Truman's Public Inquiry PM - Tuesday 28 October 2025, 2:00pm

Truman's Public Inquiry PM
Tuesday, 28th October 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Thank you, sir. Mr. Martinson, can I turn with you now to the topic of commercial floor

space need and a document that I don't think we've seen much if anything of yet. It's the

employment land review, CDF 0 .04.

Yeah.

And if you can make your way to page 124 within that document.

Supply and demand forecasts is entitled.

Yes.

It's a document of March 2023, end of March 2023.

Are you familiar with this document?

Yes, I am.

Yeah, great.

I just want to take you fairly carefully through the first three paragraphs.

After many years of rapid growth in the office floor space stock in tower hamlets, recent

years have actually seen a decline in stock.

Employment in the office sector is projected to continue growing, but the relationship

between growth in employment and demand for office floor space is not the same as it once

was.

You'd agree with all of that, presumably?

Yes, I mean, you'd probably get onto it,

but in certain types of office floor space, that's correct.

Yeah, we will get onto that, even within these paragraphs.

I think our best estimate is that there will be demand

for a net additional 283 ,000 square metres

of office floor space over the planned period

of 2023 to 38. As an upper estimate, we would place this figure at 556 ,000 square metres,

although we'd caution against basing future thinking on this higher level. And here comes

the reason. There is already a pipeline of developments available under construction

or with outstanding consents that totals 1 .3 million square metres. Some of these schemes

may not be implemented, but the margin is such that in purely quantitative terms, there

would be no need to plan for an additional office floor space.

Most of this pipeline is in large schemes of 10 ,000 square metres or more in CAS or

Northern Isle of Dogs.

The strategic function that these areas fulfil means that the reservoir of such space is

well catered for, and you don't have any reason to disagree with that assessment, do you?

No reason to disagree with that in terms of those larger floor plates within Canary Wharf,

and we've all seen that. We've seen it in the headlines, people like HSB for EC, for

example.

And then it moves on, and I think this does deal, or starts to deal, but demand for office

is not only for the type of corporate product

and policy E2 of the London Plan states

that boroughs should include policies

in local development plan documents

that support the provision and where appropriate protection

of a range of B use class business space

in terms of type use and size

at an appropriate range of rents

to meet the needs of micro, small

and medium sized enterprises

and to support firms wishing to start up or expand.

Whilst quantitatively there is more than sufficient office supply in the pipeline,

we are less sure that there is provision for the range of business space that Policy E2 requires.

Again, you'd agree with that?

Yes.

Yeah.

Now, the position then is that there's been over...

overall there's been oversupply of office accommodation,

but in relation to smaller occupiers and I think that was the qualification you were

intimating a few moments ago, is that right? Smaller occupiers?

Yes, smaller, medium -sized businesses. But also, I mean, it kind of goes a little bit

further than that, which is the types of locations within which that office floor space is located.

and the sort of services and functions of those locations to meet occupier needs.

So for those smaller occupiers, authors are less sure.

So there's a degree of equivocation, isn't there, in relation to those smaller occupiers.

There's a higher degree of certainty in relation to the oversupply of larger occupation office

accommodation, but so far as smaller occupiers are concerned, the authors of this report

at any rate are less sure.

That's correct, yeah, and larger they're depending as above 10 ,000 square metres.

Yeah, and you're focused on the smaller units.

So, standing back, the appellant is saying that office floor space in the appeal scheme

will cater, at least in significant part, for smaller occupiers or SMEs, yes?

Correct.

This report, the Tower Hamlets Employment Land Review, says that there may be more need

for SMEs, but it is equivocal.

To some degree, it is equivocal about that.

Equivocal in what sense, sorry?

It may or it may not, it's not certain.

It's not categorical about it.

No, I mean, in that statement, it isn't.

I mean, our own evidence base and the advice

that the appellant has taken from agents

is that there is a strong demand for the types of floor space

that are being proposed in the Truman Brewley East site

and that's in the evidence that has been putting

and including from Voltaire and Belcourt and the agents.

That's in your rebuttal

and you'll have seen what Mr. Kiley says in his rebuttal.

I have.

Yeah, I don't want to go back over that.

I just want to focus on this document for now, please.

The equivocal position as stated within this document

contrasts quite markedly, does it not,

with the much clearer position on housing,

which is, as I think as you agreed with me

before we broke for lunch, there is an acute need,

not just an acute need for housing in this borough,

but the most acute need in this borough

across all of London.

Contrasts with,

Contrast in terms of office need versus housing need is what you're saying.

Yes, on the one hand there is equivocation.

We based that on this document.

On the other hand there is clear, there's clarity, there's a categorical position about the need for housing.

Yes there is.

The only thing I'm saying to that is what we just spoke about which was,

I think there's a very clear position on the employment land side in relation to larger

office floor space, but in relation to small and medium sized floor plates, this document

is suggesting there is a demand for that and our own evidence would support that as well.

Well, it's not quite what we agreed, Mr. Martinson, a moment ago.

There is an oversupply of larger floor plate office units according to this document.

So far as smaller units are concerned, there is a degree of equivocation within this document.

There is, but I mean it does recognise that there is limited supply between 2 ,000 and

10 ,000 square metres in this document and there's a figure which is above this, a few

pages above, which talks about, which shows graphically what that means and I think it's

Certainly.

A difference between the larger office board of whites and the less than.

Yeah, we've established that.

All right.

Mr. Marsden, I want to move on to a number of other discrete topics with you now, please.

Very briefly, Ely's Yard.

You've included a figure at 4 .3 of your proof.

Now, I think you don't adopt slavishly the views that are

fed to you by your experts.

Like Mr. Kiley, you do your job of assessing how robust

that evidence is before you reach your own conclusions,

don't you?

Yes.

And at figure 4 .3, we can see here the access point between Grey Eagle Street at the Corbett

Place end and Ely's Yard, can't we?

Yes.

And it's quite a limited point of access, isn't it?

Well, there's two access points, isn't there?

There's the ramp down from the public space

onto Grey Eagle Street.

And then there's the sort of under the wall entrance

as well.

I mean, I've heard a lot of discussion

at the inquiry about this, the 1 .5 metres reference.

Personally, I was comfortable with the generosity of those entrances.

You'd say it would encourage public access?

Yes.

You'd say it would draw in people from Spitalfields and West Broadgate into the Truman, Brit Lane

destination location?

It would assist.

Excuse me?

It would assist.

It would assist?

Yes.

It's not going to be the primary entrance into the Truman Brewery Estate at that, you

know, given the scale of those entrances, but it would certainly assist in how pedestrian

flow.

All right, it could assist more, couldn't it, if designed differently?

Potentially, if you wanted to make it even wider, but I'm not sure it's necessary, given

the amount of pedestrian flow that's going to be coming through there.

It's not just the witch though, is it? You go in, there's a sort of dog leg and there's some steps to get you up there.

You may not even know that it's there and available to you.

I think that's all part of the... I'm not sure about that. I mean that's all part of the experience, isn't it? Of these sorts of areas.

That's their character where you go into spaces and then you sort of wind your way through and you find an entrance.

and once people start to understand and realise that entrance is there,

I suspect it will be used quite well.

Simply because you're the last witness, Mr Martin,

so there was a point hanging over.

I asked Mr Dunn about a difference in relation to a different point of connexion.

Do you remember, I think you've been here throughout the inquiry, have you not?

Yes.

Block two, Mr Yeoman says...

that there currently is no connexion.

Sorry, repeat that. Mr Yeoman says...

Yeah, at 10 .14, Mr Dunn says,

unlike the existing shed on the site, this is in relation to Block 2,

the new building will provide a permeable route between Block H and Block R,

enabling access into the site from Brick Lane.

But Mr. Yeoman, in his proof of evidence, this is a point I put to Mr. Dunn and he said

he didn't know but he'd cheque it.

Under a heading connexion says the popular existing backyard market entrance will be

preserved as a route to the new market.

So one of them is saying there is an existing connexion and the other one is saying there

isn't.

Are you able to help us as to which of the two gentlemen is correct?

I understand there is a connexion but it doesn't go all the way through at the moment.

But we can clarify that, sir, if that would be helpful.

Yeah, it sounds there either is, if it goes, if it doesn't go all the way through, it's

not a connexion.

No, I agree.

I agree.

All right, so you'll help us with that.

It would be worth having that clarified, I think.

Thank you.

We can clarify that.

You're 716, please, Mr. Marginson.

You say there that block three was reduced in height

from its original design to ensure heights were commensurate with surrounding townscape.

And then a bit later in your proof at 769, you said that the council commissioned prior

and partners to prepare the Brit Lane and Pedley site assessment, which is core document

F05.

Again, we may not need to go there.

I think it might be possible to deal with this quite quickly.

That document was prepared to assess the capacity of sites in terms of their scale and the main

site is considered on pages 26 to 9 you say.

And then finally at your 770 it's clear that the site assessment envisage buildings of

scale in the locations where blocks 3A and B are proposed on the main site.

Now you've seen Mr. Kiley's rebuttal on this haven't you?

Yes.

So are you at 770 or 717?

7 -0.

Yeah, your references are 769 and 716, 769 and 717.

Sorry, you just went 717 and 770. You just confused me. That's fine.

In any event, Mr. Kiley is right, isn't he, that you need to make sure that you focus.

when you're dealing with offices you take a height of four to four and a half

metres according to the to the key or the introductory part of the document

but whereas with offices you take a height ceiling height of three to three

to five three and a half metres for resi I beg your pardon yeah yeah there is a

difference in in floor -to -floor heights between offices and residential yes

that's about you don't fault do you the calculation that mr. Kiley has done

based on those different ceiling heights.

And it's something, I'm sure it wasn't deliberate,

but it was something that in your own evidence,

and in those paragraphs, you hadn't taken into account.

No, I had, but what I was saying is,

and what I am saying is that those capacity studies

identify a certain scale of mass or residential.

and

They provide a very good indication of what the council would consider because it's ultimately it's the council's own evidence that they're putting

forward to the local plan examination so presume they

Support it gives a good indication of the height and scale that would be appropriate and that's fed through

into the actual local plan site allocation, which is

Now 40 metres a OD

All right, let's just have a look then at the figures that you don't disagree with from

Mr. Kiley's evidence.

It's his rebuttal 3 .7 and 3 .8.

Height of the buildings that you refer to are proposed as block 3A, 29 .3 metres, and

3B, 27 .8.

Yes.

He says at 3 .9 the difference in scale between the study and Block A is significant at 10 .3

metres and 6 .8 metres. That's the difference that you end up with if you don't allow for

office versus residency in terms of seat lights?

That's probably broadly right.

But as I say, it's a good indication

of what scale is acceptable.

Yes, there is a difference between residential

and office floors.

But that is followed through into the emerging

local plan site allocation of 40 metre AOD.

Broadly right is good enough for me.

Let's move on.

Now, we've gone over this now enough.

You said at the outset that you actively review your position in the light of evidence as it comes out.

Yes?

Yes, I mean, when I take on this type of instruction, I obviously review all the papers, starting with the committee report,

and all the application documents, and as the evidence forms, then obviously being the planning witness,

I make judgements on that evidence and I come to my own conclusions.

Quite right. And you say one of those conclusions that you had reached before you heard the evidence,

because it's in your written evidence, is that the scheme is heritage -led.

You say that at your paragraph 7 .2 and also at your paragraph 4 .5.

Correct.

Yeah.

You were here when Mr Morris gave evidence to the effect that he didn't know of the involvement

of heritage experts when he was doing his design work.

Yeah.

Did that evidence that you heard surprise you?

Were you surprised to hear that?

Yes, because I think Mr Morris was wrong.

All right. Given the evidence that Mr Morris has given as to his awareness, you're not

suggesting that he was wrong, that he was in fact aware of heritage input.

I can't tell you why Mr Morris answered like that, because Mr Morris should have been aware

that there was heritage input, because KM Heritage were on board.

early in the process from 2023.

I know that's the opponent's case.

But my question is deliberately narrow in its ambit.

Because what I am interested in now are two things.

Firstly, what Mr. Morris understood,

because he's the designer after all.

So no matter who might have been contributing elsewhere,

the critical factor is whether the designer,

the principal designer of the Truman East scheme

understands that to be the position, knows of it,

feeds off it or can be led by it.

Do you agree with all of that?

Yes, I mean, Mr Morris was the lead designer, I accept that,

but there were other people obviously working alongside him.

We were more intrinsically involved day to day in the project

and would have been absolutely aware that KM Heritage were on board

and would have been taking advice from them.

Well, we can only ask questions of the witnesses that appear at this inquiry.

Mr Morris appeared.

He was the principal designer of the principal site.

Yeah?

Yes. Well, slightly careful.

3A, 3B you're talking about, and the other site he was in.

He's not the principal designer.

That's Mr. Yeoman, who's the master planner.

He was an important designer of the overall scheme.

Yes, he was responsible for three of the blocks.

No matter what his colleagues might have known,

they're not here to receive questions from us.

If he is unaware of heritage input,

it is not possible, logically, rationally, sensibly,

for he himself to be heritage led in the way

that he goes about designing his part of the scheme?

That's not possible, is it?

I don't know why.

Is it not possible?

I think it's entirely possible, because Mr Morris has got

a huge amount of experience in dealing with heritage buildings

and buildings in a heritage townscape.

So necessarily mean that he had to have a heritage

advisor next to him.

But the facts of the case, Mr Waldo,

although there was a heritage advisor in place

from early 2023.

I don't know why Mr. Morris answered in the way he did.

Personally, I think it was an error on his part

because maybe he had a blank moment, I don't know.

But the pre -application documents that we submitted

clearly show KM Heritage Kevin Murphy's involvement

and he was involved up until the point when the townscape -

We've been there, that's not what I'm interested in.

We're focused on that evidence

that we heard from Mr Morris.

He was unaware of it.

That's the evidence that we've heard from him.

The second question that I have, and it's more for you,

Mr Martinsen, is that that is a good example of evidence

that comes out in the course of an inquiry that

might cause a planning witness, a fair one,

to strike a different balance, or to reconsider matters.

Not in this case, Mr Wall.

because Mr Morris made an error when he said that.

I have obviously since been made aware

of the pre -application documents

and K .M. Heritage's involvement,

and I'm satisfied,

having had the internal discussions I have had,

that Heritage Advice did form an early part

of the development of this design.

So I'm comfortable that this was a heritage -led scheme.

I can't vouch for Mr. Morris said what he did.

It was an error.

OK, let's go to the pre -application documents,

please, if we may.

You cite one of them in your proof of evidence

at 733 and 734, page 52, I think.

Yeah.

Now, when you say the QRP comments from the 26th of March 2024 can be summarised as follows,

do you mean the AM or the PM QRP comments?

I need to look back to see which one they were, which block they related to which.

I think they might be AM and PM, but without going back to them.

Is it relevant to look at both of them?

Yes.

Yeah.

And if I'm not mistaken, it doesn't help that they've got the same core document number,

but it's CDD10 -PN that you have looked at in your summary.

Do you want to just?

The summary and bullet point you're referring to.

Yeah, the bullet points all seem to derive from CDD10 -PN.

Yes, I think that's right.

After lunch.

I think they do, yes.

But did you also look at the AM on that date?

Dead, yeah.

Yeah, and the AM storey is not quite so positive, is it?

Well, there's different comments, yes, on the AM.

They're more negative, aren't they, in their comments?

There are some comments made which construe them as negative or...

But we'll look at them in a moment.

But when you say that AM and PM are relevant, I wonder why it was that your proof doesn't deal with them as a whole,

doesn't provide that necessary balance.

Is there a reason for that, Mr. Marginson?

Now, I think the reason for it was that I was focusing on the PM comments

and the overall summary at the bottom.

It's not because the AM tells a different storey, is it?

This is not an example of cherry -picking?

No.

All right, let's have a look at what the AM storey does tell us.

Dealing with the master plan, you've got at 7, the panel remain concerned that Cooperage

Passage still doesn't feel welcoming with a lot of back of house facilities along its

length.

And let's bear in mind what you say at 7 .34.

it's evident from the changes made through the pre -app process and the QRP

that design options were tested and the designs of building streets and spaces

evolved and were enhanced through input from the council officers and the QRP.

I'm not going back to December. We've looked at the December QRP. That

contained a number of concerns. I'm going to the most recent ones because I want

to test whether it's right that there was this iterative process that resulted

in a general positivity by this date.

So seven is the first one.

The panel remained concerned.

So that's an expression of concern, isn't it?

It's yes within a number of comments made within this.

Yeah.

Eight, nine is another one.

The panel felt that residential uses should be prioritised in the southern block to the

south of the Woodseer Street.

It's another form of criticism, isn't it?

Yeah, I mean, I could easily point you to other elements

of this report where there are positive comments.

We're trying to be fair, Mr. Martinson.

So am I, Mr. Ward, because...

Well, are you, Mr. Martinson?

Because we have what you've written at 733.

Yes. Every single reference there

is some expression of positivity.

It's applauded.

it. It's a congratulation, isn't it? Every single one?

It's a positive, yes, from the PM. Yeah.

So it may be that you are able to find other instances of that, but it's absolutely crucial,

isn't it, that we achieve a fair balance in this process?

Well, you need to look at the AM and PM QRP comments, which I did, by the way. And obviously

Obviously, I only put in the PM comments here,

and my statement at 7 .34 reflects my reading

of the QRP process right from QRP one through to QRP two.

I think if you've ever experienced QRP's, Mr. Ward,

which you probably haven't, you will realise

that there are a lot of people on the panel

who say a lot of different things.

and it is almost impossible to get QRP comments wholly glowing of a scheme.

And when I read the QRP comments, both the December and the March versions,

my overall view was that this was a very positive set of QRP comments,

given the scale of the scheme that we are talking about.

and of all the schemes I've seen,

this is right up there with one of the best QRP set of comments that I've seen.

Well, let's see what the... a fair balance of the views shows us.

I'm not going to go through all of these

because there are a very large number of concerns expressed within this QRP.

Well, I'm not sure I would agree with that.

I mean, you're now looking at the AM...

Let's go through them, but...

You're now looking at the AM in isolation as well, by the way.

No, I'm accepting what you say about the PM.

I'm accepting that you've taken from the PM

the most positive remarks that were made,

and you've put those into your 733.

What I don't accept is that you did an equivalent exercise

with the AM so that the inspector and others could

see what the general attitude was at this point in time.

And I still don't understand why you

didn't conduct that exercise.

Well, I did conduct that exercise.

Why isn't it there for us to see in your evidence?

I didn't put it in my proof.

Why not?

I don't know why I didn't do that.

To be honest, I should have put it in my proof.

You should have.

You absolutely should have.

But what I can tell the inspector is that I read through all the QRP comments and I

was able to judge whether or not the scheme had evolved, had responded to those comments,

and weigh up the positive and negative comments within the QRP.

Okay, let's see on the basis of what's in the AM whether your 7 .34 can seriously be

said.

Fourteen, please.

I'm going to skip over 10 and 11, but I'll ask the Inspector to make a note of those.

I know he'll read the QRP fully, both of them.

Fourteen, in views of the proposals from Allen Gardens, panel members felt that all three

visible blocks were the same height.

they felt that some variety in the heights was required.

It was suggested that the heights need to reduce towards the east

and that plot 3a would ideally be reduced in scale.

Positive or negative?

Well, it's a negative comment or a comment, if you like, from the QRP.

I mean, the appellant didn't agree with it.

And I don't actually agree with it either, because...

Not a reason to miss it out, though, from your evidence.

Not a reason to exclude it, though, is it?

It's not a reason to exclude it and I've already explained that in hindsight yes I should have put these comments in there but I have taken a balanced approach to this.

Paragraph 24 please under Heritage. Whilst there is much to recommend the scheme, members noted that there are still reservations regarding the height of the proposals within the conservation area.

there are still elements of the scheme which feel too high given the low -rise

nature of the brewery buildings and the character of the broader conservation

area positive or negative. That's a negative comment. Thank you. Architecture over the

page at 30, the panel had mixed views regarding the scale and massing of the

scheme with some members expressing reservations regarding the massing

within the conservation area and in conjunction with the heritage buildings

whilst others felt that it was broadly acceptable.

So, positive, negative, mixed, neutral.

Positive and negative, I mean, that's a prime example

of how QRP members can't agree between themselves.

32, concern was expressed regarding the access

to the service bay adjacent to the Coopridge building.

It was suggested that consideration

might be given to its relocation.

The access to this from Coopridge passage

was also felt to have a negative impact.

Positive or negative?

It's a negative comment from the panel.

And 33 panel members felt that more variation

in the height of blocks 3A and B

would add interest to the roof line.

Positive or negative?

Sort of.

It's a bit of a non -comment, really.

All right, non -comment.

43, I'll skip over 38,

but I'd ask the inspector to have a look at that.

43, 46 and 47, and then we'll move on.

43, the panel would like to see more residential use adjoining Allen Gardens.

This could benefit the scheme providing overlooking of the park, movement along this edge and

a community for the cafes.

Positive or negative?

Well, I would just, I wouldn't even say positive or negative.

I'd say that the QRP are going beyond their remit.

And in conclusion, 46, the proposals need to give far more consideration to Allen Gardens

and the way that this valuable open space can be integrated into the proposals for this site?

Positive or negative?

Well, David, it's a negative comment from then.

We don't, you know, the outfallen didn't agree with it.

I don't agree with it, actually.

Mr. Margilent, if it helps, I'm not asking you whether you agree with these.

I'm asking you to make sure that the inquiry is aware,

rather like the policies that we looked at earlier,

that there is rough and smooth, that there are comments, remarks that move in both directions.

Yes, and you've highlighted those to the Inspector.

Almost. I've still got 47 to finish with.

Careful consideration should be given to the possibility of accommodating residential use within Building 3B.

This would encourage greater activation of this building at the weekend and allow greater passive surveillance of Allen Gardens, positive or negative?

beyond their remit.

And on your last remark, Mr. Martinson,

it's not really appropriate to wait for an advocate

to highlight missing parts of evidence to the inspector.

It's the role of a responsible and thorough expert

to do that him or herself.

And if there are reasons to attach limited weight

or to disregard some of it,

You're not prevented from expressing your view.

But to leave it out altogether is not the proper way

of proceeding, is it?

I don't agree.

I mean, I think you're making a big point out

of something which isn't particularly a big point.

I've already explained in my oral evidence here now

that I took account of the QRP comments.

I read them.

And I came to a balanced judgement,

as was expressed in 7 .34.

I mean, the Inspector will have to decide whether he agrees with that or not.

Well, Mr Martinson, you may think it's a trivial point,

but there is a wider point of principle that is important,

and it's to ensure that...

...Inspector of the Secretary of State benefits from balanced and fair evidence.

That doesn't mean that you necessarily have to abandon your conclusions,

but it is inappropriate to cherry -pick policies, QRP remarks,

or any other aspect of evidence.

I didn't cherry pick them, so I'm sorry, I don't agree.

I cherry picked.

All right, let's move on to data centres.

Like Mr. Kiley, you are not a data centre expert, are you?

No.

But also like Mr. Kiley, you are experienced

and no doubt expert at assessing evidence

and forming your own view as to how robust that evidence is.

Correct.

Yeah.

And you have done that in relation to the data centre evidence.

I have.

And did you, unlike Mr. Kiley, have the benefit, when you did so, of viability or optioneering desktop work, to which Miss McGinley referred when she gave evidence?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by viability.

Did you have documentation to show what steps were taken to identify whether alternative locations were viable, were possible?

Not when I started preparing my evidence, no.

At any point did you see documentation or did you, like the rest of us,

or did you, like the rest of us, Mr. Marginson, hear the oral evidence in relation to that?

I saw Ms. McGinley's evidence in preparation.

The evidence that I have seen is Ms. McGinley's proof of evidence.

That's not the question I asked.

I'm asking you a question about the desktop viability or optioneering work that Ms. McGinley said that she had conducted.

No, I haven't seen that.

You've not seen that?

So, so far as that work is concerned, you were not, you were in the same position as Mr. Kiley,

you were not in a position to assess any written documentation?

No.

In order to satisfy yourself that alternative locations were not available or viable?

You weren't able to do that?

No, I wasn't. But I wasn't concerned about that because that isn't actually a policy test.

There is no policy within the development plan or the MPPF which requires you to carry

out some form of sequential testing relation to data centres.

Also I wasn't concerned about that because the principle of the land use here is an agreed

position between both parties.

You've done data centre cases before?

No I haven't.

You'll be aware nonetheless that a data centre situated within a conservation area with numerous

listed buildings nearby and one within it,

introduces constraints, doesn't it?

Well, it is a further level of constraint

and obviously a very important consideration

as to the impacts on the character and appearance

of the conservation area, I accept that.

Such support that exists in policy for data centres

is not a trump card, is it?

It needs to be weighed like so many other aspects of planning

in the balance? It needs to be weighed in the balance if there is harm found to the

heritage asset. Now Mr Harris, my learned friend Mr Harris last week indicated that the

Secretary of State and we would say the Inspector in any event should see

relevant data centre decisions and we don't disagree with that. Agreed. And we

the council introduced four of them over the weekend and I think my

My friend and friend Mr. Parkinson confirmed that they are the same four that the

appellant would have wished to introduce. Have you had a chance to look at any of those?

Very briefly.

Very briefly. All right. They're now inquiry documents. If you could make your way to them,

please. Are you already familiar with any of them?

No, I'm not.

So let's start off with ID 19.

This is Woodlands 2.

It's the most recent of them, 9th of July of 2025.

We're dealing here with 72 ,000 square metres as compared with 5 ,200 square metres in our

scheme.

Can you agree those figures or do you need me to take you to the...

No, that's fine.

Yeah, I can see the description of development paragraph.

The description is relevant.

And if you need, the officer's report

will tell you the size of the scheme in these appeals.

Now, if you could turn to decision letter paragraph 18

first.

And you can see there in reaching her conclusion, this is the Secretary of State speaking of

the Inspector, she has taken into account the level of need, the contribution to that

need made by the proposal before her, and paragraph 85 of the MPPF, which sets out that

significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity,

taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development.

She does not consider that the weight which may attach to housing is an appropriate comparator.

Overall the Secretary of State considers that the need should be given significant weight.

All right.

So that's the first paragraph I wanted to take you to, please.

and then if you could make your way to paragraph 41.

Planning balance and overall conclusion.

Weighing in favour of the proposal is the direct and indirect employment

which carries substantial weight.

need and lack of alternative sites, which each carry significant weight,

education and employment, contribution to mitigating climate change and biodiversity net gain,

which each carry moderate weight, and temporary employment, which carries limited weight.

Now, in terms of the megawatt figure,

We know from, if we go into the decision letter, sorry, the recommendation, the inspector's recommendation,

it's page 71 of 123, paragraph 6 .47, we can see that it's a 90 megawatt data centre.

Yes? Yes. And that is to be compared with a 3 megawatt data centre in our scheme?

Well, yes, as a broad numerical comparison, yes.

Yeah, I'll come on in a moment. You're going to say that you're not comparing apples with apples or pairs with pairs here, is that right?

Each scheme is obviously different, yes, and we can get to it.

And we've got Miss McGinley's evidence about what the particular features of this scheme

are, and I'm not proposing to go back over that with you.

So that's all I think I need to take you to on that decision letter.

Can we turn to the next one, please, which is ID 21, Bedman Road.

This is a slightly less recent but slightly larger data centre.

It's 84 ,000 square metres and it's 96 megawatts.

And we see those figures from the decision letter paragraph one and the inspector's

of power 203. And then in the decision letter at 24, again we have the attribution of significant

weight. We can turn to that if you'd like to. No, that's fine. You don't need to. No.

Actually I think I may need to turn to it for another purpose, so excuse me.

The Secretary of State notes that the development would provide around 3 % of the forecasted

growth in data centre capacity need across London between 2004 and 2029,

and around a third of the need in the Hamelhamstead AZ, AZ,

and agrees that a failure to provide enough sites to meet the need and so on.

So 3 % of forecasted growth in data centre capacity between 2004 and 2029,

and still only significant weight is attributed there despite that 3 % of contribution.

That's what it says.

That's what it says. If 96 megawatts in that scheme is 3 % then by my maths 3 megawatts is

less than a tenth of a percent.

Your maths may well be right.

It's 0 .09%.

Alright, two more.

Let's go, if we can now, ID20.

Court lane, Iver.

It's a 65 ,000 square metre and a 103 megawatt data centre.

Those figures come from decision letter 1 and the inspectors report 67.

Again at decision letter 19 we see that significant weight is attributed.

Even though at decision letter 20 the development makes a significant contribution to meeting need.

And I think it's only fair to point out that that particular decision letter,

or Secretary of State's decision,

narrowly predates the introduction of the new NPPF,

which has paragraphs at 86 and 7

specifically relating to data centres.

I say that out of, I'm not sure how familiar you are with these decision letters, but the

first two post -date the NPPF, the latest NPF, and the last two, the Court Lane and the one

that I'm now turning to, predates the latest NPPF.

So that last one is Woodlands, Woodlands number one.

We've dealt with Woodlands number two, and it's ID 18.

And this is a very, very large data centre

of 163 ,000 square metres.

It says in paragraph one of the decision letter,

and 147 megawatts, the inspectors report at 258.

Nonetheless, only significant weight, decision letter paragraph 21, is ascribed to this,

even though the scheme is said to make a significant contribution to meeting need.

And that's the inspector's report at 258.

So Mr. Markinson, in each of these decisions, the need for data centre capacity and contribution

to meeting that need consistently gets no more than significant weight.

Yes?

That's how the Secretary of State has termed it.

I mean, what we don't know, because we don't have any insight in these decisions, is the

scale of the weighting that the sector of state is applying.

I suspect, I don't know, neither of us know,

sat here is what exactly the significant means.

Is that the top of the scale?

It probably is, I suspect.

And I, sorry I'll finish.

And I suspect that that term has been lifted

directly out of the MPPF, where you give significant weight

to employment and economic development.

That's what I suspect.

Obviously, I adopt a different scale of weighing benefits,

but I suspect that's what they've done.

And I suspect there is now higher weight than significant.

Well, I'm not sure that's right.

You're suspecting what I don't think there's evidence for.

If you look at the Woodlands Park decision itself,

there are numerous reference in there to substantial weight.

If you look at 8, for example.

Sorry, which is the Woodlands, sorry, ID, what?

The Woodlands appeal decision of the 30th of October.

Of which number, ID?

18.

Yeah.

When the Secretary of State wants to, his assessment is one of substantial weight.

Paragraph 8 contains a number of examples of that.

I can see that, but I can't read into the mind of what the Secretary of State has done.

I think you can't say that significant is the top rating

because you just simply don't know and you don't know why the Secretary of State

has given substantial weight in the other cases you've identified in relation to the Green Belt.

Let's go back to ID 19, the Woodlands, the latest Woodlands one, the Woodlands 2.

And we can see, we get a hint, we don't need to read into the sexual state mind,

we can see what the scale is at paragraph 41 under planning balance and overall conclusion.

In descending order, weighing in favour of the proposal is the direct and indirect employment

which carries substantial weight, need and lack of alternative sites which each carry

significant weight, education and employment contributing to mitigating

climate change and biodiversity in that case, which each carry moderate weight

and temporary employment which carries limited weight. Now you're not going to

suggest that significant weight is greater than substantial weight are you?

No. So none of us can read a mind but we can all read a decision letter and

And that's the scale that the Secretary of State's using.

I agree.

That's what they seem to have done.

I don't know why they've done that.

I mean, we know the Mulberry town hall decision

takes a very different approach.

That inspector says very substantial weight.

I don't know, of course, the individual circumstances

of these cases.

I haven't seen them before.

I don't know whether there is something

in particular about those cases which

would mean in a significant way rather than substantial or very substantial?

Well, Mr. Markinson, Mr. Harris indicated that these decisions needed to come in. He

said that there might be further examination in chief if necessary. That didn't happen.

That examination chief was going to be on these decision

letters.

If you had any concerns about the use of significant

and its meaning in relation to substantial,

that was a good opportunity to express them.

But to appear during cross -examination

and talk about suspicions and not understand it,

I mean, it's pretty clear, isn't it?

To be fair, Mr. Wall, this is that I have not

have the opportunity to go through these decisions in any detail.

I have not had any discussions with my team, as you know,

because I've been held over the weekend.

So it isn't fair to say that in some way I should have discussed this with Mr Harris

because I was not able to discuss this with Mr Harris.

I've given you my reaction to them because this is really the first time I've had any kind of proper look at these.

I saw the words significant because when I flew through them yesterday.

And I don't know the circumstances of each one of these cases.

So it wouldn't be, you know, I can't really say any more on these.

I think you've made your point which is the Secretary of State say significant.

You know my position in terms of waiting which is very substantial wait in relation

to this particular case for very specific reasons.

the inspector will have to go away and make his judgement.

Let's work with what we've got, Mr. Markinson.

These decision letters are consistent and up to date, aren't they?

Some of them, the Woodlands II decision letter is very up to date.

Well, they appear to be consistent, yes.

The schemes described within them, and that were being determined,

are vastly bigger than the scheme in this case, aren't they?

All well over 20 times bigger.

Yes, but this isn't a trump card exercise.

This isn't, you know, megawatts versus megawatts.

I think it's been as Miss Kinley explained in evidence,

you have to dig a little deeper than that

than to purely look at the megawatts that are involved.

Because those data centres, I suspect, and I don't know again,

but I suspect those data centres are cloud data centres.

They serve a very different purpose

than the data centre that is proposed on this site,

which, as we know, is located in the location it is

because of the connectivity to the super fibre network.

Mr. Marganson, I'm going to have to stop you

because this is straying very far from my questions.

I've said very clearly that Miss McGinley's evidence is Miss McGinley's evidence.

I'm not going back over that with you.

No doubt.

I appreciate that.

But you have asked me, you have suggested in a question that megawatts is an important

element of waiting.

I've simply asked you.

And I am explaining, and I think I'm quite entitled to explain that you need to be quite

cautious about adopting that approach because yes, you can have a look at megawatts, but

you need to actually look at the function and purpose of that specific data centre.

And that is a key difference with this site because of its location on the edge of the

city, because of its serving the world's city functions.

It is a completely different animal than a data centre,

wherever this is, in Buckinghamshire.

Mr. Margieson, I've almost resisted the temptation

to ask you questions that have already

been put to Miss McGinley.

But I will ask just this one.

There was nothing in Miss McGinley's evidence

that stated that the data centre had

to be within a minimum distance from any particular user,

because the users are as yet unknown.

Do you recall that evidence?

Yes.

Thank you.

But the data centre is there to serve the needs

of the city of London.

All right.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be there.

The inspector has heard the evidence,

and he will no doubt hear about this in closing.

Let's just go back to what we know

and is relevant to your evidence, Mr. Markinson,

all of the schemes described in these decision letters

are well over 20 times bigger than that in this case.

Numerical, yes.

Yes.

Despite making a bigger contribution

to making the need for data centre capacity,

none of them gets any more than significant weight.

But you've used the numerical advantage again there.

I think...

Object to that point.

We needn't go back there.

I understand your evidence.

This McGinley, you say, indicates that this is a special

case as a result of which it is not appropriate to compare

it to other schemes elsewhere, even if they generate

more supply of data for data.

That's your essential point, isn't it?

It's a different need. That's the point.

So you can't compare apples with apples as you were trying to do.

It is a different need.

And Ms. McGinley explained that in evidence and it's all in her proof of evidence.

If you are comparing retail colocation data centres,

one with another, then the schemes described in these decision letters are

significantly larger in scale and megawattage than that in this case.

I can't numerically argue with that, can I? I mean that's just a fact, but I'm making the clear distinction,

and I'm not going to go over it again.

None of them, nonetheless, has any more than significant weight

ascribed to them.

That is what the Secretary of State has said.

All of those decision letters consider the contribution

of the particular scheme in question

to meeting need as part of deciding what weight to ascribe.

Yes, I believe that must have been the case, yes.

The clear inference is that a much smaller scheme, if one is comparing apples with apples,

and I don't want to debate that with you, indulge me for the moment on the assumption that one is comparing apples with apples,

a much smaller scheme cannot, other things being equal,

get the same weight as those other schemes

that had significant weight ascribed to them?

I'm not sure I would agree with that.

Because they're all meeting a critical need

for infrastructure.

So would you be...

So it would be, I can give you an example, for example.

You know, if you deliver 50 residential units and you deliver 200 units, I suspect you wouldn't

attach any greater or lesser weight, rather lesser weight, sorry, to the smaller scheme

than you would to the larger scheme because it is meeting a need.

And in this case, for data centres, there's a critical need.

So any contribution of a reasonable size must be given appropriate weight.

And there would be no reason why a 5 megawatt scheme couldn't be given the same weight as a 200 megawatt scheme.

3 megawatts, not 5 megawatts.

3 megawatts, apologies.

Particularly in circumstances where that is located on the edge of the City of London.

So you wouldn't make any adjustment for the fact that the megawatt...

No, I wouldn't.

Right, OK. Let's have a look at the Mulberry Place closing submissions.

It's CDH 09.

And this is a decision letter that we did look at.

And that you have had an opportunity to discuss with your team if you wanted to, yes?

Yes.

And if you can make your way to paragraphs 193 to 196 and 197, and these are the closing

submissions of my learner friend Mr Harris.

The package of public benefits that the scheme will deliver are overwhelming as detailed

in the evidence of Mr. Carter, the provision of a data centre will, as set out above, be

a unique benefit on a London -wide and national scale and will meet a critical need. By itself,

it would be sufficient to outweigh any meaningful finding of harm. To understand this, one need

only look at the Council's own assessment of the data centre next door. First, it is

a much smaller extension centre, bringing less benefit than this holistic retail and

wholesale provision.

So there, there does appear to be an exercise in comparing

size or megawatt outputs of a type

that you were reluctant to do a moment ago.

Seems that way.

I don't know.

I mean, I don't know this case inside out.

I don't know why.

I mean, this is obviously Mr. Harris's closing.

I don't know why he wrote those words

or the meaning behind them.

Do you remember Miss McGinley told us in cross -examination that even that much smaller extension was 40 megawatts?

I don't, actually.

You don't remember that? I'm sure the Inspector will have a note of that.

It's still considerably more than 10 times the size of the 3 megawatt provision in our case, isn't it?

That's the maths.

And then at 197 you have a balance that is struck in relation to heritage assets, a grade

two listed building in that case.

So one has to first understand the benefit or the contribution made in order to strike

that balance.

And for that reason, if for no other, one cannot be blind to the amount of contribution made.

You seemed a moment ago to be saying any contribution deserves substantial or very significant weight.

No, I was saying in relation to this sign, the 3 megawatts, and given its location and importance,

It should be given in the century of stay state's eyes

So significant weight. Can we just see what office has said about block a

It's CDL 0 2

And paragraph 8 .1 for 7

Well there is an established cluster of large -scale data centers...

Sorry, could you just...

Yeah, of course, sorry, apologies.

O2, yeah.

It's CDL02 and paragraph 8 .147.

Let me know when you're there.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Well there's an established cluster of large -scale data centres elsewhere in Tower Hamlets,

notably Blackwall with managed estates and with strategic links to Canary Wharf.

This proposal is materially different.

It's smaller in scale, located outside a managed estate, and lacks evidence of strategic importance

to the wider digital infrastructure network.

No compelling justification has been provided to demonstrate that this facility would serve

a critical role for the City of London or the wider region.

On the evidence before the inquiry, a three megawatt data centre, that is a fair analysis

from officers, isn't it?

No, because I disagree with it.

But the fact that you disagree with it doesn't make it unfair.

Why is it unfair?

Because for the reasons I have explained.

All right.

Final furlong, Mr. Markington.

and there's just two more topics.

And I don't think I need to deal with the next one

at great length, because you're not a lawyer.

You're not a lawyer, are you?

No, thank God.

No, no.

The consent order.

Yeah.

Now, there were various references, both in cross -examination of Mr. Kiley and in your

examination in chief, to the High Court having given a ruling or a judgement and having said

various things in relation to the consent order. Do you recall?

Yes.

And bearing in mind that you're for good or ill, not a lawyer, I just want to set the

context with you. We've looked at CD... Can we look at CDH08? Which is the actual High

Court order. Tell me when you're there. High Court order of Sir Peter Lane. Have you seen

this before? Yes. And you can see, I'm assuming it's not a document with which you are familiar

in general terms. Is this the only time that you've had to focus on a High Court order

of this type.

Yeah.

It says that following consideration of the documents

lodged by the appellant and the respondent,

including the draught signed consent order,

and then Sir Peter Lane orders those three things.

The terms of the consent order are not incorporated

into the High Court order, are they?

There's a reference made to them,

but they're not part of what the High Court is doing?

No, they don't...

As far as I understand it, the consent order is this.

This document.

Or the judgement is this document.

And this draught order...

...is signed...

by the parties.

Do you have that? Solicitor for the defendant and Cameron McKenna for the claimant?

That's CDH. What number's that? That's a different number, isn't it? I'm on CDH.

Is it seven? Sorry, eight. No, seven.

No, it's not eight. Seven.

I think it is from recollection.

Somewhere.

Yeah, I can see.

Signed by the parties, not by the court.

That's correct.

Yeah.

All right.

I think that's all I wanted to ask you about that.

Final topic is the overall balance.

Now, you said that in the light of the evidence that you've seen and heard,

the balance that you strike remains the balance that you struck.

Correct.

Yeah.

We get a little peek into how you have gone about that exercise,

that you're 790.

790.

You've got that.

790.

My assessment of the public benefits and the weight to be attached.

to them is set out for low.

And to cut a long storey short,

you ascribe substantial weight,

which I take to be the highest on your scale,

above significant, yes?

Above significant, yes.

To everything, with two exceptions.

One is increase in biodiversity in greening,

of which there is barely any in this scheme, yes?

That's a slight of a characterisation.

I wouldn't say there's barely any, there's quite a lot actually,

but if you're talking about in terms of the urban greening factor,

I think that's why you're saying barely any.

Yes, sorry, I didn't hear the end of your last answer.

If I'm talking about the urban greening factor, then what?

In your reference to barely any,

I presume because you're comparing it to the urban greening factor,

Is that why you're saying barely any?

Do you think that this is a scheme that

is characterised by a significant contribution

in those terms?

Well, I think it is compared to the existing site, yes.

The other, the only other public benefit

to which you ascribe anything less than substantial weight,

is employment skills and training.

And am I right that those are skills and training

conducted during the construction process?

Well, no, they're not actually,

because they include the full -time employment jobs,

operational jobs associated with the scheme.

So you envisage that those would be of permanent duration?

Yes.

With those exceptions, biodiversity and greening and employment skills and training,

every single one of your attributions of weight is substantial?

Correct.

Yeah.

And again, in case the inspector's interested,

by contrast, Mr. Kiley, who conducts a similar exercise,

ascribes different weights in different circumstances.

It's far less uniform in the attribution of weight

than yours is.

Yeah, I'd have to go back to Mr. Kiley's evidence.

I don't think he's currently laid it out in the way that I did.

You've not conducted a comparative exercise?

He's come to different conclusions, which he's entitled to do.

He certainly has.

And yours are remarkably uniform, aren't they?

With the two exceptions that I've come to, everything is substantial weight.

I think that whether they're uniform or they're not uniform, my weighting is as I see it under

those public benefits. I may have come to a completely different conclusion. I may have

come to a conclusion where they were all the same or they were all different but that was

my judgement under those public benefits in relation to this scheme.

And they are of course your recommendations to this Inspector and to the Secretary of

They are.

And you stand by them?

Yes, I do.

Mr. Marginson, thank you very much.

Those are all the questions I had for you.

Thank you, Mr. Ward.

Ms. Curtis, can you give me an idea of how much you need to cover?

I would say about 45 minutes to an hour.

Mr Margensen, would you prefer to carry on and then have a break?

Or would you prefer a break?

I'd like a break just to nip to the toilet, if that's all right.

And then I'm happy to have a five -minute break and then crack on, if that suits.

Should we do that?

Should we have a five -minute break?

Yeah.

Starting now, and we'll crack on, and then we'll have perhaps a more substantial break

when the cross is finished. That's fine. So, what's that?

I'm late, I think, so I'm not late.

Great. Ms Curtis, over to you.

Mr Mardenson, I'll just start on, and as my learning friend indicated last week, I'm not

going to go over issues again, whether they overlap between the local planning authority

and the Rule 6 parties case. So, in terms of Rule 6 specific issues, firstly starting

with the consultation points that have been raised in Ms. Van Chander's proof and in

your proof. You've expressed the opinion in your proof that the appellant undertook

an inclusive consultation on the appeal schemes. In terms of where that sits then in the decision -making,

I discussed this with Mr. Morris and Mr. Yeoman who agreed that public consultation and engagement

in the design process is an important aspect of good design. And you've also made reference

to paragraph 131 of the NPPF in your proof, which also provides that effective engagement

between applicants, communities, local planning authorities and other interests is essential

for achieving development that is acceptable to community. So would you agree then with

that general point that community engagement in the design process is important?

Yes, it's an important aspect of the development control process and obviously as you know

So there's two aspects to that.

There's encouragement within the MPPF for applicants

to engage with the local community.

And then there's the more statutory process

undertaken by the local planning authority themselves.

And would you agree that in order for engagement

by applicants with the local community

to be effective and inclusive. For one, it's necessary to consider the make -up of the local

area and any difficulties that members of the local community might have in engaging

in consultation so that those difficulties can be mitigated.

Yes.

And secondly, also as part of the process, it's important to identify the community's

needs and where possible integrate those views into the scheme design.

Yes, I mean the pre -application process with the public, you know, a key aim of that is

to understand what the community's aspirations and needs are.

Of course, they tend to be quite wide and varied and the applicant has to decide if

or how or if it's possible to accommodate those needs.

So on the first point then, in terms of difficulties

in engaging the community, looking at this area,

could you open CDM 14, which is Mr. Almeida's proof?

Sorry, it's just going to have to bear with me a second.

CDM 14, did you?

CDM 14.

CDN, sorry. That's why I can't find it.

Just let me know when you're there.

I'll find it. CDN 14.

Yes.

I don't know. Let me look somewhere else.

It doesn't... I can't actually see it.

I'm on mine for some reason.

I'm sure I have it in my arm.

There we go.

Yeah, sorry about that.

So if you turn to page 12 of that, electronic page 12,

we have Tower Hamlets State of the Borough 2023.

And then on the other page, across the page, sorry,

you see on the fifth bullet point down,

Tower Hamlets is ethnically diverse with the largest Bangladeshi population in the country.

And further down in that document you see also that it identifies that there's lessening deprivation

but highly deprived populations of older people and children.

And then turn to page, electronic page 110.

And that deals with English proficiency in Tower Hamlets based on 2011 Census data. So

turning over to page 112, you can see that 35 percent of respondents in this document

identified that their main language was not English.

And of those, 25 % said that they could not speak English well or at all.

That's down at the bottom of the table there.

And over the page, you can clearly see that Tower Hamlets is above average in both England and London

in terms of the proportion of its population

whose main language is not English

and the proportion of its population

who cannot speak English well or at all.

Yes.

So what that data shows,

that there's a particular difficulty

in engaging the large Bangladeshi population

in Tower Hamlets, not least due to language barriers.

Yes.

And in terms of what the appellant did

to overcome these difficulties,

so the appellant did purport to translate

consultation materials into Bengali and that's seen in the statement of community involvement,

is that correct? Yes. But the evidence of Mr Osmani and Dr Fashafik, which wasn't challenged

last week and I assume you're not in a position to comment on it, was that the Bengali script

in those documents was not clear and in some examples translations into English produced

nonsensical results and also that the Silleti translator present at consultation events was

not able to communicate the details of the appellant's proposals effectively.

I couldn't comment on that. I wasn't at the public exhibitions and obviously I couldn't

read the translations. And nothing in the statement of community involvement at CDA28

suggests that the appellant took any steps to ask members of the local Bengali community,

such as Mr. Osmani, whether or not the translations had been understood by members of the local

community. I haven't seen anything in the SCI but again I can't comment. So in terms of the

effectiveness of steps to mitigate the difficulties in communication presented

by the particular demographic makeup of this area and the evidence before the

inspector is that there were issues with the effectiveness of that consultation.

That's obviously Rick Lane's evidence.

I can't comment on that because I'm not a translator

and I wasn't involved in the public consultation exercise.

And if you take up the rebuttal proof of Miss Manchanda, which

is CDM 18. And turn to electronic page 12. That may go some way to explaining why

some of these matters which were picked up by Save Brick Lane in initial engagement with the community

weren't picked up in the Appellant Consultations, such as the importance of cultural memory,

rapid gentrification, and over the page, the fact that this is a place of importance to the local Bangladeshi community.

Sorry, are you looking at Appendix 2?

Yes, I'm looking at Appendix 2. Sorry, I'm not familiar with Appendix 2. I don't know

what Appendix 2 is referring to. Well, it says at the top it's headline summary of early

engagement findings, April, June 2023, and this was engagement by members of the local

community. So this is somebody commenting on the engagement that has happened or the

the document that's been prepared by the appellant. Is that what this is doing?

Well this is April, June 2023, so this was to do with the Brick Lane Central Master Plan.

Right. Sorry, who is the author of this document?

It says at the top, Daisy Froud. But it is explained, I believe, in Miss Van Pander's

at paragraph 2 .6.

It's a four -page summary by Daisy Froud, who is a part

of the consulting team that the council engaged

with the first round early stage consultation for the.

Oh, so this is the SPD, sorry, you were talking about.

Okay.

Sorry, the question.

Sorry, the question is the difficulties in communicating with the local community and

the steps that were taken by the appellant perhaps goes some way to explaining why some

of these issues or more nuanced issues that were picked up in other consultations weren't

picked up in the appellant's consultation.

From this document, sorry, I'm struggling here.

Are you saying that this document in Appendix II indicates the struggles of communicating

with the Bangladeshi community?

No, I'm saying that this document in areas such as four at the very bottom picks up issues

that were not picked up in the Appellant's Consultation and that perhaps some of the

issues identified by Mr Osmani and Dr Shafik with the Appellant's Consultation materials

explain why you get different results from these different engagements.

and venture is difficult for me to comment on this.

So in terms of the second point on consultation,

then, taking steps to ask the local community what

they wanted from a scheme on the Truman Brewery site

and integrating views into the scheme,

at paragraph 7 .63 of your proof.

Yeah.

You say that engagement with the public stakeholders and officers at pre -application led to changes

in the designs of the main site and you cross -refer back to paragraph 7 .11 to 7 .34.

Going back to 7 .11 to 7 .34 then, you mention public consultation at 7 .11 but you don't

identify any specific changes made to the scheme as a result of that consultation and

and the remainder of that passage that you cross -referred to deals with other forms of

consultation. That's correct, isn't it? Yes.

You also referred to the statement of community involvement. If we could go to that, please.

And if you go to page 15 of that document, which is essentially the wrap -up from the

first stage of consultation. You can see there are bullet points there following that first

round of consultation. A meeting was convened, proposals were developed, stakeholder meetings

were commenced, etcetera, but nothing specific about how the design of the proposals were

affected by this first round of consultation.

Not in that paragraph, no. I think that comes later on in the document, doesn't it?

Or paragraph 23, we have the wrap -up following the second round of consultation, page 23,

under the next steps document heading.

And again, nothing specific about how the proposals were developed, say for a commitment

to another round of consultation.

And I think that's a good point.

Correct.

But I think the exhibition boards did that, didn't they?

On each of the exhibitions, there

was a sort of schedule of what the comments were

and how the applicants had sought to respond.

So relatively limited information in that document,

again, then, on how comments made by members of the public

incorporated into the scheme. Well there were, I mean section A summarises the key

issues raised and how the applicant has responded. That's essentially the key

that identifies key issues doesn't strictly explain how the applicant has

responded because for example issues such as affordable family homes we can

go to it if you like but from the first to second consultations in the appendix

it went from around 50 homes to a certain number of 44 homes so there

wasn't an increase. No there wasn't but of course on that kind of topic clearly

that's you know a big in principle issue which the applicant has to consider

whether or not they want to increase not only the level of affordable homes but

conversely the level of market homes as well. So the applicant needs to take that

away, consider it and determine whether or not they want to respond to the

comments made by the public and in this case they chose not to. And so in

this, in relation to this scheme then, one of the key fundamental issues that's

been identified by many members of the public in terms

of the provision of a greater quantum of housing

that was essentially never on the table in the consultations.

But it was, I mean, there are lots of comments made

in public consultation.

Yes, there was comments, and we've

heard it during this inquiry about the provision

of more affordable homes.

But the applicants, I mean, affordable homes

is linked to delivery of market homes, of course,

because the appellant is not a registered social landlord.

They don't deliver affordable housing.

So in order to deliver more affordable homes,

we'll be required to deliver more housing generally

on the site.

That is not something that the appellant wished to do.

For the reasons we've been through,

in terms of this being an employment -led scheme

and the contribution it can make

to the Texian City Fringe area.

and the the appellant did deliver the requisite requirement under policy or the level of affordable

homes in price slightly above at 36%. So yeah we're not disagreeing then that from the outset

consultation with the local community was never going to deliver what they most want?

Probably not in reality because it is not the mix of uses that the applicant wishes to deliver on this site.

And that mix of uses, as I explained in my evidence, accords with the development plan.

The applicant is entitled to put forward those mix of uses.

It was a mix of uses which officers were comfortable with,

the Tower Hamlets and Supportive Hall, as were the GLA.

Moving on to the next issue then,

which is equality considerations.

And this is something that you've referred to

in your rebuttal proof.

But firstly, could I ask you to go to the London plan?

And page, electronic page 11 of the London Plan. And this is the good growth objectives

and their supportive text.

So electronic page 11.

Yes.

OK. What paragraph are in there?

Start with 1 .0 .1.

OK.

So in that paragraph, very beginning, good growth is growth that is socially and economically

inclusive. Moving on then to paragraph 1 .0 .9 of the page, also explains the purpose of

the plan. It is to generate growth that works for everyone using London's strengths to overcome

its weaknesses and also to improve the health and quality of life of all Londoners, to reduce

its inequalities and make the city a better place to live.

Moving across the page then to 1 .1 .2, do you see that again building strong and inclusive

communities. Yes. 1 .1 .2, London is one of the most diverse cities in the world and

diversity is essential to the success of London's communities and then below that

London is one of the richest cities in the world but home to some of the

poorest communities with wealth unevenly distributed across the population and

and through different parts of the city.

Moving on then to GG1, which addresses

building strong and inclusive communities.

There in the policy text, again, good growth is inclusive growth.

There's a recognition of the need

to build on the city's tradition of openness, diversity,

and equality.

Would you agree with that?

Yes.

And part D, a need to ensure that everyone

is able to benefit from economic and other opportunities.

You're asking me to agree to that?

Do you see that there in the map?

GG2, supporting text, paragraph 1 .2 .7.

London's distinctive character and heritage is why many people want to come to the city.

And then if you go over the page to GG2 itself, part E,

there's a need to understand what is valued about existing places and use this as a catalyst

for growth, renewal and place making, strengthening London's distinct and varied character. Going

across then to GG5, Growing a Good Economy, page 24, recognises that economic success

should be shared amongst all Londoners and the benefits of economic success should be

shared more equitably across London.

So a message there from the London plan,

good growth is, among other things, equitable growth.

Yes.

And this is also reflected in the London

borough of Tower Hamlets plan,

which you can find at CDF 01.

Page 27 also have the objectives here.

Growth must deliver social, economic, and environmental net gains jointly or simultaneously

and reduce inequalities benefiting the lives of existing residents.

So that similar message reflected also in the objectives of the Tower Hamlets plan.

And in terms of the sharing of the benefits of growth, you can also see this in the city

fringe OAPF, CDE05.

And if you go to electronic page 62, paragraph 5 .75, and this is part of the OAPF which expressly

mentions the Truman Brewery site, the economic strengths of the area include the potential

for businesses to link to local communities to connect with local as well as international

opportunities for economic growth.

So would you agree then that throughout that regional and local planning policy there's

firstly a recognition that not all growth is good growth?

Correct.

And also a need to ensure that growth is sustainable and equitable so that all Londoners and indeed residents of Tower Hamlets can share in that economic growth.

And of course those objectives were addressed in part by the policies of the plans themselves, but would you agree that in individual decisions it's still necessary to have regard to whether the development will contribute to the type of inclusive growth envisaged by the London plan and the local plan?

Yes.

And certainly it's necessary under the Public Sector Equality Duty to assess the extent

to which individual proposals impact on individuals with protected characteristics and whether

they meet the three equality objectives set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Yes, that's a requirement in this case now on the Secretary of State.

And in terms of this area, so we've gone through the fact that Tower Hamlets has a high proportion

of Bangladeshi residents.

You heard Mr. Almeida's evidence,

and I don't know if you've had the opportunity to review it.

We can go to it if necessary.

But Mr. Almeida's evidence was that in terms

of the existing economic position of Bangladeshis,

they're among the poorest in the UK as a whole,

holding roughly 30 ,000 pounds of wealth,

which is much less than their white British counterparts.

Yes, I heard that.

And that the poverty rate among Bangladeshis is 45%, which is again higher than other ethnic groups.

And also that the employment rate for Bangladeshi adults is lower than any other ethnic group listed by DWP,

also in the appendices to Mr. Amida's proof.

So currently not a section of the population that is sharing equitably in terms of economic prosperity.

On the basis of that evidence, I would agree.

So your analysis of these issues, I take it that you're not an expert in the economic impact of the proposals or the equality impact because those assessments have been done by others.

Correct.

You do give a view at paragraph 2 .35 of your rebuttal proof on whether the Bangladeshi

heritage community would benefit from the appeal schemes, and you say that they will

in brackets.

But that's not supported by any analysis by you of how the proposals will impact on

that section of the community.

No, I haven't undertaken a specific analysis directly with on the Bangladeshi community

the impact of this scheme, the benefits of this scheme on the Bangladeshi community.

What I have looked at is, and it's set out comprehensively in my proof of evidence, the benefits of this scheme to the local community,

which obviously includes the Bangladeshi community.

And in my view, those public benefits are wide ranging,

and they are substantial.

And I'm quite happy to go through them

if that would be helpful.

But they include things like the public open space,

the connexions, the child play space,

opening up the Truman Brewery site

for the first time in hundreds of years to the local Bangladeshi community.

There's no barriers there, this is not a gated community.

There are two community centres provided within the site, in Bot 3A and J,

both with discounts for local residents.

There are significant number of employment jobs both during construction and operationally,

all at different levels because the scheme is providing not only office space but also retail and leisure space

which historically has been more available to those on lower incomes.

There's a half a million pound upgrade to Allen Gardens, including Child Play Space,

which is a major benefit to the local community.

There are apprenticeships, 20%.

There is an employment workspace officer paid for by the applicant, the appellant, in order

to assist the local community in gaining jobs within the development.

It may be helpful.

I was going to come on to public benefits later,

so it may be more helpful to discuss this at that point.

Sorry to interrupt.

But I mean, the question I asked you

was you haven't undertaken any analysis of how specifically

the Bangladeshi community will be impacted by those benefits.

No, I haven't.

But my answer to you is that this scheme, in my judgement,

will benefit the Bangladeshi local community

and the local community as a whole.

And we can go through the public benefits that entail.

Of course, I mean, one thing that everybody

should be aware of sat here is that the planning system

can only do so much.

Any development can only do so much in terms of

benefiting the local community within the constraints

of the planning system.

Well, you said that, but I mean, you've also agreed

that there's a requirement to undertake equality assessments

under the PRCD.

And also, they're baked into London and local plan policy

provisions relating to equality.

I agree.

I agree with all of that.

But there clearly are, and we've heard it

from a number of people who have spoken at this inquiry,

there are clearly deeper social and economic issues

which clearly go beyond the scope of this planning

application. In terms of this planning application, in your conclusion that the

Bangladeshi heritage community will benefit from the appeal schemes, you

haven't considered Mr Almeida's evidence in which he discusses the

beyond Banglatown report, the decline in curry houses and the potential rent

increases for those local businesses?

Well, there's no evidence to suggest that that will happen.

I haven't seen any evidence from the Rule 6

Fire which would suggest that those things are

going to happen.

I've seen the report, but there is no evidence

to suggest that this development would result in an increase

in rents to local businesses.

No evidence that there will be displacement for businesses

and there certainly are steps put in place on this site to ensure that businesses have the opportunity to relocate.

If then you want to turn up the Equality Impact Assessment CDA point 20.

CDA 20 did you say?

Yes.

So this is the Appellant's Equality Analysis.

Yes.

Apologies, I'm just finding the page reference.

Page 38.

Yeah.

And this is in relation to housing, but you see there in the middle column, and if you

scroll back you can see that this is an analysis of the impacts of the development based on

socioeconomic status. Negatives, weaknesses, further considerations identified there on

page 38. The redevelopment of the site when combined with other development occurring

in the area may lead to an increase in housing prices in the local area as is typically seen

with increasing development. And Mr Almeida has pointed to analyses which suggest that

that is also reflected in relation to other prices in the area. So it appears that at

least in relation to housing the appellant's own analysis accepts that there's going to

be an increase in rents.

That may lead to an increase.

Moving on then to your, to those public benefits in more detail. In your proof you discuss

employment and affordable work space and those art featured as planning benefits. Dealing

with employment first and the question of whether this will benefit the local community.

If you look at CDF 02, this is the planning obligations SPD.

And if you look at page 26.

And this is the point about the advertising of jobs to local residents. And the SPD says

to support developers to meet the obligation which is an aspiration to secure a minimum

of 20 % of the jobs created by construction and end user phases for local residents, we

require the opportunities to be advertised to Tower Hamlets

residents through the council's job brokerage service

or local -based organisations.

As Ms. Manchanda has highlighted,

the wording that's proposed in the section 106 in this case

is to use reasonable endeavours to advertise

a minimum of 20 % of job vacancies to local people.

So in terms of that requirement, there's

a watering down of the planning obligations, SPD,

which frames it as a requirement to advertise, not a requirement to use reasonable endeavours.

It's a standard wording provision to our unless in section 106 agreements in my experience.

And in terms of the employment strategy that's being offered by the appellant,

there's nothing in the section 106 which will expressly require the appellant to take steps

to reach into the local Bangladeshi community to promote opportunities within that community,

despite the higher than average levels of unemployment and deprivation within that community.

The employment strategy has to be submitted for approval by the local authority.

So the details of that have to be agreed with the authority, so that could be something that could be put in there.

And even putting aside those points about the section 106,

would you agree that construction jobs associated with the scheme are going to be transient in nature

and so should be afforded more limited weight?

Now, you're right, they're transient in nature,

but actually, construction jobs can

be really important to local people

because they enable the development of skills

and knowledge, which they then transfer from site,

from this site, into the wider construction industry.

So they can be a really positive stepping

style in terms of developing someone's career in construction.

And in terms of the number of jobs that are actually likely to benefit the local community

specifically, looking at CDA 33, the first volume of the environmental statement.

If you go to electronic page 441.

441?

Yeah.

Sorry, what document? What document? CD833?

Yes.

It's in parts online.

It said it goes up to 126.

My CDA 33 only goes up to page 126.

Are you able to access it online?

Because I can give the updated online,

because it had originally only been updated as part one.

OK.

So if you turn over then to page 142, 15 .8 .82, you'll see that the total number of jobs

the proposed development is anticipated to generate 95 jobs for residents within the

borough. So in terms of the number of jobs as a proportion of the total jobs created

that would benefit members of the local community, it's pretty limited, isn't it?

And the office jobs provided as part of the appeal scheme are highly skilled data centre jobs.

It's unlikely that members of the community who struggle with, for example, English language skills

or with lower educational attainment will be able to benefit from those jobs.

The office jobs will be varied. I can't speak of who the occupiers would be.

the data centre I understand that there are skilled jobs but there are also opportunities

for apprenticeships there and training. I can't comment whether the local community

would be able to occupy those positions. In terms then of the provision of housing, the

The scheme will provide 44 new homes, including six affordable homes and five intermediate

units. Ms Manchanda's evidence, which has also been affirmed by the statements made

by numerous local residents who have spoken at this inquiry both last Tuesday and this

to CDM 16.

Yes.

And electronic page number 24.

Yeah.

And that summarises really the scale

of the need in Tower Hamlets at that point in time.

A social housing waiting list of 28 ,800, 13 ,209 households

living in overcrowded conditions with 2 ,668 severely overcrowded,

3 ,220 households living in temporary accommodation,

and 602 households require rehousing

due to medical needs.

In the face of this and the similar statistics

as to need that were discussed with Mr. Wald earlier on.

The provision of only 11 affordable

and intermediate housing units and 44 new homes

on a 10 acre site will clearly make

only a nominal contribution to that need,

particularly in light of the scale

of the appeal sites as a whole.

It will make a, in my view, overall the housing numbers

make a substantial contribution,

but I appreciate that the six affordable units

don't make a particularly big dent within the waiting list.

But of course, as I've explained,

this scheme is policy compliant

on level of affordable housing.

There can be no objection to this scheme

from the delivery of affordable housing

on the basis of the percentage it's providing.

And this significant brownfield site

will be lost to Tower Hamlets as a potential housing site?

If it is developed for these uses, yes,

but that's completely in accordance

with the development plan.

And we already looked in the equality impact assessment at the concern about increasing

house prices in the local area which may lead to those from lower socioeconomic groups being

forced out of the area. So the benefits of the small amount of new housing, insofar as

they're felt by the local community, would need to be seen against the possibility that

existing members of the community will be priced out of the area.

I've got no evidence to go on whether existing residents will be priced out of the area.

In terms then of community uses, that's another benefit to which you attribute substantial

weight. The community space is to be secured for 30 hours per week for the local community.

Ms Manchanda's evidence is that that offering is unlikely to foster a sense of ownership

of the community space by members of the community and that in her experience community spaces

were offered to local communities for longer term use on peppercorn rents. Would you agree

that that would have been a better way to provide that sense of ownership to the existing

local community? Not necessarily. I think 30 hours free a week is a good amount of time

and I would expect that the community would be able to take a level of ownership of that

community space given the length of time that they would be allowed access to it.

And then finally just on the overall balance points. So you've done both a balance based

on Mr Dhan's evidence, which you agree with, that there are no heritage harms. You've

should conclude if there is a finding of less than substantial harm. Firstly that

balance is reliant on the weight that you've given to the public benefits

discussed, that's correct isn't it? And would you agree that if the Secretary of

State agrees with Mr. Forshaw regarding harms identified to certain listed

buildings and non -designated heritage assets those must also be given separate

the great weight and the overall planning balance.

And in your alternative balance,

you haven't made any reference, for example,

to harm to Christchurch, Spitalfields, or 35 Buxton Street

and the great weight that should be afforded to those.

No, I haven't.

No reference to potential harms to Block N,

which Mr. Forshaw is of the view

is a non -designated heritage asset.

No, I haven't.

So those aren't analysed in your balance.

Thank you.

Mr. Marginson.

Thank you, Miss Curtis.

Something specific I wanted to ask, I think we've covered your evidence pretty well.

I'm clear about where we are.

Mr. Parkinson, did you have much in re -examination? Would you prefer a break to think about it?

Or how would you like to proceed?

Sir, I've only got five, ten minutes, so it's up to Mr. Marginson.

Carry on.

Thank you, sir.

So yes, first topic's commercial floor space need.

And you were taken to the employment land review.

So if you can go to that.

It's CDF 0 .04.

Just have to bear with me because I've

got hundreds of documents open now.

Yes, I've got it.

You've got that.

You were taking to a couple of references in the report.

I'm just going to take you to a couple more.

If you can go to page 123.

Yeah.

Can you see halfway down the page, in bold, it says corporate versus SME floor space.

It's a PDF.

Oh, yes, I've got it.

Yeah, you got that.

Which was a topic you were discussing, Mr. Wald.

And it says this, it also cannot be overemphasised

that the demand for large corporate office space

is not the same as the demand for SME space.

Thus the great majority of the enormous supply capacity

will never be appropriate to SMEs.

It's designed, specified, and priced according

to the priorities of the larger,

so the corporate office, occupy market.

There is such a real danger

that within an overall, apparent overall picture of plenty,

there will be acute shortages of certain types of space.

And it goes on to talk about the implications.

So if you just keep that in your head,

and then scroll down to page 133,

so hard copy 133, PDF 140.

Yeah.

And this is in a section dealing with policy compliance.

And it has on the left hand side London Plan policies,

and on the right hand side the local plan response.

Can you see the second line down for policy E2?

Yes.

which is one of the policies you were taking to in the text of this.

The local plan response is,

Tower Hamlets has a range of designated employment locations

to meet the needs of different types of businesses.

The ELR has noted that whilst there is more than sufficient supply

for large corporate uses,

there is a very limited pipeline of supply

to meet the needs of micro, small and medium -sized enterprises.

So reading the report as a whole,

What's the position of the ELR in terms of the need for additional SME floor space?

The ELR makes a distinction between the large corporate floor plates and the oversupply

that exists in destinations like Canary Wharf and then the demand and more constrained supply

that exists in relation to the small and medium sized businesses and is suggesting that there

should be an appropriate response to that in policy.

Thank you.

You then referred to the Bell Call report

and it's one of your appendices.

Yes.

But we didn't go to it

and I think it's probably worth going to it.

So it's CDM .23.

Yes.

And once you're there, can you turn to paragraph 7 .1?

And they say this, the Truman Brewery is not interchangeable with other workspace and commercial

locations. It's unique in London, if not the whole of the United Kingdom. Its distinctiveness

creates a micro market within London that commands its own demand dynamics. And there's

whole section on that which ends up with the conclusion at 7 .20 the implication

Truman Brewery cannot be judged by generic office market logic it's a

micro market of its own with a unique offering a strong demand and then goes

on to talk about the master plan and to what extent to you agree with the

conclusions that have reached there.

Yes, I do agree with that.

That Truman Brewery is a unique place,

a unique agglomeration of creative media tech uses.

And its uniqueness does generate its own marketplace,

effectively.

And what, if any, is the implication of that

when transferring across what we see in the employment land

review to the demands for office space

in this particular location?

That those strengths need to be built on

and that Truman Brewery has the potential

to accommodate that demand for SME space

within its boundaries.

Thank you. Next topic briefly is the QRP.

Can you go to CDD .10?

Yeah.

And if you could go to the AM session.

Yeah.

And you remember, you were taken through many paragraphs in this, asked whether they were positive or negative.

We didn't reach the final paragraph, paragraph 49, which says this,

In general, the panel is supportive of these proposals

and welcomes the way that the proposals have been revised

to offer a clear link to and celebration

of the heritage of the signed.

If you can keep that in mind, what's

the overall conclusion in the AM summing up everything

that precedes it?

That they're supportive of the scheme.

And the reference to heritage there

that clearly thought that the proposal was a heritage -led scheme.

If we go to the PM, which is the bit that you referenced in your proof,

which is the same CD number,

just do the same exercise and go to the overall conclusion at the bottom,

so paragraph 66.

Yeah.

And that says this, overall the panel felt very positive

about the afternoon.

They were very supportive and excited by the work undertaken

and felt that the level of investigation was one

of the best seen at QRP.

They enjoyed the interesting debate discussion

and looked forward to seeing the project coming forward.

So whilst you referred only to the PM in your group,

how consistent was the QRP across the day in terms

of its overall assessment of the proposals?

It was consistent, those two summaries are consistent between AM and PM.

Thank you.

Then an ultimate topic, Secretary of State appeal decisions on data centres.

And you were taken for a sort of numerical comparison

between the appeal decisions and this case.

And of course, as we know, this scheme is for a retail co -load data centre.

and you asked questions on the assumption that we were comparing apples with apples.

I just want to see if we are. First of all, do you know, having looked through the decisions

briefly at the weekend, whether any of these decisions are for a retail colo data centre?

I don't believe they are. I'll confess, I didn't read every single word in detail,

but I believe they were for cloud -based data centres.

Thank you.

We just see whether that's right and go to a couple of references within them.

So we go to ID20, which is the Court Lane Industrial Centre.

If you go within there to PDF page 36.

Yeah.

And then paragraph 63 says this, the appeal to submission is accompanied by a night frank

report on data centre need.

This advances demand of 1200 megawatts for cloud data centres by 2028.

Is that one of the references you?

Yeah.

We won't do it for order.

We just have a quick look at the next one, though, which is ID 21.

And there, go within that to PDF page 40.

Yeah.

And it's paragraph 73.

And this, just to be completely fair, is recording the Council's submissions rather than the

inspectors' recommendation, but it gives a sense of what we're dealing with.

So PowerGuff 73 says this, the need is for data centres generally and not just for this

specific type of hyperscale cloud data centre.

So again, what type of data centre is this appeal decision dealing with?

A large cloud -based data centre.

In circumstances where these appeal decisions are dealing with data centres that don't serve the same end user,

How helpful in your view is it to draw comparisons of size when assessing the weight to be given

to the benefit of meeting a need?

I think I said in cross -examination that you should be cautious in directly comparing these.

The cloud data centres are there to serve, if you like, the general public, whereas the

co -location data centres are very much more focused

on businesses, and in this particular case,

on the City of London and the financial district.

So you need to be cautious in terms of directly comparing

the two.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

So there was one point, I don't know

off Brook Lane and potential inconsistency between Mr Dunn and Mr Yeoman.

Probably the best way to deal with that is simply on the site visits.

They'll both be there and they can both point you to what they were referring to in their evidence.

Yeah, I'm happy about that.

Good. Thank you, Mr. Marginson.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Is everybody content to deal with a discussion about conditions this afternoon or would you

prefer to deal with it on Friday morning?

Yeah, well should we have a short break?

Can we resume at four o 'clock and we'll go through the matter?

... in the sense that I was perhaps too...

I think we would be content for the discussion to proceed now, just on the basis that if

any issues do come up between now and Friday morning, we can raise those on Friday morning.

I'm content with that, Mr. Warr.

Mr. Parkinson.

Excellent.

That's very practical of you, thank you.

Yeah, for sure.

If anything does come out of this discussion,

when you've gone through them in some detail,

because there are quite a few of them,

then yes, by all means, Friday morning,

let me know and we can talk about any specific issues

that you have in the company of everyone in the room.

So that's fine.

I've done a number of cases for this kind of general kind

of thing in London in recent times.

And a lot of these conditions are quite familiar to me.

And there's nothing within them that leaps out and makes

me think, oh, I've not seen that before.

So it's not that I don't want to scrutinise them.

All I would say is that I don't think there's anything

in there that surprises me.

There's nothing in there that you'll need to explain or

justify to me.

I've seen most of these before.

There's obviously a whole lot of work gone into the

discussion between you about them to get to the point where

you can agree that number of conditions

with just two exceptions.

I'm grateful to you for doing that in the background.

It does save an awful lot of inquiry time

when we're all sat around a table going through them

and talking about detailed wording.

I'm not always sure that's the best use of everybody's time,

but I'm grateful, so I would say that.

Can we talk about the couple of conditions

that are in dispute?

One of these is possibly my fault.

It's the one about linking Keeley's yard to the data centre.

And Mr. Kelly, you've suggested some wording there.

Do you want to take me through that?

Yeah, so I think,

I'm not sure why that's doing that, but that's it.

Hopefully that works, yeah, yeah.

So I think the condition is only necessary

if you think that the activation of Grey Eagle Street

that the Ely's Yard development brings about

is important in your decision on the Grey Ely Street data

centre.

And that's what you introduced.

The conditions are very similar, other than we're

It is many elements, if you like, of the Ely's Yard development that provides that activation,

where the developer is concentrating on largely ground floor activities, which are the ground

floor elements of the building.

So you've got the unit that looks onto it, those elements, and you've also got the access,

the linkage between Graydon Street and the yard.

So you would pick one or the other depending

on your conclusions on what elements

of the Ely's yard development were important

if you thought it was.

If that makes sense.

I think that's it, isn't it?

It does, I mean, is there anything that needs

to be added from the appellant side?

Okay, so as I'm understanding the situation here,

there are three options on there that I might think

the data centre is fine without the EDGR development,

in which case the condition wouldn't go on at all.

Or I might think that it's only the ground floor uses

that are necessary once they're completed

or brought into use, however you want to put it,

that that activation they provide assists

to the extent that the data centre is acceptable and that would be the

appellants condition or I could go further and say it's not just the ground

floor uses it's all the windows up above and everything looking over that tips

the balance in favour of the fenestration and the balconies. Yeah so data centre

can't be occupied or brought into use however you want to put it until all

that on the opposite side of Ely's Yard is in place. Yeah you're probably thinking

about it you don't occupy dates they're brought into use might be a better term.

Yes I mean brought into use might be. Yeah but it's yeah it's just what's more

precise and clear isn't it. I think with conditions of this sort you're kind of

thinking one step ahead aren't you about what would the Council do

if it you know how would it enforce a breach of condition on that. Yeah and I

I wonder whether occupied, yeah, what does occupied mean

in the context of a data centre?

Is it that all the equipment is in there?

Is it that there are people in there?

I think being reasonable, equipping the data centre

is not something we'd want to prevent,

but switching the kit on is, for want of a better term,

is what we're looking to prevent.

I think that's the spirit of this,

that you can't use it as a data centre,

but I don't think we're saying you can't put your axe in

and do your mechano -lek and stuff like that.

We're happy with the port into use.

And I think we agreed in terms of the spirit of the condition.

And ultimately, it'd be read together

with your report and the Secretary of State's position,

which could clarify what was meant by that.

I mean, I should add that generally speaking,

when one writes a Secretary of State report,

you have to go through these conditions in some detail.

in more detail than you would if it was your own decision.

So you do have to explain where they're coming from,

why they're necessary, why they meet the tests.

Yeah, I've been asked questions about that before,

after the report's gone up,

so one tends to be quite full, shall I say,

about how you cover these.

So that's why I'm anxious to understand

the differences between you.

But yeah, if brought into use as accepted,

I think that's helpful.

The other condition where there's some difference between you is about the way the link onto

Grey Eagle Street from Ely's Yard is dealt with in the scheme.

Now I think what the council is after here is perhaps what we discussed when Mr Reynolds

gave evidence, wasn't it?

That perhaps we need to look again at the...

Yeah, I think the wording of the condition is agreed.

It's just the necessity of the condition where the disagreement relies.

They're quite happy with their design and we're not.

And therefore if you were looking to grant permission,

that design stuck in your craw, then you might put this condition on

to enable you to grant permission rather than refuse it

because of the design of the linkage.

Right. So let me understand this correctly.

So if I look at what's proposed and I think I'm perfectly happy with it,

It's in the development carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

There it is.

I might come on to something else about that, but if I'm happy with the design, then obviously

no further details need to come in.

There's no need for us to deal with it.

There's no need for this condition.

But if I feel that perhaps that part of the scheme could be rearranged in a way to make

the link between Eley's Yard and Greigle Street perhaps more open or more obvious.

I'm trying to choose my word carefully.

For whatever reason.

Whatever.

Nicely put.

Then you could put a condition on saying, notwithstanding what's on the drawings, further

details have to be submitted to an approved buy.

What makes it a reserved matter for one of the better expressions?

Just puts it to one side, pushes it down the line so that details need to be submitted.

I think the intention is it allows tweaks to be made down the line should you consider

they're necessary.

And there is an overall requirement at the end that any tweaks should be in substantial

the accordance with the approved ordinance.

So it doesn't allow a complete redesign.

But it's to address the concerns Mr. Venner has raised.

And we don't think it's necessary,

but if you agree with those concerns,

this allows a way to still grant permission.

I understand.

The only thing I might add is that sometimes

when there are elements of a scheme

that are part of an overall scheme,

you might want to put on some sort of trigger

to ensure that that pedestrian link

is actually implemented.

Yes, you've got to carry out in accordance

with the approved plans, but genuinely think

that that condition is there for another purpose,

that's there for minor material amendments.

I see your point, yeah.

I'm just wondering whether there needs to be,

if we're accepting that as part of the scheme,

that link to Grey Eagle Street is important

and an integral part and something that adds

to activation, we've had the argument.

Does there need to be some sort of trigger

to say that that link needs to be in place

before the Ely's Yard building is brought into use

or occupied?

And perhaps, well, thinking on my feet a little bit here,

does it need to link to the data centre as well?

We might have already done that.

The other condition, I think, would do with the data centre.

I think that's a fair point, that if in your conclusions it's an important element of the scheme,

then it's right and proper to put a condition that that must be implemented before the trigger.

The obvious trigger would be occupation use of the Edie's Yard building.

Would there be any difficulty with that from the appellant's side?

Yeah, it might be.

Is it?

Yeah, 16 .1, which requires the two pedestrian routes to be fully implemented prior to first

occupation.

So I think that's the, effectively the phasing is secured in that condition.

I've got that.

Yeah, brilliant.

Thank you.

So I don't need to worry about that.

Ms. Curtis, I accept you've only had a cursory chance to have a look through these, but is

there anything you wanted to raise at this point?

No, sir, not at this point.

I'm not sure.

The only other thing I wanted to ask about having gone through these,

I may go through them a little more fully before Friday, but in the times I've had to have a look

at them, the only other thing I would say is I really would appreciate, because I'm going to have

to recite these in the report, so I would appreciate them sent to my case officer in word.

They are in word.

They are in word, excellent.

I know you always like that. I always do those.

Well, I let you into a trade secret.

You don't cut and paste them, do you?

You can move them from one document to another.

I'm not going to say cut and paste, but one doesn't write them from scratch.

They're both documents. I were documents.

What I would say is that I would appreciate the drawing schedule in Word as well for each appeal.

Because one has to list the entirety of the plans.

So they're at the back of the statements of common ground.

I've got word versions of that, so I'll extract them all into one document and give you those.

Because I think that is one place that always gives me...

...PVG because there is so much scope to get something wrong.

Yeah, I'll do that, no problem.

So if there is an agreed list and it's finalised and you're all happy with it,

drawing numbers, titles, so on,

then if I can transpose that from one place to another,

that helps me enormously.

I don't think there's anything else

that I need to go through in relation to conditions.

I mean, obviously one would go through them,

I might make minor tweaks,

but I've gone through them

and I've not seen anything substantive.

I will have another look through them before Friday because once Friday's gone. That's that's the opportunity gone

So unless anyone has anything else about conditions. I just want to talk about arrangements for Thursday and arrangements for Friday

Yeah site visit on Thursday. Have you is there an itinerary in circulation? There is

Certainly in circulation

But when I last saw it a few hours ago, it was still being,

the fine detail was still being discussed.

But it's well advanced.

I'm content with that.

All I need to ask is where shall we meet

on Thursday and at what time?

I mean, I suggest we meet where we met last time,

before the inquiry opened in the yard in front

of the existing Truman Brewery office complex.

I'm happy to meet there.

The clocks have gone back, haven't they?

So I'm just thinking, how long do you envisage taking?

How long do we need?

Sorry, how long, sir?

How long do you think?

I would have hoped half a day, the site visit.

I mean, bearing in mind that we'll

be going to a lot of places that we've already been.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, if you want to do that, there's a map.

We'll meet at a time to start it and then off we go.

How does two o 'clock sound?

Two o 'clock okay?

I'm just thinking it's starting to get dark.

I just wondered if, once I had half an hour of thinking,

sort of three or four hours, possibly.

One.

It's just a question of how I arrange my trip,

because I've got to go and then come back.

So I'm just wondering how best to do it.

I'm perfectly happy to meet at one o 'clock.

Yeah?

Yeah, that's fine.

So, sorry, just getting the weather up.

Yeah, it is what it is, isn't it?

Yeah.

It's a dry day.

A Thursday, yeah, we should be fine.

Yeah, no, actually it's the afternoon where you got,

late afternoon where you got a chance of rain.

It's zero percent in the morning, so.

Yeah.

Should we say one o 'clock?

One o 'clock, yeah.

And then...

It takes as long as it takes.

But if you can circulate the map so that I've got a copy,

and then I'll meet you at point one.

Point one, yeah, which I think is near Spitalfields Market,

isn't it?

OK.

Yeah, I'll speak to this one.

Very comfortable shoes.

Oh, and yes, I should say, dress sensibly.

We're not in official clothes, so whatever

you're comfortable with. I'm relaxed about that. Good. Friday morning then we'll be back in here.

And we'll have a quick chat about anything that crops upon conditions. We'll go through the

obligation. I don't think that would take long either. I've been through the civil compliance

schedules and I don't think there's a great deal in that. We'll need to talk about the format of

what's coming in in terms of whether they're agreements,

I think you're talking about rather than unilaterals.

So we'll have to agree a timetable for signatures.

I recognise that always takes some time.

I'm relaxed about that.

And then it's just closings.

So Ms. Curtis, you would go first,

followed by Mr. Wald, ending with Mr. Parkinson.

Yes, just one additional thing for Friday morning.

So one of the members of the local community said to me this morning that essentially

because she'd been doing the coordinating of everyone coming this morning,

she didn't have time to prepare her own statement.

And she's asked if she can have just five minutes at the beginning of the day on Friday.

But it will just be one person.

I'm relaxed about that.

It's a public inquiry.

I want to hear from the public as well.

So yes, content.

I'm content with that.

Really, it's just a question of what time do we need to start?

Would you be happier to start a bit later,

if you've got a little bit more time in preparation?

How would you prefer to do that, Mr. Ward?

Well, sir, I think we could comfortably start at 10.

Are you suggesting that we might start a bit later than that?

Yeah, I could accommodate a later start,

if it would help you.

That's all I'm saying.

I don't know, in terms of time estimates for closings.

Do you have any idea, Mr. Ward?

Something in the order of an hour and a half.

Certainly no more than an hour from me.

Mr. Parkinson?

I would have thought an hour and a half to two.

So with four hours' worth of closings,

We could start at 11 and have a short break between each one.

If it would help.

Just adding clearly the 106.

Short discussion beforehand.

From our point of view, we've now got two days to get going on it.

I don't think the extra hour, whilst we appreciate it, is going to make that much difference.

So we'd be happy with 10 just to give us enough time

to do everything then.

OK.

OK, fine.

Let's say 10 o 'clock then.

Especially if we can let our member of the public

know that it's 10 o 'clock.

We can have the discussion about the obligations and anything

else in relation to conditions.

So it might well be half 10, quarter to 11

by the time we start on closings anyway.

And yes, it might be that we deal with council

and then council, or whatever.

What order did I say we do that?

Rule six first.

Rule six first, then council.

Then council, then appellant.

Then appellant.

So it might be, Ms. Curtis, that we deal with you,

Mr. Wald, have a half an hour for lunch,

and then deal with the appellant, last of all,

and then tidy up and close the inquiry.

Yeah, okay.

Let's say 10 o 'clock then.

Good.

Is there anything else we need to deal with this afternoon?

Mr. Ward?

Ms. Curtis?

No, sir.

No.

Okay.

In which case, thank you all.

And I'll see you at point one on the route map, if you can get it to Alison on Thursday

Good. Thank you. Thank you. Until next time.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Truman's Public Inquiry PM - Tuesday 28 October 2025, 2:00pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry PMTuesday, 28th October 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Truman's Public Inquiry PM
Tuesday, 28th October 2025 at 2:00pm