Truman's Public Inquiry AM - Tuesday 28 October 2025, 9:30am

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Tuesday, 28th 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.

in the intervening period since we parted on Friday.

First thing, they're not in any order of,

I think they're in order of receipt.

I did see some SIL compliance statements from the council,

for which I'm very grateful.

I've read through those, they're very useful.

Make reporting to the Secretary of State

an awful lot easier, so I'm grateful.

I was asked by the office about a late, late representation

that had been received from Conserve Connect News.

I took that in simply because the inquiry is still running.

There's time for it to be addressed.

I had no idea what was in it before it was.

I agreed to take it in, but I have.

I have two sides.

I think it's been circulated.

Everyone will have seen it.

and I hope there's nothing in there, Mr. Parkinson,

that raises any issues.

It's easier for me to report on these things

rather than put them in the late reps folder,

not having seen them because then I don't know

whether the Secretary of State is gonna have to go around

to you all and it's easier if I deal with it.

So there we are.

Conditions, I had a look briefly at those this morning

in advance of our discussion later on.

and see anything particularly,

how could I put it, there's nothing in there I think

that we'll need to spend an awful lot of time debating,

but there are a few things we'll need to go through

later on and thanks for the way it's been formatted,

helpful, deal with them appeal by appeal, yes.

I think first of all today there were a number

of third parties that we were gonna hear from

before we come back to Mr. Marginson.

I've got that right I think.

Ms. Curtis?

Yes, that's correct. I think Mr. Ball, who's already here, and then I think about five

women from the local community. Oh, and Stephen Watts, who's behind us. And there was one

speaker who had tried to join remotely at the public information session but wasn't

able to, and I think it's not possible to do remote attendance here, but I think we

do have a copy of her statement that we can either submit in writing or can be read out,

Whichever suits. I mean, I don't place any...

It doesn't need to be read out.

If it's taken and in writing, it has the same amount of substance

and the same amount of standing as if it's read out, but I'll leave that with you,

Miss Curtis. Does anyone have anything else they need to

do with Mr. Warg?

I learned a friend, Mr. Harris, indicated that some data centre decision letters should

be before you and therefore the Secretary of State.

We've assembled four of them.

I don't know whether any have been added to those.

No.

So, no, we've seen the list and they're exactly the same decisions we wanted to put in, so

There's nothing more.

And I don't know if they made their way.

They're going.

I'm sorry.

That's not what I was thinking.

OK.

They should, at any minute now, emerge as inquiry documents.

That's what I would say.

They have found their way into my inbox.

I'd just forgotten about those.

I hadn't opened them, so I haven't looked at them.

But I'm aware of a couple of them, at least.

So the only other thing is I seem

to have lost hearing in my left ear, which

I hope is a temporary thing.

But I'm surviving on my right.

Forgive me if I need anything repeated.

That's okay.

Ms Curtis, did you have anything?

No, nothing further for me, sir.

Mr Parkinson?

Sir, no, that's everything from us.

In which case, if you could introduce yourself to the inquiry and see what you have to say.

Let's go.

Thank you.

I'm Michael Ball.

Michael Ball, I've got one copy of what I'm going to say,

which I'll give to you.

I'm sorry, I haven't got more.

I'll take it and then I'll get with them.

So I'm Michael Ball.

I don't live anywhere near here, I live in Lambeth,

But I have come representing Just Space.

Just Space is an organisation network of community

organisations.

It's been going for about 20 years.

Community organisations follow the London Plan.

And there's about 80 organisations involved in it.

I have not been part of the Rule 6 party.

I've spoken to them just before the inquiry started,

after the proofs were exchanged about how to present evidence,

but I haven't had anything to do with their evidence

or their case.

I have been a Rule 6 party on a number of occasions

in a number of cases.

I've been an advocate and I've been a witness in those cases.

And a number of those cases have turned on daylight,

and I'm going to be talking about daylight today.

That's what I want to bring up.

I'm not a daylight expert, but I have

secured the services of the BRE on three occasions

for three of these inquiries. One of them was called in, one was an appeal, and two,

sorry, the other two were appeals. I'll refer to those cases. Now I'm aware that in the

statement of common ground, it says that, and I'm just going to, sorry, I'm going to

get my paper up, the statement of common ground, but it says that there is, daylight is not

an issue between the parties. It is not an issue at 6 .30 but it also says there is a

6 .30 in the State of Common Ground says,

6 .30 says there are significant failures

assessed against both daylight distribution

and vertical sky component metrics for respective rooms

and windows within the bottom three storeys

of the social rent home provision,

including moderate and major adverse daylight distribution

failures to south -facing rooms.

The market and intermediate unit homes generally benefit

from better daylight.

Mona Burrow Townhamlets have not objected to the scheme

on this basis, and it says on the 631,

the following paragraph,

it is agreed that the daylight and sunlight impact

of the proposed development on neighbouring properties

is acceptable.

and the first of the committee reports.

First of all, this is a very similar situation

to other situations I've been in,

such as the Albert Embankment case,

which I've cited.

This is 8 Albert Embankment.

It was a called -in inquiry in 2021,

decided by the Secretary of State.

It was a similar scale of scheme,

400 in homes, 450 homes, hotel,

10 ,000 square metres of office,

new fire station, museum.

But the impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents

by way of daylight proved to be one of the issues

which the inspector and the secretary of state agreed was a reason for refusal, even though

both parties, the local authority and the appellant, had agreed that it wasn't.

So I'll come back to that. Just to go through the development plan and guidance just to

set out why this is so important. London Plan D6, Housing Quality and Standards, says that

The design and development should provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to new and

surrounding housing that is appropriate for its context whilst avoiding overheating, minimising

over shadowing and maximising the usability of outside amenity space.

The housing design standards LPG 2023 which is guidance for the interpretation of the

London Plan.

At A1 .8 it says particular consideration should be given to the impact of new development

on the level of daylight and sunlight received by existing residents in surrounding homes

and on existing public green space.

And at B9 .5 it says maximise the quality and availability of daylight and sunlight in communal

outside spaces, particularly in winter.

It's particularly important that spaces designed for frequent use, including sitting and play

spaces receive direct sunlight through the day,

particularly at times they are most likely to be used.

The town hamlets local plan has policy D.

Point DH8 amenity and one C and D refer to that.

I won't quote those, but they're similar

to the London plan they follow from the London plan.

The important thing about, well actually I should do a quote from the local plan, is that it refers specifically to the BRE guidance,

which is unsurprising because this is standard guidance for daylight, but it is specifically referenced in the local plan to BRE guidance.

It actually refers to the previous guidance, which is in 2011.

That has been superseded by guidance that was put out in 2021, I think.

2022.

But the text says the most current guidance.

The BRE guidance 22 is the most current guidance.

I don't know if this is in the core documents, the BRE guidance.

So, in fact, I haven't referred to most of the core documents because I haven't known the numbers.

Apologies for that.

The BRE guidance at 2 .1 .21 has a summary that essentially at least 20 % of vertical site component

and conventional window design will usually give reasonable results.

So this is reasonable results inside a room

that with a normal scale of window

and other things being equal,

so not other obstructions,

then we give a 27 % VSC would give reasonable results.

Between 15 % and 27%,

special measures like larger windows

and changes to room layout

are usually needed to provide adequate daylight.

This is for new buildings,

should be designed for this in mind.

And between 5 and 15 % VSC is very difficult to provide adequate daylight unless very large windows are used.

And less than 5 % is often impossible.

So that's four new buildings.

For existing buildings, the guidelines are intended for use for rooms in adjoining dwellings where daylight is required,

including living rooms, kitchens and bedrooms. This is 2 .2 .2.

Their advisory, it says at 2 .2 .3, numerical values are purely advisory.

You have to consider whether the existing building is itself a good neighbour,

standing a reasonable distance from the boundary

and taking no more than its fair share of life, for example.

At 2 .27, it says if VSC is greater than 27%,

then enough skylight should still be reaching the window of the existing building.

this value of VSC typically supplies enough daylight to a standard room.

Any reduction below this level should be kept to a minimum.

If the VSC with a new development in place is both less than 27 %

and less than 0 .8 times its former value,

occupants of the existing building will notice the reduction

in the amount of skylight the area lit by the window is likely to appear gloomier

and electric lighting will be needed more of the time.

2 .10 talks about room layouts, where room layouts are known,

Bedrooms should be analysed, but they are less important than living rooms and kitchens.

At 2 .12 it says the guidelines above need to be applied sensibly and flexibly.

2 .13 it talks about existing windows with balconies above them typically receive less daylight.

And at 2 .223, there is a summary of the position that essentially VFC measures the centre of the window.

Shouldn't be less than 27%, or if it is and it's less than 0 .80 times its former value after the development would be in place,

then that is going to be noticeable and is going to have an impact.

There is a reference to alternative targets at 1 .6 in the introduction about using alternative

targets, for example, in an area with lots of tall buildings or a historic city centre,

such as the shambles in York or something, the daylight would be very difficult to get

in in a place like that.

But there are, as far as I can see, there's no alternative targets proposed by the appellant

in this case and there's no references that I can find in the studies,

or the environmental study.

There are also other measures for daylight,

no skyline, no probable sunlight hours,

but I won't talk about those, I just want to concentrate on the BSC.

But I also want to raise a flag up in the BRE guidance,

the sunlight for gardens at 3 .3 .17, there is a summary.

It is recommended that for it to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year,

at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21st March.

If as a result of new development an existing garden or amenity area does not meet the above,

and the area that can receive two hours of sunlight on 21st March is less than 0 .8 times its former value,

and then the loss of sunlight would like to be noticeable, etc.

So, does the developer agree with the BRE guidelines approach?

Yes, in the environmental statement he says quite clearly,

it says quite clearly, so this is one core document number,

I do have CDA 33 at 9 .1 .3.

It says they have been accessed by reference to relevant criteria

set out in the BRE guidelines.

And again, there's no reference to alternative targets.

The environmental statement at 9 .4 .42

states that the BRE guidelines are predicated

upon a suburban environment based

upon minimum VSC values being based upon construction

angles at 25 degrees.

This claim is peppered throughout the environment statement, for example, at 9 .6 .6 that the

IRE guidelines are based on a suburban environment.

Now this is not the case.

First of all, I refer to the inspectors report for 8 Albert Embankment at...

So just give the number for that,

A type of debatement cases.

It's at N5660 V20 325 4203.

It's a case I'm well familiar with.

I've had it put in front of me several times.

So yeah, I know that one.

Thank you.

Well, in that case, Dr. Littlefair,

who actually wrote the BRE guidelines.

For the first ones, he also wrote the update

with three others from the BRE.

He was a witness.

He was the rural six -party witness on daylight.

And the inspector concluded, in his conclusions,

as Dr. Littlefair made clear, it is not correct

to say that the calculations of this target

are based on a suburban context.

They are based on having an acceptable amount of daylight

for the function of residential accommodation

and not to have this level of light

has consequences for people's health and well -being.

And I would also add that in the High Court's judgement

in the Rainboud case, there is a quote.

So this is the Rainboud case's 2018 EWHC 657.

Paragraph 112.

Quote, there is in fact nothing in the BRE guide

that states that this value in the VSC guidelines

is derivative from a suburban development,

or that indicates that its guidelines are only applicable

to developments outside an inner city urban environment.

Now, turning to the daylight in the new flats,

the officer's report...

Which I want to try to find...

Yes. So the officers report to committee that

partially recommended approval. At 7 .312 it refers to the BRE guidelines. Now at 7 .317

It raises concerns.

There is a concern regarding the daylight outcomes for 23 of the living kitchen diners

in the market and intermediate units.

These rooms are open plan and they have kitchens at the back of the space.

So there's some concern there.

The next one, the next paragraph, there's more concerns about the affordable units.

The proposed social rent homes would be at first, second and third floor levels, a three -bedroom

unit and a four -bedroom unit on each floor.

It is noted that while overall a majority of the proposed units would meet the BRE daylight levels at first and second floor,

the majority of habitable rooms in the social rent flats would fail to meet the recommended BRE daylight standards.

At first floor level only one of the 11 habitable rooms would pass the daylight test.

At second floor level only three of 11 habitable rooms would pass the daylight test.

That's 19 fail out of 44.

And

the following paragraph

At the end it says,

the relationship between the levels of daylight

and the scale of the buildings opposite

is indicated by the significant improvement of daylight levels

as one moves up the building.

And at 7 .320, it says that the effect

on the first and second floor social rent homes is disappointing.

This is a factor in the assessment of the scheme

and in the weight given to the new homes

in the planning balance.

Now, when you come to the planning balance in this document,

at 7 .544 and 7 .546,

public benefits include the provision of 44 new homes,

including 36 affordable housing, quite habitable room,

with a focus on family -sized affordable rented units.

There's no reference to disappointing compromised daylight

in the new affordable homes, in the planning balance done

by the officers, in the officers report.

So that seems to have slipped.

So in their first analysis they recognised they were disappointing

and they should be put in the planning balance,

then they're not in the planning balance.

And it's perhaps not surprising that they have decided

that this isn't an issue that they're concerned about,

given that situation.

But I register that disappointment.

Just to be clear, is your suggestion that

because of the situation in terms of day lighting,

that less weight should be attached

to the provision of those dwellings

because they don't meet the BRE standards?

Of the new dwellings, yes.

Right, I understand.

That's helpful.

Yes, yes, oh yes, sorry, to be clear about.

Less weight, exactly.

This is an issue of weight, and that's

what I'm really, really coming to.

I'm not suggesting that this scheme should be refused

on the issues of daylight, but I'm

suggesting that there needs to be considered

weighting of the daylight problems with this scheme.

So when it comes to the new affordable housing,

the daylight is concerning and disappointing,

as the officers wrote. I want to turn to overshadowing on Allen Gardens, the importance of Allen

Gardens. It's the only green public park in this whole area, south of the railway line.

There's some green on the other side of the railway line, some distance away. But this

is the only green public park in this whole area. And I mean, I've actually known it for

decades when I came here frequently to Brick Lane over decades it was the only

place to go I would come here for you know often for socialising and the

green space was the only green space and it's very noticeable and it has a play

area for children teenagers and it's got a city farm attached to it and there's

an open -place strategy to Hamlet's house and at 2 .8 they sit in the open

Space Strategy, they say, as at 2016 -17, which is, I think,

when they did it, there was a total of 0 .89 hectares

per 1 ,000 residents to our hamlets.

This is less than the local open space standard

at 1 .2 hectares per 1 ,000 residents.

And if you go to figure 48 in the open space strategy,

it shows the Spitalfields and Bangalotown Ward

is the second most efficient ward in town

that's for access to open space with a ratio of 0 .3 hectares

per thousand residents, so it's three times lower

than across the borough.

And this is a borough that's probably the least,

got the least provision of open space in London.

I say probably because I haven't checked that fact,

but I cannot believe there is another

borough that has such a poor provision of open space.

And at 4 .4, this is about projections into the future,

which is what the open space strategy is set for.

Population projections show

that more wards will have more pronounced open space

deficiencies by 2031.

Only two wards, Myelin and Bow East, long way away,

are projected to have 1 .2 hectares per thousand residents,

which is at our Hamlet Stanley.

Now, I want to look at the specific overshadowing analysis,

which is...

I've got on my computer that's now gone quiet.

So this is part 4 of...

So it's appendix 5 of the environmental statement.

And it's the, all of the, there's a series of appendices

about data and about overshadowing.

And part four, this is looking at the 21st of December.

The requirement of the BRE is to look at the 21st of March.

at the equinox. But they have done, quite rightly, a study of what it's like in the

21st of December at the worst time and what it's like the 21st of June in the best time

of the year. And the first thing to notice in this, I'm trying to get it up now, I can't

shadows of going across Allen on the 21st of December go way beyond the drawing. So

there's a shadow and it just is cut off by the fact that the drawing doesn't go any further.

So the analysis of the shadow is not complete. There isn't a full extent of the shadow on

of Allen Gardens. It's showing the southern half of Allen Gardens and it's showing the

shadow as covering that, but the shadow clearly extends beyond and it's not clear how far

it goes. And in that analysis on the 21st of December, it shows permanent overshadowing

of a large part of the western end of Allen Gardens. So in fact all of that part of Allen

to the north, in other words, of the development site,

directly to the north, is in shadow,

permanent shadow throughout the winter.

And I refer back to that

GLA planning guidance B9 .5,

which I quoted earlier, maximise the quality and availability of daylight and sunlight

in communal outside spaces, particularly in winter. It's particularly

important that spaces designed for frequent use, including sitting in place spaces, receive direct

sunlight through the day, particularly at times they're most likely to be used. So this currently

has direct sunlight during the winter and it would not have direct sunlight through over a large

portion of Allen Gardens during the winter. I also looked for analysis of the shadowing in the spaces

on the site itself and the open spaces that are created there.

But I couldn't find any.

So that might be my mistake.

I don't know.

But I would be interested to see.

I couldn't find them in any of the five appendices.

I'd be interested to see what the overshadowing is

for those sites and therefore the amenities they bring.

And I suggest that you have a look at that, sir.

Turning to the, I think, perhaps the most critical issue,

daylight in existing properties.

Now the environmental statement analysis states they don't have access to any adjoining properties

to ascertain the rooms and the layout.

So the rooms and layout are used and not always known.

They've made guesses and I'm sure that quite often those guesses are right, but that has

to be taken into account.

And the first thing to notice is that existing daylight is surprisingly good given the extremely

dense area.

9 .6 .4, it says that 45 % of the total number

of assessed windows surrounding the master plan site

benefit from at least 27 % VSC.

And at 9 .6 .5 it says this falls to 39 .5 %

following construction of the Woodsea Street consent.

And I was surprised at that figure.

You go walking around those streets,

you don't think that 45 % of the windows there

would get to 27 % VSC, but they do.

Now, I'm going to go through some of these key sites.

At 20 Calvin Street, at 9 .8 .17 in the ES, it concludes,

there is likely to be a direct permanent long -term adverse effect,

which, based on their level of change, is considered moderate adverse.

Now, I just want to be clear on what moderate means.

All daylight loss over 20 % is significant and noticeable,

according to the BRE guidance.

And the room would appear more gloomy in that circumstance.

This is considered a minor adverse if it's between 20 and 30 percent loss.

So you would notice it, but it would be minor.

It's then called a moderate adverse if between 30 and 40 percent loss

and a major aversive above 40 percent.

So it doesn't mean that it's moderate to the sort of normal person's language.

which it means that it's just in this way of trying to put some sort of framework around these figures.

Appendix D2 of the environmental statement volume 1, scenario 1,

there's seven scenarios but they discount most of them,

they only look at scenario 1 and 2A and B because of the existing commission.

Scenario 1 shows eight windows which will be left between 12 and 20 percent VSC with

losses of 20 percent to 31 percent on existing values.

And table 9 .15 in the environmental statement.

Table 9 .15, which is on...

Actually, I can't see any page numbers here.

Just after 9 .8 .5 paragraphs.

This is the no skyline summary.

It says that ten ten rooms meet the bi re guidelines and

ten don't

Three with a large loss equals this this time. I am major loss to in a medium loss of five of the small loss

So that's half the rooms would be over 20 % beyond the bi re guidelines

And it notes on this corner the development scheme builds right to the boundary of the site

at 9 .8 .18.

At 9 .8 .18 it says,

this is the effect that needs to be understood in context.

The proposed scheme builds to the actual perimeter

of the development site.

So they could have set back and had less of an effect,

but they haven't.

And this is the effect.

Half of the homes in 20 Calvin Street

are going to have significant impact on their daylight.

At 12 to 14 Calvin Street there are just isolated losses.

There is one over for 60 % VSC, but it's a good example of why these things are so confusing

because that was actually very small.

It's already very low.

This thing's got 5 % VSC and it loses 60 % of that.

It goes down to 2 % VSC, but it's terrible as it is.

Reduced to something worse.

But the one I really ask you, sir, to be concerned about is McLoshland House,

which is a slab of social housing.

It's set back, considerably set back, behind open space and private gardens.

It's got a lot of trees in that open space as well, and that obviously has an impact on the existing daylight.

And it also has balconies over some of the windows.

Yet 44 % of the windows fail the VRE guidelines under Scenario 2A.

And I've looked at the actual data, which is in the Appendix D2,

the data spreadsheets, Part 1 and Part 2.

The appeal scheme, 132 of the...

with the appeal scheme 132 of the 271 windows of the Gloshen House would fail the BRE guidelines.

120 of the 271 windows are left with daylight under 15 % VSC, which is pretty gloomy, according

to the IRE guidelines.

And I give one example.

I'll set it on page 14 of the data spreadsheet.

So it's data spreadsheets part two.

This is the appendix two of the ES volume one, CDA 33.

and you can find every page is littered with these failures.

But just to give an example, so R4 782,

these are the five windows around an assumed living room,

which currently have a ratio between 4 .8 % on one window,

otherwise 10%, 17%, 15%, and 21 % VOC at the moment.

they go down to 16, 13, 10 and 7, which is basement miserable at best.

And these are losses of 20 to 30%.

So it's just in one example of one room on page 14, R4, 782.

And there are lots and lots of them if you care to look at the spreadsheet.

The environmental statement blames the balconies and the trees.

It says this is a key reason why this is so bad.

But the losses are very widespread.

Not simply where the balconies are.

The balconies are not over about half of the windows.

And sometimes the losses are as high as 63 %

and the existing daylight, as I said earlier, is really not so bad.

Now, what is this block?

It's some sort of social housing block, as far as I can ascertain.

And I note that in the 8 -Albany Bankment,

the inspectors report says at 756...

The applicant points out that it's not hard to identify locations in London

where historic residential development does not meet the BRE guidelines

including mansion blocks and terraces in Westminster.

Such developments are often considered highly desirable

with no suggestion that living conditions are unacceptable.

It is likely that people will make a trade -off between the benefits of living

in a central metropolitan location and a better sunlight and daylight standards

that might be expected in lower density outer areas.

7 .57 paragraph straight away.

In my view, there is a danger in placing too much reliance on such comparisons.

Although it is close to the heart of London, some of the affected accommodation around the appeal site houses families with vulnerabilities

who have little choice about where they live. Evidence that links daylight levels with human health, including mental health and disease resistance,

was referred to by Lambeth Village as the Rule 6 party and is more than anecdotal.

Material reductions in daylight should not be set aside lightly.

And I would say those paragraphs apply to the Gloucester House.

People do not choose to go there. They are allocated those flats.

The Secretary of State concurs with the Inspector at paragraph 26 of the decision letter.

It says the Secretary of State has considered the Inspector's analysis, including those paragraphs,

of the accessibility of daylight effects for the reasons given there.

He agrees with the inspectors conclusions at 759

that the proposal would result in some significant

in individual reductions in daylight levels

to a limited number of properties.

He agrees that those reductions at Witgiff House

and to Witgiff Street,

and these are the two affordable housing blocks

next to that particular proposal,

would result in reductions greater

than building regulations establishment guidelines,

in some cases substantially so,

and residents at Witgiff House and to Witgiff Street

would experience an unacceptable increase in gloominess.

Accordingly, like the inspector, he attaches very significant weight to the harm to the occupiers of these two properties.

So the same McLachlan House is a block of affordable housing. The tenants do not choose to live here.

They cannot trade off benefits of living here against very gloomy living conditions.

Material reductions in daylight should not be set aside lightly. Significant weight should be attached to the harm caused to the occupiers of this building.

The environmental statement comes to the judgement about the impact on the Gloshen House

that, quote, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long -term, adverse effect

which, based on the level of change, is considered to be moderate adverse.

Which doesn't mean, as I said earlier, it doesn't mean it's moderate,

it means that on the scale of adversity between negligible impact and terrible impact,

this is in the middle, between negligible and terrible.

The environmental statement comes to the same conclusion of moderate adverse,

and it uses all the terms, direct, permanent, long -term adverse effect,

about Stuttle House, which is the next door block, at 9 .8 .48,

at 1 to 24 Field House, at 31 Buxton Street, at 9 .8 .42,

at 20 Calvin Street, at 9 .8 .17, and at 64 to 66 Hansberry Street,

All are moderate adverse

When it comes to 35 wood seer Street the conclusion is worse it was major adverse

And that's a nine point eight point eighty one of the environmental statement and similarly major adverse at 63 Hanbury Street

There are also minor

Adverses that is they fail the PRE by generating losses up to 30 % of existing daylight and below

22 .5 % of ESC and properties at Bowden house 55 to 59 Hanbury Street 65 Hanbury Street

the rear of 154 Brick Lane and 12 to 14 Calvin Street.

This is a very substantial number of properties affected.

Many of these may be affordable housing of some kind

with residents who don't choose to live there,

but are allocated to live there.

Many more properties are affected adversely

by the development than the 44 new properties

which would be created where the appeal granted.

So yes, they've got 44 new flats,

some of which have to have daylight,

which is disappointing.

but the daylight on a really large and much larger number of flats,

I don't know what the number is because I haven't counted them,

but they are a much larger number, would be considerable.

So, a judgement has to be made, are the harms acceptable?

If you consider they're not, then this could be a reason for refusal,

but if you were to judge that these harms are acceptable,

that is not a reason to refuse the scheme,

then you need to weigh in the planning balance

against the appeal scheme the harm it would cause numerous existing families in their dwellings

as well as the impact of the shadowing of a significant park of the desperately needed

piece of green park land as well as the failure of 19 of the 44 habitable rooms in the appeal

scheme affordable homes which failed the vre guidelines for new friends now i recognise this

leaves you in a difficult position since there's no daylight expert witnesses presented by any

party.

The Rule 6 party may well have done.

Had I been aware of this a long time ago,

I would have advised them to do so.

But they obviously have very limited resources,

and they've decided not to.

So I don't know how you deal with this,

but that's as much as I can help.

And I'm sorry to bring it to you like this.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Ball.

Given the nature of what's just been put in front of the inquiry, Mr. Puffington, how do you propose dealing with that?

Do you wish to ask questions?

I think from our point of view there's a lot of information there to absorb.

If we could get a copy of what's been read, it may be that we can deal with it in closing,

but it might also be the case that we need to put in a brief note

responding to some of the more technical aspects of that.

I think that would probably be more helpful than asking questions.

Yes, I'm content with that.

Mr Ball, is there anything else?

No, thank you very much, sir.

Thank you.

I will send it immediately to Pins.

Alison can send it around. That would be very helpful.

Thank you very much, Mr. Paul.

So just before we move on to the next speaker, a couple of things.

Firstly, we have a translator present in the room, should that be necessary, just to point that out.

Secondly, I understand that there are a few people who wish to speak remotely in support of the scheme who aren't able to log on.

So if that could be worked out behind the scenes,

that would be appreciated.

I think what I was told earlier, Mr. Parkinson,

was it's not actually possible for people

to join us remotely here.

So yeah, there's a number of people

who wanted to speak this morning who wanted to do it that way,

but can't.

So I think we're struggling with that.

I don't know what we can really do about it.

So it might be that they can put something in writing

and submit it that way.

I'm happy to accept anything in writing, yes.

As I said earlier, just because it's spoken.

I hadn't appreciated that yet.

Thank you.

Mr. Wald.

That is the position as I understand it.

Well, we'll just have to muddle our way through with that

with writing, I think.

Who would like to speak next?

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rukia Ahmed and I live in Taheemlitz for 44 years. I have raised six

beautiful children, four young boys and two girls. Alhamdulillah, you know, it's been

I'm a young mum. Life is a goal that we all stand up and we carry on.

No matter what struggles, whatever, you just keep on going.

And one of the child is autistic child, she's 16. Next month she goes to Swanly.

At the moment there is a lot of struggle because of the environment I'm in.

My home is just not the right.

My house is infested with mould and mice and even has asbestos. I've been living in this

condition for two months. Several people in the house have asthma and I have been sterling

up for my rights continuously. I've stayed strong and fighted.

You know, I am struggling with fibromyalgia, diabetes and high blood pressure and we have

one toilet for five of us and the house is too small. When my daughter has outbursts

of her overwhelming autistic situation, there's no space and she doesn't feel safe. So she

locks herself in the toilet. I've lived in Thai hamlets all my life. I love it. It's

really nice. But I often feel a lot of people have been deprived from certain areas and

going to Brooklyn brings me childhood memories. And growing up feeling safe where you belong

is the main important part of a human being as we have adapted from immigrant to here.

So I think we always should have a panel or ask for opinion of the residents of Tower

Hamlets before we make such a huge decision because our whole life has been built here.

We live in Brick Lane, we live in Tower Hamlets, the community knows us as a person, as a resident,

as a mother. And a lot is unheard of and seen. Child services, social services and autism

and ADHD. You know, we go out and the schools say, oh, mum's not well. We go to the accounts

and they say, oh, it's a long waiting list. You know, we go to the GP and they say, oh,

we're busy. And we've been kept silent, silent, silent till today and I will speak. Because

I think there's a lot of things bubbling, bubbling in everyone's life and we're not

heard. The money is spent elsewhere in the wrong places. When the money needs to be spent

in the right places, where's the residents, where's the borough, we go to ideas store,

we ask for help. There's certain places that we go and we get help. But certain places

it's busy, overwhelming and the funding is going the wrong direction. Thank you very

much for listening. I hope you all understand.

I do. And thank you.

Thank you for giving me time to speak today.

I couldn't come last Tuesday because of sudden family illness.

I'll try and be brief, even though in other circumstances there's lots to say.

I'm a poet.

I've lived in Shadwell, just off Cable Street, for 50 years.

And I've worked in and around Brick Lane

for much of that period of time.

I've probably walked up and down,

across and through Brick Lane over 10 ,000 times.

That's my blood and my breath.

in many ways.

It's also probably just worth saying

in the context of where we are here now,

which I wouldn't say otherwise.

I'm a local poet, but I'm also nationally

and internationally known as a poet,

and I've written a lot about Brick Lane.

And it's true to say that some people around the world

know about Brick Lane through my poetry.

I would not usually say that, but in the context of this gathering, it may be relevant.

And finally, in terms of relevancy, I've worked very closely with British Bangladeshi poets

and musicians over the past 50 years.

I also have worked on the Yiddish heritage and legacy of Whitechapel and indeed co -translated

a book by the great Yiddish poet Abram Stensel who lived on the council estate that's about

three minutes walk from Rick Lane.

He lived there for about 30 years.

I don't know what he would be thinking and saying, were he able to be here today?

As a poet, my concerns are with language, memory, place, space,

and landscape in the context of this inquiry

of urban landscape.

I think I share at least three of those, the urban landscape,

place, and space with architects,

and indeed to some extent with legal procedures.

I was very concerned on the first day,

the opening Tuesday, at some of the language being used.

I remember terms like campus, enclosed square,

last piece of the jigsaw, washing through,

referring to cultural movement.

If I just take one example because there's not time for more, if I look at the idea of

enclosed square and Allen Gardens, the point was made that the building on the south side

of Buxton Street, which I think is proposed six or eight storeys, would give Allen Gardens

is more the character of a central London square.

Now central London and wider London

has many extraordinary beautiful squares

that are very important to the culture of London.

But Allen Gardens is a very different space,

not only because it's geographical locality.

It's in and part of the East End.

But it's always also always been an unenclosed space.

That's its character, that's its magic, and that's its breath.

It's always allowed people to move through it.

And for instance, it's never been locked at night,

as many central London squares are.

And in a way, it's always offered a conduit.

When the old Easton London Line station

used to be on the northwestern corner of Allen Gardens,

as people would come out from the station

across either into Brick Lane or across Allen Gardens.

There's also a line from Cheshire Street

north of the railway across a bridge.

That bridge has been celebrated by many writers

over the years through what is now

the sort of astonishing graffiti alleyway

and then into Allen Gardens.

and the other boundary, if you want to call it,

is the city farm, which again, is not an enclosure.

There is open, free access.

So the sense of saying that the height of the building

proposed on Buxton Street

gave the advantage of enclosure

is both inappropriate and shows an ignorance

of the nature of our gardens.

I found many such inappropriatenesses

and, to be honest, ignorancees in some of the statements,

which were mathematically beautiful and legally precise

and were important in their ways,

but they were oblivious to many actual real aspects,

both of the landscape and particularly of people's lives.

Many other people have spoken eloquently of their lives

last Tuesday and people like Dr. Shafik and Saif Osmani

also spoke very eloquently of the culture.

I'm not going to repeat any of that,

but I hold it within myself and you've already heard it.

In terms of public consultation also,

I'm in a way talking about absence,

things that haven't been said, because I feel that it's important to say them.

In terms of public consultation, I'm always troubled by the ways that meetings are set up.

People are invited on whatever basis, and models which are not in the building now,

but were at the Brady Centre, are given.

because they seem to really lack an openness

and a lack of reality.

I'd like to give an example of consultation

of a Czech photographer, Marketa Lushkakova,

who left the Czech Republic in the aftermath of 1968

and came to the Brick Lane area every Sunday

for the Cheshire Street Market.

She walked around among the market traders,

among the people in the market, up and down Brick Lane

with a camera around her neck.

For about a year, without taking any image at all,

just talking, listening, being acknowledged, being known,

when she started taking images,

no one posed as there's immense posture

in the proposals and in the, to my mind,

particularly in the consultations.

Because she had bothered to listen.

She had bothered over a long period of time to listen.

That for me is consultation.

It's one person consulting,

but for me it's a sort of very beautiful,

important model of consultation.

I think I can't say a huge amount more.

I would have liked to have talked about

a Bangladeshi musician who lived on Woodseer Street.

I would have liked to have talked about

many of the British Bangladeshi poets

who I've worked with in and around Brick Lane

over the course of 50 years.

It was actually a stunning thing for me,

if I can just do one quick aside.

When we were at the Brady Centre there,

and you were sat on the opening day looking at the video,

I don't know if you remember,

you weren't sat in your main chair,

but you had come to the,

that position was precisely where, for instance,

I performed my poetry,

where some of the great poets at Bangladesh,

Jamsur Rahman, Nirmal Nandagoon,

had performed their poetry.

where many of the British Bangladeshi poets

have performed their poetry, where so many of the theatre

pieces, which have been hundreds of vibrant theatre

pieces on that precise stage, and music and dance,

that is what police means.

And although it's not quite on Brick Lane,

it is near enough to Brick Lane to be part of the wider

culture of Brick Lane.

Brick Lane is a vibrant, astonishing place.

It's a place of rich continuum of language and languages.

If you stand on Brick Lane and stop and think,

how many languages have been spoken on Brick Lane

over the course of centuries, even

in the course of the past 10 years?

I know we can't involve more than English and Siletti

and Banda while we're here.

But again, it's part of the culture.

I feel passionately about it.

I would have loved to have said more,

but maybe I'll just end with thinking about

the stream of writers who've come from Cheshire Street

across the bridge, down Brick Lane,

across our gardens into Brick Lane.

Avram Stensel, the Yiddish poet who

had to leave Nazi Germany in 1936

and lived off Brick Lane until 1983.

Rachel Lichtenstein who wrote that wonderful book

about Brit Blaine, Emmanuel Liptonoff, Ian Sinclair,

who worked in Truman's Brewery for a short while,

Gladys McGee, Shami Mazard,

wonderful contemporary British Bangladesh poet,

Milton Rachman, Salim Jones,

so many other people passionately concerned

for the language and the praise of Brit Blaine.

I just have felt throughout the hearing, the proceedings,

which I've attended when I've been able to,

but which I've listened to a lot online

when I haven't been able to.

For all the important things that have been said,

there have been almost oblivious absence

of statements, namings, and what I've just talked about.

I know it's illegal,

and a legal inquiry, but I just felt

it important to say these things,

because Brick Lane is a rich, rich culture,

and it's also a place of astonishing struggle.

I remember the first poem I wrote about Brick Lane

was in the aftermath of the murder of Al Thabali

in the late 1970s.

And I just remember thinking when

I was listening to some of the elders who spoke last Tuesday,

Alta Ali would have been, had he not been murdered,

had he continued living in Whitechapel,

he would have been of an age of those elders.

He would have had the same experiences and feelings.

and I imagine expression of those elders who you heard last Tuesday.

Thank you very much for listening. I hope I didn't take too much time.

No, not at all. I'm sorry, I didn't take a clear note of your name. I apologise.

Sorry, my name is Stephen Watts. Stephen Watts, W -O -T -S. Thank you.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, everyone.

This isn't about planning permission.

It's about who gets to shape our community and who gets left behind.

Brick Lane isn't just a place on a map.

It's a living history. Generations of migrants have built families, opened businesses and

turned this corner of London into a symbol of resilience and community. The Huguenots,

the Jewish tailors, the Bangladeshi workers, each wave of settlement has added a new chapter

to that storey. But that storey is now being rewritten and not by us. Over the last two

decades I have seen rents have soared, family businesses have closed and our streets are

slowly being transformed into something unrecognisable. The curry houses, the local shops that give

this area alive are given way to boutique coffee shops and glass offices and somehow we, the people

who made this place what it is, are being treated as if we don't belong in our own neighbourhood.

We, the local community, are not even considered in this new venture. Decisions about our housing,

our markets and our shared spaces are being made by people who have never lived a single

day of our reality. I live at All Day East and my friend lives on Old Montague Street

just off Brick Lane. Neither of us nor our neighbours have been genuinely consulted about

this development. They fly in for meetings, making pronouncements about improvement and

revitalisation, then fly out again, leaving us to live with the consequences. I know this

first hand, my own family, six adults crammed into a two bedroom house. Every day is a struggle

for space, for privacy, for dignity. There's nowhere to think, nowhere to breathe. When

one person is tired, we all feel it. When one person falls ill, everyone suffers. This

isn't about overcrowding. It's an emotional toll of feeling invisible. When you change

something, you want to enhance it, not make it worse. You want to lift people up, not

push them out. Don't the people who live here, the ones who built this community,

raised their children here and kept it alive through every challenge, deserve to be treated

like they matter, like they belong. That's the reality of gentrification.

It doesn't just change the buildings, it changes the people who can afford to exist in them.

It tells working class communities, particularly ethnic minorities, that their time here is

temporary, that their contribution is valued only in the past.

Truman Estates have appealed their planning application, but nothing has changed since

it was first rejected by Tower Hamlets Council.

The development still prioritises office spaces, retail units and luxury leisure over the needs

of local residents.

There is no evidence that the community's interests are at the heart of this rejuvenation.

Profit is the driving force.

Let's look at what they're proposing.

Among other things, the plan includes a cinema, but do we really need one?

We already have the Curzon in the All -Gay East, the Genesis in Stephanie Green, and

the Richmex at the top of Brick Lane, all within walking distance.

What we don't have are affordable homes for local families or genuine community spaces

for young people.

Why add more high -end offices and entertainment spaces when what people need is somewhere

to live, somewhere to meet, somewhere to belong?

We are a stone's throw from the city.

There is no shortage of office space.

What there is is a shortage of hope for working -class families being squeezed out of their own neighbourhoods.

Despite legal requirements under the Town and County Planning Act 1990 and the Localism

Act 2011 for meaningful consultation, residents feel ignored. The national planning policy

framework is clear. Planning should be shaped by local people with social safe sustainability

at its core. Yet Truman's proposals ignore the voices of the very people who have capped

Brick Lane alive. Between 2010 and 2020 Tower Hamlets has lost over 4 ,000 generally affordable

homes, while office space increased by 60%, much of it sitting empty. This tells you everything

about priorities. They are building for investors, not for us. I feel the divide between the

cities and the working class is stark. The elites plan, the working class have planned

for. The elites invest, the working class are displaced. The elites talk about growth

and the working class talk about survival. Yet we are the ones who make this city live.

We staff its hospitals, clean its schools, run its transports, cook its food and we are

the ones being priced out of the very spaces we sustain.

The loss of affordable housing and meaningful local workspace isn't just a planning issue,

it's a moral one.

Overcrowding, unaffordable rents and forced displacement are tearing apart the social

fabric that generations have built.

Families are pushed out to outer boroughs away from masks, schools and the networks

that give life and structure and meaning.

This isn't about nostalgia, it's about justice.

It's the right to stay, to belong, and to be recognised in this city we helped build.

Brick Lane has always been a place of struggle, and struggle produces strength.

From the Safe Brick Lane campaign to countless community meetings, people are standing up and saying,

and regeneration should mean inclusion, not eviction.

Our overcrowded homes, our family -run shops,

and our cultural landmarks aren't obstacles to progress.

They are the heart of it.

Until the power to define progress is shared,

regeneration will remain a storey written about us,

not with us, and that must change.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can I come? Sorry, may I take a note of your name?

I'm Sue Edgentuffi and I live in Allgate East. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Who would like to go next?

Good morning.

Hello.

Good morning.

My name is Valer, W -A -L -E -E. I'm sorry, but the English is not my first language, but I'll try to explain.

We are a family, five persons, three children, two adults, my husband's disability, and we have one house, one bedroom.

Sorry, one bedroom and the hall.

I'm not speak about something not important like when he wake up in the night feeling sick or can't breathe,

I have it is best to sit with him just in the kitchen.

We stay in the kitchen.

And the kitchen didn't take us together.

I will both cheer for him in the kitchen and I will stay in the bathroom fronting.

I'm not to speak about the moment.

It is a celebrate. It is something terrible.

The problem when he, the landlord, tried to venting the wall,

and my husband have asthma, he can't breathe,

so that we should go outside the house, all.

I'm coming here fine, without any problem,

but now I have asthma because of the mould.

Okay, and I have everything, I have proof.

Everything, I have medical report, I have everything.

Maybe after one year or two years,

I'll come in with my son, one of my son have asthma as well as me.

Once again, if my child bled, it's normal, they five, six and seven and eight years, if they bled in the house,

my neighbour downstairs called the police.

That's my life.

I will not speak about the study.

We haven't discussed what our books or study

or stay together.

We haven't discussed for this.

We can stay three in the hall and three in the bedroom.

And two in the bedroom, sorry.

If my husband feeling any problem in the night, if he want to stay wake up, if he want to take a breath, because sometimes he can't breath.

I want to open the door, I want fresh air for him.

We can't stay in the home because my child is sleeping, I can't open the door, I haven't space.

we should go out in the street.

I hope if I can explain my life,

but if you want to change and change the brick lane

and make it all brick lane shops,

I'd be happy, it's all right.

But before that, please give me house.

Justine.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Hello.

Good morning everyone.

My name is Councillor Sulu -Gahmed and I am proud to represent Spital Fuse and Bangor

Town Road.

Most importantly, I am a resident of Brick Lane area, the very heart of our community.

Historically, Brick Lane has been home to many communities as we all know, the Huguenots,

the Jews, and now the Bangladeshi community.

Today, this area is also a mixture of different

ethnic communities who live side by side

in peace and harmony.

Just want to share some of my experience

having been living in this area for such a long time.

My father, Shomud Ali, many of the areas elderly know him,

he was a tailor by profession choose in the early 1960s

to set up his leather garments manufacturing business

here in Brick Lane.

I later joined him and worked hard

alongside him to run the business.

He lived in King Ward House, Henry Street,

just off Brick Lane for the rest of his life

and sadly passed away in 2017 at the age of 87.

I have spent nearly 50 years of my life

here with my late parents and my siblings

and I continued to live in the community to this day.

I have six children, four of them are adults,

they're all waiting for a to -be -rehouse,

while in my house I'm already having an overcrowded issue

and they're still in the tireless waiting list

without any of them getting a flat yet.

Our community has faced great hardship,

especially in 1970s and 1980s,

even beyond, when we suffered racism from many directions, from neighbours, the police, schools,

colleges and on the streets too. But despite all of that, we stayed. We worked hard,

we contributed to the area's growth.

And we helped make Brick Lane and its surrounding area

the vibrant, diverse, and cultural place it is today.

After many struggles, the residents of Brick Lane

have built stable lives here.

our families have grown and now we deserve better housing and opportunity

to continue living side by side in peace and dignity. Looking back a few decades

many local homes lacked basic facilities. No bathroom, no kitchens and shared

toilets amongst multiple families. Yet even then we lived with hope, hope that one day

we would have decent homes to live in and that our living condition would improve. Having

contributed so much to the area, we had every reason to believe that progress would benefit

us all. But today we face a new challenge, the growing problem of overcrowding and homelessness.

Any new development in the area must take into account the needs of the local community,

especially those affected by the housing crisis. Allowing developers to build

offices, clubs or commercial spaces instead of homes will contribute to

gentrification and push residents out of the area. Such projects drives up rents

and make life life unaffordable for the very people who have lived, worked and

built their lives here for generations. We are not against the business. We are

not against any businesses. In fact, we welcome businesses. But development must

also serve the interests of the residents. Building homes is also a business and profitable

one. It is possible to meet community needs while ensuring fair returns for developers.

Finally, while I have great respect for our planning system, its purpose must also be

to protect and safeguard our communities.

That is why I urge that this proposed project be stopped and reconsidered in favour of the

who have contributed so much to this area.

After all, the developer hell has nothing to lose,

but our community have everything at stake.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

If you do have speaking notes and you're able to leave them,

that would be very useful if they can be copied

and circulated.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to go next?

Does anyone else wish to speak?

Please carry on.

Good morning.

Hello everyone.

My name is Ray Mustafa.

I live in Shir House.

I have just a small room for me and my son and my husband.

It's very overcrowded.

My husband sleep on the floor because no space for my son bed.

and the landlord blocked the living room

and used it for rent to bedroom.

There is no access to living room in this house.

And the health visitor came to my house

and sent letters to council, said,

this house not suitable for baby,

for health and cognitive behaviour like development.

And it's no space to baby play and movement.

it's not good for development.

And in my room, there is a lot of mould.

I'm try to clean the mould every time, and it came again.

And my son had pneumonia, and it's inflammation in the lung.

And he was hospitalised at hospital.

I'm very stressed in this house.

I'm very stressed.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak?

Good morning.

Hello.

Good morning. My name is Mikhail and I'm 15 years old. I've lived in Brick Lane my whole life.

This street isn't just where I live, it's who I am. It's where I've grown up, where my friends and I have played our whole lives.

I've learned about this community and my family has found belonging. But recently I've been very worried.

There's been a big development plan that's going to change everything about Brick Lane.

New buildings, new stores and big corporations are coming in.

They say it's for progress, but the truth is, it's only progress for the rich.

It's not for people like us.

One of the things that makes Brick Lane so special is how diverse and welcoming it is.

My little brother, Harith, who is autistic, loves this place.

The energy here, the people, the sounds of the market, it's what makes him feel calm

and collected.

He doesn't always find comfort in big, busy places, but here, in this neighbourhood, he

feels at home.

The street is familiar to him.

It's a place where he can walk, see his favourite shopkeepers and feel safe.

He shouldn't have to worry about the place he loves being taken away from him.

But the changes that are coming threaten that. They threaten all of us.

If new luxury businesses come in, if friends go up, if the character of Brooklyn changes,

families, lack of friends and so many others could be pushed out.

My brother's sense of security and comfort might be lost.

This street might not be a place where we can thrive anymore.

I don't want to see that happen.

This street is more than just a place to pass through.

It's a part of who we are.

The people who live here, work here and love this place should matter more than the bottom line.

Brick Lane is special because it's filled with real people, real storeys and real culture.

If we let these developments take over, we risk losing everything that matters.

We risk losing the uniqueness of this place. The artists, the local businesses, the families,

they are the heart of this community. We need to fight back to keep Brooklyn as it is, alive,

vibrant and diverse. We need to protect the things that matter. The local businesses,

the artists, the families and the history. We need to make sure that places like this

remain a safe and welcoming space for everyone, no matter their background or their ability.

So I ask everyone here today, don't let Brick Lane be changed for the few at the expense

of the many. Stand with us, stand with my brother and with all the people who call this

place a home. Together we can make sure Brick Lane stays the way it's meant to be. A place

for everyone, not just the rich. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Who else would like to speak?

Yeah, please do.

Can I just get a show of hands for anyone who still wishes to speak?

I've got two people.

Well, let's hear from you two and then we'll have a break.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you.

I need a break as well.

My name is Jahid Ahmed.

I wasn't born in Brooklyn.

I came here when I was three years old.

So I was born in Bangladesh, Silet.

I came here when I was three.

We are, we were, we are still,

seven siblings and our parents.

We lived in a three bedroom flat,

at the Maglesian House on the fourth floor.

There we were, from our balcony,

we overlooked the Truman Land area, which is still there.

Beside that, there's a little green area

called Allen Gardens.

We used to play football there when we were younger.

Sometimes the ball went over the wall into the Truman area.

And well, what did we do?

That didn't stop us.

We climbed that wall.

We shouldn't have.

It was dangerous, but we did,

because we didn't let a wall stop us

from doing what we needed to do.

Brooklyn has been a legacy.

It is a legacy and will continue to be a legacy.

The people who live around Tower Hamlets,

especially around Brooklyn, have all the same storey,

storey of being overcrowded.

Storey of the families living in a very, sometimes very hard, and residency are not fit for purpose

at that time.

We lived like that.

So our major problem is, always has been, and always continues to be unfortunately,

is overcrowding.

So at the idea of new proposal housing being built,

it's a good thing.

It's a good thing.

It would bring investment, it would bring more homes,

but when the plans, when you dig deeper into the plans

and when you look at the finer details,

you realise that it's not what you thought.

And this is why I'm here today.

is to say that please, we need more houses.

It's been going on for too long where corporations,

big businesses have put,

I'm sorry, corporations, businesses have pushed their way

in into communities.

We've seen it happen elsewhere in other communities,

But we want corporations to work with us, work with the residents, to bring benefit

to the residents and not only to big businesses.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Hi everybody.

My name is Jasper Delamothe.

I've been a Truman tenant for the past five years.

I've worked in three of their three different spaces, one on 91 Brick Lane, one on Bacon

Street and one now more in the brewery on the Draywalk kind of promenade.

I can't say how helpful it has been to have been a tenant within this kind of Truman organisation.

Simply because as a young entrepreneurial person, it's given me the opportunity to grow and to develop a business slowly,

with the support of landlords next to affordable rent in a place that harbours creativity.

And when I talk about harbouring creativity, specifically community, and there is an incredible,

incredible community of creative people working hard, building amazing small businesses in

the area. My feelings on the development themselves, they're very well considered. For someone

who started independently, self -employed, has been able to build a business now with

20 employees. That wouldn't have been possible in a different place with a different landlord

without the opportunity to migrate from space to space as my business grew.

That's it.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who wants to speak?

Anyone else?

Right, if not, I'm going to suggest we have a break.

Can we, we'll resume at, oh, did you want to speak?

Yes, come along then.

Good morning.

Her name is Chokya.

Oh, okay.

Yes, I'm going to hear it.

Okay, just think here.

And then, I'll translate it.

She is referring to overcrowding.

She has three children.

Sorry, five children.

Two are adult and three are underage.

So they are sharing the rooms, the parents are sharing with two of the children.

They are constantly having issue with overcrowding and sharing spaces and they find it difficult

to do their homeworks.

She is objecting to the application.

She wants more housing.

As her experience, experiencing every day now,

having more social housing

there would give her opportunity.

She's saying there is a lack of open space, there is lack of space within the house, so

they are stuck.

She wishes to have more open space so the children can play and have a sociable day.

That's all. Thank you for your listening.

Thank you very much. If you could record the lady's name on the sheet, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you very much and thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else?

I think there are two more people.

Okay, let's hear from them. Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning everyone.

I am from Sunchadri and I am sorry to say my English is not that good.

This area I am nearly 29 years.

I love my area because my four children born this area and they grown up everybody.

And I work in Brick Lane HEEPA project.

And we have got this book published.

This one is me.

My children, our community people,

everybody has contributed this country.

We pay, tax, everything.

Yeah, and this area is our favourite area.

When we work this state, yeah, we have got confidence.

Everybody has got respect and dignity.

and this problem is our housing because me is fourth floor.

There is no lift and they can't give the delivery

health and safety reason.

And there is one toilet always in the children

when they go to school before they're late,

they have got complain because toilet and bathroom

is same place.

Still I have suffering for these things

and I have got mobility now but no lift.

And I love our people.

Yeah, always I am helping people.

Because I love to, you know, that one is my hobby.

Always I want to help people.

Because we are ethnic minority people.

Everybody knows that.

We know everybody.

And everybody help me too.

Sometimes I can't carry anything.

Our children, they know.

Because they was baby.

Now they are grown up.

they always ask for their help.

And I'm very mad.

I think this area is our area, our state.

And the long time my husband working is the farm,

but I'm confident because, yeah, long time I'm living there.

And we want our area is like this is better.

Because I used to work in the Heba Project in the Brick Lane

before when my children was young.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Ayudhu Nbegong.

Jatikalaka.

I have a question.

I have been in the waiting list for 8 years.

She is saying that she has been on the waiting list for 8 years.

What was the question?

7 family members.

One would be 19, one aged 23, and three others 18.

One is 18. One is 11. One is 9 years old.

She is struggling with overcrowding.

There is a very, she's struggling, the children are struggling to do their homework,

because of lack of space within the house. She would really appreciate if there was more housing

and give it the opportunity that will help the education.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you very much.

I will be able to hear what you are, you, and Begum.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Do we have anyone else?

Good morning.

My name is Shawa Hamadin.

So I'm going to tell you something.

I can't deliver, I prefer for the Bangla.

So I can speak Bangla, it's okay?

So I can explain properly everything.

Whatever I know that.

Ami, a Talamid councillor of the Basinta.

I am a resident of Tahel Hamline.

I am sorry.

Resident of Tahel Hamline.

So this issue is B .Klay and Sprita Spill.

They are going to build a marketing office.

So I am asking you to give an opinion.

You have to give an opinion to the local residents.

My opinion is if you was to build this commercial and retail.

and local business manor, small business manor.

Small business will be affected.

Big business plan,

the bigger franchisees will overtake.

And if there was more offices,

I don't mind having the offices built.

and the housing is not as good as the council.

So I haven't heard the state questions, so it will be easier to...

I think I'm over -speaking some of the...

So I'll just explain to him that if he does it stage by stage, then it's easier.

Yes, it's easier to do it.

Because there is a lack of housing and overcrowding, if there was built offices, then that will

not solve any of these issues.

Having more social housing will help the council and the locals.

Also, having the richer spaces built for the small businesses will be better for the local

and the local businesses.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you both. Is there anyone else?

I think that's it. I think that's it.

I've got one piece I'd like to read out from someone who couldn't be here, and we could do that after the coffee break.

Do it now? Yeah, that's fine.

This is from Gabrielle, who was going to join us online last week, but the technology didn't

work out.

My name is Gabrielle Kleinberg.

I recently completed my master's at the LSE in regional and urban planning studies.

The research I conducted for my dissertation involved examining the daily rhythms and routines

of life on Brick Lane as made visible in the material landscape.

This involved dozens of hours of walking ethnography on Brick Lane, taking note of the dynamic

and vibrant visual culture.

Once known as the geographical signifier of racial strife in the East End, Brick Lane

has been facing a more covert and insidious form of racialized violence, corporate -led

gentrification. Here, gentrification is operating not merely as a process of demographic change

and displacement of the Bangladeshi community, but as a reconfiguration of the street's cultural

heritage into a consumable, marketable spectacle. For this reason, I am in opposition to all

the current planning applications put forth by the Truman Brewery. While living in London,

completing my degree, I was fortunate enough to live in Tower Hamlets.

While searching for activities to do, I heard about Brick Lane.

My friend told me to go to Brick Lane. It's known for street art and vintage shopping.

Why not? So one day, I took the 15 -minute walk north on Commercial Street from my flat,

through Spitalfields Market, and eventually turned onto Brick Lane via Quaker Street,

right into the portion of the street dominated by Truman's.

After sifting through a wide selection of 50 -quid t -shirts,

I headed home empty -handed, but I decided to travel south on Brick Lane this time towards

Whitechapel High Street.

I realised Brick Lane is not just a land of overpriced, secondhand clothing, but home

to a vibrant Bengali community.

The southern half of Brick Lane and Whitechapel Road make up an enclave of organically produced

culture.

It's what living in cities is all about.

For my planners and academics in the room, it's a perfect example of Lefebvre's production

of space. The brewery is able to capitalise on the historical character of the street

and curate their own environment where diversity and creativity are selectively incorporated

so long as they do not threaten their bottom line. These spaces of false authenticity and

simulacra such as the pre -existing upmarket food hall cater to the heterogeneity of urban

villages and taste cultures, to quote David Harvey, creating safe sanitised versions of

of the world for the middle class suburbanite.

It works. It is safe.

It is imposed top down for the sole purpose of making money

and as Lefebvre predicted, it's boring.

Even the street art that famously adorns the facades

of businesses are sanctioned paste -up installations,

featuring work from international street artists.

One shop within the brewery state sells a book titled The

Art of Protest, yet attempts to protest or pose opposition

to the brewery's hegemony have resulted in threats of legal action against the council.

The Truman Brewery is able to use its power and resources to try and redefine Brick Lane

away from its anti -racist history of struggle into a flattened cultural spectacle that looks

like it could be in any city in any country. The market proposed for Eli's Yard looks more

like office space in the City of London. The Truman Brewery intends on being the hegemonic

cultural meaning maker on Brick Lane, not just on the northern half where it already

imposes its dominance. There is no better example of this than the fact that the Truman

Brewery and Zaloof Family Ltd have trademarked the term Brick Lane for branding purposes

in dozens of different classes of products. They could not be any more transparent about

their desire to own and dominate this historical street. The brewery's private entertainment

companies, Wi -Fi connexions, CCTV operators and security details all work together in

shaping what behaviours, activities, aesthetics and identities are permitted within its boundaries.

Access to certain spaces, such as the large outdoor seating area of 91 Living Room, is

contingent on being a paying customer. It is deeply concerning to see again the rise

of privately governed spaces outside of the jurisdiction of democratically elected leadership.

Allowing the Truman Brewery to act as goliath and dictate neighbourhood plans and steamroll

of community interests is incongruous with local democracy

and is more akin to the fortified private estates

of the 1800s, which the Daily Telegraph at the time

called fantastically feudal.

Based on the importance placed on tackling

the lack of affordable housing by the central government,

this redevelopment plan with only six units

of social housing on prime brownfield land

should have been a non -starter.

The United Kingdom, London, and Tower Hamlets

most specifically are all facing a crisis.

This is not a commercial real estate crisis,

nor an office space crisis, or a shortage of retail opportunities.

This crisis, we all know, is the housing crisis.

I understand there is an argument to be made

about the increasing need for data centres.

This pressure is being fuelled by the rise of AI,

a bubble whose inevitable burst is fast approaching.

Who will be left to pick up the pieces?

According to the London data centre map,

Kensington has zero data centres, Westminster has one.

Why should the most densely populated borough in London

be the one with over 30.

Why must the most marginalised people in our city

be forced out by speculation -based real estate?

The daily rhythms and routines of life on Brick Lane

that I observed in my dissertation

are not ones that are banking on the success of large language

models, and they would surely not

benefit from a noisy, unsustainable data centre.

If this inquiry allows the redevelopment to proceed

unchecked, it will result in a further marginalisation

of the British Bangladeshi community

to the fringes of the city.

However, if Brick Lane's communities are heard, if this inquiry stands for accountability,

then Brick Lane can become the model for how regeneration might work with local people

rather than against them.

This isn't about nostalgia, nimbyism or resistance to change, because Brick Lane has always changed,

from Huguenot silkweavers to Irish labourers, Jewish refugees, including members of my own

family, and Bangladeshi garment workers.

Its power lies in that continuity of renewal, but renewal must come organically from within,

produced, not imposed.

This is why I trust the Save Brit Lane coalition and the Spitalfields Trust.

Those who know and live in Brit Lane, not those who see the street as an asset portfolio

rather than a shared home, do not allow the people who call this street home to be replaced

by footfall statistics and revenue figures.

please do not let Brit Lane, a place that has always stood for resilience and resistance,

turn into a monument to exclusion. Thank you.

Thank you for reading that out. Can I ask, can that be sent through to my case officer

so that I can append it as a document for the Secretary of State to read? Thank you.

Is there anyone else? Right, I'm going to break now. We're at 25 past 11.

So clearly we're pushing our day on a little bit, but you know, that's the way of it.

Can we resume at 22, please, and we'll turn to Mr. Marginson at that point.

22.

Thanks, everyone.

I'm very kindly sent into my case office.

I'm very grateful for that.

That's most useful.

I don't know whether you have the capacity to do something similar for what we've just

heard, but that would be appreciated.

Appreciated and I'm very keen to make sure I represent everybody properly in the in the report that I have to write so I

Noticed that it was it was being done, but if that can follow through to Allison in the same way

I'd be very very grateful

Yes, I think the intention is to do so for this morning as well. So thank you very much. Do appreciate it. I think

Where we left things on Friday with mr.

Marginson is that I was going to come back to you mr.

Parkinson first to see if there was anything else that you needed to deal with in in chief

Thank you, sir. No, nothing's happened over the weekend. I I need to ask about thank you

In which case I'm going to hand over to you. Mr. Ward

Thank you, sir. And good morning. Mr. Marginson. Am I pronouncing your name correctly? You are great. Thanks

Mr. Marginson you tell us in your

proof at 1 .4 that you were instructed relatively recently in July of 2025, is that right?

Before that you'd had no involvement in any of these appeals?

No.

So, so far as any material that predates that is concerned, you're dependent, aren't you,

on the documents that were made available to you?

Yes, I'm dependent on the documents and any discussions I've had with colleagues and the

people within the project team.

Understood.

And your role here and throughout

has been that of a planner?

And as such, you uniquely amongst the witnesses

that appear for the appellant have the task or the privilege

of weighing up evidence and conducting a balance

and eventually making a recommendation to the inspector,

yes?

Yes.

You're used to that exercise. You've got 26 years of experience, mainly in London.

Correct, yes. 17 years of experience in London.

17 in London. So you're well familiar, aren't you, with the role, that role of the planner.

There are inputs that reach you from the witnesses that were appointed by the appellant,

and you conduct your balance fairly and with an open mind and based on whatever

material or evidence is made available to you on an ongoing basis. Is that fair?

Yes, that's fair. And that of course includes such evidence as may be heard at this

inquiry? Correct, albeit obviously I can't incorporate that within my proof of

evidence which is already written. No, of course not, but you're giving oral evidence now,

You're the last witness.

We've heard quite a lot of evidence up until this point.

And you do your job as I'm sure the inspector

and the Secretary of State afterwards will do diligently

in ensuring that the mind is not closed,

there isn't an entrenched position,

and matters are considered in the light

of emerging evidence where that is relevant.

Correct. Yeah.

And can I just ask then,

in the light of that emerging evidence,

have you altered your view?

No.

You stuck to where you were in your written proof, yes?

Yes.

And of course, in addition to that evidence,

you've given evidence in chief.

Seems a long time ago now, but it's only Friday of last week.

Yes.

Yeah.

All right, thank you for that.

Just in terms of the chronology of the application

and then appeal that leads us here,

We know from the pre -apps that there was work ongoing in relation to these appeals at some point in early 2023.

Do you know when it actually started? Do you know when work did start?

I don't know the exact date, but I believe it was January, February 2023.

OK. So, towards the very beginning of 2023, an application was then made in August 2024?

Correct.

Yeah, so some time thereafter, there'd been a lot of work that went in to the eventual

making of the application in August 2024.

These were our major applications for large -scale development in a sensitive historic and cultural

area.

You'd agree with all of that?

Yes.

Yeah.

The applicant submitted its environmental statement addendum on the 11th of April 2025.

Yes.

Yeah.

So by my reckoning, that's almost...

Well, it's two and a bit...

Almost two and a half years later than works first started.

Yeah.

Give or take, yeah.

The applicant gave notification of an appeal on the 16th of March 2025, yes?

Yes.

You're aware of that.

Only a month after the environmental statement addendum was submitted and was being considered

by the council's external consultants.

Yes.

Now, I know, I appreciate this still predates your involvement, but there was a very short

period of time, wasn't there, between the submission

of the environmental statement addendum, which

is a considerable document, and the pre -notification

of the appeal?

Yes.

And inevitably, there was work ongoing

for the council, the relevant individuals within the council,

and the external consultants that

were retained to assimilate, manage

that work at that point in time, wasn't there?

You're aware of that. Yes. I'm aware of that. Obviously the EIA statement then was

Yeah was relatively concise in the sense that the matters of this of discussion

To be resolved between the appellant and the council at that time where?

We're obviously quite quite narrow. There were matters to be resolved weren't there the appellant

appealed

when the council was still actively considering information

that it had only given four weeks previously.

Yeah.

Regulation 25 requests were still pending,

and much of the material now before this inquiry

was not before the council at that time.

You're going to have to be a bit more specific

about what you mean in terms of the material

before this inquiry.

The Regulation 25 responses were not before the council at the date that the appellant chose to appeal.

They since come in and they are before the inspector and therefore of course the Secretary of State.

At the time they notified for the appeal. Yes. At the time of notification that they were going to appeal, yes.

In terms of understanding the purpose or the reason for this haste, that was, let's be frank about it,

That was in order to get ahead of the local plan

and avoid examination of the future of the site

through the local plan process.

That was the reason it was done so swiftly.

I wouldn't agree wholeheartedly with that.

The six month period within which the appellants

had an ability to appeal was running out.

It was literally about five days to go

when they submitted the appeal.

So obviously they have the right to appeal, as anybody does, as the applicant.

And so they chose to submit the appeal because effectively they were up against the clock

because the six month window was about to expire.

When you say you wouldn't agree wholeheartedly with that, I suppose two questions.

You can always agree an extension, can't you?

If you're in the situation where the council is working hard to assimilate material,

there is an ongoing exchange between an applicant and the council,

one can agree, and I'm sure you've been involved in cases where this was done,

an extension of time can be negotiated.

It can, but you have to remember that at the point that the appellant

and put notification on the council to appeal,

and then subsequently made the appeal.

All the indications were that while officers

were supportive of two out of the three planning applications,

members were not.

And so a decision had to be made by the appellant,

whether they chose to extend the period for determination

or whether they were to appeal.

and the judgement was to appeal because it was felt that members were going to turn down the applications

irrespective of where the appellant got to with officers.

And as it's turned out, we know that was the case because all three of the applications were turned down.

When you say there were indications, can you be a bit more specific about what you mean

by that?

Well, obviously part of the application process is understanding where members are politically

and conversations had taken place. As I understand it, I wasn't part of those conversations,

but conversations have taken place with members and the indication was that the

applications were all going to be refused despite officer recommendations.

Didn't the council grant permission for the Woodseer Street scheme? They did.

Yeah so it's not quite as black as... excuse me... yeah so and that was the

members wasn't it that was not a delegated decision that was the members

themselves. It was a different application, not particularly relevant. What's relevant is

what I've just explained to you that members' indications were that they were going to refuse

all of the applications and we know sat here now that's exactly what happened.

Well I mean another view, sorry had you finished your answer?

Yeah I finished. Another view is that if that if you do have such indications

some developers will try and understand why that is the way that the wind is blowing

and consider what changes could be made to the scheme.

Of course, and I've dealt with lots of planning applications where those discussions have happened

and changes have been made to the scheme and extensions of time granted.

but in this particular case there was some fundamental differences in relation to land use, for example,

that were not going to be resolved by changes to the scheme and therefore the appellant decided to appeal.

Do you mean by that the debate between commercial -led and residential -led?

Commercial -led and residential, yes.

All right, well, I'll come back to that in a moment.

But just finally on this, when you

said you wouldn't agree wholeheartedly

with the proposition that I put to you,

I've taken from that that it was a factor amongst others.

Is that a fair characterization of the decision

to appeal so swiftly after such a lengthy run up?

Yes, I mean, it was a factor in the overall decision making.

It wasn't the driving factor, but it was a factor.

of course it was because, as you know,

the appellants have objected strongly

to the proposed site allocation 1 .7.

Yes, of course, and we'll come to that in due course.

So let's move on now then.

Remembering the evidence you gave in chief,

I'm sure you recall you engaged in something of a policy review

with Mr. Harris in your evidence in chief.

It's your evidence, isn't it, Mr. Marginson,

and that the adopted local plan favours a commercial -led scheme

at this location?

An employment -led scheme, yes.

An employment -led scheme, yeah.

And I think you said more specifically

in your evidence in chief that the development

plan is very clear about employment -led development

at this site.

Correct.

Yeah.

You then went on to say that the emerging plan is

seeking to shift that focus to a residential -led allocation

and that that has strategic implications on economic growth in London,

given the importance of this site and City Fringe and Tech City to London.

Do you recall?

I do.

Yeah.

And you've made it clear that your client, the appellant, has objected to that allocation.

Now the GLA, a body with which you all have had lots of experience over the years,

is that body responsible for strategic planning in London, isn't it?

Yes.

And that role includes monitoring conformity between local plans

and the London plan, doesn't it?

It does, yeah.

Can we have a look now at CDM 32, it's an appendix to Mr. Kiley's rebuttal,

to see what the GLA had to say about the approach in Tower Hamlet's emerging plan.

It's a letter dated the 25th of October, 24.

If you could turn kindly to page 8 of 43 within that document.

Yeah.

And you've seen this document before.

Ah, yes.

Yeah, and there's a relatively short,

you got that sir, a relatively short,

well, single sentence actually,

under the heading Brick Lane and Pedley Street,

which is our site.

Yes.

The site allocation should include facilitation

of step -free access at Allgate East,

which would be precluded if development

on the relevant site comes forward

without making provision for SFA.

So what we see here, Mr. Marginson,

is that the GLA has looked at the emerging local plan,

including the Brick Lane Peddley Street allocation, yes?

Yes.

And having done that, the GLA is comfortable

about a residential -led allocation at the appeal site, isn't it?

Well, it hasn't raised an objection to it, I accept that.

And you're familiar enough with the functioning of the GLA

to know that if it did have discomfort or an objection

in relation to that allocation, it would say so?

Well, I am familiar with the GLA, yes, and whether they have diligently gone through

the local plan, they're not here to represent themselves.

I have seen instances previously where it has been surprising that the GLA haven't made

comments on things that you would expect them to make comments on, but in this case they

haven't raised it.

Well, let's focus on what we do know.

the purpose of the Regulation 19 stage is to understand the views of consultees

before submission of the plan, isn't it?

Yes.

Yeah.

Here in London, where you have a wealth of experience,

those views invariably and importantly include that of the GLA.

Yes, they do.

And I'm going to suggest to you that in this instance,

their very clear answer was that they had no objection

to allocation 1 .7, because we have no evidence

to the contrary.

If you say that there are occasions in which they missed

something, well, we don't have any evidence

of that having happened here, do we?

No, they didn't comment on it.

I don't know why.

They didn't.

And that lack of comment,

And I think we've already established part of the role of the GLA is to ensure that the

local plan is in general conformity with the London plan.

So the position as far as we know it of the GLA undermines your assertion that the London

plan requires development at the main Truman East appeal site to be employment led, doesn't

it?

No.

Why do you say that?

Because that assertion is based on the adopted development plan

which is in force at this time.

It's not an assertion made under the emerging local plan.

But we've established that... Alright, we'll come on to that then.

At the very least we can know that the GLA itself,

the body responsible for the London plan,

is comfortable with a residential -led allocation?

I don't know because they haven't commented on it.

All I can say is that they did not comment on that change

in what I termed a shift in strategic focus.

All right, let's have a look at the provisions of the development plan.

Now, clearly there are some development plan policy designations

which do require development to be commercial led or employment led.

There are some.

There may be. Are you going to point me to some?

Let's look at them. Let's start off with the central activity zone.

Could you turn to the London Plan Policy ST4?

And it's page 70.

Yeah.

It's CDE04.

Yes.

Policy SD4, the central activity zone or the CAS.

A and B, the unique international, national and London -wide roles of the CAS based on

an agglomeration and rich mix of strategic functions and land local uses should be promoted

and enhanced. And I think that's the origin of the phrase that my learned friend Mr Harris

used the unique agglomeration. Do you remember he used that phrase with you a number of times

in chief? Yes. And then be the nationally and internationally significant office functions

of the CAS should be supported and enhanced by all stakeholders, including the intensification

and provision of sufficient space to meet demand for a range of types and sizes of occupier

and rental values.

So that tells us something about the CAS.

And then before we leave that box, can we just look at N?

In development plans, boroughs should

define the detailed boundaries of the CAS.

You see that?

You're aware of it?

You've seen this before?

Yes.

So this is an example.

You looked rather mystified earlier

when I said that there are some policies which do require

development to be commercial -led or employment -led.

This is an example.

I'm not sure I was misdefined.

I was just simply asking you to point me to the policies

that you were asking me to.

Here's an example.

Yeah, and I accept that.

Now, also of relevance is local plan policy

policy DEMP4, which is at CDF01.

Page 106 of that document.

Let me know when you're there.

Yeah.

So policy DEMP4, redevelopment within designated employment locations.

And if we drop down to sub -paragraph 3,

redevelopment within the CAS tertiary area

should be employment -led or mixed -use

to include office or non -residential floor space

that supports the strategic function of the CAS.

Residential uses are supported as part of mixed -use schemes,

although the proportion of residential floor space

should meet the requirements set out in policy SEMP 1.

So clear preference there for, not for residential,

but for employment -led development, yes?

In those locations, yes.

In those locations.

Now, we might be able to cut through this.

The appeal site sits outside the CAS, doesn't it?

Yes.

Yeah, OK, in which case, I don't think...

It might be helpful to go through it anyway.

Let's go to the local plan key diagram at page 29,

but it's helpful.

I think we can move quickly through this, given that necessary acceptance.

And we can see the sort of brown shaded area of the CAS.

and then if we enlarge that enough, we find exactly as you have indicated in your answer,

Mr. Martinson, that the appeal sites and all of them sit outside the CAS.

Correct.

So they're not governed by those policy provisions, are they?

No, because they're not within the CAS.

In fact, it's interesting, isn't it, that the CAS is carefully drawn such that the heart

of the brick lane area is carved out of the CAS.

It is excluded from the CAS, isn't it?

Yes.

And that we must take to be deliberate, a deliberate policy choice not to include the

core brick lane area in the more commercially focused policy

designation of the CAS?

Well, yes, it's a deliberate.

It's not in the CAS.

There's no dispute between us that the policies of the CAS

do not apply to these appeal sites.

Well, I'm glad to hear you give that answer.

It's not very obvious from your written proof

or from your chief on Friday that that is your position.

At times, it sounded like you were labouring

under the misapprehension that the appeal sites sit within a CAS.

You don't labour under that misapprehension, do you?

No, and I wouldn't agree with what you've just said.

At no time did I refer to the CAS in my proof of evidence or in chief.

What I was doing was referring to the policies that apply to these appeal sites.

All right, let's have a look at some other commercial designations.

Local Plan Policy SEMP1, which is at page 96 of call document CDF01.

Yeah.

Now this is a rather helpful table, if you've got that up now.

It starts off with primary preferred office location, POL, P -O -L.

That's in Canary Wharf, so it doesn't include any of the sites that we're looking at, does it?

Correct.

Yeah.

Then the secondary preferred office location.

These are illustrated on the policies map, which I think we should go to as well.

But can we agree before we do that, that the appeal sites are not inside any of those areas

illustrated on the policies map for secondary preferred office location either?

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay, so for completeness, it's in the same document.

If we could turn up page 100 of 337.

And again, if one has a look at the key...

We've got the Central Activity Zone tertiary area,

secondary preferred office, primary preferred office,

different shades of blue,

and the appeal sites sit outside those shades of blue,

don't they?

Yes.

And then we can also see from this,

from this plan on page 100, local employment locations.

Yes.

And once again, we're not within

a local employment location, are we?

No.

Yeah.

So we're not in any of those tiers

of employment locations, are we?

Correct.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Let's move now to the City Fringe and Tech City.

Well, okay.

I think before we do it would be remiss of me not to point out other provisions under Policy SEM P1.

You mean the district centres?

Yes.

I'm going to come on to those.

Fine.

But it would be remiss of me not to deal with them either.

So, can we part that for a moment?

Sure.

I promise I'll come back to it.

Let's first deal with the City Fringe and Tech City.

Now, quite a bit of reliance was placed on this in your evidence in chief.

Can we just start off by going back to the key diagram on page 29 of this document?

Now, can you see how it's indicated on this plan?

It's a sort of aquamarine or train track that runs roughly north to south.

Yes.

Yeah.

And that type of annotation is in marked contrast, isn't it, to the policy boundaries, which

are hard lines.

Those policy boundaries are policy designations, such as the CAS, but the city fringe is not

a policy designation, is it?

The city fringe is not a policy designation.

Sorry, is that what you're saying?

Let's have a look at it.

Or the tech cities.

Tech cities, sorry.

Or tech city.

If you are trying to make a distinction between how

these are shown on the platform, I

accept that there are more clear boundaries drawn

for areas like the city fringe or the central area

where the blue ribbon denotes a more spatial area.

More, sorry?

a more spatial area and it denotes a boundary of where the tech city area is because...

and it goes off to the north and it goes off to the west so it goes into Hackney and it goes into the city.

Yeah, but it's less well defined, isn't it?

Well, it's just defined differently. I mean, I'm not sure it's less well defined, but it's not as specific as going round,

and you know, streets and roads and spaces.

It's just a different way of annotating it.

Now the city fringe, please.

If we could open, if we go back to the,

open up the London plan, please.

This is CDE04.

and within it page 59 figure 2 .11

do you see let me know when you're there yeah diamond six

yes

That is the City Fringe or Tech City opportunity area.

Yes.

And it tells us in terms of need that there's a mixture of housing and jobs, doesn't it?

It does, yes.

15 ,500 homes, 50 ,500 jobs.

Yes.

And I don't think we need to go back to it, but that is replicated in the local plan as

well, isn't it?

The job numbers and the housing numbers.

Well, yes, it is there.

Yes, it is.

And we can note from this...

I don't know whether it's actually replicated in...

I mean, you would need to point me to the 15 and a half bags.

Back to the diagram where we were, 29.

Yes, it's 203 and 4 in the local platform.

Yeah.

You've seen that?

Yeah.

Looking at the city range vision map.

My computer is seized up.

Yeah, if you look at 200 and 300, you'll see it's the same.

three and four, minimum homes, 10 ,334 units.

On the map?

No, it's not on the map.

It's just those.

They're not directly the same.

Yes, the area is slightly different, hence the difference in numbers.

I think the area on this plan takes us into Hackney and the previous area didn't do so.

All right?

Yeah, I mean I think your point was that the figures are translated from the London Plan

into the Tower Homeless Plan, that isn't quite correct.

We just see in terms of need in the city fringe a mixture of jobs and homes.

We have, but your point you put to me was that the 15 ,500 homes was translated into

the local plan.

It's not exactly because of the difference in areas, but the principle is there, that

there is a mix.

Yes?

The principle is there that there is a mix, that's what it says, yeah.

Clearly the City Fringe envisages a balance between homes and jobs in the City Fringe.

That's the point that I'm seeking to establish with you.

Yes, it's seeking the delivery of both, yeah.

Let's now turn to the City Fringe Opportunity Area framework, please, which is at CDE 05.

And within it, start with 1 .2 at the introduction, where we're told what the document is.

This document does not create policy but provides guidance that supplements the Mayor's London

plan. Sorry what? Sorry I missed your page. Page 2 paragraph 1 .2 introduction to the

City Fringe opportunity area framework.

It's guidance not policy right? Correct yeah. So we keep that in mind and then we

being approximately 901 hectares of land covering parts of the London boroughs of Islington

Tower Hamlets and Hackney. The City Fringe Opportunity Area is assessed as having capacity

for over 53 ,000 new jobs and 15 ,000 new homes. Alright, is this familiar to you? You've seen

this before? Yes. And then 1 .7, Tech City is recognised as a significant business cluster

within the City Fringe but does not cover the whole of the OA. For planning purposes,

Tech City represents the commercial core of the City Fringe around Shoreditch, Old Street,

Bishopsgate and Spitalfields, extending north to Hackney Central and Dulston and south and

east to include Allgate and Whitechapel. The wider boundary covers the Hinterland area

which is mixed use in many places, but more residential in nature.

So 1 .7 does not fairly describe the Truman East site, does it?

Which is set back from Brick Lane and surrounded on all three sides by residential uses and open space.

It's distinct, is it not, from those other areas, Shoreditch, Old Street, the Bishops' Gate and Spitalfields.

Well, you're... I'm not sure I could agree with that. I mean, you're trying to read into the minds of what the person in Road 1 .7 was indicating when they said Spitalfields.

I'm not doing that, Mr. Martinson, with great respect. You know these areas well.

Yes.

In terms of their character, the appeal sites

are quite distinct in character from those commercial core

areas described at 1 .7.

I would disagree.

And I think I take spittle fields could quite well

include the Truman Brewery estate.

It would be surprising in a document like this

that they would specifically mention the Truman Brewery

estate in that sentence.

Because why would they specifically mention a particular site?

What they're talking about here is that, and describing, is the general areas which comprise of the Tech City.

And of course, as you say, this is guidance. This document dates from 2015.

And then this document then obviously inputted into the London Plan and what we just were looking at in terms of the key diagram

and where the actual tech city boundaries draw,

which includes the Truman East, Rui Sa.

I think the recommended site view itinerary is all

but finalised.

I don't know, has it been finalised?

I don't want the inspector to have to go too far afield.

But are you saying that if he wandered

through some of these commercial core areas,

he would not detect a different character compared

to the brick lane area with which we are focused.

I'm not suggesting that what I'm saying to you is that you can't read from 1 .7 that Spitalfields

doesn't include the Truman Brewery Estate and of course there are lots of parts of these

areas have different character.

We know that the Truman Brewery Estate has a very different character than Spitalfields

market for example but they are commercial areas and they are they have

just distinctive distinctive businesses distinctive feel that you know they are

unique

Can we have a look at Figure 3 .1 on page 29?

Look at the key.

The Truman East site is in the inner core area but close to the boundary with the hinterland

areas.

agreed

Yes, I think that's right I mean this diagrams pretty pretty awful to be quite honest they are difficult but

Yes, yes, I mean the

Looking at the diagram. I think

It goes slightly the inner core area goes slightly beyond spittle Street to the east

Well, I was going to say they've included...

They appear to have included residential blocks

on the east side of Spital Street within the inner core area.

Correct.

Which does not suggest that it's purely commercial, does it? It's a mix.

I suspect the intention was that they were including

the majority of commercial areas and...

I mean, why they included that aspect, I don't know.

But the purpose of the inner core area is to identify

the main commercial areas within the Tech City area, City Fringe, and that's

what this diagram does. There may be other anomalies if you went round it, but

its purpose is clear I think. Let's go back a page to strategy 3 please, page 28

of 109. Striking the balance between employment and residential. Yeah? Yeah. And

I'll start off with 3 .8.

The city fringe contains a mix of employment and residential uses,

but these are not uniformly distributed across the site, across the area.

A strong commercial core to the area,

where there is still a contiguous cluster of employment floor space,

this is the area where the Tech City cluster and other businesses

are concentrated and expected to expand into.

Conversely, there are also large areas

containing mostly residential development.

This is the residential hinterland of the city fringe

and it is undesirable to have inappropriate over -provision

of employment floor space here.

And then before we leave this document,

can we have a look at paragraph 3 .9, please?

Yeah. First bullet, inner core areas

where demand is expected to be highest.

Within the sites designated as priority employment land by the local council, development proposals, including refurbishment and demolition and redevelopment, which result in a net loss of employment floor space, should be refused.

And we're not in that area, are we?

No.

Elsewhere, and you were taken to this in chief, you may recall.

Oh, I beg your pardon, Mr Kiley was taken to it in cross -examination, but you're now

being taken to it in cross -examination.

Elsewhere, developments should seek to re -provide at least the same quantum of employment floor

space and support an appropriate overall balance between employment and residential floor space.

Strong consideration should also be given to developing employment -led schemes and to

the opportunity to provide an overall uplift.

It doesn't say that schemes must be employment led, does it?

It invites strong consideration,

but it mandates no such thing, does it?

It doesn't require employment led schemes,

but it is giving strong policy presumption

presumption in favour of developing employment -led schemes is how I would read it.

Well if you're right, I won't argue the toss with you about whether it does that, but is it of any

relevance? Should the Inspector attach any significance to the fact that it is a only guidance

and b 10 years old? Well I mean I think I've read this document and

and thought about how it relates to the development plan.

As you say, it's 2015.

I think a lot of what's in here remains highly relevant

and in my view,

weight can be given to this document

as a piece of guidance.

Should weight be given to the fact

that the appeal sites sit close to the boundary

with hinterland areas, which we're told at the bottom of this page, are as follows.

Some employment floor space may be appropriate, but proposals are likely to be more residential

in nature.

Now, because it's in the inner core area, I mean, we just looked at the map.

It's in the inner core area, which is a strong consideration for developing further employment

led floor space.

You identify yourself that actually part of the Spital Street to the east, which is residential,

is actually included in the inner core area.

I think the residential hinterland is quite clear because it's talking about those areas

which are outside of the inner core and I'm sure so that you've walked round the site

and if you start to venture further east you then come into lots of housing estates effectively,

post -war housing estates and it has a very distinctive and different character than the

appeals side and other parts of the area.

Mr. Marginson, there is obviously a distinction to be made with leaving matters out of regard

and attaching limited weight to matters. Are you saying that the proximity to the hinterland

area is something that should not even be considered in the context of these appeals.

I don't think it's relevant under this guidance. I think the guidance is very clear that, you know,

we can't shift where the inner core area is and it's in the inner core. In fact, it's not adjacent

to the inner core, it's well within the inner core because Spital Street, as we've just said,

is included as well on the east side.

The guidance is clear that it is not the case that only a commercial led scheme would be

supported.

That's also true isn't it?

Well it's, you could come forward with a different mix of uses yes potentially.

Yeah.

All right let's look at some other development plan designations.

starting with the town centre policy,

could we turn to local plan STC 1,

which is CDF 01, and paid 109?

And I promised we'd come to district centres,

and now we'll do so.

Let me know when you're there.

Yeah.

So do you see at the bottom there,

you said it would be remiss of you not to touch upon district centres.

Brick Lane is an example.

It's one of those bullet -pointed locations.

And there we see the functions or role

are to promote as vibrant hubs

containing a wide range of shops, services and employment,

and direct a new civic centre for the borough to Whitechapel district centre.

Now Mr. Kylie explained that the town centre policy is ground floor focused. Do you recall

that? I do.

And that is what makes town centres vital and viable and what the policy seeks to protect,

isn't it? It's part of what makes a town centre vital

and viable. I don't agree with Mr. Carley by the way that this policy is all about ground

floor uses. It's not a district centre and town centres are made up, yes, of ground floor

retail shops but, you know, the other uses which are above the ground floor also play

a vital role in their overall vitality and viability.

And those other uses above a shop could either be employment led or residential led, couldn't they?

Well under this definition here residential isn't mentioned

It's not excluded is it?

It's not mentioned. I mean we could, it could have included other uses, but specifically

It mentions shop services and employment. There's no mention of residential.

All right, let's see where we get to.

Let's turn to page 111.

We're still on policy STC 1.

Power C, 3C.

Says new development must contribute positively

to the function, vitality, and viability

of the major centre district centres

and the Columbia Road

and Red Church Street neighbourhood centres.

New development within other neighbourhood centres and neighbouring parades must ensure sufficient provision of local shops and services to meet the day -to -day needs of local communities.

The scale and type of development within the town centres hierarchy should reflect the character, scale and role of each centre through.

And then I'm interested in your view on C.

C promoting mixed use and multi -purpose town centres which include new residential uses where appropriate.

with a mix of unit sizes and so on.

All right, so there is express mention or reference to residential uses.

Now the Truman East site, other than the boiler house,

is set back behind the main shopping street

and fronts on to open space, doesn't it?

Yes.

In the words of STC1, paragraph 3C,

it would be more than possible,

it would be well within the exercise of the inspectors

and the inspectors discretion to find

that that is an appropriate location for residential use,

certainly at upper floors.

That is a possible interpretation of 3C, which expressly refers to new residential uses, isn't it?

The Inspector could interpret it like that, I wouldn't agree,

because when you're reading this policy you need to read the Development Plan as a whole,

and if you do that then it will be an employment -led scheme.

I think the words, where appropriate, in this policy are important because they make a distinction.

They are deliberate and the words, where appropriate, have been put in there because it won't always

be appropriate for residential to be delivered within district centres.

Brick Lane District Centre is the only district centre within the Tech City area.

I think Whitechapel might be as well, but it's one of the few within town how much that is.

And so I think this policy has been deliberately worded to provide that, if you like, level of caution in terms of putting residential in here.

It doesn't mandate employment -led, does it?

It doesn't say employment -led.

It might allow for it, but it doesn't mandate it.

It doesn't mandate, you know,

because it doesn't say employment -led,

but it allows for the consideration

of whether residential uses are appropriate.

Yes, so it doesn't mandate residential either, does it?

It doesn't mandate it. Where appropriate.

They're the key words here,

and that then requires an assessment of the site

and the specific characteristics of the site and the location,

which the Appellant has done in this case.

Of course, Mr. Margeryton, I don't want to go there.

I want to provide the Inspector with as much assistance as we can with the policy context.

If it helps, you may recall Mr. Kiley's evidence was that neither is mandated, either is possible.

Well, the preference is employment, in my view, under this policy.

You've made that very clear. I just want to scrutinise that by reference to the policies.

Can we turn now, I think for the first time, no, not for the first time, but almost for the first time, to your proof of evidence?

And your 7 .128.

Your conclusion in relation to policy GG2, you say this, policy GG2 patently does not

prioritise housing over other land uses in opportunity areas.

Correct.

Again, we may not have to turn to it, but nor does it prioritise employment or commercial

over housing, does it, if you look at the terms of that policy, which we can do.

No, it doesn't.

I mean, the point I was making here was what the exercise I was doing was making an assessment

of the scheme against policy GG2.

and it allows for housing and employment,

as well as other mixed uses and compliance.

Let's just want to further reference local plan,

page 113.

Eleven, twelve, if you can find your way there.

District centres as shown in the policies map generally meet more local needs with catchments

around 800 metres and provision of convenience goods and services.

Typically they contain around 10 ,000 to 50 ,000 square metres

retail leisure and service floor space and often have specialist functions.

They have high levels of accessibility. They're generally suitable locations

for housing and employment. So that's another expression

of the of the duality. The possibility of both

you say for various reasons that an employment -led scheme

is preferred. But as Mr. Kiley puts it, either is possible. And that's reflected in that part of the local plan, isn't it?

That paragraph says that of course you need to read the policy because this is only supporting text, which as you know can't trump the policy.

So you need to go to the specific wording of the policy which we won't go to again because we've just done it.

I don't think we need to do that again, because you've done it in your proof,

and you've done it in your chief.

What I'm seeking to do is to provide a degree of balance in the exercise.

You agreed with me at the outset of my questions

that the role of the planner is to strike a fair balance,

in effect, to take the rough with the smooth,

to take policies that move either in the direction of a proposal or against it,

and weigh them up.

Now, the policies that I've taken you to

allow for the possibility of either outcome,

employment -led or residential -led.

But I detect a lack of an expression of that balance

within your written and oral evidence.

What do you say to that, Mr. Marginson?

I say to that that I don't agree that this should be a residential led scheme.

I accept that there are various policies which refer to employment and housing, but if you

read the plan as a whole and you look at it, then it is an employment led scheme, which

is the main policy focus for development on this appeal, or these appeal sites.

All right, let's turn to some of the relevant residential policies, or what relevant policies

have to say about a Resi -led scheme, because there are such policies.

There are such relevant policies, aren't there, Mr. Martinson?

Yes, there are residential policies in the London Plan on Local Planning.

All right, let's start from on high, NPPF part five.

Delivering a sufficient supply of homes.

Paris 61 on page 17 of the latest NPPF report.

incarnation of the MPPF.

Got that?

Yeah.

To support the government's objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes,

it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land

can come forward where it is needed.

And you don't dispute, do you Mr. Martinson, that this is a borough within London

where housing is needed?

No, don't dispute that.

It's the most acutely in need of all the boroughs, so far as housing is concerned, isn't it?

Of all the boroughs in London?

Yes.

Yes, it has acute housing needs.

No, no, it's not the question I asked you.

Of all of them, it's the most acutely in need.

There is no other borough in London that is more acutely in need of housing than Tower Hamlets.

Correct.

Yeah. Okay, thank you.

The overall aim should be to meet an area's identified housing need,

and the answer that you eventually gave to that question helps in that regard,

including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community.

So in case it's helpful to you, I have the answer from Mr. Martinson,

But the London plan on page 163 makes very clear that Tower Hamlets is more acutely in

need than any other borough in London.

I don't think we need to...

If you've taken a note, we don't need to go there.

London plan now.

Policy GG4, please, on page 22.

It's CDE04.

Delivering the homes Londoners need to create a housing market that works better for all

Londoners, those involved in planning and development must, A, ensure that more homes

are delivered.

So again, that is a relevant policy.

It's relevant to the possibility of a RESI -led scheme.

It's not the conclusion upon which you are light, but it's a relevant consideration.

It's something that you, any planner, the Inspector, the Secretary of State, needs to

have regard to in considering these appeals.

Would you agree with that?

Yes.

Thank you.

And then also within the London Plan, I want to look with you, if I may, at Policy H1,

which is on page 157 of the London Plan.

It's entitled increasing housing supply.

Yeah.

And it refers to a table, table 4 .1,

sets the 10 year targets for net housing completions

that each local planning authority should plan for.

Boroughs must include these targets

in their development plan documents.

Again, I don't think we probably need to go there,

but that again shows, does it not,

that Tower Hamlets is, if you put it in these terms,

is ahead of any other London borough on that metric.

Yes?

Yeah, sorry, I think I spoke over your answer.

No, no, correct.

Yes, thank you.

And then if we can move please to Policy SH1,

meeting housing needs.

This is the local plan.

SH1 .1, we will secure the delivery of at least

58 ,965 new homes across the borough,

equating to at least 3 ,931 new homes per year between 2016 and 2031 and then this

will be achieved through a raft of measures. It's quite a hefty challenge

isn't it meeting those targets year on year? Well yes I mean it's it's a big

target that town helmets have got I mean performance wise they've actually done

very well in meeting it of the local plan period.

They've been one of the best performing boroughs,

actually, in London, in terms of housing delivery.

So, just stepping back for a moment, Mr. Martinson,

I think it should be quite clear now that, overall,

we find policies which pull in both directions, don't we?

Employment -led and residential -led.

And you've made very clear in your evidence

which of the two you regard as more appropriate or applicable to the appeal sides.

But if we do step back for a moment and use our scales fairly properly,

there are policies that move in both directions, aren't there?

There are policies that pull in each direction, yes, but as you just said in terms of my conclusion,

having read all the policies and looked at that balance.

My conclusion is that an employment -led scheme on this

is the policy which is supported on this site.

Anyone engaging in that exercise of planning judgement

has to have regard to the particular features

of a given location.

That's obviously true, right?

And so just to finish up on this, we had an exchange about whether it was appropriate

to categorise the appeal sites in the same way as Spitalfields or Bishopsgate.

Could we just look at your 3 .1 of your, figure 3 .1 of your proof?

I think it's on page 12, possibly.

Now, this area the inspector will be covering this week on another site visit,

But can we agree that the dominant land use east of Brick Lane and south of Woodseer Street

is residential?

East of Brick Lane, south of Woodseer Street is residential.

Well, I mean...

The dominant land use...

I think that's, I'm not sure I would try and describe it in that way.

I think that's a very arbitrary way of trying to describe it without actually really getting

to the nuances of the character of that area.

Because of course you've just ignored the fact that the Truman Brewery exists east of

Brick Lane in terms of all the commercial activity that that comprises.

So I'm not sure I could.

They can put it in those general terms.

So Mr. Martinson, if you don't agree

that the dominant land use east of Brick Lane

and south of Woodseer Street is residential,

what is the dominant land use instead?

Well, there are areas of land use.

I mean, that's the beauty of this area, if you like,

that there are particular areas of character.

And so Brick Lane, the traditional High Street,

if you like, with the restaurants,

with the independent shops.

You then have the Truman Brewery Estate,

largely to the east of that, and Drave Walk,

and the independent shops, and the commercial offices.

Obviously, we've got the appeal site,

which is largely vacant and underutilised at the moment.

And then you get into the residential Hinterland

on Spital Street, south of Woodseer Street.

I absolutely accept that that is a residential area.

but you've got to be quite careful about just being generic

in terms of categorization.

Mr. Margerson, I don't want to get into a semantic exchange

with you that won't assist the inquiry.

Whenever one refers to a dominant use,

it allows for the possibility that there are other uses.

It just needs to be more than 50 % of the use

for it to dominate.

It depends how far are you spreading the area, Mr. Wall, because, I mean, of course, if you

go way south, if you go way east, you're into a lot of residential.

I mean, I don't dispute that.

And if you went, I don't know, 400, 500 metres, 800 metres east, south, you do the math, you

could say, well, this area is dominantly residential.

but that misses the fundamental characteristics of the particular location of this appeal site.

What about the... am I going to get the same sort of answer if I asked you whether the dominant

land use to the north of Buxton Street and east of Spital Street is residential?

No, I don't accept that's residential.

You don't accept it?

No, I accept.

You do. So that one is a yes, but the previous one is... it has no dominant use.

It depends on, it's a very broad question you're asking Mr. Wall.

I understand why you're asking it, but I'm not sure I can answer it in the way you're

trying to put it to me because you need to look at the specific characters of the areas

you're referring to.

It would, just saying Easter Brick Lane is a residentially dominant area.

I mean, how far does that extend?

As I say, is it 500 metres, a kilometre?

All right, last one, Mr. Martinson.

The dominant land use as you move east

across the appeal site is increasingly residential,

isn't it?

As you move east across the, sorry, repeat the question.

As you move east, the...

East from where?

The land use, well, certainly from Brick Lane

and from Grey Eagle Street.

It becomes increasingly residential, doesn't it?

I'm not really going to accept that.

I mean, what you have here,

I mean certainly not east of Grey Eagle Street because you're into Dre Walk, I mean it's

commercial.

I mean if you walk around there you can see it.

What you have here obviously is an historic juxtaposition where you have the old Truman

Brewery site which has some historic remnants of the brewery on it but quite underutilised

but it's an employment site, always has been an employment site for 300, 400 years.

You then have this sort of quite hard line I think of Spital Street, which then turns into residential.

So it isn't this sort of transition where suddenly you start to become more and more residential.

It's actually, Spital Street is quite a hard line between what is the former brewery

and now contains various commercial uses.

And then immediately you get into the council housing estates, post -war housing estates of residential.

All right, I'm going to, in the interest of the inspector to consider that during the site visit.

Can I move on to another topic with you, please, Mr. Marschuson?

Now, I think it's clear the emerging plan contains site allocation 1 .7.

We have looked at it.

Perhaps we should just turn to it for completeness now.

It's CDF06.

We've got Brit Lane and Pedley Street indicative.

Sorry, what page is that again?

It's page 412 through to 414 of the emerging plan.

Thank you.

We see as the first bullet point, top of right hand side of 414, land uses, activities and delivery development should consist of a mixed use residential led scheme with a mix of retail, workspace and community users.

Yeah?

Yes.

Now the appellant has objected to that, hasn't it?

Yes.

You say in your proof of evidence at 5 .6 that six of the other objections made to the draught site allocation by historic Royal Palace, GLA and landowners remain outstanding.

I hope we'll be able to deal with this quite quickly.

Can you point to any of those which object to the development of this site as a housing -led

scheme, leaving aside the appellants, which clearly does that?

Can you point to any objection that aims at that?

Not specifically in relation to this appeal side, yeah.

And that's really what we're focused on at the moment, isn't it?

The appeal side?

We are focused on the appeal side, yes.

I mean, it would be kind of surprising, wouldn't it,

if somebody had made a specific objection to another landowner's

side.

It happens.

But you cited a number of objections.

And I think with that, we can move along a bit quicker.

You've seen what Mr. Kiley says in his rebuttal in relation

to this.

I have.

It doesn't sound like there's much, if any, disagreement between the two of you.

Actually, there is a little bit of disagreement between us because...

Is it to do with the weight that should be attached to the appellant's objection?

That's one disagreement.

Okay, what's the other one?

Mr. Kiley has sort of framed the objections as, well, not objections.

And in fact, I think he... I can't remember the exact words he uses, but we could go to his rebuttal.

but he frames it in words of support almost.

But actually if you look at the objections

that are made to 1 .7,

and I accept that there's a whole variety of people

who have made comments on various different aspects

of allocation 1 .7, but what they are identifying

identifying these issues of soundness.

So they're effectively saying that elements

of site allocation 1 .7, various different elements,

are not sound.

Not sound in my view means objection.

Now it certainly doesn't need support,

as Mr. Kiley has suggested.

So we have a difference of opinion on that

because many of those objectives are actually seeking changes

to 1 .7.

Those changes, as we see here today, remain unresolved.

And they need to be tested at the examination in public

into the level of the plan.

Let's leave Mr. Kiley's evidence to one side for a moment

and see what the NPPF tells us to do.

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is relevant, isn't it?

Yes.

Yeah.

And if you could turn up your copy of that.

This is page 14 of the MVPF.

Determining applications is the heading.

Para 49 says that local planning authorities

may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans

according to, firstly, the stage of preparation of the plan,

and then secondly, the extent to which there are unresolved

objections to relevant policies.

So it has to be to the relevant policy.

So for these purposes, the policy is that allocation 1 .7, yes?

Yes, that's a relevant policy, yes.

All right.

I think that's all.

There are other relevant policies, by the way, as well, of course, because there are

housing policies, there are policies on data centres, etc.

But this specific size allocation, yes, is a relevant policy.

That's what I'm focused on in my questions to you.

I think with that we can leave that topic.

Now, sir, I'm moving on to another topic that

may take a little bit of time.

I don't know what timing you would prefer for a break.

I'm content to have a break now.

It's just a question of when we resume

and how long we need for a break.

I think we on this side of the room

would be content with a shorter lunch break.

Shall we resume at half past one?

Is everyone content with that?

Yes, sir.

35 minutes.

Yeah, half past one then.

We'll resume then.

We'll come back to you, Mr. Wald.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Until then.

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 - Tuesday 28 October 2025, 9:30am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry AMTuesday, 28th October 2025 at 9:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Truman's Public Inquiry AM
Tuesday, 28th October 2025 at 9:30am