Truman's Public Inquiry PM - Friday 24 October 2025, 2:00pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry PM
Friday, 24th October 2025 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Mr Harris, back to you.
Thank you very much.
So we looked at the London Plan and we looked at the emerging plan and its consistency with
the London Plan and we looked at what the OAPF said.
So we've got, let me see if I've got this right, there are other designations that we'll
to in a minute, but we've got inner core of the city fringe where employment -led development
is supported. We've got tech city where there is a unique agglomeration of workspace, culture,
data, et cetera, which should be developed and promoted. And we've got a district centre
which identifies three uses, none of which is residential, and we've seen in
the London Plan that if there is to be a residential growth it's at the lowest
level that the London Plan recognises for town centres.
Correct. Okay. Your judgement first, having regard to what we've just seen and how
it fits with between the development plan that's local and the strategic
development plan which is the London plan as to whether there's a broadly
consistent position
narration on this site in Tech City yeah there's a consistency between all parts
actually of the development plan in relation to employment led development
on this site. It starts as we've been through with the Tech City, City Fringe
designation, the Tower Hamlets activity area and the district centre and all of those
designations and the policies that relate to them are seeking to enhance
and promote employment on the side in recognition of its unique status and its unique function
within London and the world.
Thank you.
And following on from that, how would you invite the Secretary of State, who's now recovered
this jurisdiction, how would you invite the Secretary of State through the Inspector to
categorise the importance of that role
that you've just identified?
It's of the highest importance.
Importance that goes further than Tower Hamlets?
Yes, for the reasons I've said,
because the city fringe and the location of these sites,
right on the edge of the city,
it's beyond the very boundary.
It's of, as I say, London importance,
but London in terms of its world city status
and its city functions.
So it's got a critical role to play in supporting those.
And what would you say about the importance
of not diminishing that role or dumbing down that role
in the sense of having a site that can't play
its full part in achieving that role?
Well, that would be, firstly,
contrary to the development plan approach
which we've just been through.
Secondly, it would represent a missed opportunity,
a significant missed opportunity
to strengthen London's world city functions.
Thank you.
Next, please, I want your judgement and then we're going to look at what officers of this
local authority thought about the up -to -datedness of what we've just looked at.
Your position first, please.
Your view as to whether that group of policies that we looked at is up -to -date and relevant.
Yeah, so Development Plan comprises the, obviously the Local Plan adopted 2020 and the London
Plan, March 21.
Both those plans are up to date in my view.
I'm aware obviously and we'll get onto it, no doubt that there is an emerging Local Planning
preparation for Tower Hamlets but those to remain the development plans for the
area I mean they're sort of by a little bit less years old there is the OAPF
document which which overseas a material consideration here but it remains in my
you to be given appropriate weight.
OK, it's sort of 2015, but the policy approach
is set out in the OAPF, as we've seen when we went through,
and remain consistent with the adopted development plan.
Thank you.
And what the courts have said is that the main test
of whether a policy remains up to date
is whether it has a consistency with the NPPF.
Now, we come to this later in the examination in chief, but in summary, your position, please,
as to whether that which we've just read is consistent or inconsistent with the NPPF read
as a whole?
But as a whole, the NPPF, the development plan is consistent.
It's consistent and we'll no doubt go to it consistent in terms of the economic policies
that the MPPF contains, particularly around the need for technological growth sectors,
the whole industrial strategy.
So I don't find any inconsistency.
Thank you very much.
Let's see what the officers thought of the position.
CDL 1.
Now, this is a strange report to committee because it was, in fact, written in the full
understanding that it would be read and pored over at an inquiry such as this, wasn't it?
It was, yes.
So, I don't think we've gone to this paragraph before, but it's dated the last day of July
2025, as up to date as it can be, I think, given the vagaries of the listing systems.
31st of July 2025, bang up to date or not?
Yes, it's up to date.
And nothing has changed in terms of policy or any other
materiality since this report was written.
Look at paragraph two.
A public inquiry is scheduled to be held on the 14th of October
for an estimated period of 12 days.
That's this public inquiry, I think.
It is.
Council would be a party to the inquiry.
The purpose of this report is to seek the committee's
resolution on how it would have determined the applications.
And we know there was a recommendation to approve in relation to the main site.
There's a summary then of where officers are going to go in relation to the nature of the
use.
All of the application site is within the Brick Lane District Centre.
That's true of the main site but not true of Block A.
Correct.
And this is not the Block A report.
District centres are locations to be promoted as vibrant hubs
containing a wide range of shops, services and employment.
Activity areas and district centres provide opportunities for purpose -built
office buildings with ground -full retail and leisure uses.
The activity areas in particular have the potential to accommodate substantial
employment growth, SEMP 1.
In this context, a commercial -led or commercial -only scheme
is in accordance with the land use policies of the local plan and the
London plan. First how clear is that in your judgement? It's very clear I mean I
think overall this committee report has been well written well considered by
officers and that is a very good summary of the land use position in relation to
to the main sign.
Thank you.
I think you've actually spent the time,
and we don't ask an inspector to do it,
but you've spent the time watching the recording
of the committee meeting itself.
Yes, I have.
To what degree were elected members addressed
as to the position vis -à -vis employment -led
or residential led by officers? Yes so both the legal officer and the head of
development management Paul Buckingham on several occasions not not only
actually in relation to this main site but actually all all three applications
made it very clear that an employment -led development was consistent
with the development plan and if members were to go against officer
recommendation on that then they should tread very carefully because and we've
come on to this but but bearing in mind the development plan position as it
stands now, but also where the emerging local plan is in terms of its status.
Come to that next. We heard just a few moments ago from the Rule 66 statement group that
ah, but there's a critical need for new homes in Tower Hamlet. Remember that?
Yes.
Look at paragraph six, please. There is a critical need for new homes in Tower Hamlet.
The borough has the highest housing target in London and has a housing waiting list in
excess of 20 ,000 people. The town centres are an appropriate location for mixed
use schemes with new homes subject to a scheme overall supporting the function
of the town centre. What's the function of the town centre in part or in whole
here? So the function of the town centre here is obviously that's the Brick Lane
District Centre they're talking about which obviously has the the iconic Brick
Lane and the various retail and shops but it also contains significant
quantum of office floor space which as we talked about are critical to not only
to Hamlets and London but on a world stage so that that's what they're
talking about they're talking about that combined function.
The proposed new homes would make a contribution to the housing demand in
the borough, the proposed land uses are in accordance with the local plan and London
plan.
So both in terms of 05, employment -led, and in terms of the mix, 06, officers were clear.
I just want, now that we've seen the summary, particularly in the light of the evidence
that we heard yesterday, just to chase down the thoroughness with which the local authority
come to that conclusion.
You need to go to Section 7.
Mr. Kiley said he wasn't so familiar with this document.
He had read it.
But I think we need to, given the difference
between the officers yourself
and Mr. Kiley, have a better look at it.
Can we start with 7 .2, which deals with the consistency
of the land use with the new NPPF, the new NPPF,
December 2024, consistent or inconsistent?
Is there a finding of inconsistency with the NPPF there?
No, there isn't.
Then the officers go to district centres
and district centre policies,
which we looked at a few moments before lunch.
Then they look at activity areas.
Then they look at the STC policies,
policies, which we looked at yesterday.
Then there's the employment floor space policies.
In particular, DEMP2 new or intensified employment floor space will be supported within designated
employment locations.
The tower hamlets activity areas, which we are within, and identified site allocations,
correct?
Correct.
Then we go to the local plan city fringe sub -area.
That's part 18 of the development plan we looked at.
And we see that 713 .8 identifies the relevance of and need for development
to provide employment uses across the area that contributes towards the Tech City
and Med City initiative.
Is that the one we were looking at this morning?
Yes, it is, yeah.
And then we look at the GLA document that we also looked at where it identifies the
inner core, 715.
Remember there was a sort of debate between Mr. Kiley and myself yesterday as to whether
we were in an elsewhere.
The local authority officers said, in a core area, demand for employment space expected
to be highest.
Development should seek at least to re -provide employment space.
strong consideration should be given to employment -led schemes and the
opportunity to provide an overall uplift in employment floor space. That's in the
inner core area within Tech City, within the District Centre, etc. So there's
there's the analysis there set out. Then there's the assessment after all of that
Again, the Inspector can read all this for himself, but it deals with existing businesses
and relocation of the cash and carry first.
Then it deals with the proposed land uses.
And at 7 .35, as at the last day of July 2025, elected members, in the context of this very
appeal were being told that the proposed type and balance of land uses is fully
supported by the development plan. The proposal would provide an employment -led
scheme to support the town centre and employment land objectives for the site.
The proposal would also provide residential floor space. There's a strong
demand for new housing. The new homes would be located on Spital Street
adjacent to and opposite existing homes. This is an appropriate location for new
homes. Why is that word appropriate chosen there do you think? That falls
under policy CC3 the the reference to residential and where appropriate. Yeah
okay now with all that in mind do you agree or disagree with the officers
that an employment -led scheme with some residential, where appropriate, is fully
supported by the up -to -date development plan. Fully supported by the
development plan and employment -led scheme on this side. With that in mind,
Can we look, please, to the CDH7?
Which is the consent order?
Yes. Can you write it down? Do you have that, sir? It's CDH7. We've been to it a few times.
Now this is dated, and this is an important date, not least because it's my wife's birthday,
the 19th of February 2025.
So again, very recent.
And if you go to paragraph nine,
and the inspectors now got the statement
of facts and grounds.
In relation to ground two, the defendant accepts
that the SPD could not have been lawfully adopted
even as supplementary planning document
for the reasons set out at the grounds.
no reasonable planning authority could have reached a judgement
that the SPD did not conflict with the adopted development
plan in the circumstances.
And this is now in a consent order signed by the solicitor
on behalf of the local planning authority following advice from
leading counsel Guion Lewis asserting that where that plan
makes clear that employment and commercial town centre uses are to be
the priority in the area of the SPD. Now is there anything inconsistent there
with what we've just gone through, probably in inordinate and inappropriate
length? No there isn't anything inconsistent and not an unsurprising
in my view, given the position of the adopted development plan on land uses in relation
to this site.
Thank you.
Now, they aren't only saying here that town centre and employment uses are to be the priority,
but they're agreeing that it is unreasonable in a legal sense to take a different view.
Correct.
Having regard to what we've just seen and the position of the officers and others,
do you take that view that it's unreasonable to assert
that there's some other ability here to have a priority that is not residential -led?
Yes, I mean, I agree.
I think it would be unreasonable.
You know, we have a development plan system in place for a reason to provide certainty
in the development plan policies which we have been through and the designations are
very clear that this should be an employment -led development on this site.
Thank you. Next, please, can we pick up what the GLA's position is? I think we've done
this a number of occasions so we can be brief.
This is CDH.
Oh, no, sorry, CDD01.
17, the principle of a commercial led development in this location is supported by London Plan
Policy SD6, gives support for mixed use developments with an element of residential within London
to sound centres and high streets.
The provision of new employment floor space
could support growth of the existing cluster
of digital creative businesses in the city fringe
or growth of businesses providing support
for the traditional financial and business sectors
located in the city itself.
Also supported by lender plan good growth objective GG5,
growing a good economy.
Now, that's a position of the strategic authority.
We know from yesterday's announcement,
and well appreciating the housing crisis that London's in.
But in terms of that position in relation to this application
before this inspector and now the Secretary of State,
is that consistent or inconsistent
with the development plan matrix
that you and I have just spent that time traversing?
That's it's it's consistent the the GLA here I've actually laid out in one
paragraph quite simply what the land use position in relation to this site is and
that's the support for employment floor space on the site and an employment -led
development. Right then please how would you identify or characterise the
importance of the site and its ability to further that special role in an
agglomeration of national and international importance that's
identified in the plan. This site. Yeah so I mean this site is a large brownfield
site in right, you know, on the edge of the city in a unique location and
benefits of course the Truman Brewery being part of the Truman Brewery estate
with already those unique ecosystems of businesses. So it has this pretty
incredible opportunity to not only develop the Truman Brewery
estate, but to play this critical role in supporting
the city of London and the UK as a whole in a wider context.
In various places, I haven't measured it myself,
but the site is identified as approximately a 10 acre site.
We're not meant to use imperial measurements anymore,
but that gives us a feel, 10 acre site.
Are you aware of a bigger opportunity site
in this national and internationally important
agglomeration of workspace provision in the city fringe?
are you aware of a bigger site within the Tech City designation?
No, I'm not.
Thank you very much.
And even if there were one, would that be a reason to turn away a site so well located of such scale?
That wouldn't because clearly the policies within the development plan are not seeking to develop one site only.
These are strategic policies which are seeking to grow and develop economically the city fringe, tech city area.
Thank you.
Now, do you remember the evidence from Mr. Kiley that we heard yesterday and his sort
of round -up on the development plan was, well, it could be 100 per cent housing, that would
be entirely consistent with the plan.
Yes.
Just think that through, please, can we?
Does the development plan properly understood, having regard to everything we've done, to
what this local authority told the court in a consent order in February 2025, does this
development plan properly understood support residential led development much less 100
percent residential development?
It doesn't support residential development on this site.
I mean all the policies, the designations that we've been through are very much focused
on the delivery of employment land and plot of floor space in order to support
that unique tech city fringe area the city and the UK economy so I wouldn't
agree that a hundred percent residential scheme or a residential led scheme on
this site would be in accordance with the development plan.
That's entirely consistent with the position
that officers reached, officers were telling members
on the night.
It's consistent with the GLA.
And it's consistent with the High Court order.
Thank you very much for that.
You've already told us that you believe
that the relevant development plan provisions are up to date.
Can we go to CDE01, please?
We looked at this yesterday with Mr. Kiley.
And we're in paragraph 11, and we're decision -taking, aren't we, at this stage?
Secretary of State is decision -taking, yes.
In terms of use, putting aside for the minute heritage and townscape, there's an issue as
to those that are addressed by other witnesses.
But in terms of use, does the use proposed here accord with the up -to -date development plan?
Yes, it does.
And therefore we are in C.
We are in C, yes, in this box.
Mr. Kiley just simply wouldn't answer this question yesterday, but I'm going to ask you it.
What weight do you give to the policies that we've just looked at,
which you've already said are up to date?
I give full weight.
Thank you very much.
And they mean that, subject to the issues that we've discussed,
in terms of use, Planning Commission should be granted without delay.
Correct. Thank you very much.
Do you agree with Mr. Kiley that this isn't an 11D case?
Yes, I agree.
It's not an 11D case.
We have a development plan which is up to date.
Thank you.
That's the end of that issue.
Onto issue number two of three, which is the weight
to be given to the emerging plan.
And there are three tests that the inspector must engage with
as part of a judgement as to the weight to be given to the development plan and then
report on that to the Secretary of State.
Stage we've reached to begin with, we've not even been submitted yet.
As we sit here, as we sit here, is there any guarantee as to when the plan will be formally
submitted?
There's no guarantee, no.
I'm obviously aware that it went to cabinet last week, that it's going to full council
in the middle of November.
Exactly when it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination remains unknown as
we sit here.
All right.
Well, we could have gone further down this line, but we've got a recovery now, so we'll
just all wait and see, shall we?
But in terms of where we are now, it's not even yet been submitted?
No, it's not submitted.
Thank you.
Now, I want to ask you about this because the suggestion was sort of made yesterday
that don't worry too much about process, et cetera, because really this emerging plan
is doing very little more than a small fiddle around the edge of the adopted plan.
Your judgement as to whether that's accurate, please.
I don't think it's an accurate reflection of what this development plan is doing, and
in particular in relation to site allocation 1 .7
in the emerging plan and what that is seeking to do.
Because I mean, as we've just been through,
the development plan is, as the adopted version,
the development plan is very clear
in terms of an employment -led development on this site
to support economic growth in London and beyond.
But the emerging local plan and the site allocation 1 .7,
which does cover quite a large area,
is seeking to shift that focus.
So now it's become from an employment -led
to a residential -led allocation.
And that has strategic implications.
It goes beyond the borough boundary.
It has strategic implications on economic growth in London,
given the importance of this site and the City Fringe Tech
City area to London.
Bearing in mind the importance of the function of the City
Fringe Tech City, and given the scale of shift,
you called it. I want your judgement please as to how important it is bearing
in mind the development plan system, how important it is that such a change which
and we heard how it came about from the mayor on Tuesday, that such a change is
found to be sound in the legal sense of that word as well as the judgement sense
of that word. So the when you're talking about such a shift in policy which as I
say is not it's not just got implications on this borough but at a
strategic level that is the sort of policy shift that should be tested for
its soundness through the local plan examination and that's I mean ultimately
that is what's going to happen here but it isn't appropriate to at the stage the
plan has reached to to suddenly change course and to put aside the development
plan and the policies that support strongly employment led development on
Thank you. I can't remember if it's 49 or 40. I think it's paragraph 48 now. The second
point it says is the extent to which there are unresolved objections. Now, the main landowner
for the 10 acre site has objected on land use bases and several other
significant bases in the circumstances of this case and we've seen that. What
the Rule 6 .6 party is saying is well don't worry about that because that's
been resolved by the response of the local planning authority and they refer
to the one -line response in the report that went to cabinet.
Does the fact that the local authority
say they don't agree with the objection
mean for the purposes of the regulations
or otherwise that that is now a resolved objection?
No, it's not a resolved objection.
I mean, that is the process of the local plan examination.
And that's why when objections are made to policies
or allocations, they go through the rigour of the local plan
examination process in front of an inspector, who
ultimately is responsible for making that judgement.
Now, the thrust of the reason for refusal
is that rather than employment -led,
the scheme should be residential led to garner a significant amount of
affordable housing. We heard it on Tuesday. Yes. So the plan has got
affordable housing policies. Correct. Those affordable housing policies are
the subject of hundreds of objections. Correct. In terms of those objections are
they unresolved? They remain unresolved at present including an objection from
the GLA in relation to general conformity of the affordable housing
policy that's being put forward by Tower Hamlets. Is that relevant or irrelevant
to the preferred view use which is said to be sufficient to displace the
employment -led use in the reason for refusal but also in the emerging plan
which is still to be resolved? It's relevant, it's a relevant consideration. I
mean we don't know where that policy is going to end up the affordable housing
policy particularly in light of what we saw yesterday. Well that was my next
question but you've already said at the minute there is a 50 % fast track. Yes.
in this local authority and there's a December note from the GLA saying that that's not consistent
with or in general conformity with and now we've got a 20%, albeit for an emergency,
but all of this, has any of this been resolved yet?
No, it's not.
No.
Thank you.
And then, so I'll say this really clearly because you quite rightly interrupted me on
it yesterday then going to wait to give to the emerging plan is there any
evidence before this inquiry that a residential led development with a
substantial amount of affordable housing which is why it is we're being turned
away would be in fact viable at this location or deliverable there's no
this site so
we don't know how much affordable housing a
Residential scheme could provide we don't know whether it's deliverable. Yeah
Okay. Thank you very much and in terms of the loss of the office function from the biggest or one of the biggest
sites in the tech city area brownfield
Has the local authority undertone undertaken an assessment of that
loss of opportunity in the national and international agglomeration that we looked at earlier.
Now, all right, thank you very much.
The third limb is the consistency of the emerging plan with the NPPF.
Can we pick up the NPPF, please?
CDE01.
Now, this was a plan that was produced very quickly in comparative terms in the first
term of the Labour government that had its twin objectives as more economic growth, more
housing.
Correct.
Right.
So, if we're looking at this document, is the fact that there is a housing crisis in
the UK, in England and Wales, for planning purposes, I suppose, no, Wales is devolved
in England, is that sort of baked in and understood in this document?
Yes.
Right, yes.
OK.
Can we look at the section on employment, please?
Section 6.
Paragraph 85.
Advises decision makers, now it will be the Secretary
of State himself.
Significant weight should be placed on the need
to support economic growth and productivity taking
into account both local business needs
and wider opportunities for development.
Is that relevant to the weight that should be given to an employment -led scheme in the
circumstances of this case, even in a housing crisis?
Yes, it is relevant, yes.
This is particularly important where Britain can be a global leader in driving innovation
and in areas with high levels of productivity which should be able to capitalise on their
performance and potential.
How relevant is that to this unique agglomeration?
It's hardly relevant because London's known as the most productive centre city in the
UK, if not the world, and it is a global leader in innovation and where this site is located
is in one of those very areas.
86A, please.
Planning policies should set out a clear economic vision and strategy which positively and proactively
encourages sustainable economic growth, having regard to the national industrial strategy.
Footnote 43, priority sectors for growth and support are advanced manufacturing, clean
energy industries, creative industries, defence industries, digital and technology businesses,
financial services, life science, professional and business services.
First of all, which ones of those are relevant to the circumstances of this
case? A lot of them. Creative industries, digital and technology businesses,
financial services, life sciences and professional business services are the
ones that would spring to mind.
Thank you.
Going back to 86A, the strategy that we looked at earlier, which sets TechHAB and the inner
fringe area, et cetera, as the location for employment -led development to enhance its
existing role, is that a clear economic vision and strategy
for the purposes of 86A or something else?
It's consistent.
I would term what we've seen in the development plan
as a clear economic vision and strategy.
Thank you.
If you look at the document as a whole, but in particular
the section making effective use of land,
Is there any suggestion in there that those areas of industry
or those areas of employment,
which can make a very significant contribution
nationally and internationally, are appropriately lost
to that use in order to meet the housing crisis issues?
No, that's not the way the MPPF approaches land use planning.
I think you said at the start of this little session about, you know, the two -pronged type
by the government on housing growth and economic growth, and that is entirely reflected in
this version of the MPPA.
If you don't have economic growth or if you make a decision that diminishes economic growth,
what impact, if any, does that have on your ability to meet housing needs?
It would have a significant impact.
I mean, there's obviously a strong relationship
between economic growth and housing delivery ultimately.
And it could be argued that for too long,
we haven't had sufficient economic growth in this country
to actually enable us to deliver the houses that we need.
Thank you. So turning down this application in favour of an emerging plan that may or
may not come to fruition, is that consistent with the strategy set out in the NPPF for
the third limb of paragraph 48 and the weight to be given to emerging plans?
being consistent good thank you back to the officers report on this please
nearly finished on this second issue now as well if you go back to CDL one the
draught local plan is dealt with at 737. I would just jump to 740. Given the draught
local plan is at regulation 19 stage and there are unresolved objections to the
plan it carries minimal weight in the assessment of the land uses for the
proposal. You and I have both sat through the committee and or seen the video. How
How was that addressed in terms of elected members?
There was a disappointment and how did officers deal with that, please, at the hearing?
So actually in all three of the applications, officers were very clear with members that
the emerging local plan was to be given limited or very limited weight and that
wasn't just officers opinion if you like as expressed in this report they'd also
taken leading counsel advice on that as well and they the I think it was the
legal officer in Austin made that very clear to members that they'd taken that
advice and if members were to ignore it, that advice, that there should be limited or very
limited weight to the emerging local plan, that the council would find themselves in
a difficult position, shall we say, at any forthcoming appeal.
All right.
That's the end of that issue.
Third issue is data centre, data centre.
Yeah.
All parties now agree that a balance
has to be undertaken by the decision maker,
identifying harms associated with the data centre, if any,
and balancing it with public benefits,
including the meeting of a need for the data centre.
Do you agree that's the right approach to take?
Yes, it is the right approach, yes.
And if the conclusion is reached, the public benefits, including the need, meeting the
need for the data centre at this location outweigh the harms alleged, that all other
things being equal, planning permission should be granted.
It should, yes.
Now, what we've got in terms of the, if you like, the line up in front of the inspector
at the minute, is an assertion by the local authority officers and others that although
there were benefits which flew from the data centre, they were only limited or moderate,
it's called, or very limited in another occasion, but it's at that end of the spectrum of public
benefits.
And you remember Mr. Kiley and I had a bit of a toing and froing with this yesterday.
So what the inspectors got in front of him at the minute is a finding of lower end of
less than substantial harm in heritage terms from Mr. Frohman, benefit in heritage terms
from Mr. Dunn, bearing in mind the existing condition, he thinks it's an enhancement,
and we got Mr. Reynolds accepting that it is an enhancement in townscape terms and is
an enhancement in activation terms,
but a missed opportunity in terms of activation
in particular.
You've got other points as well.
But that's the sort of range, compass of approaches
that the inspectors got to move on.
Now, I'm going to ask you, because I didn't get
an answer yesterday, if the decision maker,
if the Secretary of State or if you were to give substantial
or very substantial weight to the public benefit
of meeting the need for this sort of facility,
even taking the council's position that we've just looked
at into account, how would you judge the planning balance
to help the inspector?
Yes, so I have actually done that exercise within my proof,
so which you will have read, no doubt.
Yeah, I know I have looked at what the what the balance would be should there
be less than substantial harm found whether it's it's low or moderate and a
level of townscape home. My view is that given the the need that has been clearly
identified for data centre provision on this site, in particular Miss
Gindley went through that yesterday and given the importance of data centres as
critical national infrastructure, I would be attaching very substantial way to the
provision of a data centre on on this site and therefore when I'm doing the
balance and obviously, you know, we are in a conservation area so I need to give considerable
importance and weight to that heritage asset.
Even doing that, given the importance of data centres to London, to the national economy,
I find that the level of harm that has been identified by Mr. Freeman and Mr. Reynolds
would be outweighed on this occasion by the very substantial benefits of the data centre.
Thank you.
Now a point was made in reexamination yesterday of Mr. Kiley that this co -location data centre
was much smaller than other data centres that existed.
Just want to explore that with you please.
I think you were here when Ms. McGinley was giving her
evidence.
And she explained the importance of having smaller, ultra -low
latency, colocation colos in very close proximity
to the city.
Now, in those circumstances, does smaller necessarily
mean less important?
No.
Why not?
I think Miss McGinley was very good at explaining the different types and roles of data centre
across the UK and she identified some very large data centres of 200 megawatts, let's
just say out in Hertfordshire, and then some much smaller data centres which perform a
different role and function if you like and that is the type of data centre that
is proposed on this site it's three megawatts but its location is crucial
you know the fact that it is on the edge of the city it has it's right on the
the super fibre
It has ultra low latency
And effectively if you like it's plugging straight into the
Superfiber network into the city for which
the City of London
depends upon in order to
Do its transactional business so I?
Wouldn't
reduce the weight
attached to this data centre just because of its scale. It's got a very
specific locational function on this site. And how does it fare against those
three criteria that she identified in terms of location, ultra low latency and
and cable density.
I'm not sure you could get a better sign,
to be honest, from what I've seen
from the evidence that Ms. McGinley has put in.
You know, on all of those criteria,
this is about as good as you can get.
So here's the question.
Should the city fringe, and in particular,
this part of the city fringe,
and in particular this location in Tech City lose this opportunity to take up such a locational advantage?
No it shouldn't and if it were to then that would have negative consequences in terms of the City of London
and its financial growth performance going forward.
Back to paragraph 87, please, of CDE1, the NPPF.
This was the paragraph that was added directly as a result
of the written ministerial statement.
Planning policies and decisions should recognise
and address the specific locational requirements
of different sectors, clusters or networks
of knowledge, data -driven brackets, including data centres and grid connexions.
Now, why has that been added to the NPPF, do you think, and of what relevance is that
to the circumstances of this case?
It was a deliberate addition, clearly, by the government, recognising, you know, the
fact that data centres are now critical national infrastructure and the importance of them
to the UK economy.
But also, I think the words specific location requirements,
so that's really important and that just goes back
to what I was talking about and why this site in particular
is critical in terms of meeting that data centre need.
Thank you.
Now, there are concerns that we've heard about activation.
Just want to explore that with you please, the activation of the frontage.
And a number of witnesses have indicated that their concern about activation relates to
the place of Block A in the town centre.
We heard one such from Ms Machanda earlier today.
A number have said it's not appropriately activated enough given its place in the town centre.
Is it actually in the town centre, Block A?
No, it's actually outside of the district centre.
You've seen how the line has been drawn?
Yes.
The line has been drawn and doesn't include the application site, the Block A site.
Is that a judgement or is it an accident or what?
It's not an accident. I'm sure
That would have been done as part of the local plan process
and
I'm sure we've all been down on site and that's around the area and
It's pretty obvious actually where
the the sort of
retail and ground floor activities stop
Within that area and it's clear that grey eagle Street is not performing
that kind of
retail leisure
Function destination as on the other side of the boundary the district centre
Buildings are okay now
the report to committee
Identifies the fact that it's not within the district centre and also identifies that it's appropriate in principle
for B8 uses? Right. Right. So given that the local authority and the development plan accepts
the potential for B8 uses, logistics, warehousing, etc., how fair and appropriate is it to expect
a level of activity to be the same as it would be in the town centre on sites which aren't
appropriate for such uses? The expectation has to be different on this site than it would
be if the site were in the district centre. Understand that there is a desire to achieve
as much activation as possible. We all would all support that and I would support that.
But within the functionality of what is actually being delivered on the site and the need for
that, and in this case the data centre.
Good, thank you very much.
Again under the heading of concern about activation, you heard Ms McGinley say emphatically that
mixed use at ground floor is simply now a non -starter, in her words.
We checked on the transcript.
now a non -starter. Is there any other expert evidence of that nature before
the inquiry which suggests otherwise? Block L. Block L has a small amount of
other use in its ground floor. That was a consent that was granted, that was
applied for in 2016, I think as we agreed at the end of yesterday. We know as a
of fact it's never been built out, correct? Correct. Yeah. There's no
intention to build it out, that's in Miss McGinley's proof. Correct. And that it's
an outdated outdated mode of data centre. What inference if any do you ask the
inspector to draw from the fact that despite the need which is agreed on all
sites for data centres that that one with ground floor other uses hasn't been
developed. But it would suggest there's an issue with having active uses within
that permitted data centre. It could be one of the reasons that why that data
centre hasn't come forward. Thank you very much. And we've got the, I can't
data centre that has recently been extended on the site.
What's that called?
What's it called?
Digital Realty One.
Yes, the Digital Realty One.
One, one, two, I think.
Now, what Mr. McKinley said about that was that once you've got a data centre in location,
a legacy one, it's very difficult to move.
and this was an extension to an existing data centre
which already had a ground floor presence.
Correct.
Right, why is that different from this case?
Because that's an historic data centre developed over time
and the market has changed.
The security requirements as we heard from Ms. McGinley
have changed in relation to data centres.
Not, to be honest, a great surprise
given everything we hear about.
cyber attacks, et cetera, and operators, as Ms. McGinley said, now want their own secure
premises.
Thank you.
And that's the change in the market that has to be reflected in what a developer would
bring forward as a data centre on this site.
Specific locational requirements is what the new NPPF requires us to deal with?
Yes.
OK, thank you.
Now, if after all of this the Secretary of State still has residual concerns in relation
say to activation or et cetera, do you remember there was a discussion about the activation
that is provided to Grey Eagle Street by Eli's Yard development?
Yes, I do, yes.
Access into the main development which the local authority would expect to be busy.
activation, both in terms of ground floor uses and overlooking, activation in terms
of Juliet balconies, et cetera, all of that.
If and insofar as the inspector or the secretary of state still had residual concerns, this
was once one planning application, wasn't it?
It was the local authority, quite rightly, I think, who separated it out into three.
Correct?
That's the operate, yeah.
If the inspector or the sector of state felt it was necessary,
would it be possible to have, say, a condition requiring the development of one
of the proposals to come forward in sequence with or together with or in association
with the other, not an unusual sort of condition to see in relation
to affordable housing, for example?
Is that something that there's any planning obstacle to in the event that it was thought
that the animation of Eli's yard was a necessary part of the project as a whole in those circumstances,
separate applications but the project as a whole?
It's entirely possible to put forward that sort of linking condition.
Clearly we'd need to discuss the wording and agree it.
But in principle, yes, that form of condition could be put forward if the Inspector Secretary
of State had concerns about the activation along Grey Eagle Street.
Q That's the evidence in chief.
Can I make a request?
And that is, because we're stopping now and I – that's not an issue, not a problem
for me.
But could I hold open, from a loan of friend, Mr. Parkinson, the examination in chief?
I note, for example, that there's been further documentation produced by the government and
the mayor of London today.
And what I don't want to do is to say I've finished.
I have finished.
But if there's anything that Mr. Parkinson thinks he needs to raise with the witness,
can I formally not close the examination in chief just with that in mind that's
that's sensible and appropriate well I'm content with that mr. wool do you have
an observation so yes obviously if material comes in between now and
Tuesday upon which mr. Parkinson wishes to pose
and there's a further examination in chief
I would agree with the council on that.
Thank you.
I am happy to hold it open.
We will see.
Who knows?
It is only Friday afternoon.
And there is Monday.
And the weekend.
Who knows what might happen.
Good.
Tuesday.
We are in town hall.
Can I suggest a 10 o 'clock start?
Do you have an idea how long we might be, Mr. Ward, in cross?
Roughly.
I would say in the order of an hour and a half.
Ms. Curtis?
I was just going to suggest perhaps starting at 9 .30 on Tuesday,
simply because I know there were a couple of members of the public
who were going to come on Tuesday morning,
so it might just provide a bit more time.
Sorry, 9 .30?
9 .30 on Tuesday rather than 10 start time.
Sorry, that's not an estimate of time.
But to make it easier for, sorry, I'm not underst -
Just to accommodate them, to provide extra time
so that we're not cutting too much into time for evidence
was the only suggestion.
No, they're interested parties, third parties.
Because we need to hear the—we need to hear the interested parties first, don't we?
Yes, I mustn't forget that.
I'm relaxed.
I'll be—I'll be travelling up on Monday afternoon, most likely.
So everyone else content with 9 .30?
Yes?
Let's do 9 .30 then.
Mr. Ward?
No, happy with 9 .30.
I mean, I can give a better—a more accurate time estimate on the morning of, but it may
be a bit more than an hour and a half.
All I—all I'm—the reason I'm asking is I'm wondering, we end up with a relatively
short day on Monday.
If we start at 9 .30, we might finish—
Tuesday.
Sorry, Tuesday.
This is what happens when you do these for weeks on end.
If we start at 9 .30 on Tuesday, we might be finished early afternoon.
I'm wondering, is it possible to have the conversation about conditions and obligations on Tuesday,
make the best use of our time?
And then all we've got to do on Thursday is the site visit, which we can do in the afternoon,
and then closings on Friday.
I just suggest that's all.
So yes, if we've made that progress, I don't see why we wouldn't use the time.
The only requirement is that we've drafted conditions, they've been with the other side
now for about a week, and I haven't heard anything back.
That's the only problem with that, sir.
So if they can confirm absolutely that they'll get something to me by today, and we can have
our Zoom meeting on Monday to die as and cross T's, then the answer to that is yes, sir.
I don't think there's a problem.
Sorry, Mr Keeley.
I don't think there'll be an issue with conditions.
I am not so sure about section 106 because I'm just taking instruction about where that's reached.
But there's nothing wrong with doing the conditions and then doing the section 106 at separate time as well, if that's what I'm saying.
Sorry.
Yes, I was just going to update you on the 106 and maybe my friend's got more recent instructions.
And so this morning, the appellant's list
has helpfully sent three travelling draughts
as to where they are.
So they will hopefully be with you.
They're not final, but they are significantly more advanced
than the previous versions with numerical figures
to give you an idea of what's what.
They should be with you soon.
Yeah, it was about quarter to 11 this morning,
the email I've seen.
Cheque the inbox.
No, no, fair enough.
And the other related matter is that the council are in the process of producing
CIL compliance statements to go with and justify the contributions etc. The
intention is that for the main site a draught CIL compliance statement will go
today. I don't think it's gone yet. And that draught may move on a bit, but the intention
is it's very advanced, and so it should hopefully give you a pretty good idea of, you know,
the justifications, et cetera, and if there's a revised draught on Monday or Tuesday, we'll
get it to you ASAP. I'm in consent with that. I mean, what we
could do is, it seems to me, is we could deal with conditions on Tuesday, and we could deal
with obligations when we start on Friday.
I'm not expecting them to take a whole load of time
if there's discussions going on in the background.
And then we could do the site visit
on the Thursday afternoon.
Does that sound reasonable?
Yes, I'm just thinking, I don't know whether
Ms. Curtis gave a time estimate for cross,
but assuming two hours for the council's cross -examination, assuming if there's
going to be further chief it wouldn't be particularly long because it will be
limited to whatever's come in at the weekend. So there's two and a small amount.
Yes I would say a relatively short amount. I suppose the only thing I'm worried about
is I'm not entirely sure how many members of the public are expecting to speak on Tuesday morning.
So that's why I made the suggestion of 9 .30.
Yeah, I'm still expecting we'd have the time.
In a normal inquiry sitting day, I
would have thought we should be able to get
through cross re -examination.
The third party's under discussion about conditions.
So long as I've had the opportunity
to have a look at them before.
So the question is whether, if necessary,
you'd be prepared to sit a bit later on Tuesday,
so that if there were more than expected members of the public arriving then
given estimates two hours say from the council three hour of cross possibly a
little bit more of chief I mean entirely matter for you about the start time well
Let's start at 9 .30.
I'm happy with that.
And I'm going to suggest that we work
towards having the discussion on conditions on Tuesday.
And if there's an issue, then we can deal with it then.
But it would assist me greatly if I can
have a look at them on Monday.
So would it help to give you the draught?
Or would you rather wait till the final version?
Depends how much they change, really.
I'm quite happy to have a draught.
I'm expecting a lot of change but I don't know.
Perhaps there could be an indication.
I don't think there is.
If I've got those on Monday, that's great because I can have a look at them.
I think if I've had a look at them beforehand, it just makes the conversation a whole lot
easier.
What I've prepared, sir, is the normal full draught of all the conditions separately, but
I put them in a table so you've got the conditions for each of the three main planning things,
so you can see where they're the same.
So it saves going through everything three times because something like 90 % or 85 % of
the conditions are the same.
So I thought that would help you in that process.
It would because it's your business.
Yeah.
Good.
In which case then I'm going to adjourn for the weekend.
Thank you.
We've got through a lot this week and I'm grateful for that.
So we'll resume at 9 .30 at the Town Hall.
Are we in the Council Chamber or?
We're in the Council Chamber, OK.
So that's where we are on Tuesday, everyone.
Council Chamber, 9 .30.
OK? Thank you.
I hope everyone has a nice weekend.
Thank you.