it.

Careful note.

2016, I'm happy to accept that from you.

Brilliant, thank you.

So we've got that and we've got...

Planning permission issued in 21.

It's not...

We don't need to go through that again.

It's not getting it wrong again.

Okay, so that's not referred to in your proof.

I don't see any analysis of those sites.

The Mulberry Place development's been developed, hasn't it?

No, I don't believe it has.

It's been implemented, I think.

I mean, I acted on that case.

Implemented or completed?

No, it's not completed.

Yeah, I didn't think it had.

No.

Yeah.

Good.

Thank you.

I do mention both of those in the proof.

Yes, you do.

But that's fine.

Not here.

Okay.

That's it.

Well, if that's the extent of it, I'm really happy.

Can we go to the emerging plan, please?

Getting there now.

So let's see.

CD06.

And we need to turn to…

Open the document.

Which is the page with the map.

Yeah.

I think it's page 100 if I remember rightly.

Oh no.

So you want the policy.

I've got the wrong document though, just bear with me.

Is it policy EG6 on page 250 you're wanting?

Just bear with me.

CD7, oh there we go, put them all up here.

It's that one, brilliant.

232 is the map.

232, yep.

Hang on.

Yeah.

This is just the generic map for potential locations for employment sites in the round, isn't it?

Yes, a range of employment designations, yes.

And the data centre policy,

which, just to get this out of the way for the minute,

is the subject of many objections, is it not?

I haven't got details of dejections.

The only one I've seen was,

and it was only because I was looking through the objections

that were supplied to me in the context of this site,

was the GLA objection and they had support for it,

but I've not done...

I've not done an examination of that.

As a matter of fact, we can deal with,

but you don't refer to the fact that it's

a subject of objections in your proof, but it is.

Yeah.

And we also know, because we're told in the same document,

that the evidence base upon which these sites are

identified is the 2023 employment land study, isn't it?

That's my understanding.

Yes.

It's there in the evidence -based box.

Now, we looked at that in examination in chief

this morning.

We looked and it was confirmed that it doesn't deal with the very specific locational requirements

of data centres at all, does it?

No, it doesn't deal with the specific locational requirements of a whole range of very specific

uses within the broader use classes that it looks at.

Yeah.

And a document like that probably wouldn't be able to do that.

Well, we can probably have a discussion about that, but in the pub.

Okay.

be making submissions that the weight that can be given to that document as identifying

data centre sites is minimal, A, because it is the subject of objection and B, because

it didn't consider data centres at all and they've got very specific locational requirements

which government has said plans and decisions should have specific regard to, doesn't it?

The job of the planning system is to assist a whole range of uses, many of whom have very

specific requirements, some of which are unknown.

Our role is to provide designations, allocations if you like, by and large for use classes

within which those uses are capable of being located.

It's not our job as a local planning authority to do a detailed analysis of the need of any

particular specialist user and find sites for them.

That's not what we do.

And therefore to dismiss the policy on that basis I don't think is fair and correct.

But the point is that the inspector will look in vain for the evidence of the suitability

of those sites in that document, which is the evidence base for the selection of the

data sent, the data centre policy, isn't it? The data centre policy says, look here, evidence

base here, data centres, data centres. No, no, you're misreading it. You're completely

misreading it. Let's look at it then. So the...

250, look at paragraph 250, please. Let me just finish this point and then I'll

it for you. So the council is looking at the disposition of employment locations

for different types of employment uses and it Brian Large deals with that at

the use classes level but it doesn't drill down to specific requirements for

specific niches. Data centres are just one of those and the policy doesn't say

that we found sites for data centres. What it says is if you want to build a

data centre, then these locations, in principle, are acceptable.

You then have to see whether they work or not.

So there's, there's nothing wrong with the policy, and a poli,

there, there's no local plan in this country that will go further than that.

That's, that's what it's doing.

It's, it's broad allocations at generally at the use classes level.

And, and the evidence base was,

was produced in order to enable that to be done.

It wasn't an exercise to find data centre sites.

It is allocations within which we're suggesting data centres should be located, which doesn't

mean they can't go elsewhere either.

No, no, no.

I've understood that.

Good.

But what you say you see in 642 is that EG6 directs data centres to local industrial locations

and local mixed use employment locations.

They are the generic ones.

Yes.

And then in the box on page 251, which is very specific to data centres, it says in

terms that the evidence base...

Can I just find that before you ask me a question?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Please, tell me when you're there.

Yeah.

250, I think it's that.

250 and 251.

Policy EG6 data centres, yeah.

It's the one that is being relied on as explaining to the inspector where data centres might

go. And we've got evidence base that data centres are appropriately directed towards

those. The Tower Hamlets Employment Land Review, 2023, so it's not just B8, it's data centres.

And that document, and not a single piece of analysis that the local authority has done,

or your evidence identifies A, what those specific locational requirements are, or B,

whether they exist at any of the locations that you've identified or pointed to?

I think I've already answered that, sir, in my previous answer. If it assists you to add

it to that, I'm happy to do it, but I think I've already answered that question.

So is the answer yes?

I've already answered it.

Good. All right. Well...

And the answer is never yes or no, as you well know.

Well, particularly when I'm cross -examining you.

But anyway, thank you very much for your patience.

I'm pleased to be of assistance.

Well, as in all things.

Thank you, sir. Those are the questions that I ask.

Thank you, Mr Harris.

I've exhausted what I needed to ask in the course of things.

Mr Ward, did you have anything in re -examination?

My mic on, can you hear me? Yes.

Mr Kiley, in relation to...

The exchange you had with my learned friend about the weight to attach to the provision

of data centre capacity or the contribution of the proposal to the national need.

Should one have regard to the amount of contribution to that need in a particular case when considering

what weight to attach?

Well that's eminently logical. A data centre that's huge is obviously doing more of the

heavy lifting in terms of helping a country in terms of data centre provision than one

small. It's just a logical consequence of it, yeah.

Did you hear Ms McGinley's evidence as to how many megawatts were provided by the Global

switch data centre in the Mulberry place.

I did, and I can't remember if it was six or eight times

the size.

She said it was 40 megawatts.

Yeah, and this one's five, is it?

Which, on my calculation, is eight times the size.

You explain the balancing act that you conduct in relation

to Grey Eagle Street.

Yeah.

When you conduct that balancing act,

do you, is it appropriate to have regard to the contribution to the national need for

data facilities when weighing against any identified harms?

Yes, as I said, I think it's logical that if you're giving substantial significant weight

to a national requirement, the extent of that contribution goes into the mix.

Now, you were asked a number of questions on the premise that the reason for refusal

of the appeal or the appeals was that it wasn't residential.

Are there any other reasons for refusal in relation to these appeals?

So the, it wasn't residential, it was the reason for refusal for the main site.

Well, is that the only reason for refusal?

No, no, no.

There are other reasons for refusal.

So there's on all three sites there's a design

townscape and on the

Greigle Street and the main site there's a heritage reason, right?

I don't think we need to we could go to the statements of common ground to look at the reason refusal

Do you need to do that? I don't think so, sir. No

Yeah, yeah, so

working back

You were asked a number of questions about the consent order

Yes. Now I'm going to see how far we can get because you gave in chief evidence about the

plan context. You took us through some of the provisions. Yes. But in cross -examination

You were taken to...

Which document is that?

This is the consent holder.

And I think you you weren't taken to CDH8.

And a number of questions were put to you on the basis that this consent order had the

status of a High Court judgement.

Do you remember?

All right.

I want to now take you to the other document.

Is that the facts and grounds?

CDH 8.

Yeah, I've got the actual document here.

Do you have the High Court?

Excuse me?

I'm sorry.

No it's a High Court, it's called the High Court decision, it's the order of...

Let me get the CDHA. Mr. Justice Lane? Sir Peter Lane.

Oh yes, the very short document. Very short document. Now it was put to you

in cross -examination that the consent order that you were taken to has the status of a

High Court judgement. Can we just look at what Sir Peter Lane's order says? Notification

of the judge's decision. Do you have that? Following consideration of the documents lodged

by the appellant and the respondent, including the draught signed consent order, by consent,

Permission to proceed with the claim is granted, to the adoption of the SPD is quashed and

no order as to costs.

Now, again, if you can't answer this, you can't answer this, but do you know whether

or not the combination of these two documents has the status or the authority of a High

Court judgement?

Yes or no?

I can't really answer that.

I thought you'd say that.

but we can deal with it in legal submission, sir,

which is how we propose to do so.

And Mr. Kiley, I think that's all I had for you

in re -examination.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kiley.

My pleasure.

Mr. Walder, we're heading over to Ms. Curtis now, aren't we,

and your witnesses.

Yes.

Ms. Curtis, who's going first?

I think on the original timetable, it is Saif Osmani going first and then Dr. Tanzel Shafik.

I have been told though that Dr. Shafik can't come back tomorrow.

I don't know if it would be okay to switch the order or if we can get through both this afternoon.

My learned friend had the courtesy of explaining this to me earlier and we are very sympathetic.

If there is a switch in the order, there may well be fewer questions, or indeed hardly

any questions, than we might have if it came the other way around.

There's no discourtesy there.

We think that the points that we won't be able to take at length this evening, we can

take with other of Malona Friends witnesses.

So if that's the only way that it can be done, we want to be helpful.

but it might mean that you hear us pick up the points that we otherwise would

have picked up with this witness with another witness and that's no difficulty

for us. Okay I'm content to leave it with you then Miss Curtis however you wish

to proceed whatever's best for you and your team.

Shall we have a short break while we change over? Yes that would be helpful.

Can we just say five minutes is that alright I'm anxious that we're already

at four o 'clock. So let's resume at five plus four. I think we are just about set

up.

Off we go then.

Dr. Shafik, you've set out your qualifications at paragraph 1 .1 of your proof.

You say that you have a master's in architecture and a PhD in city, urban, community and regional

planning.

You're an associate member of the American Institute of Architects, an affiliate member

of the Royal Institute of British Architects, an associate member of the Institute of Architects

Bangladesh and an associate of the Urban Institute.

You're a lecturer in urban design at the University of Sheffield.

Is there anything you'd like to add in terms of your experience and qualifications?

Thank you.

In particular, I have led the module on participation in architecture and urban design.

That's what I have taught for the last four years.

At paragraph 2 .1 of your proof, you refer to the fact that in 2020 to 2021, you directed

an MA urban design studio with the Bengali East End Heritage Society and Safe Brick Lane.

And you say that you worked with students and groups of local people to explore how

urban design could provide allyship to the ongoing forms of resistance and care. Can

Can you set out a bit more information about what those studios involved?

The studios are part of the AMA urban design programme at the University of Sheffield.

I had an allocation of 12 students in my studio and in general our studio guidelines are always

to work with local communities.

So I had just moved from Australia in 2021.

So I was already following what was going on

in the Bricklin area and because of my

Bangladesh -Diaspora heritage, I was in consultation,

I know some people there.

So I set up my studio around the Bricklin area

and the urban design studio explored alternative futures,

what the local people are thinking,

particularly like marginalised population. So that's the setup of

the studio and then as part of that the students were you know brought on

field trip and then we had community consultations as part of the studio. And

the evidence in your proof does that set out the findings essentially from those

studios? Yes so the quotation marks in my proof these are all from the

reports the reports are essentially given as a presentation at the end of

the studio so the studio ran from October to end of March and then the

reports are finalised by the students yes so this is primarily based on the

student led work. I'm just running them through some of the topic headings that

you've included in your proof.

At section 3 .1 of your proof, you've

set out some testimonies from small business owners

in the area.

Could you just summarise some of your findings

about local people's testimonies about the local economy?

So yes, I think the testimonials point

and the students' analysis, so it's testimonials and analysis,

that talk about a sense of fear about new developments that

might be unaffordable.

So a lot of the small scale, the small business owners are afraid of pricing costs, rents

in general.

So that is what's reflected in the proof.

Yes, I would say yes.

And in section 3 .2 of your proof, you also talk about the idea of heritage as living

culture and testimonies about cultural heritage.

Could you just summarise your findings in that respect

as well?

Yes.

So when we talked about heritage and then the students analysis,

that shows that people understand heritage,

like migrants who were here and asked for a community,

they understand heritage in a slightly different way

than the way that might be considered heritage.

So they might consider a small curry shop

that has been there for a long time

as part of their heritage of being in this place.

So a lot of these very small, unspoken things were captured.

And then they talked about living in this area

and then having the social life itself

as part of the heritage of being part of Bangla town.

So these are more intangible aspects that we focused on,

particularly elderly women who have been here for a long time.

and then their memories and all of those sort of lived realities of being in Brick Lane,

which has gone through a lot of change, particularly with racism factors and all that.

So those memories, they consider that as part of their heritage in their community.

And you've also spoken about the importance of Brick Lane as the heart of London's Bangladeshi diaspora.

Are you able to share more about your findings on this?

So yes, I mean, this is somewhat of sort of my larger

understanding that the way that Brooklyn has shaped up,

it has that sort of a diasporic capital sense.

So because I'm also from biology diaspora,

I can relate that there is a sense of this being

the centre of the biology community for all of,

let's say, England in some sense.

So that is something that the local community

is very proud of because they feel like they

are at the core of it.

So this diaspora feeling, again, these

are not because of there is a big museum.

It's almost like all the small things

that people are able to go to the biryani

or this very traditional things, they talk about those things,

even in the diaspora community.

So in the same way that I can imagine that,

and this is from my experience elsewhere,

that cities often are very careful about this sort

of diaspora neighbourhoods because they provide

a plurality and they provide a cosmopolitanism that

is very difficult to, I mean, once you lose it,

it's very difficult to retain or create artificially.

Thanks.

And so you did this process with your studios

and engaging with the local community.

Have you had a chance to review the appellant's statement

of community involvement?

And do you have any comments on that?

Yes.

So if you look at the Syria 28, is it?

I have reviewed the statement and then also I've looked at the appendices. So one thing,

I mean again I'm coming from an academic world, so we talk about this a lot in the academic world,

that sometimes we follow the processes of participation but you know because of some

structural way that people see these processes differently, sometimes it doesn't end up doing

all the things that it has the intention to do.

When I'm looking at the document that is set out and the entire process that Poland has

gone through to involve the community, one thing I note that they translated in Bengali

and then this was sent out to a wide body, which is really appreciable that this was

done to cater to primarily Bangladeshi diaspora community.

But when I look at the translation itself,

then I can say that the translation is in Bangla,

but it's not the colloquial Bangla in which people are

used to talking about things.

So yes, technically it has been translated.

But whether it is able to be read by migrant women who

have had eighth year of schooling,

whether they sort of grasp it, this

is where my doubt is that whether this could have been

translated in a much more colloquial way,

in a much more local way that the people are used

to talking about urban design, development,

plans like this.

Because a lot of the words, this is

a problem of translation also, that some of the words

don't really translate well into Bangla.

You have to use different sets of words

to make people understand what you're talking about.

I mean, I'll give you an example like public space.

Public space in dictionary sense

is Gwano -Porishor in Bangla,

but if you were to talk with 90 % people,

they would be like, I don't know what you're saying,

even when they're standing in a public space

and having that conversation.

And this is based on my experience

that it is very difficult when some words are translated

because the concept isn't there, like exactly word to word.

So yes, I would say that, yeah, because that's

where I looked at in detail.

Thank you.

And I think Mr. Osmani has touched on,

and will probably touch on further,

of the difference between Bengali and Siletti.

Is that something that you can assist with as well?

I am not from the Siletti communities.

I cannot speak on behalf of the Siletti community.

But I understand that in terms of my personal experience,

there is a significant sort of heritage difference

between people who have come from Siletti region, which

is primarily what you have in the local community and people

who are not from Silat.

So there is a very strong heritage difference.

And one thing it boils down to always is the language,

because Silat as a language is similar to Bangla,

then it's really also it's a different, very different

dialect to the point where I believe it's almost

like a different language.

And that's also a very difficult thing.

So when I was doing the workshop,

I can sense that they were able to understand

my Bangla, which is sort of like, in the same sense,

you have Queen's English and you have different dialects.

So they would not be able to respond equally

in the proper Bangla.

They would respond in Siriti dialect.

But again, there is this three layers

between English and Bangla, which is standard Bangla.

and then a more selective variation.

So yes, it's a difficult thing to go through

when you're talking about something in the community,

particularly in relation to translating concepts.

Thanks, Dr. Shafik.

Nothing further from me.

Thank you, Ms. Curtis.

Mr. Harris.

I'm going to be very short because I know you've got

difficulties tomorrow, and we can pick up

some of the things that you say with other witnesses.

So forgive me.

I'm a family member of Sheffield.

No, that's perfectly acceptable,

and I don't mean any disrespect.

We heard, movingly and eloquently,

from members of the public about how,

from very early age, they'd look across

at the Truman Brewery and see the wall

and wonder what lay behind the wall, et cetera.

And it's true, isn't it, that the Truman Brewery

is in a significant degree closed and private to all communities.

And it's also the fact that in consultation with the community and with officers that

a significant amount of community space is being provided as part of the application.

You are aware of that, aren't you?

Yes.

And that will clearly be available at appropriate, or indeed some instances no cost, to the diaspora

community who are the people who are cheek by jowl with the estate that's largely to

a degree closed to them and other members of other communities as well, isn't it?

Yes.

Yeah.

And in terms of affordable workspace,

there's a policy which applies throughout Tower Hamlets,

but particularly in this part of Tower Hamlets,

that if you are providing workspace,

there ought to be affordable workspace, which

means that it's affordable to those

who live in the local area.

Have you had a chance to look at that

in terms of this application?

Yes, in general, yes.

Yes.

And so you'll know that the affordable workspace which

is being provided, which will be open to the Bangladeshi,

the diaspora community, is substantial and significantly

more than the policy requirement.

You were aware of that.

I understand that, yes.

So more and for longer to ensure that it can engage with local people who might not be

able to afford the full commercial rent, for example.

That's a benefit, isn't it?

Yes.

Good.

In a number of places throughout the Rule 66

Party's documentation, there's reference to subaltern culture,

which might be a new word to some people.

Do you want to just please, Doctor,

just explain a little more to the inquiry

as to how subaltern works in terms of reference

to colonialism and the past and stuff like that, please.

I mean, the academic reference would go back

to a notable academic called Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak,

who talked about the subaltern and how the subaltern cannot

speak.

The idea of the subaltern is sort of like an easier way

to think about is marginalised.

In my head, that's what I would say.

And subaltern has been used in popular culture

to talk about subaltern music.

So oftentimes, counter sort of, you know,

so you have mainstream cultures, but then you have countercultures.

So often subaltern is used in these terms.

But there is a sense of resistance to a mainstream,

to the word subaltern.

and in particularly the way that I saw,

which is why the studio was termed as in a subaltern,

in the sense that it was a very different London as opposed

to the other parts of London.

So there was a sense of a difference,

almost like two cities in the same place, in the same London.

So that plurality, how do you really

talk about the plurality?

So that is why we use the word subaltern as a way

to make to the students, to make them understand that it's not

only that it's different, it's different with the larger set

that London is.

And from an academic perspective,

I do preach for that diversity and that inclusion

of how do you ensure that continues

and not everything becomes one kind.

Yes.

So yes.

Well, if I may say so, an incredibly terse but accurate

analysis of trying to make sure that culture is preserved,

enhanced, but also is an important part

of diversification.

Yeah?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I'm just looking for something that I wanted to—there was something I wanted to ask you

about.

Yes.

I wanted to ask, you make the point in your proof about heritage and culture being damaged

by the proposals.

Can you expand on that a little for me?

So the evidence that I placed was based on the studio that is run, 2011, at 21 to 22.

And it wasn't specifically about a single proposal.

So it's a generic description that sort of like what can we learn from that process because

I can only take on the learnings from that.

One thing I feel is important to note is the process by which things are made.

So for example, if you look at the which is what we right now in academic discourse there

is a very strong idea of co -production and co -design.

Like planning schools will talk about, planning conferences,

academic conferences will talk about co -design

and co -planning.

So this whole idea of how do you work with the local

in a collaborative process, for me, it's not the product,

per se.

It is the planning process.

How can it have that sense of co -design, co -planning?

I'd like to draw attention to, again, because I was not trained in planning in the UK, I'm

just having like an outsider's view on this.

But when I looked at the London, is it?

Yes.

So it says, this is the London Plan 2021, it says, the cumulative impacts of incremental

change from development on heritage assets and their settings should also be actively

managed.

So there is this notion of cumulative impact.

So by itself, one project, one building,

it's not a vilification, which is why the students that I led,

it wasn't about no development.

It wasn't about romanticization of the past and holding on.

Because as urban design tutor, it's my duty to say,

but how does growth happen?

How does all of that happen?

And this is what we're trying to get to, that the process,

is how can the process be more inclusive?

How can someone from Bangladesh who came here when she was two

and then she lived in a very patriarchal society,

so she was not able to be part of, let's say, a lot of things.

How do you really reach to that migrant woman

and then include her in decision -making process,

or at least make the consultation matter really

very strongly?

For me, when that is not done, I feel

that's when a lot of the harm is done,

because people feel left out and people feel disenfranchised.

Even when, as the barista has mentioned,

there is affordable spaces more than the policy

is asking for, as you mentioned, if I understand correctly.

Even when it's given more, but they are not

included in the process in a very, very inclusive way.

They don't even see that more.

They don't see that it's like alien,

even if it's technically more.

So that's where my outsider view is from my learning is,

how do you then have processes of co -design, co -planning,

co -production embedded in so that it's not like a debate

between development versus, so it's not again a question of one against the other, where

it's more like yes, we need development, but we need development which is inclusive in

which, and this is something that I picked up, something really interesting that you

mentioned that, because again, from an outsider's perspective, not really knowing all the detailed

bylaws, I can see that in the national planning framework, the planning policy framework,

In the objectives, it talks about social sustainability.

And in the social one, it talks about cultural well -being.

Now, that's something very, very,

it's the last line in the paragraph

on social sustainability.

And cultural well -being, I would say,

is quite a difficult thing because culture is so intangible.

A lot of the things like how do you even assess, measure it.

And because it's difficult, it cannot be reduced

to set in a checklist.

It's not always reduced to numbers.

Like you can't say because we have a representative

number of people, because then you miss out on the subaltern,

you miss out on the voices that are less,

but they're very important part, even if they're minor.

So for me, this is like a reflection

on the entire planning system.

Like how can it be more inclusive?

How can it ensure processes in which all the voices that

here all of them are at the design stage are assimilated much better and and

doesn't have to be drawn out into an as far system thank you thank you that's

that's been very helpful miss miss Curtis did you have anything in

re -examination no nothing further from Lisa well thank you very much thank you

so much appreciate it and thank you for coming all the way from Sheffield you

travelling back this evening. Yes. Have a good journey. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Ms. Curtis.

I understand. Thank you. Who's going next? Ms. Curtis.

I'm not disputing any of that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Osmani.

And so in your proof of evidence, which apologies,

I'll just get it up, is CDM 15.

So you explain at the beginning of your proof

that you were born in Whitechapel

and brought up in Woodseer Street,

and that you have a master's in architecture

and urban historic environments.

You're also the co -founder of the Bengali East End Heritage

society and you've previously worked at housing based architecture firms and

currently you work at the Spitalfields Housing Association on their development

programme is that all correct? That's right yeah. And as I said you're one of the

founders of the Bengali East End Heritage Society why did you set that

society up and what does the society do? So it's partly in response to to the

East End Preservation Society, there's the Jewish East End

Celebration Society.

And around 2016, a bunch of us who

work in culture and arts and youth work

sat around Brick Lane and realised

there was a lot of changes happening very fast,

but we weren't bought into the decision -making process.

And so we set it up partly to see where it goes.

And fast forward now, we're nine years in.

It's really a sort of policy changing organisation.

We work closely with Just Space Network,

which is an umbrella group of 80 organisations, London -wide,

which are affected by the planning system

where communities have to fight against the planning system

because they're being ignored.

And we share findings.

We, every four years or so, we speak to the mayor

of London's office, the Greater London Authority, to be heard

on planning issues that affect our community.

And it's not just our community,

that's why we call it the Bengali East End,

that the identity of London has massively shifted

since World War II, and we're a community in this area,

and we're stakeholders in it as an identity group.

We heard a lot on Tuesday in the public information session,

and I'm not sure if you were there

till the bitter end of that,

about the importance of Brick Lane

to London's Bengali community.

You've also highlighted this at paragraph 2 .1

of your proof of evidence.

Could you just summarise your views

on the importance of bricklaying

to the Bengali community for the inspector?

So the Bengali community, Bangladeshi,

or South Asian community have been here for,

not just since the 70s,

which a lot of planning documents seem to mention,

but actually long before then.

My granddad's younger brother arrived in the 1930s through Glasgow.

He died at a young age, but again, he was part of – he was a British citizen.

We've got the certificate to say that.

The thing is that link has always been betrayed, and for some reason, fast -forward now, in

the heart of Bangalatown, which is the first Bangalatown in the global West, the Bengalis

are being pushed out, in my opinion.

From everything I've seen to date, that's what's happening,

and all the policies are not helping to protect this ethnic minority group,

which has made a home here and has had input, participation,

and successes in British society as a whole.

Instead, now fast forward, it appears that the land is worth more than the people,

and as a result, they're becoming convenient to the economic modelling of the area,

which is a disappointment.

Also on page six of your proof, you've included a series of images which I think are from your essay that's in the appendices.

Could you just explain those images and how, in your view, Bengali culture and heritage has been integrated into Brick Lane?

Yes, so I was fortunate to get a, to receive a, to do a Master's at UCL Bartlett, which I have been working with,

especially the UCL department planning unit for a few years

where I've been taking tours of students in the local area.

And really what I noticed was that the local people

hold that knowledge about culture and heritage.

The built heritage is actually slightly removed,

and if not majorly removed from how people experience culture,

how they experience food culture, for example,

or graffiti, or the temporalities which

make culture as well.

but also how do you create a space that fosters culture to emerge.

So for me, as an artist from the community,

I was quite happy when I got the Aziz Foundation Scholarship,

otherwise I wouldn't be able to do it,

is to actually really examine in depth what I love about the area.

And what I noticed was about five years ago

that everything we love, including the heritage groups,

Bengalis, ethnic minorities, the hipsters, if you like,

and the visitors. Everything we love about Brooklyn is increasingly becoming under threat

or was becoming overtly commercialised.

And these images in your proof at page six, so what do each of these show?

So the first one you see a culture trail which is a culture trail advert. You see graffiti

which shows a Muslim person shouting against a kind of far right person. You've got the

in the Bangalatan Arch, which was first emerged in 1990.

I think recently we asked for the council to renovate it.

It was done by Minna Thikou around 1997

when Bangalatan was first coined in Brooklyn.

You've got graffiti of refugees.

You've got the Stick Man Graffiti,

which is a well -known artist.

The Kobinozru Centre, which is our cultural centre on Hanbury Street, which I have strong

memories of when I was a kid. I remember going there to the opening and it was really important,

especially against the far right, to assert ourselves in the place which is our home,

which we later call Bangla town. You've got a stretch of curry houses, you've got more

temporary things like the mela. You've obviously got the street signs which are in Bengali

and Alta Bally Park where you've got much more of a nationalistic icon there, but something

that tells the storey of how our community has come about and what we had to fight. Obviously

this is something which is cultural expression on the surface and where there's been reference

to racism, I think nowadays there's much more structural racism that we're experiencing

as a community, which you can see certainly in proposals in and around Brooklyn.

plane.

Thank you.

And you mentioned there the Al Tabh Ali Park

and how that references the struggles

that you've had to go through.

Could you just highlight that or expand on that a bit?

Yeah, so I think if you look at colonialism as a whole,

Bangladesh and the Bengalis almost felt the sharp end of it

following the breakup of India to Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Bangladesh and so there was, you know, in a way we were partitioned twice and that,

the shahid minad there is a symbol of that actually, the breaking up of those panels

that you see in the back there, the white panels are actually the breaking up of a state

and something else emerging.

So Bangladesh really emerged out of, you know, a real kind of hardship which included, you

in post -colonial sort of neglect. And the community here really needed a space to come

to. And Alta Bali unfortunately died there. That was, I think it was St Mary's Church,

which was originally the White Chapel, as we know it. And that was bombed during the

Blitz. And so the outline of the church is still there. But it tells a great storey of

White Chapel, which has shifted, and an international storey, really, because London is ultimately

an international place. It doesn't compare itself to other cities in the country. It

compares itself to international cities like New York, Tokyo, Berlin, and so forth. So

we're part of that storey, the storey of the East End.

In the appendix to your proof, you've included your essay on Banglatown that you wrote as

part of your MA, and you're referring that essay to the community development plan of

in 1989, which I think we also heard about in the public information session. Could you

just give a bit of context in terms of what the community development plan was?

So around 1989 there was much better planning in a way to what we're seeing today. We're

seeing the East End wanting to shift and wanting to change because around 1981 the sort of

fortunes of the East ended shifted because the population shifted, shifted. And that

was largely attributed to the Bangladeshi community which had come in and were actually

living under very difficult conditions. The report by, I think there was a government

report called Bangladeshis in Britain at the time that was released. So the community plan

brings together all of the components of Brick Lane and in and around Brick Lane and tries

to marry up the commercial interests and the community interests together, which is kind

of what people think of planning.

But unfortunately, it hasn't continued, as in there were some great recommendations in

that community plan.

The community had an input, there was community -based development organisation, but once that dissolved,

the community also lost agency in the planning system itself.

So it really fell on the wayside, it fell into the appendices.

But I found it really interesting reading up about it,

because I have some vague memories of it as a kid,

of interesting conversations around it,

around development, about where homes might go, for example.

The Banglatan notion is slightly touched on there.

But what was good about it was that the Bangladeshis

were being listened to.

And what we're seeing now is that they're

being completely ignored, willfully ignored.

And the reason I'm using the word willfully

is because, just picking up on the point about the consultation from the

Appellant's consultation boards, on part five and six, the Bengali there is so

illegible that actually in some cases where we're translating to respected and

translation websites, it says under certain icons this is a place where

people can share their knowledge and gain knowledge about the world.

The number of lottery tickets, especially for the lottery and the hospitality business,

has increased as more and more people are seeking to help the lottery and local businesses.

And the translation also says, to attract more visitors to the site and for the hospitality

business number of lottery tickets has increased by a few thousand in your

proof you also refer to the beyond Banglatown report which has been

mentioned a few times at the inquiry if that's appended to mr. Almeida's proof

which is CDM 14 and I think the report itself starts at electronic page around

electronic page 76, could you find that report in the appendices?

Yeah, just opened it up now.

Which page was it?

It's electronic page, let me see.

If you go to electronic page 82 or it's AA71.

Are you on CDM 14?

The

races

politics that I think

that

So this, you can see, is headed a brief history of Bengali Brick Lane in Bangla town.

Are you familiar?

Sorry, Ms Curtis, what page are you on?

I'm on CDM 14, which should be Adam Almeida's proof.

Yep.

And then it's in the appendices.

If you're at electronic page 82, it should say AA 71 at the bottom.

Oh, sorry, 71.

And that page is headed, A Brief History of Bengali Brick Lane or Banglatown.

Are you familiar with this report?

Yeah, I think the report was revised recently as well, yeah.

Okay. And it sets out a brief history of Bengali Brick Lane and Banglatown.

Is there anything in this report about the history of Banglatown that you particularly like to draw out for the inspector?

Well, if you look at the history of Bengalis, it's not just the retail community there.

And I think that's something that Palant has approached in a wrong manner. I think if you

look at beyond Banglatan, it states that it's almost a Banglatan and the curry has the same

thing. In fact, it's the entire area. When you look at it culturally, it's the entire

of the working community which have come in,

and how after World War II, there

was a much more visible racial difference

in working communities.

And Brick Lane really embodies that in a very kind

of natural way.

And this is what attracts a lot of people to it.

I think this idea that somehow the Bangladeshis are separate

is a complete misnomer.

I mean, part of the essay that I submitted, the other half of it

is actually just photographs of the Bengali East End

and things with Pisha which might disappear very soon

or until the visual language of how it's an integrated part

of this area.

So if you walk around and say,

I'm just gonna pinpoint areas

which are just black for example,

that's not how architecture works.

That's not how design, that's not how art works,

that's not how creativity works.

Poetry doesn't work like that either,

but people will pick up on different ideas

and feel inspired by the city.

And there's quite a lot of talk about how,

where do artists go to feel inspired?

And I think Brick Lane is definitely one of those areas.

You've got something like two million people arriving

to see, I mean, not just the Cockney,

wider Cockney diaspora around the globe,

but you've got two million people coming to see

working class communities having a leg up into the city,

which is five to 10 minutes away,

and all of the amazing storeys which are part of that,

the architecture, the art, not just the working class,

but you've also got different, you know, the early booth maps show that there were traders as well.

There were extremely wealthy people next to them, but they worked together.

These were working areas.

If you look at the historic homes, they were working homes as well.

So the Bangladeshis really fitted into that because they were part of those working communities

who in the early days took up jobs from, for example, the rag trade or the leather industry.

I certainly had uncles who were working in that.

And it was an area that fostered commerce, which was

from the community outwards.

And at the moment, what we're finding

is that there's this lovely kind of narrative about Bangladeshis

were here, or they're being, as Joe Morris,

I think his name is Joe Morris, for Morris and Co referred

to the Bangladeshis washing through or being

washed through this place.

That's actually not what's happening.

I mean, if you said that, if you referred that

to another ethnic minority group.

I think that would be seen as extremely inappropriate.

But for some reason, certain languages

are sometimes used with certain ethnic minorities

in terms of planning.

And we see that here.

So we're not washing through.

This is our home.

And actually, the latest census has

said there's 5 ,000 more Bangladeshis in the area.

So it's somewhere that they come to, they identify with,

that breaks the barriers and the adjustment into the city

for them to then be the citizens that then help the economy as well.

At paragraph 2 .3 of your proof, you've said that you've shown many university students

and international visitors around Brick Lane. In your experience, what has drawn those visitors

to the area?

Someone said to me once from Italy, they said this is a genuine part of the city and that's

what people come to see.

The appellant, I mean DP9 has in their planning document

referred to what tourists want to see.

They want to experience the locality like a local person.

But if you're not allowing that space to emerge

or that space to continue, you're actually taking that away.

So I think it'll have a detrimental effect

if you look at what's being proposed.

It'll overall have a detrimental effect

because if you contain heritage too much

and you stifle it through these block -like approaches

and try and maximise every inch of sky there is out there.

People have seen that before.

People can see that on the edges of Hackney.

In fact, some of the materialities of the proposal

reference Hackney quite a lot.

But this isn't Hackney.

This isn't even a Hackney conservation area.

This is a conservation area which doesn't just

have heritage value.

It has social value.

It has creative value, cultural value, local value.

All of these layering of cultural value systems which we're just starting to get our heads

around.

There's plenty written about cultural value as well and how you measure social value.

And that's what we're talking about today.

I think we're talking about Brick Lane on a crossroads where we're saying, well, actually,

do we want to completely go towards a financial valuation of this area or is there more to

it?

Where would the two million visitors go if it starts to emulate a corner of Hackney that

nobody ever goes to.

And certainly some of the architectural styles

is referencing that, which is extremely worrying,

because it takes a magpieing approach to heritage.

If you just take an architectural style

and just plunk it somewhere, you need to be critical of that.

So this is what I think Appellant hasn't done,

unfortunately.

And this is why I feel it's a rushed approach to a history

that's been much slower.

The built heritage is often much slower and takes that time.

So I think it's a rushed scheme.

I mean, just because you fit into the parameters of heritage rules

doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate.

And that appropriateness is what we're discussing here today.

So the second issue that you raise in your proof,

and you've touched on it a bit already,

is the consultation process or engagement process.

Firstly, at paragraph 3 .2 .5 of your proof,

you've said that Siletti is an oral language.

Could you just explain that difference that we've already touched on with Dr. Shafiq

between Silheti and Bengali and the use of those languages in the area?

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, Silhet actually was cut out of the state of Assam.

So at a certain period in history, I think it was 1700 sometime, it wasn't even part

of Bengal.

But again, South Asia is a plural place, boundaries have changed, Bengal's boundaries have changed.

So the Silhetis are distinctly different.

And what's interesting about when developers or landowners so easily think somehow translation

is going to solve everything, it doesn't.

And here it's raised more issues, that facilities which are going to be hard done by this 50 %

in that immediate area or 52 % is that there's a language disjuncture here.

You've got a more Assamese language, which had its own written form,

which died out about 100 years ago, partly due to colonialism and the breakup of India.

And what you've got is a language which is oral.

It's actually something we talk, that's why we speak a lot, and even in the workshops

that we held recently and over the course of the last few years,

have been trying to understand people's actual experience of the built environment,

what's going to impact their communities around them and how they themselves, as Dr. Tanzu

said, how they understand heritage itself. So we've got that information and we're going

to continue doing that. We've been doing it this year as part of London Festival of Architecture.

And there's things we're doing in our own time because we know this is a valuable space

for our communities. And for a lot of those people whose voices are not heard in the UK

planning system, we have to do that in our own time in order to be heard.

And secondly, also in relation to the consultation events, you said that the translator at the

events didn't appear to be familiar with the schemes.

What do you mean by that?

So we spoke to the translator a bit later, I don't want to get into trouble, but when

we went along to one of the consultations at Toynbee Hall, there was that model there,

which interestingly, a food writer who

comes to Brooklyn has inspired to write a book,

including one that's gone international,

said, what is that pile of butter

you've got on front of you?

So it was illegible for a lot of people.

And so people were looking around this model, which

did not reflect their local area.

And somehow they were supposed to make sense of it.

Coming from an architecture background

with this kind of historic core, I

would have expected at least some computer generated images

which are walkthroughs, whereby people can see and experience

these places or these narrow walkways

and these kind of slithers through which apparently

there's going to be these courtyards.

But people weren't convinced.

And I think if you're looking at how we communicate

that to our communities, we had to take a completely

different approach to it.

And the information being told us wasn't true.

If you look at the translator, he was just responding to what you might ask a question

about, like what is that?

Well, it's a development plan, I think he said to someone at one point.

Could you go to CDA 28?

And that's the statement of community involvement.

And if you go to its electronic page six, which I think is page five if you have it

printed. There it says that LOIC conducted an audit of relevant political businesses

and community stakeholders in the local area. Stakeholders were either invited to have individual

meetings with members of our project team, offered presentations or specifically invited

to our public consultation events. And you can see under the community group section

that the Bengali East End Heritage Society is listed in the local groups, businesses

and organisations. Do you remember what contact, if any, you had with the appellant?

If I'm totally honest with you, I haven't. I've seen the list here. It's a very lazy

list. I'll tell you why I think it's lazy. It's because it's kind of mapping online very

easily looking at more organisations there. And in fact, a lot of those organisations

are against the development which is being proposed. So you've got, for example, House

to Baneta, Spidey's life is extremely critical,

the East End Preservation Society, Nijo Manouche,

East End Trades Guild.

So I don't, this is very inaccurate.

It's giving the wrong impression

that somehow we've been consulted.

We have not been consulted on this.

If we received an email from,

or I personally might have done, I think from,

was it Loic?

But it just invited me to the exhibition,

which was I would say more of an information session and even then most

of the information was not there was no process to really influence the process

itself the development process or the planning process so what is this

ultimately it's an information session saying this is what you're gonna get

like it a lump it and that was the attitude in my opinion that we felt

throughout all of this process and this is why we've done our own versions of

consultation and again here you've got a business community put together with

communities very different things people that have very different interests so I

think that has to be unpacked as well you can't just lump people together when

one has commercial interests and other people actually living there. In

your rebuttal preview set out some information on the work that you've done

to engage the local community in this process and you've referred a bit today to the workshops

that you've had with the local community. Did you have anything to add about what those

workshops involved?

Well the workshops firstly heard from, there were quite a lot of women and families which

came to particular. I do creative workshops anyway and so there's different methods that

you can actually use which are much better at understanding people and what they really

mean. For example, somebody might say, I walk down that road, but they actually mean to

say, I walk down that road and I feel unsafe at particular times. And then you pick up

on things like that when you do it in a much more meaningful way. And I think none of that

is there in front of us by the appellant from what I'm seeing and from what I've experienced.

So it's something I do, it's part of my arts practise.

It's a socially engaged arts practise,

which has its own sort of rhythm in art schools

and architecture schools as well.

It's a particular method where you listen to people,

you try to understand how things spatially affect them.

So we've continued to do that.

We've held it in a community centre and here on the list,

I think that very community centre is listed,

The appellant has never approached our community centre in all the years.

And did you have anything else that you wanted to comment on in terms of the issues that you've

discussed or what you think the impact of this development proposal will be?

Yes, I think, I mean there's quite a lot. I mean this is an area that I, you know,

that's part of my identity.

And it's not just for me, it's for thousands and thousands

of people who are born locally, who come to Brooklyn.

And within a few streets, you can see

hundreds of years of history.

You can even see the cannons from, I think,

Battle of Trafalgar, which make up the bollards on the street.

So these things are little signals

and cultural interactions that happen,

which we feel inspired by.

And I think at the moment, what's happening

It's this banking in onto Brick Lane, like as if that's all there is, is a complete misnomer.

It's just completely the wrong way of approaching this historic core of what we value as an

area.

But also what Brick Lane becomes in future is it's not a high street.

It's a small lane.

It's a small working class lane that's extremely successful on the basis of the working communities.

And that's being traded here.

What's actually being traded is the brand of Brooklyn itself.

And I think that's not the right approach.

If you're not bringing the opportunities

which have been promised over the years

and where this has become an opportunity area

or those talk about districts and so forth,

that means a lot of public money and officers' money

and time has been going to this area for years, if not decades.

And that, if you're going to look at things financially,

That means there needs to be a return of much more for the community itself.

And I think this is why we are where we are, why we can't make a decision fully on this,

because that return isn't there.

And in fact, there's an injustice by taking on the appellant's proposals.

Thank you, Mr. Osmani.

Nothing further from me.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Mr. Harris?

I think from us, sir.

Thank you very much.

That's been helpful and informative.

Well, obviously, there's no re -examination because we haven't asked any questions, but

thank you.

Appreciate it.

Ms. Curtis, we're at 5 o 'clock.

Was it your intention or was it our intention to deal with anyone else this evening?

I mean, we've been talking about the fact that we've been talking about the fact that

I mean, from my perspective, the only constraint that we have is that I know Ms. Manchanda,

our planning witness, has to be done tomorrow, but I don't expect that that's going to take

all of the day tomorrow.

So I probably have about an hour of questions to ask to Mr. Almeida.

So, I mean, we're at five, so we could carry on, or we could just break now and come back

tomorrow.

My only anxiety is that we managed to complete, but we have had quite a long day.

but what's your feeling Mr.

Well you've raised the concern that I would have raised anyway if we're all

really comfortable that Mr. Margerson can start and finish examination in

chief which is the sort of aim of everybody then I've got no objection to

finishing now it could but I'm probably to not starting at 9 again but could we

say 9 30 I'm happy to do that if everyone else is fine from our point of

Would that work for you, Ms Curtis?

Yes, that works.

So essentially, I think the way we're looking at it,

broadly speaking tomorrow, is that we'll deal with your witnesses

up till or just before lunchtime, and then we'll move back over to Mr Harris.

That was what I had in mind.

And if that doesn't work or there's a different position,

perhaps people could speak now.

Does that sound reasonable?

Yes, I mean, I haven't had time estimates from my learned friend about how long he might

be proposing to cross -examine Mr. Almeida and Ms. Manchanda for, so I don't know if

they will be done by lunchtime, but happy to come back at 9 .30 or 9 .00 if that would

be more convenient.

I think we're all saying 9 .30 perhaps, and I've already said I'm not going to duplicate

cross -examination or deal with matters which could be dealt with by way of

submission. So I'm not anticipating unless you're very long in chief that

we'll be going much beyond lunchtime, sir. Excellent. Well look, I'm gonna

call it quits for the evening then and we'll return tomorrow morning for

9 .30. Thanks everyone. It's been a long day but helpful.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Truman's Public Inquiry PM - Thursday 23 October 2025, 2:00pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry PMThursday, 23rd October 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Truman's Public Inquiry PM
Thursday, 23rd October 2025 at 2:00pm