Truman's Public Inquiry PM - Friday 31 October 2025, 2:00pm

Truman's Public Inquiry PM
Friday, 31st 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.

I've seen the note that was put in about Mr Ball's submissions the other day.

It's been clarified from the Rule 6 that Mr Ball wasn't appearing on behalf of the Rule

6, he was appearing as a third party.

I think that's how I understood it.

But if there was any confusion, that's how I'm going to treat that.

It doesn't make any difference to the content of the note.

So that's right.

That's how we understood it as well.

I think the note didn't reflect that.

But that is absolutely the position.

I think he said that he'd spoken to the Rule 6,

but he was appearing in his own capacity.

So yes.

That's how I've treated it.

So just to be clear.

Good. Mr. Parkington, I'm going to hand over to you.

Thank you, sir.

What we've done is, whilst listening to the Council on Rule 6 closing,

we've typed in responses where needed.

Just to point out, not all of those are in the main text,

some are in the footnotes.

So the footnotes has content as well as references.

So by way of introduction, as we said in opening,

this is an appeal about a unique and remarkable place.

The Truman Brewery estate occupies a very particular

spatial niche in London's makeup.

One which has been carefully created by the appellant

over the last 30 years, who has steered the estate

from a derelict form of brewery to the independent,

dynamic, cultural and creative hub that exists today.

One which makes a significant contribution to the economy

and culture of London and the UK.

In line with the government's economic growth agenda, which seeks to encourage areas such as this to capitalise on their performance and potential, see Power of 86 of the MPPF,

the appellant has identified significant areas of underused brownfield parcels of land at the heart of the existing quarter, which are neither making the best use of their location nor reflective of their history or significance.

In accordance with the MPPF, it brings forward transformational proposals which would allow

the area to build on its strengths, again paragraph 86 of the MPPF, and in doing so

play a yet larger role in meeting the needs of the capital and beyond.

New, much needed, adaptable workspace, specifically catering to the SME sector, is brought forward

in the heart of Tech City, recognised to be one of London's nationally significant office

locations, helping to grow and strengthen not only the London

and national economy, but also providing a beneficial halo

effect on the fragile local economy

by contributing significantly to local footfall and spend.

At the same time, the proposals at Block A

provide critically needed colocational data centre

capacity and possibly the best remaining data centre location

in the capital for the purposes of the City cluster's needs.

Finally, the proposals make an appropriate and significant contribution

to meeting housing needs on an appropriate site away from the heart of the main Truman East site

without dimming the bright light of that wider contribution.

All of these applications, save that relating solely to Block A,

were recommended for approval by the cohort of local officers who over several years

have been helping to guide and curate the transformation of the estate.

They found that the multiple building Trumanese proposals and the Elie's Yard proposal

were all in accordance with the up -to -date development plan,

both as to the uses proposed and as to design,

and would transform and enhance the contribution of the estate to the wider area.

In relation to Block A, low levels of less than substantial harm to the conservation area were found,

and it was said that the limited or modest public benefit associated with the proposed co -location or data centre

did not outweigh that level of harm.

As we set out below, given the urgent national need for data centres of this type,

the suggestion of a data centre on this profoundly well -located site should be afforded only limited weight

is clearly awry even if one were to accept, which for the reasons set out below we say you should not,

that the development harms the conservation area in a limited way compared to its existing position.

Once that fundamental misstep is corrected, the same conclusion must be reached on Block A

that was reached by the Council's officers for the other applications,

and planning permission for these important series of proposals should be granted without further delay.

With that by way of introduction, you, sir, having identified these matters,

set out your main issues and they fall within two broad headings and we address them in this order.

First matters relating to use and its consequences and second design and heritage impact.

So turning first to land use.

At no material stage during the application process were the principles of the proposed land uses and their consistency with the development plan and national policy ever seriously an issue in this case.

Even now, the Council has no objection to the principle of the proposed data centre use on Block A in land use terms,

nor does it raise any objection in principle to the mix of uses on the Ely's Yard site.

And therefore we focus on the land use considerations raised by the Truman East site.

So as you know, the adopted development plan comprises the London Plan and the Local Plan.

This site sits in the heart of Tech City, within the inner core area of the London Plan City Fringe Opportunity Area,

within the Tower Hamlet City Fringe Activity Area and the Brick Lane District Centre in the Local Plan.

These multiple, overlapping designations make clear that an employment -led development is required in this strategically important location.

The proposals deliver workspace -led, town -centre -type uses consistent with these designations,

together with an appropriate element of residential development within Block J

in a location that the Council accepts is suitable for a residential use.

The aim to build on the unique success of the existing land uses at this location,

whose workspace -led shape has been directed, supported and driven by the planning system,

was rightly agreed by planning officers at all levels in London at all times.

In particular, officers in their report on the Truman East site and in the committee meeting

clearly and unambiguously and on several occasions

reiterated that a commercial -led or commercial -only scheme

is in accordance with the development plan.

The appellant received precisely the same advice

from the GLA in relation to the site,

who stated in its stage one report

that the principle of commercial -led development

is supported.

Those now representing elected members' overturn

of this consistent and unambiguous position

seek to argue that the draught and as yet unsubmitted allocation

in the Council's emerging draught Local Plan

should somehow be given moderate weight

and that this is sufficient to set aside

the clear and obvious Development Plan policy

and land use justification

for the site to continue and enhance

its present work -based contribution.

There's a simple answer to this novel suggestion,

even taking the Council's case at its highest.

Mr. Kiley accepts that an employment -led

or even an employment only proposal on the Truman East site

would be in accordance with the development plan read as a whole.

It's also accepted by the council that paragraph 11d of the MPPF is not engaged in this case.

That means that the policies which are most important for determining the application,

including those relating to land use, are not out of date within the meaning of that paragraph.

Mr. Kiley accepted that the relevant part of paragraph 11 of the MPPF in this case

was paragraph 11c, which relates to proposals that accord with an up -to -date development plan.

There is no coherent reason to reduce the weight to policies that are not out of date.

Those policies should accordingly be given full weight. Indeed, the MPPF is clear

that in these circumstances, permission should be granted without delay.

In any event, the council accepts that at most, the emerging local plan should be given moderate

weight. Even if this weighting was justified, and it clearly is not for the reasons set

out below, policies deserving of only moderate weight cannot on any basis outweigh policies

in an adopted development plan which are not out of date. Indeed, the only way that conclusion

could rationally be reached is if the adopted development plan policies were given less

than moderate weight, i .e. limited weight. That's a case that no party to this inquiry

has positively advanced. Therefore in terms of section 38 .6 the proposals are agreed in

land use terms to be a type of use which complies with the provisions of the development plan.

That development plan is agreed to be up to date within the meaning of paragraph 11c of

the MPPF. There are no material considerations which can therefore rationally indicate an

outcome contrary to the adopted in -date development plan. Finding that the emerging local plan

could do so would effectively mean that land use decisions on the site would be made not

by the adopted in -date development plan but by an emerging plan which has not even been

submitted yet alone examined and which even the council accepts can be given no more than

moderate weight. And that is, we say, a bizarre contention. Therefore, the proposed land uses

on the Trimley site are acceptable even if it is accepted, as the council contends, that

Residential -led development on the site

would also accord with the development plan,

and even if the emerging local plan has given moderate weight.

In fact, however, both of these propositions

advance a self -evidently wrong.

Turning first to the suggestion that there is any development

plan support for residential -led development in this location,

this issue has already been determined by the High Court.

In September 2024, and in the face of these applications,

Elected members purported to adopt a supplementary planning document,

seeking in effect to impose the residential -led provisions of the emerging plan on this site

under the guise of supplementary policy.

The High Court quashed the SPD on two grounds,

and it's now a common ground between all parties that it should be given no weight.

The first ground was that it was unlawful to seek to introduce new policies for this area

outside of the development plan process.

The second ground is highly relevant to this main issue.

It was that no reasonable planning authority could have reached the judgement

that the SPD did not conflict with the adopted development plan

in circumstances where the plan makes clear that employment and commercial town centre uses

are to be the priority in the area of the SPD.

In other words, not only would a residential -led development on the Truman East site be contrary to the development plan,

but it would be irrational to reach any other conclusion.

This wording was expressly signed up to

by the council's officers.

It was then endorsed and effectively incorporated

into the court's order.

The suggestion in the council's closing

to the effect that because that order

refers to the parties' agreed reasons for quashing,

but then does not repeat them in the order itself,

the judge may have quashed the SPD for different reasons,

and having devised his own reasons,

decided not to tell anyone what they were,

is, we say, ridiculous.

In an extraordinary part of his evidence,

Mr. Kiley sought to look behind this Order of the Court

and suggest that these words do not mean what they say.

It appeared to be suggested that this part of the High Court's

determination was effectively an irrelevant afterthought,

and that in any event, the true meaning of the Order

was that only part of the SVD relating to Osborne Street

conflicted with the development plan.

This is, we say, a remarkably flawed contention.

First, the Council consented to the terms of the consent order after elected members

had received legal advice from leading planning council, and in a normal way, the Council

would not have consented on both grounds if the Council did not agree that both grounds

disclosed a separate and free -standing basis for quashing the SPD.

Second, the order quashed the entirety of the SPD in relation to both grounds, which

would have been wholly inappropriate if the second ground only related to part of the

area of the SPD. And third, the order itself explains why the SPD was quashed on the second

ground and it has nothing to do with the retrospective explanation provided by Mr. Kiley for the

purposes of this inquiry. Paragraph 9, and I've set it out there, but it cross -refers

to the statement of facts and grounds at paragraphs 59 to 63. And those reasons in the statement

and facts and grounds relate to the development plan framework for the entire area of the SPD

and have nothing to do with the location of Osborne Street which isn't even mentioned.

Therefore not only is it wholly inappropriate to look behind this order, still less to suggest

it may be a distraction, but the conclusion of the court accepted by council officers and then

endorsed by the High Court is self -evidently correct. The site is in the heart of Tech City,

a significant business cluster within the City Fringe opportunity area.

Tech City is described by the London Plan as a nationally significant office location.

Policy E1 of the London Plan is clear that new office provision in this quote

unique agglomeration and dynamic cluster and those are references to Tech City should be supported.

As it's put in paragraph 6 .8 .3, in the City Fringe the Tech City cluster should be supported

as one of London's nationally significant office locations

and complemented by development plan policies

to enable entrepreneurs to locate and expand there

and to provide the flexibility and range of space

that this sector needs, including affordable space.

Turning down the opportunity to deliver

a significant employment -led development

on what's almost certainly one of the biggest opportunity

sites in this nationally and internationally important

agglomeration of workspace provision

would be fundamentally contrary to this aspiration.

The local plan is entirely consistent

with the approach adopted in the London Plan.

The plan identifies the city fringe as a quote,

strategically important employment location

of national and international importance.

And makes clear that economic growth

will be concentrated in the city fringe,

including Tech City, which is described

as one of London's most significant areas

for economic growth.

This is then reflected in the vision for City Fringe,

which I've set out there, so I won't read out the whole thing,

but it's entirely consistent with what we've already quoted.

Within this area, the local plan seeks employment uses

across the area that contribute towards the Tech City

and Med City initiatives, including a range of flexible workspaces

for small to medium enterprises and significant floor space

around the secondary preferred office locations.

This approach in the local plan is consistent

with the opportunity area planning framework,

which is supplementary guidance to the London Plan.

This makes clear that whilst the opportunity area as a whole

seeks the delivery of both homes and jobs,

albeit with a very strong steer towards jobs,

in this inner core location,

there's a strong policy presumption in favour of employment -led schemes,

stating that development proposals for employment floor space,

including refurbishment and demolition and redevelopment,

will be encouraged and supported in order to support the process

of the core expanding and prevent supply diminishing.

The priority for employment -led development in this location

is then reinforced by the site's dual local plan designation

within the Tower Hamlet City French Activity Area

and the Brick Lane District Centre.

As to the activity area designation, Policy SEMP1 in the Local Plan is clear that activity

areas have the potential to accommodate substantial employment growth. Accordingly, the policy

provides as follows. Proposals will be supported which provide opportunities to maximise and

deliver investment and job creation in the borough, through ensuring a range of job opportunities

at all levels are provided throughout the borough,

particularly within designated employment locations,

the CAS, Tower Hamlets activity areas,

and major district and neighbourhood centres.

Similarly, Policy D .E .P. 2 of the Local Plan

states that new or intensified employment floor space

will be supported within various areas,

which include the Tower Hamlets activity areas.

There is no hierarchy of support in the policy

between the support given for new employment floor space in the POLs compared with the activity area.

As to the District Centre designation, Policy STC 1 of the Local Plan states,

the developments required to support the role and function of the borough's town centre hierarchy and the provision of town centre uses.

In this respect, the function and role of the Brick Lane District Centre is as a vibrant hub containing a wide range of shops, services and employment.

This is not a policy focused on ground floor uses only, as suggested by Mr. Kiley.

Not only is there no support for that approach in the policy wording itself, but as Mr. Marginson explained,

above ground uses also play a vital role in ensuring the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Therefore, there is consistency between all parts of the development plan and the MPPF.

In this location, falling in the heart of Tech City, in the inner core of the city fringe, in a town centre location within an activity area,

the development plan, unsurprisingly, seeks to enhance and promote employment uses in recognition of the site's unique status and function within London.

In this location, residential uses are only supported where appropriate.

The proposals deliver on that aspiration by providing an appropriate level of housing provision within Block J.

The mistake elected members made, but officers, the GLA and the High Court did not, was to seize on the fact that residential uses are not prohibited in this location, and to seek to elevate that to a suggestion that they should or could be the predominant use.

That is not what the development plan read as a whole envisages for this large town centre site in the heart of Tech City.

Brick Lane is one of the only district centres within the Tech City designation.

Far from opening the floodgates up to a residential -led proposal in this location,

contrary to every other indication in the development plan,

the cautious support in policy STC1 for some residential uses,

but only where appropriate, is a recognition that residential uses in this location

may not be suitable and must therefore be appropriately and proportionately scaled.

Indeed, the London Plan's Town Centre network identifies this district town centre as only

having incremental residential growth potential, the lowest growth potential identified in

the plan.

If the adopted development plan supported residential -led uses on this site, then there

would have been no need for the council to seek to introduce support for such uses through

the unlawful back door of the quashed SPD.

As Mr. Burrow rightly accepted, the policies are not in place for the residential -led scheme

that the Rule 6 party promotes and it would fall foul of current policies.

As such, not only does the proposed mix of use comply with the relevant policies in the

development plan, as all parties appear to accept, it's in reality the only use on

the site that so complies.

The development plan demands the delivery of a scheme exactly like this on this site.

In this strategically important employment location, central to the economic growth of London and the country as a whole,

the development plan does not provide any support for the decision maker to pick and choose between an employment -led or a residential -led use,

and to decide for themselves the most appropriate use at the decision -making stage.

Rather, the plan mandates an employment -led proposal.

In any event, there is no alternative residential -led application before the Secretary of State.

There is therefore simply no basis in planning policy or law to turn away this policy -compliant

employment -led proposal in favour of a hypothetical, as yet and may never be submitted, residential -led

application.

The effects of refusing permission on the basis of such obviously faulty reasoning would

simply be the loss of much needed SME -based workspace

in the strategic location, with a significant boost

to the local and national economy that would bring,

together with the loss of the fast delivery of policy

compliant market and affordable housing, which would contribute

towards the government's housing delivery target

over the lifetime of this parliament.

Turning to the weight to be given to these policies,

the council has adopted a torturous and confusing

position, which appears to be that the policies

policies in the development plan are simultaneously up to date within the meaning of the MPPF,

but nonetheless should be given reduced weight, although strikingly Mr Kiley refused to disclose

how much weight he would give to the adopted policies.

The reason for this obviously contorted approach no doubt lies in the fact that the Council

knows that if in seeking to uphold members' reasoning it accepts that the relevant land -use

policies in its plan are out of date, then the tilted balance in Paragraph 11d2 would

be engaged, which would have obvious ramifications, both for the overall planning balance to be

struck for these applications, but also in any other application engaging similar land

use policies. This incoherent start should be rejected. Policies within the development

plan are only out of date within the meaning of the MPPF, where they've been overtaken

by things that have happened since they were adopted, either on the ground or in some change

in national policy or for some other reason.

It follows from the council's correct acceptance

that the policies are not out of date,

that none of these things has happened.

In those circumstances, there's no rational reason

to reduce the weight to be given to the relevant land use

policies.

This was all recognised by the council's own officers

in a very recent and comprehensive report

and the GLA as strategic planning authority.

Both authorities were clear that the policies in question

were fully applicable and relevant in its application.

In this respect, while there's plainly a housing crisis in London and nationally,

something that the appellant both acknowledges and relies on, as we set out below,

the policies in the adopted development plan remain wholly consistent with the latest version

of the MPPF, itself published as recently as December 2024, in full recognition of that

housing crisis.

The MPPF recognises the importance of both delivering economic growth and addressing the housing crisis.

It urges decision makers to give significant weight to the need to support economic growth and productivity.

There's nothing in the MPPF to support the contention that housing should be preferred to workspace provision within this nationally important employment location.

Both objectives are of vital importance and obviously linked.

The same approach is taken in the London Plan,

which supports the twin aims of both housing delivery,

Good Growth Objective 4, and delivering economic growth,

Good Growth Objective 5, without suggesting

that one should give way to the other.

The existence of the housing crisis is baked

into the policies of the London Plan, considered above,

which are then given effect in a manner entirely consistent

with the London Plan in the local plan.

And there's good reason for this consistency and approach

across local and national policy.

The government and the GLA recognises that the existence

of a housing crisis does not and cannot mean

that housing automatically becomes a preferred use

on any site in London, much less on a series of sites

which have the potential

to deliver very particular economic, cultural,

and social benefits which are unique to this location

as a result of the appellant's curation

over the last 30 years or more.

The demand for employment floor space in this unique location remains as strong as ever.

As recognised by Belcourt, the Truman Brewery is, quote, one of London's most distinctive

destinations, highly sought after by SME businesses.

It operates as a micro market of its own, with a unique offering and strong demand.

The scheme seeks to meet this demand by offering flexible, affordable, and creative sector

appropriate floor space, providing a range of small and medium -sized floor spaces across

the Truman East and Ely's Yard site, with a total of 13 of the floor plates being under

500 square metres NIA. This provides flexibility for tenants to expand within the estate and

often within the same building as their operational needs evolve. Further flexibility is provided

by the ability to subdivide the floor plates, as has been achieved successfully elsewhere

on the estate. In doing so, the proposal directly addresses the structural shortfall and the

quote very limited pipeline of supply in SME orientated space identified in the council's

employment land review. Therefore, the aim, objectives and wording of the policies for

the spatial, commercial and cultural one -off that is the Truman Brewery remain appropriate

and valid and urgently in need of being met. The scheme's compliance with those policies

should be given full weight.

As against this, the emerging plan and the draught allocation

for the site in particular can only sensibly

be given limited weight.

That was the approach taken by the council's officers, who

were clear that, quote, given the draught local plan is at reg

19 stage and there are unresolved objections

to the plan, it carries minimal weight

in the assessment of the land uses for the proposal.

That's plainly right.

The emerging local plan has not even been submitted to the Secretary of State, even

if and when it is submitted it has to go through examination.

There are a number of objections to the draught site allocation and it's of course highly

relevant that one of those objections is from the appellant, who is not only the largest

and most significant landowner within the draught allocation, but also has expressed no

interest in housing -led development on the site.

That objection cannot be ignored or minimised.

It is the appellant who would ultimately be responsible for converting the allocation from words and aspirations on paper to actual delivery on the ground.

In any event, there's been no viability assessment either by the council or the Rule 6 party of its residential -led proposals on the site.

That's a key omission in the context where residential starts in London are at an all -time low,

with a number of large sites stalled for viability reasons.

All of this obviously goes to the heart of the deliverability of what's proposed,

one of the key soundness tests, see paragraph 36c of the MPPF.

And even if a residential -led proposal was deliverable,

there has simply been no consideration by the council to date or evidence before this inquiry

That it would be capable of delivering the significant quantum of socially rented homes sought by the rule six party

There are hundreds of objections to the emerging plan in relation to affordable housing

Including an objection from the GLA on general conformity

And even if a residential led proposal was deliverable

The draught allocation policy would represent in the words of officers a significant difference from the adopted local plan.

The impact of proposing significant housing -led development in the heart of this globally important cultural and entertainment area,

which is critical to the supply of smaller specialist city -fringed needs and one of the key designated night -time economy hubs in the area,

will no doubt be scrutinised with great care and examination,

as will the heritage impact of what sought.

And that consideration cannot be prejudged.

In those circumstances, Mr. Kiley was right to accept

that USER could not know

whether a housing -led proposal would ultimately be adopted on the site.

Accordingly, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the MPPF,

the emerging plan can only be given limited weight.

The proposals comply with the development plan in land use terms

and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight

to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

So we then turn on, sir, to your second main issue, character and appearance,

and we'll address each application in turn, starting with the Truman East site.

Any assessment of the impacts of the proposals on character and appearance

must start with a correct understanding of the existing contribution of the site

to the significance of the conservation area.

That's because the statutory duty in section 72 of the List of Buildings Act

requires the proposal to leave that conservation area unharmed

and that exercise can only be carried out through an accurate comparison

between the contribution of the site both before and after the development.

We start with the main part of the Truman East site.

The main yard is located within the conservation area, but as paragraph 220 of the MPBF makes clear,

not every part of a conservation area will contribute to significance.

The yard is an area within the conservation area that is currently clearly failing positively to contribute to its character and appearance or significance.

As Mr. Frohnemann accepts, the main site is a hard industrial landscape.

It consists of a number of low -slung, low -quality, modern shed buildings of no particular architectural or historic interest,

and which are clear detractors to the conservation area.

The site is introverted and inaccessible, yet at the same time open, undefined and sprawling in character.

The open space that characterises the site is recent and lacks historical consistency.

This is not a well -preserved site.

There is little evidence of the historically dense and fine -grade

urban structures that previously existed.

Instead, what remains is a modern space created as a result of clearance

when the brewery closed in 1989.

The legibility of its former and historic use is completely lost.

The yard is a fractured, accidental, leftover space of poor quality,

fronting onto Allen Gardens, an important post -war modern open space,

but one which lacks activation or definition.

This was all recognised by Historic England, who correctly identified that the yard had, quote,

a fragmented industrial character containing a large central car park and a mix of buildings.

They described the site as being of poor landscape value with very limited public access.

Therefore, in line with paragraph 219 of the MPPF, this is an opportunity area within the

conservation area where development can enhance or better reveal the significance both of

the conservation area and of the Cooper Ridge and Boiler House. This was, again, recognised

by Historic England, who noted that these proposals present opportunities to enliven

this part of the conservation area and improve public access with high quality buildings

and public realm that draw influence from its heritage context.

We therefore consider that there are opportunities presented to enhance the conservation area's character.

This opportunity is also identified in the conservation area's character appraisal,

which identifies the Truman Brewery as an area which has a potential for enhancement.

As Mr Yeoman put it, the yard represents the missing piece in a jigsaw.

It's with this opportunity in mind that the appellants brought together a team of internationally renowned architects,

all of whom have profound and deep -seated local connexions and who were supported by a top -of -its -class technical team,

to produce a series of routes, spaces, uses and buildings to create a new and well stitched -in heritage -led heart for the area.

The main site has been master planned by BGY and it's already won an award at the World Architecture Festival 2025 for best master plan and reuse.

As you heard, a core principle of the master plan is to create logical and clear routes to open up the eastern part of the site,

to better reveal that which was of historic significance to the public for the first time, and to connect the site into Allen Gardens and the wider community.

Early decisions were made to retain, enhance and reuse all of the buildings with true historic significance,

namely the cooperage and the grade two listed boiler house, which were then to be freed from their surrounding detractors,

enabling them to sit within a denser and more appropriate framework.

Careful thought was given to the identification of spaces associated with the routes in order to better reflect the historic disposition

and scalar spaces in the brewery and the wider area.

The result is new spaces which excite and delight,

but which are also appropriate to their hierarchy and context.

With the entrance to Chimney Yard,

closer to the bust of the Brick Lane

and connecting into the exhibition space and cinema,

being the primary entrance, and the entrance

to the softer and quieter Cooperage Yard,

itself nearer to the quiet Spitzel Street,

being appropriately more subservient.

As officers recognised, the public realm, including Coopbridge Passage, would provide good pedestrian comfort levels.

The historic sets removed for operational and safety reasons will be reused as was always intended, and that's now secured by condition.

Active and vibrant community uses are sensitively distributed throughout the master plan, resulting in an almost 700 % increase in active frontages compared to existing,

including new restaurant and cafe uses fronting onto Buxton Street,

bringing life and animation to this important frontage.

All this in the context of a fundamental opening up of a site

that's been private for hundreds of years.

The GLA Stage 1 report provides a glowing assessment

of the Master Plan's ability to successfully open up the site,

both letting the vibrancy of the surroundings in

and giving back to the community for the first time.

As they said, the master plan shows that the development would be highly permeable through the provision of a series of yards and passages which lead visitors into and through the site.

This has the potential to be a positive addition to the already vibrant Brick Lane neighbourhood.

Each yard has more than one route option for entering and exiting, and generally good sight lines into the key spaces.

This should help facilitate a greater sense of safety and inclusion for all than currently exists on the routes around the site.

Generally, the proposals provide good street -level activation into the yards and onto the adjacent

streets, providing much needed passive surveillance.

Notably, Mr. Pritamont takes no issue with the principle of redevelopment of the site

or with the footprint of the proposed buildings.

Rather, the focus of criticism largely centred on blocks 3A and 3B.

stack shapes, threshold passages, and infrastructural forms found in the local context.

The network of bridges animate the site, drawing on the Truman Estate's industrial language

to create a contextually rich, but also exponentially low carbon and lean, flexible office space.

the bridges being the decisive means allowing only one core to service the building as Mr Morris explained.

The buildings give back to their external surroundings, giving pedestrians a nine -fold increase in the depth of the usable space on Buxton Street

from 0 .5 metres to 4 metres and introducing new active frontages and much needed overlooking onto Allen Gardens, helping to address existing antisocial behaviour issues.

This exponential increase in ground floor activity and the increasing permeability achieved by driving Cooperidge passage through the building is a massive benefit of the proposal.

The design also creates a new greeting point to the Brick Lane area at its eastern corner, whilst being appropriately sensitive both to the retained Cooperidge building and the quieter nature of Spital Street.

The buildings will be an exemplar of low carbon and sustainable design with passive features

such as 100 % natural ventilation.

The Council's concern relates to the scale, height and massing of these buildings.

However driving this was a suggestion that the building somehow upended a hierarchy that

exists in the conservation area townscape.

This suggestion is completely misplaced.

As Mr Dunn explained, and is readily apparent both from the model and on the ground, there is no legible hierarchy of building heights within this part of the conservation area, which has changed significantly since the 19th century and is now very mixed in terms of building character, scale, heights and footprint.

Buildings at height exist both to the east and west of Brick Lane, for example the large and blocky Block H at 20 metres to the east and Block Z at 28 metres to the west.

That's reflected in the Council's own Conservation Area Appraisal which makes no reference to the yard area requiring protection, or indeed to any notion of a hierarchy which exists in this part of the Conservation Area or at all.

It was also recognised by Historic England, who appreciated that enhancing or better revealing

the significance of a conservation area does not require reconstructing buildings at the

same height that may have existed well over 100 years ago.

Those buildings have gone and these proposals are a response to what's there now.

In that respect, Allen Gardens is a cleared housing site and now presents a townscape

feature of remarkable scale and openness, but one which lacks an urban edge. It calls for and can

accept buildings of this height. Meaningless a comparison with building heights elsewhere

facing a different context is largely meaningless. Indeed Mr Reynolds accepted that Allen Gardens is

a large scalar site that can accommodate height. The proposed height is consistent with or lower

than blocks said D &C of the existing brewery and tapers appropriately towards Spital Street.

The massing of the buildings has been developed with conscious regard for how they can add positively to the townscape of the area.

The buildings are broken into three distinct volumes with setbacks on upper floors and variation in height, materials, detail and colour further breaking up the built form.

This was all recognised by the GLA who said that the proposed heights and overall scale of the proposals are considered acceptable.

and also by Historic England who had no significant concern about the scale and massing.

In any event, this is a site for which everyone accepts do nothing is not an option.

And it's highly relevant that Mr. Froniman's concept that the site makes an important hierarchical contribution to the conservation area is,

as he accepted, inconsistent with the council's own emerging local plan,

which seeks to put buildings of height fronting onto Allen Gardens, as does Mr. Burrell.

Indeed, that plan even suggests appropriate heights of 40 metres at the Truman Brewery,

a third taller than the tallest buildings in this proposal,

and a threshold measured in metres, not storey heights,

and therefore unaffected by any difference in height,

in storey height between residential and commercial.

In truth, far from a need to recreate an imagined and in any event lost hierarchy of building heights

across the conservation area, the most sensitive heritage consideration for this application is the

relationship of the development with the relatively modern but important and iconic Truman Chimney.

This was all recognised by officers, the GLA, Historic England and the appellant. As the GLA

put it, it's particularly important that the chimney of the brewery remains the key marker

built form in this area. This also informed the approach taken to agreeing the HTVIA viewpoints.

It's regrettable that the council now seeks in closing to criticise the appellant for

emphasising the relationship of the scheme to the chimney. At all stages until the inquiry,

every single heritage expert who has looked at this site has agreed that this was the key

heritage consideration and the fact that the council now has so little to say about it in

closing does speak volumes we say. The reason for that is because the successful and design -led

solution has been forged which ensures that the chimney remains the dominant landmark

with Block 3A in particular deliberately stepping down and pulling back to the west.

This means that existing important views from Allen Gardens and along Buxton Street are protected

and brand new public views of the chimney are created from within the site from the aptly named chimney yard.

There are currently no public views of the chimney from within the yard,

and the master plan and the individual plots would seek to frame it in unique and varied ways,

bringing joy and delight to an otherwise bare and inaccessible plot.

As elected members were rightly told by officers,

Officers concur with the assessments of the GLA and historic England that from Allen Gardens,

the Truman Brewery would remain the dominant feature and retain its landmark status.

Accordingly, blocks 3A and 3B represent a fine and exemplary piece of optimisation in

an underused part of the area. They cause no harm, less than substantial or otherwise,

to the conservation area.

And nor do any of the other elements of the proposal

give rise to any harm to either the conservation area

or any other asset.

Whilst reference has been made to the loss of the boundary walls,

these are very low quality

and prevent activation of the Buxton Street frontage.

There is in any event an existing consent

to remove the boundary wall and Block N

as part of the existing and implemented data centre permission on the main site.

In considering that application, Historic England's concern about the loss of the boundary wall and Block N was tepid at best, but in any event, as Mr Dunn explained,

even if it is found that the removal of the wall and the demolition of Block N is harmful, that existing consent is a highly material consideration when considering how much weight to attach to it, since these structures can be removed regardless of whether permission is granted.

However, to the extent the harm is found from any aspect of these proposals, this must be weighed against the heritage benefits delivered by the proposal.

These include the other high quality and largely uncriticized buildings which have been designed across the site which we described in opening,

including the sensitive proposals for the listed boiler house by internationally renowned and local practise Christeisen architects,

which would remove the modern elements of no architectural or historic interest

and better reveal the significance of the most important elements of the building.

Together with the wider opening up of the Truman East site and the animation of this landlocked site

in the heart of the conservation area, these benefits would significantly outweigh any identification of harm.

Indeed, having weighed up all aspects of the proposal, including the heritage benefits that the scheme would bring,

Historic England was clear that it had no objection and welcomed the scheme,

something that appears to have been overlooked by the council

with its repeated and incorrect suggestions that Mr Dunn was somehow an outlier.

That reasoned conclusion from Historic England, supported by both officers and the GLAs,

commended to you and the Secretary of State.

Turning to block J, the existing block makes no contribution

to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

It contains the lowest -long, unexceptional, utilitarian,

cash -and -carry store,

which, whilst the valuable local amenity,

is contained within a building

of no heritage or townscape value.

The buildings lack quality, are not contextual,

and are a detractor in the conservation area.

The site represents a gap in the townscape.

Mr. Frohnemann accepts that the existing site

is clearly harmful to the conservation area.

It must follow, for the reasons set out, that an allegation that the proposal results in

less than substantial harm can only get off the ground if it can be demonstrated that

what's proposed is more harmful than the existing building which itself causes harm.

That's not a plausible allegation and becomes even less so since Mr Reynolds accepts that

Block J is an improvement in townscape terms over what's there at present, a concession

which wasn't recorded again in the council's closing.

In truth, Block J represents a significant improvement to the

townscape. Henley -Hellbrown have delivered a high -quality building on this corner side,

repairing the street's shape and stitching back in lost the townscape.

The proposed height onto Spittel Street is appropriate to its corner context,

facing the more open townscape to the east and would sit well within its context.

The neighbouring 68 Hanbury Street is of a comparable height to the Spitzel Street frontage

and the scale of the building sits comfortably between this building and the five -storey

residential block at 35 Woodseer Street.

The building steps down appropriately to meet the lower density terracing along Woodseer

Street and Hanbury Street and the building footprint is also set back from both to minimise

the presence of the building in views from these streets.

In any event, there are regular jumps in scale and grain adjacent to the site, as well as within the wider conservation area.

Further, as officers recognised, a reduction in height would have implications for the delivery of new homes.

The building responsibly optimises the contribution to housing having regard to Policy T3 of the London Plan,

and the varying contexts and constraints of the various parts of the site.

Finally, it's necessary to deal with the repeated and misguided refrain from the Council that these proposals are not heritage -led.

This is an allegation that should never have been put in the first place.

The appellant has had a heritage expert engaged on the project from a very early stage.

Mr Murphy of KM Heritage, who has extensive experience working at and within the Truman estate, was first instructed in February 2023 before the first pre -amp.

He was engaged throughout the Pre -App process, he worked with the Council's conservation officers to choose and identify relevant views,

and prepared an appraisal which helped inform the key principles in the Master Plan,

the conclusions of which remain entirely consistent with the approach which is subsequently being adopted and endorsed by the GLA Historic England and officers.

And, of course, his involvement in shaping of the proposals was not limited to what was

written down on the page, a trap the Council often fell into across multiple witnesses

and again in closing. He would have been involved in the numerous meetings and discussions that

feed into the process of developing and finessing a detailed scheme.

Having initially put the suggestion that there had been no heritage involvement prior to

Mr Dunn to Mr Morris on an incorrect basis, the point really should have been dropped

at this stage. Instead, nearly every witness called by the

appellant was dragged through a painful and often partial review of the pre -application

process in an attempt to try and rescue the initial and incorrect allegation. This has

been repeated in closing with no less than four and a half pages devoted to seeking to

justify this regrettable distraction. All this served to demonstrate was that the

pre -application process achieved exactly what it's meant to,

namely a refinement and improvement

of the initial design concept with the assistance

of appropriate townscape and heritage expertise

from the council's own experts, the GLA, Historic England,

and the council's offices.

For all of the words devoted to this topic

in the course of the inquiry and in closing,

the simple answer is probably found

in the words of the final QRP, who concluded that the scheme,

quote, offers a clear link to and celebration of the heritage of the site, and quote, 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. That's not a surprising outcome, and of course, it's

the outcome of these proposals which must ultimately be considered. Not only did the

done but as they were pains to emphasise each

of the individual architects has extensive experience

and knowledge of bringing forward

heritage sensitive schemes in London and expertise

from the townscape consultant team also heritage accredited.

Indeed this whole line of argument

only served to show a fundamental misunderstanding

about how schemes of this nature developed to final design.

And so if you put a full stop after design and delete the next two words.

Overall, these are proposals that will deliver a clear enhancement to the conservation area,

a benefit which must be given considerable weight in the overall balance in line with

section 72 of the list of building hacks and paragraph 212 of the MPPF.

So we turn next to Eli's yard.

There are two important pieces of context for this application.

The first is the unusual stance taken by the council, which takes a townscape objection to this proposal.

But notwithstanding the fact that the site is in the conservation area,

and nearly all of the views considered by the witnesses raises no heritage objection.

on the specific advice of Mr. Frohman who advised the council that such a

position would be unsustainable. It follows that it's common ground with the

council that this proposal conserves the significance of the conservation area

and also that any townscape impact identified by Mr. Reynolds falls short of

giving rise to harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Given that that conservation area forms a key part of the context in which this

proposal sits.

This is an unpromising start for a townscape objection.

The second important piece of context

is the fact that the existing townscape contribution

of this plot is very limited indeed.

Eli's yard is an unhistorical, hard surface, conspicuous gap

in the townscape created following

the demolition of a large -stamps industrial building.

It's characterised by ad hoc structures and back -of -house

areas and is used in part as a service yard.

It's a clear detractor in the conservation area and no doubt it was one of the sites

that the conservation area appraisal had in mind as a potential opportunity area which

would help enhance the significance of that area.

Into this space the proposals provide a new high quality commercial development with a

market space at ground floor and flexible brick lane type workspace above.

As Mr Morris explained his design took into account careful consideration of the existing

characteristics and uses of Eli's yard. The materials are contextual and appropriate and

follow a forensic analysis of the immediate and wider context. The building is deliberately

designed to be a supporting act to a better defined and enhanced yard with increased publicly

accessible space supported by new active ground floor uses. It would create a new pedestrian

connexion to Grey Eagle Street. The council's objection is narrow in focus. There are two main

concerns raised and the first is height. Much time was spent with Mr Morris

comparing the height of the building with its immediately surrounding

neighbours, an exercise now repeated at length and closing. However as Mr Morris

explained this isn't a particularly helpful exercise generally and

especially not here given the existing and successful juxtaposition of scale

across the estate. The proposal would be subservient to block C and Jack's place

and have a smaller footprint than the building which historically stood on the site.

In any event, the stepped form will reduce any perception of dominance from street level,

which is the key consideration, rather than the various bird's eye views relied on by the council.

This was all understood by officers, who advised that the proposal would be at a similar height or lower than other nearby buildings,

and while substantial in scale, it would be in keeping with the industrial scale of the surrounding context.

The building would have a chamfered corner and several setbacks to open up views into the yard and reduce the visual impact of the scale.

Overall officers raised no concerns relating to height, mass and scale and we say that was the right conclusion.

The second concern relates to the pedestrian link,

an objection that's very hard to understand.

The council accepts that the pedestrian connexion to Grey Eagle Street is a benefit of the proposal,

and that's plainly right since it would significantly increase permeability through the site and with the wider area.

The concern, such as this, appears to be that the opening whips are too narrow and that the connexion may not be sufficiently noticeable.

These are bad points, and no stage has any concern been raised about pedestrian comfort in this location,

and to the extent necessary the route could be advertised through the type of signage which is awash throughout the wider estate.

In truth the pedestrian connexion is at exactly the right scale, having regard both to the nature of the yard and Grey Eagle Street's role as a secondary street.

It's been deliberately designed to maintain the enclosed sense of the yard and to allow for a sense of discovery, one of the characteristic features of the Truman Estate.

Those design choices are the right ones and the link achieves those aims.

However, should the Secretary of State take a different view, then there's a condition which enables a revised design to be secured.

With that condition, this point falls away in its entirety.

Finally, the suggestion by the Rule 6 .0 proposal that the interaction of the proposal with a very distant glimpse of the spiral of Christchurch

might harm the setting of that wonderfully powerful church was badly aimed.

You will reach your own view on the extent to which existing views are materially impacted,

but either way they are all incidental views which do not make a material contribution to the significance of the building,

which largely lies in its fabric and in views from the West.

The suggestion that Mr Dunn had not considered the impact of the Spire is simply wrong,

and it's of course considered in detail in the HDVIA.

Neither Historic England nor the council's officers considered that there would be harm,

with officers reminding members that there would be no harm to the conservation area or nearby listed buildings, and they were right to do so.

In truth, therefore, the proposal gives rise to no harm at all, either to heritage or townscape.

Rather, through the creation of a cohesive, high -quality piece of townscape and a high -quality sense of place,

it would give rise to significant and profound benefits.

Turning then to block A.

The existing contribution of the site to the conservation area in which it sits is central to the determination of this application.

As a building in a conservation area, the senior but not the only concern of the decision maker is the character and appearance and thus significance of that asset,

which must be given considerable importance and weight.

The existing contribution of the block is self -evidently entirely negative.

The existing building on the site is a 1970s industrial former cold store.

It has no intrinsic architectural or historic interest and additionally has been derelict

and ruthless for well over 30 years. It has no beneficial use and it's agreed that there's

no prospect of it having a beneficial use. It generates no activity apart from the occasional

comings and goings of cars. It's a harmful element in the conservation area and is accepted to be so

by Mr Frohnemann and his proof and then confirmed in cross -examination. Notwithstanding the suggestion

in the council's closing that the building makes a small positive contribution to the conservation

area. It now being confirmed that no party raises a case of deliberate neglect under paragraph 209

of the MPPF, the unfortunate and entirely unevidenced invitations to do so in the written

and evidence being effectually withdrawn,

it follows that the existing condition

of this part of the conservation area

is the condition against which the statutory test

relating to preservation or enhancement

falls to be considered.

For the reasons set out above, that existing condition

is clearly harmful to the character and appearance

of the conservation area, and significantly so.

And that's of crucial importance,

since for the proposal to give rise to any heritage harm,

It must be established that it has an impact on the conservation area that's worse than the existing harmful position.

That's simply not a credible assertion. In circumstances where Mr Reynolds accepts that what's proposed is better than what's currently there in townscape terms.

A concession is all but ignored in the council's closing.

In truth, the new building is of high quality in of its own right for the reasons set out below.

and in any event a much better offer than what's there now.

It would therefore enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area

and enhancement that must be given great weight.

So far as the townscape impact to the proposal is concerned,

Mr. Frohnemann accepts that there's been

quote, a good deal of consideration to the detailed design and appearance of the building,

unlike most data centres,

and that the proposal is generally well designed.

He was right to do so.

In terms of height and massing, the building responds to the height of existing industrial buildings within the Brick Lane area.

Whilst higher than the immediately adjacent buildings, the series of step -backs at upper level reduces the perception of mass

and the scale of the proposal appropriately steps down on Calvin Street to address the scale of the brick terrace.

The facades provide a variety of depth, form and materiality,

and the carefully articulated brick bays reflect similar devices employed across the brewery

and allow for street art both curated and informal.

The lighter upper parts of the building reflect the more modern use of the building

and are high quality and interesting, with planting improving the townscape.

By bringing the building line forward, the proposal would reinstate the historic street edge

and a generous pavement width of three metres,

new street trees and cycle parking

would improve the site's engagement with

and animation of the street scene.

Importantly, the townscape impact of the proposal

cannot be considered in isolation from its proposed use,

which will itself drive the design of the building

in which that use sits.

The use of a data centre inevitably brings with it

architectural constraints and security requirements.

The building has been designed in close partnership with ARRA,

who explained that its height and scale is, quote,

the minimum required for the site to be viable

as a colocation data centre.

That evidence has not been seriously engaged with or challenged

and certainly not by anyone with the requisite expertise

in designing data centres to do so.

This is, of course, highly relevant,

both in considering the acceptability of what's proposed in townscape terms.

This is a building whose form closely follows its function.

But also in balancing the considerable benefits of this proposal, as explained further below, against any identified harms.

Those benefits could not be realised in a less harmful way on this site.

To the extent that there's any harm which isn't accepted, it's the inevitable consequence of meeting a critical national need for new retail colocation facilities in this unique data centre cluster.

The proposed use is also highly pertinent when considering the complaints made about activation.

It's common ground that the existing site has little to no activity and that what's proposed will amount to an improvement in activation over the existing situation,

again plainly right but unacknowledged in the Council's closing.

Instead, the allegation of harm is that the proposal could have gone further and that

opportunities to maximise activity on Grey Eagle Street have not been maximised or taken up.

However, in truth, this amounts to no more than the suggestion that a data centre is the wrong

type of use in this location. As Mr Reynolds put it, it's not possible to improve the existing

poor pedestrian environment with a building which inherently requires large blank facades.

However, it's common ground of the council that there's a BAU such as this is acceptable

in principle in this location, which the local plan deliberately identifies as falling outside

the Zistrik Centre. Given that, not only is it unfair to expect a level of activity on

this site commensurate with a retail or leisure town centre use, but the question then becomes

whether the proposal has done as much as it can to activate the site within the bounds

of a use type seen as appropriate as acceptable in principle.

In this respect, the only additional improvement suggested by the Council, which it said has

not been taken up, is the failure to include some sort of mixed use element, such as a

café at ground floor.

However, as Ms McGinley explained, this suggestion is wholly inappropriate for buildings classed

as critical national infrastructure, which require exceptionally stringent security and

resilience measures.

The historic precedents relied on by Mr Reynolds and Mr Kiley are examples of existing operators

being forced to make unacceptable compromises in order to expand their existing operation.

Evidence which was clearly given by Ms McGinley but appears to have been overlooked.

No modern data centre operator would accept a mixed -use ground floor when considering

the viability of a new standalone facility.

Therefore the absence of a mixed use element is not a missed opportunity, it's a technical and operational necessity.

The appellant has done all they can to maximise activation within the constraints of a land use that's acceptable in principle in this location.

This is a design -led proposal which has sought to maximise the opportunities of the site within the constraints of a use that's both desperately needed and land use compliant.

it accordingly complies with the relevant local and national policies.

For that reason, it is not necessary, within the meaning of paragraph 57 of the MPPF,

to impose a condition effectively linking the delivery of this application

with the adjacent Ely's Yard proposal.

However, should any activation harm be identified from the Block A proposal,

this would be clearly outweighed by the benefits associated with the Ely's Yard scheme,

including the new pedestrian routes created between Grey Eagle Street and the yard,

and new retail kiosks opening onto and overlooking Grey Eagle Street.

As was recognised by officers and accepted by Mr Reynolds,

this would offer a significant improvement to activation.

Therefore, should it be the difference between a grant of planning permission and a refusal,

the appellant would accept a condition linking the two schemes.

However, real care must be exercised before imposing such a condition, not least because

the requirement to link the two schemes could lead to a delay in the delivery of much needed

data centre capacity and CNI in this location.

So we turn then to other matters, starting with consultation.

There has been considerable commentary on the pre -application consultation carried out

by the appellant.

Ultimately, it is not clear where these criticisms go.

The focus for consideration needs to be on the output of that consultation, i .e. the

schemes before the Secretary of State.

If, as they are, those proposals are acceptable, then little is to be gained by looking at

the minutiae of what was or was not said or done at various consultation events.

All parties accept that the consultation and publicity carried out complies with the relevant legislation and guidance,

and the Council accordingly raises no consultation -based objection.

In truth, as will be clear from the statement of community involvement, the Appellant went above and beyond what was required.

By the end of that process, it had a good idea of the views of the local community,

and was able to incorporate much of this into the final design, as we set out below.

It cannot be criticised for not bringing forward everything that the Rule 6 party wanted, much

of which is simply incompatible with the adopted development plan in any event. That is not

the purpose of consultation and planning is not a referendum, otherwise very little would

be built. What is important is that at the end of the process, a process which involves

consultation pre -application, consultation on the application itself, consultation by

the Rule 6 party and then evidence being called by the Rule 6 party at this inquiry. The views

of the community are clearly fully understood and can be taken into account in the decision.

Which leads us on to the Public Sector Equality Duty. It's agreed that the PSED does not require

a public authority to choose a maker to achieve any particular outcome and that provided that

the relevant potential impacts on those with a protected characteristic, both positive

and negative are taken into account by the Secretary of State in substance with vigour

and vigour and with an open mind, then the duty will be complied with.

The appellant has carefully taken the PSED into account. Its analysis of the impact of

the application on those with a protected characteristic is set out in the Equalities

Impact Assessment, which includes a full assessment of the potential for the proposed development

to result in disproportionate or differential equality impacts

on people with all protected characteristics.

As Mr Yeoman and Mr Henley explained,

in accordance with paragraph 131 of the MPBF,

the needs of the community have been integrated

into the proposals following the pre -application

consultation process.

This included ensuring that the site included new

and affordable community spaces for the local community,

which we consider further below,

and that Block J had family -sized homes

with a separate kitchen to dining and living room,

which was a specific request from the Bangladeshi Heritage Community.

A number of steps have been taken to ensure that the benefits of the proposal

are realised by that immediate community.

These proposals can only be seen as beneficial in that respect,

even if the Rule 6 party would have preferred the appellant to go even further.

In particular, the proposals deliver everything expected

by the Council's Planning Obligations SPD in order to ensure that employment opportunities

can be taken up by the local population and goes still further with funding provided for

a job within the Council's Growth and Employment Development Team to identify residents who

can benefit from on -site employment, work experience and training opportunities.

New construction apprenticeships, 43 across the sites, will be offered first to people

from living in the ward of Spitterfields in Bangalow Town and new job vacancies both during

construction and on completion will be offered first to Tower Hamlets residents with the

associated employment strategy ensuring that these jobs will be targeted at residents in the ward.

The affordable workspace will be targeted at small businesses

and offered first to local people again beyond policy.

The new community space in block 3A and 3B will be located at the heart of the masterplan area, bringing the local community into the site, and will be offered for 30 hours a week free to residents and community groups in the ward of Spitalfields in Bangalowtown and the ward of Weavers.

It will be offered at a 50 % discount for the rest of the time, as will the new community

space in Block J. A new community manager will ensure that the community space and the

wider cultural offer at the development will be aligned with the needs and wants of the

local community.

The specific strategy to relocate and then re -provide for the cash and carry business,

the owner of which is fully supportive for the proposals.

and the significant public benefits which arise from opening up this inaccessible site

and creating new high quality public realm would be a benefit to everyone in the local area.

Whilst the concerns about gentrification in this context rent based displacement are recognised,

there is no quantitative analysis or evidence that these particular proposals would give rise to any such impact.

Further, that concern may be more understandable were this scheme not being brought forward

sorry, would be more understandable were this scheme being brought forward by a standard

corporate developer. It's not. The appellant has done all it can over the last 30 years

and succeeded in avoiding the type of sterile corporate chain heavy environment that we

see all too often. Instead, as would have been readily apparent and is set out in detail

in the Grow Places note in Mr. Marjanson's appendices.

Through its careful, long -term stewardship,

the appellant has created the unique layered

and collaborative ecosystem of creative

and independent uses that exists at the estate today,

one that's fully embedded and helps support

the local community, with not a chain operation in sight.

This careful balance will continue to be maintained

over the next 30 years and more

in this next chapter of development.

Overall, therefore, as recognised by the Council, there is no PSED harm to weigh into the overall

planning balance, and we turn finally to that planning balance for all three of the sites,

and all four of the applications.

There are four separate applications, and therefore it is necessary to carry out four

separate planning balances.

In terms of the Truman East side, for the reasons set out above, the scheme entirely

accords with the development plan in terms of its land use.

It also leads both to an enhancement of the conservation area and an improvement in townscape.

For that reason alone, planning permission should be granted without delay.

It also follows from the above that there's no harm to heritage assets caused by these

proposals and therefore no need for a balance to be carried out pursuant to paragraph 215

five of the MPPF. However, even if a finding of less than substantial harm was made, the

public benefits of the development would far outweigh this harm, even the moderate level

of less than substantial harm identified by Mr Fronerman, even though such a finding of

harm would not be credible. In this respect, the package of public benefits that this scheme

will deliver are overwhelming, as set out in the evidence of Mr Marjanson. They include

first the delivery of much needed workspace. The proposal will deliver 24 ,629 square metres

of office floor space at the heart of the City Fringe opportunity area. The floor plates

will be flexible, being capable of subdivision, offering the opportunity to deliver a range

of office floor plates to meet the needs of small, medium and large sized businesses.

There is a sustained demand for offices in the City Fringe, particularly flexible, creative

an SME -oriented workspace that's envisaged here.

And the proposals would deliver high -quality

workspace to meet this need.

This includes the provision of new affordable workspace

at a significant discount of 45 % against market rent,

over and above the policy requirement for 10%,

for a, again, beyond policy compliant 15 -year period,

and again, going beyond policy

in giving first refusal for people in the Spitalfields and Bangletown Ward.

In doing so, it would help meet the identified shortfall for affordable

workspace in the London Borough of Tower of Hamlets.

In accordance with paragraph 85 of the MPPF, this would allow this area to build on its strengths

and enable the area to continue to be a global leader in driving innovation.

The proposal would support the creative industries and digital and technology businesses in particular,

identified as priority sectors for growth and support in the national and industrial strategy.

And the development provides an opportunity to enable the Truman Estate to play its full role

in supporting London and the UK in its wider context.

In terms of wider economic benefits, the proposal will deliver £80 million of annual expenditure

outside of the site, including £48 million locally,

providing a much needed boost to the fragile local economy.

The increased footfall, over 31 ,000 extra people visiting the area a week,

will provide a much needed boost to the businesses and curry houses on Brick Lane

and help address the decline in the number of curry houses identified by the Rule 6

in line with the recommendations of the Beyond Banglatown report.

The growth development value added by the development will be $130 million.

The proposal would generate 1 ,495 net full -time equivalent jobs, with first priority being given to residents in the local area.

As sat out above, the proposal will also go above and beyond policy in securing funding for a new post within the growth team

to focus on finding job and training opportunities for members of the local community.

In accordance with paragraph 85 of the NPPF,

significant weight should be given to this benefit

of delivering wider economic benefits

to the local and national economy.

The third benefit is housing delivery.

There's a pressing need for housing delivery

in London Borough Tower Hamlets and London

at a time of falling delivery across London

over the last three to four years.

In particular, there's a need to deliver affordable housing

to meet the local community needs.

The Truman East site includes 44 residential units,

of which 36 by habitable room would be affordable housing,

including six social rented residential units

of three and four bedroom,

which has been specifically designed

to meet local housing needs

and accommodate larger Bangladeshi heritage families.

These new affordable homes have been designed

to be fully integrated into the block

with shared entrances and a shared courtyard and play space.

These new market and affordable homes would be delivered in the first phase of their proposals.

The impact of refusal would therefore ironically result in the loss and non delivery of housing,

which would otherwise contribute to local plan and London plan housing targets.

To suggest that this housing application should be turned away in any reasonable circumstances, much less a housing crisis, is wayward.

There would be new town centre and community uses,

including not only workspace but a cinema, event and exhibition space,

restaurants, retail, shops, market, microbrewery and community uses.

A diverse range of uses are proposed, including a significant quantum of town centre uses

that will contribute positively to the function, vitality and viability of the district centre.

The community floor space will secure new much needed space for the local community

at a significantly discounted rate.

new public open space. The proposals on the Truman East site involve opening up the largest part of the site to the public

and removing the physical boundary between the Truman Brewery and the local community in this location.

Two new high quality and vibrant public spaces will be created together with new active uses along Butston Street, fronting onto Allen Gardens.

The proposals include high quality hard and soft landscaping that will enhance the existing buildings and the character of the area.

There will be a literal opening of the doors to the underutilised and private areas of the site.

Any one of these benefits alone would be sufficient to outweigh any reasonable finding of harm in this case.

These benefits would all be achieved through the sensitive redevelopment of a large, underutilised urban piece of brownfield land in a highly accessible location.

In accordance with paragraph 125 of the MPPF, this is exactly the type of site that the

government would prioritise for development of this nature and seek to optimise.

In terms of townscape, the Appellant's case endorsed by the GLA and the Council's officers

is that there's no townscape harm caused by the development, but rather significant enhancement

over the existing position.

However, even if some townscape harm is caused, this wouldn't fall to be weighed in the special

way reserved for heritage harm and would be even more comfortably outweighed by these

same benefits. Therefore, on any view of the evidence and whatever stage of the planning

balance is reached, planning permission should be granted for this urgently needed development

which delivers substantial public benefits within an award -winning master plan. In terms

of the list of building consent, the Council's reasons for refusal identifies no harm that

would arise from the grant of listed building consent and as recorded in the statement of

common ground the council accepts that if planning permission is granted on the Truman

East site then listed building consent on block O should follow.

In terms of Eli's Yard the planning balance for this development is we say even more straightforward.

The only harm identified by the council relates to the townscape impact to the proposal and

and for the reasons set out above, the proposal is entirely policy compliant in this respect.

However, even if some limited townscape harm is caused, this would be clearly outweighed

by the benefits of the proposal, which we don't repeat, but are set out and full in

the evidence and give the reference.

In terms of Block A, for the reasons set out above, again we say that the scheme entirely

accords with the Development Plan, leading both to an enhancement of the conservation

area and an improvement in townscape.

However, should you or the Secretary of State agree with the Council that the scheme would

result in less than substantial harm at the lower end to the conservation area, as identified

by Mr. Froniman, then that harm falls to be balanced against the public benefits of the

proposal in accordance with paragraph 215 of the MPPF. The same approach should be adopted

should there be a finding of townscape or activation harm, albeit that this harm would

not be weighed. Therefore, all parties agree that the planning balance for this application

involves weighing the harms identified against the public benefits, including the benefits

of a data centre and it's to those benefits we now turn.

It's rightly common ground between the parties that there's a pressing need for data centre

capacity in this part of London. Data centres are critical national infrastructure and central

to the future of the UK. The scale of need is acute, urgent and of national importance.

Forecasts published by the government have estimated that between 2 ,250 megawatts and

3 ,100 megawatts of additional data centre capacity

will be required in London alone by 2027

to keep pace with digital growth.

Government research has also highlighted

the necessity of timely delivery of data centres

to meet the escalating demand drive

being driven by emerging technologies such as AI

and increased digital services.

It's for this reason that the Secretary of State

has consistently given significant weight

to the benefits of additional data centre capacity.

There can also be no doubt about the pressing need

for the type of data centre this development provides.

A retail colo facility offering third party data centre

space primarily, but not exclusively,

catering to the significant number of financial institutions

in the city of Docklands area.

The considerable distance of alternative data centre

locations such as in Slough or Hayes,

means that these options are unsuitable for financial institutions headquartered in the city,

who require the ultra -low latency connectivity, which underpins financial transactions and business operations,

essential to maintaining the UK status as a leading global financial sector.

Whilst Lau and Haise firmly establish the key cloud availability zones for London and the wider UK,

the city in Docklands remains the heartland of retail colocation,

serving institutions that depend on proximity -driven performance.

This sector is reliant on retail colo solutions.

Such facilities also offer secure, scalable and affordable space

that is fundamental to the growth and resilience of a wide range of other businesses.

There is an acute shortage in the supply of this vital retail colocation space.

As Ms McGinley explained, retail colocation providers in the city and docklands, such as Digital Realty, Telehouse and Equinix are operating at full capacity.

And there is intense demand for such facilities from the concentration of financial centres close to the site.

Demand outstrips available capacity and the future supply of such facilities is limited due to the lack of suitable land,

given the specific location requirements for new data centres

and high land values in inner city locations.

There's an urgent and growing need to ensure that supply matches this demand.

The failure to meet this need would potentially be catastrophic to the UK economy.

The growth of businesses and their performance would be stunted by the lack of suitable infrastructure.

Businesses would stop investing in the UK and established businesses would look to leave,

As Ms McGinley put it, you can't have a business in the UK if you don't have the IT capacity to match.

This risk is very real for the competitiveness of the City of London as a global financial and IT hub,

which requires data capacity close by and with limited latency in order to remain competitive.

Further, whilst the UK is currently a market leader in terms of its digital infrastructure,

this position is fragile and constantly under threat.

Other economic centres such as Amsterdam and Dublin

have seen a decline in their competitiveness

due to difficulties in building new capacity.

The government's aspiration to be a market leader in this sector

would be set back if permission were refused.

As the Inspector put it in the Court Lane Appeal,

failure to meet this need could have significant negative consequences

for the UK digital economy.

This is reflected in government policy, which has been rightly pushing for growth in digital capacity.

In December 2024, digital centres were identified as CNI, the first such designation in 11 years.

That was followed by updates to the MPPF to reflect the criticality of this infrastructure.

Paragraph 85 requires the planning system to pay particular regard to facilitating development to meet the needs of a modern economy.

and identifies data centres as one such need.

Paragraph 87 requires planning decisions to make provision for new data centre facilities

to support the growth of data drive, creative or high technology industries.

This is to be achieved by identifying suitable locations for new data centres.

This proposal is entirely in line with this new and up -to -date expression of the government's priorities.

It would address the urgent capacity shortfalls identified above in a highly connectivity -rich

and latency -sensitive location within a well -established and strategically important data centre cluster.

It's common ground that the proposal meets the very specific locational requirements

for this type of data centre, but the benefits and uniqueness of this location goes further

than that.

The site is in the heart of a retail colocation cluster,

surrounded on all sides by fibre carriers,

directly opposite the internet exchange,

and in close proximity to the Osborne Street primary substation.

As Ms McGinley explained, it could not be in a better location.

Whilst designed as a standalone facility,

its location and advantages would mean that it had a unique ability to tap in to the dense network of fibres that already surround

the digital realty campus. These are benefits that will be of benefit to every potential user of the facility.

For over its location right on the edge of the city is vital to the businesses such as the financial sector

who rely on super latency in circumstances where the difference between success and failure is a matter of microseconds.

Against all of this, the Council's case appears to turn on the suggestion that the data centre doesn't need to be located in this particular location.

This is a fundamentally flawed contention for multiple reasons.

First, Mr. Kiley accepted that the demand for new data centre capacity is significantly more than just this site can provide,

and that the need could only be met through the grant of permission on this site, together with many others,

a concession yet again unacknowledged by the Council in its closing.

Therefore, even if there was an alternative and sequentially preferable site,

that would provide no justification for reducing the weight to be given to the benefits of this proposal.

Indeed, as Mr. Marginson noted, there is also no planning policy support in either local or national policy

for some sort of locational sequential test for data centres.

In any event, the Council does not actually identify any specific, suitable or deliverable

alternative site in the local area at all.

Rather, Mr Kiley relied on the emerging local plan approach, which supports new data centres

on various employment sites in the borough.

However, as he accepted, in neither the adopted or the emerging local plan or their associated

evidence bases has any consideration been given to the specific locational requirements

for data centres, latency, power, fibre considerations, etc., as required by paragraph 87 of the MPPF.

Unsurprisingly, the emerging data centre policy is the subject of profound objection by the

data centre industry. Ms McGinley was therefore forced to do the council's job for them. She

went through every suggested location

and identified a series of fundamental issues with each.

The complaint that this analysis was not written down really

is a bad point.

It was the council who raised the spectre

of alternative sites in the first place.

And if it was going to raise the issue,

it really should have turned its mind

to whether any were in fact suitable or deliverable,

not least to support its own emerging policy.

Further, the suggestions an operator

an operator might move into one of these unattractive locations

and seek to build up the fibre network itself.

Again, totally misunderstands how this sector works.

As Ms. McKinley explained, building up fibre

takes years and requires physical trenching.

No operator would move into a new fibre -poor facility

and seek to carry out that work themselves.

In short, all that this diversion

into potential alternatives achieved

was a realisation that there is no better site out there

for this type of facility.

A suggestion also emerged in the course of the inquiry

that somehow the weight to be attached to this facility

should be reduced because of its size.

This again profoundly misunderstands the nature

of the data centre market

and the nature of the identified need.

The larger hyperscale data centres referred to by the Council

are catering to a fundamentally different market

and demand to this proposal.

They are cloud -based providers as opposed to retail colo serving multiple clients.

Retail colocation facilities such as this will by definition be smaller.

It's like saying we need planes more than we need cars because they fit more people.

We need planes and cars and we need both cloud -based hyperscale data centres and smaller colocational

centres.

Were the council's argument to be accepted, it would apply to each and every retail colo

application, leading to a death by a thousand cuts of the sectors of the economy which rely

on this type of facility, one which is small in raw megawatt quantum, but which makes a

powerful contribution to the economy of London and the wider UK.

Overall, given the urgent national need for data centres of this type, the suggestion

that a data centre on this profoundly well -located site should be afforded only limited weight

is clearly awry and demonstrates that the Council has failed to learn the lessons from the Mulberry decision,

where that similarly initial finding of limited weight was upgraded to an acceptance of significant weight by the end of the inquiry,

and that predated the CNI designation, which should justify an even greater weighting.

Such a finding would also be an outlier compared to recent Secretary of State decisions,

And it's hard to see how it helps the council to point out that these decisions have consistently

given significant weight to data centres in circumstances where members took the view

that they should be afforded limited weight, and even now it's only suggested that moderate

weight should be given.

The council's case ultimately reflects a profound misunderstanding of the locational requirements

for this type of data centre and an overly local and parochial focus on benefits to the

immediate local community.

As the Secretary of State's recovery letter correctly identified, this appeal, in line with the others, has more than local significance.

Therefore, even if the Council's case in relation to a lower end less than substantial harm to the conservation area is accepted,

and even if it's found that notwithstanding the agreed townscape enhancements delivered by the proposal and the agreed improvement to activation,

there was a missed opportunity harm arising.

That would be comprehensively outweighed

by the overwhelming benefits that this proposal would bring.

Turning finally to the overall conclusion.

Overall, these proposals deliver a package

of very significant development plan compliant benefits.

Not only is there no planning policy justification

for refusing planning permission for any of these applications,

but to do so would mean turning away

new tailor -made SME high quality workspace in a highly strategic and dynamic cluster,

turning away the significant boost that the development would give to the local and national

economy, turning away new housing including new affordable housing and turning away vital

new data centre capacity all delivered in buildings of exceptional quality within the context of an

award -winning master plan. That would represent an incredible missed opportunity for the government's

priorities across a range of areas.

And so for all of those reasons, we say that

planning permission for this important series of

proposals should accordingly be granted

without any further delay.

Thank you, Mr. Parkinson.

There's just a few things I need to touch on before we

close the inquiry.

The first, and you'll understand what I'm asking

here, is whether there is anything else any of you

wished a place before me, you'll understand what I'm referring

to.

Cost?

From our side, sir.

Ms. Curtis?

No, not from our side.

Mr. Parkinson?

Thank you.

I have to ask.

The second thing is site visits.

I have spent a lot of time in the vicinity of the site

in the course of the inquiry.

We did a preliminary site visit.

We did another one yesterday.

Mr. Bobley has asked about the potential for me to visit

some of the housing estates to the east

and south of the site, and I've received that request

through my case officer.

I'm perfectly happy to do that,

but I will do it on an unaccompanied basis.

I may, having reflected on what I've heard today

and the evidence, I may want to spend a little more time

in the vicinity of the site, but I'll arrange that myself

if that's okay, I don't need to drag you all along.

I don't need to go anywhere that isn't publicly accessible

to do that.

So I may do that, and if I do do that,

I will let you all know through my case officer.

Wayne, I'm not entirely sure,

because I need to have a look at my diary.

Penultimate thing is the progress of the report.

During this inquiry, I'm already being pressed

for what I move on to next.

Yeah, thanks.

But I would expect the report to be with the Secretary of State

this side of Christmas.

But if not, it would certainly be early January,

because otherwise it will bump into other things that are already appearing in my programme.

So that's the kind of timetable I'm looking at.

If there's any serious change to that, then I will let you all know through Alison.

The last thing I need to say is to express my thanks to all of you for the way the inquiry's

been conducted.

I've quite enjoyed it.

I hope, well, if you can enjoy an inquiry,

I have enjoyed it.

I've enjoyed the advocacy and the way

that the evidence has been presented.

So I'm grateful to you all for that.

Unless there's anything else,

I'm going to close the inquiry.

Sorry.

You first.

I don't know if it's the same thing.

Just to confirm, in relation to the Section 106.

I was gonna raise that.

It was the same point, yeah.

I think the parties have agreed two weeks to send that in, so by the 14th, if that timing works for you, sir.

That's fine. That's fine by me, yeah. The 14th of...

November.

November, yeah. Happy with that.

So I was going to make the identical suggestion.

And so finally, I think in the absence of Mr Harris, it falls to me to extend on behalf of all the advocates,

thanks to you and through you, Pins, for a very patient, thorough and good -humoured inquiry process.

I hope so. I hope everyone's found it accessible. That's the main thing that concerns me.

But thank you. And yes, please pass my thanks on to Mr Harris.

He's not here today, but he's got his hands full somewhere else.

So I will, and I'm sure he'd absolutely echo those sentiments as well. In fact, I know he does.

Excellent. Good. Well, unless there's anything else then, I'm going to say those words.

The inquiry is closed. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Truman's Public Inquiry PM - Friday 31 October 2025, 2:00pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Truman's Public Inquiry PMFriday, 31st October 2025 at 2:00pm