Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 02/09/26 - Wednesday 2 September 2026, 10:00am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 02/09/26
Wednesday, 2nd September 2026 at 10:00am

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.

which is day four of the inquiry.

To recap, my name is Benjamin Webb. I've been appointed by the Secretary of State to hold

this inquiry into an appeal made by Victoria Wharf Limited.

Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of the Council

of the London Borough Tower Hamlets to refuse Planning Commission for redevelopment to provide

Business Class EG3 use at ground and park first floor, residential Class C3 use,

associated highway and landscaping works Victoria Wharf, Starrow Road slash Beachy Road, London E32NT.

Just a reminder to keep electronic devices silent in the event of a fire to exit by the

door to my right.

Just before we start, does anyone have anything they want to say?

So yes, I think a second addendum statement of common ground has been sent into pins.

I was sent a version yesterday, which I thought was the likely or was going to be the final

version, but then the council made some further amendments that I don't think was sent to

us until about 10pm last night. So in reality, I am going to need some extra time at some

point today to properly consider that new section before I cross -examine Mr. Weir on

it, please.

Well I haven't seen the document yet. I asked the council.

So yes I've got the document this morning as well and I think it went to pins 20 minutes or so ago

looking at the email. Obviously I've got no objection if extra time is required for that

to be provided.

Can I just clarify, this has been agreed, this document?

Yes, it's agreed. It's signed.

You're happy to carry on at the moment without saying it?

I think Ms. Pack's going first and I don't think it's particularly, well there's overlap

but I wasn't planning to ask her about it, so yes, thank you.

Anything else?

I think someone mentioned last week there was someone going to attend to speak.

So that's right and from the person in question, he's a local resident, and the last I

heard he was seeing whether he could make mine vertical he wasn't sure. I'll

just see if there's any other update from Mr Weir.

I understand the update is that he's provided a written statement of a page

or so and ask for that to be sent to pins. Mr Weir tells me he has sent that now to pins.

I can see something's been sent in but I can't actually see the thing itself. Had the

Yes we have, I'll deal with it in Mr Cheema's oral evidence to the extent that we need to

respond, thank you.

Right then, first we're going to be dealing with Creative Enterprise Zone matters, which

which is dealt with by the council's witness Ms. Pack

if you'd like to go up

Thank you, sir.

I'll introduce my next witness, Ms. Pak.

Ms. Pak, let me introduce you to the inquiry

taken from your proof of evidence.

You are Yulia Pak.

You hold a Bachelor of Arts degree,

State Municipal Management, Politics, Economics

from the State University of Management, Moscow.

Also hold a Master of Science degree with Merit

in International Real Estate from Oxford Brookes University

and a Master of Arts degree in Arts and Cultural Management

from Goldsmith University of London.

15 years professional experience at Chartered Survey

and a member of Ricks.

You produce this proof of evidence

in respect of the Creative Enterprise Zone

and related matters,

not matters of real estate or property,

notwithstanding your qualifications in the latter.

And you're writing and you're giving evidence in your role

as Creative Enterprise Zone manager

for the Hackney Wick and Lower Lee Valley

Creative Enterprise Zone where Victoria Wharf is situated.

You explain 1 .3 that you've been employed by the London Borough Tower Hamlets in this

role since 2024.

It's joint funded by the Council in the Business Growth Team Housing and Regeneration Directorate

and London Borough of Hackney Council in the Economic Development Team Regeneration, Economy

and Housing Development.

And the role has been a dedicated resource to the delivery of the CEZ programme since

It was launched and the design of the role reflects that the zone straddles the boundaries of tower

Hamlets and hacking burrows.

And then you also at 1 .6 give the give a declaration as to the correctness of your opinions,

that they're not true and professional opinions rather.

Ms. Pak, that's all correct, is it?

That's correct. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good, so you've got a proof and appendices which I'm going to take as read and I'm going

to, as with the other witnesses, deal with your evidence in chief by asking you a few

topics to discuss.

The first one, please.

Can I ask you to give your views and overview on the appeals side, including its various

components in terms of its importance or otherwise to the CEZ and if so why?

Thank you. Victoria Wharf has long been established as a site of creative

production and creative consumption. It combines the precise uses that the

Creative Enterprise Zone programme and the designation is seeking to protect and

enhance which are affordable creative workspace, live workspace, grassroot

cultural space, music, and nightlife venues.

I would like to start with giving a brief summary

of the Creative Enterprise Zone programme, its objectives,

and its policy framework before turning to discussion

why the appeal site is important to the Creative Enterprise

Zone.

I will refer to Creative Enterprise Zone as KIAS

throughout, just for simplicity.

Creative Enterprise Zones are a matter of strategic designation.

The London Plan defines creative enterprise zones as initiatives to establish clusters

of creative production, which provide affordable premises and enterprise -related incentives

for artists and creative businesses, pro -culture planning and housing policies, and offer career

pathways and creative jobs for local communities and young people.

Now the creative enterprise zones are hoping to future -proof London as a world meeting

for the best culture and creative capital and also nurture the city's creative communities

at a critical, grassroot level.

The programme's objectives in summary are increasing permanent affordable space to work,

providing business support, improving access for Londoners to learn creative skills and

find new jobs in the industry.

The programme has been successful on the London level as well as on the local level, and it

has been growing from six zones designated as pilot zones in 2018 to 12 zones currently

meaning basically substantial growth, meaning that more than six more London boroughs submitted

bids to the GLA to commit to protecting and enhancing affordable creative space through

policies and strategic initiatives.

Then just a brief summary of policy framework which is relevant to the Creative Enterprise Zones.

The Zones objectives are embedded in the London Plan policies E8, sector growth opportunities

and clusters, H .C .5, supporting London's culture and creative industry, and H .T .6, which supports

and protects London's economic economy. Policy H .C .5 in particular in Part A states that

the continued growth and evolution of London's diverse cultural facilities and creative industries

is supported. Development plans and development proposals should protect existing creative

cultural venues, facilities and uses where appropriate and support the development of

new cultural venues. In town centres and places with good transport accessibility to support

this, Barros are encouraged to develop an understanding of the existing cultural offer

in the area, evaluate what's unique and important for residents, workers and visitors, to develop

policies to protect those cultural assets and community spaces. In my view, this paragraph

of the policies of direct relevance to the Tory Wharf.

Third, Section C of the same policy provides guidance for local plan policies where a creative

enterprise zone has been identified, setting out planning objectives of the KIAs in this

way.

This includes developing and protecting suitable, attractive, and affordable creative work space,

supporting cultural venues, and supporting mix of uses that derive mutual benefits from

and do not compromise.

the creative industries and cultural facilities, and the creative enterprise zone in line with

the agent of change principle.

Further, and just kind of quickly, the draught London Plan has been published – that has

been published for consultation in July.

It demonstrates continuous support for culture and creative industries in spaces of creative

production and creative consumption and time, economy, and venues.

so all of the uses that are relevant to the storey of work as well through draught policies

JLE -5 and JLE -4.

Now, having provided high -level overview of random policy and objectives of the KIAS as

a designation, I would like to turn to local context on the HACNY -WIC and Low Value Valuative

Enterprise Zone in its objectives and locally relevant planning context.

The zone has been designated in 2018, one of the first mayor of London's creative

enterprise zone, and its primary objectives at the time was to protect and grow one of

London's best known creative neighbourhoods and manage the impacts of investment and regeneration

in the area.

These impacts are taking place across both built environment and also the socio -economic

and demographic profile of the area.

those unique and vibrant creative character combined with strategic investment, even around

Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth Italian Park in Stratford has been making it attractive

for new residential and commercial development.

The Hackney Lake and Fish Island Zone, which was the regional name of the zone, was set

up as a partnership between the London Borough of Hackney, London Borough of Talamlet and

and LDC – London Legacy Development Corporation – which – the letter also led on the original

veto of the JLA.

The original boundary of the Creative Enterprise Zone is happening in Fisheylint, where Victoria

Ward was situated, and sits within the legacy – Development Corporation former planning

boundary.

The zone has been successful in its bid to be reaccredited and to confirm – reconfirm,

rather, its designation by the JLA first in 2021 and most recently last year.

And it's not just renewed and reconfirmed its status of the designation.

It also extended the boundary of the zone, acknowledging the positive impact as a place -based

strategic planning, regeneration, and economic development initiative.

Now I'd like to discuss objectives.

very briefly, I will discuss objectives of the zone and how these are supported by the

London Plan policies for the area – sorry, local plan policies.

In accordance with the Creative Enterprise Zone framework, the zone delivers activity

and impact against a three -year action plan, which is fairly robust, and includes project

delivery against the four pillars, which are space, skills and business support, policy,

community engagement and socially inclusive places. In terms of the local plan policies,

creative enterprise on objectives are extensively referenced in the LODC local plan in policy B1,

location and maintenance of employment uses policy B4, providing low cost business space,

affordable and managed workspace.

Hackney Blackfish Island, PD, the London legacy,

LDC evening and nighttime economy, SPD.

There is also case study of Hackney Blackfish Island, KES,

in case study one in the LDC local plan.

And there is a continuity and evolution

of the commitment by local planning authority

to the Creative Enterprise objectives.

The zone, now technically Lava Lireli Zone,

is recognised and its status as a special designation

is straightened in the draught Talamud Local Plan.

Its policy, EG1, creating investment and jobs,

which are particularly relevant to the designation.

The draught Local Plan also includes specific provisions

for the creative enterprise policies in EG2, a new employment space, EG4,

laws and redevelopment of employment space, TC7, even a nighttime economy,

and policy C15, arts and cultural facilities.

So far, I have discussed the objectives of the creative enterprise zone and

set out relevant planning policy context and evolution of this framework, both on London

and local level.

I would like now to turn to discussing why Victoria Wharf is important in this context

that I set out just now.

Creative Spaces, based on the appeal site, its users and user communities have been important

in establishing the Haknevah Fish Island area,

the grasswood creative economy,

and they contributed to the unique character of the area,

which resulted in designating

the Creative Enterprise Zone in 2018.

Since then, the Victoria Wharf site

continued to be one of the key sites

of creative production and creative consumption in the area,

while also being an established site

of real work typology, which is unique.

Victoria Wharf is one of the key remaining sites of the grassroot creative economy.

The uses that exist on the site bring together local, creative, and resident community in

unique ways, including collaboration, skills, and tool sharing.

Both the unique spatial arrangements and the clear tendency for collective occupation and

suitability for maker practises have been extensively researched,

documented, and profiled in research papers and press.

And there are well -known examples

represent a well -known example of a grassroot creative

and urban warehouse living model.

One of the characteristics of the site that's

integral to it being popular and important site

of creative production is that the space is genuinely

affordable to occupiers. The appeal site is locally distinct, important, and unique. This

importance has been further evidenced and illustrated by multiple public representations

received in the course of the public inquiry in addition to multiple Megane research and

publications referencing my proof of evidence. The cultural legacy of the site and the history

of collectives and creative production that it embodies is dating back to pre -Olympic

concentration of artists and creative talent in the area. A lot of this legacy is intangible

legacy that the appeal site is one of the key remaining custodians of. And I believe

that it needs to be a shared legacy, as eloquently discussed by Councillor Amka in his speech,

is an interesting part from the first day of the inquiry.

The next key reason why the site is important to the area,

to the creative enterprise zone and to London creative economy

at large, lies in affordability of the spaces that

enable creative production and creative expression

in a very uniquely inclusive and collaborative way.

The programme, the CCS programme, and the policy framework

is set up to protect and enhance this affordability and these characteristics.

The space has been widely understood to be affordable and this is further evidenced by

the summary of lease agreements and annual rent paid by occupiers across the site provided by

the appellant as a part of the inquiry. Quite importantly, London has been recently voted

the best city for culture in the world by time out, an achievement much publicised and

much celebrated, and rightly so. Cities thrive from culture, and culture is incredibly multi -layered

and multi -faceted, especially in places like London, where it's also very vulnerable to

market forces and affordability pressures. Creative communities and culture produced

in Hackney Week and within the Tory of Orfeh, one of the key sites, is as critically important

to London's status of a successful global city and its competitiveness as its public

museums, theatres, and art galleries.

There are just under 500 businesses – sorry, 500 creative businesses in this fairly compact

geographic area of Hucking and Fish Island, and every single one is contributing to London's

strength and attractiveness as a global creative capital.

Councillor Church House, Go Eastward, has illustrated multiple examples in her speech on the opening

day talking about examples of how very house culture fosters creativity and collaboration,

and how this dynamism results in world -class calibre of artistic expression coming out

of Hackney Week.

There are further recent and multiple examples of how Hackney Week warehouse community creative

outputs are commissioned and acknowledged by institutions like Victoria and Albert Museum,

established design and fashion brands, and so on.

Creative industries are very prominent in the London growth plan as well as productive,

tradeable, and growing. There are the heart of the London soft power, reaching the hearts

and minds of audience globally with London's creativity, diversity, heritage, and values.

Hackney Wick and the appeal site are an integral part of the at least two sub -regional creative

industries clusters. The first is Thames Estuary production corridor, which I will also reference

in my proof continues, which is a sub -regional mega -cluster of creative production and London

fashion district in addition to being within a designated creative enterprise zone. The

UK government has designed designated creative industries as one of the priority sectors

to drive future growth, innovation, and global competitiveness nationally and internationally.

In my opinion, Victoria Wharf is a site that embodies this direct and immediate economic

impact and embodies the culture and the contribution to London and UK's creative economy.

Thank you.

So I'm then going to ask you to, as you're just getting to, turn from the wider context

to the appeal scheme, please.

and your views on whether the appeal scheme preserves, enhances or otherwise the appeal

site's contribution to the CEZ.

Like a lot of formally industrial, predominantly industrial areas in London, Hackney, Wicke

and Fish Island is experiencing a significant change and policy framework and strategic

initiatives have been put in place to ensure that this development is regenerative in nature

and its outcomes, and it's also sensitive to local conditions and diverse communities,

which are the means to make the development successful and contribute to local economy

growth.

I do not dispute that redevelopment of the site presents an opportunity, and there could

benefits and improvements that it could bring forward and generate.

However, from the creative enterprise perspective, any redevelopment proposals for this important

significant site of Victoria Wharf need to be sensitive and respectful to the value and

characteristics of the creative and cultural uses and affordable workspace.

In its current form, the proposal does not demonstrate it.

In terms of policy compliance, the existing use of users in Victoria Wharf is protected

by London Plan policies HT5 and HT6.

As per my proof, the proposal does not support objectives of the Creative Enterprise Zone

set out in London Plan HT5 Part 3, specifically which outlines policy objectives including

in developing, enhancing, protecting, and managing new and existing work space, providing

flexibility for changing business needs and an attractive business environment, including

related ancillary facilities.

I will now turn to discuss in nature an extent of harm that would result from the proposed

development if permitted in its current parameters.

The loss of low -cost employment space is especially harmful to local creative economy because

many creative businesses depend on access to affordable, flexible and adaptable workspace.

The value of such space is not solely related to its size or quantum, but also rights and

affordability, tenure arrangements, which is basically referring to longevity of space

and security of lease agreements, sustainability for creative production and its ability to

support collaboration between creative practitioners and creative businesses.

I do understand that the exact figures of quantum of workspace that exists and the quantum

of laws of work space and creative spaces are quite complex and currently being decided.

Because the first key point that I would like to consider is the loss of two more years,

which is the successor of the early venue, Star Space, a multifunctional creative and

cultural space that has been embodying the spirit and resilience of the unique area and

its diverse community.

The significance of loss of two more years extends far beyond Victoria Wharf itself.

The success of Hackney Woodfish Island is a creative cluster in East London derived

from the concentration of interconnected creative businesses, affordable workspaces, unique

live -work typology and cultural venues.

Incremental losses of this nature reduce the critical mass of activities that underpin

the area's role as a recognised creative cluster and the Creative Enterprise Zone.

This opinion is also supported by the JLA Creative Enterprise Zone Office, who I work

closely with in their letters dating from May this year and April last year listed in

my appendices. It's noted that the JLA's Senior Manager for Creative Enterprise Zone

Programme statement from the 22nd of May, 2026, the value of regulatory worth is in affordability,

flexibility, and the network of uses that it supports. There are qualities and the character

of the site and then Hackingback Fish Island that the Creative Enterprise Zone Programme

was created to support.

It is my concern that these will be qualities that will be severely harmed and lost under

the appellant's proposal for Victoria Warfare Development.

So overall, I believe that there is a very direct and strong relationship between creative

production activity locally and on -site and around it and London's and the UK's

success on competitiveness. If permitted on current parameters the proposed scheme

would fundamentally alter the typology and sheer diversity of uses supported by

this space and also activity on the site.

Thank you.

Next topic, you just briefly, I think, touched on two more years and its loss.

Can I ask you, just expand a bit on that, two more years, its contribution, any value,

and perhaps if you pick up Vittoria Wolf's studio as well, please.

Thank you.

It's understood that the proposal would result in demolition of low -cost employment floor

space, which the appellant themselves states is all creative and cultural businesses, so

artists and creative businesses, most of which appear to be in existence for at least 15

years, as well as two cultural event venues where Mr. Weir's proof alleges that they've

been in the systems for over 10 years.

The exact quantum of magnitude of the laws

could not be confirmed right now,

given the lack of clarity around quantum, some flow

plans, a list of businesses and spatial parameters.

Although, I estimate that it will

be significant and adverse.

If the development is granted permission in its current parameters, the loss of popular

and well -loved cultural space operating in two more years is – will present a significant

harm to the creative enterprise zone.

Two more years occupies a part of the space that its predecessor, Star Wars space, which

was established and much loved community of creative space.

It was established since 2011.

In my appendices, I also reference a feature

on Star Wars space from the Slice magazine, which

was published in 2019, which says that Star Wars space began

as an abandoned warehouse.

and ten years on it's a thriving creative venue with a packed programme of arts and community activities

and has been listed as an asset of community value.

Stour Space has stepped up from asset of community value to community development trust

and from there it becomes a leading voice in the task of integrating new rivals to Hackney Week,

Fish Island with existing community, which I believe is a very critical role and still supported by the two more years.

So two more years, Dr. Tomo years, is not, I don't believe it's a mere commercial unit or a nightclub.

It's a versatile creative production and consumption space that also includes studios on first and

mezzanine floors that are occupied by diverse mix of makers, established creative and media

businesses and charities. A cafe bar, co -working, music event space and an art gallery with residency

programme. I do consider two more years to have a role of custodian of community value and

community spirit and resilience, a space that essentially has a role of a living room for

the local creative community. And finally, Victoria War Studio, which is a much smaller

space, was acknowledged as a cultural venue by the appellant and its loss, is acknowledged

and considered a minor harm for reasons of this not being a large space by size.

Critically, the style of space building, that is not included in the reprovidable space

by the appearance, but I do consider the loss of Victoria War Studio as important to consider

when discussing harm to the creative enterprise zone as a loss of any other element of the

creative element on site.

Thank you.

Another discrete topic now just to touch on to expand on what you might have already said.

Affordability of workspace in the context of the CEZ, please, its importance or otherwise.

Yes, so the Creative Enterprise Zone was designated

some eight years ago as one of Mayor of London's first six creative enterprise zones, with

the primary objective to grow and protect London's best -known creative neighbourhood

and manage potentially adverse impacts of investment and regeneration in the area.

Affordability of creative space, quite specifically, was one of the key concerns of the zone as

a designation.

the mayor launched the Creative Enterprise Zones initiative to support artist makers

and creatives to put down roots in the capital and grow with access to affordable creative

space.

Eight years on, the zone has been reaccredited and according to the JLA press release, also

the lifeblood – sorry, lifeblood of our creative industries and have to drive the

economy, but they have faced a number of challenges in the last decade with rising rents and increased

development, hitting studios numbers.

Locally affordability of these spaces to occupiers and users is absolutely paramount to support

local and creative economy.

Indeed, most land in Huknukfish Island area is privately owned, and there are rising land

values, commercial rents, and conflicting priorities all placing increased pressure

on affordability and security of workplace – a workspace that remains a new workspace

within the area.

Spaces of this technology, which is low -cost, flexible space and form industrial buildings

adopted by its creative communities that the appeal site houses is that the proposal is

failing to sufficiently retain and re -provide increasing the area and being eroded in London

despite of the critical role in fostering dynamic creative collaboration as I discussed

earlier.

There is multiple evidence, both London -wide and locally, that creatives and maker businesses

are dependent on access to this affordable workspace.

These considerations also inform the local plan policies and their interpretation and

development management.

We are retained in your affordable workspace, including creative space, is enabled through

robust Section 106 commitments.

Thank you.

OK, next topic, live work, please.

So can you give your view on the contribution

of our eyes of live work, the use of the units,

to the CEZ, please?

Yes, I already mentioned that the live work typology

is a combination of live, work, warehouse, live in space,

and public face in spaces of creative production

is quite unique, and it's also locally significant.

Creative workspace in Hukni Lefeshevland area has emerged with a clear tendency for collective

occupation from the very beginning, and it continues to benefit from this.

That has led to distinctive shared studios typology that makes this space more affordable

to occupiers and more flexible.

also sparks collaborations more frequently and also makes the neighbourhood vibrant overall,

according to the publication Creative Factories, Hackney Blackfish Island, that I listed in my

appendix 10. The same study uses a case study of Leaf Work Unit in Victoria Wharf, describing it as

largely communal leaf work space with a strong emphasis on creative production.

The Creative Places Create Value report from 2021 in Appinges 11 uses Hackney Week along

with two more London creative clusters to illustrate the impact of creative workspaces

on local residential property.

To quote, by 2009, Wieck was a bustling, creative, vibrant place.

However, if you went there, you might have been disappointed, because you couldn't see anything.

The creative scene was not much, was very much behind closed doors.

That changed, first with the debut of the onward -looking Harknewick Festival in 2008,

and then as tower space in 2010, grow and create, which are two other established creative

spaces in the area, which has now become iconic for Hackney Week. This very combination of

private live -work spaces and public spaces where this creative activity spills out and

becomes visible is encapsulated by Victoria Wharf. And it has been documented extensively

to continue to contribute to the uplift and demand and prices for new homes in the area.

Live -work units in particular, also referred to as warehouse community, is the spatial,

economic and social topology that fosters collaborative and network creative production

in quite unique ways. These spaces are believed to be the lifeblood of the grass -root creative

community. Thank you. I think possibly the final main topic I wanted to ask you

about was whether the proposal represents a sufficient replacement from

your point of view in terms of the CEZ. My colleague Mr. Vojevljev discuss the net

and the quantum of employment space lost and re -provided in his proof and will be in the

battle and I understand that will be dealing with this topic.

I would like to discuss briefly how the proposed new space doesn't appear to have been designed

with sufficient consideration to meet needs and requirements of creative occupiers.

Just I'd like to take the opportunity to amplify points 6 -15 of my proof of evidence where

I talk about the value of creative spaces being related not just to affordability as

in pound per square feet, but also being related to the suitability for creative production.

Further in paragraph 616 of my proof, I talk about importance of these spaces being designed

to accommodate, to meet accommodation, sorry, operation requirements of creative occupiers

which are quite specific and have to be understood.

While the proposal does include replacement employment floor space, 1530 square metres,

insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the space would indeed be managed

for creative occupiers capable of accommodating existing businesses or types of existing

businesses, or indeed designed to meet the operational needs of creative and cultural

production. As such, the replacement flow space should not automatically be considered

equivalent to the existing creative and cultural workspaces that would be partially lost.

I would like to reference the workspace strategy that the appellant submitted with the planning

application, which is CD5 .32, which is the document where the appellant is describing

how the provided workspace will be responding to policy requirements, their creative enterprise

zone designation objectives, and the needs of creative organisations.

There are a couple of paragraphs from the workspace strategy that I wanted to highlight

and discuss in relation to users and users of employment space and suitability of the

space for them.

In paragraph 1 .18 states that the proposed employment space would replace the existing

space with teeth for purpose, functional, and flexible accommodation.

FIDA point 3 .3 states that the proposal will provide 1530 sq .m. of floorspace over ground and first floor, which is of high quality and provides for the creative community in Fish Island meeting the goals of the Creative Enterprise Zone designation.

Further, in paragraph 3 .15 states, it's envisioned that a variety of creative businesses will

use the workspace, for example artists, fashion designers, jewellery makers, metal and woodworkers.

And finally, in paragraph 3 .4, the workspace is intended as first light industrial space,

workshops spill out into yard space, workshop studio showrooms and exhibition space,

and ancillary café. That was the description of the users and users proposed for the reprovision,

the provided space.

As a creative enterprise or manager,

it's good to see that this space is being targeted

to maker businesses in mind.

Because maker businesses, such as these listed

in the description of the target sectors,

basically represent an important part of the appeal side

creative activity.

Paragraph 316 also mentions that the same document of the workspace strategy also mentioned

that the workspace has been designed as flexible light industrial and workshop spaces for light

and creative businesses. This is quite an important point in relation to my discussion

of suitability of the space. So my colleagues, Mr. Weer and Mr. Mitchell, dealt with spatial

design and other parameters of the proposal in more detail in their respective proofs

and evidence, including ceiling heights for employment space and sizing configuration

of the courtyard. I just very quickly wanted to take an opportunity to further amplify

my points about responding to operational requirements of the creative production businesses

as workshops and light industrial space, using the example of the courtyard in the new scheme.

I would like to discuss why it needs objectives of the creative enterprise zone in protecting,

enhancing, and managing creative workspace and responding to these needs.

In particular, Workspace Strategy states that the yard will be able or will accommodate

workshops spill -outs into the courtyard space.

And paragraph 316 of the same document says that the courtyard will be the space for employees

to enjoy alongside residents.

Now from my experience and from my reading that creates a potential

conflict of users as maker workshops in particular such as metal

and wood that are listed as target creative occupies in the document can be

quite noisy and therefore specific needs to take this work outside to the

courtyard is likely to be the type of work that's best not best accommodated

indoors, so hence the suggestion for the spaces to be workshop spillouts for these reasons.

This peaceful coexistence of such maker practises and residents and also general public is – and

the enjoyment is only possible in very unique settings, like warehouse community, for example,

where residents and makers and artists are one and the same.

And the combination of uses is a basis for the typology

to emerge and thrive for so many years.

Now I doubt that creatives will afford living

in the new project if I can allow myself this hypothesis.

The new residents would not necessarily appreciate

such direct and close proximity to working, functioning light industrial spaces and workshops

as such as listed in the target occupied uses, especially if this activity is happening in

the yard. And this potential challenge does not discuss anywhere in the documents exactly

how the courtyard and the entire design of the scene will be addressing and preempting

this precious on a fairly compact space of the courtyard.

And just – yeah, so I can just summarise that in terms of assessing the proposal from

the Creative Enterprise Zone perspective, its failure to re -provide and enhance adequately

affordable workspace, workspace and creative spaces is not aligned with the core objectives

of the Creative Enterprise Zone programme that are once again to protect the unique character

of the area and the creative community and to increase longevity of affordable creative

space across a variety of workspaces, typologies. The proposal would result in a loss of creative

production space and sufficient, without sufficient evidence that equivalent affordable fit -for -purpose

replacement provision would be delivered.

The qualities that made Victoria War such an important and unique creative designation

for creative production in particular are the following.

Grassroot creative community and grassroot economy, low cost and affordable space, hybrid

space, hybrid space that has this unique spatial typology supporting communal and private spaces,

and the range of configured maker spaces, work spaces, and leaf spaces as well.

From the Creative Enterprise Zone perspective, these laws in the appeal side will be harmful to the KIAs.

That was all I wanted to share.

Good. Thank you very much, Ms. Pang. I think so that's the evidence in chief.

Before we start the cross -examination, we'll take a quick ten minute break.

So in 2 .5 past 10 the inquiry is adjourned.

Attend in person, but I had access to multiple

very helpful photographs provided by the appellant

of the details of the setup and the types of uses

that were part of the live -work spaces, which I basically studied very

carefully and based my evidence partially on that.

Because you said in your evidence in chief, you know, the floor space figures

are not very clear, but you've reached a view in your evidence about what you say the importance

of this issue to the CEZ is. So you must have had some idea, for example, of the floor space

for two more years and Vittoria Wharf Studios. So what, when you wrote your proof, were you

basing your analysis on, please? So I based my analysis on the local authority statement of case

on my colleagues' proofs and rebuttals.

So I understand I didn't want to go into

detailed discussion of the amounts

because I understand this is still,

there's been multiple versions of the flow space

provided by the appellant since the start of the inquiry

and even earlier, I believe.

And I believe the difference is quite significant

So it's anywhere between, I think the local authority

estimates the total amount to be in the area of 3 ,000

square metres, although I understand there's been

discussion of the mezzanine levels being kind of lawful

and the sort of validity would be included in the estimate.

And the repellents provided for space is,

Is it providing space in the 1 ,530 square metres?

So there have been multiple scenarios that I have seen in terms of how numbers align

and how local authorities estimates these numbers to be and other parties estimates

them to be, but I understand there have been always a difference.

It's just the magnitude of this difference varies.

Yeah, but I'm interested in you obviously reaching your conclusions, so which figures

did you take into account when you were writing your proof?

Were you, I think you started off by saying you were relying on the council statement

of case.

Is that what you were referring to at that point in time?

Yeah, it was the main figure that I used to base my arguments is the council's estimated,

is the amount estimated on the Council's statement of case at that time.

And have you read the first addendum to the statement of common ground which was submitted

on Thursday I think before the site visit? I cannot please remind you which figures I

referring to. That's not the question. Have you read the first addendum to the

statement of common ground which was submitted jointly by the parties on

Thursday? I don't think I did. So because that sets out the latest you know the

position of each party in the latest floor space figures but your analysis

isn't based on that because you haven't read it. Yes, Miss Sergeant, like I said I

I understand there have been quite a lot of movement,

quite a lot of different versions of floor plans

and list of businesses and uses and amounts provided

by the appellant, which have been discussed before

and during the course of this public inquiry.

So I don't think I kind of like I said,

the difference is substantial even if,

substantial enough if the, especially if Tomoyeir's

is not included in the provider space

for the creative enterprise to be concerned

for the loss of affordable creative workspace.

Like I said in my evidence in chief,

Mr. Weir in his proof and in his evidence

will be discussing these matters of amounts

of quantum soft space in detail.

I know, I'm not trying to get you to give Mr. Weir's

I've got enough questions about that for him later, but I'm entitled to understand when you say to the inspector

Well, you know, I think this loss is important

That is not we've we've learned you haven't read the first addendum to the statement of common ground

So your analysis is not based on the latest

Iteration of the party's respective positions is it because you haven't read it?

So my proof was prepared for the things I needed

in advance of this being in advance of the latest set of,

latest version of quantum subflow plans

provided by the equivalent.

So yes, my analysis, my original analysis

was definitely based on the estimates

by the local authority around the loss

of creative workspaces and their figures

available to us at that time.

Could I, I'm sure the inspectors got the point, I am going to give you one more

opportunity. I would like a yes or a no before you carry on to say whatever else

you want please. It's right isn't it that your evidence including your oral

evidence given here today is not based on the latest position as set out in the

addendum to the statement of common ground because you haven't read it?

No it's not based on the latest position from Thursday last week.

Thank you. Could we go in your proof, please, to paragraph 2 .9?

Although I don't believe it's a material difference because, like I said, there is a significant

difference and I was referring in my statement in particular to the loss of two more years

as a cultural space which has not been included in the figures. So I give it my answer now.

I mean you can't know if it makes a material difference can you because you haven't read the document?

There have been a lot of discussions which didn't kind of surprise me.

As someone who owned the site for such a long time and managed it, the appellant didn't provide clarity on the space and users on site that they have been custodians of for so many years.

But I found it a bit hard to keep track of many versions of the numbers and amounts.

I placed my proof on the statement of case when I drafted it and submitted it, which

was a good month ago, I believe.

Could we go as I asked please to paragraph 2 .9 in your proof?

Let me know when you're there.

So we can see that you're describing the Cares Manager role which you perform here, yes?

Yes.

And you say at the end the role is an advocate for creative culture and organisations and

spaces and a mediator with developers and landowners. I mean, you're not neutral in

this are you because your job as you say is to advocate for creative spaces.

My job is to advocate for a thriving local economy of which creative economy is a

significant part of. I'm also working and engaging closely with developers,

landowners, investors as well as all other players that have stake in the

future and present of this area.

So no, I wouldn't say that I have any bias towards creative industries.

The Creative Enterprise Zone was set up to enable successful creative spaces,

which is a joint effort, I believe, between all parties,

including developers and creative organisations.

It can be achieved if one focuses only on working with creative organisations.

so I work with multiple parties.

Sure, but when you say, well I wouldn't say

I have any bias towards creative industries,

but your proof, this isn't a criticism,

but factually your proof is only considering

the impact from the care's perspective, isn't it?

It's not, this isn't a criticism,

Mr. Weir's dealing with this,

but you're not attempting the planning witness's job

of considering the overall planning balance

and considering things like, you know,

is the loss of cultural events based outweighed by other benefits of the scheme?

So from that perspective, you are looking at this through a narrow lens of what will the impact of the scheme be on the care.

And that's it. Yeah. So the scope is in my role of Creative Enterprise Zone Manager.

I define the scope of my evidence as creative enterprise zone matters.

My proof is set out in my proof, also should be read alongside Mr. Weir's proof.

and as you rightly said, it's planning witnesses' role to decide and discuss planning balance, which is...

I'm not a planner, so I don't have...

I can't confidently discuss planning balances, but my evidence is about how the benefits

or harm of the proposed developments in the area are amplified by the fact that the site

is located in the Creative Enterprise Zone.

Hence my evidence.

Yeah, so as I said, you're looking at this through the narrow lens of what will the impact

on the KESB, that's your function in these proceedings, isn't it?

My proof is concerned with impact of the proposal on the unique character of the area, of the

Fakhni Lakhshar area.

My proof is concerned with the impact on the Creative Enterprise Zone and its objectives.

And my proof is concerned with impacts on the local creative economy, which are all related to Creative Enterprise Zone designations.

The Creative Enterprise Zone is not merely a planning designation.

It's also a way to support thriving local economy and residents' space through space

policy and business support and engagement as four pillars of impact through a combination

of planning initiatives and other strategic initiatives, including economic development.

So I would disagree that it's narrow lens.

I think it speaks to quite a few important characteristics of this area as a place of

regeneration and development.

But through the lens of a KES, you've said we all – again, it's not a criticism,

but factually you're not a planning witness.

I'm not – yeah, you're kind of welcome to criticise.

I'm not a planner.

So I, as a case manager, I'm given my evidence that describes, like I said, the impact on

the proposed development on the area, the impact on the creative enterprise on objectives,

and the impact on the local economy.

I mean, that's not what your evidence says.

Can you go to paragraph 2 .4, please?

Yes.

You say, my evidence addresses issues relating to the impact on the cares of a loss of longstanding

cultural workspace provided at grassroots level, so on and so off, so on and so forth.

But one thing is identified there, your evidence addresses issues relating to the impact on

the cares of the various losses you list.

Yeah, that's what you're covering.

This is what the paragraph says.

The Creative Enterprise Zone is both a programme and a designation.

It's also the zone is a geographically defined area, which is characterised by its creative communities,

its creative economy and the residents and other things.

I would not agree that the impact of the proposed development is discussed purely in relation

to kiosks as a programme.

It also extensively discussed in relation to kiosks as an area.

Okay, can you go to paragraph 6 .14 please? 6 .4?

6 .14 please. 6 .14, yeah.

You refer here to the GLA Cares office. I mean, similarly, they will be approaching

matters from the perspective of wanting to support the Cares, won't they? That's the

reason they exist.

I don't think that's the reason they exist. They are part of the Greater London Authority,

which has its own objectives related to success of London in many different ways. So I think

I believe that, like myself and my colleagues, my colleagues from the GLE are capable of

considering various parameters and various inputs and various information known to them

at the time of writing the letters of statements that have been submitted in relation to this

appeal on the balance of various factors. Yeah but I mean you may not know this actually,

are you aware though that the GLA also has planning officers who perform a different

broader function of assessing you know more comprehensively and holistically the planning

merits of a scheme. You are? No, no. Are you aware? Yes, I'm aware, yeah. Right. So the

KEDS office at the GLA is not performing that function of assessing holistically the planning

merits of the scheme, is it? So in terms of the GLA's internal structure, I don't believe

that KES office is a part of the GLA planning team.

However, GLA's planning function is important maybe for this discussion in relation to London Plan,

which is the outcome of the JLA strategic planning work,

which does reference Creative Enterprise Zone and its objectives clearly and extensively.

Thank you. Could you find Core Document 3 .1, please, which is the decision notice?

Let me know when you have that.

Yes, I open it.

No mention in the reasons refusal of the CERS or of policy HC5, is there?

Yes, there is no mention. It has been mentioned throughout the local authority statement of

CAITO. But yes, there is no mention in the decision notice.

And if we go to the officer's report, please, which is the next core document, core document

3 .2. Let me know when you're there.

Yep.

And if you go to paragraph 1 .7 on page 2, please.

Yes.

You can see that the officer is aware

that the site is situated within the Cares, yes?

Yes, I can see that.

And if you go on to 7 .13, please.

You see that she's also aware of

the existence of policy HC5.

But despite being aware of the designation

and of the policy protection,

the council's case officer writing this report

didn't share your concerns, did she?

I cannot speculate whether she shared my concerns or not.

Well, she certainly didn't share them

to the extent that she thought it relevant to include them

in a reason of refusal, did she?

I can only see that, I can only read the document

and see the arguments that the case officer decided

to put there.

My evidence relates to reasons one and two for refusal.

and like I said, it supports the kind of argument

of the local authority to the extent that's relevant

to the objectives of the Creative Enterprise Zone

and the area itself.

Yeah, can we just, one final point in the officer's report,

can we go to paragraph 5 .9 please?

And you'll see that the officer there notes the April 2025 letter from the GLA's

Department. Yeah, so it's not as though

She wasn't informed that the GLA had a concern in respect of this point is it? I

Believe she might have been aware. So this is

So basically, the refusal, the council's refusal,

listed nine different reasons as far as I remember.

Originally, two of which, reasons number one

and reasons number two, hopefully,

which hopefully evidences the importance

in the reasons of refusal.

So reasons number one and two are related directly

to the loss of creative and cultural spaces

in the lack of repravision in the proposed scheme.

So I, on this basis, I do not believe that the case officer or the local authority at

the time were not aware of the many factors that basically resulted in them refusing the

application, citing reasons number one and two as laws and insufficient reprivation of

creative space.

Yeah, but the officer doesn't go on to say in the decision notice that there's a conflict

with HC5, does she?

I cannot again, I cannot speculate on behalf of the officer why she did not explicitly

said there is a conflict. So she did mention Creative Enterprise Zone in the report for

reason I believe I don't think council officers make any unreasonable kind of

it any unnecessary paragraphs in there the delegated report so but once again I

cannot speculate I only know that whatever factors have been considered

and discussed by the committee and decided upon the resulted in the

proposal being refused online reasons of which one and two related to loss of

creative space. They don't though, do they? That's my point.

Reasons neither of them even have the word creative in them, do they? And can

you please focus on answering the questions otherwise we will be here for

time. So creative creative workspace is is a intensive part is integral part of

affordable creative space in this in that appeal scheme because this is a

creative hub, hub of creative production and the cultural space.

All right.

Well, I've given you the opportunity to respond to that.

I'll come back to it in closing submissions.

Can we go to policy next, please, and go to your 6 .18?

Your proof paragraph 6 .18 please.

Thank you.

And you'll also need Policy HC5, which you're discussing here.

Just give me a second, please.

Thank you.

Yes, I have both. So when it's 6 18 you refer to London Plan

HC 5 part 3 and there isn't a well there were several part threes do you actually mean C

is that what you're referring to?

I believe so, yeah it must have been there. Yeah because we can see you go on to refer to

one, three and six and matching one, three and six to the policy it looks to me as though you're

referring to C1, C3 and C6, yes?

Yes, you're right.

But part C of this policy is only setting out

what local plan policies should do, yes?

So this, section C sets out expectations

from local authorities in terms of reflecting

creative enterprise zones and local plan policies.

Yeah, it's a plan -making policy.

it's not a policy that applies to decision -making, correct? So this plan

making policies define planning policy local planning policy in relation to

creative enterprise zones. Yeah but it's not because if we look at A for example

that says that's a list of what development plans and development

proposal should do, whereas C is just talking about what local plans need to

do in contrast, isn't it? So in my proof as well as in my evidence in chief I

believe I refer to various parts of a policy, HC5, because this is the key

policies, a policy that... Yeah, we... I did refer to... Could you answer my question please?

Yes, please. Sorry. So, specifically, Section C defines expectations and guidance. So, it's

a policy. Sorry, I'm not a planner, so I might confuse my terms now. But it's a policy. It's

a local plan policy that's relevant to the local plans, which is what it is.

Yeah, so it's not a policy that the scheme can conflict with,

because it's not a development management policy, is it?

It's not a development management policy.

Right, so the scheme can't conflict with it, can it?

There is a development management policy,

I believe, earlier in the policy.

So development plans and development proposals

and guidance policy, sorry, that define that guide them are described in section

A which I also referenced in both my proof of evidence and my evidence in chief.

No you didn't. Can you answer my question please? This scheme cannot conflict with

policy HC 5 C, can it? Yes or no please, I want to know what your understanding is

so I can make closing submissions.

Not directly, no. But it can conflict with section A, which I...

Where in your proof can you take me in your proof to where you deal with A and where you

identify that the scheme conflicts with it, please?

But once again, I would like to say that I'm not a planner, so I will try to – I'm

answering these questions based on my understanding as a non -planner and based on my experience

and my understanding of the present case and my evidence provided in it, just to remind

that I'm not a planner.

Would you like me to point you to the paragraph

and the proof of evidence or chief or evidence in chief? I've got a note of your evidence in chief so

I can refer to that in closing submissions and we don't go back over that. I want, I would like you

to take me to where in your proof please you deal with HC5A and where you identify conflict

with that part of the policy.

All right.

I mean, is the position, I was looking at your 3 .9 and 3 .10, where you deal with part

B at the bottom of 3 .9 and then part C, which we've looked at in 3 .10.

My assumption was that you were dealing with B and C because they're the bits of the policy

that actually deal with the cares, aren't they?

Yes, however, I do mention policy HD5 as an overarching policy that provides kind of a

fair extent of guidance on the cultural greatest basis in the London Plan.

So even though I may not explicitly edit the paragraph on HD5 part A in my proof of evidence,

in my opinion it doesn't diminish or change any of the evidence that I've given and my

conclusions about the relationship.

Yeah but you've just told me twice, you were quite clear and quite sure it was your response

to my point about C. You said well I've dealt with A in my proof twice. You haven't, have

you?

Yes.

Where's the reference to A?

I might have omitted the reference to A.

I might have omitted a direct relevance to part A in my proof of evidence.

Yes, so when you told me twice, not just once, twice just now,

that you had dealt with A in your proof, that's incorrect, isn't it?

I've dealt with the policy HC5 in its entirety. Like any policies, it has different components.

So one guides DM processes and one provides guidance on plan -making processes. And there

might be other parts as well. So I did deal with the policy in its entirety, and that's

how I assessed its overarching.

You haven't included any analysis of A in your proof have you is where we've

got to. Yes like I said already two times it might have been an omission on my

part so I did not include direct wording policy HC 5 part A. Yeah and therefore in

your proof there's no suggestion that the scheme conflicts with A is there? So

in my chief or evidence in chief. Could you please answer my question which is

directly related to your proof not to your oral evidence which the inspectors

got a note of and so have I. That is I understand one making element so that

Part of the policy that provides guidance on strategic planning or plan making is of high significance than that.

Basically, it guides plan making policies, which is above the process.

So if my proof only, if it just so happens that I needed the direct reference to part

A in my proof, and I speak extensively of section – sorry, of the policy overarching

the – you know, the section C, in my view, it does not diminish or alter the essence

of my proof or the conclusions that I draw upon the impact of the appeal scheme on the

creative enterprise zone or the character of the area.

The answer to my question, which was that you haven't identified any conflict with

A in your proof, have you, is that that's correct, isn't it? Can I please have an answer

to my question?

That's correct.

Thank you. Can we –

in the document then that's correct. Can we look at B in policy HD5 as well

please because you do deal with that.

Let me know when you have part B of the policy please. Part E? Part B. Part B, yeah.

Do you have that? Yes. Yeah, so this we can see says, Burras are encouraged to work

with the mayor and relevant stakeholders to identify creative enterprise zones in

local plans. So again, B like C is a plan making not a decision -making policy,

isn't it? Yes I think so. Yes. So you don't identify in your proof any conflict with a

decision -making policy in the London Plan in relation to the Creative

enterprise zone do you? Decision -making as in in which process in the plan making

process? No as in determining individual applications. So the creative,

hackney with creative, hackney with fish island and hackney with low valley valley, creative

enterprise zone has already been identified therefore I don't think I

reference part B of the policy directly in my proof of evidence. My question

specifically directed fit will come on to other documents in a moment. In terms

of the London plan you haven't identified in your evidence any conflict

with a decision -making policy because B and C, parts B and C are the ones that

you've dealt with in their plan making policies that don't apply to this appeal

aren't they? I think we just discussed that I must have unneeded it from my

proof of evidence therefore we don't see it in my proof of evidence.

At 3 .12, you talk about the draught, this is your proof, so you talk about the draught London

plan?

Yep.

You don't address the weight to be given to the draught, do you?

So is that the question I need to be putting to Mr. Weah?

This is not for me, I guess, to discuss attribution of weights to existing policies or draught policies.

Yes, I do.

My explicit purpose of concluding the reference

to draught London Plan as well as to draught Tau Amlet's local plan

was clearly to demonstrate that there

is a continuous support and consistency in commitment

of both London as in London Plan and Tau Amlet

as in local plan to secure and protect

an affordable and creative space and its various elements.

So it was the reason of me including the reference to draught documents.

Yeah, although I note again at 3 .12 you're talking about part A of draught policy GLE 5,

which again is a plan making policy, isn't it?

You say Part A states that plan -making authorities should –

Yes. Thank you. Then can we turn on in your proof please to paragraph 4 .8. Let me know

you have that? Yes. And you refer there to the KES framework and then over the

page at the end of that paragraph we can see the reference to your appendix one

which is actually an extract from the mayor's webpage. So the KES framework

is not adopted planning policy it's a reference to the mayor's webpage. The

framework is not adopted by a political. The page is merely a source and the

references to Creative Enterprise Zone framework put in place by the mayor of

London to provide clarity and guidelines on the outcomes and initiatives of the

Creative Enterprise Zone and the 12 London boroughs.

Could you find the LLDC local plan please?

Could you go on to deal with that at 4 .11?

So could you take up the LLDC local plan, please?

Let me know when you have that.

And could you find its internal page 40 or PDF 42?

I'm still

Yes, I apologise, I will find the page in a second.

start.

Sorry, could you repeat the page number please?

It's internal page 40 or PDF page 42.

Yes.

And we can see there's a box that's got case to be one Hackney -Wicken

Fish Island Creative Enterprise Zone. Yes. Yes.

And the first paragraph says, in December 2018,

it was confirmed that the joint proposal

by the London Legacy Corporation, Hackney,

and Tower Hamlets was successful

in receiving creative enterprise zone status.

An extensive amount of work is taking place

to promote the CERS.

And then it goes on to say,

although not a planning initiative,

there are clear links between the two,

including a shared evidence base

in the combined economy study 2018.

So the development plans approach to the CERS

is that it's not a planning initiative, correct?

So the document that we're looking at

says that it's not a planning initiative.

I cannot speculate why at the time of writing

it was articulated or shaped and articulated that way.

I think they might have been.

And so it's not – it might not be a planning initiative, but it's an economic development

initiative perhaps achieved through planning tools and mechanisms like we just seen in

the section A of land and plan policy that I made from my evidence speaks directly to

that it describes the development management processes

that are of direct relevance to creative enterprise

on being a planning initiative.

I'm not sure why the language,

the author of the document decided to use is this,

but yes, this is what the document says.

Yeah, and this is the council's planning document, isn't it?

their chief planning document, their local plan,

or the LLDC at the time, but.

Once again, and I think as I referenced

in my proof of evidence,

the Creative Enterprise Zone programme

has been explored as a possibility

at the time of LLDC local plan preparation.

Hence, in the next paragraph it says, as a creative enterprise zone, HACNIC will benefit

from the work and overarching economic strategy.

So creative enterprise zone as a policy is not directly referenced in the UDC local plan.

So there is no policy in the UDC local plan

that explicitly provides guidance

on the application of, planning, sorry,

how to determine planning applications

in the context of creative enterprise zone,

although there are multiple policies

that speak directly of protecting creative industries

and creative businesses and the character of the area,

many other things that are directly relevant to the objectives of Creative Enterprise Zone,

which very shortly after the preparation of the Creative of the Local Plan resulted in the

formal designation of the Creative Enterprise Zone. Yes, but as we can see from 4 .11 to 4 .14

of your proof, in the Local Plan itself there are references to the CARES or the forthcoming CARES

in the supporting text, but there is no actual policy wording in the LLDC local plan that

specifically addresses the cares.

Like I just said, the Creative Enterprise Zone, obviously the plan -making cycles are

long cycles.

So between drafting of local plans and adoption and drafting and adoption of the next local

plan is quite, they're quite, yeah, it's possible that policies and strategies

and priorities evolve and the local, LODC local plan at the time of drafting

the Creative Enterprise Zone was explored and was a proposal rather

than designation.

But again, I do not see any conflict with this,

because LODC has been an important stakeholder

and partner for the Creative Enterprise Zone

before it stepped down as a result of reducing its remit

when it ceased to be a local planning authority.

But between the designation and LDC handing over planning powers to the boroughs,

LDC has been a very important and very committed partner and stakeholder to the

Creative Enterprise Zone and still is.

Yeah, all of that may well be. Please, I have to write closing submissions.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the inquiry process, to be fair to you.

And in those closing submissions, I will be recording which points you conceded and which

points you didn't concede.

So I really need a yes or a no to my questions.

And then I'm happy for you to say whatever else you think you want to say afterwards.

But I can't get very far in terms of what I need and what the appellant fairly needs

if you don't answer my questions, either that you agree or that no, you don't agree.

So could you please focus your answers as we move forward?

Apologies.

on beginning with a yes or a no.

We agree, don't we, that there is no policy

in the LLDC local plan that addresses the cares?

Yes, my clarification would be that

there are no explicit reference

to the Creative Enterprise Zone being an actual designation

at the time of publication of the LDC local plan

for the reason of the Creative Enterprise Zone being explored as a designation at the time of writing.

And then at 4 .15 and 4 .16 you refer to two SPDs.

Again, neither of those are actually planning the policy, are they?

As a non -planner, I prefer not to comment on the exact hierarchy of the documents, but

I believe that SPDs, supplementary planning documents, have an important role in providing

and guidance on how development proposals should respond

to their local character and local environment,

local conditions.

OK, well, maybe I'll ask Mr. Weir for his view on that point.

If you're not, and this isn't a criticism,

but I know you're not a planner.

If you're not comfortable answering, that's fine.

Let me just make a note.

I did answer the question.

No, no, I know.

Thank you.

I just, I'm trying to be very fair

and not ask you about things that realistically you're not qualified to

comment on so I shall park that one for now but it is I do please feel free to

ask me any questions you believe are important or useful for the for the

inquiry that can test my evidence so please no the reason I am asking

questions is because it is relevant to me to understand this is a planning

inquiry. Now you're entitled to sit there and give evidence and you're entitled to

do so on the basis that you're not a planner but I am entitled to probe the

limits of your understanding particularly around the status of

documents that you refer to because ultimately the inspector is governed by

a statutory framework that distinguishes between development plan policies and

other things. So I'm not going to ask you any more questions when you've told me

that you know you're not comfortable commenting that's fine but I am going to

continue to explore how far your understanding extends so that I can make

submissions on that in due course.

Yeah, I just told you that SPDs are not, they might not be planning policy,

they might not be called planning policies, but they are supplementary planning documents,

which I think describes them quite well and their role in providing.

Where we've got to is that nowhere in your evidence have you identified any conflict

between the scheme and an actual planning policy that protects the KES, correct?

I do not believe that is correct.

Where in your evidence have you identified a conflict with a decision -making policy?

Well, development management policies are different from plan -making policies,

as we discussed earlier. Throughout my evidence, I refer extensively to policies in the London

plan, a local plan, and the draught policies that

have less weight, but still demonstrate

the continuous commitment as an overarching policy framework,

which is relevant to the creative enterprise zone

and my assessment of the impact on the development proposal.

Your evidence, when we finish this set of questions,

I won't have any further opportunity to interrogate your evidence.

Your evidence so far has not identified conflict with any decision -making

policy that protects the KES, has it? Yes or no, please.

Not the policies where Creative Enterprise Zone is mentioned explicitly, but I do provide

a comprehensive overview of other policies, including LODC local plan policies that are

important to objectives of the Creative Enterprise Zone.

Yeah, but I'm going to ask Mr. Weir about them because I understood that you were specifically

dealing with the cares, so the other policies I am going to deal with, but not with you

because otherwise I'll just be asking the same thing twice.

So I'm specifically dealing with the cares of the case manager.

Mr. Weir is a minor witness and he also – he mainly deals with policies, although in my

I deal with the creative enterprise zone as a strategic planning and economic development initiative.

Thank you. 4 .17 you talk about the draught Tower Hamlets local plan.

Presumably you're not, you're going to give me the same answer as you gave in relation to the draught London plan

and tell me that you're not dealing with the weight to be given to that. Is that right?

Is that the same question you already asked me, just to clarify?

No, I'm asking you about the draught, the council's draught local plan. You haven't

expressed a view on the weight to be given to that. I'm assuming that's a task

you leave to Mr. Weir, is that correct? I think I did mention that draught local

plans, like draught London plan might have limited weight but I commented on the

of me including them in my evidence, which was precisely the same reason as for draught

London Plan, which is to illustrate the continuous commitment of local planning authority to

protecting and enhancing affordable creative space and fulfilling objectives for the creative

enterprise zone.

MS.

Is your approach to the Council's draught plan the same, limited weight to that?

This is my understanding that draught plans, draught local plans have less weight in deciding

planning applications as compared to existing local plans for the area.

This is my understanding.

However, they do have weight.

It might have just different weight.

5 .14 please.

Next.

Sorry, can I just very quickly ask for charger?

Because my battery is running low on the charger.

5 .14 please. Yes. You refer here to a nighttime economy strategy in Hackney

and then the fourth line says Appendix X. I've probably missed it but is that

document actually in evidence? No it's not. It's not in evidence. I spotted it

after submission. Unfortunately it has been omitted from including in the list of evidences.

Yeah, and anyway as I read that it's a Hackney document

So it's not a document actually applies in Tower Hamlets. Is that correct?

It is not a

document that applies to a site in Tower Hamlets in

planning terms, however

Because of the split borough of the nature of one of the objectives of the Creative Enterprise Zone

is a split borough, cross borough initiative has been to

to help support this consistency and coherence in

Haki and Awelec's

interpretation and policy for the area.

5 .9 please at the top of that page.

You say since the KES designation the local creative economy in Hatneebukan, Fish Island has grown

seeing an increase of a 25 % in the total number of businesses, whereas London

overall has seen a downwards trend. Cares -based creative jobs have grown

40%. Nothing there suggests that there is a shortage of suitable space for these

businesses, does it? Not in this paragraph, so the point of this paragraph

is to demonstrate that the Creative Enterprise designation has been successful by a combination

of planning and other initiatives to sustain and grow and help grow local creative economy.

The fact that local creative economy has grown is connected to other arguments about this

about the importance of affordable creative space,

which is a backbone of local economy

and the importance of providing affordable creative space

and sustaining and resisting loss of the space,

because so many local economy, local creative businesses

that are also small businesses are reliant

on affordable creative space in the area.

Yeah, it's not part of your evidence

that there is a shortage of suitable space in Hackney, Wick and Fish Island

for creative industries, is it?

No, not in kind of quantitative terms, no. Although I reference again

extensively throughout their importance of affordable creative space for local businesses.

Thank you and then if we can move on to 6 .3 of your proof through to 6 .9 and we see at 6 .3

you refer to the warehouse community occupying shared live -work space.

And then at 6 .4, you say you've seen the different ways

in which the warehouse community has occupied Victoria Wharf

for work -live purposes.

At 6 .5, you refer to the Creative Factories paper

that uses a unit in Victoria Wharf as a case study of a live -work unit.

And then moving on to 6 .9 towards the end of that paragraph there's a reference to work

live including the Hackney Cut building and you say I understand that much of the work

live space is flexible and adaptive creative space occupied and used by the grassroots

creative community. So you're certainly not suggesting that there isn't a live work or

work live use on the site are you? I'm not suggesting that, so just to make sure

that I understand your question, am I not suggesting that there is... A bit more simply, you

acknowledge that there is a live work or a work live use on parts of the site at

moment yes? Yes I do acknowledge that. And you don't suggest that the live work use

of the site should be discounted or ignored because it is unlawful or

because it might be unlawful? In my proof of evidence I do not deal with the

matters of lawfulness of this space or any other space.

Yeah I mean as I read that passage of your evidence in particular your view is

that the live -work use is something that's important to the KES, correct? It

and Vittoria Wharf studio. Your understanding as I read this paragraph is that Vittoria

Wharf studio has existed informally as a music venue since around the early 2010s. Yes. Yes.

And then we skip back in your proof please to 3 .4. Let me know when you have that.

Yes, and we see just above the bullet point lists you say that you want you list the objectives

of the CES programme and the first one is to increase permanent affordable space to

work. Could you go within the London plan please to the glossary which is at the

end and find the definition of affordable workspace?

which is PDF 510 internal page 495.

Let me know when you're there.

So you'll see the definition is workspace that's provided at rents maintained below

the market rate for that space for a specific social, cultural, economic development purpose.

I mean there's no evidence is there that the rents in the workspace at the moment

are being maintained below the market rent. Which space? Victoria War Studio

overall or various other spaces because there are various rents that are linked

through various... Yeah all of the workspace that the creative industries are

occupying on site, there's no evidence that any of them are paying a rent that

is less than the market rent for the space they're in, is there?

From the evidence that from the leases that I looked into that the appellant

provided for the spaces within the Victoria Wharf site, I would say that

from what I saw, these are obviously with a kind of caveat that

some of the spaces are with headless holders which would then work with other

kind of occupies of smaller units which are not,

I don't have information of how much their end users

might pay, but from what I saw,

it looked like overall fairly affordable offer.

Yeah, but I mean,

well, this is certainly not a situation

in which the creative workspace on the site at the moment

is governed for example by a section 106 agreement that says the rents have to be

kept at 25 % below the market rent right? No it is not governed by it. Yeah so there

isn't any evidence that the rents that people are paying at the moment are

being maintained below the market rate is there? The market rate I'll come on to

this the market rate might be quite cheap because of the nature of the space

but there's no evidence that people are paying anything less than the market

rate is there? There is no evidence of requirement to do so that has been

fulfilled. I cannot say why the... I did not examine or analyse market trends

applicable as a kind of comparables to any of the types of space within the

of which I may need to be able to say that these are

across the variety of spaces that are all definitely

above market trends.

The question is probably that the spaces are used

by auto buyers on the kind of level of rent that is,

that supports the creative practises

and is affordable to them.

It might not be in a kind of relation

to interpretation of the planning term.

So affordable workspace and planning terms

and affordable workspace and market terms

are two different things.

And one is a section 106 linked term

which is a kind of planning meaning of it

and application and one is affordable low cost of whatever is affordable and supports

grassroot creative practises and allows this community to thrive.

But in so far as we're looking at the definition of affordable workspace in the London plan,

we're not at the moment within this definition are we because we're not in a situation where

for example there's a section 106 keeping the rents below market rate.

So the London Plan, I assume the London Plan glossary, the definition in the London Plan

glossary will deal with the term that's applicable and relevant to London Plan policies.

That's the purpose of the glossary to provide definitions and clarifications.

So this is the term that is used by when deciding local planning, when deciding applications

and GM courses and for affordable, sorry, for local authorities to use in their local

plan policies and other uses that are related to application of London Plan. So it has specific

purpose of supporting local plan, sorry, London Plan, sorry.

There's, well let me put the question this way, you haven't identified any mechanism

that would prevent the rents being increased tomorrow have you in your evidence?

Have I identified the mechanism that prevents the owner from increasing the rents?

Yeah because you were showing your proof in your proof at 3 .4 where we were, it says the

objective are to increase permanent affordable space to work. And in terms of the permanence

of the affordability at the moment, there's nothing that guarantees that is there.

At the moment, do you mean the current use arrangements on site?

Yeah, at the moment the space is at most, I'm going to suggest that it's lower cost or low

cost workspace, but there's no evidence from you that there's anything stopping

the landlord from increasing the rents.

Just once again, just for clarity, so paragraph 3 .4 talks about objectives of

Creative Enterprise owners as a mayoral designation, as a mayoral initiative, and you're

probably asking me about the wider the landowner of Victoria Wharf is able to

increase rents on so why that they are let's say for the ability of alleged

low -cost for the ability of current uses on sites is protected in any way is that

Yeah, the correct question. It's not at the moment, is it?

Not to my knowledge, the leases that I looked into have very specific section, which says that they don't benefit from lease protection. So basically, they are short term leases, as far as I understand, and the occupiers basically agree with the nature of the lease

of being unprotected, please.

That's the ones that are being offended to them.

If it's right that at the moment

there's no affordable workspace on site

that comes within the term in the glossary,

So if what's on site at the moment is low cost or lower cost workspace,

but it's not affordable workspace,

if that's right,

then if the scheme provides affordable workspace through the Section 106,

there will be an increase in affordable workspace, won't there?

Once again, I would not apply

the term from the London Plan glossary which clarifies the specific term used

in section 106 agreements to current privately owned spaces on site and

uses the Dr. Peres.

But I mean, overall, if affordable workspace

protected, long -term affordable workspace

is achieved through Section 106 as a result of the development

And in terms of, just in terms of longevity of space maintained below the market trend,

that would be a step forward from currently from users that are lacking in this protection.

But yeah, this increase would apply to increase in longevity if that's stipulated in the appropriate

Section 106 schedules.

Could we then go to 7 .3 of your proof please, which is your conclusion.

Yes. And you say that the proposals failing to retain or sufficiently we provide low cost

flexible space in former industrial buildings. But if the section 106 were to secure the

new floor space as affordable workspace then that point would fall away wouldn't it?

Not quite and not entirely. So first of all I would like to clarify that at the time of writing

of my proof of evidence there haven't been, especially there been quite a lot of progress,

life progress in agreeing and discussing – not agreeing, discussing the terms of Section 106

between the parties.

This paragraph relates to – failure to adequately provide – relates to both the quantum of

space, the typology of space, the management of space, and the affordability of space,

which hasn't in my view been sufficiently described in the planning application at the time of me writing the proof of evidence.

Okay well quantum I'm going to discuss with Mr. Weir.

Management is something that could be dealt with through the Section 106, yeah?

and

affordability could also be dealt with through the section 106

It definitely has to be dealt for section 106 I believe

there

affordable sorry the workspace strategy

Appended to the

application did not provide details on how the space will be managed on how the

benefits of

affordability of affordable space will be transferred on to end users and how these

benefits will be maintained and secured. So I do believe that there is a lack of detail, as I said, in

how the scheme would address

the benefits of affordable workspace provided in adequate amount and adequate design support

in these practises and through appropriate management arrangements. There has not been

enough detail about that in the proposal. Yeah, but discussions have been, I think they

may have now concluded, I haven't seen the latest email yet, that the terms of the Section

106 as you're aware have been under continued discussion and so because you

refer in your proof and again in your evidence in chief to the strategy that

was submitted at the point of application but it's correct isn't it

that many of the points you raise can be progressed and dealt with through the

section 106? Some of them but not all. Which ones can't be addressed? So the loss of quantum

of affordable creative space, so this continuous kind of misalignment I believe in quantum

solve. Okay the quantum point, to be fair you don't cover that in your evidence so I'm

going to talk to Mr. Weir about that later, so leave that aside because that's not something

you're dealing with. What else, out of the points you've mentioned in your proof, do

you say can't in principle be dealt with through the Section 106?

There are also matters of design and fitness for purpose and then providing these places

that would be supportive of operational and other requirements of the creative occupiers,

in particular, close target occupiers that I mentioned in the Works by Strategy Light

Industrial and Workshop users, as well as two more years as a cultural and creative

venue but it has not been included in the quantum of the provider space.

Well I think the position on that may have moved on but anyway so this point

about... I acknowledge it moved on. So Section 106 has many purposes but it

it can and it should provide clarity and commitments on providing

quantum of affordable space, the terms of affordable space and discount and

define their discount of market rent if this is how the affordable space will be

described in according to the definition at the glossary that we just looked at.

Yeah well my submission is going to be that the Section 106 has addressed all

of your concerns except for this point you raise about design and fitness for

purpose and which I was going to pick up next so if we go to 7 .4 please of your

proof let me know when you're there yes and we can see you mentioned that

there's not sufficient evidence that equivalent affordable or fit for purpose replacement

provision would be delivered. But you don't in your written evidence anywhere actually

specify in your proof what you say is allegedly inadequate about the floor space we propose,

do you?

I do specify 1 ,530 metres that.

That's the quantum point which I'm dealing with Mr. Weir.

In terms of leaving aside the quantum,

you've raised a point here about replacement provision

not being fit for purpose,

but you don't explain in your proof what the matter is, do you?

The matter with which characteristic?

You say what we're proposing is not properly designed

and not fit for purpose.

You don't tell me why, do you, in your proof?

In my proof, I do refer to the harm being partially the outcome of the – just a sec,

So let me find the points where I refer to this.

So in 6 .15 and 6 .16, I believe I discuss

the role of suitability for creative production

and suitability in basically the space being designed

to meet the operational needs of creative and cultural

production is some of the key reasons why I believe there is a harm.

Yeah, but you don't tell me why it's not suitable for creative production and you don't tell

me in what respect it's not going to meet the operational needs of creative and cultural

production. You don't explain what those operational needs are and you don't identify how the scheme

would fail to meet them, do you?

I do not discuss it in detail.

So matters of design have been part of Ms. Chung's evidence

and her discussion and some of the parameters

of the spatial and design parameters of space

such as ceiling heights will be addressed in detail

in Mr. Weir's proof and discussion.

It's just division of labour, we didn't want the overlap.

Have you read Ms. Young's evidence, our design witness?

Yes.

Including her rebuttal?

I believe so, yes.

Because... can you turn that off actually please?

I don't have any seals proof or whatnot yet

Yeah, yeah, let's just do it to mine.

which document would you like me to say and Miss Young's rebuttal let me know

when you have that yep and then page 9 please

so I actually page 8 one page page 8

Section 2 .03.

And you'll see it 2 .0302 through to 2 .0305.

Ms. Young explains what was done rather than providing generic commercial units.

She does talk about that.

Yeah.

And I think you were here for her evidence last week.

Yes, I did, yeah.

I mean, so when you say at your 7 .5,

the replacement space doesn't appear to be designed

for low -cost affordable creative use

and or designed with sufficient consideration

for cultural and creative purposes,

you don't dispute Ms. Young's account of the steps that were taken

to tailor the design to the uses intended, do you?

So in my proof I express my professional opinion that the space that's

re -provided does not quite support the activities, creative activities,

creative production in particular, on site. I do not explicitly refer to Miss

any of the paragraphs within her proof or rebuttal but I did take the opportunity

to amplify on some of these points and explain why I think this place will not

meet the requirements of creative production businesses in my evidence in

chief today. Yeah I noticed that because it was new evidence because it's not in

proof is it that amplification? It was me elaborating on my on the points that I made in

615 and 616. Yeah I mean the point in fact the only point that I noted down because you referred

to various passages in the workspace strategy but you didn't make any comment in relation to them

you just said what they say. The point that you made and it was the only additional one that I

noted was that you think there's a problem with the yard because there will be a potential

conflict from the spill out and specifically from maker workshops, potentially working

with metal or wood that could be quite noisy. And you thought they were going to take it

outside because that wouldn't be best accommodated indoors. And then the point you made was that

the residents of the scheme or the new residents of the scheme won't be creative makers.

I use this as an example of one of the potential parameters, one of the parameters of the proposed

scheme that might not be supportive of the requirements of users that are currently present

on site and all target users listed in the workspace strategy. I would have other points

design related, but like I said, Ms. Chung covered some of this in her proof and Mr.

Will would cover some of this in his. So we begin to want the arguments to overlap or

repeat.

Yeah, but on this, I mean, this point around the potential conflict from metal and wood,

metal working, woodworking isn't in your proof. So I'll have to ask Mr. Cheema about that

in due course, because it's the first he'll have heard of it. Can you turn to core document

7 .48 please which is the employment space study.

And... But I'm still looking for the...

alright, this I have But it is

and and

and

Can you go to page 88 please?

I'm really sorry, I don't hear your serial from here, so I keep asking to repeat, sorry.

The document is incredibly slow.

May I just...

Any joy?

No, still holding. Sorry.

Two leaves.

Yep. So you should see a table and the heading is overview of mixed with residential uses. Yeah.

Yes. And it looks at the mix at neighbourhood level, at block level and at building level.

And it's so it's considering the first line basically is considering is it appropriate

to have a small office use in a mix in the same building with residential. Yeah?

And we can see studio number three, the key is actually on the following page. So the light

yellow shading is mix possible with increased design considerations. But this document clearly

takes the view that the studio use is compatible with residential uses in the same building,

although there'll be increased design considerations, yeah?

That's what it says in the document.

I'm not sure does it give a definition of studio

because studio is a pretty white umbrella term.

Yeah, I mean, I'm going to look at that with Mr. Weir

because Mr. Flanagan went to this last week,

but small industrial is number four.

and again less compatible with residential uses in the same building

but mix can be less problematic if small industrial uses are not noxious,

quieter and don't require regular surveying. So in a large industrial and

we say we see mix is not supported so this document takes the view that

anything up to and including small industrial can be in the same building

as residential use, doesn't it?

This document does take this year, yeah.

If I can qualify, the document has been prepared quite a while ago.

I'm not sure if it's based on a very kind of in -depth study

of real life sort of practise or implications of combining

industrial uses and residential uses and appropriate design

considerations in such projects in the former IOTC planning

which is Hukniuk Fish Island,

I would think that,

I mean, it's more kind of consultants study

rather than study based on multiple examples

and they're kind of well understood outcomes

and the impacts of such contamination.

I'm not disputing that the maker studios cannot be combined

with residential studios, just that they're kind of

identity and considerations lying in nuances

of design and operational arrangements.

Thank you. Then can we go to 617 in your proof, please?

Yes. And this is the point I think you flagged earlier in one of your answers about two more

years not having been included in the original relocation strategy. But again, that is a

that the Section 106 could deal with, isn't it,

by making provision for relocation strategy

that would enable two more years to be included?

As a main talkifier.

Sorry?

Section 106 can deal with,

basically can provide details on the relocation,

arrangements, and in theory, yes,

Section 106 can deal with different matters.

So just I think this point was also referring to

my understanding that two more years

have not been acknowledged as cultural and creative venue

and has not been re -provided in the proposal

as a cultural venue.

Yeah, I mean, that's our primary case,

but if the council's case were to be preferred,

then the answer would still be that the Section 106 could pick it up.

Section 106 can potentially deal with these matters alongside other matters.

Yes.

Thank you very much, Mrs Pack.

Thank you, sir. I don't have any additional questions.

Okay, Mr Fannegan, would you like to put any questions?

Sorry, just a few seconds there.

Okay, thank you Mr. Pack. We will now have a lunch break. After the lunch break we will

hear from Mr. Weir. So until ten past one the inquiry is adjourned.

Sir, sorry, could I have some extra time to consider the statement of common ground agenda

which I haven't seen please. Could we adjourn until half past one if that's acceptable please?

Thank you. Okay, we'll adjourn till half past one. Till then, inquiry is adjourned.

We resume now. Next, we'll hear from Council's planning witness, Mr Weir.

He'd like to begin your minutes in chief. Thank you, sir. Mr Weir, let me introduce to the inquiry,

from your proof of evidence, you are Ricky Weir, Bachelor of Arts degree with honours in geography

from University College London, Master of Science degree in Urban Regeneration from the Bartlett

School of Planning at the University College London. You're a charter town planner, member of

the RTPI since 2017, have over 11 years town planning experience working for local planning

authorities as a development management planner. You explain which those authorities were and you

explain it from February 2020 onwards as a principal planning officer you've been with in

West Area team in Tower Hamlets.

And you also explain some relevance to the appeal scheme

that whilst working at the council from August 2025

to February 2026, you were also employed on a secondment

with the Greater London Authority

as a senior cultural policy officer strategic planner,

including working on the draught London Plan

culture policies drafting.

And from January 2025 onwards,

you've been a new London architecture expert panel member

culture. You explain some of the schemes that you've worked on, minor, major and

strategic and further details on that and then you also give the declaration

and paragraph 1 .9 of your proof as to where that's all correct is it? Yes,

that's correct. Thank you. So for your evidence in chief I'm going to you've

of proof with appendices and a rebuttal and appendices. I'm going to ask you to

take those as read and ask you to deal with your evidence in chief under the

topics you identify in that proof and rebuttal and indeed rather than me

identifying those topics as we go through I'm going to simply hand over to

you to do so and give your evidence on them, identifying each topic as you turn to it,

please.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, all, and Inspector.

Firstly, I will begin by discussing the loss of employment space, reason for refusal one,

in terms of loss of general employment floor space.

So taken from the most up -to -date position in this addendum statement of common ground,

The appeal site comprises 3 ,475 square metres in total, including 3 ,322 square metres employment floor space,

plus 153 square metres cultural event space in the form of Vittoria Wharf Studio.

In terms of two more years, 338 .5 square metres of the ground floor of this space is an established and much -loved cultural venue,

as well as workspace, whereas the entirety of the ground floor is 412 metres squared.

It is common ground that all of the 698 square metres floor space within two more years is

employment space.

All of this floor space benefits from planning permission under Tower Hamlets reference PA11 -01888,

which is found in CD8 .2.

In terms of lawful uses on the site, turning to Hackney Cut, the Timberyard Gatehouse and

Victoria Wharf Studios, which I will refer to from now on as Block 4 for ease, I consider

that the lawful planning use of these spaces is B2 slash B8 slash EG.

Paragraphs 4 to 9 of the second addendum statement of common ground set out the LPA's clear

stance on this. For Hackney Cut, the gatehouse and block 4, no planning

permission has been obtained or certificate of lawfulness sought to

change the use away from historical industrial warehouse and business uses.

In Hackney Cut the existing use is as work live or live work as agreed in the

addendum statement of common ground. The appellant considers this live work use is

lawful, but I cannot come to that conclusion due to its lack of sufficient

information. In block four, the existing use is a mix of self -contained employment

units and work -live units. The appellant considers this live -work use is lawful,

but I cannot come to that conclusion due to lack of sufficient information

provided. In my research, I have found instances that reveal that work -live

exists on these sites over the years in general. However, from the information

provided, on a planning unit by planning unit basis, I cannot conclude that

work live is a lawful planning use for Hackney Cut, the Gate

House, Block 4, or even any unit in particular.

As set out in my rebuttal at paragraph 1 .13,

evidence provided to demonstrate lawfulness in planning terms

needs to be sufficiently precise and unambiguous

to justify the grant of a certificate of lawfulness

on the balance of probability taken from the NPPG.

Although there is obviously work live in existence

at present in Hackencut and parts of Block 4, and this has been mentioned over the years

in a number of documents, and from the appeals site visit, no clear details have been provided

on a planning unit by a planning unit basis, such as a list of such units, tenancy agreements

demonstrating work -live over a 10 -year period for each planning unit, lists of work -live

tenants over a 10 -year period, statutory declarations over a 10 -year period, photographs, floor

pans and locations of each unit, lists of type of work taking

place from each unit, or any kind of council tax

split for live -work units.

Although two statutory declarations

asserting live -work use were provided in the application

submission at CD 5 .17A, these were only

for one occupant in unit 1A and for one occupant in units 20

and 21.

These are insufficient to demonstrate

the lawfulness of live -work for Hackney Cut, the gatehouse,

from Block 4.

Due to the ambiguity of the situation and lack

of clear and precise information,

I would have expected certificate of lawfulness

to have been provided to demonstrate the live -work use

of these units on the site if the appellant was

to rely on this use class for its redevelopment.

In terms of the appellant's assertion in the Second

Addendum Statement of Common Ground,

I consider that very limited, clear evidence

has been outlined in terms of evidence of work

live work being lawful on the site. Apart from the two statutory declarations, paragraph 12 in the

second addendum statement of common ground, points to an instance of live work mentioned

within the Creative Factories document in 2013. This is not sufficiently clear and provides limited

details. The other assertions appear quite general and anecdotal and would not be enough to base a

conclusion of live work in my view as a planning officer who has dealt with tens

of certificates of lawfulness over the years. Therefore I consider the only

logical planning judgement is for Hackney Cut, the Timber Yard gatehouse on block

four to be lawful as a historic industrial warehousing or business uses

falling under B2 slash B8 slash EG as specified in the second addendum

and statement of common ground, with EG forming the class E.

This is the stance carried over from the delegated report

and LP8 statement of case that insufficient information has

been provided to demonstrate the lawfulness of lived work.

Flowing from this, I conclude that the appeal scheme

will result in a loss of 1 ,786 square metres of employment

force place, which is calculated as 3 ,322,

22, which is calculated as 3 ,322 minus the 1 ,536 square metres.

Turning to mezzanines, it's helpful to refer to paragraphs 20 to 25 of the second

the Denim statement of common ground. I consider that all of the floor space within two more

years benefits from planning permission. For the Timberyard Gatehouse, I consider the first

floor is an original part of this building and is lawful. In terms of Hackney Cut, I

consider that mezzanine floor spaces are lawful as they were installed prior to 2012 for the

lawful industrial commercial space. In the PA12 -01219 temporary planning permission for

change of use from B1 to B2 to A3 for the duration of Olympic Games, an existing floor

plan for Hackney Cut is provided in this application showing office slash workshop users at the

first floor level. In terms of Block 4, I consider that the mezzanine floor spaces are

as they were installed prior to the 17th of December 2010 building regulation

certificate of regularisation application for commercial space

converted to light industrial units. Therefore I maintain that the appeal

scheme result in the loss of 1786 square metres employment floor space.

As I've demonstrated there will be a loss of employment floor space on the site I

consider the appeals scheme would be contrary to part five of the LLDC local

plan policy B .1 as B2 or B8 use class floor space would not be

provided and there would not be an intensification in jobs capacity

through increased jobs density. It also be contrary to LLDC local plan policy

1 .1 as the overall amount of existing employment floor space would not be

maintained including that used by the creative and cultural industries.

On the topic of densities, employment density, if existing employment floor space is not

pre -provided then LLDC policy B .1 specifies that an increase in jobs capacity through

jobs density should be provided.

The appellant has not provided any calculation of jobs density throughout the application

or appeal process, whereas I have provided some consideration of calculations on density

throughout the appeal submissions. My latest position on jobs capacity and

employment density is provided in the second addendum stating of common ground

in paragraphs 20 ticks to 30 including the table. This table demonstrates that

the appeal scheme will result in less jobs capacity and employment density on the

site where policy B .1 of the LLDC local plan requires a significant increase in

densities from existing levels.

The appeal scheme would therefore

result in a drop in both employment floor space

and jobs density on the site in a creative enterprise zone,

contrary to the development plan.

In terms of loss of creative, cultural, and affordable

workspace, loss of creative and cultural workspace

is another key failing of the appeal scheme,

especially being located in Hackney Wick and Lower Lee

Valley creative enterprise zone, as well as the Thames Estrian

production corridor.

The Peel scheme will result in the loss of two more years,

which consists of 698 square metres

creative affordable workspace in the form of light industrial

and co -working.

It is the appellant's case that the existing live -work use

of Hackney Cut, Block 4, and the Gatehouse

are lawful, which I dispute.

I've outlined how Victoria Wharf is a thriving

hub of cultural activity, a lively collaborative community of artists and creators. This was

also evidenced by the appeal site visit, where an array of different types of creative activity

was witnessed, from photographers, artists, fashion designers, musicians and makers, co -working

to commercial kitchens. The renowned newspaper of Hackney Wick and Fish Island, The Wick,

is based within the studio in two more years, demonstrating its importance to the local

community. Such cultural hubs are unique in London and have been heavily

endorsed to be protected by the GLA's Creative Enterprise Zone office. Although

the lawfulness of work -live creative affordable workspace in Hackney Cut,

Block 4 and the Gatehouse are unproven in this application in my opinion, it is

obvious that as existing they constitute an important hub of cultural floor space.

If the inspector was to agree with the appellant's scenario of live -work being

lawful on the site, the appeal scheme would result in the loss of all of the existing

creative affordable workspace in Hackney Cut, the Gate House and Block 4.

Turning to the addendum statement of Common Grounds and paragraph 6, even in the appellant

scenario of lawful live work on the site, I consider there is 1 ,964 square metres existing

creative workspace on the site, meaning the appeal scheme would result in the loss of

all of that create affordable workspace.

With the re -provision of 1 ,536 square metres,

this would still result in a loss of 428 square metres

employment floor space, all in the form

of creative affordable workspace,

contrary to LLDC local plan policies B .1, B .4,

and 1 .1 in particular, as well as the London plan.

At this time, I would like to look at some of the existing units on the site.

At the appeal site visit, it was clear that a wide array of creative work was actively

taking place within live -work units.

Mr. Cheamer has asserted that live -work in the statement of common ground, that the lawful

use of Hackney Cut quite critically does not include any workspace in that building apart

from a separate 15 square metres shed in the yard. Turning to the tables in

appendix 1 of the addendum statement of common ground, CD 1 .6A. I just opened that

document as well.

So this is Mr. Cheema's proof.

Well, firstly, this is the appendix one

in this addendum statement of common ground, so CD 1 .6a.

So this includes a table of spaces that I've measured

and looked at in terms of those that were,

as is by Mr. Cheema, to be lived spaces

in the current arrangement in terms of live -work units on the site. So I've

looked at all of the live spaces and come to my own assessment in

terms of whether those constitute work spaces or not, taken into consideration

that live -work is a unique typology in Hackney Wick and Fish

area. So if we turn to Mr. Cheema's proof of evidence which is at

CD 2 .4. I'm just going to go through some examples not all of the

examples that I've listed in the table. I'll go through some of the examples so

I will just turn you to a page in particular.

So in Mr. Cheema's proof, we start at page 144, PDF page 144.

in terms of this space, if everyone has it now hopefully. This is a large communal space,

which I consider is used as flexible workspace, including elements of cultural production at the

site visit where people were carrying out work. This is a well -known local typology work live,

which I'll touch upon a bit more detail later.

And it is documented in various places

and in various documents in various places.

And so, yeah, it's kind of established

that there is live -work existing in Victoria Wharf Studios

and in the local area.

And these are the kind of spaces

that are existing in the area.

And there is live -work established in the area.

And then, yeah, this space is an example

or a flexible workspace where people might store their items

in their room, and they might come out to work,

or they might store their items in the communal areas,

and they might come out to work in a space such as this.

Just turning to another space now.

on page 159, PDF page 159. So hopefully we're there. That is a live -work room,

including a dense configuration of cultural production as a small recording studio. Such

spaces to workspace if they are bedrooms.

The appellant only seems to have attributed partial workspace

to a bedroom in one instance.

And I'll just come to that one.

So page 415 of Mr. Cheema's proof, PDF page.

So page 415, let me just find that again.

So 415 and also 416 and also 417.

So that is a bedroom which has an element of work in it which Mr. Cheema has assessed

as being partial live and workspace.

in these calculations.

Numerous other live -work rooms should be attributed as half -work space in the same vein as this,

I would say, which I've gone through in my table.

Just turning to a couple more spaces for this purpose.

So PDF page 419 of Mr. Cheema's proof.

So this is one example in a similar vein as the one just shown, which I would say should

constitute workspace as well, partial workspace. And yeah, that's page 419 of the proof. And

also 420 and 421. There's obviously quite a dense configuration of cultural production

space in that room, akin to what might be a small recording studio possibly, something

of that sort. Just a couple more now. This is the last two. Turning to PDF page 211 of

Mr. Cheamer's proof.

So this has been listed as residential

apart from a table in that room with a sewing machine, which

is demarcated by the appellant as workspace.

However, I consider that this is all flexible workspace

for the existing live -work.

And the last one, I'll just say, yes,

So that also runs on to 211, 212, 213 of the proof,

Mr. Cheema's proof, in terms of that room.

The last one on page 245 of Mr. Cheema's proof.

So this is another clear example of a space

which Mr. Cheema alleges is living space, but in my view,

its flexible workspace as existing.

So yeah, page 245, 246, and 247, and 248.

I would say this is a workspace and a communal space as well.

So in Appendix 1 of my Addendum Statement of Common Ground,

of the Adept and State of the Common Ground.

I outlined how even in the appellant's scenario of live -work

being lawful, there would still be a loss of 428 square metres

creative employment floor space, taking into account

that I consider there is 1 ,964 square metres existing

in comparison to the appellant, who states

that there is only 1 ,476.

As I have found, 488 .5 square metres additional workspace

from the live space identified by the appellant. In addition this is not

including 509 square, 509 .5 square metres of space within the buildings which Mr.

Cheema has confirmed was unsurveyed in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the

addendum statement of common ground. So moving on to relocation strategy. Over

the last week both parties have worked on progressing the relocation strategy

in a positive fashion in relation to existing occupants of the appeal site.

Although the relocation strategy submitted with the application was threadbare, the appellant

has now taken on -board advice from the Council.

Provisions have now generally been agreed, although not finally signed, in accordance

with LDC Local Plan Policy B .1.

However, following on from this, I'd just like to make clear that the relocation strategy

does not deal with the relocation of two more years as a cultural venue, the relocation

of Victoria Wharf Studio as a cultural venue, and both as community venues as well.

The net loss of 1 ,786 square metres of creative, affordable workspace.

Inadequate design of workspace in terms of floor to ceiling height servicing requirements,

and for example also goods lifts.

inadequate yard space in terms of servicing requirements and also points

not fully being fully being designed in at the application stage such as noise

and air quality and also just generally not being designed to be sufficiently

flexible light industrial floor space taking into account relevant guidance

which will be touched upon I'm sure later. Also this would not count in terms

of the scenario of the appellant's work -live or live -work space. In terms of the loss of

this live -work space, the relocation strategy would not deal with that.

Moving on to the loss of live -work space. Informal work -live or live -work is recognised

as an important unique local typology. Supporting paragraph 15 .64 of the draught Tower Hamlet

local plan Policy EG1 states that part 1 recognises the important role that the

warehouse living community in Hackney Wick and Fish Island plays in providing

low -cost living and working spaces to those in creative and other industries.

In my assessment of the appeal scheme the live work has not been demonstrated

to be lawful in this appeal however in the appellant's lawful live work scenario

The appeal scheme would result in the loss of approximately 2 ,624 square metres of existing

live -work space.

This is calculated by deducting 698 square metres of two more years from the overall

3 ,322 metres minus 370 square metres of self -contained employment spaces in Block 4 outlined by the

As well as falling foul of cultural and creative workspace policies of the LLDC Local Plan,

more specifically, this loss of live workspace is contrary to draught Tau Hamlet's Local Plan

policies, EG1 and EG4, which state that development proposals resulting in the net loss of warehouse

living floor space within the creative enterprise zone will not be supported.

It should be noted that the draught Local Plan is at Regulation 22 stage, having been submitted

for examination and no objections have been received on this topic of protection of live

workspaces in the CEZ as demonstrated with the Talhamlets Policy Team response at Appendix

20 of my proof. I would therefore attribute this draught policy at moderate weight at present.

In terms of affordable workspace, I consider that Victoria Wharf includes lawful affordable

workspace in the form of two more years, which is 698 square metres and includes a range

of different types of affordable workspace such as co -working, cellular studios and spaces

benefiting from high ceilings. This is a managed affordable workspace and low -cost business

space. I consider that the appeal scheme should therefore re -provide this affordable workspace

to comply with LLDC policy B .4. Furthermore, in my assessment of Hackney Cut, the Gatehouse

and Block 4 as lawful B2, B8, EG, I consider that lawful low -cost business space in the

remainder of the site would also need to be re -provided. In total, I consider that 3 ,169

square metres of creative affordable workspace should be re -provided, which is... Yes.

Well, actually, 3 ,322 because, yeah, the 150 square metres, 153 square metres of Victoria

Wharfe's studio cultural venue is on top of that.

In recent days, both parties have been working through the section 106 in a positive fashion

and the appellant has provisionally agreed to provide the proposed 1 ,536 square metres

of employment space discounted affordable rent.

Even with the recently proposed and agreed affordable workspace, I consider that the

appeal scheme will result in the loss of 1 ,205 square metres creative affordable workspace.

In the appellant scenario of live -work on the site being lawful, I consider that all

of the existing employment floor space on the site totalling 1 ,964 square metres should

be provided as this consists of low -cost business space as defined by LDC local

plan policy B .4. In the appellant's lawful live -work scenario the appeal

scheme would still result in the loss of 428 square metres affordable on low -cost

business space on the appeal site. Being within the Hackney Wick and Lower

Lee Valley Creative Enterprise Zone, I consider that the appeal scheme is in a

key location for creative, affordable workspace as specified by London Plan Policy HC5 Part

C, which outlines objectives of CEZs including to develop, enhance, protect and manage new

and existing creative workspace, providing flexibility for changing business needs and

an attractive business environment including related ancillary facilities and also to help

deliver spaces that are suitable, attractive and affordable for the creative industries,

taking into account the particular requirements of established and emerging creative businesses

in the CEZ.

On conclusion on the topic of affordable workspace, I've shown that in both my assessment of the

site in terms of lawfulness and in the appellant scenario, the appeals scheme would be deficient

in not providing sufficient affordable workspace in the CEZ.

Moving on to inadequate re -provision of employment floor space.

This would be the proposed employment floor space for the appeal scheme is 1536 square

metres of light industrial. As well as not providing sufficient affordable

workspace which I consider is required in the CZ, I consider that

the proposed employment floor space will be inadequate for a number of other

reasons as is detailed in my proof. The appellant has said that the proposed

employment space is suitable for creative businesses however they

admittedly not taken into account existing creative occupants of the site.

From the various cultural production practitioners seen on the appeals site

visit as an example. The Riverside Photography Studio in Block 4, 7 .6 square... 7 .6 metre

high floor to ceiling height would not be able to be accommodated in any of the proposed

floor space. Neither would the commercial kitchens and recording studios amongst others.

Proposed floor to ceiling heights insufficiently flexible to accommodate a wide range of creative

occupants. In 8 .51 of my proof I show that proposed floor space would not meet

LLDC employment study requirements from small and large creative studios with

minimum preferred 3 .5 metres or small industrial and maker space with a

minimum 4 metre floor to ceiling height. At 8 .61 of my proof I show how the

industrial land and uses draught LPG states that 4 metre floor to ceiling

heights are clearly specified for light industrial spaces beneath the residential uses, which

is exactly what these spaces are.

I also outline considerations around operational yard as per paragraph 16 of the addendum statement

of common ground.

I consider that the existing operational yard is 204 square metres plus ancillary structures

viewed in the site, totalling 42 .5 square metres and the shed connected to Hackney Cut

at 15 .2 square metres, totalling 262 square metres.

This currently includes loading bays and storage for employment uses on the site.

The existing use of the site for employment and live -work facilities

and live -work facilitates the potential messy, noisy and smelly work spelling out into the yard.

As per paragraph 17 of the addendum statement of common ground,

I consider that 270 square metres of the proposed yard space is left over

following deducting of space for landscaping and potential communal amenity space in proposals.

However, I consider that this leftover 270 square metres does not function as practical

operational yard space for the proposed employment space. This new yard would not include any

vehicular loading areas as this function will need to take place off -site and across the road

in a locality outside of the relevant. The function as operational yard space for light

industrial uses, but also conflicts with use of the yard as public realm and a space that

the appellant says will act as residential communal amenity space, which is needed to

be provided in order to foster peace, relaxation and socialising between residents. Neither

would contemporary servicing requirements as outlined in LLDC employment study or industrial

uses and land LPGP provided by the site or yard space proposed specifically. The yard

Space has also not been designed with noise or air quotes requirements for light industrial spaces in mind

Nor have any of the proposed internal light industrial spaces

For these reasons I consider that as well as a loss for employment space on the site not being acceptable

The replacement space would also be insufficient to compound the matter within the CZ and Thames estuary production corridor

Which has an objective to deliver large -scale cultural infrastructure and a vision to become a world -class Centre for production

the substandard proposed employment space on the site would certainly not fall into that category.

I consider that there is a high likelihood that the proposed employment spaces would not be occupied by cultural or creative occupants,

as I consider that the proposed spaces are inadequately designed to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate creative and cultural occupants.

Moving on now to loss of cultural venues and two more years specifically. The appeal site

contains a renowned and important cultural venue known as Two More Years. Two More Years

continues the legacy of Stour Space and together they have operated on the site much in the

way for the past 15 years or more in which time they have been established.

This menu is popular across East London.

It is mentioned in the 2021 LLDC Evening and Nighttime Economy SPD at CD 7 .28 on page 14,

which states that across Hackney Wick and Fisher Island are numerous examples of industrial

units being repurposed for creative and cultural uses which include nighttime activities, mixed

garage in Queen's Yard, Stour Space, Grow Bar and Restaurant, Vibes Photography Studio

and the Yard Theatre are good examples of how small industrial spaces have been repurposed

to accommodate nighttime activities. It is understood that Stour Space operated from

around 2009 but gained planning permission in November 2011 from lawful B2 to a mix of

B1 workspace across the site with D1 gallery and A3 cafe at ground floor.

The consented plans at ground floor level show a mix of studios, cafe space, seating

and gallery space along with canal site decking.

At 8 .121 of my proof I've shown how hundreds and even thousands of cultural events have

in the space since late 2011, such as exhibitions, markets, talks, meetings, festivals, parties,

music events, food socials, yoga, arts clubs, life drawing, film schools, body painting,

screenings, including various late night events.

My evidence demonstrates that whilst during the day the space is used as a co -working

cafe and art gallery.

During evenings and weekends, the space becomes predominantly a cultural venue.

This follows the pattern of many cultural venues which operate sporadically during weekday

day times that take over at evenings and weekends.

I consider that the intensity of cultural events taking place within two more years

over a 15 years period makes it clear that this is a lawful cultural venue.

As a single planning unit, which is open to the public and whose use is clearly documented

than listed in the public, I consider that lawful planning use for the site can be clearly

evidenced.

I consider that two more years at the sui generis mixed use space with light industrial

floor workspaces at upper floors and partially at ground floor level and the remainder of

the ground floor is used as a mixed use co -working cafe, gallery and cultural event space.

Turning to Appendix 3 of the Statement of Case, a letter provided by the GLA Culture,

Creative Industries and 24 Hour London team is clear in its view where it states at the

top of page 2, proposals will result in the complete loss of a long -standing creative

cluster on the site. This includes two more years which has operated since 2021 as a combined

workspace and cultural venue providing artist studios, co -working, cafe bar space and music

and events programming. This continues a continuous history of cultural use dating back to 2011

when Stour Space operated from the site. The loss would therefore remove 15 years of sustained

cultural and creative activity. I consider that my evidence of the breadth of events

run from the site, the outpouring of objections which reference positive activity on the site

and its former status as asset of community value all point to clear evidence that two

more years is an important community use in Fisher Island and the wider area.

I consider that the loss of such an important cultural and community venue within Hackneywicken

and Fisher Island, a cluster of cultural activity within a creative enterprise zone, would be

an obvious breach of Development Plan policies which require attention of existing cultural

and community uses, namely LLDC local plan policies SP .2, CI .1, and 1 .2, alongside London

plan policies HC5 and HC6.

Furthermore, the loss of the Victoria Wharf studio cultural event space on the second

floor of Block 4 must be given serious consideration.

This 153 square metre space is considered to be an established cultural and community

venue.

My proof from 8 .1328 .140 includes an overview of a range of evidence provided including

a list of advertisements of events from May 2010 to the current day over a 16 -year period.

A number of news articles and information in licencing applications and submissions

from the GLA CEZ team, Music Venues Trust and public representations asserting use for

than the past 10 years. The appellant also agrees that this space is a lawful cultural venue which

is operated for more than 10 years. As a single planning unit with such breadth and depth of

information provided over the years, I consider it is clear to see that this space is a lawful

cultural venue. I contrast this to the lack of clarity provided with live -work uses in Hackney

Cut, Block 4 and the Gatehouse, where it is unclear where different separate planning units

will be located and no specific details will be provided on each unit and its history over

a 10 -year period. As the live -work units are not public facing as the cultural venues are,

this heightens their ambiguity and lack of preciseness.

We are focusing on Victoria Wolf Studio to conclude on this issue. The range of different

types of events I've outlined take place from this venue, such as life drawing, workshops,

sober raves, wellness events and dance classes. I consider that it is clear that this space

is also community use. In conclusion, I consider that the loss of Victoria Wharf Studios in

two more years would be contrary to LLDC policies SP .2, CI .1 and 1 .2, alongside London Plan

policies HC5 and HC6. I believe it would also run counter to provisions of the Olympic legacy

SPD and the Evening and Night Time economy SPD, which at page 45 outlines Hackney Wick

and Fish Islands attraction as a late -night international destination for music.

At page 41, it is important to the identity of Hackney, Wick and Fish Island that the

current vibrancy of the area remains.

This will mean preserving existing nighttime economy uses alongside enhancing and diversifying

the offer of uses over 24 hours of the day.

Furthermore, the SPD continues to state that proposals should strongly consider Hackney,

and Fisher Islands' unique nighttime economy and how it can be supported. I consider that

the loss of two established cultural venues in Hackney, Wick and Fisher Island must both attract

substantial weight in terms of planning harm, being located within a cultural cluster and creative

enterprise zone. The GLA have been clear in their response that this is a matter of significant

wait. If schemes such as this, and I quote, if schemes such as this are permitted within the

zone resulting in the net loss of affordable workspace and cultural infrastructure, it risks

weakening of the wider cluster, undermining long -term strategic objectives and eroding

competence in the programme delivering this location. LLDC policy CI .1 is also clear in stating

the legacy corporation will require the provision of new community

infrastructure as part of new major development proposals. None has been

provided and existing community infrastructure will be lost. Turning to

communal community space, on July the 13th I received an email from the

appellant showing a space within the courtyard of the appeal scheme and

stating that this would be the communal community space for development. Prior to

July the 13th no proper details or analysis of communal community space for

development had been provided. In none of the application submission or appeal documents

has any analysis of the community space provided. Turning to Figure 5 of my proof at page 80,

112 square metres of community space has been outlined in the courtyard by the appellant.

However, this would suffer from very poor levels of sun on the ground. 0 % of this space

would receive sun for two hours on the spring equinox so it would not be an

attractive or comfortable place to sit and relax for the overwhelming majority

of the year. Turning to figures six and seven of my proof which is found at CD

2 .1. Whereas the appellant suggests that 112 square metres could be provided for

communal amenity space within the courtyard, from a practical perspective

taking into account pedestrian circulation, potential workspace

spill -out, servicing movements and position of landscaping, I consider that

only 75 square metres will be left over which could attempt to serve as

communal amenity space.

LLDC local plan policy BN .4 contains a requirement

for residential communal amenity space

but does not specify an exact quantum.

Like I said, that draught,

Tower Hamlets local plan policy, HF9, provides a guide

in terms of quantum of communal amenity space,

which specifies that the scheme should provide

112 square metres.

I consider that this draught policy should attract at least moderate weight for the communal

meterspace calculation.

The draught calculation of 50 square metres for the first 10 units and one square metre

additional for each unit over 10 is the same as the current Tower Hamlets local plan and

the previous 2013 Tower Hamlets local plan, which some older developments on Fisher Island

have been consented under.

These policy wordings are shown in Appendix 48 and 49 of my proof.

Incidentally, the communal immunity space recently outlined in July

specifies exactly 112 square metres in the courtyard.

This space was obviously not initially designed and integrated into the scheme,

but was only added in the last -minute attempt to deal with the issue prior to the inquiry.

The pontoons have also been mentioned as communal immunity space in the same manner,

I considered that these would act functionally as public realm connected to the Colonnades

underpass walkway and act as community space more for adjacent employment units.

Overall, I considered that the appeals team would not provide sufficient community space.

What has been shown on plans at the 11th hour's interchangeable surrounding spaces, which

would be inadequate in terms of quantum design position, would not include any complementary

play features.

residents would need to leave their building to access the space. There was

lack of consideration for a number of diverse needs of residents, the lack of

any clear segregated space to foster social interaction between residents and

for them to rest and relax due to commercial deliveries and servicing

activity and public circulation. For these reasons the insufficient provision

of communal meeting space would result in a substandard quality of residential

immediately on the site. Planning balance. Coming to planning balance and

public benefits now. Firstly to touch upon the issue of significant additional

public benefit in relation to LLDC local plan policy BN .5. The local plan

requires that new buildings in the Hackney Wick and Fish Island sub area

will need to demonstrate that in addition to meeting the criteria in this

policy and policies BN .1 and BN .4, the proposal would achieve significant

additional public benefits. Ms. Chung has outlined that from a design and

heritage perspective the appeals team would not provide significant additional

public benefit to justify a new tall building or tall buildings. From a

planning perspective I consider that the appeals team would not provide

significant additional public benefit. Overall public benefits for the scheme

are providing a denser quantum of development on an occupied brownfield site to contemporary

sustainability standards, provision of market sale housing and affordable rented housing,

provision of light industrial employment floor space,

job creation in construction and end user phases and local spend.

I consider the above to constitute public benefits of the proposal,

but I do not consider these to be significant additional public benefits.

I consider that significant additional public benefits must be significantly additional

to regular public benefits, for example providing more than the policy target for affordable

housing and or affordable workspace.

Ms Chung has provided evidence to demonstrate that the scheme would result in harm from

design and heritage perspective including poor quality public realm.

As per paragraphs 8 .165 to 8 .167 of my proof at CD 2 .1.

Local examples of this assessment, a quarter of my own understanding.

For the piano factory scheme, 35 % affordable housing was provided along with 1 ,400 square

metres affordable workspace at peppercorn rent, £30 ,000 towards towpath improvements

and £150 ,000 towards public realm improvements. For the Iceland wharf scheme which went to

committee this year, 55 % affordable housing is provided along with 353 square metres affordable

workspace and a £200 ,000 contribution to public realm. Both of these schemes are

considered to demonstrate significant additional public benefits to justify

tall buildings. The appeals scheme provides no comparative magnitude of

public benefits. The LODC considered the issue of significant additional public

benefit to be important so as to warrant refusal of another recent scheme.

turning to CD 8 .11, the decision notice for the nearby ALGA Works planning proposal, and

reason for refusal too.

The delegated report for this refuse scheme stated, while offices acknowledge the provision

of 23 workspace studios, it is concluded that there are no overall public benefits owing

to the net loss of employment floor space and employment density at the site.

While living accommodation in the form of 23 private bedrooms will be provided at the site, this would be of insufficient quality and is also not deemed to constitute a public benefit.

Officers conclude that the proposal does not provide any demonstrable public benefits, therefore this policy BN .5 requirement has not been met.

Next, to weighing the planning balance of the appeal scheme overall.

Policy S4 of the new NPPF states that development proposals within settlements should be approved

unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects when assessed

against the national decision -making policies in this framework.

Weighing the benefits of the proposal, providing a denser quantum of development on an occupied

Brownfield site, contemporary sustainability standards would be substantial weight, provision

of market cell housing, 69 units, and affordable rented housing, three units, would provide

significant weight. I consider that the weight provided by this public benefit is limited by

the following factors. Lack of family -sized housing within market tenure, lack of family -sized housing

within affordable tenure, lack of intermediate tenure homes, lack of a balanced mix of one,

two and three bed affordable homes. Also the low proportion of affordable homes at 4 % against

the policy requirement of 50%, which is expected to be provided on a non -designated industrial

site where a loss of industrial capacity is proposed. In terms of the provision of light

industrial employment, including affordable floor space, I attribute it as a substantial

weight for job creation through the construction and end -user phase of the development and

local spend.

I attribute these benefits as moderate weight.

These benefits would also be achieved on the otherwise policy compliant proposal.

It should also be noted that the existing site is a vibrant cultural hub with light

industrial floor space and also provides a degree of local spend.

In terms of planning harms, the loss of employment space, including appropriately designed and

affordable workspace in Hackney Wick and Lower Lee Valley, Creative Enterprise Zone and Thames

Estuary Production Corridor, will attract substantial weight.

The loss of two more years, a multi -purpose, community, cultural and nightlife, night -time

economy space in the CEZ will attract substantial weight.

The loss of Victoria Wharf Studio, a multi -purpose cultural community and nighttime economy space

in the Hackney Wick and Lower Leigh Valley CEZ, would attract substantial weight.

Insufficient design response in regard to public realm, community space, height, massing,

relationship between blocks and the wider townscape would attract substantial weight.

Palm to heritage assets in the form of the Fish Island, Whitepost Lane conservation area

and timber yard gatehouse non -designated heritage asset

would attract significant weight.

In the appellant scenario of live -work on the appeal site

being lawful, the scheme would result in additional planning

harm in the form of loss of work -live units

and additional creative affordable workspace in the CEZ,

generating substantial weight in terms of harm.

In this way, I've demonstrated how the harms or adverse

effects of the appeal scheme would substantially

outweigh the planning benefits.

In terms of the new NPPF, I've already conducted the Pladding Balance Exercise in accordance with Policy S4, Part 1, and the Principle of Development in Settlements.

I'd also point out at this time that Policy S4, Part 2c also states that in applying Policy S4, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include, but are not restricted to, conditions,

situations where development proposal would see failed to comply with one of

the national petition -making policies which state that development proposals should

be refused in specific circumstances. Ms. Chung's evidence detailed that the

appeal scheme would be contrary to policy DP3. Key principles for well -designed

places, parts 1 and 2, EFG. Part 3 sets up development proposal should be refused

if without clear justification they conflict with parts 1 and 2. Ms Chung also asserted that the

appeals can be contrary to policy DP3 -9, DP3 due to conflict with explicit design standards in the

development plan referring to LLDC policy BN .5. In terms of insufficient communal immunity space

Krishna would also echo that the appeal scheme would be in conflict with DP3 parts 2A and 2F.

Ms. Chung's evidence also demonstrated lack of compliance with policies HE4,

securing the conservation of heritage assets, and HE5, assessing effective heritage assets.

HC6 proposes affecting designated heritage assets and HC7 decisions on non -designated

heritage assets. Policy E2 deals with meeting the need for business land and

premises and states that to support business growth substantial rates should

be given to the economic benefits of proposals for commercial development

which allow businesses to invest, expand and or adapt especially where this would

support the economic vision and strategy for the area and the

implementation of the industrial strategy. In my view the loss of

employment floor space, loss of creative cultural workspace, and inadequate

re -provision of a replacement employment floor space in a creative enterprise

zone and the Thames Estuary production corridor would be contrary to the

economic vision and strategy for the area resulting in lack of compliance

with policy E2, especially where this references the government's industrial

strategy which in part three of the executive summary on page 14 references

a major initiative for the government to drive the growth of our world -leading creative industries

in clusters across the UK and includes objectives of supporting the UK city regions and clusters

on page 94 and of supporting our frontier industries with creative industries extensively

featured on page 124 of the government's industrial strategy. Lastly, I consider that

MPPF has clearer and stronger protections for community facilities.

Also specifically, now referencing cultural venues in Policy HC6,

Retention of Key Community Facilities and Public Service Infrastructure.

HC6 Part 1 specifies that development proposals should not result in the loss

of key community facilities. For the purposes of Part 2, I consider that Two More Years and

Victoria Wharf studio cultural venue constitute key community facilities as they are established

cultural venues which are used on a frequent basis, as evidenced by my proof.

In conclusion, I demonstrate how the harms or adverse effects of the appeal scheme would

substantially outweigh the planning benefits, how the appeal scheme conflicts with the development

plan as a whole, and that the appeal scheme would not be sustainable development. Therefore,

respectfully request that the Inspector dismisses this appeal. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Weir. Thank you sir, that's the evidence in chief.

I will take a short break now. I have 10 minutes so until 20 to 3 the inquiry is

Thank you sir, good afternoon Mr Weir. Can you turn up the new MPPF please?

Sure just give me a moment. Yeah let me know when you have it.

Yes. And could you go to page 24, internal page

24, which is policy S3? Yes.

And we see S31A explains that a presumption in favour of sustainable development is to

be applied and S4 should be applied when considering development proposals within settlements and

the site is in a settlement, so we go to S4, don't we?

Yes.

And then we see that S4 .1 provides

that development proposals within settlement

should be approved unless the benefits of doing so

would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects

when assessed against the national decision -making policies

in the framework, yeah?

Yeah.

You will know that the tilted balance

that was previously in 11D2 of the 2024 MPPF required planning permission to be refused

where the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits, didn't

it?

Yes.

And the parallel requirement that we now have to apply here is that planning permission

should not now be withheld unless the adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits,

Yeah.

So the presumption in favour of development has become stronger hasn't it?

Because to refuse Planning Commission you now need adverse effects that

substantially outweigh the benefits and that's a higher threshold than

significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits isn't it?

I think they're quite different so that it's not necessarily that it's a stronger

of a tilted balance, I think it's just a different process.

So yeah, I've shown, well, I've outlined how I see

that the adverse effects would substantially

outweigh the benefits.

So I think it's just a different balancing exercise.

Well, is it though?

Because at the end of the day, the question is still,

would the adverse effects outweigh the benefits?

yeah? That's how it's worded at the moment. Yeah, but the so it's the same overall question,

but then the test used to be, does it do it significantly and demonstrably? And now it,

the question is, does it do it substantially? But the overall question is the same, isn't it?

I think it's quite similar. It's different.

Yeah, but are you, what's your end, I mean, we can agree can't we that the government has made a

deliberate decision to change the wording here, they wouldn't have accidentally swapped it from

significant and demonstrable to substantial would they, that's the choice the government's made for

a reason with intent yeah? Yeah, yeah I agree that they have their reasons for trying to,

Yeah, wanting to facilitate development

and especially trying to push forward

meeting housing targets.

I'm just trying to look at the statement of common ground

where it has the two policies next to each other to help.

Let's see, yeah.

Yes, I'm just looking at the moment if you want me to follow on looking at that statement

of common ground addendum that we did.

And we put the policies of the previous NPPF and the current one next to each other.

So I think in the table, yeah, paragraph 11C and 11D.

So I guess it's looking at the 11D part 2 any adverse impacts of doing so

would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits against against the

current wording. Yes and my my point is as you say I'll come back to this later

but we know that the reasons before,

the reasons behind the changes to the MPPF

were to facilitate, as you say,

to facilitate development and to meet housing targets.

So it makes sense, doesn't it,

that the government has strengthened

the presumption in favour of development in settlements

by raising the threshold from significantly

and demonstrably to substantial.

Yeah, it's quite hard to distinguish between that word demonstrably and substantial. I

don't know what the exact, how you would look at those compared to each other in terms of

the word, the strength of the wording.

Okay, so your evidence of the inquiry is that you don't accept that the government has sought

to strengthen the presumption in favour of development in settlements?

My evidence is not really, it's not based on analysing the difference of the MPPF. It's

based on the appeal proposal and how that complies with the old NPPF and the new NPPF.

Do you accept that in revising the wording to refer to substantially outweigh, the government

has sought to strengthen the presumption in favour of development in settlements? Yes

or no, please?

I guess I would say strengthened in the form that in the new NPPF it's not a question

of not meeting the housing delivery targets so it's just a wider presumption it kind of

it kind of emphasises that power across settlements rather than before,

yeah, in terms of the tilted balance that was just in terms of if you did meet the HDT targets.

That's a slightly different point which I suspect we will come on to but I just I would like a

clear answer please. I'm referring at the moment and don't worry we'll come on to other points but

At the moment, I'm just referring to the change in wording from significantly and demonstrably to substantial.

Do you accept that by making that change in wording, the government has sought to strengthen the presumption in favour of development within settlements?

Yes or no?

In terms of significant and demonstrable against substantial, it's hard for me to really distinguish a difference of strength in terms of that.

in terms of the wider presumption within the settlement

rather than the HDT, I would agree on that point.

I'm just going to try one more time because I thought you were saying no,

but then it turned into a yes.

Do you agree or disagree that by changing the word

from significant and demonstrable to substantial,

the government was trying to strengthen the presumption?

Yeah, you would say that substantial is higher than significant, I guess.

Thank you.

It's common ground that the site is within an area of change within the Olympic Legacy

Opportunity Area?

Yes.

And I don't think it's in dispute either that the site scores 5A on the GLA's sustainable

access measure which is what TFL intends to replace P -Tel with?

Yeah, that was in one of our statements of common ground.

Yeah, and 5A is the second highest SAM score?

Yeah.

Do you agree that the present condition of the site fails to optimise it?

I would say that from a development perspective it doesn't optimise the site as at present

even though it is a lively and bustling kind of existing use. From a development perspective

it doesn't optimise it because there would be an opportunity area potential for intensification.

intensification and could you then turn up Mr. Cheemah's proof and go to page 69

please yeah paragraph 11 16 yes so the but I'm just looking at the bullet

points you can ignore the one about the MPPF because obviously those numbers

have all been superseded. If the inspector were to conclude that the

scheme would optimise the site, Mr Cheamer is correct to identify that

optimising a sustainably located brownfield site accords with the local

plan policies and the London plan policies that he set out there, isn't he?

If the inspector concludes that in terms of optimization as you say then yes.

And do you agree with Mr. Cheamer's accordance of substantial weight?

Yes, I'm just double checking.

Yes.

and we see in support of both of your positions if you could find page 56 of

the new MPPF please. Sorry, page 56. Policy L2 making effective use of land and then L21

says substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a development proposal

would achieve one or more following and then B is making better use amongst other things

of underutilised land and buildings. So that supports the view that you and Mr Chima have

reached on giving substantial weight to this benefit, yes?

Yes.

Now, delivery of homes, well, before I get onto this, in your proof, in terms of the

of hierarchy of weightings to benefits and you've given substantial weight to

the point we just noted but then you give significant weight to the delivery

of the housing. In your hierarchy is significant below substantial or the

same or above it or how does that work please?

I think typically significant is below substantial in it from a planning

planning, waiting perspective. So that's how I take it.

Thank you.

and we know now very recently that the council's housing delivery test result

is only 47 % of the London Plan housing target now. Yeah that was released

recently. Yeah and since you provided your proof I think actually post

rebuttals as well it's very recent isn't it yes and there is now an evidenced

unmet need for housing in the council's area isn't there then in the light of

that result? Yes, I understand that to be the case. And so since you produced both

parts of your written evidence, so the proof and the rebuttal, the balance

has shifted very significantly in favour of the scheme,

hasn't it, because we've got the new presumption

in the MPPF, which now means there would have to be

a substantial outweighing of the benefits

by adverse effects, and we've got the new

housing delivery test result, which is only 47%,

and so there is now an evidenced unmet need for housing.

Those two factors taken together have very significantly

shifted the balance in favour of the scheme, haven't they?

I feel like from the perspective of the new NPPF talking about waiting and tilted balances,

I don't believe there's a same tilted balance effect in terms of not meeting the HDT tests.

So I think there's a general presumption as we've discussed in settlements regardless

to the point of tilted balance.

I think I did just cover that quickly at 8 .217 of my proof.

Even though I did the balance in terms of the old NPPF, I did consider that

even if the tilting balance was in effect, that I thought that the adverse impact would

still significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in terms of the old NPPF. In terms of

paragraph 8 .217 I clearly set that out

yeah just give me one moment please I'm just finding a reference in your proof

which my computer finds a bit chunky to deal with

That was on page 96 that I was talking about. Thank you. What was the HDT position previously

in percentage terms, Mr Weir? Sure, I think I remember off the top of my head, but it

be better if I turn to my appendices if you just give me a short moment.

So my appendices has a list in my rebuttal. I'm looking at that now.

Appendix 20 of...

Or is it that one?

No, sorry, it's appendix 51.

I believe it's 92%.

Let me just double cheque if I remember that correctly.

That's what they said.

Yeah, so just referencing appendix 51 of my proof.

There's an email from the Tau Hamlets policy team or plan making references.

Tau Hamlets most recently published housing delivery test result was 92 % in terms of houses

built by developers.

Yeah.

and now it's 47 % so it has almost halved hasn't it? Yes. That is a very

significant change in the context for decision -making within the council's

area isn't it? In terms of the NPPF I think you have to look at it through

that lens and what the repercussions are from that. I think from a local plan

perspective that I think it would impact.

Do you, I mean, you're not going to suggest it's of no

significance, the change in the HTT result, are you?

I think it is, is something that you could you consider, you have

to consider that in terms of housing need, certainly because

housing needs is important in the borough and nationwide.

So if the delivery is below, then you have to take that into consideration if it's falling

below in terms of what developers have built out.

Yeah, and because, I mean, I see, I think the point you're making is that the mechanisms

within the MPPF as to what flows from the housing delivery test are not the same as

they were back in July.

book can you find policy H* 7 in the MPPF please which is page 30 something 35

sure it's just loading sorry

I'm on that policy now.

Yeah, so

H** says we've got to give substantial weight to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting the evidenced accommodation

needs of the community

as identified through needs assessment prepared and other relevant evidence. I

mean you've agreed already that given the latest housing delivery test result there is now an evidenced unmet need and

therefore that is highly relevant to the application of H** isn't it? I'm not sure

that the not meeting the HDT results in a settlement kind of adds an extra bow

to the to what needs to be done I mean it is quite new so could be corrected

but that's kind of...

So your position is that when we're looking at whether there are

or what the evidenced accommodation needs of the community are

we don't take into account housing delivery test results?

I think yeah they are a material consideration but in terms of the NPPF

tests I think there is already

I would not call it a tilted balance because it's not the same as it was before, but there

is already a presumption in settlements and if you don't meet the HDT test results, I

don't think that gives any extra weight in a settlement.

Well I mean, let me just, is it actually, because I didn't really get a clear answer

to my specific question, is it your position that the HDT results are not relevant to the

application of H*** Yeah? Because the way that I'm going to say this works is that they

are relevant because they're evidence of the accommodation needs of the community and the

way that's relevant to the presumption is that that then means that we give substantial

weight to the benefits of providing homes and of course that would be relevant to the

question of whether the benefits are substantially outweighed by the harms?

In terms of H*** I don't see that there is a clear extra layer of power coming from

not meeting the HTT test.

Yeah, but my question wasn't, do you think there's an extra layer of power? My question

was, do you think it's relevant to H*** Your answer is no. I've explained what I'm going

to be saying in closing and there's a difference of view between us on that. I

would just say I think it's relevant to take into consideration in assessing

that policy but I don't think it gives an extra bow to the extra string to the

bow. All right so it is relevant to applying that policy but it doesn't give

an extra string to the bow. Let's look at it this way, when you had your 92 %

result you could have said couldn't you well H** doesn't apply because we've

got however many years of supply you had and we're doing well under the HDT so you know

I'm just not going to apply H** whereas now we've agreed there's an evidenced and met

need for housing and so we can't say anymore well I'm not applying H** we should be applying

it shouldn't we? I think you would need to apply anyway because we always we do need

houses nonetheless whether we don't meet the HDT test score or not we have clear

policies which require new housing.

Right let me just see if I can cut through some of this in the light of the

answer. Having regard to what 807 now says, do you accept that we should be giving substantial

weight to the benefit of providing the homes here, which would be a revision upwards from

the significant weight you've given in your proof?

Okay, so yeah, I would on the first basis, attribute such substantial weight to the provision

to the provision of housing, but I've

caveated that in terms of the type of housing provided,

which I referenced in my proof and examination in chief.

OK, that might allow me to skip a few questions.

We'll see.

Just before I move on, the two factors

that I identified as having shifted the balance in favour

of the scheme since you wrote your evidence were the HDT results but also for new presumption

in the MPPF in relation to settlements. Do you agree that the new presumption is a significant

development in favour of the scheme?

Let me just turn to that part again.

I think that's a similar question to what you asked earlier so let me just

have a look again.

I think we said earlier that yeah the kind of way that it's assessed from

the old 11D2 to S4 -1 is a different kind of balancing exercise and

what we said last time was a substantial outweighing was higher than significant.

Yeah so my follow -up question is that increase in the threshold is a significant

change that works in favour of the scheme doesn't it?

There may be a minor improvement in that regard, possibly, but I think I've already said in

terms of, I guess if that wasn't in effect you'd have a tilted balance with the 47%,

so it would be quite a similar balancing exercise but slightly different as we've already gone

over as you've pointed out as well. And also yeah as I said earlier I would I

did make a brief assessment or mention of the tilted balance in my proof. Yeah

do you have a copy, I think I gave you one but you may not still have it, do you

Yeah, of course. Thank you.

Could you go within that to paragraph 5 .2 .2 on page 3, please? Let me know when you're

there.

Yeah.

These are just a couple of quotes from the government's announcement when it

published the new MPPF. No dispute as to the factual accuracy of what was said by

the government. Yes it's a press release isn't it? Yeah that's fine. And we can see

that one of the key reasons for revising the MPPF was to boost housing supply.

yeah yeah and mentioned that earlier yeah so we've seen our I'm coming on to

your point about housing mix but we've seen that the MPPF requires

substantial weight to be given to housing provision the MPPF doesn't

actually require the retention of existing employment floor space does it

Let me just have a look.

I'm at E2 now.

National decision making policies for business and land, business land and premises.

doesn't give a specific requirement to, did you say retain employment space? Is that what you said?

Yeah. It doesn't but I think the it would flow from the general that policy is quite general

and it would flow from that if you if you have a significant loss then it would not meet those

objectives. And I was going to do E2 later but we may as well pick it up now. I mean that just isn't

the proper approach to applying this policy is it so e21 says that you should

be giving substantial weight to two types of benefits A and B but giving

substantial weight to something as a benefit has got nothing to do with what

happens if you're removing floor space has it? I think you have to analyse

proposal as it comes to you. So if there is...

yeah you have to look at the quantum of floor space. You have to look

in terms of meeting the objectives of that policy. I think you need to look at

a variety of areas in terms of assessing that employment floor space and making

sure that it is beneficial, that it meets

kind of... because that's the general policy and you kind of...

we have to look at the way that employment floor space is assessed more generally

in terms of is it sufficient, is it adequate, does it meet the needs of businesses

in order to be able to meet that arm of the policy in terms of providing economic benefits

which allow businesses to invest, expand or adapt.

But the MPPF, and this isn't new, the MPPF for a while, probably from its inception,

I can't remember, has distinguished between telling decision makers when they should give

a particular weight to a benefit, such as we've just seen, what we can see here and

we've just seen in H*** and then the MPPF has also for a long time set out certain harms

which are given specific weights, so green belt harm, heritage harm are two that come to mind.

So it's right, isn't it, that if the MPPF wanted to say that any particular weighting

should be given to the loss of employment floor space, it would say that, wouldn't it?

Could say that, but I think it's not exhaustive. I feel like it's, I mean, some of the policies

the MPPF are quite general and there's a lot more detail below them which you need to assess

particular proposals such as employment floor space and if it is beneficial

or the extent to which it is.

I mean in reality the way this policy applies here is that if

If neither of the two benefits in E21A and B are proposed, then you don't get the positive

substantial weight. But beyond that, it's neutral, isn't it, this policy? You either

give one of the two benefits or both of them from A and B or you don't. And if you do give

those benefits, you get substantial positive weight. But if you don't do that, it just

doesn't have any relevance does it to the evaluation of the scheme?

I guess there's a couple of ways that you could look at it.

I mean in terms of providing, you could give a provision of employment floor space substantial weight

and you could also look at it from that perspective in terms of harm

and whether that weight should be diminished because of harm.

I think in any case what I'm saying is there is employment floor space provided

you know there is weight to that but I'm saying it's inadequate in terms of its

provision so whether you give that less weight or whether you give it

substantial weight and take away weight from the harm I'm saying the same thing

right I think that's a slightly different point can I just I mean this

is policy interpretation so I will just deal with it in submissions but so that

I can understand your position.

Yes or no please.

Are you saying that E2 should be applied as a policy

that requires the retention

of existing employment floor space?

Sorry, can you just repeat that?

Yeah.

Are you saying yes or no,

that policy E21 should be applied as a policy that requires the retention of

existing employment floor space? I'm not saying that it needs to, I'm not saying

that it needs to say that you need to retain the existing floor space but you

need to, it would fall under an assessment of, the assessment of existing

and proposed and what's proposed would fall under that paragraph though. So I think an

assessment of how much floor space is being proposed and an assessment of how much floor

space is existing would fall under that. I was saying that that policy is saying you

should retain all the floor space but I think an assessment would fall under that.

Thank you. So where we are in terms of balancing provision of

housing against theoretical loss of employment floor space is we've got

substantial weight to provision of housing and then we don't have an equivalent policy that says

substantial weight to the loss of existing floor space that's where the MPPF ends up isn't it?

In terms of the policy wording it says yes substantial should be given to the provision of

well in terms of kind of in terms of yeah it says what it says but I think you need to also factor

in the quality of the floor space, is it adequate and is it meeting the needs of the site and

the area. You need to factor that in otherwise it doesn't really make sense in terms of providing

employment floor space. Okay let me try and break the question down. There's not a policy

in the MPPF that says substantial weight must be given to the loss of existing employment

floor space is there? No it doesn't say that. Whereas there is a policy that says substantial

weight should be given to the provision of housing, yeah? Yeah. So the perspective of

the MPPF is that the provision of housing is a more weighty consideration than the loss

Sorry, can you just repeat that again? That's quite detailed. I need to note that down.

So where we've got to is there's no policy in the MPPF that says you must give substantial

weight to loss of employment floor space. But there is a policy that says you should

give substantial weight to housing provision. So the MPPF's perspective is

that it identifies provision of housing as a more weighty consideration than

loss of employment floor space. Yeah that's quite convoluted in a way, it's hard

for me to agree that because they're talking about different things in a

different way so that's, yeah I can't say that off the top of my head. Well you say they're

talking about different things in a different way. My point is they're talking about housing

and saying that's important and they're not talking about loss of employment floor space

and saying that's important are they? Yeah they are saying that employment floor space

is important though in that policy so I think it's logical to conduct an assessment of the

quality of the employment floor space to make sure that it meets the aims of that policy

and especially looking at the industrial strategy and the importance of creative industries.

Thank you then can we go to your proof please at 8 .207.

Yes.

And this is where you make your points about housing mix, I think.

And there is not, is there, I may have missed it, but is there policy or guidance that sets

out specific housing mix requirements?

Yeah there is a policy in LLDC Local Plan which gives some

guidance on that subject.

I think it's H1 providing for and diversifying the housing mix.

The aspect you flagged at 8207 is paragraph 511 and the requirement to

show how the provision of family housing have been maximised, correct? That's what

it says, yeah. Can you turn up Mr. Cheamer's rebuttal please and go to 2 .69?

Sorry, is it his rebuttal?

Page 13.

What CD is that? Sorry. I'm looking at it doesn't have the name. 2 .4A. Okay.

Thanks. Got the rebuttal open.

Yeah, and you'll see Mr. Cheam has set out the entirety, I think, of paragraph 511 there, hasn't he?

Where is that? Sorry?

Sorry, yes. Paragraph 270 of the rebuttal.

Yes.

And he has highlighted the third line is supporting text that says all proposals should contain

more two bedroom plus units than one bedroom units. And he's explained how that's been

met at 2 .71, yes? Yeah.

And then he's gone on at 2 .72 to address your point around showing how the provision of

family housing has been maximised and he's set out the glossary definition at

2 .72 which you don't dispute I assume.

Sorry, yes he sets that out and I agree with that glossary definition of family

housing in terms of it generally being three, four, five or more bedrooms?

Yeah, but his point is that it says generally three, four, five or more. And

then as he's explained, there is precedent, this is 274 of his rebuttal

and 275. There's precedent from LLDC committee reports, where they have taken

a more generous approach to what a family dwelling could be. Yeah. I know that. Because

your analysis, I think has proceeded on the basis that two bed four person units aren't

suitable for families hasn't it?

Yeah I'm going by the general LLDC glossary definition of three, four, five

or more bedrooms in terms of family housing because generally that is how we

assess family housing. There can be if there's two bedroom, four

person units which are larger than the standard for example if they've been

clearly shown to be suitable for families they might have more external

amenity space for example they might have a larger dwelling then I could see

how they would be suitable for family housing I'm not sure that any in this

development fall under that category

I mean, the LLDC's approach, as Mr. Cheema's evidenced it, is actually more generous even

than he has been, though, because the examples that Mr. Cheema sets out at 274 through 278

is the LLDC counting all two -bedroom units as family units, whereas as he explains at

he's just taking the view that it's the two -bed four -person ones and he's not trying to count

the two -bed three -person ones because he says they would only fit one child in. His approach

is a fair one, isn't it, that reflects the fact that the glossary just says generally

it will be three, four, five or more. He's essentially sort of split the difference between

your position, which is it should be three -bedroom, and what we can see from the MLDC examples,

which is actually it should be all two bedroom units and he's gone for a middle option of saying

well it can be the larger two bedroom units. That accords with the wording of the glossary doesn't it?

I think taking into account you know you've found some examples where they have been more generous

I don't think that's every that's I don't think that's where the every planning application in the LDC is assessed

You know, I don't have before me the full details of those two bedroom dwellings, you know, whether they

Have extra benefits in different ways where they're located what kind of dwellings they are

Yeah, so I can't really conclude on why they assess those ones as being fine for families

I don't know if it says references Chobham Farm, I don't know if that's one of the Olympic

Village applications. So yeah, I don't think that those applications have been provided

in the core documents. So I can't really say much more about how they were assessed in

that way. Because generally, we assess them as three bedrooms and more as the definition

says.

Yeah, but there is evidence, clear evidence, that actually the LLDC hasn't consistently

taken your approach and has actually repeatedly at least three times, and you can see Mr Chima's

explained, basically he thought three examples were enough to demonstrate his point, at least

three times the LLDC has taken an approach that's even more generous than the one Mr Chima contends

for. So his approach is reasonable isn't it being positioned between your

approach and the LLDC's approached evidence here? I could see like that it's

reasonable to find examples where that has been taken into account or it's been

assessed in that way but I can't really say much to how they were assessed or

what kind of dwellings they were, why they were assessed as being acceptable as family,

when generally they're not.

Okay, 2 .8, Mr Tima also points out that a greater proportion of larger units would almost

certainly reduce the total number of units proposed and then compromise the financial

viability of the proposal. You haven't disputed what he says there in your evidence so far?

he's right isn't he in terms of more family units negatively impacting on

viability you're saying yeah well I haven't seen that demonstrated but you

know you would you could anecdotally say that that could be the case I mean in

terms of affordable workspace there's been some more found in that regard as

well so I don't know in terms of the ins and outs of viability but yeah I don't

see why there couldn't be a different mix if it was redesigned. But again I

mean what specifically is the detailed criterion that you say the mixed isn't

hitting here because in your proof you've just referred to the fairly vague

to show how the provision of family housing has been maximised.

So what more specifically do you say that the housing mix here is offending because it's not in your proof?

Yeah I feel like so in the market cell tenure there's 69 units and only five of them are

three beds so I don't think it's been demonstrated that that is a high

proportion or that is that's been maximised I don't think that I don't see

that's been demonstrated and I think that there is a there is a strong

consideration and priority for family homes as evidenced as noted in the local

plan and also the Olympic legacy SPD and also I think it was highlighted in the

last pre -act response as well. Yeah I mean my point really was that there's not so

for example just looking again at 270 where Mr. Ching has set out power f511

there's a clear requirement and all proposals should contain more two bed

plus units than one bed units right whereas for family housing there's a much vaguer instruction

to show how the provision of family housing has been maximised so it's not a sort of hard edged

requirement like there is in relation to two bed plus versus one bed is there

yeah i would accept that it's not exactly clear um but in our office in our planning in our

assessment on my assessment and in the delegated report as well I think it

mentioned it that we don't agree that it's been demonstrated that the

provision of family housing has been maximised. You agree though that

maximisation is dependent on viability so you know you can only maximise to a

certain point before you then start losing other aspects of the scheme that

might be desirable?

That hasn't been demonstrated, I don't think, in terms of any kind of redesign of the scheme

as it stands.

Are you actually saying that we should have redesigned the scheme to deal with this point?

There isn't a reason for refusal on housing mix, is there Mr Weir?

No, I think we're just saying it's a consideration in terms of assessing the housing provided.

I think that was also mentioned early on in the council's case in the delegated report,

those issues were pointed out in terms of the main consideration or the main issue,

which was from the original reason for refusal was affordable housing. But once that was

agreed between parties. We found the housing acceptable on balance. However, there were

issues where it didn't tick all the boxes, which in our assessment led to reduced weight

in different areas.

Yeah, but it's not a sufficiently serious issue as to have resulted in a reason for

refusal, is it?

Yeah, yeah, we didn't say that.

Thank you. Then there was a reference in the council's opening to the fact that the affordable

housing proposal is only and then 4 % which was underlined. It's common ground though

that the three units of affordable housing are what can viable be delivered. Yeah. And

it follows from that common ground that the free units are a policy compliant

provision of affordable housing because the policy is subject to viability yes

they might not meet the policy requirements in terms of targets but in

terms of liability it would meet the policy it's not the council's case that

there's a conflict with affordable housing policy is it in terms of the

provision of affordable housing that's not you know that's not our case with

any kind of anything wrong with that being provided.

And in Mr. Cheema's proof now, can you turn to 11 .15 please?

So I know, let me know when you're there, page 69.

Yes.

I've understood there's still a difference of opinion between you about whether it should

substantial weight or significant weight but you haven't suggested that Mr.

Cheema's incorrect to identify the local plan policies and the London plan

policies that he's set out in the bullet points there? I haven't set out that it's

Correct, you're right.

And over the page at 11 .17, please.

Yeah.

Now I know similarly there's a dispute between you and Mr Cheema about whether the scheme would improve the functionality and the employment density of the existing site.

but if hypothetically the inspector agrees with Mr. Cheema's case on this

and you haven't suggested that any of the local plan or London plan policies

he's set out there have been wrongly identified, correct?

So you're asking me if the policies that Mr. Cheema has identified in regard to

creative industries workspace are wrong or not?

What so?

Incorrect, is that what you're asking?

No, there's obviously a dispute between Mr Cheema and you

because he says the provision would improve the functionality and employment density of the existing site.

I mean, is there a dispute? I had understood there was.

Yes.

So, I appreciate that you don't agree with what he says in that sentence

but if the inspector concludes positively that the provision would improve the functionality

and the employment density of the existing site, then that's a benefit that accords with

the policies Mr Cheam has set out there, isn't it?

I would say so. I don't know if that's non -exhaustive because I have a list of policies that I've

going by in my proof, which could be possibly more than that.

You don't in your proof of evidence, and I don't think you came back on it in evidence

in chief. You'll see Mr Chima at 11 .18 refers to the delivery of public realm improvements

and improved landscaping. Is your position on that that that's something that gets zero

weight as a benefit of the scheme?

I think in terms of public realm and landscaping that was covered under design evidence. So

kind of followed from Mr. Chung's evidence in terms of overall there being

a overall balance coming out to harm in terms of design and yeah in that regard.

Right so you take the approach that it's neutral as a consideration then? I think

Ms Chung has identified there will be harm from a design perspective. Yes but I

mean I think her evidence I'll cheque but I'm pretty sure her evidence was that

she acknowledged some benefits didn't she? So you can't just put the harmful

side in and ignore the benefits and your proof does ignore the benefits doesn't

it? So what should we be correcting in that analysis please? I think I've taken

it as from Miss Chung has done an exercise in terms of benefits and harms from design

perspective. And I've taken it from overall balancing result. I've taken that on so her

balancing exercise takes into consideration harms and benefits and then I take her conclusion.

Right, okay, that's helpful to understand, thank you.

1119 design quality. Now again, obviously there's a difference of opinion between the

council and the appellant on design quality, but if the inspector agrees with the council's

case on the quality of the design, then Mr Chima is correct to identify the policies

he set out at 11 .19 as being accorded with isn't he?

Yeah I think when you have the GGs they're objectives not policies

but for the rest of them I mean there's more there are more

policies than that I think well no I guess

because there's policies in 11 .18 and there's policies in 11 .19 I guess both

them by design in some ways so they're kind of some of them flowing to each other so I think

I think D8 is public realm.

Yeah so design so 1119 is designed from a townscape perspective and heritage.

Yeah I'm gonna have to cheque through all the policies I mean I'll have to cheque through my

ones as well to say that they are all correct and the right ones but on the

face of it they are design policies that have been outlined.

If again hypothetically I know you don't agree but if the inspector concludes

that the scheme complies with the development plan policies on design.

That is something that should be given substantial weight, isn't it?

If it assists, I'm referring to DP33 in the NPPF in the final sentence there.

Yeah.

I was going to ask you a question for that.

A substantial way should be given to compliance

with relevant plan policies when assessing

design quality of proposals.

Yeah.

And similarly, sticking with the new MPPF, but going to the heritage policies, which are, well,

86, which I'm interested in, so page 95. You'll recall that Dr. Mealy and his evidence identifies

heritage benefits to the conservation area which is a designated heritage

asset and that is something and I again I understand the council's not in

agreement with the apparent on heritage but if the inspector finds there would

be heritage benefits to the conservation area those should be given substantial

weight, shouldn't they?

Just read, yeah, development proposals which would have a positive impact on a designated

heritage asset should be supported. Yeah, it's actually the previous paragraph,

8E61, which says substantial weight should be given to the assets

conservation and this is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to

a positive effect, harm, substantial harm or total loss. So substantial weight

including to positive effects yeah?

Yeah in terms of designated heritage assets substantial weight should be given to

the assets conservation. Yeah but that doesn't just mean you give substantial

weight to harm it also means you give substantial weight to benefits doesn't

it? In the overall planning balance yes. And then as you noted there's also HE62

two and what that says about supporting development proposals that have a positive effect on designated

heritage assets and then in relation to the gatehouse we would be looking on the appearance

case at HE71 as well wouldn't we? In terms of the gatehouse yes. I don't think in your

proof of evidence, if there's any acknowledgement of the benefit to the gatehouse, is that,

is the explanation for that again that you've relied on Miss Chung's evidence and done some

sort of internal balance and come out as a net negative for the gatehouse?

Yeah, for Designing Heritage, yeah, my section was quite short on that and it basically was

summarising Ms Chung's position and her proof.

So, yeah, I left that to her

and just provided a summary in my proof

and allowed her, let her do the,

you know, she conducted her own balancing exercise.

And then I took the conclusions of that.

Then in the MPPF, can we go to policy CC22, please?

which is page 29. Yes. Mr. Cheamer is correct, isn't he, to identify that substantial weight

should now be given to the carbon credentials of the scheme having regard to what we see

here? Yeah. That's something that's not in your proof of

evidence or and wasn't covered in your evidence in chief, I

don't think.

I think I did cover that said,

providing a denser quantum of development and an occupied

brownfield site to contemporary sustainability standards provide

substantial weight. Right but it's two points isn't it because and I'm sorry

you're right I didn't notice the reference to sustainability standards

but the MPPF has two separate points so there was the one about making better

use of underutilised land which we've already looked at and then there's this

separate point in cc22 that's dealing with carbon so it's not just one

substantial weighting it's two discrete ones isn't it? Yeah.

What's your approach if you go to 1120 of Mr Cheema's proof please?

He's given moderate weight to the standard of residential accommodation, the inclusive

and secure design. That's fair, isn't it?

I think that would just fall under the provision of housing in terms of housing provided. So

in my assessment of the housing weight I've looked at aspects such as that in

terms of design I think communal main view space I think that I put that under

the design weighting. Right and then at 8 to 11 in your proof

You've given moderate weight to employment provision, is that what you're dealing with

here? Not employment provision, sorry, job creation. Yes, D and E, so job creation and

local spend. Yes.

Thank you. Next, could you find the London plan and go to policy D9?

Yes. Which aspects of this policy do you say there's a conflict with please?

I think Ms Chung has undertaken the design and heritage analysis. So I wasn't doing a

full planning policy analysis. I think I left that to Ms Chung as she was undertaking that

expertise.

Right, so in order to understand the nature of the alleged conflict with D9, I dare act

to myself to Ms Chung's evidence then, yeah?

In terms of significant additional public benefit as that was more of a

kind of nuanced planning policy point so I took on that from an overall planning

perspective. That's not in D9 is it, that requirement? No I'm just because it's

about tall buildings I'm just explaining how we've apportioned it in terms of

dealing with tall buildings so Ms Chung dealt with tall buildings from a planning

policy perspective but I only dealt with additional significant public benefit on

on a broader basis. Thank you, that makes sense. But it follows doesn't it that if the inspector

concludes that the scheme is acceptable and design

townscape and heritage terms then there's not a conflict with D9.

I think that was all covered in Ms Chung's evidence.

In terms of additional significant public benefit, which is what I was focusing on from

a terrific perspective.

My question is about D9.

We're coming on to BN5 next, but I want to deal with D9 first.

Oh, yeah, I was just going on to say additional significant public benefit may fall under this policy in some way.

But in terms of how it was covered, I think that should be directed to Ms Jun.

Where in this policy do I find any requirement of significant additional public benefit, please?

It's not specifically referenced in that way in the policy.

So I'm going by policy BN5 of the LLDC local plan when I talk about that.

Yeah. Can I put it this way? If the Inspector concludes that the scheme is acceptable in

Design, Townscape and Heritage terms, you are not suggesting there's any breach of D9?

I think I'm right in saying that Ms Chung may have alleged breach of D9. If the Inspector

makes a decision that the scheme is acceptable, then the Inspector could say that it complies

with policy D9. From the Council's perspective, I believe that Ms Chung said that it doesn't.

Oh no, I appreciate Ms Chung thinks that design,

townscape and heritage are not satisfactory

and she's identified D9.

My question was a hypothetical one again.

If the inspector basically doesn't agree with her

and agrees with the council,

you're not identifying any separate reason,

you know, additional to the design,

townscape and heritage points

that would lead to a conflict with D9, are you?

You're basically standing square behind Ms Chung

and her evidence yeah? Yeah if the inspector decides that the application

is acceptable then that would mean that it would comply with policy D9.

Turning to BN5 then and this point about additional public benefits it's

right isn't it that the level of additionality must depend on the extent of the high -tech sedence

because you can't expect an eight -storey scheme to bring forward the same quantum of benefits

as a 30 -storey scheme can you? I think in planning we have to judge things proportionally.

There is a planning judgement to be made in terms of proportionality.

Yeah, but that's, that's really my point. Let me just.

And that when we look at the policy, it says more than a minor exceedance of the prevailing

or generally expected height will need to demonstrate in addition to meeting the criteria

and the other policies, the proposal would achieve significant additional public benefit.

And my point is that taking a proportionate approach to that, if you've got an exceedance

that's more than minor, but you know, it's a storey or two or three, less will be needed

by way of justification than it will be if you have an exceedance that is 10, 20, even

30 storeys. That's a proportionate approach, isn't it?

Yeah, I feel like in terms of the minor exceedance point, I feel that was covered by Miss Chung's

evidence but furthermore I would say I guess there is a there was a debate

about the the lower block in terms of whether that's a minor exceedance or not

I don't think there was debate about the the taller block the tallest block about

whether that's a minor exceedance yeah no so I'm not going I'm not seeking to

go back over the sort of detail of the analysis because we dealt with that last

week but Miss Chung I think very clearly several times passed over to you the

conclusion on significant additional public benefits so I am going to ask you

about that and I don't think you're disagreeing with me in that I think you

accept that what would be needed to justify an exceedance of for example

three storeys is less than what you would need to justify a shocking great

big tower of 30 storeys that's right isn't it that's logical and and just in

terms of the relationship between this policy and the London plan the LLDC

local plan is July 2020 yes which predates the extant London plan yeah

Yeah. And we've seen that this additionality requirement doesn't feature in the London

plan's tall building policy? Yes, locally specific.

The London plan is more recent and more up to date, isn't it?

It's more recent, but I would say that this policy is locally specific and in terms of

local plan policies you do have you have them for a reason because they are

locally specific well I don't think that's the answer though is it because

if we look at dn9 if you can just go back to that for me please

Sorry, do you say BN9?

DNDN in the London Plan.

Oh, D9.

Sorry, yeah.

I'm not even hearing my own voice.

Policy D9 in the London Plan, please.

I mean, looking at D9B, that's given quite clear instructions to the boroughs as to what

there to do in terms of tall building policy and it hasn't said you know

please introduce this requirement of additional public benefits has it

doesn't specifically outline that part of the LLDC local plan but I think it

gives it gives it's quite general because it's on a London wide

perspective so I think it gives some allowance for local plans to have

slightly more locally specific requirements based on local context in

terms of yeah part A of the D9 for example. So other plans should define

was considered tool building and yeah based on local context. Right so you don't see there's

any conflict between D9 and BN5 then?

I don't know I don't I mean yeah this in terms of the additional significant public benefit

point you mean yeah

No I think it generally falls under the parameters of the policy. There are

locally specific requirements in the LLDC local plan tour buildings policy

but I would say it falls under this umbrella which is more general. Yeah if

there were the conflict between the two policies so between D9 and BN5 it would

need to be resolved in favour of D9 because that's the more recent policy

correct? I don't think that's how we assess things. If one policy is older

than another one doesn't mean that you lose the power of the old policy. You

still have to assess them in the round and taking both into consideration and

working at imbalance. So you're not aware that section 38 5 of the 2004 Act says

in terms that where there's a conflict between policies and a development plan

it has to be resolved in favour of the policy contained in the last document to

become part of the development plan.

Yeah that's fine but I'm still saying that these two policies I don't see that

there's a direct conflict and I think they both need to be taken into account

when you're assessing tall buildings so that's why we've made an assessment

against BN5.

Thank you. Now turning to the council statement of case that quite expressly

acknowledged that numerous development plan policies were being raised that

didn't feature in the decision notice, correct? Is this in the council statement

of case you're yeah and then I think your proof will come on to them in more

detail later but your proof actually then goes on to identify a few more that

weren't in the statements of case either doesn't it

you can I guess you'll point these out to me later. I will. You're aware though I

Yes I would have read it. I can't remember every bit of legislation off the top of my head.

That's fine. That's a requirement that a decision notice refusing planning

permission has to state the full reasons for refusal and has to specify all of

the policies and proposals in the development plan that are relevant to

the decision. You're not going to suggest to me that the case officer who

wrote the report and then drafted the decision notice wouldn't have complied

with that are you? I think at the time when the assessment was done the case

officer would have made the best assessment that they could have and they

made an assessment in accordance with development plan and what they saw in

the site and what was provided in the submissions which was not fully clear

as well because for example you have lots of floor area which wasn't

Included you had in two more years. The second floor wasn't included in the assessment

There was significantly less floor space

shown and the Victoria Wharf studios studio cultural venue was excluded as well, so I feel like

yeah, the application has evolved over time and

Yeah, the assessment done at the time was the assessment done and as a charted town planner when I took over the case

I also made my own assessment which I'm giving evidence on now.

Yeah that's all very well. My question was

you're not going to suggest that the case officer

would have failed to comply with article 35 are you?

I assume the council's officers comply with relevant legislation yourself

included. Yeah I think in terms of decision

notice

What we have pointed out in the case as it stands generally flows from and expands upon the reasons for refusal of decision notice.

Can you try and answer the question please?

and you're not going to invite the inspector to make an assumption that the case officer

wasn't unaware of Article 35 or otherwise didn't care about it. The inspector can assume

that the case officer knew about Article 35 and sought to comply with it, can't he?

Yes, you can assume that.

And so I completely understand from reading the statement of case and your proof that

you have taken a different view of the conflict with development plan policies, but there's

no evidence that the case officer shared your position on these additional development plan

policies, is there?

I feel like the assessment that was done for the planning permission didn't include all

of the development plan policies possibly, but the reasons remain the same, or just expanded

upon.

And so they're not totally different reasons that brought up this kind of expansion of

the reasons, an elaboration of the reasons that were outlined and the

reasons for refusal and the reasons that were provided. There are clear policy

conflicts with various policies which weren't on the decision notice but this

is very similar reasons or the same reasons just expanded or elaborated upon.

Yeah but that's my point is that when you say there were very clear policy

conflicts that didn't make it into the decision notice. My point is that if the

case officer had thought there were very clear policy conflicts then she would

have listed them in the decision notice wouldn't she? So I know that I know you

say they're very clear but the case officer didn't think they were very

clear otherwise they would be in the decision notice wouldn't they? I don't

know the reasons why they were not included all I can say is in terms of

the judgement that I've made which flows from that decision notice in terms of

providing further elaboration and comprehensive assessment in terms of the

policies which flow from those reasons for refusal.

Sarah, I'm just going to keep going obviously, subject to your consent, but I'm just cautious, I think we've been going for a while, so I just wanted to cheque what your views were on, and also the witnesses' views on whether there's a need for a break or anything.

Well, if it's a convenient time in your questions.

Yes.

And then we'll take a ten minute break at this point.

We'll adjourn until twenty past four.

A time -through zoom. I'm guessing you won't finish by five.

So if as we approach five you just you identify a convenient place in your questioning just to stop

Okay, if you can

Continue now

Thank you, sir. And that's noted and could we

Pick up your proof, please. Mr. Weir at page 21 paragraph 8 .3

Yeah, and so here is an example of some

more policies coming in at the proof stage where you say at the end policies that were not included in the statement of case

But the appeal schemes also contrary to is e48 and NSP one of local plan. Yeah

Yeah, and why would those not?

Identified when you went through the exercise of adding in the policies that weren't in the decision notice into the statement of case

Well, I felt like they are covered by other policies but for the fullness of the case

I think it's best to include them all and there are a lot of policies which yeah some

of them are quite similarly worded as well.

Yeah we'll come on to explore that then can we I don't want to look at all of them because

as you say there's lots of relevant things here. But London Plan Policy E2 please.

This internal page. Yeah I've got it. Yeah.

And then E2C is talking about development proposals that involve the loss of existing

B use class business space? Yep. If the existing floor space on site is sui generis, then strictly

speaking this policy doesn't actually apply because a sui generis use is not a B class

use is it in planning terms?

I think you would say that sui generis uses can be classes employment uses if

there are employment uses and I think the way that we have assessed it is

looking at the workspace elements of the live -work units and assessing them as

as work which is in your case of the live work being lawful.

Yeah but the policy isn't referring to employment uses it's specifically referring to B class uses

and sui generis uses are not B class uses are they for planning purposes.

Yeah, in terms of the policy wording in that part of the policy, it refers to the policy

to B -use class business uses specifically. So I guess in terms of your case of live -work

being lawful, I think we would, it depends on how you assess the work -live -work floor

space. I guess we've taken, we generally is assessed as sui generis you would say, even

though, there's elements of B use floor space in there, in

terms of it being a mixed use. So there's a way you could say

it's a mixed use, or you could say it's sui generis.

Yeah, and as I said at the outset, if it's sui generis,

then strictly speaking, I mean, Mr. Cheam has been somewhat

generous and assess the proposals against the policy

anyway but strictly speaking if the existing use is sui generis then this

policy actually isn't talking to sui generis uses is it?

No, it does reference business space of different types, uses and sizes in the supporting text.

made the actual policy wording it refers more specifically to B -use class space.

So although it does mention other types of business space which could fall under

live -work, yeah in terms of specific policy work you've outlined it says B -use class.

And the point is because there's reference I think to B -class use also

in some of the LLDC policies but the point I'm making is a general one is

that where we have development plan policies that are referring to B -class

uses then strictly speaking they're not applicable to sui generis uses on the site correct?

Strictly speaking in that policy wording where it talks of B use classes you'd have to

make an assessment of the B use class floor space on the site so I think you would yeah on a strict

policy wording it doesn't really take into account live work because live work is more of a kind of

I guess in terms of the traditional live -work rather than the informal live -work in Hackney,

Wickingfish Island which might not be covered under this policy specifically but I would say

that the kind of premise of live -work is that it does contain a good proportion of workspace

and you would think that that is covered under policy protection for employment space.

Thank you. And then, yeah. This part C is talking about loss of B use class business

space in areas identified in a local development plan document where there's a shortage of

lower cost space or workspace of particular types, uses or sizes. You don't in your evidence

a ledger shortage do you?

I wouldn't allege this specifically the wording of a shortage but I would say

that in LLDC policy B .4 it refers to locations where a clear demand exists

such as within a potential creative enterprise zone. So I think there were

various instances in the London plan and also I just mentioned the LDC local plan

which referred to providing affordable workspace being appropriate in the CEZ.

Yeah, but ultimately the inspectors conclusion is on compliance with the development plan

as a whole.

So it's important, isn't it, to properly identify specifically which policies there's conflict

with and even which parts of which policies there's conflicts with.

So you might, I'm sure you will, you know, you may well make the point that there's a

conflict with another policy or a different part of the policy, but that doesn't mean

we just skip over properly identifying performance against this policy does it?

Yeah I think as we were saying these London Plan policies can be quite

similar and overlapping in some ways so in that point in terms of there being a

shortage that's not clearly I don't believe that's clearly outlined however

I see there's other instances where it directs affordable workspace to be in a

you said. Yeah I mean my point is there's actually no conflict with policy e2c

because we're not talking about an area identified in a local development plan document

where there's a shortage. That's right isn't it? I think it refers to a demand.

Hang on let me just get the correct wording.

References, so yeah, again, just referencing paragraph 4 .35, the LLDC local plan part,

I think that's policy under policy B dot four on affordable low cost workspace references

a clear demand existing. So a clear demand could be similar to a shortage, but not in

the same wording. Yeah, I would say in that wording, it's not a shortage, but it's a similar

kind of proposition. Yeah I shall come on to B .4. I'll put the question

again and please could you provide a yes or a no to begin with. It's correct that

there's no conflict with policy E2C because the site is not in an area

identified in a local development plan document where there's a shortage. Well

I would say that there is a loss of B use class space anyway because you're

talking about your case of live work but in my case that's not the case I've

already made it clear that lawful use of the building is b2 slash b8 slash eg

which would fall under this policy so I'm saying as a company for this policy

that's not an answer though is it because the introductory text to see

very clearly states that it's addressing situations in which there's an area

identified in a local development plan document where there's a shortage of a

particular type of space or workspace that's the gateway into this part C

being applicable isn't it

are you talking about the policy as a whole just part C just part C unless we

have an identified shortage in a local development plan document, then part C isn't engaged and

isn't conflicted with. That's right, isn't it?

Let me just have a quick cheque.

Well in terms of your point if there is not, sorry, if it's not an

area identified as there being a shortage then it wouldn't, yeah, then it

wouldn't follow on of needing to comply with that policy if there was not a

shortage identified. Yeah and that isn't a shortage identified so there isn't a

conflict with part C here, is there?

Tell me the specific wording of a shortage. Yeah, that hasn't been outlined in. I don't

see that that's been outlined. If I've missed that, I'm not sure I haven't. I can't recall

that it's been outlined that there's a shortage of low cost space off the top of my head.

Yeah. Then policy E3, which is the next one, please. So this A is saying in the circumstances

set out in B and C, planning obligations may be used to secure affordable workspace. And

And then B is saying consideration should be given to the need for affordable workspace

in various situations.

So there's not actually a requirement to provide affordable workspace, but in any event, if

affordable workspace is provided on site, then issues around compliance with this policy

will fall away won't they?

Firstly just in your last point in terms of affordable workspace being provided

on the site, making this fall up making anything else fall away in terms of this

policy I would say that you also have to look at the quantum of affordable

workspace provided compared to what's there on the site at the moment so then

in my case is that there's a significant loss of creative affordable workspace on

the site so if there is a requirement for affordable workspace on the site then

I'll say that there is a loss which is which would mean that it would be

insufficient okay well we'll look at the quantum point again later e4 was one of

your later editions I think. E4b3 essentially just refers us on to e7c doesn't it? So this

e4, I didn't read this as adding anything in particular to e7 would you agree? Adding

have a moment.

So yeah, my reading of this policy is it kind of in part a looks at providing, making sure

that sufficient industrial capacity is provided such as part one, you know, light industrial.

And that's kind of making sure that it's provided.

B is looking at the areas, different types of industrial sites, and then C flows on in

in terms of industrial capacity being retained, enhanced.

Yeah, but which, I mean, you say the scheme's contrary to E4,

which parts of E4 do you say there's a conflict with then?

Let me just get all of them, let me have a little look.

This is outlined in my proof, but let me just say it for the purposes of this.

So, part A in terms of making sure there's provision for varied operational requirements

of light and general industry, part one.

Two, storage and logistics in terms of B8 use class space.

And eight, in terms of flexible B1, B2, B8 space.

9 in terms of low -cost industrial space. So those parts of the policy are seeking to kind

of ensure that a good suitably designed type of those spaces is provided in terms of them

being operationally sufficient. And also I'd say that I believe the site falls on a non -designated

industrial site in terms of B3 so whatever flows on from that in terms of

E7 and C talks about the retention enhancement and provision of additional

industrial capacity across the three categories of industrial land

Yeah, but I mean looking at A, this is talking about maintaining a sufficient supply of land

and premises in different parts of London and it expressly refers to E7 on industrial

intensification, colocation, substitution. So this is not a policy that says in terms,

you know, all existing B1 floor space must be retained, for example, is it?

I think firstly its aim is to ensure sufficient supply of land for these types of uses outlined

as they're numbered. And yeah part C talks about, mentions retention on

sites mentioned in part B, so non -designated industrial sites, so I

guess it references retention of the capacity in that regard. Yeah but then it

goes on to say any release of industrial land in order to achieve wider planning objectives

should be facilitated through the processes of industrial intensification, colocation,

substitution set out again in policy E7. So my reading of this policy is that really it's

directing us on to E7 and it's not in contrast to the LLDC policies which are more detailed

around capacity, this is at a more general level and then the specificity comes through

policy seven, yeah?

Yeah I have a similar reading, similar understanding, I guess it's kind of more of a gateway in

a way where it has a headline direct to retention enhancement and provision of additional industrial

capacity as a headline for the sites outlined for the types of uses outlined

and then direct you on to another policy in terms of implementing that.

Right thank you and then

Policy E7

Yes.

Which aspect of this are you saying that the scheme doesn't comply with, please?

Do you have tornado

scenes of food at noon and

once again sitting at all

our

Because you're not complaining about any of the points.

in a one to four are you yeah I was just trying to look at my plan to see I mean

my proof to see where it's referenced there let me turn to the policy again so

e7 okay

So in terms of part C of E7 references mixed use or residential developments on non -designated

industrial sites generally supported where?

In terms of part 3 industrial storage or distribution floor space is provided as part of mixed use

intensification.

So I think intensification means increased jobs density.

Well I mean it could equally well mean, I mean it refers to mixed use intensification

and the scheme is a mixed use intensification of the site isn't it?

Yes?

Yeah it is a mixed use intensification and not in terms of the employment aspect of it we would argue.

Also references back to, I guess these are all kind of interlinking so they're a bit

confusing, but it references back to E4 in terms of retention enhancement and provision

of the industrial capacity. Yeah but we're not, I mean it says mixed use or residential

development proposals on non -designated industrial sites should only be supported where and then

it's either one or two or three and three allows for the provision of

industrial floor space as part of mixed use intensification which this scheme

would be and then it goes on to say co -locating industrial storage or

distribution with residential and or other uses should meet the criteria

set out in part D below and I don't think you're taking a point on any of

those issues in D, aren't you?

I think in terms of D, let me just make sure I'm in the right policy.

E7, part D.

Yes, so flat D flows on from from C and

Think we've queried the

Proposed employment floor space in terms of it being inadequate for a number of reasons

So in terms of D1, non -designated industrial site, in terms of efficient function, access

service arrangements for example, and just design.

Right, so you're now suggesting that the employment floor space wouldn't function efficiently.

That's your evidence is it now?

I think what we've said is it'd be inadequately designed and that's been maintained throughout

the appeal process in terms of it would be inadequately designed for its purpose. That's

what our case has been in the proof. In terms of the efficient function and in terms of

service arrangements in particular and operational requirements. We've mentioned that already

in the case. Yeah, but you're now going so far as to say that the position would be

so bad as to amount to a compromise that fails to satisfy this policy

requirement, even though there's not a reason for refusal on servicing. From a

highway's perspective there's not a reason for refusal on servicing, but

we've outlined conflicts in regard to the employment function. But there's

not a reason for refusal in terms of inadequate residential amenity for the residents of the

scheme. Is there nothing at all on that?

I don't think I was talking about residential amenity in this part.

But that is what this is looking at because it says at the end of C, co -location with

residential or other uses should meet the criteria set out in part D. So D is

looking at governing the co -location and the relationship between the residential

use and the other uses in the scheme isn't it?

I would say in terms of D1 I'll just repeat that you know we do have a case

on inadequate re -provision of employment floor space in terms of operation of requirements as well.

All right, policy E8.

The short point on E8 is there's not any actual conflict with this policy is there?

Yeah, I think we said that there would be a conflict of this policy for a few reasons, I guess.

So in terms of part C, it looks at the evolution of London's diverse sector should be supported,

ensuring the availability of suitable workspaces.

So I think by saying that the workspaces proposed are inadequate, we're saying they're not suitable.

That's one point.

It also references the football workspace.

It also talks about in part A employment opportunities for, hang on sorry.

Yeah no it's part C, I think we'll say part C.

I think part F talks about clusters such as the creative enterprise zone being promoted

and new clusters being supported.

And I think, yeah, we're focusing on C in terms of this, that part of the policy.

Although, yeah, in terms of creative enterprise zones, if there's a significant impact on

Creative Enterprise Zone, then that probably wouldn't be in line with the Part F.

Well let's be fair, Part F begins by talking about Tech City and Med City and

clusters like that which we're not concerned with, correct? In terms of

Creative Enterprise Zones, those being supported and if there's a significant

impact as we've kind of... Mr. Wiig, can you just, I do want you to answer my question first

because we are going to be here for a very long time

and I need to pick up some speed

and I need your help to do that.

My question was, we're not concerned with clusters

like Tech City or Med City, are we?

Creative Enterprise Zones.

But in relation to Creative Enterprise Zones,

this is talking about the development of new clusters

being supported, such as Creative Enterprise Zones.

So that's got nothing to do with us here

because we're already in an existing

Creative Enterprise Zone, aren't we?

I guess in terms of Creative Enterprise Zones

being supported, you might say that if there's a such an adverse effect as the GLA alleged,

which would compromise the entire creative enterprise zone, then it could be relevant.

It's not talking about compromising existing creative enterprise zones, is it? It's talking

about supporting the development of new clusters. This part of the policy just isn't relevant,

is it, realistically?

Well, no, I guess it is more about new clusters and supporting their development in terms

of creative enterprise zones. I guess in terms of this policy, I would say it focuses more

on C. Okay, well, we'll come back to the suitability

of the workspace tomorrow. The local plan, the LLDC plan please next. Policy SP .1 please.

Internal page 30 or PDF page 32. This realistically is a policy that just explains what the legacy

corporations going to do. So it's not a policy that a particular application or scheme can

conflict with because it's literally a statement of what the corporation will

do yeah yes so says the legacy corporation will work with partners to

develop a strong local economy I guess if an application would go against some

of these objectives then it's up to the legacy corporation to yeah make an

assessment in terms of if it complies with building a strong and diverse

economy. If it goes against strengthening the local economic profile of the area

then there could be an assessment to be made there. Yeah but it doesn't the

policy doesn't say proposals for development must strengthen the local

economic profile of the area does it? It's not a decision -making policy like

B1 which we're coming on to next is it? Yes it's a strategic

policy, well if it goes if an application goes against the strategic policy

objectives and I guess you could you could make an assessment to say that an

app proposal doesn't it doesn't strengthen the low click on a profile

of the area then it would be contrary to that.

Right, so your approach to strategic policies is that a decision maker should still identify

conflict with them even when there is actually no conflict on the express words of the policy.

If an application doesn't meet the policy objectives then I think it's right for it

to be pointed out as not being in compliance with policy.

Okay, well, I'll make submissions on that in closing. I don't agree with you, but I've

understood your position. Policy B1 next, please. Policy B15. This is a requirement

to maintain or re -provide existing employment capacity. It's not a policy requirement to

maintain or we provide existing employment floor space is it? So in 5a

references in terms of a change of use from B2 or B8 we providing industrial

floor space capacity when the same use class category or where appropriate you

could intensify the capacity in just in terms of this policy that's not

including kind of policy 1 1 for example or one which has I think 1 1 or 1 2 has

a requirement to maintain so in terms of this policy yes I mean it does reference

floor space for B2 and B8 but also references if it's a change of use then

and if it's appropriate then you look at the job densities. Yeah it's it

could have stopped for B2 or B8 it could have just stopped after shall we provide

industrial floor space capacity but it goes on to say all where appropriate

intensify capacity and for changes from B1 use class floor space and the

requirement is to intensify capacity for increased job density. So my question was,

this is a requirement to maintain or we provide existing employment capacity? And the answer

to that is yes, isn't it?

It does mean yes, yes. But it also mentions capacity. I mean, floor space, because you

said it didn't mention it, but it does. There's other policies in the developer plan which

talk about maintaining floor space as well.

Yeah, I am, I'm going to come on to the other policies, specifically one one as well, probably

tomorrow now. But it would be wrong wouldn't it though, just focusing on B1. Say there

is a loss of 400 square metres of floor space, I mean that's not our position, but if that's

factually where we are, it doesn't follow that a loss of floor space inherently and

unavoidably conflicts with this policy, does it?

So if you're focusing just on this policy, if you are re -providing, if you're looking

at B2 and B8 and re -providing that, then it says you should re -provide that floor space

capacity within the same use class. Otherwise, if you're looking at change of use, you can

focus on capacity through increased jobs densities.

Yeah, which we are dealing here with a change of use because we're not proposing B2, B8

use are we? So the answer to my question was yes, wasn't it? It's right that even if there

is a loss of any particular square meterage of floor space it doesn't

follow that there is automatically and unavoidably a conflict with this policy

with this policy on its own no I think I've looked at the development plan as a

whole but in terms of this policy no which is why I've also done a number of

assessments in terms of job density

Good, thank you.

Sir, if that's a convenient moment, that's a good point for us to break from my perspective.

Thank you.

Okay, then we'll finish now.

Mr. Weir, you know the rules.

So we'll meet here again at 9 .30 tomorrow morning and we'll continue with Mr. Weir's

cross -examination.

Any points before we close?

Okay so for today the inquiry is adjourned.

See you tomorrow.

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 hCaptcha.

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.

Interactive webcast player

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 02/09/26Wednesday, 2nd September 2026 at 10:00am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 02/09/26
Wednesday, 2nd September 2026 at 10:00am