Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Friday 24 October 2025, 9:30am

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Friday, 24th October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

I just wanted to touch on before I hand back to Ms. Curtis.

The first thing is we need to finish by about 4 o 'clock today, if that's OK.

I've put myself on the train at 5, so fingers crossed Paddington behaves itself a little

bit better.

But, you know, if, well, I'm hopeful that we can get where we need to get to by that

time.

The second thing I wanted to deal with was how we map out next week.

We're sitting Tuesday, so we've got third -party input first thing, and then we'll be dealing

with Mr. Barjinson in cross and re -examination, and then that will finish the evidence as

as I understand it.

And then we've got an option of whether we do the site visit and conditions and obligations

on Wednesday or whether we do them on Thursday.

So it's a question of whether you'd prefer the blank day the day after we finish evidence

or the—or two days after.

I'm relaxed about it, but.

So we don't have a strong view, but we would prefer

to have the blank day looking up at only friend,

Mr. Parkinson, on the Thursday.

Yeah, I thought you'd say that.

My understanding is that the term

of the law is not available on that basis

rather than the type of business.

I'm getting nine percent,

in and out of that three times a year.

Okay, is that the third?

So that would suggest we sit Tuesday, Wednesday, and then come back on the Friday for closings.

Okay.

Yeah, Ms. Curtis?

Yes, that's fine for us.

Okay.

Well, let's fix that then.

So we'll resume next Tuesday, and we can talk about when next Tuesday.

I'm probably going to say 10 o 'clock, though.

And then we can arrange how we approach Wednesday, next Tuesday, and what time we start on Friday

then.

So that's helpful.

Thank you.

I don't know, Mr. Harris, if you've got anything else you want to read.

Well, there's just one very small thing, sir.

You announced, and we've all seen the letter from the Secretary of State and the reason

for the recovery of the appeals.

That means that there's a different focus to your task

and indeed to our task.

Because up until now, we were trying to persuade you.

And now we have to bear in mind that there is a different

audience, if you like.

And you'll remember that when the data centre evidence was

given, there were references to Secretary of State recovery

and decisions that dropped a farm, the haze, the various cases, and to the weight

that the Secretary of State gave to data centre issues there. Now all cases are

different but we think you should see those cases and we will be wanting to

make representations of the Secretary of State as to the consistency of approach

based on those and other cases. As I said they're already in evidence but only by

reference to references made in proofs and in live evidence,

but we think you should see the documents as a whole.

I don't think that it means that we need to recall anybody.

We can certainly deal with it in terms of submissions,

but the Secretary of State will be aware of them.

But we want to draw those decisions, his and her

decisions, to the Secretary of State's decision.

and we think because you've got a report, they'd be useful to you as well.

Well, my initial reaction is that it would be as well. Mr. Wall, do you have a…

Yes, I mean, my own view is, for what it's worth, is that you would have wanted to see those in any event.

And so the material that is relevant is still the material that is relevant.

And if my little friend wants to put them in, then of course if we could see what's going in

perhaps just satisfy ourselves that there's nothing missing that we might

might not want to add then that might help speed things along. That's very fair

and it was just a in principle position I was asking for today. What I was minded

to do was to put a package of Secretary of State's decisions together, share it

with my learned friends and if there needs to be a bun fight about what goes

in and what doesn't, they're all public documents and I can't see that there

would be but we can have that outside of this proceedings and then tell you what

the outcome of that was and if you need to make a ruling you need to make a

rule in it okay so I think if we can we'll try and get that done over the

weekend and in an event before before we see you again on Tuesday that would be

helpful miss miss Curtis on did you have a view on this no just agree with the

council on this I just wanted to raise one thing that I just checked in terms

of the day for the site visit.

I think our witness who was planning to attend the site

visit is available on Wednesday morning,

but not Wednesday afternoon.

So I just wanted to raise that now.

Well, it might be worth doing the site visit first

and then resuming the inquiry to deal with conditions

and obligations in the afternoon.

Yeah, that as well to bring that to my attention.

So yeah.

It doesn't matter a great deal to me, but I can understand why it would matter a good

deal to everyone else.

I think it's fairly certain that we need to swap the days, if that's OK.

But I'll personally cheque it as well, just to be 100 per cent sure.

OK, well, can we part that for now and come back to it if we need to?

But from my point of view, it doesn't raise any great issues.

It's just that next week is half term, so that's the only material consideration I've

got in mind.

So I'd like to have the week structured so I know what else is going on around it.

Good, we can come back to that.

Mr. Wall, did you have anything in particular?

No, sir, I don't think so.

We'll come back to you as soon as we can on the availability of the venue.

Ms. Curtis, then, unless there's anything else anyone has, I'm going to hand back to

you.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Almeida.

So you've set out your qualifications in section one of your proof, which is CDM 14.

You say that you're a data analyst specialising in urban economics.

You've held senior data analyst position at Commonwealth and data analyst roles at the

Centre for Labour and Social Studies in the Runnymede Trust.

You've undertaken particular research addressing

the issues of unaffordability, racism, and displacement

in the real estate sector across developed countries.

At Commonwealth, you led the organization's housing research

stream.

And at the Runnymede Trust, you undertook a quantitative

analysis of gentrification in London in the 2010s,

which we'll come back to.

You say you've also met with and briefed UK cabinet ministers

on topics such as the offshore tax system

and local economic modelling, and have

presented research findings to local authorities

to inform local development policy.

Is there anything you'd like to add there

when it comes to your background and experience?

Yes, I just wanted to add as well

that the entirety of my professional career

has been based in the UK, despite my accent,

that the reporting and editorial writing that I've

done for UK publications like the Financial Times, The Times,

and The Guardian have all been on the UK's economic situation.

Thank you. Moving on then to the substantive issues that you deal with in your proof.

So at paragraphs 2 .1 .1 to 2 .1 .4 of your proof, you've set out some background on the local economy in Tower Hamlets

and some demographic information on the economic situation, particularly of the Bangladeshi community

under your heading economic realities and needs of the community.

I understand it not to be disputed

that Tower Hamlets has a significant population of Bangladeshi residents.

And you, could you explain the data a bit more

that you've included in your appendices on that economic situation?

Absolutely.

So I wanted to paint a fuller picture of the Bangladeshi community.

Obviously, we've heard from other witnesses

the important role that they play in the community,

but I wanted to speak to the economic reality

of the Bangladeshi community, both nationally and locally.

So on average, a Bangladeshi household

will own 30 ,000 pounds worth of wealth,

and that's compared to 300 ,000 pounds

of the white British household.

So to think of that in kind of symbolic terms,

for every 10p of wealth held by a Bangladeshi household,

that's one pound of wealth for a white British household.

that 45 % of Bangladeshis in this country live in poverty.

That number rises amongst Bangladeshi children to 60%.

That according to the ONS data,

Bangladeshis and Pakistanis as a combined ethnic group

have the lowest employment rate

of any major ethnic group in the country.

Their employment rate is 61%.

That's about 15 points behind the national average

for England, Scotland and Wales. Like other ethnic minorities in London,

Bangladeshi's and BME residents are overrepresented in the retail and

hospitality space. They represent 35 % of workers in these sectors of London's

economy as compared to 20 % of the national average. That disproportionately

Bangladeshis occupy labour roles that are low paid, that are insecure and that are

precarious. They're more likely to be on zero hours contracts, they're more likely

to be employed within the gig economy, so working for companies like Uber and to

be self -employed. So this kind of economic reality is quite stark when

compared to the national picture.

Less than 5 % of Bangladeshis are in the top income quintile.

So less than 5 % are part of the top 20 % of earners.

More locally, according to Tower Hamlets Council,

over a quarter of Bangladeshis don't speak English

or can't speak English well, which essentially

means they don't have a working proficiency in English.

They have the lowest rate of higher educational attainment of any major group in Britain,

and roughly half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are out of work.

So, you know, I know these are a lot of different statistics touching on a lot of different areas,

but it speaks to the dire economic needs of the Bangladeshi community nationally,

but obviously because Tower Hamlets plays an essential role in the Bangladeshi community,

that all of these issues are present in our local community.

In terms then a bit more about the existing local situation,

in the appendices to your proof you've included a report that you authored for the Runnymede Trust

called Push to the Margins and that's at AA138

I'm just trying to find the electronic page number.

That should be electronic page number 149 onwards.

In this document you've undertaken what you refer to as a quantitative analysis of the

concept of gentrification in London in the 2010s.

How do you define gentrification in this report?

So as we've heard from other witnesses

who have been called to speak about the community,

about the transformation of Brick Lane

and the surrounding areas,

gentrification plays a major role.

So the study that I authored in 2021

is the first instance of gentrification

being quantified in the UK in a research capacity.

And in the report, I define gentrification

as the replacement of low -income working class residents

by higher -income middle class residents.

That necessitates a form of displacement

of the existing community.

And partly for my benefit, as someone

who's very bad at maths and equations,

Could you explain a bit the methodology that you devised in this report and in

general what factors are considered in your metric that you've produced to put

a numerical value on gentrification? Sure, so the quantitative analysis comprised

four different data sets, some of it provided from government databases, other

from the CDRC which is a data centre held within UCL. So it covers four

different areas. The first is the population churn that is the percentage

of households that have changed within the local area in the time span of

analysis from 2010 to 2016. So essentially measuring the percentage of

households who have moved out of the area and that's given the greatest weight.

The second most substantial feature or component variable of the methodology is

the ethnicity change.

So it measured the percentage of ethnic minorities in an area

and how it proportionally changed between these two time

spans, so essentially how these areas became less diverse.

The next data set looked at deprivation levels,

that what we're seeing is increases or decreases

in deprivation, also known as kind of areas becoming

less deprived and more wealthy.

It's not necessarily because the residents have become more wealthy

It's because poorer residents have moved out of that area. And then the final component is the house price changes. So

You know standardised to each London borough how the house prices in that area proportionally increased or decreased

according to that boroughs average

And looking at page

AA 148, which is electronic page number 159.

Am I right then in thinking that a higher score

on your metric meant more severe levels of gentrification?

Yes, it does.

So in as simple terms as possible, again,

what does a higher score on your metric show about an area?

A higher score shows that it has more displacement out, that the area became

less ethnically diverse, that the house prices rose above average and that

deprivation levels also fell above average. And your analysis in the report

focuses on Southwark, Waltham Forest and Brent, but you do set out other metric

scores for other London boroughs in your report. How did, were hamlets fair in

to other London boroughs and what can that tell us about the existing local

economic situation in the borough? Yeah so if the inspector turns to the next

page in the report, AA 149, a table demonstrates the mean gentrification

scores for each borough. Tower Hamlets came out as number one in the time frame

of analysis from 2010 to 2016. So it really speaks to the reality that the

witnesses, Dr. Shafik and Dr. Osmani were speaking about yesterday, the changes into

the community and the pressures outwards for the local existing community, that the motivation

behind this study was to provide empirical evidence to some of the qualitative data that

we've heard about the local area.

So it confirms the findings that gentrification is a major issue and has been for at least

the past 15 years in Tower Homelands.

Going back to your proof then, at paragraph 2 .2 .2,

you've commented on part of the appellant's economic statement,

which is included at CDA 0 .18.

Do you have that up?

And in that statement, there's a reference

to increased expenditure in the local area

as a result of the proposed developments.

You also refer to the Beyond Banglatown report.

Firstly, we've mentioned it a bit,

but what is that report and what were its findings?

Yeah, so the report preceded the research

that I did at the Runnymede Trust.

It was really a precursor to the research that I undertook.

And it was to understand better the role

that Brick Lane plays in the cultural identity

and the economic reality of British Muslims,

specifically Bangladeshis.

So it paints a quite dark picture about the local economy.

The falling number of curry houses in the area

and Bangladeshi -owned businesses in the local area.

It also points to the role that Brexit has played

and how it's kind of affected labour shortages in the sector,

but it essentially paints a full picture about not only the social history of the

area that this was a place that Benazir Bhutto would would go and have curry

when she was studying at Oxford and this kind of long legacy of the curry mild

but also the kind of difficulties that the hospitality sector in the local area

is facing today. And based on the trend that set out in that report could you

explain your views at paragraphs 2 .2 .2 to 3 of your proof about whether the

increased expenditure from the proposed development is likely to be captured by

those existing local businesses? Yeah so in the Appellant's development plans

there's an expenditure that the office workers in in the proposed development

would be spending in the local area that's calculated as 8 pounds and 71 P

that they'll be spending per day on the local economy and that's kind of

averaged with the diminishing rates of attendance in office buildings in

London more broadly. You know according to the research in the report it is my

opinion that the Bangladeshi businesses in the local area will not be the

of this spending and I just want to take the inspector to page AA84.

Yeah so under the heading gentrification and changing consumer practises Dr.

Liddert writes the first is gentrification in speaking about the

issues and the shifts in footfall for the Brick Lane businesses.

The first is gentrification and the changing work practises

in the financial services sector of the city, which surrounds

and increasingly encroaches on Brick Lane.

Where in the early 1990s, city workers crossed Commercial Street

to lunch at their favourite Brick Lane restaurants or cafe.

Recent changes to working times and practises in the sector

have meant that since the early 2000s, significant lunch

breaks have become increasingly rare.

One consequence of this change in working practises,

AKA the death of lunchtime, has been

that many companies in the city have expanded or upgraded

their canteens.

City workers also have an increasing choice

of grab -and -go eateries, for example, Costa, Pret -a -Manger,

or Subway, or the growing number of street food

stalls in the refurbished Old Spitalfields market.

A curry at a Brick Lane restaurant has become increasingly perceived by time

poor city workers as a heavy meal, something to eat in the evening rather

than in the daytime. The absence of lunchtime trade was noted by those

Brick Lane restaurateurs who have been in the trade for some years. As one

respondent said, we used to be really busy come one o 'clock but now there's

virtually nothing. I'd say the split in turnover between lunchtime and evening

is 1 % and 99%. Most weekday lunchtimes were empty. You're lucky if you get one table.

Looking then at volume one of the environmental statement, and that is it's CDA, I think it's

Chapter 15 of that environmental statement deals with is the first volume of the environmental

statement and it deals with socioeconomic impacts of the development.

At paragraph 15 .4 .11. Apologies, I'm just trying to find the page reference. I think

this may have been updated on the website yesterday. So those of you who have downloaded

it might be the shorter version.

But it should be page 411 of 556.

In that assessment, the appellant assessed the proposed development as resulting in the

displacement of existing businesses located in commercial spaces affected by the demolition

and construction activity from the development.

but it said that no displacement would occur outside the boundary of the site.

Do you agree with that conclusion? No I do not. My research into other

development sites that have been proposed and undertaken throughout

London, namely in Elephant and Castle with the old Elephant and Castle shopping

centre, as well as my research into Wards Corner, also known as Ladin Village in

are proposed or undertaken, that they have a widespread cascading effect of

displacement in the local area. My research with a charity called Latin

Elephant demonstrates that specifically in Elephant and Castle the displacement

pressures that have been placed by a similar development to the one that the

appellant proposes in in this local area that would introduce commercial office

blocks retail space similar to what's being proposed has had a cascading effect

on on the rents that long -standing mostly minority businesses have been

displaced out of the area specifically in Seven Sisters in Tottenham that such

a fear for the cultural loss to the local community prompted UN experts to

raise an issue with the local council saying that there might be a human

rights violation. You know I can't comment on UN expertise at this moment

but I would be surprised if they wouldn't say the same for this

development. In terms then of the evidence that you've given on jobs for

existing residents, at paragraph 2 .3 .2 of your proof, you discuss your

views about whether or not it's likely that local residents will benefit from

the jobs at the appeals scheme.

And you say that you consider it unlikely that the offering

of high -earning jobs will go to local residents.

Why is it that you've reached that conclusion?

Yeah, so according to the economic modelling undertaken

by the developer, by the appellant, that 88 % of the jobs

will be office jobs.

that you know according to the economic situation of Bangladeshis and the local

community that there's a complete mismatch between their economic needs

and and their capabilities within the labour force and what's being provided

through this development that the

reality of office work means a kind of proficiency in English that you need a

university diploma. All of this will not really speak to, you know, one and two

Bangladeshi women being out of work. I just wanted to read out a section from

beyond Bangla town as well on page AA 71.

So in the kind of second paragraph on this page, Dr. Liddare writes, across the borough,

enormous poverty exists alongside enormous wealth. Despite boasting some of

the fastest economic growth in the country and pockets of high earners,

Tower Hamlets is the tenth most deprived local authority in England with four in

ten households living below the poverty line. Bangladeshis are among the borough's

most disadvantaged groups. They have the lowest employment rates of all ethnic

groups in Tower Hamlets and once in work tend to be overrepresented in part -time

and lower paid occupations.

So in turning back to my analysis,

when I was reviewing my case, I came across this quotation,

water, water everywhere, not a drop to drink.

And I think that really represents the economic impact

that's been proposed by the appellant,

that this will bring higher earning jobs into the area.

There's no doubt about that.

But these jobs will not go to those who need them most.

At paragraph 2 .3 .4 you referred to offering jobs at the London Living Wage and why is

it that you say that that poses a barrier to entry for local residents?

Yeah, so the living wage and the London Living Wage more specifically is determined by a

group called the Living Wage Foundation.

So rather than using the existing minimum wage, they calculate what would be the cost

in order to be able to survive in London

or elsewhere in the country.

Obviously because of the enormous costs

that we pay as London residents,

that there's a bifurcation between the national average

and the London -wide average.

So none of the jobs,

according to the appellant's economic modelling,

provides any of them to the living wage standard.

So I would encourage the appellant

to adhere to being a living wage employer,

to be part of the accredited scheme

that's provided by the foundation

in order to ensure that the jobs,

you know, I think we'll come to this later,

but the kind of 300 or so full -time equivalent jobs

that will be provided to the local community,

that these jobs will be secure,

that these jobs will be provided

under the London Living Wage,

and that these jobs won't be contracted out

to a third party and rather will fall under the purview

of the management company.

Could I also take you again to the economic statement

that you've referred to, so CDA 18.

And on page 17 of that document, there's

a reference again to the number of jobs

that will be provided and it says there under the sort of left -hand picture 305

jobs will go to Tower Hamlets residents in line with local policy. Page, if you

turn then to page 21 there's a table and here we have the full -time equivalent

jobs so that total figure again and at the bottom there it says of which are

London Borough of Tower Hamlets residents 95 rather than 305 and just

there is I promise a point to this but in terms of going into where those

figures have come from going back to the environmental statement at CDA point 33

and turning to paragraph 5 .8 .72, which is page 441 of volume 1 of the environmental

statement, which is CDA 33.

So it says that ONS data estimates that 6 % of the local area workforce also live within

the borough and the appellant will use reasonable endeavours to meet policy and provide 20 % of

employment opportunities to residents of London borough of Tower Hamlets.

And then just going across the page to 15 .8 .81, you've got there the figure of 95 jobs rising

to 305 when applying local policy requirements.

So it seems, am I correct in thinking

that those two figures have come from those different places?

And which of that 95 versus 305 do you

consider to be more realistic?

Ms. Curtis, I was also confused at the difference

between these two numbers.

And I'm not sure how these two numbers were arrived at.

It seems quite clear from the economic modelling

that was carried out by Volterra that they've essentially just taken the

proposed number of jobs that will come from the development and applied the 20 %

rate that is the literal bare minimum that Tower Hamlets applies to ensure

that the plans gain approval. There's no specification in any of the economic

modelling of what kinds of jobs will be provided or how they'll be provided to

local community. You know we heard from witnesses yesterday about the kind of

gap between the language skills and the poultry translation services that have

been provided by the appellant that I'm really confused and would be interested

to hear more from the appellant about how they've arrived at these figures and

and how exactly that they'll boil down. The same is true for the affordable

space which I think we'll get to as well. It's purely applying a 10 % to the bare

minimum so it's it's really not going above and beyond to provide for the

local community by any means. In section 2 .4 of your proof you set out some high

level views on the impact of the data centre on local residents. Could I ask

you to look at CDM 09 which is the proof of evidence of Miss McGinley that we

who we heard from yesterday.

And looking at paragraph, oh apologies actually,

CDM 09 I think is the summary proof of evidence.

No, sorry, they're both CDM 09, but I just opened the summary.

Paragraphs 11 .42 to 11 .47 of Ms. McGinley's proof.

She sets out some comments on the potential localised impact of data centres.

What are your comments, if any, from your own expertise and research on that section of Ms. McGinley's proof?

I was really glad that Mr. Harris brought up the data centres and the kind of renewed importance that data centres have played now since the Secretary of State's decision.

According to the estimates proposed by the appellant, they will bring in 15

full -time equivalent jobs into the area. That according to the proof that you

mentioned, if I take you to 11 .43, according to the witness, it is true that

factories or retail hubs. Data centres create high -value specialised employment

opportunity for IT technicians, engineers, cybersecurity experts and facility

managers and offer well -paid roles that support the local economy without any

details being given to how they support the local economy. Again, in thinking

about the realities, the economic realities, the role that they play in

the labour force and levels of educational attainment, it's highly

unlikely that these highly specialised well -paid roles, 15 of which will will

ever go to local residents who who have a dire economic need. I also want to zero

in further in this proof in 1145 that data centres are critical infrastructure

for technology companies, startups, and cloud service providers fostering

innovation clusters and supporting diverse job growth across finance, media,

and healthcare. Now maybe healthcare is where Bangladeshis are represented but

in terms of finance, media, tech companies, startups and cloud service providers

these are not the kinds of jobs that are going to be going to the residents in

in the estates that we all walked past on our way in today.

In section 2 .5 of your proof you discussed the issue of affordable

workspace and you've included some examples in your proof of commercial

lettings in e1 postcode as a comparator to the appellant's proposed

affordable workspace and could you just explain how you found those lettings and

calculated the price per square footage? So I found these letting prices for

affordable workspace from Tower Hamlets Council's website where they list

available workspace within the postcode e1 where we're all currently sat and

the development is proposed. According to the council's website the price per

square foot is 8 to 25 pounds per month. This compares to the amount of

affordable workspace that's provided that's proposed by the appellant as 30

to 40 pounds per square foot. So this is a significant increase to what the

Council provides as affordable workspace and I think this aligns with what is

actually feasible for local residents especially those who are in the gig

economy and self -employed to be able to to kind of begin their businesses. And

you've also mentioned the rates and they're referred to in the workspace

providers board letter that you've referred to at paragraph 2 .5 .3. Are those

the kinds of rates that you endorse? Yes I do. So the the rates recommended by

this advisory board set up by the GLA, the Greater London Authority, recommended

six pounds and 50p per square foot for creatives. So you know that's actually

lower than what the council provides but closer to that eight pound price point

As well as affordable spaces within zones one and two are set at 15 to 25 percent

25 pounds per square foot so 15 to 25 versus what the appellant proposes as 30 to 40 percent

for 30 to 40 pounds per square foot and

Finally then at section 2 .6 of your proof you discussed the potential for the proposed development to increase

Rents for existing businesses and you reference your push to the margins report again

And could you explain what your findings were in that report about rising rents in opportunity areas?

Yes, so a significant part of my report looked into these areas opportunity areas as we've heard discussed throughout the inquiry where

Mega developments are able to be undertaken

this was this has been kind of London planning for the past 20 years since

Mayor Livingstone was in power.

Essentially these are areas of intense deprivation

or brownfield sites that can undergo these

mega developments like the one that's currently proposed.

The proposed plans also sit within the city fringe,

tech fringe opportunity area.

So according to my analysis, there's a statistical

likelihood of higher gentrification rates

within these opportunity areas. These findings have been endorsed by the

London Assembly and have been used in letters drafted to the mayor of London

City Con urging him to reconsider redevelopment plans as a result of the

potential impact on displacement of local communities. I want to turn the

inspector to CDM 14, AA 156.

Yeah, so as I write in this report,

though rejuvenation of Brownfield sites

in a greater provision of homes are welcome intervention,

developments in opportunity areas are often not reflected

of housing needs of the local community

and typically happen without consultation

of local businesses and groups

to inform development plans, according to Just Space.

As grassroots housing consortium, Just Space has pointed out

nearby, quote, shops, cafes, service providers

that serve the local community are priced out of the area

by soaring rents, close quote.

In addition, in my proof, I also referenced

a letter that was written by academics at UCL who were also writing about the

potential cascading displacement of these development plans in the local

community. So I want to turn the inspector to page AA 134 of the same

proof.

So at the bottom of the page, they cite research undertaken by real estate investment firm CBRC,

which found that price property prices within a 750 metre radius of regeneration zones in London

typically outperform wider market growth patterns by 3 .6 percent per annum on average.

To carry on above, given that commercial rents typically track wider property or land value

trends without care, the regeneration of the Truman Brewery site risks a new wave of rent

rise induced displacement. So, you know, we see both from my own research and from evidence within

the real estate sector that this will have a kind of knock -on effect and that

is statistically found. Thank you. So just finally then, so we've looked at the

environmental statement and the Volterra commercial assessment reports.

Overall what's your view as to the picture that these reports and your

evidence paints in terms of the economic impacts of the development particularly

on the local community? In my professional opinion I believe this plan

will have a detrimental impact on the local community and their economic needs.

You know according to the statistics and findings about the local community that

the jobs provided, the jobs proposed will not go to these people. That the

amount of work that will go towards the local community without any provision

for what those are or what pay points those will be at that I really don't see

how they'll meaningfully be included in the economic part of the plan. My

research from other development plans of a similar ilk to what's being proposed

in Brick Lane bear out the the negative displacement effect that instead of you

know, sparking or kick -starting in a kind of economic recovery that a lot of

traders, you know, specifically in Elephant and Castle have had negative

impacts to their footfalls, their revenues, have had to take on other work,

have accrued higher levels of debt, have undergone significant health challenges

to their mental health and physical health as a result of not being

meaningfully included in these kinds of development plans.

That really the only jobs that seem to be kind of alluded to

in any of the proofs is actually in,

is in Miss McGinley's evidence where she,

she says that the data centres will provide jobs in sectors

such as maintenance, security, catering, and cleaning.

We know these are low -paid, very precarious work that's

undertaken in London.

And I expect these are going to be the only jobs that

are provided to local people.

Again, no specification in the appellant's own economic plans

of what those will be.

You know, as we heard from Dr. Osmani yesterday,

that it seems that the appellant's approach

to the local community is that the value in the land

is more important than the value in the local community. I would say that these plans were

drafted without the local community in mind, that all of the proposed benefits to the local

communities are essentially the bare minimum that are maintained by the planning authority.

So I have to ask which jobs will be provided for local people and whether they'll be provided

a kind of living wage. Thank you Mr. Almeida, that's all from me.

Mr. Harris? Mr. Parkinson for this one, sir. Thank you. Thank you sir. Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Almeida. I'll just take you to the the documents we're going to

go to so you can get them up. I think most of them you've referred to already.

So it's CDA point 18, which is the economic statement

Then you also need the officers report for the main site so that's CDL point 0 1

And then CDF point o 2 which is the council's planning obligations SPD

And then finally CDM point two four

Which is an appendix to mr. Marginson's proof, it's a note summarising the section 106 obligations

You got all of those?

Okay, brilliant. Well, I'm gonna take it and

Using the the headings in your proof, which is broadly what you you just talked through

so the first heading is the contribution of the development to the local economy and

As you set out in your proof, it's paragraph two point two point three

You raise a concern there about falling revenue and footfall for the curry houses on Brick Lane

You see that

Sorry, bear with me.

We're all used to managing these documents two weeks in.

Can I ask once more which page it's on?

It's on page 6, 2 .2 .3.

It's that section there.

Yes, I have that now.

Yeah.

And you raised this concern in the context

where the number of curry houses has fallen significantly

since the mid 2000s.

Yes.

Yeah.

I think the figures are 60 in 2004 to 20 in 2019.

So anything that will help support curry houses staying in business that will be a positive of the proposal wouldn't it?

Absolutely, absolutely

And as you said in your evidence in chief

The reasons for the decline were explored in the the money need beyond Bandler town report

If we take that up, it's in your appendices and it starts at page

a a

point six two

So the first thing to note, if we go to AA63, the second page, you can see the date of the

report, and this was published in July 2020, wasn't it?

Yes, I believe so.

Yeah.

So given the date, if nothing else, the report doesn't say anything about the impact of

of these proposals on the local economy, does it?

No, it doesn't.

But it's according to my modelling.

Obviously, we can't look into the future.

And if we then go down to page AA .80, we get to the substance.

And there's a heading, Challenges, Threats,

and Transformations.

And the report sets out a series of challenges and threats.

And we can see those just by looking at the headings.

So freehold, leasehold, council policy, changing markets,

consumer practises, staffing, et cetera.

So there's a whole host of reasons

why the Indian restaurant trade on Brick Lane

has been suffering in the last 10 years.

That's right, isn't it?

Correct.

Yeah.

Then the report makes a series of recommendations.

And we can see those on its page a a 88

And if we look under the heading banglatown restaurants point seven

It deals with what the planning system can do

And it says borough planning support for the restaurant sector should be developed

e .g. through ground floor property usage restrictions, capping of rents for these

establishments, extension of licencing hours, and more investment in the

surrounding nighttime economy. You see that? Yes I can. So anything that

encourages evening footfall in the area will be a positive thing for the sector

and one which aligns with the recommendations of this report. Is that

right?

Well, the evening footfall is not necessarily the issue.

As I gave during my evidence, the issue

is the lunchtime footfall that those have had the decreases.

Well, you comment on the lunchtime footfall.

But in terms of what this report is saying,

it's saying as one of the recommendations,

there should be investment in the surrounding nighttime

economy.

And one of the reasons for that is

Because the report identifies that evening trade is highly important to the success of the sector, doesn't it?

Yeah, that is true.

Yeah, okay.

So with that in mind, can you turn to the economic statements prepared by Volterra, which is CD8 .18?

Yeah.

And turn within that to its PDF page 12

And there's a heading local business needs

Yes, yeah and this was a document prepared as part of the application wasn't it

Yes. Yeah

and can you see that one of the

local business needs identified is a loss of nighttime uses and

the report

Summarises local business needs and actually draws the opponent also draws upon

The beyond banglatown report the same report that you draw on doesn't it?

Yes, it does and we can see that one of the

Things that the development seeks to do is to provide

New time new nighttime use types to widen the offer on on prick Lane and that accords doesn't it with

the recommendations of the beyond banglatown report

It appears so yeah

So if we think about some of the elements of the development the cinema the microbury

The new event space all of these would increase the number of evening attractions on brick Lane, wouldn't it?

It would increase the number of evening attractions, but it wouldn't necessarily be channelled to those existing businesses

Okay. Well, let's see if that

That plays out by looking at the analysis that's been done

So if you stay within the same document and can you turn to page 16?

And it should say at the top economic impact impact of the master plan

Yes

And if we just go through some of these figures, so can you see that there's a heading towards

the bottom of the page, visitors and new footfall?

Yes.

And there's a figure there, 31 ,400 increase in footfall from visitors and pedestrians.

And that's a weekly figure, isn't it?

Don't see where it's a weekly figure if we go over the page

You see got the same figure and it says approximate increase in local foot for each week, yeah

Yeah, and then if we go further down

To page 20. There's a methodology

Estimating footfall and you haven't challenged this methodology either in your proof or your evidence just now have you?

No, but the methodology doesn't really it's it's not a full methodology because it doesn't really propose how these numbers were generated

but if we look at estimating footfall we can see that ultimately

it the figures come from the transport assessment and so that's where the

figures are derived from but as far as the inspectors concerned it's not

something that you you've challenged in your evidence but if we just look at the

figure and what it represents we can see that the workers supported by the

proposed development to remove from the estimates so that figure that we have

of 31 ,400 that's new visitors to the master plan size of the proposed development excluding

the workers. That's right, isn't it? Which part of the page are you referring to? So

under the heading estimated footfall, can you see the number of FTE workers supported

by the proposed development is removed from the estimates of new daily pedestrian movements

to estimate the number of new visitors

to the master plan site of the proposed development.

So that figure of 31 ,000,

that's new weekly visitors to the site

from outside the area, isn't it?

Yeah, according to your estimates.

Yeah.

And that amount of visitors, over 31 ,000 each week,

that can only be a good thing

for the local businesses on Brick Lane content.

Well, I mean, there's some positives

that it increases the amount of footfall, but there are also negatives. You know,

the experience of local residents in the area have spoken negatively, actually,

about the nighttime economy, that it provides a disruption to their area,

that local residents have spoken about feeling overwhelmed by the number of

visitors, and that some of the nighttime economy that you mentioned has caused

some some nuisances to to the local residents.

And in terms of what you're giving evidence on, which is I understand it is

the economic impact of the development.

One of the concerns you identify and has been identified in the money

meet report is the climbing footfall in that context.

This number of new visitors, the area can only be a good thing.

I appreciate what you say about many concerns, but in terms of economic impact,

that can only be a good thing.

Well, there's no evidence that that footfall is going to be channelled into these Bangladeshi

businesses.

Well, let's just follow that through, because if we stay within the same report to, it's

page 16.

Yes.

Sorry, it's, yeah, page 16.

We've got the figure and then we can see a figure of 48 million in new expenditure outside the site each year

That's then broken down on page 18, isn't it to spend by residents workers and new visitors

Yes, but it doesn't specify which businesses are going to be frequented

But in terms of the the figure you spoke about the eight pounds seventy one a day

That's from the workers and we hear your concern about whether they're likely to

Visit the curry houses at lunchtime, but the vast majority of this new

Spend is from new visitors, isn't it?

45 million according to your analysis. Yeah, and that is spend outside of the site

We can see that can't we locally outside Truman Brewery

So that is spend, not within the development, but outside the development in the local area.

According to your analysis.

And again, according to our analysis, but it's an analysis that you haven't sought to

challenge.

You don't challenge these figures in your evidence, do you?

Not in the evidence that I provided, but I find it highly unlikely that this 45 million

will go towards the Bangladeshi businesses.

Okay.

We then move on to the next heading, which is jobs.

And this is the concern that you raised, that the jobs generated won't be for local residents,

if I can sort of summarise it that way.

In general terms, can we agree that an employment -led scheme will generate more jobs and therefore

there's more potential for local jobs than a residential -led scheme on this site?

Well, an employment led scheme will generate more jobs, but again, according to my statement

that these jobs won't necessarily go to the area.

And there's a question whether a residential led approach would have been better to meet

the housing needs of the local community, which I appreciate.

I didn't speak about it in my analysis, but others will go over it.

Let's see how the council deals with this through its planning policy.

Can we go to the planning obligations SPD?

So that's CDF .02.

And once you're there, if you could turn to page 25.

Yes.

And there's a heading at the top employment skills training and enterprise

correct

And if we look at paragraph

5 .43

Council says Tower Hamlets has an above -average unemployment level within Greater London

With a very low proportion of Tower Hamlets residents finding employment within the borough

Employment opportunities from new developments must be accompanied by training to upskill residents so they can compete for the jobs

And in broad terms that that that concern there is the one that you identify and your evidence isn't it the

The above -average unemployment level and the the very low proportion of residents finding employment within the bar. Yes. I agree. Yeah

Then the SPD then sets out

How that issue

Will be addressed. Can you see the heading how the council will secure employment skills training and enterprise through planning obligations?

Yes, and there are various measures set out there

So you can see job brokerage

then financial contributions

apprenticeships

All the way through to page 28 and and these are the measures which the council considers

Are appropriate in the in the Tower Hamlets context?

to ensure that as far as the planning system can do,

jobs are made available to local people.

This is the council's approach, isn't it?

I believe so.

Yeah.

If we then take up the officer's report,

so that's, this is the report for the main site,

it's CDL .01.

And once you're there, if you could turn to, it's paragraph 7 .53 on page 69.

Which paragraph?

It's 7 .53.

Yes.

So there's a heading apprenticeship apprentices and financial contributions

and it says in accordance with the council's planning obligations SBD the

proposal would include the following and then lists various measures that are

put forward. Construction space, apprenticeships, employment training

contribution, end -user apprenticeships, employment training contribution etc.

So the view of officers was that the proposal delivered what was required by Tower Hamlets

and its SPD to address these concerns about unemployment levels within the borough.

That's right, isn't it?

I believe that's a question for the Council.

Okay.

Well, looking at the wording of the report, you're not coming here pointing to any other

additional measure in the SPD that's required that isn't delivered by its proposal, are

I mean not necessarily what I would say is what's being proposed in in section

7 .53. I'd be curious to understand as well how the appellant plans to engage

the local community as we've heard yesterday the the translation services

that have been provided hitherto by the appellant are not legible to the local

community. So I'm really interested to hear how apprenticeships and training

contributions will be undertaken specifically due to the language

barriers. I think the answer to that is in the next paragraph and it's something

that you haven't referred to which is that as well as delivering what's

required by the SPD the development goes further and is funding a post in the

Council's economic and growth team.

Can you see that?

There's agreement between the applicants and the Council

to deliver a further programme of skills,

training and employment at the true and furious state

with a focus on the creative industries.

And that post will be funded for a minimum of five years.

It goes on to say,

the post holder would provide the engagement

across the Council's growth

and economic development programmes

and identify residents who can take advantage

of the opportunities.

This will involve onsite employment, work experience and training opportunities.

So those issues that you've identified with, that will be someone's job, a job funded by

the appellant, and that will be what they will be grappling with, ensuring that training

and skills improvement and onsite employment is provided for the direct benefit of the

local community.

That's what's written here.

Yeah. Okay. Next topic, affordable workspace. And the benefit of affordable workspace is that

it provides access to employment for people and businesses that would otherwise be unable to pay

market rents. That's the benefit provided, isn't it?

Correct.

Yeah, and it's right to say isn't it that the affordable workspace provided here is offered as a much deeper discount than

Policy requires it's 45 %

Compared to the 10 % required by policy. Were you aware of that?

Well, it's still above what's being proposed on the council's website

So I would say that it remains although I can appreciate that it's at a discount

It remains out of reach for many of the households who are in

economic need that I've highlighted in my proof.

We'll come on to the figures a little bit in a minute.

But in terms of where we are, the policy says 10 % below market rate.

What we're providing is 45%.

And the Council was right to describe that as a significant improvement, weren't they?

Where is it described as a significant improvement?

We can see that in the paragraph above the one we were just looking at, actually.

It's paragraph 7 .52.

You still got that up? I do. The proposed affordable workspace with a discount of 45 % is a significant improvement

over the minimum local plan policy requirement of a 10 % discount.

And that difference between 10 % to 45 % that is a significant improvement, isn't it?

I agree. Yeah.

And were you also aware that the affordable workspace will be offered first to local people?

Again, something that's not required by policy.

Yeah, but my question still stands how those people are going to be reached.

Okay. The concern that you set out in your proof and also in your evidence in chief is

about how the affordable rate will be calculated. And you referred to a 30 to 40 pounds per square

Yes, according to your estimates.

Well, let's just be really clear on this.

I think that figure comes from the same economic statement that we've been looking at.

It is page 14.

Is that CDA 18?

Oh, is that, yeah, CDA .18, yeah.

Is that

Have you got that mr. Leader yes. Yeah, and that's if we look at the third bullet point down

It refers to smaller space on site offered at 30 to 40 pounds per square foot. Yes

That's where I got the number from. So the first thing to note is

That's not this is dealing with what's currently on site, isn't it? It's not the proposed affordable rate for this development

And we can see that because this is dealing with, right up at the top, existing estate

context.

Yes.

Yeah.

The second point to note is that 30 to 40 pound figure, that's not an affordable workspace

rent.

That is the figure before a discount's being provided.

Is that the case?

Yes.

So this is not the figure that's being proposed.

if we look at the CMS note, which is CDN 0 .24, and turn within that to page 5.

Can you see paragraph 3 .9 .2?

Yes.

Yeah.

The affordable workspace would be provided in accordance with an agreed affordable workspace

strategy which would be a strategy to be submitted to LBTH and approved prior to the occupation

the development. So all of these issues in terms of the market rent and the

specification for the workspace, how it will be provided, that will all be set out,

the market rent which the discount will be applied, that will all be set out and

agreed in the affordable workspace strategy which is a document to be

agreed by the council for full occupation.

Can you see that?

Yes.

Yeah.

So the council has full control to ensure

that what's provided in the affordable workspace

complies with its SPD, doesn't it?

You would have to ask the council.

OK.

And then finally, just deal with wider impacts

and gentrification.

And can we go to your proof at power buff 2 .1 .6?

Yes.

And you say that without adequate provisions and protections for commercial tenants and existing businesses

It's my judgement that proposed development will have

the notorious

Impacts on the local community rather than positive ones which have been proposed in the planning applications

Now there are existing businesses on the main site the cash and carry and

some small businesses as well and like the council you don't raise any concern

in your evidence about the relocation proposals for those businesses within

the section 106 agreement. Well I'm sure that's covered by others. Yeah your

concern is a more general concern the regeneration proposals often result in

house and property price rises which can lead to rent displacement. Yes. Yeah and

And we can see that at paragraph 2 .6 .5.

And you refer there to the Latin Elephant Research, which

is research into elephant and castle development.

And you say, in elephant and castle,

the regeneration scheme currently under construction

and has similar features to what's being proposed

in Brick Lane.

There will be office buildings, retail space,

and a significant proportion of market housing.

And you go on to refer to the consequences

that that charity identified.

Yep, correct.

Block J as part of these proposals provides

36 % affordable housing.

The concerns that you raise and reference

in your evidence, would they arise equally from any residential led

regeneration of the site which proposed a similar proportion of affordable

housing? Yes and just to be clear according to the estimates I believe the

36 % of affordable housing results in six units is that correct? Oh that yes that

is correct but it's not something that I'm asking you about. What I'm

asking you about is your evidence on the impact of regeneration proposals.

And we can note that your proof doesn't say anything about the Council's proposals for the main site

and the emerging local plan, does it?

In my evidence?

Yeah.

No.

So it's fair to record there's no consideration in your evidence as to whether the concerns you identify

about regeneration proposals would apply just as much to the council's own

proposals for the Truman East site. I'm not clear on the question. My question is

that you've identified here a concern about the impact of regeneration schemes

on local local rent and the risk that that gives rise to gentrification and

you'll be you'll be aware that the council for its emerging local plan is

also proposing the regeneration of this site. Yes, you know the local residents,

let's be clear, are not against a regeneration plan. This is not the

regeneration plan that they're proposing. Of course, but one thing that might be

relevant to consider as to whether these concerns that you raise are concerns

that will arise from any regeneration on the site and that's not something that

you've considered or addressed in your evidence, is it? No, because I'm responding

directly to your development plans. But a regeneration scheme, and this is

consistent across all of my research in London, is the overwhelming response is

that local residents, especially those with the kind of dire economic needs

that I outlined, are not against regeneration schemes. They're against

regeneration schemes which will have the negative cascading effects on the local

communities that don't provide affordable housing in any meaningful way.

six units is not meaningful in any way. That affordable workspace even if

provided at a significant discount still at 10 % is is poultry. Yeah but the the

elephant and castle scheme that you refer to here that is a residential led

regeneration scheme isn't it? Well not necessarily there's a significant

residential proportion but there's also a significant retail and commercial

proportion as well similar. The biggest difference that I can identify is yes

there's a substantial substantially more residential housing and that there's no

data centre. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Parkinson. I had a number of

things that I was going to explore but Mr. Parkinson's beaten me to it.

Ms. Curtis, did you have anything in re -examination?

Nothing further from me, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Almeida.

Thank you for the time.

Thank you, my pleasure.

We're open.

We can resume.

Yes, sir.

So the reason why my witness isn't yet in the chair,

there's also a local Councillor here

who wanted to speak this morning, if that would be possible,

and this might be a good time to fit him in.

Councillor Gold.

Go ahead.

One thing I can do, one thing I can do, sir,

is give instructions on how to use these

as we use them all the time at council meetings.

The mics have behaved themselves.

It's other things.

For your record, my name is Peter Gold, Councillor Peter Gold.

I'm a member of the Council of the London Borough of Tower

Hamlets.

I've served 27, coming up for 28 years as a councillor,

eight years in the London Borough of Brent,

and just approaching 20 years in the London Borough of Tower

Hamlets.

Although I'm a minority councillor, and indeed for a number of years led the opposition,

the council have on numerous occasions voted me to chair or vice -chair the council's licencing

committee.

And for probably of my 20 years on the council, 12 of them I've been involved in licencing,

which has given me a particular interest in the Brick Lane area.

although I should say I'm third or possibly fourth generation East End.

So I have roots of family, parents, grandparents, and indeed great -grandparents who can give

storeys of what life was like in the East End of London back in the day.

But that's possibly for another occasion, not one of these.

I would say in terms of licencing, and I would like to introduce this because I was very

interested listening this morning,

and I've listened in on one or two points,

is that we introduce the community impact zone,

especially for the purposes of problems in the Brick Lane

area.

It's not regarded as some kind of Victor Meldrew

plan to stop life.

It was a proposal to ensure that we, in the daytime

and when it is a business area, we deliver the best possible for people,

the best possible opportunities, the best possible lifestyle,

but give people a degree of respite at night.

So the CIZ does ensure that we do not grant new applications

that will break effectively the CIZ,

unless they can demonstrate why they should do so.

And the CIZ has been in operation for a number of years and has twice been renewed.

And I think on a number of occasions we've lost an application by enforcing it can probably

be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Our officers work hard with applicants and we work hard with our residents to do the

best.

So that is something of licencing.

I would add that the Metropolitan Police gave a report to a licencing committee, I think

18 months ago I should have downloaded it and brought it on, that pointed out that antisocial

behaviour in what they call the Shoreditch Triangle, which of course is the top end of

Brick Lane, the area that includes around Shoreditch High Street station and extends

over to Hackney has at weekends higher levels of antisocial behaviour and here

it comes Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square and Covent Garden combined and if

you think it's staggering it can be discovered on this council report. Our

job is to work to ameliorate that to help business, to help the economy of

London and deliver the best for our residents and I think we try that as I

said, we have the number of applications that have appealed against the decision within

the CIZ and the council have been overruled in Lord knows how many years is absolutely

minimal because of the work members and officers do. When I spoke at the council meeting, I

was obviously only permitted the standard three minutes and my concentration was on

housing. You cannot be a councillor, you cannot be an elected representative within the London

borough of town Hamlets without understanding the acute housing need we have. We have large families

crammed into one and two rooms. We have in excess of 17 ,000 people on the waiting list.

We, as a borough, we as a city, a region, and I have to say we as a country have to

deliver housing because the situation is untenable. The situation where not so long ago we had

the obscenity of 23 people crammed into a two bedroom flat on the Tarlin Estate in Shadwell,

which caught fire on an evening, was, in my view, a national scandal.

And we have to do something about it.

So when this application came forward, and I looked at the housing, and you see the thing,

and the brochure says 35 % affordable housing.

That's six flats -stroke houses.

That's scarcely, sir.

That is like throwing a teaspoon full of water in the River Thames

and hoping it solves the housing problem.

It doesn't.

And frankly, then we say, oh, but the housing

would be for local people.

Well, what kind of local people?

Because it's not so long ago.

I knocked on a door.

I met a gentleman who was working at Canary Wharf

with a six -figure salary and pointed out

He was in a flat share because even with a six figure salary,

he couldn't actually afford a mortgage to live in the Canary

Wharf area.

He then said this used to be the nation of home ownership.

So that is the situation we face.

And I'm sorry, this is a magnificent site,

and a site, and a location where we

could have delivered housing.

We could have delivered an increase of housing,

and indeed business.

But we could have delivered an increase of housing

and affordable housing to help those, some handful of those 17 ,000 desperate people.

And that was my problem at the committee and it was the problem I spoke on greatly.

There's been much of how the Truman Brewery has worked locally.

Yes, they've done all sorts of things, but not so long ago there was a proposal that

took years to produce a great deal of money funded by the council and funded by people

to introduce a neighbourhood plan which would have a degree of legal consultation. The neighbourhood,

I remember, because I'd met Mr Jason Zaluf at many licencing committees, actually suggesting

he was involved.

And he was initially involved in talks, and he turned up at meetings, and then suddenly

he didn't turn up.

And at the very end of it, the neighbourhood plan was improved by the council.

It then goes to a referendum, and this being the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, there

was a unique situation because the referendum

has a double header.

It is voted for by the electorate,

and then businesses have a referendum on the same day

for their comments.

Now, in every other neighbourhood planning referendum,

of which there have been thousands,

the businesses and the people vote the same.

Of course, the one exception just

has to be the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, where business

voted one way and the people voted the other.

For the record, the referendum which took place,

I recollect on Armistice Day on 2021,

the populace voted 298 in favour with 232 against.

13 % poll, but that's slightly above the average

for a neighbourhood planning referendum, not big.

But the business vote was 70 against and 18 in favour,

which catapulted the referendum into a decision by the council,

who then foolishly made a decision, which

I think they're now tremendously regretting,

which was to side with business.

But of course, one is entitled to look at what

happens in the referendum.

and immediately after polling day, myself, colleagues and residents examined the voting

records. Now, you are legally entitled to look at who voted. And it did not take long

to go through the register to discover of the business votes, as I said, there were

only 88 of them, but almost half came from one address, which was 91 Brick Lane, known

as the Truman Brewers. So we then looked at the people. Mr. Jason Zaluf voted five times.

His brother Oren voted once, and their company, based in Jersey, voted once. So that's seven

votes. That's seven votes. A colleague of theirs, Mr Matthew Halton, voted four times

illegally. There were two other people from the address who voted twice. All these voters

were based at the Truman Brewery. Now, very interestingly, if you sign up as a business

to vote in a referendum, there is a guidance note and it contains the statement, rate payers

have one vote each, regardless of the number of properties they are liable to pay rates

on. One vote each. So needless to say, we reported it to the police. Now the Metropolitan

Police have a very interesting record on dealing with electoral malpractice. There are newspaper

articles, TV programmes, parliamentary debates in the House of Commons, the House of Lords,

inquiries here, there and everywhere.

But the basic fact is the Metropolitan Police don't like getting involved in electoral malpractice.

Councillor Gould, I'm a little concerned about where we're going with this.

Okay.

We are in a public forum and I think one does have to be very careful about making allegations.

Well, the allegation is that Mr. Zalu voted five times illegally.

I've been on public in.

I've written about it.

Well, when you say illegally, I really do think we have to be a little careful about

what we're saying.

Well, may I simply quote Mr. Ousley, Mr. Justice Ousley on this subject?

because he said the Mark Register appeared to reveal the multiple voters

and the possible criminal penalties. So okay, what I would like to say is that I

have concerns about the Truman Brewery. They have, they walk the walk but they

haven't talked the talk. With licencing, they start with licencing on an occasion

where there was a difficult application. I remember saying to Jason Saloof in the

corridor after we had considered the application, after we considered it. I said in the corridor,

you've got to involve yourself with the people. And times afterwards he did. And it helped

very much. Licencing applications would come forward. And then it slipped away. And now

we have this vast application, this extraordinary application, which can do good. There's no

There's little or no housing in it, and there should be housing in it.

Housing is the borough's vast need.

There is this issue of the much business.

I'm never sure about that.

We talk all the time now of people working from home.

Will they be working in those businesses?

I came here today on the 135 bus.

As I go down the commercial road, I see premises which I've sat on planning at, planning committees,

and we've had year after year after year

where you see a residential building,

a really nice residential building then on the ground floor,

business and retail.

As you go down the commercial road, it's all blocked up.

All we are waiting for

is for yet another application to come through,

for the retail business part of it to be put through to residential.

So we talk, and I listened to your section this morning of the need, is there the need

for business?

I'm not entirely sure.

Where is the business going to come from with people working from home?

I'm not entirely sure about that, but that is a business matter.

What I think we are all concerned on is that the Truman Brewery will shape the Brick Lane

an area will shape this part of the London Borough Tower

Hamlets probably towards the end of this century.

It's going to be enormous.

And we have to get it right.

And the situation is now that you have the entire council,

masses of residents, all the political parties in the borough

as far as I can see, opposed to something because we don't get

the housing we desperately need and we have a chimaera on this business. So my concern

is getting it right and I'm sorry if you said that this is a public forum of the issue of

the voting but I have to say it's public. What happened is public and I think we need

to understand this. It's been alluded to by, I know it's been alluded to by other people

but I will say no more and we will see where we go.

Now, I would happily wish to conclude by saying,

I've mentioned, I've had today well beyond

what I would have had at the Council meeting.

I had just the chance to speak on the housing issue.

I spoke many, many times and shared many committees

on the licencing issue of our borough.

And I would conclude where the discussion this morning came

on the issue of the Brick Lane and the curry houses.

I take a somewhat almost Milton Friedman view on this,

that you will go where the economy goes.

And I remember, gosh where are we now?

It would be 2020, just after we came out of lockdown

there was a discussion there,

pointing out that a proposal on Brick Lane

was effectively to seal it off for traffic

can let it all go and put seats over so people could sit outside.

But the only solution of that would

be to divert the chat traffic as it entered Brick Lane.

And as I said, I know the area like the back of my hand.

I turned it right, straight through the Chicksand Estate,

one of the poorest, most deprived estates,

not only in Tower Hamlets, not only in East London,

but possibly in the country.

And not only send the traffic down

through the middle of the Chicksand Estate,

but break it from where the bulk of residence lives, i .e.

in the blocks of flats, to the one place, the one and only

place where children can play, the little children's

playground.

And I remember, because I know it,

I remember putting my little hand up and waving and saying,

excuse me, this is going to happen.

Then everybody going into panic, and that subject

disappeared off the radar.

This is an enormously complex subject

because looking at what finally happens with the Truman Brewery,

we have the site, you have a location, but you throw that stone in

and it is like going into a pool of water

and it ripples out across the whole area.

It will ripple out across up to the Shoreditch Triangle,

it will go down beyond Whitechapel Road onto the Commercial Road

and it will include the vastly dense residential areas to the east,

which we can see from here, Chicksang going all across here,

one of the most densely populated parts of London and indeed the country.

My view is that this is not a good application, it does little for the residents

and I think that it should go down and go back to the drawing board.

OK, well, thank you for that, Councillor Gold.

but I do need to ask Mr. Harris if there was anything you wanted to ask the Council.

No, nothing I want to ask, sir, but since various allegations have been made in a very ill -judged way in public,

I just ought for the public record to say that those remarks are wholly and fully repudiated.

Any suggestions of illegality or inappropriate behaviour are neither made out nor are appropriate

and are all incorrect?

They're certainly not incorrect.

Just bear with me.

I think we do need, I think we,

really I'm cancelling you to be a little careful

about what you say in so far as those terms.

Thank you very much, sir.

Well, I think it follows from everything that you've said

that you don't need to chase them down,

we don't need to chase them down

because they don't come close even to being a material consideration in the determination now of the Secretary of State.

I mean, if it helps, Councillor, it's not a place I'm going to go for reasons I hope you'd understand.

I mean, there isn't a neighbourhood plan for whatever reason,

but I can't take into account a neighbourhood plan that doesn't exist, that hasn't been adopted.

I think, I mean, my point is saying I understand all of that,

But the situation, let us say, left an extremely bad taste

locally.

And nothing I have said today has not

been said well in public.

So this is it.

What I've tried to concentrate on, having raised that issue,

is hope that we can go back to the absolute core, which

is the issue of where we go on the licencing matters of it,

of where that will affect people,

of where people's lives living locally on the estates,

both those living in social housing on places like Chixant,

which we're in now, and people living in the newer

developments whose lives are affected, which is why,

as I said, we have worked extremely hard on licencing

to get a good policy through and a policy that stands up.

And I believe we really, really, really must have,

we really must look at this housing situation,

because we are in a country going somewhere and to say that six social houses out of 44

in the development of this side does anything for social needs.

I do hope, whether it's a planning consideration or not, but somewhere it might find a line

on that because that is a real matter of local consideration.

I do understand all that and that is essentially the case the Councillor has put in front of

me at the inquiry, so thank you.

And I would just say as a councillor and bearing in mind the count that's the London power of town handlers can be a pretty

Robust place as a as a single councillor

I am fully behind everything the council has said on this and everything else on the housing matter

We are desperate for housing. I understand that. Thank you

Okay, I'm going to hand over to you, Ms. Curtis, and we need to move on.

Thank you, Councillor Gold.

is Manchanda or just about morning.

Just going to your proof, which is CDM 16,

you've set out your planning experience

in section one of that proof.

You say you've been a chartered member of the RTPI since 1994,

hold a BA in land economy, an MPhil in town planning,

and a diploma in fine art.

You have 31 years experience working

across the private and public sectors

around the UK and London.

You ran Smart Urban Limited Planning Consultancy from 2014 to 2023.

Before that you had spells as Assistant Director of Planning and the Environment at the London

Borough of Wandsworth, Assistant Director at London Borough of Islington and Assistant

Director of Planning and Regeneration at the London Borough of Newham.

Key projects that you developed during these roles, you've set those out, so including

Nine Elms, Northern Line Extension, Thames Tideway,

Springfield Hospital, City Road Basin, Stratford Westfield,

the expansion of London City Airport, Excel,

and supporting the development of the Olympics.

So in summary then, an extensive experience as a planner,

including specifically in London.

That is correct.

And more recently, you've transitioned to a portfolio career

so you direct to community interest countries,

Co -Produce at CIC and Company Drinks CIC and you're also a chair of Action

for Race Equality. Could you just explain a bit more about what that charity does?

Yes of course. Firstly I just like to point out I continue to provide

planning work through Co -Produce at CIC. Action for Race Equality is a national

race equality charity. It supports young people to achieve equality in the areas

of Education, Employment, Enterprise and Criminal Justice.

And I've been the chair of that charity for 11 years,

and primarily overseeing the governance of the organisation

and supporting the staff.

But obviously I have to maintain an up -to -date knowledge

of race equality issues and legislation.

And you also chair an arts festival in South East London.

I do.

That's the Deptford -Exe Arts Festival.

it has some materiality to arts elements in this calculation.

Before turning to the key matters in your proof, Mr. Mardenson has said in his proof of evidence

that in his view the appeal schemes would comply with London Plan Policy GG2. Do you have any

comment on this or any of the other London Good Growth objectives? Thank you, yes I do.

The London Plan Good Growth objectives are absolutely fundamental to all schemes coming

forward for development control in London and especially major sites like

this. Policy GG2 is about making the best use of land. Part C of that policy seeks

to intensify brownfield sites for homes and employment. Part E requires us to

understand what is valued about existing places and use this to support growth,

renewal and place -making, strengthening London's distinct and varied character

which is clearly quite relevant to this area here.

In my view, the schemes before us have not appropriately allocated land

and have not fully understood the importance of the local community,

the Bangla heritage and culture,

and the mixed nature of communities in Brick Lane.

So, to be clear, while there is a need for employment land and data centres,

there is capacity in both the supply of these land uses.

And there are other ways to deliver these land uses

Meanwhile, there is a chronic and overwhelming under supply of housing and this is the fastest growing authority in the UK

with an existing

28 ,852 households on the housing rating list

section 3 .3 of my evidence

Sets out the enormous housing need and I think we've also heard other people set this out in evidence

Against this, the proposals before us deliver a woefully low 44 units of housing, of which

only six are social housing and five intermediate units.

Given that once land is developed, it takes a very long time for land uses to shift.

I consider that the land allocation in these proposals for this relatively large site within

the transitional area of Tower Hamlets, as we've heard it described, the land uses

are being very poorly allocated. I do not think the allocation either reflects the

shift, the policy shift, that has taken place since the pandemic and since the

worsening of the housing crisis. Specifically by this I mean the increase

and focus on housing and increased housing targets that came about in the 2021 London Plan,

which upped housing delivery for both Tower Hamlets and for the City Fringe Opportunity Area.

In the latter case, it upped the housing units for the City Fringe Opportunity Area to 15 ,500 units

to be delivered looking forward, so from 2021 to the end of the plan period.

It also ignores the huge emphasis on housing nationwide that came about in the MPPF revision in 2024,

which has upped housing delivery across the whole country.

Moving on to policy GG1 of good growth, this requires the building of strong and inclusive

communities.

It really pushes inclusive growth that benefits all Londoners and all of London.

It wants us to reduce inequality, promote social integration.

It speaks strongly of community engagement early and meaningfully in planning processes.

It speaks of social infrastructure to benefit local communities.

It speaks of safe environments and design that promotes safety and social interaction.

It talks of the town centre's roles in cultural identity.

And it also speaks of inclusive neighbourhoods in terms of both permeability and inclusivity

but also in terms of meeting the diverse needs of diverse communities.

And I think we've heard quite a lot about why that has not been evidenced fully enough

in this planning application or this set of planning applications.

We've heard the local community here say they have not felt they have been engaged.

We've heard them talk about when they have been engaged in plan making,

for example, the master plan, I accept it's quashed, but the views that were expressed

in that period have now got nowhere to land, unless we accord weight to the emerging local

plan, which I'll speak more of later. If the needs in an area are not being heard and not

being delivered upon, then I don't think this policy is being met.

It's not just the community that haven't been heard.

We've heard some evidence that the QRP comments and local planning authority pre -application

comments where they desire to see more housing have not been embraced by the developer.

Policy GG3 is about a healthy city and the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities suffered

with the highest rates of death and sickness during the pandemic,

due in part to their poor housing conditions,

again showing how urgent the housing need is in this community.

Having learnt this lesson,

nothing about our knowledge post -pandemic has been brought to bear in this scheme,

despite GG3A stating that planning must address the wider determinants of health.

If that had happened, there would be a much higher level of housing

in the mix across these sites.

This also goes to GG4 delivering the homes that Londoners need.

I think that the proposals only primarily deliver in relation to GG5 employment.

But even there I had concerns with how that employment supports the very hyper -local community.

And I can come more to that later.

But I don't think ticking one of the good growth boxes alone is adequate.

And a more rounded approach is needed.

You've heard Mr. Almeida's evidence about the potential impact of the redevelopment

scheme on local businesses and the local community more broadly, particularly the Bangladeshi

community.

Could you give your views as to whether this development proposal represents good growth

as defined by those policies that you've referred to.

Thank you.

The London Plan actually states that not all growth is good growth.

We've heard a lot in evidence about the scheme is better than what's there now.

Well, that's growth, but that's not necessarily good growth,

and I don't think these proposals really embrace good growth.

Mr. Almeida has highlighted the economic issues in the community and the community have also raised them.

This is not to say that I am seeking

the developer to fix all of the

issues that a society has, but a scheme of this scale should have the ability to contribute

meaningfully to some positive outcomes for that community to assist. So we still agree that the scheme has to be

viable, but where a project is viable, but at the expense of making economic conditions

deleterious for the community around them, then we really have to look carefully at how

that can be addressed.

Unfortunately, I do not think the scheme does this.

My evidence sets out why I think the employment offer is too weak.

I think the contributions are negligible.

They are unlikely to support job training or job creation.

And I'm not, again, just to make clear that point that the developers aren't supposed to fix everything, sir.

I believe that the best way to actually get these good community benefits and support to the community is when

The local authority and the developer build a bridge together

And so

That there are schemes to support and reach into the communities from the council side

But that the developer pays pays their fair share to make those schemes work

I feel like in this case we have a bridge built on quicksand on both sides and the bridge

is also made of paper, so the first day it rains this bridge between the two parties

is going to fall apart and the community will get nothing.

I have very solid experience of schemes that have worked.

When I was in Newham we set up workplace.

The schemes were of a much, much bigger scale, but I think it goes to the point of what I'm

suggesting is more able to be achieved.

Workplace was huge, but it was a brokerage scheme that also provided training in construction

jobs one or two years in advance because the developer gave us an idea of which construction

needs were coming up.

It provided retail training schemes.

It provided apprenticeships, but the developer was recognising that the government pretty

much pays for the apprenticeships.

They would pay for the salary.

So that they were putting in more financial contribution that actually meant that real

people could benefit.

So I think there are mechanisms that are available that can be put into schemes that haven't

been put into the scheme and they haven't been put into the obligations or the 106 agreement

as drafted so far.

Workplace, by the way,

it went on for about eight or nine years

and it provided 2 ,000 to 8 ,000 jobs a year for local people

and was credited with improving Newham's position

on the index of multiple reparations.

I am incredibly proud of that project

because it improved people's lives.

And that is also to go to the heart of what a planning department can

do. It is not just shallow obligations a planning department can put in place, absolutely solid

mechanisms.

Thinking then about the public sector equality duty, which is another matter that you've

drawn the inspectors' attention to in your proof, given the presence of a significant

Bangladeshi and ethnic minority population in Tower Hamlets, what kind of equality analysis

would you have expected to see of the impact of the proposals?

Thank you.

Given that this is the largest Bangladeshi population

in the UK, it's about 107 ,000 across the borough,

and that there are approximately 5 ,000 concentrated

in a single small ward, Spitalfields and Banglatown,

and that this ward is amongst the poorest in the borough

and actually was graded the most deprived ward on the 2019

Index of Multiple Deprivation, I would have considered a really

thorough and deep equality analysis to be undertaken.

That just on equality grounds, on top of that,

For any public sector body, I consider that this would have also triggered additional

actions in relation to the Public Sector Equality Duty, section 149 of the Equality Act 2020,

due to this group of people having protected characteristics by virtue of race.

And I set this out in section 3 .7 of my evidence.

Can I, sorry, I'm sorry sir, I'm having huge problems with my laptop not working and me

being totally un -Apple educated and not being able to open things on this one. Can I ask

Jonathan to sit here and just open things?

I'm quite happy for that to take place, yes.

So I refer in Section 3 .7 to three of this particular

the officer report for the main site, which at paragraph 7 .5 .39 states that the proposal

does not raise unique equalities implications. And I find that to be an obvious failing in

relation to the duty and the nature of the population here.

The public sector equality duty would require greater action

to minimise disadvantages suffered

by persons of the characteristic,

take steps to meet the needs of those people,

and encourage those people to participate in public life.

And at 3 .7 .4, I set out why the engagement of this population has not been supported.

There was no resource to find facilitators within the community.

We've heard about the difference between Seleti and Bengali,

and the fact that the developer, the Appellate Side, hasn't fully understood that difference,

and that the fact there were two distinct communities here, so earlier residents coming

in to Tower Hamlets were Seleti speakers and then later residents have been more Bengali

speakers, that there's a difference in the two languages and that particularly for the

Seleti speakers, a one -to -one approach is stronger. We heard that very strongly in Mr

Osmani's evidence that if you actually reach into the community and talk to them, you get

So I would have expected to have seen resources to support that one -to -one work.

And in fact, what actually happened was the community supported it themselves.

I think I also point in my appendices to the consultation website of the developer,

which despite having some translation, although we've heard it wasn't accurate,

put all of the primary Bengali translated material on the very last tab of the website,

but then did not signpost throughout the website to enable anyone to find that information.

So whether inadvertently or not, I find that to be a failing of communication with the

Obviously the developer, I'm not clear whether the duty falls on them, but it does fall on

the council. I would have expected the council to have raised these points at various points

in the engagement with the developer. Sir, I'm aware that the duty also has some implications

for you. I'm sure you're aware of them too.

Looking then at the Appellant's Equality Impact Assessment, and that's at CDA point 20. Let

me know when you have that up.

And have you had an opportunity to look at this document?

I have read it, thank you.

And I have noted that it was prepared in July 2024.

So post hoc, I would have expected

that an equality impact assessment would have impact

if it was done earlier in the process

and the findings flowed through.

So I found that to be a bit problematic.

I did note that our reps have done an assessment of the

Of the index of deprivation in the area and it

and they have raised a lot of the groups that and issues that need attention in the

Assessment so they they've picked up on age and they've picked up on

disability, religion, belief, race, sex.

But when they then look at the assessment, I find them lacking in terms of their understanding of how this scheme impacts on most of these categories.

I do not think that, for example, they've taken into account any intersectionality.

So we don't get real understanding of, for example, women from the Bangladeshi community

who will feel more fair in places with heavy nighttime economies.

So the report has failed to really get into grips with the actual nature of the community.

It feels like a desktop exercise.

Thank you. In terms of consultation, you've made a series of points about the consultation carried out by the appellants in relation to the appeal schemes.

I suppose firstly, what's your understanding of the obligations on developers under national and local planning policy to engage with local communities at the pre -application stage?

Thank you.

Clearly, the duty is on developers to carry out consultation on major schemes and that

the good growth policies we've already heard encourage community engagement and understanding

of those communities.

And they're also, we do not require developers to undertake things like equality impact assessments,

if they're then not going to actually pay much attention through them.

These are not desktop exercises. These are not supposed to be tick boxes to get through a validation process.

The reason we do this is because we expect, we do not expect developers to immediately understand the situation,

but we expect them to do these processes and then learn from them and apply them and use them in the way that they engage.

And I think what we have seen is that

the developer

hasn't really been able to even engage on a basic language level, let alone an understanding level. So the,

you know, I've made this point, but you know, some of the translations just say to make this

consultation of accessible to everyone interpretation services and select

in Bengali languages will be available but nowhere in that introduction the

only bit that's in the language only one of the languages does it say this

consultation is about a large -scale development that is happening in your

neighbourhood so people get these leaflets and they all say this is

available in another language well it's the equivalent of junk mail sir you know

If you were to get lots, you'll get them about the dentist and you'll get them about the scheme, you have to have a bit more effort and consideration to go in.

So, yeah, I find community engagement wanting.

And I think if it's wanting at the beginning, then there's not that much point going into the detail because it continues to be wanting.

I say I have later in my evidence, in the rebuttal evidence, set out where I find the

consultation processes undertaken by the developer to be confusing.

I set out how I find that the questions that were held, questions that happened at the

consultation events were very bland.

So there was no ability either to get sophisticated answers,

in -depth sense of feeling from the community.

We've heard that the translator also was unable to actually provide any level of granularity

about the information that was being shared,

and was just able to say, this is a development,

they're going to build something in your area.

I think that meant if someone came in, they were unable to get to grips with what was going on.

And then I think the numbers in the... I also point out the numbers of people that have applied to the surveys

and the analysis of the surveys in my evidence, and find that the numbers were relatively low

and that the analysis was quite flawed and confusing in the statement of community involvement,

the feedback from the developer. So I've not been convinced that the understanding

of what is needed in this area or what people feel about the scheme that is proposed has happened.

In terms of housing and the emerging local plan, you take the same view, don't you, as

Mr. Kiley, that weight should be attributed to the emerging local plan in this appeal

decision. Could you just explain that position a bit further?

Yes. So this is a little bit in two parts because my evidence in chief was prior to

The local plan being progressed a little further

So in my evidence in chief I set out that substantial weight should be given to the site allocation policy

For the site within the emerging local plan policy 1 .7 and the reasons for this were also set out

And that was that during

This this actual policy has been the subject of a lot of public engagement actually more than any other policy in the emerging local plan

because it went through a lot of public engagement during the master plan process,

which we accept has been quashed, but the people in the community engaged with it at that point.

And that the site allocation reflects that work.

And so this has been very thoroughly consulted upon.

And the objections to this site allocation policy, which came from the applicant and a data centre provider,

They have been responded to by the council

in the document you can see their responses of lost the reference now, but

There is a document that summarises the statement of a community

Involvement for the local plan which is on the let's talk website

So that's all addressed there

Since then the plan has progressed further. We've heard it went through cabinet on Wednesday the 15th and

We'll go to for council in November

So I I actually give greater weight to the rest of the plan as well now

And then in terms of whether or not a residential land use

Needs greater priority in the plan because that has come up. I

Think this is wholly appropriate in the emerging plan

Given the increased housing targets that I've already discussed that came through the London plan 2021

that were placed upon

The borough and the OAPF area and

both of which

post date the current local plan and the

original OAPF

and are also the fact that this driving housing policy

position that is at all levels of planning assessment is a response to the scale and

depth of the housing crisis.

In your proof you also reached the conclusion that the site allocation policy should be

given weight in accordance with the test at paragraph 48 of the NPPF. Taking us through

the points that you've raised at paragraph 3 .5 .12 of your proof, could you just explain

why you think that this site allocation should be given weight in accordance with that policy?

Thank you, yes. I mean, that policy sets out three tests, and this is set out in section

three point five point one two of my proof so

The first test is that the policy have you got it sir

The policy is at an advanced stage of preparation and I've explained why that is the case given it's gone through

Master plan consultation then it went through the local plan consultation. So it's been through more consultation than any other policy

The policy is in line with MPPF policies, so including the new housing targets.

Policy 69, housing targets should be drafted in...

Hang on, I need MPF.

Can I just get MPF 69 up?

Where is that?

I think that will be CDE01.

Yep, CDE01, page 18, policy 69.

So this is suggesting that policy -making authorities

should establish a housing requirement

for their whole area, but also that strategic policies should also set out housing requirements

for designated neighbourhood areas, which reflect the overall strategy for the pattern

and scale of development in relation to the wider allocations.

So I feel that this policy in the site allocation is doing that.

The City Fringe OAPF is guidance as amended in the local plan 2021 the housing target

there was upped to 15 ,500.

Now that becomes policy but there was no change of wording in the other policies if that might

makes sense so it as planners and as decision makers we have to work out how

to put the additional housing across the area so I think that's putting it through

a site allocation approach is a sensible way to start to do that okay and just

I'm just then adding that in terms of...

So a plan, I'm just going to go, I'm talking to the OAPF now, a plan is a bit like a cooking

recipe.

So you want employment, you want housing, you want all sorts of things.

So if you had a recipe for lasagna and you have bechamel sauce and, you know, meat sauce,

once you've made enough bechamel, you have to focus on the meat sauce.

So in the OAPF, the original employment demand predicted, in that was on page 19, paragraph

2 .11 of the OAPF, which predicted a demand for commercial space of between 288 ,000 and

385 ,000 metres squared.

Now, there is a document that supports the London Plan, which I have taken to be part

of the London Plan, which is the annual monitoring report.

So if you look at annual monitoring report 20, which is the latest one, we see that non -RESI

completions in the City Fringe OAPF were 313 ,296 metres squared.

So bang in the middle of what the employment assessment need was.

So effectively we've got enough Béchamel sauce.

What we don't have is enough housing.

And that AMR does set out how much housing has been delivered against the new 15 ,500.

To date, 5 ,310 resident completions.

So about a third.

I don't know.

My maths is a bit off right now.

I think it's about a second.

So turning then to...

Sorry, I haven't done the third test.

There is a third test about unresolved objections, which I have mentioned.

So I feel that the local planning authority resolved those objections

in publishing their statement of involvement.

Turning then to the site allocation itself.

So CDF 0 .06 and it's at page 412.

So just to remind everyone that I think the weight should be given to the land uses that

set out in this policy which says it's seeking residential led scheme and to

work through a scheme it also sets some indicative housing numbers based on the

prior and partners housing capacity study so it sets out an indicative

housing capacity of 250 units on the east side and 95 units on the Great

Eagle site. It also sets out what it thinks are appropriate levels of non -residential floor space.

So I would expect that this plan be given weight and I would expect to see a scheme come forward

that tries to at least in the very first instance assess how it can progress to these suggested land

and the development proposed by the appellant in this planning appeal. Do you have any views

on that point? I do, thank you. Yes, obviously we are not

looking at another scheme but we can imagine elements of how things move forward. So, but

Essentially, I think it's been said that the scheme would be of the same scale, but I think

we've heard quite compelling argument from a number of people that the residential blocks

would have a lower floor -to -ceiling height, and so the overall height of those schemes

would not be as large, so there'd be about a metre, a metre and a half per floor lower,

so overall the same floor space would be lower.

I think we know that adjustments in residential schemes need to be made

to reduce mass to allow for good sunlight, daylight.

They often also have smaller foot plates to allow light into the spaces

because dark interiors are problematic in Resi schemes.

They build in outdoor spaces.

So overall residential schemes tend to be smaller, more fine grain,

more modulated and if given the same quality of architect was developing them

they tend to have more visual interest and townscape benefits. And this site

allocation in Brick Lane and Pedley Street site capacity assessment

identified a Grey Eagle Street and Main Truman site as suitable locations for

housing. They don't mention the Eley's Yard site. What's your position in

relation to the land uses on that site? I mean in my view that could also be a

more mixed -use scheme. It might also, if you were to mix the land uses on that

site, provide a more aligned office typology that would suit the SME scale

of office spaces better. And we've heard that those are the ones with the

greatest supply constraints. And then it would also obviously support housing as

And you've commented on the housing mix provided as part of the Block J scheme.

Could you explain your views on that proposed mix and how that affects the affordable housing percentage relied upon?

Yeah, so this is a mathematical point.

So I simply point out in my evidence that since the market housing is predominantly one beds,

the

Rather than the policy mix set out in Tower Hamlets local plan DH deep

D dot h2

There are fewer habitable rooms in the scheme meaning it's easier for the affordable housing to meet the 36 %

target by habitable rooms

and I mean at one level I

think this is a bit of

I mean, I'm not putting huge emphasis on this point now, especially given yesterday's announcement while we were all here

the department and the GLA made a really interesting announcement about

Emergency housing and changing

the calculations

So I accept that and a very quick reading of that

Little announcement seems to be saying that developers may be able to fast track schemes offering 20 % affordable housing. There'll be lower still

Liabilities there'll be improved housing grants

reduced cycle parking a

package of things to make schemes more viable and I raise that just to say I think that

Helps in some way for us to be able to imagine a scheme on this site that has more housing and yet is viable

Moving on then to the next topic that you discuss, you touch on the proposed data centre

and you say that you support the local planning authority's decision to refuse the data centre

application. You also mentioned policy STC1, part one of the London borough of Tower Hamlets

local plan. Could you explain why you don't consider that part of policy STC1 to be met?

and that should be CDF 01.

Thank you.

So I think we were alerted to this policy yesterday.

But in my view, this policy is about hierarchy of town centres

and the fact that they need to be vital, vibrant places.

And so Tower Hamlet sets out uses such as shops, services and employment uses.

In my view, data centre doesn't really deliver an adequate level of employment to be considered a really employment use.

So I, and I also think that's because they're fairly weak land uses in terms of not just employment but site vitality, interest, natural overlooking.

The emerging local plan also focuses in its emerging STC one, which is on page 254 of

the emerging local plan, setting out employment, shopping, leisure and culture, but it has

a separate policy.

I didn't know where that policy was.

For data centres, oh, EG6 data centres.

And that is focusing data centres towards industrial areas.

So that for me, those two policies taken together mean that I don't think they're envisaging

data centres in this area.

and I think we heard corroborating evidence from Mr. Kiley yesterday.

Were there any other comments you wanted to make specifically about the data centre?

Just a couple, thank you. In my main evidence in chief, I refer to the August 2025 Government

Guidance Note on data centres, and we were drawn to that again yesterday. But I just want to point

out three points in that that were not raised yesterday. That document states that the bulk

of UK provision is already in London and that actually more are needed elsewhere. It states

that electricity grid capacity is an issue with data centres, that they use a lot of

water, power, land and internet capacity and it's very clear that job creation is modest.

In my view, I'm saying this purely as an ex -bioplaner, and perhaps it's a little out of the context

of processes that have happened, but I haven't done them.

If I had, I would have considered this not a well -tested land use, and I might have wanted

to give greater consideration to the health and safety risks, so, you know, they do rely

on a lot of electrical work and they have lithium ion batteries that have a

tendency to catch fire. The building is 29 metres tall and it's set in the heart

of a vulnerable and busy community. I just think post Grenfell I might have

wanted to give that a lot of consideration if I was processing this

application. I know it's not housing but I think that we have to learn the

lessons from those sort of things and I would have, I just, I haven't seen that

consideration. Moving on then to the next topic so design so you've said in your

proof that you don't consider that this policy policy d3 of the London plan is

met by the appeals schemes and specifically referring to the failure to

provide housing could you just explain your position on policy d3. Thank you

Policy d3 is a design led approach

You know at the heart of

D3 it requires a consideration of options and what we haven't seen with the schemes here are evidence of different options

Having been considered such as schemes with different housing proportions

Or even different housing locations within the multiple sites

when we heard from the architects, I

I think we heard that they were given a very fixed brief and they weren't really able to move from their fixed briefs that they were given.

And in the early planning stages, I don't think we saw much evidence of design options in the appellant's evidence.

I'm also not convinced that there's been much rigour given to some of the other factors

that we've been hearing about, such as crime associated with late night activities. It's

not to say, but I would have liked to have seen more evidence about the options around

designing out crime and strategies for where the vulnerable users are at least, and I'm

end of walkways and linkage routes and how they might overlap with users of some of the

proposed uses. I don't think we've seen, you know, I think what we've heard is that the

data centre doesn't really help with that and it's a dead frontage and it doesn't address

some of the crime uses that we see on that street. We haven't heard much options around

noise, we haven't really seen an awful lot around well -designed green spaces. So I think

there are gaps if you like in policy d3

thank you and policies d3 8 and d3 10 relate to the experience of places have

you reviewed these policies and do you have any thoughts on them so I think

Mr. Sporshaw and Burrell have both given some evidence on this, but in general I feel like

the spaces that are proposed in the applications at hand are mostly designed for the visitor

economy.

This in itself is not a bad thing, but I haven't seen much thought given to other types of

and other people, older people, places for quiet enjoyment, wheelchair users, children,

all of whom might make up more of the local population.

So, yeah, I don't think it's been fully met.

Also, while it could be conditioned, I've not seen much thought given to lighting and safety of the spaces.

And in terms of policy D3 .11, similarly, we've got policy there about responding to the existing

character of a place and we've heard some evidence from the design experts on that.

Do you have a view on that policy? I think we've heard a lot about the character

of this place. It's fairly unique. But what I've not seen is this being met either by

by seeking local input into designs or by bringing in more community -based heritage

aspects into designs, for example through adopting the signposting or by bringing in

Bangladeshi motifs or features into the architecture that would really help build on the Banglatown

area, a failure to recognise the specific cultural histories of the area in those designs.

So, fairly weak on that front.

Thank you. Policy D5, and I appreciate you've not been present for all the design evidence,

but from what you've heard and read, what are your views on policy D5 as well?

So I have tried to, you know, watch up, catch up inquiry TV, so I've seen some of the evidence.

What I have seen is that the architects speaking very singularly on fixed briefs, so where

should have an approach of bringing in design, an inclusive design.

I saw evidence that they were just set with this specific approach and a specific language.

I felt it was a commercially driven design approach rather than an inclusive design approach.

And I think we've also heard quite compelling evidence from Mr. Asmani saying that the community didn't feel involved.

and also from Mr Shafik, who I think very clearly set out why,

although on paper things might look OK,

current best practise in architecture is a more co -produced design approach

and we haven't seen that.

You've identified some other harms in your proof that you say are caused by the scheme

other than those we've already discussed.

Firstly, why is it that you've identified a failure to deliver affordable housing on

the site as a planning harm?

I mean, primarily this is because of the driving need for housing nationally, regionally, locally

and hyperlocally.

There are 28 ,800 families on the Tower Hamlets Housing Register.

We've heard of the high homelessness and child poverty levels in the Bangladeshi community

this morning from Mr Almeida. And this is at the heart of why I think larger sites such

as this, especially in central London in the transition areas where there are large residential

communities, should be able to contribute more.

And could you just summarise the other harms that you identify at paragraph 3 .8 .2 of your

proof and the weight that you say should be given to those harms?

OK.

A failure to deliver adequate community benefits

based on a lack of understanding of the community,

I give that significant weight.

A failure to activate the public realm around the data centre,

which is an area of crime, I give that significant weight.

Harm to the conservation area and other listed buildings,

and I found the evidence of Mr. Forshaw quite compelling

in relation to church buyers and a whole range of elements, I give that significant weight.

Poor quality within the residential units, some of which have insufficient sunlight in

daylight, and I've given that moderate weight. I also think for the community, replacing

the cash and carry with a smaller unit without any car parking would be seen as a loss of

a community asset. I know in traditional land use terms it's not seen as that, but I think

we've heard from the community that they need the cash and carry to do cheaper bulk buys

and events, so I would give that some weight. In terms then of public benefits, have you

I have read both.

I haven't thoroughly gone through them.

But I do think that they, overall, they demonstrate a failure to understand the inability of this

community to even afford the 50 to 45 % market rate concern.

I understand that Mr Almeida was cross -examined and that that was shown to be a big improvement

on policy position. I personally think that the Tower Hamlets planning obligations SPD

is very weak. I do not think it shows best practise in planning obligations. For example,

I've already talked about in Newham. I also think if the cash contribution is only paying

for somebody in the council who can then run jobs programmes.

There's no actual money going to supporting people in jobs.

So you can just see that, let's just take the construction

of the data centre, it's about 23 ,000.

It's not going to go to spend much money

on people actually having a job for any length of time.

So the levels are low.

In relation to the community centre space,

The amount of free time offered to the community centre is only enough for them to rent rooms,

if you like, or temporarily book the space.

It doesn't give the community a hold to get a space that they can then build and grow

social capital in and develop local services and develop regular services.

So again, best practise there, I would cite my own cases, obviously.

But Springfield Hospital, we gave four community spaces

over to known groups at a peppercorn rent,

which enabled them to actually continue and build operations.

So you've also mentioned public space

and Mr Burrell's evidence on that.

In light of Mr Burrell's evidence, what are your views as to the benefits and the weight to be attached to the new public space

provided as part of the scheme?

Thank you. I think I'm slightly in danger of repeating myself, but again I've said I don't think that the community feel integrated in the space.

I think the gates that we've heard a bit about before, even if they're open, they signal private land to many of the marginalised community here

And I don't think we've fully seen the roots and spaces addressed in terms of the interface of local people and night -time users and how that will work well.

So I've given this limited way.

And we've already discussed this morning the point about job vacancies. Was there anything you needed to add to that?

I've talked about the cash contributions.

I would like to talk very briefly about the vacancies.

So if you look at the way the obligation is drawn,

it is reasonable endeavours to share, I think,

20 % of the vacancies with the local community.

So for me, this is my paper bridge.

So if essentially the developer hires a contractor and the contractor has no vacancies, there will be no jobs.

If there is no advance notification of what kind of jobs are needed on the site, then there will be no support to get people locally into those jobs.

And if there is, yeah, essentially I think that it's very easy to get, you know, a van through those, the way those obligations are drafted and absolutely nothing actually happened at the end of them.

And on affordable workspace, did you have anything to add to Mr Almeida's evidence?

I don't think it meets the affordability levels required here,

so I've given it very limited weight.

Were there any other comments you wanted to make

on the public benefits of the scheme?

I do recognise that growth does give benefits.

I'm not an anti -growth planner.

I think you've seen my record I set out at the beginning.

I've supported many large -scale schemes.

But in this community, with this level of need and with this current housing crisis,

I just don't think that the balance is being achieved.

Thank you.

And then just finally, in terms of the harms that Mr. Forshaw identified to the list of

buildings and non -designated heritage assets, it's correct you rely on Mr. Forshaw's evidence

in that regard?

Yes, I found it compelling.

And so in terms of the heritage balance of paragraph 216 of the MPPF,

if the inspector does agree with the local planning authority and the Rule 6 party that there will be less than substantial harm to the conservation area or other heritage assets,

what's your view then as to the public benefits and how, whether they outweigh that harm?

I think we've heard that in a strange way that the community, a big part of the community culture is actually some of those heritage buildings.

They've lived around these buildings for a very long time. So the loss of history and character is there both in terms of the demographic history of Brick Lane and the brewing history and the buildings.

and I would suggest that these be given substantial weight.

And on your overall planning balance, you said in your proof that your assessment that you think planning permission should be refused applies both to the schemes taken together and each scheme individually.

Did you have anything to add to that or would you like to leave it as read in your proof?

So I've only set the, in my proof, out and even in my evidence now, I've set it out as a whole and I've found it wanting.

So I would suggest the harms are not outweighed by the benefits and I'm relying very, very heavily on two big elements there.

a failure to deliver community benefits and the failure to take a site that is

capable of actually doing more to address the catastrophic housing crisis.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Parkinson, is it you or?

Mr. Parkinson.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon now, Ms. Menchanda.

In terms of documents, there aren't that many actually.

I think you've already got a copy of the MPPF up.

Oh, brilliant.

No, no, that's quite all right.

That's understandable.

So it's the MPPF.

That's CDE .01.

The officer's report for the main site, that's CDL .01.

Is that miscellaneous?

It's miscellaneous.

It is, I think, under miscellaneous year.

OK.

Yeah.

Yeah, I have that one.

Thank you.

And then the equalities impact assessment, which is CDA 0 .20.

Can you do it all?

I think that is probably it, hopefully.

Thank you.

And as you may have gathered from the list of documents, I'm not going to ask

questions on topics that have already been covered with other witnesses and

also with Mr. Kiley yesterday. So instead I'm just going to focus on areas that

are particular focus of the all six cases as opposed to the council and in

particular on consultation first, then equalities impact second, and then maybe a little bit

on a couple of the points you raised today about data centres, but it's just going to

be those three topics.

So if we can start off with consultation, if you can take up the MPPF, either within

the core documents or if it's easier just online. And if you go within that to paragraph 41.

Thank you, yes. Actually, if we just start off with the heading. So the heading is pre -application

engagement and front loading. Paragraph 40 says early engagement has significant potential to

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties. And

And then paragraph 41 says, local planning authorities have a key role to play in encouraging

other parties to take maximum advantage of the pre -application stage.

So the MPPF considers that its local planning authorities have a key role in overseeing

appropriate pre -application consultation.

Yes.

And we can see from the last sentence that that key role extends to consultation both

with the local community but also with statutory and non -statutory

consultees. You see that? Yep. And the council will have had that that key role

that they play in mind when they considered the application at the end of

July is that right? I just I do not think they've adequately I mean my case sir is

that I do not think this has been adequately considered. No I understand

In terms of my question, look at the council, when they considered the applications at the

end of July, they were aware that the Rule 6 party had concerns about pre -application

consultation.

That was an issue that was before the council at that point, wasn't it?

Yeah, and I think that goes to the heart of why members made a different decision to some

extent.

And in terms of the officer's assessment in the officer's report, officers raised no concerns

about the level of pre -application consultation, did they?

No, and at one level I understand why, but I obviously have also raised a point that

I don't think officers adequately considered the equalities impacts, and so I find the

Council approach wanting.

And of course, after pre -application consultation, there's then publicity and consultation on

the application itself.

Indeed.

Yeah, carried out by the council and you don't raise any concerns about how that was carried out either from a legal or

policy point of view

and

To two points here one at one level

I should not because it's a fairly standard approach taken and I've been a buyer planner of three authorities

So at one level I accept that on another level. I do not think the council has fully

followed its equality duty and should have probably done more.

That's a separate point which we're going to come on to, but in terms of consultation

and publicity you don't raise any legal or policy deficiency in the way the council

publicised and consulted on the application do you?

Not a substantive point.

And as you explain and others have explained, the Rule 6 party has also carried out some

of its own consultation with the local community, both as part of the SPD process and also as

part of this application.

It has, and I think we're lucky it has, and I think that the burden of resources that

it has placed within those communities has been really unfair in the context of how poor

those communities are and in the context of how developments really can change communities

and how much they've had to fight for themselves.

So I find that they are a responsive and responsible community when they can get resources.

I suspect if they'd been properly resourced we would have seen a better response.

Okay. I'm not so much interested in the numbers of responses, but in terms of what that consultation revealed,

if you – sorry, I should have mentioned this at the beginning – if you could go to Mr Osmani's proof,

there's quite a good summary of the findings from the workshop. So it's CDM point 15.

Which paragraph? It's paragraph three point two point seven.

Yeah. And he sets out the summary of the findings from the workshops.

in terms of the key issues being raised, housing, community facilities and spaces, street environment

and safety, local businesses and traffic, support for Brick Lane as a whole, development

planning, safety in public spaces and social housing. And you'd agree that those are the

key issues that the Royal Six Party has identified through its own consultation and engagement

processes. Yes I do. So if you could keep that up and then go to the Equality Impact Assessment

which is CDA point 20. Yeah we're just going there. No problem. Once you're there,

If you turn to page 27.

This refers to the public consultation that we have heard about.

And what this is doing in table 4 .1 is identifying the key issues that the appellant identified

from its pre -application consultation and then it goes on to consider how those may

impact on those with a protected characteristic.

If we look at the issues that the appellant drew from its own pre -application consultation,

the need for affordable homes, more green spaces, safer spaces, more community

facilities, ensuring the commercial space is affordable etc. Those are the same

issues aren't they? That the Royal Six Party has identified for its own

consultation the same issues that we heard in poor terms raised at the public

session on Tuesday. I mean yes, there's a lot of overlap. But what there isn't is necessarily

the same approach or the depth of granular understanding that I've raised, the actual

workable solutions that will land and have impact. Yeah but before the application was submitted,

we've had a lot of detailed criticism about the consultation, but the appellant was aware of what

the local community wanted.

And we can see that from the fact that the key issues that

it identified are the same that the rule six

parties identified.

And then.

Sorry, can I comment on that?

Yeah, of course.

So I accept that there is overlap

and that there is a level of on paper awareness.

What there hasn't been, sir, is a level

of hearing the people, making them feel heard,

bringing them in in a, actually in a relational way, so that they actually understand the processes,

they feel that the developers work with them.

So there's a very big difference between reports, and I'm, you know, we get a lot of cross -examination

on very small sentences within desktop reports, but what we've really heard,

And I think this is at the heart of the Rule 6 party.

We haven't had a lot of time to prepare our case,

but underlying it is a much greater sense of exclusion.

And I think that is, you know, if you're

minded to rely on a sentence here or there,

that is something I can't comment on.

But if you're minded to hear what the Rule 6 party is really

saying, it is something else.

And it is that the people here didn't

feel included in the progress of this application.

Well, thank you.

And we heard, and I'm not going to go over it again,

but the scheme architects were asked questions

about the consultation and how that

was reflected in the design in an earlier

session of the inquiry.

If we just then complete the consultation storey,

now as part of this inquiry process,

we have a rule six party that you give evidence on behalf of that's correct

isn't it we've had representatives of the community which is the rule six

party and of course the the rule six party understands the concerns of those

that represents and is putting forward that case supported by evidence to the

inspector that's also active in turn the poor the sick the huddled masses yes we

them all. Yeah so at the end of this process of pre -application, consultation,

consultation on the application, consultation carried out by the Rule 6

Party and now an inquiry where the Rule 6 Party is putting forward the

views of those it represents. Would you accept that the inspectors in a position

to understand the views of those the Rule 6 Party represents and take that

into account in reaching the decision.

I feel that the inspectors had a good hearing on all

these issues, yes.

Then in terms of another final point on consultation,

you make a comparison between the consultation carried out

on this application and the consultation that

was carried out in relation to the SPD that has been quashed.

So if we take up, have you got your rebuttal proof?

I've got so many things open.

How do you do this?

Well, you say that I haven't actually got this up,

so you may get that before me.

Do you need the...

Yeah, no, mine has gone,

It's gone into a strange...

It's not loaded.

Yeah, we have it, yes.

We got it.

Which part of it?

So, it is paragraph 3 .3.

Yep.

And you say that the community placed their views

into the master plan consultation

and supported the site allocation position

that was then carried forward into the emerging local plan.

there is in my view a democratic deficit in the process as a result of the master

plan being quashed and the emerging local plan site allocation not being

given greater weight until after this inquiry. Now just to formally confirm in

terms of the weight to be given to the SPD I think you agree as well that it

should be given no weight on the basis that it's a document that was quashed is

that right? Correct. And in terms of the... However, I do think that the... what we do

have to give weight to, sir, is the process that went into it, in the

sense of this is where the community fully engaged. And I set out in my

appendices that at the time that that process was going through, Safe Brick

I can't remember the number.

I need...

Five hundred and fifty.

We're not supposed to do that.

Five hundred and fifty people to actually comment on their processes and feedback to

the councils, agents at the time, which were Muff Architects and Daisy Froud, and I attach

in my appendices the summary of those findings.

That is where the community did feel hurt.

Yeah, that's understood.

And we just pick up on, explore just a little further

at this point of democratic deficit,

because one of the reasons why the SPD was quashed

was because it should have been prepared as a development plan document.

That was one of the reasons.

I do agree with that.

And one of the differences between development plan documents

and other planning documents

is that development plan documents are subject to examination

by an independent inspector.

And I understand that.

Yeah.

And one of the advantages of that process

is that parties can make their case,

present evidence to the inspector who will weigh it up,

and is then in a position to reach a view

on whether what's proposed is in the public interest or not.

So that is something that also needs

to be taken into account in considering

the democratic deficit or not of the SPD process?

That is a procedural.

I think I'm making, I understand what you're saying and I understand that there is a procedure

that happens with a development plan document.

But what I've been trying to really strongly make clear is that communities don't work

like planners, inspectors and all of those.

They work in a different way.

They give their feedback into processes,

and they then expect that they've been heard.

And that is what I mean by Democrat.

They don't understand that the master plan, many of them

will not to this day know that that master plan was crushed.

They will just think that they fed in and they were heard.

And then they won't realise that we're not relying on it.

And that is the democratic deficit I'm talking about.

And that's understood.

Thank you. Okay. Just one point on data centres. You raised an issue about health and safety

in your evidence. Do you remember that? Yeah. Ms. McGinley dealt with that in her rebuttal.

I don't know if you ever had a chance to look at that knowing her rebuttal evidence.

Oh no, you might need to point me to this.

Okay, CDM point two seven.

Yeah, and which paragraph?

It is within that.

It's section four.

There's a response to your evidence.

Yes.

And first of all, have you had a chance to see this before?

Actually, it does ring a bell.

Yeah. Because she there refers to first of all the safety record within the UK, but then she also refers to regulations and standards, including the building regulations and ISO 22301,

business continuity. Are you aware or in a position to give any evidence in relation

to in response to what she said in those paragraphs?

I mean I ran building control at Wandsworth. I understand that we have good procedures

and policies in place and we have systems and I recognise that she is quite rightly

pointing out that they will be implemented in relation to the data centre.

Notwithstanding that they were in play, I just, notwithstanding any of that which I accept,

I think the point I was making was a little bit of a wider health and safety point in relation to

a basic town planning tenet of putting sensible uses next to each other.

and I still think we've you know if you just Google fire risk in data centres

there are fires from time to time and this is still a vulnerable community so

but I accept this section of the rebuttal evidence yeah and it's not

something that you're qualified as an expert to give evidence to about my safe

no I mean I I'm I'm not criticising the evidence I'm just saying that planners

sometimes have to make safety decisions. At Battersea Power Station, I asked for the early

and fairly immediate closure of the temporary heliport that was at Battersea Power Station.

Three weeks later, the actual Battersea heliport had a fatal crash. So I think planners do have

roles in things like just spotting safety issues. Okay, and then finally, we deal with

the qualities impact assessment, but very briefly

And you you've set out the approach in your proof that a paragraph three point seven point six

Yeah

So you can see that the first point to note is public sector quality duty doesn't require

a decision maker to achieve any particular outcome, but it's not simply a tick -bock exercise.

And it must be fulfilled, you can see the second bullet point down, before and at the

time when the particular decision is being considered.

So in this case, ultimately, fulfilling the duty

will be for Secretary of State in making the decision

upon recommendation of the inspector.

That's who the duty ultimately falls on.

That's correct, isn't it?

It does fall on the Secretary of State.

I think the penultimate bullet point there

says it's a continuing duty.

It falls on all of the public authorities throughout this process.

And I have pointed to areas when it has been looked at, I think, quite well, and I also

think there have been gaps in how it's been considered.

I don't know how you're going to deal with it and I don't know how the Secretary of State

is going to do it.

I am an equalities champion.

I run a national race equality charity.

It would be remiss of me not to raise these issues when I have such a wonderful platform

to do so.

That's understood. And of course, as part of the evidence that the Inspector and then

ultimately the Secretary of State can take into account is the equalities impact assessment

prepared by the applicant that we've already been to. But of course, that's only part of

the evidence. The evidence also includes all of the evidence that's been presented to this

inquiry from the Pelyn, the council and all six witnesses. That's right, isn't it?

That is correct. I have found the equalities impact assessment wanting and

failing to incorporate intersectional issues and the depth of poverty in this

area. So I really do hope some of the wider points are taken into account.

That's understood. It's not a criticism you made in your proof though, is it?

Your proof doesn't actually refer to the—

I mean, I had three days to write this proof.

Let me ask the question.

Your proof doesn't actually refer to the Equality to Impact Assessment at all, does it?

For the reasons that I had three days to write this proof.

But going back to where we were, there's the evidence in the Equality to Impact Assessment

and all of the evidence heard as part of this inquiry.

And provided that the Secretary of State, just looking at 3 .7 .6 of your proof,

provided that the Secretary of State takes into account all of that evidence in substance

with rigour and with an open mind, then the public sector of quality duty will be complied

with in this case, won't it?

Yes, I do think the Secretary of State could have been, and the Inspector, could have been

better supported in being able to do that. But yes, I'm sure they will do it to the best

of their abilities with all the information before.

Yeah, so there is sufficient evidence before the Inspector and then the Secretary of State

to reach a lawful and appropriate judgement in relation to the equality duty, isn't there?

My charity finds the Public Sector Equality Duty to be a weak piece of legislation overall,

but I hope you do your best with it.

Unfortunately, it's what we've got at the moment.

Thank you, sir, for my questions.

Thank you, Mr. Parkinson.

and yes, one generally does do one's best with lots of different areas of legislation

that you might scratch your head about sometimes, but yeah, there we are.

Ms Curtis, do you have any questions in re -examination?

Only a couple, sir.

So you may already have it open somewhere, but just the Equality Impact Assessment again,

Could you take up page, it's electronic page number 27 and 53, and this was the point about

engagement that you were taken to.

You were also taken to CDM 15 Mr Osmani's proof and paragraph 3 .2 .7 of that proof.

We just have to reopen that, I'm sorry.

Paragraph 2 .3 .7.

3 .2 .7.

Yes, yes we're there.

And you're taken here as well.

Could you go to the next paragraph, 3 .2 .8, findings from the most recent of Mr Osmani's

questionnaires?

Yes, we're there.

Do you see that the first question there, what are your main concerns about the Truman

Brewery redevelopment?

Ninety -four percent of respondents said impact on local community.

Where can you find that reflected in the page of the Equality Impact Assessment that you

were taken to?

Or can you?

Can you find the second issue, erosion of cultural heritage in that document?

No, I didn't read that there either.

Can you see gentrification or rising rents in that document?

No, I cannot see that there.

Section 2, 94 % indicated more time is needed to properly consult local residents.

can you see that issue reflected in the part of the Equality Impact Assessment you were taken to?

No.

And 83 % do not believe they've been consulted properly, can you see that issue addressed?

No and we've heard that as well as we.

Thank you Ms. Vanchanda.

Thank you very much, most informative, thank you.

That's all from the Rule 6 party, sir.

Excellent.

So, next, Mr. Margulison.

Yes, sir.

Right.

Shall we have a lunch break?

Yeah.

Can I suggest a shortened lunch break, sir, if that's at all possible?

Because I don't want to trespass on your train time.

I don't think it's likely, but I just want to avoid any prospect of that.

What do you suggest?

Thank you very much.

I don't think we'll be able to come back at 1 .30 because they have Friday prayers.

What do you suggest we do?

I don't want to cause an issue.

How long are you likely to be, Mr. Harris?

Well, I was thinking somewhere in the region of one and a half to two hours.

but that's probably conservative in the sense that we probably do it quicker than that.

Okay, what's the earliest you could get back here?

We've got the best part of, I'm very sympathetic to this,

We've got the best part of 20 to 30 minutes.

Maybe we could use that up now.

Let's do that then. Let's have a short break and then go till 20 past 1, say, then adjourn, and then we'll come back at 2 o 'clock.

Thank you, sir. I think that's flexible and reasonable.

That's very helpful of you all, thank you. That assists me greatly.

We're going to go on until twenty past one, so we'll have half an hour now, and then we'll adjourn, and then we'll come back at two o 'clock.

Shall we have a short break?

Yeah, let's give it five minutes.

We'll resume at five to one, and we'll do twenty -five minutes.

Now you're testing me.

We're going to have a short break until 5 .2.

Then we're going to go on for 25 minutes.

So we'll adjourn between 20 past 1 and 2 o 'clock.

We'll resume at 2 o 'clock.

OK?

Brilliant.

Thank you.

John, I think...

Are you all right with that?

I didn't ask.

Can you hear me?

Good.

Okay.

You're Jonathan Margeson, is that correct?

That's correct.

You hold a first -class degree in Master of Arts in Town Planning.

You've 26 years experience in the field of Town Planning.

your qualifications and further experience to set out in Section 1 of your main proof.

Are they all correct and accurate?

They are.

And I think so.

You've heard from Mr. Marchant before.

Good.

So with the recovery in mind and what is likely to – what the Secretary of State is likely

to be keen to hear about, we're going to concentrate on three broad areas of concern

in this examination in chief, but can we take the proof and the rebuttal proof as read,

please? I know you've read them all already. Mr. Marginal, I'm going to start with a helicopter -style

look at the case, if you like. Here we've got three applications which the Secretary

of State has now called of major importance, and those applications, based on advice as

to the appropriateness of an employment -led solution,

produce an employment -led solution,

as we'll see in a minute, what is called a unique agglomeration

and opportunity of national and international importance

for workspace provision.

That's what the applications are and where they've come from.

Two of those have been overturned by elected members on the basis that employment -led development

simply not appropriate, should be something else.

And one has been refused on the basis that meeting data centre needs should only be given

limited weight.

Given the content of the written ministerial statements on economic growth and data, et

given the content of the NPPF, are you, as a matter of planning judgement, surprised or

something else at the nature of the recovery of calling recovery it is?

I'm not surprised. I mean, given the nature of these applications, given their significance,

importance, not just to Tower Hamlets but to London and nationally, and indeed, arguably

on the world stage given the importance of this application area to the UK.

It doesn't surprise me, of course, they include, the applications include substantial office

development for the creative quarter digital sectors as well as a data centre, which you've

during this inquiry, sir, is critical national infrastructure.

Thank you.

Can we take up the invitation that Miss Machanda asked us to,

which is to, if you like, look at the London Plan,

which is the place where the, which is called the apt housing units

for the City Fringe and also for the London Borough Tower Hamlet Sit.

So if we can look at the London Plan, please.

Can we go to a part of the plan we didn't go to yet at the inquiry so far as the local

authorities case is concerned, which is chapter six, headed economy.

Yes. Now, Mr. Marchant, we know as a matter of fact that this document and its contents was the subject of an equality assessment, correct?

Correct. But it was the subject of an economic impact assessment.

And we know from Ms. Machandas' evidence that it is stating the pressing need for housing

and premised on the pressing need for housing, including the new up numbers that she spoke

of.

Right.

So let's look, please, at Chapter 6, offices.

You refer to this in your proof, but I just want to look at it in a bit more detail in

the light of the recovery by the Secretary of State.

Policy E1 deals with offices, but it's under the heading economy.

And do we see policy E1 offices, we can read the whole thing in context,

I'm just going to take you to B and C for the present purposes.

Offices increase in the current stock of offices should be supported in the locations in part C and D below.

See that?

Yes.

Now, would that have taken into account the increased housing need

and the increased housing numbers that we were just told a few moments ago?

Yes, it would have.

Let's see where we are then.

C, the unique agglomerations and dynamic clusters of World City businesses

and other specialist functions of the central London office market, including the CAS,

So it's an inclusive definition, including the Northern Isle of Dogs and other nationally

significant office locations such as Tech City and Kensington and Chelsea should be

developed and promoted.

See that?

Yes.

Is the application site in Tech City?

Yes, it is in the Tech City location.

Thank you.

And is the Tech City location still a unique agglomeration and dynamic cluster of World City businesses?

Yes it is, yes there's a whole range of creative office, digital, technology businesses all located in that area.

Thank you.

Look at 611, please.

London has a diverse range of office markets

with agglomerations of nationally and internationally

significant office functions in the central activity zone

northern Isle of Dogs, Kensington and Chelsea,

and Tech City, complemented by strategic town centre office

locations in inner and outer London.

So when we're looking at Tech City,

and the site sits, as we'll see very shortly,

in the heart of Tech City insofar as that is within Tower Hamlets as well as in neighbouring

authorities including the city and Hackney. But insofar as this location is concerned,

how important would you say to the Inspector the role of the site is in terms of promoting

and establishing and enhancing this unique agglomeration of world and UK and

international offices? I'd say it's critical. It's a large brownfield site

right in the heart of the city fringe in the Tech City area. It's got a really

important role to play in terms of the contribution it can make in promoting

those objectives of delivering and building on those dynamic clusters and

businesses within within the area. Thank you and we also know it's within the all

everything apart from block A is within the town centre. Can we look at what the

plan says about town centre networks please.

And again, this bears in mind the relationship

between the new housing numbers, et cetera.

So we'll need to go to page 483 of the paper document.

483, which is towards the back of that document.

And there we see at reference 183 Brick Lane in Tower Hamlets Network Classification District.

It's a nighttime economy classification 2,

which is a strategic nighttime economy requirement, correct?

Correct. And then it's got commercial growth potential,

medium, residential growth potential, incremental.

See that?

Yes, I do.

All right.

So, bearing in mind what we've just seen and bearing in mind

that, can we go to page 471 of the London Plan, please?

And do we there see residential growth potential?

And there are three categories, high, medium, and incremental.

Incremental is the lowest of the growth potentials identified

in terms of the district centre, correct?

Correct. So it's part of the nationally

an internationally important agglomeration that is Tech City and it's

identified for incremental residential increase. Yes, okay thank you. Now can we

go to the Tower Hamlets local plan next please. And this is CDF. CDF 1. Yes.

And we note the date January 2020.

So I'm going to look at some provisions of this plan

and then ask you to cross cheque them

against what we've just seen in the London plan,

which we know is dated March 2021 to see

if they are consistent or inconsistent

with what we've just seen.

Can we look first please at paragraph 211?

Yes.

This I can give you the note for because you'll be familiar with the words.

To 11, Tower Hamlets continues to play a major role in supporting both the London and the

economy, contributing significantly to the growth of London as a financial and business

centre. Do you agree?

Yes.

Consistent or inconsistent with the London plan that we just looked at?

Entirely consistent.

Thank you.

212, the majority of employment is concentrated within the city fringe, Whitechapel and Canary

Wharf Isle of Dog areas of the borough. These are strategically important employment locations

of national and international importance and serve as the headquarters for a large number

of businesses.

Tower Hamlets is also a very high number of small to medium enterprises and micro businesses,

which is characteristic as its role as a seed bed for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurism.

However, the benefits of this growth, it says, have not been evenly spread across the borough.

15 % of the jobs in the borough go to local residents.

I read it all in full.

Consistent or inconsistent with what we saw identified

in the up -to -date and most recent London plan?

Consistent with what we referred to just previously.

Thank you.

Next please to 4 .1 of that document.

So let me know if your machine's caught up.

Again, you've seen this one before, so I can take it, I think.

Bear with me.

Oh, no, I've missed a reference.

I've missed a reference.

Can we go to page 20 first, please?

So this is in the heading, Our Local Economy.

Under the heading, Setting the Scene, it says this.

the changing global economy, emerging employment sectors,

and working trends, including the rise of remote working

and self -employment, will have an impact on the type

of employment spaces and facilities required.

Then it says something about the EU.

It says in Tower Hamlets, economic growth

will be concentrated in the following areas.

City Fringe, including Tech City,

which is emerging as one of London's most significant areas

for economic growth. Creative digital and technology based industries are

particularly clustered around Shoreditch, Whitechapel and Cambridge Heath which is

becoming one of the largest technology startup clusters in the world.

Consistent or inconsistent with what we were told about national and

internationally important need for employment provision within Tech City in

the London plan, consistent with the London plan.

Yeah, thank you.

Just bear with me.

Yeah, four one, our vision for Tower Hamlets.

Yes, it's paragraph four one,

so it's on page internal 24 of 337.

I'm grateful, thank you.

And do you see there's the entire vision, the second position in second paragraph says

that this growth, London's growth, embraced its role as a key focus for London's growth.

Yeah, not just local positions.

This growth will be primarily delivered in the city fringe and lower lee valley, eiler

dogs, subpoplar, etc.

Again, consistent or inconsistent with what we saw earlier.

Consistent with the loan plan.

OK.

Then we go to page 29, please.

There's a bigger map than this that we will be going to very shortly.

But let's look at this because it's called the key diagram.

It's a statutory requirement for any development plan.

And depending on how good your eyes are, you can see off to the left the identification

of the city fringe emboldened with red around it.

Then there is a circle for Med City.

And then there is a swathe, which identifies the part of Tech City that is within Tower

Hamlets.

So you see everything to the left of the Swayth,

which to the left and outside of Tower Hamlets,

you've got Shoreditch and the City of London.

That's the area of Tech City, is that right?

Yes, that's correct.

So it encompasses this western part of Tower Hamlets borough

and as you say, then spreads westwards into the city

and Hackney, that's consistent with the London plan

and the identification of that opportunity area.

Thank you.

Again, consistent or inconsistent

with the London plan identification of Tech City,

which I think we don't need to go to it,

is identified as a five on a broader map.

Consistent or inconsistent?

Consistent.

Right.

Thank you very much.

And we'll see what the officers say about Tech City shortly.

Thank you very much.

Can we then please go to, I think

this would be the last one before an adjournment to page 199.

Oh, this means that you might have to catch up a bit, sir.

Good.

Page 199.

I'm taking so long.

Right, it's actually 200 where we've got the subarea one city fringe identified.

Yes?

Yes.

Are you looking at the – sorry, are you looking at the plan or the –

At the minute I'm looking at the page after the plan, which identifies the city fringe

and it explains where it is.

Then there's a character, then at 2 .03 and 2 .05 we get, if you like, a blown up map of

where we were just looking at, which makes it, I think, clearer.

You can see Allen Gardens is number five, for example, and you can see the town

centre, district centre identified excluding building a site. But again, so

far as Tower Hamlets is concerned, is this bang in the middle of that part of

the tech city that is identified in their adopted plan? Yes it is, thank you

very much. And then we go please to delivering economic growth which is on

205. We went to part of this yesterday.

Paragraph 8. In line with policy CG1 all development in the city fringe sub areas

will seek to deliver the following principles. Provide employment uses

across the area that contribute towards the tech city and med city initiatives

in accordance with the City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework and

any equivalent replacement document including a range of flexible workspaces

for small to medium enterprises and significant floor space around the

secondary preferred locations?

Again, same question, consistent or inconsistent?

Consistent, the drawing of that.

Thank you very much.

Last, I think we might be able to squeeze it in, so I don't know.

It involves another document, shall we?

Right.

Can we then go to the OAPF, please?

CDE05, put it open here, should fall open on striking the balance between employment

and Residential, which is page 40 of 109.

Paragraph 3 .9.

Now this has just been referred to in the adopted development plan.

In a core areas where demand is expected to be highest, this is in the context of demand

for employment, but particularly in relation to this nationally and internationally important

agglomeration which should be promoted and enhanced.

Look at what it says.

In the core areas, are we in the inner core areas?

Is there any doubt about that?

No, we are in the inner core areas.

There's no doubt about that.

This is where development proposals for employment floor space, including refurbishment and

demolition and redevelopment will be encouraged and supported in order to support the process

of the core expanding and prevent supply diminishing.

Does that apply to all sites within the inner core?

Yes, it does.

Does that apply to our site?

And sites?

Yes, and sites.

Thank you very much.

Then we had a debate with Mr. Kiley

as to the meaning of the next couple of paragraphs,

which I need to trouble you with here.

But do you see over the page,

there is something which begins the word elsewhere.

Yes.

Elsewhere, and this is where officers

explain to elected members the site lay.

Elsewhere, development should seek to re -provide

at least the same quantum of employment floor space

and support an overall appropriate 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.

Does that apply to the circumstances of our case?

Yes it does, yeah, our site would fall within that paragraph.

Yes, but our site would fall within that paragraph elsewhere, but we also know it falls within

Tech City, which is dealt with in the way that we have already seen set out in the London

plan and the earlier part of the adopted plan for Tower Hamlets.

Yes, yeah, okay. Thank you very much for that

That make a sensible time to stop sir

Webcast Finished - 3:31:03

Yeah, sorry, I've got 20 past 1 so we shall resume at 2 o 'clock until then everyone thank you

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Friday 24 October 2025, 9:30am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry AMFriday, 24th October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Webcast Finished - 3:31:03

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Friday, 24th October 2025 at 9:30am