Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 03/09/26 - Thursday 3 September 2026, 10:00am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 03/09/26
Thursday, 3rd 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.

way in landscaping works.

vittoria wharf, star road, beachy road, london e3 2nt.

she reminded to turn electronic devices to silent and in the event of a fire to exit

through the door to my right.

just before we start today a few points to cover.

Can I just cheque that someone's been keeping a list of the inquiry documents.

So I have one but I don't think it, like I'm sure it's not complete in the sense that we've

had the addendum statements of common ground. So I will or we will, just trying to think

because we probably need Mr. Weir's input.

But anyway, as soon as we can get the planning witnesses

just to confirm where we're at

with what they've been submitting to PINS,

we'll draw one up and circulate it

so that you can see it as well.

So thank you.

If I could just add the core documents online,

there's a CD1 inquiry document.

So that does now include from 1 .6 to 1 .7A,

both new addendum statements of common ground.

It doesn't include the other inquiry documents,

I think, in the openings.

So they'll need to be added, but it's partially in progress,

I think.

Can you just make sure that they're all on there?

Also, I think most of them have been sent to the case officer,

But I just want to cheque you've sent your openings in

So I must confess I'm not aware I'll council have so I'll make sure that's done

So we'll send ours as well, thank you

Next, there were a few questions I asked last week.

I don't think you've come back to me on that yet.

So there you were, just to recap.

Whether any land on site falls within the conservation area?

Where the bridge is in the conservation area?

What the planning regime is covering the proposed pontoons?

There's still those points outstanding, I think.

So, they are outstanding. I know our side has been thinking certainly about the two

points on the conservation area. On the pontoons, that's with me and I haven't had a chance

to research the detail of that point, so I will do that as soon as I've finished with

planning evidence.

Yes, I think we suggested it should go in the second state of the common ground, but

the opponents asked for a bit more time to think about it, so that's fine from our point

of view.

We'll try and agree on position.

Thank you.

Can I just ask Ms Sargent what your estimate is for your remaining cross -examination?

So I'm about halfway through, so I guess that means about another two hours. I know my estimate

was only two to three hours, so that would be significantly over. I am asking the questions

as quickly as I can and I don't want to put Mr Weir under any pressure of time to give

his responses but I would be grateful if he can do that as efficiently as he can. Thank

you.

Well that's fine. If sort of halfway you find a convenient spot we'll take a break.

Okay then if you'd like to carry on with your cross -examination of Mr Weir.

Hello Mr Weir, can you turn at policy within the LLDC local plan, policy 1 .1 managing change

in Hackney, Wicke and Fish Island, so internal page 186, PDF page 188 I think.

Let me know when you have that.

Yes I have that.

And we can see 1 .11 is a policy that says maintain the overall amount of existing employment

floor space be use class including that used by creative and cultural industries and operating

as low cost and managed workspace but that is a requirement to do so in accordance with

the provisions outlined under policies B1 and B4 isn't it? So it doesn't do anything

independently of what we've looked at yesterday in B1 and what we'll come on to look at in

B4 when we get onto affordable workspace, correct?

Yeah that's right it does refer back to policies B1 and B4 and in terms of B1 I guess in the

supporting text it does mention paragraph 4 .14 existing industrial floor space capacity

balance and density will be maintained but the main wording refers to as we went over

yesterday.

I think I would also say you refer to policy 1 .2 which talks about respecting the contribution

made by cultural and creative industries to the identity, culture and character of the

So I think that does fall into some kind of assessment of quantum.

And I think you'd also refer to Policy HC5 of the London Plan, which looks at protecting

cultural uses in the area as well.

Well, not just in the area, just in general.

Well, hang on a minute.

I think we're slightly at risk of what we were doing yesterday.

I understand entirely that your case is that there are numerous policies that you say the

scheme doesn't comply with. We don't agree. But we can agree that the overall task of

the inspector is to reach a conclusion on whether overall the scheme complies or not

with the development plan, yes? Yes.

And in doing that, he analyses each policy, you know, properly, individually, first of

doesn't he? So if he finds there's not conflict for example with 1 .1 he would then go on to look

at HD5 and 1 .2. You don't run all the policies together and say well because there's a conflict

with this part of HD5 there's also conflict with 1 .1 and 1 .2 do you? No I think it's just

when I'm looking at everything all together yeah I accept that when you look at one policy at time

But I do accept I do feel like you know there is supporting paragraphs which mention

existing industrial first best capacity and balance and density were maintained and also

4 .17 and every development poses a b1 use class floor space should maintain equivalent be used class employment floor space

Or significantly increase job density

Yeah, you're aware. I mean it's a legal point

So I'm not going to ask you about in detail, but you are aware that the supporting text isn't part of the policy on you

Yeah, it's just got his guidance for the policy, I would say. That's why it's supporting.

Policy 1 .2 next, please. So just further down the document.

I mean, part five is respect to the contribution made by cultural and creative industries to the identity, culture and character of the area.

that's not the same thing as a policy saying protect the contribution is it?

Are we referring to quantum floor space here? Can you just focus on my

question please? The word respect or a requirement to respect the contribution

is not the same as a requirement to protect the contribution is it? Respect

to protect have different meanings but I think respect also indicates some form

protection. I mean are you inviting the inspector to interpret five as a

requirement to you know maintain all existing quantum of floor space because

the policy wording itself is nothing and give the sword is it? I think it's a

consideration, the wording is not exact. But yeah, I guess

it's about the interpretation of the word respect. And what that

means in terms of cultural and creative floor space on the

site.

I mean, to be honest, this has this policy actually isn't

dealing with protecting quantum floor space, is it? Because if

we've just looked at 1 .1, which is about managing change, and

And we've seen and agreed that that refers us back to B1 and B4 and essentially says,

you know, do what you've been told to do into those policies.

And then 1 .2 is about promoting Hackney Wick and Fish Island's unique identity and appearance.

So it's really more of a design policy than anything to do with retaining employment floor

space, isn't it?

It may be more of a design policy, but it also refers to the unique identity of the

area.

and then it also refers to culture and creative industries in terms of the identity, culture

and character of the area.

It's right though, isn't it? Assuming, and I know this isn't your case, but assuming

the inspector concludes that the schemes' employment reprovision accords with B1 and

B4 and 1 .1, you wouldn't in that situation say, well, then

there's still a problem under 1 .2 in relation to the

provision of employment floor space, would you?

If in the inspectors judgement, it meets the policies, then if

the other policies you just referenced, then by that same

standard, it could also it would also probably cover this one as

well, if that was the inspectors judgement, because that would

this policy would also be taken into account in that judgement.

Thank you. Right, could we then go to Mr. Cheamer's proof please at paragraph two point.

Sorry, let me just cheque this is a good -like reference.

No, I think I need your proof, sorry, one minute.

Could we, the best reference is the first addendum to the statement of Common Ground, please.

So could we go to that?

And I'm looking at the table underneath paragraph 4.

So this is page 20, PDF.

Now, let's deal with the gatehouse first.

So what's identified...

Sorry, can you just bear with me a second?

Can I just say, we're looking at the first addendum, the 27th August one.

Yes, sir.

So underneath paragraph four, we've got the table that summarises the party's positions

on the breakdown of the areas in the buildings and the gatehouse. The

appellant's position is that that it's well first of all there's an agreement

that the GIA for the entire building is 90 square metres yeah and the appellant's

position is that the basically that's a 50 -50 split between live and work. Mr.

Chima's proof at 7 .9 is that there's a restaurant on the ground floor and

living accommodation on the first floor?

I think referring to the table before that the appellant position is sui generis live work use

not a split.

Okay but I mean in terms of the the point in dispute between us on the gate house we can

see from the table that Mr Chima says there's 40 basically it's a half half split between

live and work and your position is that the entire thing is a work use yeah in

terms of the lawful position that's what my position is in terms of the existing

use as we saw in the site it was a self -contained employment unit on the

ground floor on the first floor we couldn't get access to that and couldn't

see through the windows I don't think you provided any photos of that right

But I mean, does this matter though?

Because if the gatehouse was the only point

where there was a disagreement about the use

of the floor space,

that difference is 45 square metres,

which would be accommodated in the additional floor space

that the appeal scheme is we providing, wouldn't it?

There's an excess, if this is the only point in dispute,

there would be an excess of, I think,

in the region of 60 square metres.

So that would compensate for this dispute over 45 square metres if this was the only point.

I know that's it's not your case.

But if this is the only point, then there is adequate reprovision in terms of quantum, isn't there?

In terms of quantum of employment floor space, you mean?

And then...

Sorry, I didn't catch the answer. Was that a yes?

So there is more than 45 square metres in the proposed employment floor space, yes.

And then looking at two more years, so there's actually, first of all, there's agreement

on the GIA 698 .1. You say that's the minimum, but you haven't provided an alternative figure,

have you?

I think in previous appeals submissions we've looked at, I know that when I first looked

at the application, no surveys included the third floor, no the second floor, sorry, so

I had to query that.

Then subsequently you've come back with new surveys.

So it was a bit confusing over the years because there has been mezzanine space which was lost.

There was a bit the consent for the scheme also had a higher floor space listed as existing up to I think it was up to 829 square metres.

I don't know how they measured that. So I think we just you know we came to your number as a minimum as a logical way to state it.

Yeah. But the difference here, weekends and the only difference in relation to two more years is that you say there's an there's also 338 .5 square metres of event space and then 52 .3 square metres of river terrace, but I mean, there is an there's double counting

isn't there because it's not possible within the building physically for there to be 698 .1

square metres of workspace plus 338 .5 square metres of event space.

Yes not plus it's I state that that's included that is the ground floor that's part 338 .5

is part of the ground floor.

I think that was included in my rebuttal. I had a figure which showed that calculation.

I think the overall ground floor was 412, roughly.

Hang on, let me just write that down.

My rebuttal.

But there can't be then 698 metres of B class workspace that would be protected by the policies

and 338 .5 square metres of event space that would be protected by the cultural policies,

can there?

No, I think there can be because the way that cultural venues work, they don't work. They

So I think we're in agreement that the ground floor is in useless employment space generally

So full so generally I think during that said during day times

Possibly early evenings. It's used as co -working cafe and a gallery and there's also other parts of that space

Which uses light industrial

And offices but

you know during the

evenings and the weekends, especially the weekend evenings. They're also sometimes part of the days

and the week times I guess. There are a range of events which take place on the ground floor which

I have listed in my proof extensively. So just how having the way that cultural venues work,

that's the way that they work and they're afforded protection under cultural policies.

Okay, well, I don't agree with you on that, but we'll come back to that later when we

come on to the cultural policies.

Looking at Hackney Cut next please.

This is as I understand it a dispute as to whether it's predominantly, well you say it's

entirely workspace and the appearance position is that it's predominantly in live use and

then the other one is Victoria Wharf block 4 where again you say it's entirely in work

use and we say it's a mix between live and work that's where the dispute over those parts

of the site is isn't it? Yeah with Hackney Cut I think in the table above Mr Chima states

that Hackney Cut is a sui generis live work use. But then

in the table under paragraph four only says it's for live and

no work in there apart from a shed in the yard. So I say that

Hackney Cut is a lawful B2B8 slash eg use. In terms of

Vittoria Wharf or Block 4. Yes. Yeah, Mr. Cheamer says that that

is predominantly live space.

It also includes some self -contained commercial units,

but I think very little of the live work

has been assigned to work space,

even though the appellant says

that's sui generis live work predominantly.

So I would say that's lawfully B2B8 slash EG.

Yeah, but I mean, if we look at table three,

sorry, the table underneath paragraph three, we can see that for Hackney Cut you accept

the current use is Sue E. Gennaro's work live work, yeah? Or work live?

Yes, in my, in the table the current use as it is at the moment for Hackney Cut, that's

what I would say, that's what I've said.

Yeah, but your case on Hackney Cut is that we can't count any of the living space as

non -workspace because it's not lawful, you say?

Yeah?

Yes.

And similarly, on Victoria Wharf, you accept that the current use is predominantly sui

work level live work with some elements of self -contained work space and also

cultural and community space but again you say that we can't reduce the quantum

of the workspace by accounting for the living space because you say the living

use is unlawful that's your position isn't it yeah my yeah that is my

position and you also have a position on the repellent's calculation of live

space that I attribute is actually workspace as I went over in my examination in chief yesterday.

Yeah, I mean I've understood your evidence, I'm not going to go through every photograph with you

because Mr Cheema can, like the inspector knows which bits you're talking about, he can hear from

Mr Cheema later, I'm not going to sit here and explain that there's a difference in view because

there clearly is and the inspector will understand your position and Mr Cheema's and can make his

Your position though, whereby we don't lessen the floor space figures for workspace,

and we don't basically we ignore the live part of what's going on in these two blocks for the purpose of applying policies.

That's not consistent with Mrs. Pak's view, because we heard from her yesterday and her view was that the live work use that's going on is important to the KES, isn't it?

Yeah, I think in my proof I also agree that the live work use is important to the creative enterprise zone. I guess that's in the case that it's lawful.

But you were here yesterday, you remember I asked her about whether the lawfulness of it mattered and she didn't think that it did. That was her take on it, wasn't it?

I don't remember her saying that, but in terms of, yeah, the way that we would judge it,

we would judge it as a lawful use and work to live is important in the area. It's a unique

typology in the area which I've documented in my proof on that point.

Okay, well I'll come back to the relevance of the lawfulness later on.

Yes, paragraph five please in this addendum. You continue to say halfway down in the brackets

that you think the figures that were provided on the 2nd of July are better indicative in

in terms of appropriation of existing land uses.

Is that still your view?

I think that that's looking at the scenario

of live -work being lawful.

So in terms of live -work,

in the appellant's scenario of live -work being lawful

and how the land uses are appropriated in that regard,

The way that the appellant has outlined the survey is looking at that scenario of existing

live and work in terms of the live work use.

So in terms of the 2nd of July, survey, resurvey and all the results before that, I think it

was looked at that there was significantly more existing employment space on the site.

And it's only one week before on the 22nd, one week before proofs of June 21st of July

that we got the final, as the appellate says, the final numbers, which suddenly changed

everything in the other direction.

Wow.

Let's just be a bit fairer about the chronology of events, shall we?

Can you go to Mr. Cheema's rebuttal, please, and go to paragraph 2 .5 on page 4?

Let me know when you have that.

Sorry, I'm on that.

What paragraph again?

2 .5, please.

Let me know when you have that. So this is where Mr. Chima is responding to paragraph

8 .9 of your proof and he says you've appended as appendix three the table that was sent

by Mr. Chima's colleague Mr. Reistrich but then there was an email which is set out at

2 .6 from Mr. Vystraek where he explained, as we can see, there was an updated set of

drawings and schedule following the measured survey, but it was said Mr. Cheema walked

the buildings with the surveyors, he's away, the allocation of NIA and uses is provisional

only, Mr. Cheema will review on Monday and we'll let you know if anything needs updating.

You don't dispute that that's what was said to you in the email from Mr. Vystraek, do

you?

That's not disputed however it was very late in the day in the proofs of

evidence with June 20th of July and yeah as you would understand you know you

don't want to be finalise everything at the last minute so taking into account I

received that on the 2nd of July you know I was working along that basis and

you'd expect someone to work along that basis when you're deep in the proof

drafting and then yeah for it to change so significantly after that it was quite

surprise. But I can't remember, you were at the case management conference, weren't you?

Where the appellant did explain that we were going to be, you know, looking again and doing

the survey and sending all of the results results through. Yeah, we did chase that quite a lot at

that time. And we expected it to be quite soon after that. But yeah, we didn't get the final

results for quite a while. And it's also correct, though, isn't it that the, you know, the inspectors

what we're dealing with here.

It comes down to things like, I don't know,

pool tables being in workspaces,

sewing machines, recording equipment.

It's a granular topic, isn't it?

In terms of what people are doing in these units.

And it's the kind of thing that could change day to day.

I mean, for all we, I'm not suggesting we're going to do this

or that we should, but if we went back to site today,

we may well find somebody's moved out, someone's moved in.

It's a position that shifts.

and it was right for the appellant to try and provide the inspector and the inquiry

with the most up -to -date information, wasn't it?

I don't think I was saying that a pool table is a place of work.

Can you answer the question, please?

It was right for the appellant to seek to provide the inquiry and the council with the

most up -to -date and accurate evidence of the current uses in the units.

I think I'd also say that those spaces, how I've defined them, is flexible workspaces.

Please.

Yeah, I'm just covering the points that you raised in your question.

Can you repeat the last bit, please?

Yeah, my question was, it was right for the appellant to do its best to provide the inquiry with the most up -to -date evidence on the current uses on site, wasn't it?

I think yeah it was it was good that at the end of the day we did receive that

significant portion of photographs and re -surveys even if they were very late

in the day we did receive everything in the end.

And we can see the email that's referred to it 2 .7 in Mr. Cheema's proof and then he explains

he had a video call with you on the 14th of July and then sent across the more, he says

the more accurate assessment and the full set of site photos

and then issued a minor correction on 21 July.

I mean, are you still contending

that the material that came across on 21 July

was, how do you put it, less indicative in terms of what was going on

than the previous material from 2 July that you rely on?

I think in my case I state that

In terms of the there is a dispute here in terms of how work and live spaces have been apportioned

So I maintain that dispute, but I did concede that

Yeah, following further details of the resurvey. I would accept that there has been additional space that's been found in the resurvey

So in terms of that I can't really dispute

But in terms of how the land use has been apportioned. I still maintain a dispute

Yeah, there's two separate points here. I've understood that you disagree ultimately with Mr.

Chemer that when we look at the photographs that came through as part of the survey, you know,

you and he don't agree in terms of what we're actually seeing and whether it's live work or

whether it's live, whether it's work. So I've understood you don't agree with him and you think

there's less living space than Mr. Cheamer's identified.

But that's a different question to which sort of set

of figures is the most robust and what measurements

should the inspector be referring to?

Because Mr. Cheamer says, his 2 .9 and his rebuttal,

I reviewed the hundreds of site photos taken.

I sent a more accurate assessment that specifically

defined the function of each room.

And I shared the photos with Mr. Weir.

and then he issued his correction on the 21st of July.

Now I know I'm not asking you to suddenly say that actually,

you know, you agree completely with Mr. Cheamer,

but he is correct to say that the most accurate assessment

is the material that came through, you know, on the 17th

and then 21st of July, isn't he?

I think I made it clear that I,

in terms of the apportion of the land uses that I believe that the 2nd of July

survey is more indicative of the apportion of land uses however for the

purposes of floor space I would go along with the 21st of July just for that

figure

Right what justification though? Mr. Cheema says he

There were hundreds of site photos taken as part of a measured survey

He reviewed them and he sent across a more accurate assessment what conceivable basis is there for you to say?

No, that's not a more accurate assessment. Mr. Cheema wasted his time and the inspector should just stick with the 2nd of July. I

Think what happened is mr. Cheema reviewed. It seems to have looked at all the photos

I think he I think he did go on the stuff. He wasn't at the survey then he went over all the photos

We had a call

Following the 2nd of July

Resurvey in terms of looking for those photos in the apportion of land uses if I'm correct for memory serves me correctly

So, yeah, we did go over most of the photos together nearly all of them I feel I think

in terms of the

And I feel like they were looked at again the photos were looked at again

they were assessed again and then the apportion of land uses shifted in terms of what was sent

back to me but then there was also a increase in floor area so I dispute the apportion of land uses

with the floor space I can't really dispute that.

But you're not saying to the inspector that he shouldn't take the photos into account are you?

I mean you were referring to them yourself yesterday that their photos they show what

they show don't they? I think it's a matter of planning judgement and for the

inspector if if going along your scenario of lawful live work if the

inspector agrees with that scenario then I still feel like there is an assessment

to be made of each of the spaces whether they are live or work and also looking

at the un -surveyed 500 square metres as well. Could you answer the question

please? Can you repeat that please? Yeah you are not suggesting that the

should disregard the photographs that have been put in evidence are you? I think I just answered

that so yeah I said that photographs are important consideration. Yes my my difficulty just so

hopefully we can save some time is I can't close on the basis of what you in your head think you've

insinuated I need a clear you know articulated yes or no please going forward. Right so the photos

are important. I mean, would you be happy with this position? That the Inspector works

off the basis of the, well, ultimately the Inspector's now got the addendum to the statement

of common ground and we all agree that he can use those, don't we?

Yes.

And as I've understood it, the position that those statements of Common Ground,

the addendum is ultimately summarised, is they're taking the position as it emerged from the 21st of July material,

save that we know if we're right about live -work being lawful, you still have your point around there being less living space than Mr. Cheamer identifies.

That's ultimately where we've got to, isn't it?

Yes.

Good, thank you.

And we can see this is paragraph six of the first addendum.

And that ultimately where this gets us to is that you say, if the position is that the Hackney Cut and Victoria Wharf are live work rather than just workspace,

you say nevertheless there's still an underestimation of the work floor space

to a total of four hundred and eighty eight point five square metres so that's

the difference between us isn't it yeah I'd say it's at least that difference

not taking into account the un -surveyed spaces

Thank you.

Could we then turn up the second addendum to the State and Common Ground, please?

Which sets out or summarises both parties' cases on the lawfulness question.

You agree, don't you, that it's ultimately for the inspector to reach a conclusion on

balance of probabilities as to whether the live -work use is lawful or not.

And you said yesterday in your evidence in chief, well,

in relation to Hackneycote and the Gatehouse and Victoria Wharf,

there's been no planning permission or lawful development certificate

sought for live -work use and you said basically you would have expected the

appellant to go and get a lawful development certificate.

You're aware though that you don't need a planning permission or a lawful development certificate for a live work used to be lawful.

It can become lawful just by effluxion of time, can't it?

Yes, ideally we would have, if you're, I think I stated that ideally we would have expected that to be, certificates to be submitted,

you know, based on if that's the appellant's position,

especially application states, that would have been helpful

to clarify the situation if it's relying on that

for the redevelopment.

But yes, I'm aware, as you say.

Yeah, but it's not a requirement that an applicant or an appellant

who's asking for planning permission has to go off

and spend money getting a lawful development certificate.

It's something that...

It's actually a lawful development certificate

is aimed at avoiding having to go off and get planning

permission for things.

So you normally would apply for a lawful development certificate

where you don't want to make an application for planning

permission, and you just want a certificate from the council

to say you don't need planning permission.

That's what those are for, isn't it?

I think where the land uses are unclear in such

as this position, you would have ideally hoped that that would

be submitted at an early stage.

And it would have possibly saved time and money

in the long term?

Where, please, in, well, first of all,

there's no statutory requirement

to go and get a Lawful Development Certificate, is there?

No.

There's no policy requirement to do that?

No.

There's not even anything,

there's certainly nothing in national guidance

to say applicants for planning permission

must first go and get a Lawful Development Certificate.

And there's nothing in the council's guidance

to say that that's something we ideally,

you know, should have done, is there?

No, it probably would have helped the situation from getting to this point though.

There's also no lawful development certificate for an event use in Victoria Wharf Studios,

but you have had no difficulty yourself saying that that is a lawful use of that space, have

you?

Yeah, I think I've covered this in my second addendum statement of Common Ground in terms

of Victoria Wharf Studio being a single planning unit.

And I'm just looking at paragraph 18 of the addendum statement of Common Ground, the second

one now.

I'm just looking at the range of evidence for that single planning unit over a 16 -year

period, which is in my proof.

and based on that for a single planning unit,

that's why I've come to that conclusion,

whereas when talking about all of the different

live -work units, I talk about that in my section,

dealing with Hackney Cut, the gatehouse, and Block 4,

and saying that there's a lack of clarity

on a planning unit by a planning unit basis

with the amount of information we would expect to demonstrate lawfulness when I usually,

or when the council usually assesses certificates of lawfulness or assessing lawfulness in general.

Could you go to paragraph 10 in the second addendum to the statement of common ground,

please?

Yes.

And you'll see that this is the appellant's position and we rely on the statutory declaration

associated with units 20 and 21.

Do you dispute that units 20 and 21 are the entirety of the Hackney Cook building?

I think that units 20 and 21 are the entirety of that.

That's my understanding.

I don't know if there's been any, there's been clear reference to that in the floor

plan.

That is my understanding.

However, in terms of the Secretary of Decorations, they are, for that whole building over a 10

year period, it's just one person.

and I would say that that could be one person in their own room

operating as live -work,

rather than saying that the whole building is live -work.

You're not disputing the factual accuracy of anything said

in the statutory declaration, are you?

You're not suggesting that the person in writing it was mistaken

or got their facts wrong, or it's not to be relied upon?

No, I'm just saying that you'd expect,

when you're dealing with determining lawfulness,

when we assess applications on that basis,

we would expect a wider range of information

to determine lawfulness.

But again, there's no requirements

about how much information has to be provided.

It's a matter wholly for the inspector

to decide whether he,

having regard to that statutory declaration thinks that it's sufficient evidence in relation to Hackney cut or whether on the balance of

Probabilities he thinks it's insufficient

Yeah, I agree. It's the inspectors judgement based on the information submitted

All right one moment, please I just want to follow up a reference

My internet's being a bit slow.

Yeah, and could you just turn up please?

it's called document 540. Let me know when you have that and then it's page 47.

And we can see this is the statutory declaration from Davido Vignoli to say, so we first of

we can see that the property is defined as units 20 and 21.

And he says he's occupied the property continuously since the 1st of October 2009 as his home.

And then he goes on to say at 4 that he entered into a commercial lease on the 1st of October

2009. That permits a business use, but he has occupied the property for work and for

residential purposes with his landlord's knowledge and consent from the date essentially that he

entered into the lease.

There's not realistically, if you're not going to tell me

that Mr. Vignoli's being inaccurate in any of this,

this is more than capable of evidencing

on the balance of probabilities that the Hackney -Kurt building

has been in live -work use since the 1st of October 2009,

isn't it?

I think, so just taking a look at that stat deck,

It says that he has occupied the property for his work and for residential purposes.

So I, yeah, in my view, I think I would need more information than that in terms of it

being a live -work property for the entirety of it, even based on that stat deck.

And even based on that stat deck, when assessing lawfulness, you know, you need a wide range

of information.

you won't just base it on one document.

Why on earth not though?

Because this says quite clearly,

it's been drafted by Stephen Scone's solicitors.

It defines the property as units 20 and 21.

And this person is giving a solemn declaration

under the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835,

that he has occupied the property

for work and for residential purposes

since he entered into the lease.

Are you seriously still saying that this is not adequate on the balance of probabilities

to evidence that there's been a live -work use of this unit?

I would say that there could be a live -work use in the unit.

However, it's just one person occupying one part of that unit, which could seem to be

the case from this stat deck.

and you'd need, well, I would request a wider range of information to assess and determine lawfulness in that regard.

It's not one part of the unit, is it? It's the whole. His statutory declaration extends to the whole of units 20 and 21, the property.

That is what he is talking about in the stat deck, isn't it?

So it says he has lived and worked at units 20 and 21. It doesn't say which part.

No, units 20 and 21 are the property and then he goes on to say I have occupied the property

continuously and then again at paragraph 4 I occupied the property for my work and for

residential purposes.

I still think it leaves it slightly open because he's lived in the property, worked in the

property but it doesn't mean it's the entirety of the property.

He's lived in it, so he could be, if he's saying he's lived in it, he could have lived in the bedroom in the property

rather than the whole building being his home.

Right, so your position as a professional planner for this council is that when somebody in a declaration that has statutory force says

I occupied the property for my work and for residential purposes

That is not adequate even on the balance of probabilities, which isn't a high test you say that is not adequate to satisfy that test

I would say not for the entirety of the units

It's quite it's not very clear where in the property

I mean, yeah, he says photos of the property, but doesn't mean if he's lived inside the property

It kind of leaves it slightly open in the wording

Okay. Are you going to, I need to understand which parts of this I need to make submissions on,

are you going to say that you dispute that the property for the purposes of this statutory declaration means units 20 and 21?

It leaves it quite open. It's hard to judge. I would say that this person has, they say they lived and worked in those units.

but I think you say, I think you would say that there's been, if you do say that

there's a, I mean as it is at the moment, as existing, there are lots of

people that live and work in that property, so if it's just one person

saying it, then I wouldn't take it as the entire property. Right, so you, you read,

you want the inspector to read this statutory declaration as when it says,

when it defines the property that doesn't straightforwardly mean units 20

and 21 that means something else is that what you're saying? No I think I've made

it quite clear that you know we're talking about units 20 and 21 here but

he's the property he's he said he's lived and worked in the property that

doesn't mean that it covers the entire property because as we have seen as

existing there are various bedrooms so if one person says they've done that in

their bedroom it doesn't automatically mean that the entire property exists in that way.

No but then I'm afraid you are disputing the truth and the accuracy of what this person

is saying. If you agree with me that when in paragraph one it puts the property in inverted

commas and brackets and you agree that that is a reference to units 20 and 21 yes? Right.

So therefore when in paragraph four this person says I occupied the property for my work and for

residential purposes, he is saying, I occupied units 20 and 21 for my work and for residential

purposes, isn't he?

I think we've gone over this and what I would just say is...

Could you please answer the question and stop just repeating what you've said before, it's

not helping anybody. When this person says, I occupied the property for my work and for

residential purposes, he is saying, I occupied units 20 and 21 for my work and for residential

purposes, isn't he?

Yeah, I think it leaves it quite open in terms of the entirety of the property.

And so as an officer who assesses certificates of lawfulness, I would request further and

a wider breadth of information to determine lawfulness.

Yeah, could you go to page 59 in this document?

please. Let me know when you're there.

Yes.

We can see this is the lease that Mr. Vignoli has appended and we can see the premises are

defined as Unit 20 and 21 and we can see this is paragraph 3 that it talks about a rent

review and it makes clear that that will include the mezzanine floor yeah

yes

but your your final position is that despite the fact mr. Vignoli provided

his lease which relates to the entirety of both units and confirmed expressly that he

had both worked and lived there from the 1st of October 2009. Your ultimate position still

is that you won't accept that that on the balance of probabilities shows there was a

live -work use of this unit, correct?

Correct, I think that's a judgement that requires a wider range of information rather than just

this and also yeah just looking at this lease says the permitted use is as B1 B2.

Yeah, and he explained in his stat deck, he acknowledges that and he says with his landlord's

consent he's been living there as well, doesn't he?

And you are not disputing the factual accuracy or the truth of what he says, are you?

I think we would need to say that there is some conflicting information here because

you have that stat deck, but you also have this separate lease which talks about the

use as B1 and B2.

So that is quite conflicting.

So I think in that case we'd ask for a wider range of information.

It's not conflicting, is it, Mr Weir? Because the person giving the declaration

acknowledges that it's a commercial lease and he goes on to explain to the council

that with his landlord's consent he has nevertheless been living and working there, doesn't he?

That is the case. But I would just assert that it's a planning judgement based on

what you the amount of information that you would think would need to be

determined lawfulness so based on your case this is based on your case of this

space being live work and yes I still maintain that you'd require a further

range of information to determine lawfulness okay I'm just going to come

back to my previous question because you didn't answer it and what you did say

left me in some doubt you are not disputing the truthfulness or the

factual accuracy of the statutory declaration are you? Thank you. Then can we go back to

The second addendum, please.

And there's a further statutory declaration that relates to B4, D4 within Victoria Wharf.

Presumably you're not again disputing the accuracy or the truthfulness of that statutory declaration.

That refers to one unit within block four, doesn't it?

It's B4D4, yeah.

Can you answer the question, please?

Yeah, I'm not fully, I mean,

that's Mr. Cheema's helpful terminology,

so I'm not fully up to speed on all of the codes.

So that's a unit in block four, isn't it?

Yeah. Yeah.

No, I don't dispute what that person has said.

in their statutory declaration. I think I've just said in my case that you would

need a wider range of information to judge the entirety of block four as work

live or live work. So it is a planning judgement. I mean, somebody,

it's a planning judgement. In my planning judgement, I would say that you need a

conflicting information that may have found elsewhere.

Yeah, can you go to page 8 in core document 540,

which is the one with the stat decks that we were looking at before?

Sorry, what part of that document? Page 8, please.

So you can see the statutory declaration there.

You don't, I think from your previous answer, you don't take any issue with Mr.

Cheema having identified because we can see the stat deck refers to Unit 1A of

Victoria Wharf but you don't question Mr. Cheema's position where he

explains that that relates to what is B4D4 in his proof analysis, do you?

Yeah, it has been a bit confusing to reconcile the unit numbers with the titles that Mr Chima

has helpfully provided, because I think in the existing plans I may be wrong, but I don't

believe that they refer to all of the unit names.

There are some plans which show that, but yeah, I think the main existing plans may

not show that.

I may be wrong.

So, I believe it's a unit in block 4, but it will be helpful to have plans to clarify that.

I don't think the stat deck includes a plan, but yeah, unit 1A may be in block four.

and maybe there probably is a plan which shows that I'm not sure at the moment.

Okay well I can ask Mr... I mean you're certainly not suggesting that it relates to any other part

of the property are you? I think it would be helpful if it was reconciled with a plan. I mean

I believe it probably is in block four, but if there was a plan to

That we could look at now. That would be helpful to just

Clarify, I assumed that it was in block four

Yeah, I mean there are photographs aren't there with the statutory declaration

Have you looked at those

Right, well having looked at those, do you agree that Mr Cheema is correct to correspond

Unit 1A to B4D4?

It's quite difficult to reconcile. I'm sure Mr Cheema has been into all of the units,

using this in the survey and it was there when the photos were taken if he can reconcile those spaces, you know

Some of them may have changed over the years

So I think that

For example, there's a big

Yeah, some of the features have moved around to different rooms like from what you see here

I guess this has taken a long time ago. I'm not exactly sure

Where it is

from the photos. I recognise some elements of them.

Right, okay, we're going to be here all day at this rate. Are you questioning the accuracy

of Mr Tuma's identification of Unit 1A in this statutory declaration as Unit B4D4? Or

do you accept that Mr Tuma probably does know enough from the photos and from his site visits

to have accurately said that 1A in this stat deck equates to B4D4 in his evidence.

I accept that Mr Cheemers identified them, you know, he has good knowledge of the site in terms

of existing uses from the site visits, so I would believe him if he's attributed that to that unit.

However, I think it would have been clearer, you know, to have floor plans, you know, because when

of determining lawfulness, it should be very clear about where everything is, where all

the units are.

If we go back to page 8, please, and the statutory declaration, this is by Mr Fletcher. And he

confirms he's occupied. Well first of all we can see the property is defined as

unit 1A yes. He says he's occupied that continuously since the first of November

2011 as his home. He doesn't rely on or use the facilities of any property. Then

he's explained he's put his photos in and then he's exhibited his lease and he

again expressly acknowledges that the use permitted under the lease is a

business use but says he has occupied the property for work and for

residential purposes with his landlord knowledge and consent from the 1st of January this time 2013. Yeah

Yeah, that's what he says. Yeah, but nevertheless

Your position is that this isn't adequate on the balance of probabilities to confirm that a live -work use of this unit 1a

Or b4d4 has been taking place. I

Think it leaves some ambiguity because it says that he has used it

but then doesn't say that it has generally been used

and by how many people and for what purposes.

Right, but I mean, the inspector has been on site

and he's got photos of this unit.

So the inspector can have a look at the photographs

and can ask himself whether, you know,

on the balance of probabilities,

the fact that one person has confirmed

and you're not questioning that he's been using

the entirety of that space as a live -work venue is adequate.

I mean, what are you saying?

Are you saying that there should be like family and friends

also writing in to corroborate this?

Because it's not likely, is it,

that there would be lots of other people doing what?

Working there?

It doesn't change the fact that this person

has been living there.

So it's a live -work use, isn't it?

I think that person has been living in that unit,

which is one unit in Block 4.

I think it's a planning judgement whether that is enough information to

Determine lawfulness and the balance of probability in my judgement. I would say that you'd need

In my judgement of the quest for information to demonstrate lawfulness

What further information though

We have a person

Declaring which you don't question that he's been having a live -work use of the property

Why do we need further information and who from please? Let me just turn to my

statement of common ground or the statement of common ground addendum

second one I think I've covered this area so I think paragraph six of the

second addendum statement of common ground. I say that no clear details are

provided on the planning unit by planning unit basis such as a list of

units, floor plans, tenancy agreements,

demonstrating they've worked with tenure paid

for each planning unit, listed tenants.

Sorry, I'm going to stop you

because that's not what I'm asking you about.

I'm asking you about Unit 1A.

You're still saying that you're not satisfied

on the balance of probabilities in relation to Unit 1A,

and you want more information about Unit 1A,

and my question is, what more information do you need

to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities

that there's been a live -work use of that unit. I'm coming on to the rest of

block four later. Sorry, so it's a planning judgement I think I've outlined

information in paragraph six. You haven't Mr. Wearevise, I wouldn't be asking you to do so.

We have a clear statutory declaration from Mr. Fletcher and you say you're not

satisfied even on the balance of probabilities which is a 50 -50 test and

you want more information. What more information do you conceivably need to

satisfy you on the balance of probabilities and why is Mr Fletcher's statutory declaration

not sufficient? It's a planning judgement. No, answer the question please. I've outlined

the information in paragraph six. It's a planning judgement. What more, I'm going to put this

again until I get an answer, what more information do you need? So if there were other people,

other lived work tenants in that unit, if there were, you know, a list of the type of business

going on, if there was kind of council tax, if there was other regulatory kind of

letters, corroboration, there could be statutory declaration from other people in the unit as well.

Well there could have been nobody else living there, couldn't there?

And why would it matter if one person is living and working there, it's a live -work use, isn't it?

Well it would be handy to see the floor plan of that unit to look at the kind of breakdown

of spaces I think.

Right, thank you.

And then moving on to paragraph 12 of the second addendum, Mr Chima refers to B4D2 within

Vitoria Wharf and makes the point that the council's own document from 2013,

or sorry it may not be the council's, but the Creative Factories Hackney -Wickenfish Island

document uses B4D2 as a live -work case study. You don't dispute the factual

accuracy of that do you? It does reference, I don't know if it's in

particular that unit, I don't know if it says that in the document but it does

reference a live -work unit within Victoria Wharf. I don't know exactly

where that is though. Could we go to core document 7 .33 please.

And PDF page 19.

We can see there that there's a clear plan of that unit, isn't there?

Is it 34, isn't it?

Yeah.

On page 34 there's a kind of axonometric sketch of the insides of Victoria Wharf.

Yeah I mean have you actually, and this isn't a criticism because you haven't had very much

time given the date that this addendum was produced, but have you taken the time to

consider yourself whether actually B4D2 corresponds to this unit or is it

something you haven't actually interrogated yet? I think it's quite

unclear from this axonometric sketch exactly what part of

Victoria Wharf refers to. Right so you're not, I'm just trying to kind of get

through this as efficiently as possible, you're not happy to accept that what

we're looking at in this document, the creative factories document, corresponds

to B4, D2 and Mr. Cheamer's proof. It might be handy to look at the floor plan

of that to correlate it but yeah it's unclear to me because a lot of these

spaces do look quite similar when you walk around in them in terms of the

and everything.

Right, well I'm going to just ask Mr Chima to deal with that later because I think it

will be quicker than us puddling around now.

If Mr Chima is correct to say that what we're looking at in the Creative Factories document

is B4D2, then it's right, isn't it, that that unit has been in live work use?

Are you still saying that despite what the Creative Factories document, which isn't our

document, says, there's a debate around the live -work use in, I'm not saying it's the

whole of Block 4, but in relation to this unit, there is sufficient evidence to show

that that's a live -work unit, isn't it?

At that time, as a snapshot, that is, yeah, I'm not disputing that that shows there's

a live -work use in that unit.

in Victoria Wharf, it might be easier for Mr Chima to point out later.

And then could you go, excuse me, within Mr. Cheema's proof of evidence to page 878, I

I think should be the plans before the photos.

Paragraph 878 is it?

No.

Page 78.

Oh 78.

Existing floor plans.

Yes.

OK.

Thank you.

Yeah.

PDF page 78.

Sorry.

I'm trying to work off a hard copy.

There's a discrepancy.

And we can see here that this identifies B4D1, B4D2, B4D4,

B4D3.

Sorry.

Is that 78?

79, is it?

page 79. Yeah sorry it's 79 on the PDF.

Repeat those numbers, those codes again please. Yeah we've got looking at the

looking at block four in the upper left hand part of the block we've got B4D1

and then there's extra code so F001, 0203, 4, 5 and 6 yeah but that's B4D1.

then we've got B4D2 to the right, B4D3 is underneath that, and then B4D4 is the bottom

right hand bit.

Yeah?

The bottom right hand bit is B4U.

No, sorry, so across B4D4 is across from B4D3.

I can see before before. Sorry, it's something the middle left middle left hand side isn't

it? Yeah, so the inspector can look at this plan, and then there's one, two pages further

on, which is showing the first floor. But this is what the inspector can look at to

see what proportion of block four is dealt with through the statutory deck and through

the Creative Factories document and to understand what we're talking about.

Well, hopefully they can be reconciled. Yes.

Have you looked at this plan before, Mr Weir?

Once or twice, yeah.

Quite a few times actually.

Right, thank you. Moving on, going back to the second addendum to the

Paragraph 14 explains that the council's statement of case indicates that enforcement activity

against live -work use on the site began around 2009. You haven't disputed that?

No, I included that in my statement of case.

And then we can see what else is said in the creative factories document and particularly

the reference there to creating a space for residents to sit together in the quote at

The reference there to residents and does indicate that the site as a whole was operating in a similar way to be for d2

Isn't he?

So in terms I wouldn't go that far I would say that there has been evidence of live work on the site

you know, I've also I've even put that in my

Statement of case and proof in terms of enforcement action, for example

Then a lot of those cases have been well some of those cases have been closed with no breach found or breach

Ceased but yeah, there has I'm not disputing that there has been

Live work over the years on the site. I think it refers to a range of well, mr

Chima's paragraph refers to a range of collective studio units. I don't think that's

actual proof that on that on its own is not proof of live work, but then when it mentions

creating a space for residents,

you know, I'd say that that is some evidence

of live -work being on the site.

Thank you.

Is the council currently enforcing

against any of the live -work use on the site?

Let me just cheque, let me just have a quick look

my statement of case. I've got a list of cases.

So with the list of enforcement cases in my statement of case,

So my statement of case, paragraph 311, for example, talks about 2025, a case breach ceased

as the use of the live -work unit stopped.

From that, it seems that there's not one open at the moment.

I can't fully confirm that there aren't any units under investigation at the moment.

I can't fully confirm that.

But yeah, I could just go by what I've,

when I, at the time of writing the statement of case,

those are the cases that I put in.

Yeah, because for all your, you are still very adamant

that none of the live work you some site is lawful.

You haven't put in evidence to say it's not lawful

and we are proactively enforcing against every unit of live work use, have you?

No, I haven't said that.

And that I'm going to, could we, because,

if we just go back to the first addendum statement of common ground, please.

So, yeah, we can see that you accept as we noted earlier, Hackney Cut is currently in

live work use, Victoria Wolf is in live work use and some of it's in a light industrial

use. And you're saying that you think the lawful use is B2BA basically, apart from the

cultural and community space. But when we refer back to if you can refer back to

policy B1 in the LLDC plan please.

and because your complaint as I understand it is that there's a conflict

with part 5 because you say on a proper analysis the lawful uses b2 or b8 and so

there'd be a change from that use yeah I think when I was also pushed further in

terms of lawfulness in the secondest extended statement of common ground I've

said that on a further analysis it appears that the lawful use of the

buildings is B8 slash B2 slash EG. Yeah but my point really goes to wait because

if the council if you're not saying which you're not and this live work use

is unlawful and we are proactively out there enforcing against it and making it

stop, that's not what you're doing, then the weight to be given with a conflict to a conflict with B1

must be limited mustn't it? Because the council's not doing anything at the moment

to get these units out of live -work use and to put them back into B2 or B8 use is it?

In terms of enforcement cases they're just they only arise if a complaint is made and then you

judge whether it's expedient to enforce.

So it's just about if a complaint is made,

or possibly a council tax person might have gone around

and seen something, then they might have informed the council

so if something, if when an application comes in,

something is not, we feel like the existing use

might not be lawful, if there's no enforcement action on it,

it's because it's, I mean, we need to,

It's about if a complaint has gone in basically. Yeah, but that doesn't really address my point which is

Factually the position still remain factually the position is the council has been engaging with this

Appeal certainly in for months and the application for longer you yourself have been saying for quite some time well

The live work use is not lawful and lawful uses b2 and b8

But so, factually, despite all of that, the council's not taking any steps to turn it

back into B2 or B8 use, correct?

No, we haven't opened an enforcement case, you know, since the applications come in from

a council perspective, in terms of an officer dealing with this appeal.

Yeah, and so it does follow that there's no justification for giving more than limited

weight to any failure to be provide B2 or B8 uses on the site because the council's

not doing anything to that end anyway, is it?

I wouldn't agree with that because just because something is not being enforced upon, it doesn't

mean that it's automatically lawful or should be judged as in the same way as a lawful use.

But why should the merits of the scheme be materially reduced because of a failure to

B2 or B8Us when the council isn't even seeking to do that itself?

I think you're looking at two different aspects because I'm looking at from the perspective of an

application or an appeal and assessing it on that basis against policies rather than from an

enforcement perspective. Could you answer the question please? I'll put it a different way.

what is the justification for inviting the inspector to hold a failure to

re -provide B2 and B8 use against the scheme materially

when the council itself is not making any attempt

to get those uses back on the site? I'd say we judge it against the lawful use

of the site and what needs to be provided based on the lawful use

rather than judging it by what the what an enforcement complaint

has been made or hasn't been made.

Right, thank you. Could we...let me just make sure I can get the PDF up.

Sorry, would it be a good time for a breakdown?

Oh, sorry, sir. I hadn't much at the time. That's fine, yes, thank you.

OK, we'll have a quick break.

15 minutes. Until quarter past 11, the inquiry is adjourned.

Thank you, sir. I'm just trying to get myself back onto the Internet.

Could we within Mr. Cheamer's proof of evidence please go to PDF 419 I think it was that you

took us to yesterday in the photos.

And you referred, so 419, 420, 421, you referred in relation to this space to the recording

equipment. But it's right, isn't it, that the fact that there's recording equipment

in somebody's living space doesn't by itself show that there's a work use going on there?

I think that's logical to say. I think it's a difficult one on this on a live work site

in Hackney Wick in Fish Island. Yeah there's a bit of a judgement call to be made. So yeah,

I agree with what you're saying that on its own it's not.

I think also Mr. Cheem has identified one similar room

which went over yesterday which was split between live -work

in the existing scenario.

So yes, I agree.

This may not be the one you were just referring to

but just 211 in the photos please, so PDF 211.

Yeah. I mean, your evidence yesterday, I think was that Mr Chima has accorded work status

to the area with the sewing machine. Yeah. From memory, I believe that to be the case.

I think it's just for the table area. Yeah, but that is that's a fair approach, isn't

it? I mean, you know, my mum's got a sewing machine and I wouldn't be saying any of her

house is workspace. So it's quite fair for Mr. Chima to have

accepted that the table area with the sewing machine is

workspace here, isn't it?

I think it's fair to say that that is workspace. But I would

also think it's fair when discussing this unique

typology and hacking wicked fish island, you know, which is well

documented in, you know, in various documents that I've put

in the core docs, that, you know, if you, if you say there

is live -work on the site as existing that you would attribute these kind of

flexible workspaces as workspaces you know based on you know people based on

the nature of the live -work in this area and there are there has to be some

workspace you know communal workspace for people to I mean if if it's a

live -work unit there's no work in it apart from a table then it's hard to say

that's a live -work unit

Thank you.

um on the mezzanines the that space has been included in Mr Chima's calculations hasn't it

you mean the mezzanine for this particular unit uh no sorry i'm i've finished with the photographs

now actually and i'm referring i'll give you the reference um to be fair to the second

addendum to the statement of common ground and then not a specific point on

any of these paragraphs but the mezzanine position is set out at paragraph 20

and following and so my question was that it's right isn't it that Mr. Cheema

has included the mezzanines in his calculations? We've both agreed that the

mezzanines appear to be lawful so we've agreed that between the parties so yeah

is right that Mr Chima has included those spaces in his calculations. Yeah and at 23

the apparent position is that although we've included them in the calculations they're

not development and they wouldn't need planning permission to be removed that's correct isn't

I believe that that would be correct because you don't need, I believe you don't need permission

to put them in. If it's a commercial kind of warehouse you don't need permission to put them

in or take them out but I would say that you should assess what is as existing in terms of

floor area and if you go by that position then you don't, you might not just assess anything

because you could knock the buildings down if they're not in the conservation area I guess.

Yes.

Yeah, and then in addendum two, there was, this is the sort of later entry I think from you under density where we've got LPA position at the end of the document if you could turn that up please.

Yes.

Now, could we just before we look at the well.

And I just want to look at your assessment of what is the appellant's position.

So scenario three is what I'm interested in interrogating where you said that's the appellant's position on the lawfulness of Hackney Cut, the Gatehouse and Block 4.

and so I'm really focusing on entry three in your table and then the

proposed figure in the bottom line as well. But just for context before we look

at the detail of this if you could go back please to policy B1 in the local

plan B15. If we are taking the

Apparents position.

Then there's not actually so B15B I'm looking at is talking

about a change from B1 use class floor space. But if we're

just talking if we're comparing the appearance case against what's proposed, there isn't actually a

change from a B1 use to another use is there?

Yeah, I feel like going by that, it would be assessing, I guess, in the appellant scenario

that the work of the live -work constitutes a B1 use, well old B1 use,

then I guess it wouldn't be a change to a different use but I would still say that

it should, going by the principles of that policy, maintain existing capacity

and increase density.

But I mean it just doesn't apply does it? Because if well we've let's go

step by step, you're not your position is that if there's a

conflict with B1, it's through a conflict with paragraph five,

you're not referring to the other paragraphs, are you?

In terms of B1, yeah, I think it was, in terms of the change of

use point, it's 5B. There's other points in the policy, such

as 6A, 6C, 7A and C as well, I guess we'll cover later.

C only applies if we're in the territory of 4 and 5 though, right?

Look at what it says, proposals considered under 4 and 5 above etc etc.

So C by itself can't be in play unless four or five is, correct?

I think going by the heading of five, so proposals on non -designated industrial sites, including

where new users proposed shall maintain or re -provide existing employment capacity.

Yeah, but that's a different question. My question, which I think is straightforward, is

you've just said you think there's also a problem with bits of C, sorry, bits of six,

but six is only engaged if we're considering a proposal under either four or five, yes?

Yeah, I agree, but I think that it would be engaged by the first line of five because it's

proposal a non -designated industrial site so it should maintain or re -provide existing employment

capacity and then it goes into further detail if you're talking about a B2 or a B8 or a B1.

Hang on a minute I just want to see where we are on six and seven so that I've understood

what you're saying and we can come back to that as necessary. I've dealt with six

and seven I think you said A and C was it you think there's an issue with?

Yeah, so in terms of seven we're saying yes.

So I think there is a, I mean proposals need to be considered against A in terms of proximity

of incompatible uses.

So I guess we're not saying that residential is incompatible, but it could be if proper

design considerations not factored in.

But you're not, hang on, I just want to be, because this, I think we are in danger of

new point creeping in and I want to cheque whether you're actually, well I just want

to cheque what your case is so that Mr Cheema has a chance to respond.

Are you saying that there is an incompatible, an incompatibility between, well let's see

what this is actually focusing on, that there are incompatible uses that create a problem

with the proposed use?

No, that's not my point, but I'm saying that it needs to be taken into account into the

assessment.

I think that Ms. Pack raised a point yesterday in terms of the yard and potential.

For example, in the yard space, such as now, I think Ms. Pack was saying that there is

noisy uses that take place.

So you would expect that noisy uses may take place in the yard as proposed, but they might

have to be restricted then basically because those noisy uses in the yard might have to

be restricted.

You're not actually, in the written evidence, you're not running a case to say that the

employment use here would be incompatible with the residential use, are you?

No.

So there isn't a conflict with 7A, is there?

We're saying that conditions should be able to cover in terms of, even though it wasn't

designed in from the start, conditions should be able to cover aspects such as noise, odour,

and air quality. But yeah, Ms. Packard raised a point yesterday in terms of those uses in

the courtyard. So I mean, I think we could deal with that by condition by saying you

can't do any noisy uses in the courtyard, something like that.

There's not a conflict with 7A, is there? I think that could be dealt with by condition,

but it is a consideration. We might have to kind of go back to the conditions.

No, there's not a conflict with 7A is there?

No, I think we can deal with that by condition.

Thank you. And then 7C, relocation strategies, is a matter that can be dealt with through

the section 106, yeah?

Yeah, that can be dealt with in the 106. But then I guess there's a case that with the

floor space. I mean, yeah, they should be it should be able to

be dealt with in the one to six. Yeah, as we've agreed that

wording, even though there's not a it's not we providing all of

the well, in our case, it's not be providing all the employment

floor space. But yeah, that point is is covered.

Right. So we are then looking just at five in terms of B one.

And also six A and C.

Yeah, but to get to six, we need to first establish that we're

engaging five, don't we?

Yes. And it says clearly that there's a requirement to maintain or we provide

existing employment capacity but that is by applying either A or B, yes? I feel

like the headline point is you need to, you should shall maintain or we provide

existing employment capacity and then it follows on with a more specific

guidance relating to the uses B2, B8. That's the wrong reading isn't it? Because, so are you saying

that even if we satisfied A or B we would still have a conflict with the first part of paragraph

five because that is that's simply not the right reading of the policy is it? I think the principle

of the policy is to maintain or we provide existing employment capacity and it also kind

follows on to supporting paragraph 4 .14 which says existing industrial capacity

balance and density will be maintained.

So your approach to this is that you say the first we somehow stop before we get to the phrase by

applying the following and instead we give independent life to the first two lines of

the policy that's what you want the inspector to do. I feel that that's the

principle of the of the policy which is the kind of directive overall that's the

kind of overall principle of the policy.

Right well I don't agree with that but it's a matter for legal submission and

Let's just see where we are in terms of A and B.

Yeah, the point that I was putting to you,

well, we've already dealt yesterday with the fact that B1

is not the same thing as sui generis

and neither is B2 or B8, right?

Yeah, live -work would be a sui generis use,

yeah, as a mixed use comprising living space

and I guess we'd be better to characterise the rest of it as light industrial, so it's a mixed

use but we would characterise that as sui generis, yes you're right. Yeah and so the

Appellant's case, I appreciate this isn't the Council's position, but the Appellant's case

is that the lawful use of the entire site is sui generis save that there's some self -contained

light industrial use and event space in Victoria Wharf yeah and also two more years Rob that's not

our case if you read I'm looking at the first addendum to the statement of common ground

I thought you sorry I thought you was just talking about live workspace

so yeah in terms of live workspace being in Hackney Cut, Timberyard Gate House and Block 4

Yeah, that is your case.

Yeah. So looking at A and B of this policy then, either we're not dealing with A or B at all,

because we're talking about a sui generis starting point, yeah?

Or if one assumes that the sui generis is, you know, near enough to be one, to be a B one use,

then we'd be looking, well, we can't be looking at A because that's not talking about B one at all.

And when we get to B, we're not then looking at any change from B1 use

because we're re -providing the floor space as B1.

Yeah, I would say that there is an assessment to be made in terms of maintaining

or re -providing existing employment capacity on the site.

So I think the assessment has to be made.

Yeah, just to say that the use is a live work.

but we don't need to re -provide the work.

I would say that the policies and development plan looks at maintaining and re -providing employment capacity.

So I think it's correct to look at maintaining or re -providing the employment capacity of the live -work if that's the lawful use.

Right, but on the Appellant's case, A and B are not engaged because there is no change from either a B1 or a B2 or a B -s class to something else.

I thought we'd just gone over that point.

Yeah, I think I would just reiterate why I said that.

I would say that there is an assessment of maintaining and requiring capacity.

Can you please answer the specific, I've had that answer from you probably twice, could

you please answer the actual question?

On the appellants case, neither A or B is engaged because there is no change from an

existing B1, B2 or B8 use to something else, is there?

I agree in terms of part B that it's not strictly

that might not strictly be a change from B1 but then I would also just repeat my

previous answer in terms of maintaining and providing employment capacity. Yeah

and then if we can go back to the second addendum and your stance on density and

the table that we were looking at with the four scenarios please. And we can see

in terms of jobs capacity as I said I'm looking at scenario three against the

proposed, we can see in terms of job capacity, there is an increase from 25 .9 up to 27. So

there would be an increase in job density on the site because there'd be more B1 jobs

on the site if we look at scenario three against the proposed, yes?

Yes in your case, there would be a slight increase from 25 .9 to 27.

Thank you. And then I just want to ask you about the asterisks that you've put next to the 25 .9.

You say should also include consideration of the 13 .9 jobs at Victoria Wharf Studio cultural venue

and additional jobs from the co -working space in two more years. But policy B1

And isn't a policy that applies to cultural event space, is it?

Because we've seen it's talking about non -designated industrial sites,

so it's talking about changes from industrial floor space use, not from cultural event space, correct?

That's correct, but I would also say that when you're analysing jobs on a site,

you might often have a situation where you would look at the overall job.

So if you're losing jobs overall, I mean, and the principle of the policies is to increase or maintain jobs, then, you know, it's not in the policy wording, but reading the development plan on the whole.

I think that is often a judgement that is made where someone justifies something where it doesn't quite meet the policies.

But you might be losing, but overall you are gaining jobs.

So like for a hope, if someone is justifying a hotel in an employment space, employment area, for example.

So yeah, you're right, it's not a consideration of this policy strictly, but I do feel like in terms of assessing jobs, it should be taken into consideration overall.

And then on two more years, you say we should take additional jobs into account from co -working space.

space. Now, the 1476 figure, which is scenario three, has taken all of two more years as

workspace though, hasn't it?

The number three scenario?

Yeah.

Yes, I believe that it's your case that all of that space is two more years is light industrial,

And then all of the space, which is workspace of the live work, is like industrial.

I believe that's what your case is.

So is your point about the co -working space where you say additional jobs from EG1, your

point is that some of the two more years space should have been an employment density of

1 .10 rather than 1 .47.

Is that what you're trying to say?

That's what I've laid out in my table.

and I've in terms of the part in terms of scenario one I've said that so the two late later numbers

so 359 .6 plus 338 .5 that that encompasses two more years I think is like six point

698 .1 so I've split that for 338 .5 which I say is the co -working cafe as a lawful use over the years

Yeah, so if trying to apply that point to what you're the Asterix on scenario 3

You're saying that

338 point 5 square metres of it should have been

1 .10 for employment density to reflect a co -working use rather than the 1 .47 that we've applied is that the point?

The thing is though

The co -working use, I mean you in your evidence in chief described two more years as a co -working cafe and art gallery and then as a mixed use co -working cafe and gallery and cultural events space.

That's not an office co -working environment like a B1 use is it?

I would say it's akin to a co -working space because it has facilities for people to use.

It's advertised as a co -working space and it operates as a co -working space with a bar

slash cafe. I mean it might not be as an office co -working space but yeah it is quite similar

to that.

I mean it's not, I'm going to close on the basis that there isn't a justification, I

mean a Starbucks can be a co -working space if you take your laptop there and plug in,

it's not actually justified to apply the 1 .10 employment density which is for office uses

EG1 to a cafe co -working space is it?

Yeah as with a lot of these it is a matter of judgement and there is a

different range of density figures. I judged that as a co -working space it was most akin to that.

Yeah co -working is quite open and flexible it can just be you know open desks basically which you

So the site is just open desks at ground floor and people use it as a co -working space.

And then a quick point on the relocation strategy.

You said in Evidence in Chief, well, it doesn't cover two more years and Vittoria Wharf studio.

but as we've seen that's a requirement that comes from policy B1 and so again

it's a requirement that covers industrial uses not a requirement we

find in policy for cultural event space correct? That's correct I just I think I

just picked up on a point that was raised that two more years could

possibly I think somebody mentioned that two more years could fall under the

relocation strategy. So I agree that in terms of the employment

uses it could, you know, that space could be provided in the

relocation strategy. I just wanted to make distinction that

the cultural events and community space couldn't be

provided by the relocation strategy.

Right, thank you.

Then could we turn up Ms. Young's rebuttal briefly? I just want to look at the paragraph

that I took Mrs. Pack to yesterday. So Ms. Young's rebuttal, paragraph 2 .20302, please.

page 8.

I'm on that now.

And this is where, as I understand it, you take a or you don't agree with what she says

about the adequacy of the floor heights here, is that correct?

Yeah, I've outlined an issue with the floor to ceiling

heights not being sufficiently flexible, because they might

meet some ranges, but they don't meet some minimums for different

types of spaces in the creative industries.

Could we turn up the employment, well actually first let's deal with where you've spoken

about this in your proof please. So in your proof of evidence can we go to 8 .47 please.

And then, sorry, 857, I think, was the references

I wanted where you discuss the employment space study and then can we and I mean my first point is

There's not a policy requirement to provide

you know

Studio space and small warehouse space and large warehouse space and so on and so forth. So there's nothing in policy

That says that we have to provide, you know a specific quantum of particular subtypes of floor spaces there

No, I don't believe there is a specific wording in policy which states that you need to provide

every type of floor space, but I would say that there is policy wording which says that

space should be flexible, should be sufficiently flexible for the creative industries.

And these considerations have been outlined in the Pre -App, for example, in terms of the

of spaces which should be delivered. There is various guidance which points to a range

of spaces which should be delivered, I would say.

Can we turn up core document 7 .48 please, which is the employment study? Let me know

when you have that and then page 21 please.

Sorry no that's...

Excuse me. So this we can see is the Hackney -Wickenfish Island explanation and then workspace considerations

at the bottom. And we can see what's said there in the bullet points. So there's a,

The second one is provide a range of employment floor space,

including starter and move on units for small and medium

enterprise, provide flexible floor space, so on and so forth.

But again, because the points that are being taken around

floor space minimums relate to specific types, don't they,

like studio and small warehouse or small industrial.

But there's nothing here to say that a single scheme has to

provide a particular number of those different subtypes of floor space?

Yeah, you're right. It doesn't specifically say that you need to provide certain types of use

floor space, but I would say that, yeah, in this area to make sure that the spaces are well used

and that there are tenants in them and that there is actually a job's capacity and employment density.

you know there is an assessment to be made on the range of spaces that are

provided and if in my opinion if a sufficient range of spaces is not

provided then you know there is a danger that the space wouldn't be occupied and

it wouldn't be adequate.

Can we go to page 49 next please?

Also talks about maintaining the overall amount of existing employee floor space on that power

for that. Yeah. Okay. 49. Yes. This is 3 .1 small creative studio. Yeah. So this is a

type of the studio and you know, subtype of floor space. Yeah. And we can see in the typical

uses in the bottom left hand corner, artists, studios, creative sector services and small

scale makers. Yeah. So in terms of there's been some discussion of makerspace.

Excuse me. And. Which also appears under, I think, small industrial and that typology in this

but we can see that small makers, so a form of maker space, can be provided through a type of studio floor space, can't it?

Yeah, it does say small scale makers in the small creative studio typology.

And then can we go to page 59 please, which is small industrial space?

Yeah.

Oh sorry, it's page 58 actually. Small industrial warehouse type space.

Oh yes. And it says typical use class B2 and B8, yeah?

Yeah. Now, if the apparent is right, that there

isn't, well there's, I think everybody agrees there's no existing B2, B8 uses on site at the moment, don't they?

As existing on the site. We weren't able to go into 500 square metres of the space. But yeah, we have, we

haven't outlined those in the existing uses of sites.

Yeah so but your case is that B2 and B8 is relevant because it's although it's

not the existing use you say it's the lawful use still for some of the space

on site but if the appellant is right and that there's no B2 B8 use on site at

moment and that's not the lawful use of any of the units either then the scheme

can't be criticised for not re -providing B2B8 space can it?

I'll just make it clear so you're saying that in your case if if there isn't if

there is if there's a judge that there is no B2B8 lawful use then you can't be

criticised for not providing B2B8.

Yeah if that is a judge to be correct that there is you know the lawful use of

those buildings, those three buildings is live work,

then in that scenario, yes.

And in terms of floor to ceiling height,

I mean the inspector will have seen for himself,

it's right that several of the existing occupiers on site

are happily occupying space without utilising,

you know, the full extent of the floor to ceiling heights that are set out in this document?

Yeah, there were various existing users of the site, especially in Live Work, that had limited ceiling heights.

However, I would say that there is a range around the site in terms of existing occupiers,

and for example the photography studio, the large photography studio with a 7 .7 -ish metre

floor to ceiling height and there was a range but yeah you are correct in what you say that

there were some that had limited ceiling heights. Yeah I mean the photography studios if it's

if it is utilising 7 .7 metres that's way beyond the sort of recommended minimums in this document

isn't it? I think some uses do go up to that height. Some uses do go up to that height,

but for photography studio, I don't know what I'd fall under off the top of my head in terms of

the uses in this one, but yeah you do often see photography studios with

high floor to ceiling heights and a lot of light in them.

All right, thank you.

Could you then turn in the London plan?

I just want to come back to finish off with you as the planning witness,

the planning policy points around affordable workspace.

So could you go to the London plan please and go to the glossary

and find the definition of affordable workspace,

which is page 511 no 510 sorry PDF 510 or internal page 495.

Yes.

So we saw this with Mrs. Pack yesterday.

The London Plan definition is,

workspace that's provided at rents maintained below the market rate

for that space for a specific social, cultural or economic development purpose.

And you'll be aware the definition is the same in the LLDC Local Plan, isn't it?

Yeah, I think there is also a definition at 6 .3 .2 as well,

which is pretty similar, just under the Affordable Workspace Policy.

Which documents that? Sorry, 6 .3 .2 in the London plan or in the LRGC plan?

Yeah London plan, sorry.

Okay, but it's the glossary definition we should be using though isn't it?

That is the general definition. However, I would also look at the definition below the policy.

Which yeah, so the full workspace is defined here as workspace that's provided to rents maintained below the market rate for that.

It says the same as the glossary.

It says it can be provided and or managed directly by a dedicated workspace provider

and or secured in perpetuity.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, so it's quite similar.

And then in the local plan, the ILDC local plan,

so there isn't in the glossary in the London plan,

there's no definition of low cost or lower cost space,

although the concept is referred to

and certainly in some of the supporting texts.

But in the LLDC plan glossary, this is page PDF 295,

internal page 293,

there is a definition of low cost business space.

Yeah, you're right. There is a definition

not in the glossary of the London plan,

as you say, in terms of low cost business space.

And you're right, there is a definition in the LLDC local plan.

Yeah, secondary and tertiary space, which is of a lower specification than prime space,

it usually commands rents at or below the market average.

So at the moment on site, it may well be that the space is low cost business space because

it's not, you know, prime central London office space.

But it isn't at the moment affordable workspace, is it?

I would say they could fall under affordable workspace in the form of two more years,

which has rents below the market rate and it's for a cultural purpose

and it's managed by a workspace provider.

Where's the evidence on the rents at two more years, please?

I think it's, yeah, there's, I think, I don't know if Ms. Pak brought up in her evidence or not

about on two more years in terms of the rent. I thought she might have mentioned that it was,

it seems to be at the rate for a cultural use.

And I think it's evidenced by it being full of cultural occupants,

cultural and creative occupants who deem it to be affordable.

And in terms of the public reps, there's also representations on that point.

So you would, yeah, it does seem to fall under the category of affordable work space.

That's how it seemed. That's how it's viewed.

Are you providing any actual evidence on the rents that two more years are paying?

No, I do believe there was a lease for two more years possibly included in the

application submission but I'm not providing evidence on that because I'm not an expert on

the rate. I can't remember if Ms Pack covered the rate or not yesterday.

What she did say yesterday, because I said to her...

Well, actually, her answer was, I didn't examine the rents.

They're probably on the level of rent that supports their creative practises

and is affordable to them.

And then I said to her, the rents could be increased tomorrow

and there's nothing permanent about the current rental arrangements.

And she agreed and said, they're not protected at the moment,

to my knowledge, so the affordability is not protected.

They're on short -term leases, as far as I understand.

Having regard to all of what Mrs. Pack said, it is correct that the workspace on site at the moment is not affordable workspace in accordance with the terms in either the London plan or the local plan, isn't it?

So that practically is affordable workspace, which is, you know, it's at rents below the market rate. That's how it operates. So whether it's secured by a 106, it operates in that way.

But what market rate, because the occupiers on site are just paying the market rate for

the space they're occupying, which is secondary or tertiary space and it's not fine. So it's

low cost, but it's not workspace that's provided at rents that are being maintained below the

market rate for that space. They're just paying the market rate for the space they're in,

they.

The NLDC local plan it refers to affordable workspace can be managed

workspace or unsupported independent business

space made available to tenants below the

prevailing market rent for that type of space.

The current rate for the cultural or creative use

or subsidised at a lower cost.

So I guess it's the current rate for the cultural or creative use,

which is referenced at 4 .34 of the LLDC local plan.

Yeah, I'm looking at the glossary because

that's what provides the definitions

for us to understand and interpret the actual policy,

never mind the supporting text.

The glossary is the same in both the London plan and the local plan.

it's correct that at the moment none of the workspace on site meets the

glossary definition

well yeah in terms of it being provided in terms of the glossary definition

provided that rents maintains below the market rate for that space

Well, I don't have evidence, even though evidence might be there is, yeah, it hasn't been analysed

in terms of the actual rate that two more years of paying or whether it's below the

market rate or not.

But I would just also say that it's relevant to consider the supporting text directly underneath

the policy.

Yeah, I mean, for Mr Flanagan's information, I will be referring to the

Cherkley and Mole Valley case, which establishes clearly that you can't add

in policy requirements from the supporting text. So I'm going to stick

with the glossary definition. It's correct, isn't it, that none of the space

on site at the moment meets the glossary definition. As I've said, I'm happy to

accept its low -cost workspace as defined by the local plan but it doesn't meet

the glossary definition of affordable workspace for either the London Plan or

the local plan does it?

Yeah I guess even though it practically operates as as the definition of the

affordable workspace in the glossary it may not technically mean I can't say

that I can't myself I can't say that technically meets the being below the

market rate because we haven't on my side haven't analysed the actual market

rate for that even though it practically operates as a photo workspace also yeah

And then turning to the policies on reprovision, there's nothing in the MPPF that requires

affordable workspace or low cost workspace to be provided?

In E2 of the MPPF, it does not specifically reference affordable workspace. However,

I would say that it would fall under the umbrella of the detail of that policy, which references

the UK's industrial strategy, which gives further detail on creative industries and

maintaining and enhancing them.

Are you saying there's a requirement in the MPPF to re -provide affordable or low -cost

workspace?

There's no specific requirement in the wording of policy E2 to to re -provide that.

And then could we turn up within the London plan E2 and in that plan again please which

we have already looked at. So internal page 99, sorry internal page 2, oh I don't know

anyway you found it. Yes sorry I was looking at the footnote. So E2C we dealt with yesterday

on the point about shortages but looking at the rest of it E22 we can see is a requirement

to include affordable workspace but where appropriate and then it's a direction onto

E3 yeah? E3 and then if we go on to E3, E3A

E3a we can see it says that planning obligations may be used to secure affordable workspace

and then E3b just says consideration should be given to the need for affordable workspace.

So the London plan doesn't have a policy that says affordable workspace must be re -provided

nor does it say anything about low -cost workspace being re -provided, correct?

In the London plan it doesn't specifically say that, but it does say that

consideration should be given. Yeah. And so yeah in my consideration I've made

that planning judgement based on also yeah part B in terms of two, it being in

creative enterprise zone and yeah and it will be desirable to sustain that mix of

business or cultural uses in relation to part three of it being in the creative

enterprise zone. And then can we look at B4 in the local plan so the LLDC plan

please which is the last of the policies on low -cost and affordable

workspace.

And so this is a more specific requirement to retain or we provide so it

says existing managed affordable workplace or low cost business space

shall be retained or we provided but that is in accordance with policy B1

yeah yeah and there's nothing that requires existing low cost business

space to be we provided instead as affordable workspaces there

I think just part three says re -provides existing low -cost business space to affordable

workspace in accordance with policy B .1 and it does not result in a net loss of employment.

Yeah, but my point is if you've got a site full of low -cost business space, you can satisfy

this requirement to re -provide by re -providing it as low -cost business space. You don't have

to upgrade it as it were to affordable workspace, do you under the policy?

I think it says you could provide either, I guess as long as the low cost business space,

you know, meets the affordability.

And so insofar as The Apparent is now proposing to provide all of the new

employment floor space as affordable workspace, there's none on site at the

moment in terms of actual affordable workspace as opposed to low -cost

business and there will be I think around 1 ,500 square metres of affordable

workspace on site under the proposal, yeah? And I mean, that

is a benefit that well, first of all, it's a benefit that

satisfies this policy before Yes.

Sorry.

If there is a loss of low cost business space, with the

proposal then it wouldn't meet part three. Yeah but on the

appellants case on quantum if it's right that the quantum if the quantum is the

same or more between the existing and the proposed and we're going from low

cost business space at the moment to affordable workspace then that would

that will satisfy this policy won't it? In theory yeah if you was going by the numbers,

Mr Chima's numbers of the proposed workspace being more than the work element of the live work,

going by that it would however as you know I dispute the apportion of live and work and I

actually more workspace than live on the site. So yeah, I

dispute that.

And actually, in terms of the London plan policy, because the

London plan doesn't require low cost business space to be

provided, then provision of any affordable workspace on the

site will satisfy and exceed the London plans policies on

affordable workspace? There could be a case to say that however in my judgement

I would say going by part B of policy E3 of the London Plan in terms of

Considering the need for affordable workspace

Taking consideration the type of space that's there at the moment

Which we'd say is practically affordable and low cost and it being in a CZ taking that into consideration

I was I would say that

You know, there should be a good consideration of we providing that which is on the site in terms of affordable and low cost business space

Yeah, but in terms of E3B3, if what we've got is a site at the moment where there's

no actual affordable workspace, there's just low -cost workspace, providing 1 ,500 square

metres of affordable workspace amply satisfies E3B3, doesn't it?

because you're going from 0 to 1500 square metres.

Going by part b3 you're saying only.

Yeah, as I said, I considered that the space on the site operates practically as a affordable

workspace and low cost business space. And so I would, yeah, have a judgement in terms

of considering that it should be provided related to that, but it would be more relevant

to relate to part two though.

I'm sorry, the later part two of what?

E3B2.

We're not dealing with an area identified in a DPD where cost pressures yada yada yada.

Okay, let's see. So, okay. So it mentions creative enterprise zone there.

Yeah, but I mean, my, my question was not about, which I don't think I've had an answer to.

If we're going, whether we're looking at E3B2 or E3B3,

on either view, this is still only asking the inspector

to give consideration to the need

for affordable workspace, right?

So actually to comply with the policy,

you just think about it.

It's not a requirement to provide,

re -provide, anything of the sort.

So on any view, if we're going from zero

actual affordable workspace on site at the moment

up to a provision of 1500 square metres, that's going well beyond considering the need for

affordable workspace and that's actually providing a not insignificant quantum of affordable

workspace, isn't it?

I think it's a consideration, so it's a planning judgement. I would also reference 4 .35 of

the LLDC local plan in terms of locations if clear demand exists within a potential

Creative Enterprise Zone in terms of the consideration on that and also I guess

you could also refer to the draught Tower Hamlets local plan in terms of the

prioritised, if I just get the reference if you give me a moment, before I

prioritising creative affordable workspace. I'm talking about the London Plan Policy E3 so can we

stick with that please. Do you agree that if we're going from zero actual

affordable workspace on site at the moment to 1 ,500 square metres on any

view that's going to satisfy E3 of the London Plan?

I don't think you would satisfy E3 in terms of B part 2. Why? If we are going

from nothing to 1500 square metres of affordable workspace. Why does that not satisfy a policy

requirement that just says you consider the need for affordable workspace? Because you consider the

need for the full workspace and it says in areas identified in the local development plan document

where cost pressures could lead to the loss of affordable or low cost workspace in a CEZ. Yeah

and then in response to having considered the need we're providing 1500 square metres of affordable

workspace that's not there at the moment. So this policy is satisfied, isn't it?

I think it also refers to low -cost workspace. So yeah, I would take that into consideration.

No, no, affordable or low -cost. It's up to you, but are you actually going to continue to say

that providing 1 ,500 square metres of new affordable workspace doesn't satisfy E3B2?

Is that your last and ultimate answer on this?

Yes.

Given your analysis yesterday about additional public benefits for BN5,

if the inspector doesn't agree with you and he agrees that the Affordable Workspace offer does satisfy

London Plan policies E3 and policy B4 of the local plan. That is an additional

public benefit for the purpose of policy BN5 isn't it? I would say it would

have to be in that circumstance it would have to be taken into account in the

round also taken into account the any any kind of low -cost workspace that is

on the site present. Yeah I know but we've dealt with all of that my question

what if the inspector concludes that the affordable workspace policies are satisfied, that is

an additional public benefit for the purposes of BN5? Because your evidence yesterday was

that you think for there to be significant additional public benefits, you'd have to

at least satisfy policy on affordable workspace and affordable housing. So applying your logic

from yesterday, if the inspector thinks we do satisfy the affordable workspace policy,

then that's an additional public benefit under BN5, isn't it?

I think in that scenario it would go towards it could go towards

Looking at it from that way. It doesn't that's not to say that I believe don't satisfy it

If it's right that we're going from zero affordable workspace provision at the moment to 1 ,500 square metres,

that's a benefit that should be given substantial weight in the overall planning balance, isn't it?

In that scenario, if there was zero and it's going to 1 ,500 square metres, then that would be a significant public benefit.

So you think it's significant but you're not prepared to give it substantial weight?

Is that where you land on this? In your scenario, yeah I guess in your scenario you could.

so you you accept that we could give it substantial weight

yeah okay

Right, could we turn up London Plan Policy HC 5 next?

On culture.

Excuse me.

And then your proof at 69.

page 69. Let me know when you're there. Yes. I can see from this you say there's a conflict

with part A, one, three and five, so let's look at that please. So HC5A1 is a requirement to protect

existing cultural venues facilities and uses where appropriate, yes? Sorry, so yeah if it's page 69,

so is that referring to cultural venues or workspace because in 69 that's referring to

cultural venues? Yeah, I'm on cultural venues now, so we've moved on from workspace. So

So HC 5A1 is a requirement to protect existing cultural venues, facilities and uses where

appropriate so it's not an absolute requirement to do so in all circumstances, correct?

You're right, just where appropriate.

And then part three is talking about identifying, protecting and enhancing strategic clusters

of cultural attractions but we're not dealing with a strategic cluster of cultural attractions

here are we? I think as a sorry in part A2 it refers to cultural

quarters which is a specifically kind of designated cultural cluster but there

are also kind of more informal cultural clusters which part three six to protect

I would say, and in terms of the evening and nighttime economy, SPD, that kind of basically

establishes, I would say, that Hackney Wiccan Fish Island is a strategic cluster of cultural

attractions.

Is that set out in a, maybe that it is and I've missed it, is that set out in a planning

policy or an SPD anywhere that identifies strategic clusters and says that Hackney Wiccan

Fish Island is one of them?

I would have to cheque the SPD off the top of my head.

I mean, the SPD is there for a reason because it identifies the importance of Technic and

Fish Island from a nighttime economy and culture perspective.

In terms of the exact wording of a strategic cluster, I'd have to do a word search in that

document.

because yeah.

Yeah, okay, well I'm sure we can be taken to it

in the examination if there's a point

that you've not been able to put your thing on immediately.

Is it your case though that the loss of, on your case,

two more years and Victoria Wharf Studios,

is it your case that that would be so significant

as to materially damage the entire strategic cluster

of Hackney Wick and Fish Island?

I would say that when you're looking at protecting a strategic cluster of

cultural infractions, if you're losing very important venues in the area, that

wouldn't be protecting the cluster, which kind of follows on from the GLA CEZ,

one of their responses which talked about impacting the entire CEZ.

I mean, Victoria Wharf Studios, given the floor space size, you're not contending that

has any particularly important or iconic function in the cluster as an event space, are you?

I think it's not just about the size of a space like that, because yeah, it might be

only 153 square metres, but also including River Terrace.

But it also can, has a capacity,

I don't know the exact capacity,

but I think it's 200 people, the capacity.

So if you had 200 people using that space

on a regular basis, then it can be judged as important

for the cluster, for the CZ, and for the area

from a cultural perspective.

Right, so you and your approach to HD 583 is that the loss of even what is not a large venue,

and innately would be so damaging as to conflict with the policy, even though the policy is trying

to protect a strategic cluster and not individual venues. Yeah, I think as I've just said, I would

In terms of that on its own, Vitoria Wolf Studio.

Yeah, I think that it's two more years as a more famous venue,

but this is still an important venue in the area.

As I said, for the reasons I've said, for the reasons in my proof,

for the range of events which take place there,

different types of events from community and wellness to nightclub events

and the amount of people that use it, different types of people,

for different audiences. So it would contribute to not complying with that part of the policy

as well as part A1.

Okay, well, I don't approve your approach to that policy, but I can deal with that in

closing. And then part five, seek to ensure that opportunity areas and large scale mixed

developments include new cultural venues. Are you saying

this is an absolute requirement? Or first of all, are you saying

this is a large scale mixed use development? Because it's not

using the touchstone of major development, it's saying large

scale. So that's is that why you think this applies?

It's hard to judge in terms of large scale what that means. I

would say just in terms of this policy, it would fall under the

umbrella of an opportunity area whether it's a large -scale mixed -use development

yeah it's hard to say that it might not fall under it being a large -scale mixed -use

development or fall under it being an opportunity area I think it also links

to policy CI dot one where it refers to providing new community facilities yeah

Yeah, we're coming onto that in a bit.

Right, so not, you're not relying on the bit about

large scale mixed use developments,

but you say it's in an opportunity area.

But I mean, if we're just focusing on opportunity areas,

then there's a requirement that somewhere

in an opportunity area, there should be new cultural venues

or facilities and spaces for outdoor cultural events.

We can't read this policy as saying that every proposal

in an opportunity area has to come forward

with a new cultural venue

or an outdoor cultural event space, can we?

No, I think it's just a consideration and you have to look at it in terms of whether

it's appropriate on a site to include new cultural venues.

But I think more it would be in terms of protecting existing cultural venues, which is the thrust

of the case in terms of Victoria Wharf Studio and Two More Years.

And if there weren't any cultural venues there, then there would be a consideration of new

cultural venues and community facilities.

But as there are existing ones, I think that's more of the case.

There's not, I mean, I've heard your point on one and three, but this five is talking

about this could only be relating to a failure to provide new.

It's not looking at protecting existing because we've done that in one and three.

Five is could only be a conflict if there had been a, you know, an unjustified failure to provide new facilities.

But as I say, certainly the council stance or LDC stance before Tower Hamlets was not to require every opportunity area site to have some form of cultural space on it.

So it's not right to identify a conflict with five here.

I've got your case on one and three, but five isn't in play realistically, is it?

Yeah, I think that's fair because there are existing cultural venues.

So you wouldn't be expecting a third cultural venue to be provided specifically.

So I guess my case rests more on part one and and three in terms of A.

Thank you.

And then let's go in the local plan to C .I. one, please.

I'm sorry, I'll just supplement that by looking at A2 which looks at enhancing existing locally

distinct clusters of cultural facilities when using related uses, which is kind of similar

to part three or supplementary.

Which page did you say?

Policy C1 CI sorry CI1 in the local development plan it's page 78 internal.

Let me know when you're there.

78 PDF 80 I think if you're working electronically. Thanks. Right so we can see this starts off

by saying the Legacy Corporation will require the provision of new community infrastructure

as part of new major development proposals. That is materially inconsistent with the MPPF

isn't it? Because if we look in the MPPF for HC3 please, which is page 77, no 75 internal

PDF 77.

Is it HC4? No, HC3 please. Yes. This is the MPPF's approach to the provision of

community facilities and we don't see a requirement for every major development

proposal to provide new community infrastructure do we? No it does refer to

proposals for housing or employment rather than which would give rise to

significant numbers of additional people living in working or visiting should

Part B provide new or improved community facilities. Yeah but in so far as the

local plan policy has a different test and just says if you're a major

development proposal then you should be doing it that is materially inconsistent

with the more sort of nuanced approach in the MPPF isn't it? I wouldn't say it's

inconsistent I would say it's it's full it does I think it would fall under the

umbrella of significant numbers of additional people moving in and then it

will be a judgement in terms of a major application falling under that I would

So you wouldn't basically if a site didn't result in significant numbers of additional people living, working or visiting, you wouldn't be saying under C11 that it should be providing new community infrastructure then?

if there wasn't a significant number of additional people living in, working or visiting from

a development.

And we can see on existing community facilities, which is really what I've understood you to

concerned with here. It says generally within use class D1. Yeah, back in, sorry, back in

policy CI1. So generally within use class D1, D1 was use not including residential use,

but for medical and health services, creches, day nurseries, day centres, education, museums,

libraries, halls, exhibition halls and then religious buildings and law courts.

So none of the existing uses on the site are a D1 use class are they? I don't

believe they're a D1 use class but I think in the supporting text it talks

about. So firstly it says generally within use class D1 and then in the

supporting text that talks about 5 .57 existing facilities in the area which

fall under D1 but may also include D2 venues of a specific community or

cultural value which I would say that's a bit these venues which fall under that

and also the glossary references I think yeah let me find the glossary definition

I think it does refer to community facilities.

My memory is correct.

Yeah, so it's page 290 of the, page 289 of the PDF,

community and social infrastructure community

facilities references community cultural as well.

And it says the list is not exhaustive.

and other uses can be included as community infrastructure.

So I would say it does fall under that.

Yeah, it's not the case though that every cultural use is a community use though is it?

You can't let, they are two different things.

I think generally cultural facilities fall under the definition of community facilities.

In this case for these two venues, I think with the range and breadth of events that they run,

which both sides have outlined.

I have made a judgement to say that they would fall under community facilities.

Okay, the next point we've dealt with, I think.

Yeah, it's right, isn't it, that in terms of loss of community facilities, the council's

has evolved substantially from the decision notice,

which just refers to the loss of a nightclub

and not to venues as being problematic?

Yeah, that's right.

I guess two more years was referred to as a nightclub

in the decision notice and to get a delegate report.

When I took over the case,

just having further analysis into the site

and just knowing it from working in the borough for so long

and from all of the representations, I thought it was very pertinent to outline the full

range of activities and definition of the site.

And also in terms of the Victoria Wharf studio, you could say that was an omission, but it

was not included by the appellant in the application.

That site was totally missed in the survey.

So I had to point it out.

When I took over the appeal, I pointed it out to the appellant.

And then that's why they did a re -survey.

but in their first resurvey they actually still said that that site was

at red they said that that unit was residential and I pointed out again and

it was changed to a cultural venue so I think if it was if it was outlined in

the application originally then we would have assessed that but it was missed and

Mr. Cheema's rebuttal please at 2 .47.

Let me know when you have that.

And I mean Mr. Cheamer's point here is that he's analysed two more years as existing workspace,

but the point he's making at 247 is well, if two more years is a cultural venue instead,

then obviously there would be a loss of that. But the other point that would need to be

taken into account is that it would mean the existing workspace figures for the site are

actually lower and therefore there'd be a higher and reprovision of workspace

under the scheme he's correct about that isn't he oh I would say that I love

discussed earlier that that ground floor space operates as workspace but it

operates functionally as a workspace and but it also yeah as mr. cheema agrees it

operates functionally as a workspace, but it's obviously a

cultural venue as well, as evidenced by everything in my

proof and also the significant amount of public

representations. It's a much loved venue in the area, and

it's established.

Yeah, but I think this is the point, can we go back to the

First addendum to the statement of common ground, please.

And paragraph four, page 20, and then the table underneath.

And so we picked the floor space position up earlier, but

we've agreed that the event space isn't an additional 338 .5 of floor space.

your position is that there's 698 .1 as a minimum GIA floor space and you say that

some of that is in a dual use really is where you've got to isn't it? Yeah. But it's right isn't

it that if there's a dual function going on here then any conflict with policy around

and re -provision of workspace or loss of a cultural venue, it should reflect the fact

that we're dealing with a dual use. Because the entire venue is not running at full tilt

as both a workspace and a cultural event space at the same time. That is physically impossible,

isn't it? I would say that a workspace is generally

operate from, you know, nine to five. So I guess you'd say that's full tilt for a workspace.

then for a cultural venue it might be, and it's just on the weekdays, for a

cultural venue full tilt might be you know from 5 till 12 or 1 and then the

week ends. So hang on, what is your evidence on timings? Are you saying that

there's no overlap so that it's workspace and then it's cultural event

space and basically the two things never overlap temporally?

I don't think that's right is it?

I mean yeah there's so many events that run from that space I'm sure that some of them do

run in the daytime as well, you know and it's a gallery space as well so you have exhibitions

there during the day but as a general I would say that it operates relatively separately

although there is some overlap.

Yeah, so as I was saying, if there is some overlap,

then it's correct that any weight to policy conflict

that's dealing with failure to re -provide workspace

or loss of cultural event space, it should reflect the fact

that this is a venue wearing two hats and not something that's...

It's certainly not in terms of an event space.

It's not an event space that's available to everybody 24 -7.

It does have a 24 -hour licence but I feel like no, I mean it just operates as a typical event space

where you know maybe sometimes I'm not sure I'm just I would guess from I mean there's so many

thousands of events that didn't look into every single one of them individually but you know

there were some private hire events

that I'm sure took place in the daytime.

But as an events space,

I would say that it's pretty well stocked.

So it does, is pretty regular,

is a key community facility

in terms of the frequency of events that it runs,

in regularity I would say.

Yeah, but insofar as the 338 .5 event space

that you identify,

when that's in use as an event space,

it's not it's not available then to people to work in is it?

I feel like it operates as a typical workspace would from nine to five that's typical workspace

because it's not a workspace in the rest of the time it doesn't mean that you don't for an

workspace at night time because people are not in there.

No, but my question was, when you because you you can't have

your cake and eat it on this Mr. Weir ultimately, you were just

saying how much event space use is going on and you think it's

pretty well stocked, it's pretty regular as an event space. If

that's right, then the 338 .5 square metres of event space

you're talking about when it's being used as an event space,

it's not available as workspace is it?

I mean, there is a wide range of events.

I don't know if you can just characterise them all

in the broad brush.

There might be some instances where events take place there.

I'm sure there are, where the tables are still there

and you can, you know, go and do your coworking.

And as I've just said before,

I would just say that it's, the workspace operates,

typical workspace hours and the event space operates,

you know, during evenings and weekends,

which is quite typical of that kind of space,

but they also might overlap sometimes

use.

Thanks.

Right, thank you. Loss of the live -work units, let's try and bring this to an end as succinctly

as we can, given the time, please. There is no extant local plan, development plan protection

for the existing live -work units is there?

So yeah this is in the scenario that the live -work is law for isn't it yeah.

I mean yeah setting aside the draught local plan.

I would say the work element is protected under the cultural, could be protected under

the cultural policy, but you know, yeah, not in terms of specific live work, there's no

protection for specific live work use in the current development plan.

Yeah, and because you refer to London Plan Policies HD5 and 6, but again, there's nothing

that I could see that specifically addresses live -work in either of those policies?

It doesn't specifically address live -work in those policies. I think it mentions, well

mentioned that the evening and nighttime economy, SPD talks about artist studios,

whether that's artist studios, you know, if the lawful use of the is as live -work

then the artist studio element of that contributes to the nighttime economy so

in that way, you know, it would fall under HC6.

Well I'm not, I mean a live -work unit is not necessarily contributing to the

There's no evidence that any of these live -work units are specifically contributing to night -time

economies there?

Quite a few, they are quite wide in the range of activity which happens from those units

I believe in terms of night -time activity.

So I think it was partially covering that from my understanding.

Right, and then on the weight to be given to the emerging local plan please, can you

just within Mr Cheema's rebuttal turn up paragraph 2 .32 please.

And he's set out as we saw yesterday, recent committee reports from the council, where

as we can see limited, no, and then limited weight has been given to the

policies in the plan. You don't dispute factually Mr. Chima's account here, do you?

I think I just, sorry.

I think I did dispute that Mr. Cheema referenced it

as a regulation 19 plan with regulation 22.

On regulation 22, I would say that, you know,

overall you'd have to give the draught local plan

limited weight, but you can look at policies

which don't have a significant number of objections

and how far they comply with other policies

such as the NPPF, and you can attribute weight

to draught local plan policies.

But when we look at Mr. Cheamer's 2 .38 please, where he says all three of the applications

he cited involved the loss or replacement of Class E floor space to which EG1 and EG4

are potentially relevant, but the policies weren't mentioned and no or limited weight

was given to the local plan overall. I mean, actually that's correct, isn't it, what he

says there?

Yeah, if he has analysed those committee reports and found those parts of text, then I guess

what he says is factually correct from that point of view.

But in terms of myself analysing as a planner this policy and this specific part of the

policy, how it doesn't have objections to the principle of protecting the warehouse

living uses and also with the plan being at regulation 19 in my view this would

give this part the policy moderate weight.

Okay, the yard quickly if we could please can we go to the first addendum to

So just in terms of the figures, the appearance position is the existing one is 204, the proposed

is 383 .5, Mr. Chairman has got a footnote that explains that there was a typo in his

rebuttal which said 283 .5 but it should be 383 .5.

And then our position is that you discount 36 .8 for the landscaping, so there's 3, 4,

7, sorry, 3, 4, 6 .7 operational yard space.

And then if the 112 square metres that we identify as communal amenity space is also

discounted, that takes you down to 234 square metres mathematically, yes?

Yeah.

Then, so even if the 112 is discounted and left out entirely, there's still an increase

of 30 square metres from 204 to 234 in operational yard space. Yeah.

Sorry, can you just repeat that final number in terms of what you come out to?

Yeah, it was just the 234, which is the 383 minus the 36 .8 minus the 112.

So the 234 and then the existing figure is 204.

So there's still an increase of 30 square metres in operational yard space, yeah?

Yeah, I think in terms of the basic, well, I would actually say, yeah, so 204 is agreed

terms is that we measured all this together so yeah 204 metres squared but I did question in

various documents and emails I think about the um there's some sheds next there was a shed some

sheds adjacent to the timber yard gate house which I wasn't sure what they were so on the site

visit appeal site visit I asked what they were and then the landowner said that they were used as

storage for the workspaces, so, or some element of storage.

So then I think you'd need to include that 42 .5 square metres

in to the 204, which is what I've said in part 16.

And also, I guess there's a bit of ambiguity about the shed

connected to Hackney Cut.

I mean, it has been assessed as being as part of Hackney Cut,

which is neither here nor there.

I would say that that shed is probably more in the yard.

I have a point. I'm looking at paragraph 16 and excuse me, but I am, this came in quite

late so I've been going off it as accurately the council's last position on this. It says

you agree existing operational yard space quantum and a shed or an ancillary structure

is not operational yard space, it's a shed isn't it? You can't reverse a lorry into a

shed.

I did say in paragraph 16 notwithstanding those additional structures and I think with

the appeal site visit the benefit of that we do have to include those structures because

the function of an operational yard space is you know to aid the workspace on the site

which those structures do and I think there was stuff that there was submissions that

myself and Mr Chima made about the use of those sheds from the creative

potential document and then those sheds in the yard because there is a part

specifically about the yard space in that creative potential document. I

referenced it in my proof somewhere and it talks about that space, the sheds being

important part of the yard for storage and other purposes. Yeah but it's

storage space, it's not operational yard space is it? I would say that

those storage structures contain a lot of tools, that kind of stuff, for work in the yard and within the buildings.

So I would say that it functions as part of the operational yard, in my opinion.

Even though it's not available to everybody by the sounds of things?

I'm not sure how many people they're available to.

Are you, I want to be clear about this because you asked to put your position in the addendum,

which you did.

Do I now then need to edit paragraph 16 so that it should say the LPA disagrees with

the existing operational yard space quantum and then I need to do some maths and let me

see 57 .7.

So it should be 261 .7 is what you say the operational figure is.

Is that where we're going with this?

Well, I did include in paragraph 16 a caveat in terms of those spaces.

So I would say that now that the benefit of a site visit,

those should be included in the yard space.

Where does this take you though? Because at 17 you say on your figure because you don't

think there's a hundred and twelve metres as communal amenity space you say

there's seventy six point five so you say the proposed yard space is 270 that

would still be more than your what you're now saying the existing yard

space is wouldn't it yeah in terms of actual space in that courtyard there

would be actual space of that amount left although as I say the function of

as operational yard is disputed because it has less functionality in my view from employment perspective.

Yeah can you go to Mr Chima's rebuttal at 2 .22 please.

It's right that the creative factories document was positive about the existing yard space

including as a communal amenity area with a work area event space loading space and

material storage, isn't it?

Yeah that's right.

I guess that's on the basis that there is, as we went over earlier, there was some element of live work

at that time, so I guess it was based on if there were any residents then there would be

kind of, it would be kind of more of a conducive environment in terms of any way that they use

the space as it's predominantly used as workspace but in terms of it mentioning

community space. If there were some live work tenants on the site at that time then it would

be different to a residential use which is proposed.

Yeah well I don't agree with that but I can take that up in submissions. Are you saying

that any redevelopment of this site should still have a loading function in the yard

space for the employment units?

Sure. I'm not saying it has to, but I'm saying that it's a

consideration when assessing the functionality, the

operational functionality of employment space, I think you

have to take it into account when you're balancing it all up

in terms of if it meets standards, if it's adequate.

Thank you, sir. I've seen the time. I've probably got another 15, 20 minutes left with Mr. Weir's

cooperation, so I don't know how much re -examination or what questions you may have, but that's

where I am.

Well if you're happy to break it there, you can take my lunch break now.

So we'll take a lunch break one hour until two o 'clock the inquiry's adjourned.

So can I just, I've got a list of documents for Mr Cheever's cross -examination which I

appreciate Mr Whizz still going but just so you and the other side have them before the

lunch break again to avoid downloading time if I could hand that out.

You continue your cross -examination.

Thank you sir.

Hello again Mr. Weir.

Victoria Wharf studios, Mr. Cheamer's evidence is that that typically hosts one event per

and you haven't provided any evidence to counter that have you?

I've provided a list of music events but in terms of an exhaustive list of all of

the events that take place from that space I haven't provided an exhaustive

list. I mean there are some events that take place during the day there, there

some that take place during the night so there could be more than one that that happens a day

I would say but haven't provided anything in writing to go against that though.

Thank you. Now the reason for refusal was originally children's play space but it's now

communal amenity space and you were critical in your evidence in chief of what you described as

lack of information on communal amenity space prior to July but it's right isn't

it that the council's complaint was not originally put forward as anything to do

with communal amenity space it was a criticism of children's play space

wasn't it? Yeah in the original reason for refusal delegate report it was a

slightly different scheme because it included a link block and so there was

some additional space which could have been used for communal amenity space on the initial scheme.

So I think even I think there was originally raised some concerns with the community space but

yeah the refusal reason wasn't based on that because of the additional space mainly and yeah.

And you suggested in your evidence in chief that the communal amenity space wasn't originally

designed as such but I don't think there's been any change to the plans has

there there may have been clarification provided by way of labelling to the plans

but we haven't altered what we're actually proposing have we in terms of

the courtyard there hasn't been any physical amendments to the courtyard

since it's been designated as communal meeting space and you're not suggesting

are you that if this point around communal amenity space in the event the

inspector were to agree with the council, you're not suggesting that alone is enough

to justify withholding planning permission?

That's not my case, no, I've taken into account everything, the whole application in regard

to relevant provisions in the development plan.

Yeah, and it was Putnam is young last week that she hadn't analysed the number of people

who were going to use the amenity space and that hadn't been addressed at the design stage but

there is no sort of quantum per person requirement in the existing development plan is there?

No there's not a set number of, yeah there's not a calculation in terms of the number of

of the quantum of communal meeting space required in the LLDC local plan or the London plan.

But it refers to, I think it refers to sufficient space.

Have you finished? Sorry.

and Mr. Cheema has now calculated against the requirement in the emerging local

plan but that wouldn't have been available at the outset of the design

stage would it? I don't believe that the draught of Telhamlet's local plan was

was around at the time when the application was submitted.

Like off the top of my head I don't think it was.

But I think there should be some consideration

of the number of people that communal community space

should serve so that it's demonstrated to be sufficient.

Whether that's against the existing Tower Hamlets local plan

or whether it's against another kind of metric,

I believe there should be.

What do you say the abometric is if it's not the emerging local plan please?

I say you could look at the existing extant Tower Hamlets local plan. I mean it's not

the development plan for the area as it stands but if you're looking at a way to quantify how

much communal meeting space should be provided. That's something that could be

taken into account. Otherwise there could be other ways you could look at the

amount of residents on the site and then kind of a portion space in that way. You

could look at other developments in the area that have been consented and how

much communal meeting space they've provided as well. There's different ways

of analysing I would say. Yeah I mean there's no case for saying that at

design stage we should have been looking at the Tower Hamlets, at any Tower

Hamlet's document is there because we were under the aegis of the LLDC at that

point in time? Yeah I think when you're looking at a how to quantify community

space and what should be provided when there isn't a calculation in the local

plan I feel like there's different ways you go about as I say you could you

don't have I'm not saying you have to or you should but you could look at the

the Tau Hamlet's local plan.

I guess it's kind of material because,

previous applications of Fish Island,

prior to the LLDC local plan,

were under the Tau Hamlet's local plan.

You don't say you have to, or you should,

but I'm saying you could.

And you can also look at the amount of residents

on the scheme and look at a portion in them

and a certain amount of space.

And you could also look at surrounding developments

and how much space they've given over

and where the space is and the type of space.

All right, thank you. What weight do you say the inspector should give to the

views of Historic England here please? Or generally actually, there was reliance by

Mr Flanagan on Historic England's response to another scheme and we've

looked at the fact that Historic England haven't commented on this scheme so

you're the planner. What do you say is the weight that the inspector should be

giving to what Historic England have or haven't said, please?

I feel like on heritage matters, that was covered by Ms. Chung

on that in terms of the weighting

to be given to Historic England when assessing heritage assets.

But I don't think it's unfair.

You're a planning officer who writes officer reports.

So it's your job, not Ms. Chung's job.

It's your job to read what Historic England have

to say for themselves in response to an application and then decide what you're

going to advise your members or what you say is a delegated matter you know what

you think the ultimate decision should be so when you're assessing a planning

application what weight do you give to Historic England's views please?

The heritage assessment was conducted by Ms Jung who would take into account all

of the relevant consultee comments.

So in your role as the council's planning officer,

you're not able to form a view on the weight

to be given to Historic England as a statutory consultee.

Is that your evidence?

I would say that you would have to give a significant weight

to statutory consultee comments generally.

But then when I'm forming opinion,

when I'm looking at the scheme overall, you have to take into account the consideration of the

heritage expert on the scheme, just on that aspect. So then my views on that part come from

Ms. Chung, who has taken into account all the consortee responses on that area.

What weight do you say we should be giving to the Emerging London Plan, please?

I would say there'll be very limited weight for the Emerging London Plan, because it has

This version of it, I believe, is still possibly under public consultation.

So I don't think that they've received public consultation responses for that yet.

Yeah, within your proof, please, page 75, paragraph 8 .164.

Let me know when you're there.

So you say here on additional significant public benefits they should at least meet

policy targets in terms of affordable housing and affordable workspace. We've dealt with

affordable workspace. Affordable housing, this scheme is policy compliant isn't it?

Yeah I think we went over this before but yeah in terms of affordable housing it's policy

compliant in terms of it meeting viability requirements but then in not in terms of

meeting at the policy affordable housing target. So you is your position here that you're saying

there can't be additional significant public benefits unless the affordable housing provision

in a scheme meets either the 50 % or the 35 % target irrespective of viability is that how you're

at this? It would be a stronger case if it was in that way. I'm not saying it's absolute,

but I think it's a when you're taking that into consideration what you consider a significant

additional public benefit to be that would give you a strong case in terms of yeah I consider

the provision of 4 % affordable housing to be a public benefit but

not a significant additional public benefit to justify tall buildings on the

site as I said yesterday. And then can you go to Mr. Cheamer's rebuttal please

and go to 2 .86.

Page 16.

Let me know when you have that.

Yes.

So he's got a bullet point list at 287 of the points that you say generate planning

harm.

I mean, he's correct.

This is 289.

He's right, isn't he, to point out that harm from allegedly inadequate

re -provision of employment space is a duplication of harm from loss of

creative or cultural affordable employment space. I mean that's it's two

points that both go to the loss of employment space, isn't it there?

I think in my examination in chief yesterday I covered the weighting of harm.

So just looking at again now, I think I said that provision of light industrial employment

floor space is attributed substantial weight.

Sorry, the provision of employment space is attributed to substantial weight.

In my examination in chief yesterday, that's what I said.

And then I also said in terms of the harms, loss of employment space, including appropriately

designed and affordable workspace, the CZ and production corridor would attract substantial

weight.

Yeah, that's not quite my point.

my point, what Mr. Cheamer's point is, in your list where you've got four bullet points,

there's duplication or overlap between the first one and the third one, isn't there?

Yeah, they are two slightly different points, but there is some overlap between them and

in terms of them dealing with employment floor space.

Thank you.

Again, 2 .92, Mr. Cheema's point is,

and if two more years is, or if the site is considered to be in live work use, then it's

not going to result in loss of a B1 employment space, is it?

I think that's the point Mr Chima is making, is you've got in your bullet points, you've

got employment space and then live -work units separately and then inadequate re -provision

of employment space again.

But either the site is in a lawful live -work use or it's not.

And if it is not in that use, then as he says, no harm can result from its loss.

Yeah, it's one or the other.

So yeah, in my examination, Chief yesterday I tried to separate it out.

So yeah, I added that in the appellant scenario of live -work on the appeals side being lawful,

the scheme would result in the additional planning harm and the loss of the live -work

work -live.

And then 2 .94, again Mr. Team is correct, the first bullet point, a failure to provide

significant additional public benefit isn't a harm, it just means we've not satisfied

the policy test, doesn't it?

Yeah my chief yesterday, I didn't include that as a harm.

I guess a point where -

In my chief yesterday, I didn't include that, except it's just a failure to

adhere with the local planning policy from my perspective.

Thank you. And then, just in terms of harms, the MPPF, as we've done yesterday with benefits

and saw that some of them, the MPPF tells you what weight must be given.

Generally, the MPPF's approach to harms is not to do that, except for example,

in relation to Greenbelt, but I don't think any of the harms that you've identified here

get a particular weighting in the MPPF, do they?

Yeah, I'm just looking through the MPPF. So yeah, I mean, if that's what you that's how

Thank you. Now, yeah, just briefly in your proof and yesterday in your evidence in chief

you make a number of comparisons with the piano factory, Iceland Wharf, I think Alpha

Wharf in terms of this point about additional public benefits, but it's not a comparative

exercise is it? So it's entirely possible that a scheme could come forward with, in

the comments, a lower amount of public benefit overall but that doesn't mean it

can't pass the test of additionality. You don't look around, you know, the vicinity

to see what other schemes have done and then use that as your measure, do you? You

just ask are there significant additional public benefits, yeah? I think

it, as an officer, you would also look at the surrounding area, the surrounding

context in terms of how other applications may have dealt with policies. So you could do that.

I think it's relevant to do that. I think as Mr Chima has done, as I've done in other instances,

to look at ways that policy has been interpreted. Not to say that has to copy what comes out of that

but I think it's relevant. But also you need to look at the proportionality of each application

on its own merits. Yeah because I mean take an example here you yesterday

explained to me that for heritage benefits and also for I think some of

the public realm benefit I mean Miss Chung's evidence was that she

acknowledges some benefits but then she thinks overall you know there's more

heritage harm than heritage benefit and you told me yesterday well I've

taken the sort of net answer so I haven't put heritage benefits into my

analysis of the benefits.

I mean, the inspectors got no idea with the piano factory

Iceland war for alpha war for anything else.

He's got no idea what the underpinning weighing of harms

and benefits was, has he?

So that's why we can't just point to, oh, well,

this scheme provided x units and that scheme provided

a higher percentage of affordable housing.

Because we don't have, you know, unless frankly,

unless you're the actual officer sitting there looking

at everything in the round, you can't reach a proper judgement

on the question of editionality, can you?

No, I don't think, yeah, as you say, I agree with the sentiment that you can't just copy

what other schemes have done exactly because each application is different in its own unique

context.

Yeah, we have included the committee reports in the core documents, but yeah, that's just

for comparison, it's not saying that that needs to be copied.

I just think it's, yeah, as an officer, it's relevant to look at the immediate surrounding

area and context from a planning perspective.

And then you said yesterday on this question about explicit design policies and policy

DP3 of the MPPF. You said Chung asserted that the scheme would be in conflict with explicit

design policies. I've looked again at the recording of her evidence because that wasn't

my recollection. So I asked her to identify an explicit design standard. There was a very

long pause. And then I said, is the answer that there isn't one? And she said, I don't

think what I'm thinking of is an explicit design standard. That was her first answer.

and then in re -examination you will recall that she was asked what she was thinking about

and she said it was BN5 criteria 1 to 6.

But in her cross -examination I said I hadn't heard her answer and she said again,

I don't think what I'm thinking of is an explicit design standard.

Then she said I don't want to include that and then I put to her,

so there isn't actually any explicit design standards that the scheme would conflict with

and she said not that I can think of presently.

So it's not correct to say that Ms Chung's evidence was that there is conflict with an

explicit design standard, is it?

Well, I thought that I would think that in reexamination in chief that you would take

those answers as well.

Yes, I have.

She was asked what she was thinking about when she said to me, I don't think what I'm

thinking of is an explicit design standard.

And she said it was BN5, 1 to 6.

But then she said again, I don't think what I'm thinking of, so BN5 1 -6 is an explicit design standard,

I don't want to include that and not that I'm thinking of presently, not that I can think of presently.

Yeah, I was under the impression that in re -examination it was pointed out on BN5 and agreed, that was my recollection.

Right, well where have we got to on this? I've read her answers out to you. Are you still telling

me that there's a conflict with an explicit design standard? Is that, I want to, I mean Mr.

Fanigan's going to make his submissions on this, but I want to understand what your evidence is as

the witness. Yeah, from my recollection of the examination, Ms. Chung highlighted a number of

different design concerns, ways that it did not accord with policy such that it

would seem not to accord with that part of the NPPF that you was just outlining.

So what do you say the explicit design standard is that there's now

apparently a conflict with? I was under the impression that it was

outlined that BN5 was what the design witness, they mentioned that was the one,

that was the design, that was the explicit design standard. BN5 criterion

one to six. Right, even though I've just explained to you and I'm gonna be typing

all of this out in my closing because we've got the recording so it's all

clearly set out, even though the witness said twice, I don't think what I'm

thinking of as an explicit design standard and I don't want to include that. You as the

planning officer are saying that notwithstanding what Ms Chung said, you're going to say that

BN5 1 -6 is an explicit design standard, even though she said she didn't want to include

that.

Yeah, from the examination it appears that the question was asked and BN5 was the answer

given that's how I recall it and yes so in terms of there being a conflict with

design that design policy of the NPPF.

So are you asking the inspector to ignore what's the inspector going

to do with Ms Chung's answers in cross -examination where she said twice I

don't think what I'm thinking of is an explicit design standard and I don't

to include that. Was that in the re -examination? No it's in her cross -examination. You're asking

him to ignore that are you? I think yeah no no I think you have to take into account the answers in

the cross -examination and the re -examination. Yeah and the cross -examination answers are clearer

aren't they? I don't think what I'm thinking of is an explicit design standard, repeated,

I don't want to include that

Yeah, I think that has to be taken into consideration in the in the inspectors

Consideration

But you're you are not

Basically, you're just repeating whatever it is. Miss Chung eventually is alleged to have said is that you're not taking you're not seeking to depart from her

view

embellish it. I don't think you're trying to give us an independent view on this

are you?

Right, final couple of questions. If you'll have seen the appellant's case is that we

accept the loss of Victoria Wharf Studios as cultural or events floor space and would

be a harm in the overall planning balance. If the Inspector agrees with the

appellant's case and he also concludes that that's the only harm we're dealing

with here, you're not going to suggest that in those circumstances Planning

Commission should be refused are you?

If that's the only outstanding harm that the yeah when it comes down to

decision maker? I think it's up to the decision maker in that regard

because I've outlined that I believe there's a substantial harm in

this area which is an important nighttime economy area which is

emphasised by the evening and nighttime economy SBD for example. So

yeah I'll leave that to consideration if that's the only harm. Let me rephrase the

question what is your view as the council's professional planning witness

on whether the loss of Victoria Wharf studios alone is enough to substantially

outweigh the benefits of the scheme it isn't is it? I would say yeah if it's on

its own then that would be that would not be my case. And if the inspector is

not persuaded by the council's case on the design heritage and townscape

matters. So if those are, if the appearance case is preferred on that, then in terms of

harms, and this is on your case, we've got the loss of, I think 1700, what's that 1786

square metres of employment space, that's on your figures. I mean, I'm not really interested

in the totally specific figure, but broadly speaking, 1786 square metres of employment

space, that's what about 40 metres by 40 metres, a bit more?

Yes, the 1786 square metres, I think that's what it came down to in terms of my calculation

of loss of employment space. Yeah, I've taken the figures from your position

for the purposes of this. So we've got the loss of the employment space, on your case

we've got the loss of the event space 491, so square metres, so something like 22 metres

by 22 metres, and then the loss of 83 square metres of river terraces, which is what, about

9 by 9 metres. And then we've got your point about, you say, the alleged inadequacy of

the communal amenity provision, but there's not a dispute over quantum, it's that you

just don't you take the view that what's being provided isn't adequate yeah but

that's what's left in terms of harm if we're not dealing with design heritage

and townscape issues isn't it on your case yeah I'm just double checking now

yes if if it's not heritage if it's not designed townscape then it's communal

amenity space and it's in terms of weighing the harms this is the luckiness

the loss of a Victoria Wharf studio the loss of two more years and the

employment space in terms of it being perfectly designed and the loss of

affordable and in the CSED and production corridor yes that's you're

Yeah, and then the benefits case if we don't have a problem in terms of design,

townscape or heritage. We've got substantial weight to the provision of

the affordable workspace, substantial weight to design, substantial weight to

optimization, significant weight you say to housing, we should be substantial but

let's just say significant because I'm dealing with your case, substantial weight

to carbon, substantial weight to the provision of employment space and the one point I haven't

discussed with you yet is if we are not causing heritage harm then there would be heritage

benefits, wouldn't there? And those would need to be given substantial weight in accordance

with the MPPF.

Yeah I think you've summed up the, yeah from looking at my examination chief, you've summed

up the harms and benefits.

Yeah, but if that's the position, if there's not an issue in terms of design,

townscape and heritage, we're left with the loss of the employment, the event

space and the problem around the communal amenity space you say, but you

also agree the benefits are as I said substantial weight to affordable

workspace, design, optimisation, significant weight to housing, substantial weight to

carbon, substantial weight to heritage, substantial weight to the provision of

employment space, in that scenario, it's correct, isn't it, that the benefits would not be substantially

outweighed by the harm?

I think that's a different, that's a different planning balance exercise, adding and taking

away quite a lot of different figures. So yeah, that's not my case.

So you don't, I'm not going to reread the list of benefits, but the list of benefits

is your evidence that I've taken time to incorporate the answers you have given me.

Your case is that even with that lengthy list of benefits, the harms that are left, so the loss of

the employment, the problem with the communal immunity space and the loss of the event space,

you say they would be so overwhelming as to substantially outweigh the long list of benefits

that I've just read out twice.

Yeah, yes.

And also, yeah, taking into account

the development plan as a whole.

I mean, how can you possibly get to that explanation?

Properly giving substantial weight to,

what is it, one, two, three, four, five, six benefits and significant weight to housing.

How can that possibly all be substantially outweighed by the two points around workspace,

cultural events space and then the point around the communal amenity space?

I think there's also points of design and heritage that I've listed as well.

No, because we're leaving those out of account. I'm dealing with a hypothetical situation

in which the inspector thinks the design and the heritage is unproblematic and in fact it's positive.

In that situation, I know it's not, I know that your case is that there's a problem of design and

heritage. If there isn't and if the inspector doesn't uphold that reason for refusal, in that

situation it is correct that the harms that are left wouldn't substantially outweigh the benefits,

would they?

I guess it depends on how much weight is given to different substantial weights

based on the site context.

I mean, are you, I would like a yes or no.

Do you accept that if we're not dealing with the design,

townscape and heritage harm, the benefits which we've just

gone through to which you give substantial or significant weight

are not substantially outweighed by the remaining harms?

I would say in a creative enterprise zone production corridor

and yeah, in this locality,

when you're looking at the integrity of the CEZ

and you're looking at the loss of employment floor space

and appropriate design floor space

and the loss of those two very well -known venues

that are very well used,

you'd have to give that very serious consideration

in the planning balance in terms of weighting and yeah, in my view, that could, yeah, I

mean, just thinking on the fly, it's difficult to give a full comprehensive planning balance

assessment, which is not even my case, but I'd have to give those very substantial weight

based on the unique site context.

Is your position that you're just not able to give me an answer to the question?

I think it would require quite detailed analysis of rebalancing everything and looking specifically

really looking specifically at everything in terms of the exact

weighting and level of substantial weight as well.

Right, well, I don't agree because I think the answer is obvious, but I'll pick that

up in my closing submissions. What about, final question, what about a situation in

which the inspector agrees with the appellant as well that the live work is lawful? And

So in terms of the loss of employment floor space,

we're only dealing with the 428 square metres,

which is the live -work point that you can test.

Again, do you accept that in that scenario

where we would just be dealing with the loss

of 428 square metres of employment floor space,

the cultural venues,

and then the point about communal amenity,

do you still say that it's too difficult

for you to reach a view on whether the benefits

would then you know would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse

effects or are you willing to agree that if all we're talking about is the loss

of 428 square metres of employment the two cultural venues on your case and the

community amenity point that's not enough to substantially outweigh the

benefits of the scheme yeah I'm in a world where the inspector is on the

side on design, landscape and heritage and has agreed that the live -work is

lawful. In that situation do you accept that planning permission should be

granted?

If your live -work space is lawful, there would still be a loss of creative, affordable workspace.

So not just workspace, but creative, affordable workspace in the CEZ along

with those two venues. So it'd still be very substantial and I'll have to come

to the same answer as the last question. Which is what please?

Just requires a full reassessment really in terms of the balance. So it's

difficult to say right now but I wouldn't be able to concede off the top of my head

that you should approve based on that. I'd have to have some further analysis.

Okay, thank you very much Mr Weir, thank you sir, sorry that took a lot longer than I was

anticipating but that is the end of the course examination.

I do have some questions, mainly points of clarification.

So you said, you confirmed in the first addendum statement of common ground that you thought

the lawful uses would be to be eight.

So were you saying the lawful use was a mixed use?

Yeah, on that first addendum, just on B2, B8,

I was just looking at the historical kind of

planning history of the site,

and when you're looking at industrial

kind of warehouse buildings,

and how they are kind of sometimes interchangeable

between different industrial uses. So it's kind of hard to quantify the exact split from the history,

but I'd say it's yeah, they were used, the buildings were used for both purposes over

the years and they kind of fell under that industrial warehouse spectrum I would say.

But in terms of the mixed use, who would say, is it then Sue Ginaris?

Yes, interesting point.

I think typically with warehouses and industrial buildings over the years, they would have

been under B2 generally, which is general industrial, but then there would also have

been instances where the space would have been used for storage under B8. So I think

I'd rather stick to it being b2 slash b8 rather than sui generis

But your position has changed anyway, it's in the second statement of common ground you say b2 b8

Ege why why the change I don't think you say why

Yeah, I think it was helpful to be pushed a bit further on looking at exact lawfulness

of mezzanines and spaces. So just doing some more digging, looking at what exactly should

be lawful and why. Yeah, in paragraph eight of my addendum of the second addendum statement

of common ground, I came to the conclusion, looking at the evidence like leases, for example,

business rates and and so on that I've listed that it appears that B1 or the

modern EG would appear to also be one of the lawful uses.

So in terms of B1, B2, B8, is that the kind of flexible hybrid space of the type that

policy E4 is talking about.

Let me just double cheque E4.

B1, B2 and B8 are covered under Part A as number one.

number two and

Number eight. Yeah number eight looks at flexible hybrid space. Yes, which yeah, that's right

But again just to clarify Eve if a

If you've got a hybrid flexible hybrid use like that what is it it should it be considered sujan areas

That's a good question.

I feel like from the perspective of looking at these industrial buildings typically, you

would kind of just outline that they are business slash industrial uses.

and yeah we do see many buildings which fall under that kind of hybrid

definition which we don't typically cause to be generous.

In terms of policy B1, can I just clarify, I mean, both parties have given a breakdown

of Workspace, but is it the Councillor's approach to, you know, when you've got a mix of uses

to break down that mix and separate out the V1, the V2, the V8?

I think ideally you would want to have a very clear breakdown of the mix of uses.

I think that where as existing there is live work on the site of much of the

Wozniak Hackney cut and block 4 specifically. It's difficult to

apportion the lawful uses that took place before if a use has come

in after that. So which is why as general industrial kind of buildings I would

proportion them more as the flexible hybrids type. But if you if you're taking

that approach how how does how do you how do you apply policy B1 which is more

specific? I think it would be appropriate to, you could look at it from a job

density perspective. I mean if, because it's difficult to proportion whether

there, whether it is exactly, or the proportions of B2 slash B8 slash B1,

There is a case to say that you could look at it through a job density perspective, even

though part A talks about re -providing the floor space capacity.

so I think you either look at it through capacity or density.

So there is a case to say you could just do it through density but yeah I think the B2

as a first instance directs to capacity in terms of floor space.

In terms of cultural and creative activities are they things that you

generally associate with B2 and B8 uses?

They can take place within B2 and B8 uses. They would be more widely

found in B1 uses in terms of light industrial,

but they could also be found in B2 and B8 uses such as you know different kinds of

maker space or yeah if it was storage for a creative use so there is there is

there can be creative uses in B2, B8 but more typically be found in B1.

Would I be correct in thinking the council doesn't really want to see B2 and B8 in this

specific area?

I think the policy does direct that there can be B2 and B8 in this area, but you know,

you would be looking also at there is a positive kind of thrust of a development plan, you

know, to look at optimising sites for housing as well.

in terms of b2 and b8 you know they could operate with housing but they

would need you know a higher design requirement in term specification design

from the outset in terms of operational how they operate and how they mix with

residential uses such as for air quality noise and odour should just clarify is

looking at the supporting text of policy B1

in asking that question.

Yeah, it does mention further loss of B2, B8.

Industrial floor space is not supported,

apart from the particular circumstances below.

Yes, so yeah in paragraph 416 it talks about outside of clusters B2, B8 space

should be maintained or be provided unless it's in direct conflict

to its immediate surroundings or incompatible.

So it says it can be provided still in the form of workshops which are compatible with

mixed use development.

So I think there are instances, there are definitely ways that it can be provided with

residential development, it just has to be designed in from the outset.

Just reading that second sentence that ends with including at fish, at Hackney Wick and

and Fish Island, it seems to imply that those uses would

conflict with their immediate surroundings

or would be incompatible.

Yeah, I'm not sure they totally ruled it out

Hackney -Wicker Fish Island because I feel like you can design it in. I mean, you do look to,

in terms of modernising employment floor space, you look towards B1, which is more compatible

with residential uses. So yeah, I think I would say that yes, B1 would be more easily compatible

with residential uses, well I would say that B2B8 is less compatible but could

still take place alongside.

Now, it is apparent from the evidence that has been given by others and also some of

documents that have been referenced.

This live -work element which currently exists on site seems to be highly valued and it's

a key aspect of what I think Mrs. Pack called a certain typology, a unique typology.

But your case is that it's unlawful.

I'm assuming that's the council's overall case in relation to it.

Yes.

So what weight does the council place on its existence?

On the site at present as existing.

Yeah, it's valuable because it provides cultural activity which is supported in the CSED specifically.

But if it's, yeah, but because it's not lawful in our assessment, that's how we've taken it forwards in the assessment.

But yeah, the in general live workspace in this area is valued and it provides a a positive benefit

And it's in the character of the area

Including on the site

But that if it's but if you're saying it's not lawful and

What way see you placing on the fact that in on all those things you mentioned

Because it's not lawful

It wouldn't be able to provide it with much

Much weight in terms of the existing live use on this site

You the council's position is you don't place much weight

so what if you could be specific about what much weight is and

On the existence of this live work

component

So yeah on this site because it's because we see that because the council see that it's not lawful we would praise

Very little weight on the existing live work from a planning balance perspective for planning perspective

So in terms of the things that you've said about his value and what Mrs. Pack said, that's

all only relevant if I accepted the

Appellant's case is that what you're saying?

Yes in terms of a planning yeah I agree

of that basically in terms of a planning

assessment of the appeal.

Just just to cheque in terms of the relocation strategy and I think that's something that's still being discussed

between you and

It would be useful to have clarification from the, on this in due course as well, but do

you think that that relocation strategy is something, if I accepted the opponent's case,

So that is something that would be required.

I believe, yeah, in accepting the appellant's case

of lawful live -work,

that you'd have to give more weight

to the live -work element that's existing on the site.

And in terms of the work element,

you'd say that is important.

and there would be a consideration

for the businesses in the workspace.

I think they should be,

so you should also have,

be included in the relocation strategy.

Sorry, just to clarify,

are you talking about standalone businesses

or the work component of living work?

I would say both.

Can I just cheque the, in terms of the live work then, what policy would that be required

under? In terms of the live -work, so the work element of the live -work space, I

would assess that if it's found to be lawful then the work component is an

important consideration. So yeah I think it's been characterised as light

industrial by both parties generally in terms of the work component of the

work. I think because if it was deemed to be lawful with the vibrant kind of

activity based on the site whereas there's obviously a lot of work going on

and it's vibrant then in that basis I would seek, well I would wish to seek

that that is covered somehow in the relocation strategy. But just if you can

and clarify what policy it is you're talking about.

I don't think the live work is specifically,

I don't think the live work as a typology

is specifically covered by the relocation strategy.

I think the parties agree that there is no

B2 and B8 on site. So what's the relevance of the fact that those uses that you say are

lawful don't support any jobs?

I think firstly, yeah, we're not totally sure what is in some of the space which is

surveyed but yeah I can't say that it's B2 or B8. I would say that there is in terms

of a lawful use of the site which we're saying is B2, B8, B1 there would be potential on

that lawful use of jobs capacity.

So just to clarify, when you're talking about capacity, you're talking about, you're talking

in theory rather than practise?

Yeah, if the lawful use was, if the uses which some may be said to be temporary, some because

they haven't been established as lawful in our view if they were if that was to

be displaced and you were looking at the what we say is a lawful use of the site

then yeah from a theoretical perspective looking at density

Does the fact that we're talking about theoretical jobs make any difference?

Is this just from a B2B8 perspective?

Sorry.

Yeah, I mean, it's in terms of those figures you provided based on the lawful use.

I'm just looking at the supporting text now.

It says where a job density approach is applied density should either be above average for

the B use classes where existing job density is low or significantly increased densities

from existing levels whichever is greater so I would take the assessment

in that way in theory sorry sorry just repeat that again yeah just looking at

4 .15 of the LLDC local plan which gives some guidance on that area and

And yeah, just where it says industrial floor space capacity is defined as the existing

on site or the potential amount measured on a 65 % plot ratio, whichever is greater, then

that references the draught London plan from that time. I don't think the draught London

plan carried forward a density assessment though. So this is where a job density approach

is applied density should even be above average for the B use classes and it

goes on references 0 .6 which is the employment density guide from the

government which is where yeah the LODC and tell Hamlet's we've been making the

assessment based on on that document

So you're talking about its potential.

Yeah, I mean if we're saying that the live -work is unlawful and it has displaced space which

you know, was historically used for the creative industries

as B1 slash B2 slash B8, which could be a greater proportion of B1

based on what I've seen historically and what I pointed out in the second statement of common ground.

Then, yeah, based on that, where it's been quite documented of, you know, creative B1 uses being on the site.

Just to clarify, it does seem to be a new point.

Are you saying then that in the past the use of the site might actually have been more

B1 than B2 and B8?

I think that from, yeah, well, let's see from my paragraph eight of the second addendum

statement of common ground. So looking at that, you know, it does reference permitted

uses in leases. Like the second part, well, so the first part references some offices

in the planning history, such as historically there was the Frank Persch printing offices,

the second point references business premises in B1 slash B2, the third point business uses,

the fourth point references light industrial, and also on the point of the temporary change of use

Hackney Cut, it was B1, B2, but then looking at the floor plan in the appendix it was offices

slash workshop for Hackney Cut on the upper floor. And then in the document, the next document,

which is from 2009, talks about a mix of studio spaces, photo and video production office.

And then, yeah, from the next document, which I think is from 2014, that references B1 as

well.

It doesn't say that it's the majority, though.

But I think that, yeah, there has been a substantial proportion of, there seems to have been a

substantial proportion of B1.

Thank you.

Just in terms of two more years, the reason for refusal specifically refers

to a nightclub. I'm knowing entirely clear why the council has moved away

from the position of referring to it as a nightclub. Yeah so in terms of two more

years. It is used as a nightclub sometimes, but I would

characterise it more as a multi -purpose cultural event

space or community event space. When you look at when you delve

into the site and all of the events that take place there,

then that's that will be the conclusion I'll come to rather

than just a nightclub. I think that follows on from Miss Pax

evidence and also that of the, well, the letters from the GLA as well, that is not just a nightclub.

You've made reference to it, opening 20, having a 24 -hour licence. But I think I've also seen

the Planning Commission reference which restricted the opening hours.

So are you happy that Venue is operating in accordance with the Planning Commission?

Yeah, I'm not totally sure if it's operating in accordance with the Planning Commission.

I would say, because these days I think it's kind of evolved in terms of how such spaces are used.

So even if you do have music events,

you might have them, you know, just in the weekdays,

you might have them finishing a bit earlier as well.

So I do think that there are some late night events

that happen there.

That's from the, you know, the hit from all of the events

that I've kind of documented,

but that doesn't preclude that, you know,

still runs music events up until it's planning

permission time, possibly beyond.

I'm not sure I think probably it does operate beyond sometimes potentially

Just picking up on the community

community space issue. There's one point in one of your answers I wasn't clear

clear about. You were talking about how you might work out how much space is

required and you said you could apportion space based on occupants but

what measure are you using to apportion space?

Yes, I think it's quite open to interpretation on exactly how you would proportion a certain

quantum of space with community space.

So I would have expected there to be an analysis of how the figure has been arrived at.

So I just gave some suggestions of,

in an early design process,

you would look at different ways of quantifying

how much should be provided.

Are you saying that the pre -applicant

should have provided a rationale?

Well, basically have provided those measures?

I think the applicant has designed,

and well has outlined the communal amenity space based it seems to be on the draught policy

HF9 quantum figure even though they accept that well they say that that is not they don't

give much weight to that but they have still designed in accordance with that.

But yeah there isn't a measure of space there are various guidelines of the type of space

that should be provided in my proof, in the policy analysis section for the

community space. Yeah, there's various kind of standards there and it's

up to a planning judgement because there isn't a particular figure

that should be provided in the current development plan.

Well, having visited the site, it's clear that there's a very large park just over the

canal. What's the relevance of that?

I think it is positive that there's a park in close proximity just across the bridge.

I think we still, when we're conducting a planning assessment, from an officer perspective,

we would seek that communal community space is provided on the site because

it's just yeah I mean I think one of the guidelines is that it should be

able to be accessed without leaving the development or what's that

effect so I think it does help in some way but yeah looking at the guidance the

reason of communal community space is to be you know kind of place of refuge or

relaxation to meet and socialise with residents on the site ideally.

Just on that point, I'd also say just looking at the map of the Olympic Park, I think the

parts just across from the Stu, from Vittoria Wharf is a school and there's the football

pictures and then beyond that there's the Olympic Stadium so there is still

a more probably a ten minute walk to get to well like a kind of substantial park

element as well I'd say

Okay, yeah, Mr Flanagan.

Thank you, sir.

And you have, in fact, two very brief, discrete questions.

One point of clarification, Mr Weir.

questions about communal immunity space and what had changed. It was

said to you there's been no change to the plans and this is in terms of

the courtyard. And can I just ask you to go to your proof, paragraph 8 .170, which is on

page 77?

Yes.

You see the first two lines there. This is in the playspace and community space section of your proof.

You say, with the appeal submission, updated plans were provided which included removal of the two -storey linked building between blocks one and two.

This change resulted in the loss of separate community space at second floor level.

So Mr. Way, how did that impact or not on the use of the courtyard and the needs that that courtyard was serving?

Yes, with those updated plans we needed to give consideration, different consideration

to the courtyard space because before there wasn't specifically communal amenity space

in the courtyard designated.

Thank you.

The only other point is another discrete one about weight to historic England.

It was said to you, paraphrase I think, but Historic England hadn't commented

and you were asked what weight you would give to Historic England as a statutory consultee that they were.

And you said significant weight I think.

Um, can I ask you to just look at what historic England said?

It didn't say.

Dr Meaney's proof I think is where it's recorded.

So if you can go to Dr Meaney's proof.

CD 2 .6.

And

If you go onto page 52, please.

Can you let me know when it's open?

Page 52, paragraph 7 .13.

Okay.

Tell me when it's fully loaded.

Okay.

Is it getting there or is it looking at...

Let me, it's a short paragraph, let me read it out to you.

7 .13, Dr. Mealy states, before getting to the assessment, I report here that Historic

England responded to the application in a letter dated 20th of July 2023 stating

in quotes in this case we are not offering advice this should not be

interpreted as comment on the merits of the application so mr. where in terms of

what we're giving significant weight to do historical Indians express a view one

one way or the other?

No, it appears that they don't offer a judgement.

Thank you, Mr. Weyer.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any questions?

Okay, we'll take a quick break. Do you think that you'll manage to finish your evidence

in chief?

So yes, I think my only query is what your views are on the potential for witnesses to

end up in Purda over the weekend and or just of a query of Mr. because I think we have

to finish at half past one tomorrow. And I'm just conscious I was a lot longer than I thought

I would be with Mr. Weir in cross -examination.

I mean, if you're not troubled by the possibility

of Mr. Weir potentially going over into next week,

that's fine with us, except that, sorry, Mr. Weir, Mr. Chima.

So not suggesting Mr. Weir is going to be sat there on Tuesday.

Yeah, it's more just that potentially administratively,

it would probably be helpful to have Mr. Chima available

in case there's anything documents -wise that needs to go into pins,

but I'm sure we can work around that.

I just want to float the possibility that we might be looking at not finishing his evidence tomorrow, I don't know.

And how you think about that. I mean I guess one possibility would be to just leave Mr Chima until Tuesday and deal with Section 106 under all conditions tomorrow instead.

But I don't really have any views so I just wanted to flag the point.

What do you think, Mr. Flanagan, because it really is, it depends to a large extent on

how long you think it will take.

Yes, sir.

It does.

If we start at 9 .30, it's four hours between then and 1 .30, minus 15 minutes of break in

examination.

I'd estimated about my original estimate was two and a half hours. I think that

might have gone up to three but not much more than that so I would be reasonably

confident finishing it in that timescale. I mean one, it's a matter for you sir, there's

all, I mean starting slightly earlier, I know it's like 9 .30 already but obviously it depends

on a lot of people, but starting at 9 .00 would give us a bit more of a buffer. But for my

part that's my best estimate at the moment. I'm also just, I think if we can get Mr Chima

on and off tomorrow that would be beneficial in terms of next week, writing closings for

instance. Mr Chima obviously deals with lots of subjects understandably and in terms of

writing a coherent closing for you so it would certainly help me to have his evidence and

then have some time to reflect on it as opposed to doing it on Tuesday or Wednesday night

I just want to know what it might be.

I think I would struggle to be here at nine,

So I don't think that's an option.

I'm obviously happy to crack on with Mr Cheema today and tomorrow.

I think all I would say is that I hope Mr Weir was afforded a fair opportunity to give his answers.

So I will be asking for Mr Cheema just to be held until Tuesday if we don't finish by half past one.

I just don't want him to feel pressured to have to finish his evidence

if in reality he needs a fair crack of the whip?

Yeah, I mean I think that's only fair.

I mean, it would need to feel unnecessarily rushed,

though obviously it would be good if we could finish.

I think also it would be useful to hear from Mr. Chima before we discuss conditions and

the planning obligations.

So okay then, we'll try that.

Can I just cheque though before we go on potential for work beyond 130?

That is obviously going to affect people's travel plans I would have thought.

So from our point of view that's not a problem and I've checked with the facilities here.

At some point they want to come in but they don't need to be by 130.

So I think I would need to be away by, I don't need to go for anywhere for one or two, I

think I would need to finish by three, but on any view I think that ought to give us

enough time hopefully

we may maybe can overrun it a little bit but not by too much

so we'll just proceed on that basis

I'll show you we could overrun by up to an hour but by no more than one hour.

Okay then we'll take a short break to allow the witnesses to change round.

We'll just say 10 minutes.

We'll adjourn until 22 .4.

Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. Can we turn to page 11 of your proof, please?

Anyone there? Yeah, I'm there.

You tell us that you're Tarun Cheema, you have a Bachelor of Arts in PPE from the University

of Essex and a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Sheffield.

You're a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. You joined Centro in 2021 and you're

currently an Associate Director. You explain that the firm acts for developers of major

and strategic proposals primarily across Greater London. You're a member of the New London

Architecture's Planning Expert Panel and you also work as a guest lecturer and dissertation

supervisor for postgraduate planning students. You've set out your extensive past and ongoing

experience with tall building proposals across Greater London, specifically in Appendix 1.

You've been advising the appellant on planning matters since 2024. You visited the site on the

31st of January to see two more years and on the 4th of June to see the entire site, including the

of the live -work units where access was granted by occupiers. And then over the page at 2 .11,

you've provided your affirmation as to your understanding of your duties as an expert,

witness to give independent and objective evidence on matters within your expertise,

based on your own independent opinion and influenced by the party who instructed you.

You've confirmed the truth of your statement and you've confirmed that you've prepared your

evidence in accordance with both the RTPI's Code of Conduct and the PIN's guidance. Is

all of that still accurate and up to date please?

Yeah, that's all accurate although obviously I'd add that I've made another site visit

as part of the appeal last week, but yeah, that's all correct.

Thank you and I understand Mr Cheema that similarly to Mr Weir you've prepared a plan

of what you'd like to say by way of evidence in chief. So I'll hand over to you. And if

there are any matters that I think we need to pick up additionally, we'll come to those

at the end. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So I'll broadly be following the structure of

my main proof. But obviously, I take that as read. So I'm specifically trying to pick

up on points that I think require a little bit more elaboration or respond to newer considerations

like the MPPF which obviously post -dates both proofs and just the events of the inquiries so far.

So firstly I just wanted to touch on the MPPF policy L3 which is on page 59 of the document.

So I'll just touch on the specific part of it that I wanted to emphasise. So on that policy L3

Part 2a, the final statement, because it's not something we've gone into much detail

on yet, but it says that, in considering the potential to increase densities, the existing

character of an area should be taken into account in accordance with Policy DP3, but

should not preclude development which makes the most of an area's potential. And then,

Similarly, policy DP3, which is on page 68, the relevant part of that.

So that has a similar principle in that it says, at paragraph 1 of DP3, the final sentence,

this should not preclude innovation or change where appropriate, especially where an increased

scale or density of development is justified in accordance with policies L2 and L3.

And the reason I wanted to just start on those couple of policies is because, yeah, it just

emphasises the fact that there's a different direction that's taken by national policy

in that it's more, it's encouraging increased densities and the benefits that flow from

them.

So then I wanted to turn to policy S for specifically part C of the MPPF.

Which I'll just find the reference for.

So that's page 26 of the MPPF.

So we've gone through this a little bit in others' evidence but I just wanted to touch on point C.

which is the circumstances where one might refuse applications under certain circumstances.

It is unhelpful in some ways that this policy doesn't list which those policies are,

but I've been through the policies in the MPPF that do reference a circumstance where you might

refuse an application. The only one I saw as being potentially relevant was policy DP3,

which we had previously looked at. But again, referring to Ms Chung's evidence,

there was her position was in cross -examination was that there's no conflict with any explicit

design standard or that there were no explicit design standards. So otherwise,

he turned to the assessment against parts one and two. And if I recall Ms Chung's evidence correctly,

she was only alleging a conflict with parts E, F and G within DP3.

So yeah, that was just, I just wanted to scope out those MPPF policies.

Moving on then to the development plan. So obviously the development plan here is the

London plan and the LLDC local plan. I've assigned limited weight to the draught London Borough Tower

plan which is core document 6 .3 but I specifically wanted to just raise a bit of context on as to why

there's I've assigned limited weight so if I can take you to core document 6 .5

So yeah, assuming you've all got 6 .5 up, it's a letter from the planning

inspector to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and it relates to a direction

issued by Matthew Pennycook. And basically what it is essentially saying

is that Tower Hamlets had planned their examination schedules for the local plan

for the start of July but shortly before they were delayed because of the adoption of the City of

London Plan and so there's still some assessment going on in relation to the Tower of London

and its status as a World Heritage Site so that has delayed the examination hearings for the Tower

Hamlets local plan and there's not currently a timetable as far as I'm aware. I checked this

yesterday that there is now a timetable for examination.

So that's where we're up to with that.

And for that reason, I felt that it

was we're at an early stage of preparation in the local plan.

And that's why I gave it limited weight.

And that seems to be a position that Salahamut's officers have

taken in their committee reports recently.

So the ones I cited in my rebuttal proof,

which is called document 6 point sorry 2 .4a. Those appendices I think Mr Weir was taken to

they show that the the borough as a whole is generally taking this approach of limited

weight to the draught local plan even after this letter. So I've also described limited

weight to the draught London plan the consultation for that is ongoing but yeah so it's at an early

stage but I will refer to some evidence in there when I move on to the housing points in my evidence.

And finally as I've said in my evidence there's very limited weight to the

opportunity area, the Olympic Legacy Opportunity Area, SPG, given its age it's from 2011 but

I have provided some assessment in paragraph 6 .17 to 6 .21 in my name proof that assesses the

capacity of the opportunity area in light of more recent developments that have occurred since the

STG was published. And then finally on development plan matters or decision -making matters,

I take Dr Mealey's advice on heritage matters obviously, but from his evidence I'm aware that

section 72 of the listed buildings act of 1990 is relevant but not section 66.

So I'm now going to move on to just housing delivery points and this is where I will turn

to the draught London plan which is core document 6 .4.

And specifically para 3 .2 which is on page 73 of the document.

And sorry that's the internal pagination.

Yeah, so, um, para 3 .2, if you've all got that of core document, 6 .4, you can do that.

So this basically sets out what the draught LNP housing target is, and it's currently

planning for around 55 ,800 homes per year for the next 10 years. But it also acknowledges

in that same paragraph that the capacity of the, sorry, that's a capacity based figure

the target is, but the housing need is 850 ,000 homes in the next 10 years.

So there's a need each year of 85 ,000 homes, there's a capacity of 55 ,000 homes.

So I've set out in my main proof that that applied to the adopted local plan,

a London plan, where there's a gap between objecting the assessed need and the capacity -based

target and in the adopted scenario it's 14 ,000 homes per year and in the draught

London plan scenario which obviously reflects the latest needs that gap is

now 30 ,000 so obviously this plan will still go through the examination process

but I just wanted to flag that point about the growing gap between need and

capacity and the targets are derived from capacity so on that basis yeah I

maximum weight to the delivery of new housing. And then just turning to housing delivery,

so obviously when I drafted the proof that was before we had the housing delivery test

results which came, which were published at the same time as the MPPF a couple of weeks

ago. So we've, we know the figure, it's been mentioned before in other people's evidence,

but the figure is 47 % of homes in London Borough Tower Hamlets have been delivered in the last

three years but I think it's just important to flag that in actual terms that means

that's 6 ,000 homes in the past three years just to make it a bit more tangible.

And then just turning back to the draught London plan in the forward,

So I'll just find the page number for everyone. So it's PDF page 6, internal page 1.

And it's on the column on the left hand side but I'm just going to read it out.

So this is the MEV forward to the draught local plan and it says,

There's now a perfect storm facing house building in London due to a combination of high interest

rates, the rising cost of construction materials, the legacy of the pandemic, a shortage of skilled

workers and the lasting impacts of Brexit. All of this means that we're now in the midst of the most

difficult period for house building since the global financial crisis. So again, just wanted

to underline that this is a very urgent crisis and again, the importance of housing in that context

is reflected in the way the new NPVF is drafted, the way the draught London Plan is drafted.

Again, the way that the London Plan is drafted, they talk about the lower target is for the first

10 years of the London Plan period, so it's not an issue that's going to be resolved quickly.

That lower target applies for 10 years, it's not something that it's only temporarily

a reduction in target versus the need it's for the next 10 years. And taking

that into consideration again new housing that can be delivered quickly

should have the highest possible weight in the planning balance and I think on

this point Mr. Whibb broadly agrees with this but he's only attributed

significant weight to the new homes but I feel that should be substantial weight

and it shouldn't be downgraded due to the points we went through yesterday

about housing mix because the scheme complies with policy H1 and it provides

sufficient family homes as defined by the LLDC so I don't think that should be

a reason that we should downgrade the weight to those new homes because of

policy compliance and the urgency of the need for new homes. So now turning to

the site, it's agreed I believe by Mr. Weir and his evidence that the current

site isn't optimised. And I would add to that, that's especially important considering the

ongoing transformation occurring on Fish Island, the H16 bridge that was recently completed,

and the context I've mentioned before of just the under -delivery of homes.

And the site's very well connected. Obviously, shortly before I wrote my proof, TfL introduced

this sustainable access measure. It really, I think, shifted the way the sites perceived

in terms of public transport accessibility because the P -TAL measure only scored it as

a 2, which is the second lowest, and it now scores a 5A on the SAM measure, which is the

second highest. That's broken down by public transport accessibility percentiles, and it's

the 87th and 88th percentile for the two measures of public transport accessibility under the SAM

measure. So it's evidence that the site is very well connected. And yeah, the SAM measure

replaces the planning function of P -TAL because I think I touched on it in the statement case that

P -TAL had a flaw in that stations that were more than 960 metres away didn't count to the score

at all so you had this cliff edge of public transport stations that in reality would get

used but weren't picked up by the P -Tel measure and it also didn't account for how well connected

that station is that is being incorporated by the P -Tel measure. So here we're within a reasonable

distance of Stratford which is one of the most well connected stations in the city. These are

intended to and did correct with with detail in underestimating certain sites that were

in certain circumstances so I thought it was important to touch on that.

So in terms of designations of the site it's within the Olympic Legacy Opportunity Area

So if I can just take you to the London Plan Policy GG2, which is page 17 of the internal

page.

So the very first point on GG2A is to ensure that those involved in planning and development

must enable the development of brownfield land, particularly in opportunity areas. So

there's an emphasis on development of opportunity areas. More specifically, policy SD1 deals

with opportunity areas themselves. So if I can just get you to turn to that, that is

on page 30. And the reference I specifically want to make is actually on page 31, so it's

point B2 of the policy. And so what that's telling us to do through development plans

and decisions is to support development which creates employment opportunities and housing

choice for Londoners in opportunity areas. And then just moving back a couple of pages

in the London Plan to Para 2 .04, that's on page 29.

Sorry, could I just take that previous reference again?

Oh, sorry. So that was Policy SD1B2, and it's on page 31.

So, yeah, just returning to Paragraph 2 .04, which is on page 29, so a couple of pages

back, it says that the areas that will see the most significant change are identified

as opportunity areas. So again, I won't read the full text, but as a headline it's telling

us that these are areas that are expected to change and the opportunity area SPG also

So then if I can turn back to the MPPF, so I'll go to chapter 12 of the MPPF which I'll

just find the page reference to.

So that's page 57 of the MPPF.

So this chapter in its entirety, obviously some of the policies relate to plan making,

which, well one of the policies relates to plan making which isn't relevant here, but

the chapter is aimed at making effective use of land and I did touch on policy L3 when

started but the reference I was just going to make here is one that Mr Weir was taken to is policy L2

1b and that substantial weight should be given to the benefit of making better use

of vacant and underutilised land.

So I'm going to jump back to the London plan if that's alright.

I'm probably going a bit back and forth, but I just wanted to organise it thematically.

So if we go to page 15 of the London plan, right at the bottom, power 1 .24.

And again, what that's directing us to do is to make the best use of land, so using

the same or similar language to the MPPF. And that means directing growth towards the

most accessible and well connected places, which as we've established, this is a very

connected location by virtue of the very high SAM measure and making the most efficient

use of existing and future public transport. So we've tied into that same point as well.

So then moving on to, we're moving back to policy GG2 of the London Plan. So that's page 17.

So if we go to point B and C, again it's a similar philosophy as what I just took you

to in the supporting text is that we're directed to prioritise sites which are well -connected

by existing or planned public transport and to proactively explore the potential to intensify

the use of land to support additional homes and workspaces, promoting higher density development,

particularly in locations that are well connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities

by public transport, walking and cycling. I think it's quite clear that the site has those

characteristics so we should be exploring the potential to intensify the use of that land.

So then moving on to policy GG4. Oh, and sorry, before we move on from GG2, I should just

flag part A of that policy, which I did already touch on in relation to opportunity areas,

but there's an emphasis it places on utilising small sites, which the site is, it's smaller

than 0 .25 hectares.

And now just moving on to policy GG4 which is page 22.

So here, I mean, this is quite an obvious point that has been picked up by various other documents I've cited.

Point A on this policy is to ensure that more homes are delivered.

So obviously that's a very key strategic target, as we've already touched on.

So if I now just take you to my proof, and I did mention this in passing,

but if I take you to paragraph 6 .17 of my proof,

the main proof that this is by the way.

So I won't read this section out in full but this relates to the opportunity area

So this section contains some of the references that I've just taken you to in the London plan about significant change in opportunity areas.

But more specifically, what I wanted to just elaborate on was the capacity set out in the SPG for the opportunity area.

So that's sort of the analysis that starts at paragraph 6 .20.

And to just explain a little bit more, the opportunity area in 2011 was defined as having a capacity of 32 ,000 homes.

And then by the time we got to the adopted London plan in 2021, the capacity is 39 ,000 homes, but with no increase in the geographical area.

So there's 7 ,000 additional homes of capacity that has moved forward in those 10 years.

And also those 10 years, there were 9 ,000 homes that were delivered.

So if you are to read the SPG, I think it has very limited weight just because of its

age.

But it's just something that I wanted to flag that the capacity given in that SPG is 32 ,000

homes but when you take into account the increased capacity of the London plan in 2021 and the

homes that have been delivered in that intervening period, the capacity should be, I've set

out here, 48 ,000 homes so it's a 50 % increase in the capacity in that time.

And then just turning back to the London plan, so moving on to Policy H1 of the London plan.

So yeah this one's more specifically I wanted to take you to paragraph well part b2 of the

of policy H1. Specifically on H1B2 part A it says to optimise the potential for housing

delivery on all suitable and available brownfield sites through development plans and planning

decisions, especially the following sources of capacity. It talks about sites with the

existing or planned PTAL levels of three to six.

Now, obviously the PTAL is lower than that,

but we know the situation has moved on

in terms of accessibility.

And those are located within 800 metres of a station,

which we are of, I believe it's 500 metres,

or a town centre boundary.

We don't meet that town centre boundary point

because it doesn't, yeah, it's not within that distance.

But yeah, there's a clear directive there again,

being repeated that areas that are well connected should be optimised.

Now if I can just take you to the LLDC's local plan and specifically policy SP2.

So this policy is a strategic policy and I just wanted to draw your attention to part

one which talks about delivering in excess of, it talks about the draught London Plan which

is the now adopted London Plan target of 2 ,154 housing units per annum. So obviously the

situation has moved on a bit because the LLDC has now been subsumed back into Tower Hamlets

but that figure of 2 ,154 homes, they were only about 77 % of the way there on the latest figures

that we had, which was from 2020 to 2023. And yeah, that's referenced in my proof, the housing

delivery test, obviously that situation has moved on, but just to give you the context that that

shortage of 23 % was amounted to 1500 homes in the period between 2020 and 2023.

And then just moving on to policy H1 in the local plan.

It's about H .1 or...

Yeah, sorry, H .1.

So this is the LLDC plan.

So again this talks about seeking to diversify the range of housing provision to meet identified

requirements and it will promote and diversify delivery on a range of different site types

including through small sites which we are.

So again, there's more support here for providing new housing.

I just wanted to move on now to both of the two draught plans that we have.

Again, I'm going to give some context to these, but with the caveat that I still believe both plans have limited weight.

If I can first take you to the Tower Hamlet's Draught local plan which is Core Document 6 .3

and more specifically paragraph 14 .2.

I'll just get that myself.

And that's on page 149 of the Tower Hamlet's Draughts Local Plan.

So paragraph 14 .2 gives a bit of a summary of the borough's emerging approach to tall

buildings. So it talks about tall buildings being restricted in sensitive areas such as

conservation areas, which the majority of the site is not within. And beyond that, tall

buildings will be considered and assessed with the requirements of policy PS2. So essentially,

a large, very large proportion of the borough, excuse me, sensitive sites are considered

to be in tall building, in a tall building zone under the draught local plan. So if I can

I'll take you to PS2 on page 159.

So the initial part of this policy, point 1, defines what a tall building is in the

of what is defined as a tall building,

because in the adopted London plan,

it was anything six storeys or potentially 18 metres.

And in policy BM5 of the local plan,

it's defined as anything above 20 metres,

but the draught local plan increases that threshold

to the extent that the site,

if it had been considered under this local plan,

this draught local plan, it wouldn't be a tall building.

And now I just want to return to the draught London plan, so call document 6 .4, specifically

page 31. So again I'm not placing weight on this particular policy given that it's still

under consultation but I just wanted to give a sense of the emerging approach to densification

and tall buildings. So we've already established that the site is within this SAM 5A area and

you may be aware via the first addendum statement of common ground we include the reference

to setting D and a link to that where that's defined in the planning map. So if you look

at the top of page 31, internal page 31 of the Graph London flag.

That contains a table where you've got this optimisation framework where you take the

accessibility of a site and its setting and that establishes what they think the GLA feels

should be the minimum density range and the height range as well. So we're in this box

towards the top of page 31 where it's SAM5A setting D and that outlines 5 to 9 storeys

being appropriate. And then it gives a density range so between 590 and 1040 papaturiums

per hectare. So I've provided in my rebuttal, if we can turn to that, what the density of

site is. So that's a core document 2 .4a. That's specifically in paragraph 2 .63 of my

rebuttal on page 12.

I was talking about the density in a different context here in relation to an SBD to respond

of Mr Weir's points but it's worth mentioning here there's a drafting error at the bottom here. I've

identified the site as having 688 dwellings per hectare but that I meant to write habitable

rooms per hectare and the footnote confirms that it's just it was a drafting point.

But the upshot is that 688 habitable rooms per hectare sits at the lower end of what the draught

London plans optimisation framework identifies for the site. So again to caveat all of this I'm

putting weights on the draught London plan or applying limited weight to both of those draught

plans, but I just wanted to give a sense of the direction of travel in relation to density

and to all buildings.

To add as well, I don't think I mentioned the London plan, the draught London plan, the

policy after the one we were just looking at defines tall buildings and

again it uses the definition that Tower Hamlets have used in their draught plan

which is 30 metres or more so again the threshold for tall buildings have

increased in both the local and the regional level.

So then moving more specifically to the adopted policies, and obviously the adopted policies

do set, well, policy BN5 sets a threshold of 20 metres that we do exceed and therefore

I've done a full assessment against policies BN1, BN4, BN5 and D9 of the London Plan and

didn't find a conflict. I'm not going to recite the full details of that because it's quite

Also, I've assessed the public benefits in relation to BN5 and I believe that they do

constitute significant additional public benefits.

I'll turn to a more fuller assessment of what I believe to be the public benefits a little

bit later on, but just a flag, yeah, I believe it exceeds that threshold.

So now just moving on to employment matters. So I think the second addendum statement of

Common Ground or yeah the second addendum sets out what I believe to be the both the

lawful and the current use of each building. To me they're one and the same. So I think

starting with two more years as I've set out in both my proofs I think it's best defined

a sujanorous use but predominantly with a workspace function. So again I've made this

point in my proof that policy B1 doesn't specifically protect against sujanorous uses but I think

I've treated it as if it's akin to class eg3 or former class b1 use and conducted an assessment

against B1 nonetheless. Then we spoke a little bit earlier today about the lawfulness of

Vittoria Wharf and Hackney -Kurt. And you'll see in the second addendum statement of common ground

I've provided an explanation of why I believe those two buildings to be lawfully in live -work

use. So we specifically looked at the statutory declarations for Unit 1A in the south -east

corner of Victoria Wharf. It's the unit that I've labelled B4D4 and Units 20 and 21, the entirety

of Hackney Cut. And I believe that the statutory declarations provided that we looked at earlier

today in Core Document 5 .40 are sufficient to demonstrate that for those units the lawful

use is live work by virtue of it being in live work use for over 10 years.

And so moving on from those ones I acknowledge that those statutory declarations don't cover

the entirety of the floor spacing questions so for the remainder I think it's most helpful to turn to

core document 7 .33 which is the creative factories document that we had a look at earlier today.

So there's a few different references in here that I want to just take you through. So starting

the yard just by virtue of that coming first in the document, so this is PDF page 14, internal page 24.

And I did recite some of this commentary in the second Addendum Statement of Common Ground

to just explain the way that the site's being characterised here.

To me, it's describing that the majority of the site, excluding the style of space which

this doesn't apply to is in live work use and I think you can see from the picture that it seems

to be a similar use to today although the site didn't look exactly like that today but

I feel like there's evidence in this document that describes live work use across the site and

there isn't reference to any B2 or B8 storage uses at that time and obviously this document's dated

13 years ago. And then moving a bit further on in the document to page 31 of the internal page.

Before we get there page 28 to 29 of the internal document, we'll show you the picture of Victoria

memory sir, this was the, it looks a bit different to the way the unit looks today,

but this is the unit that I've labelled B4D4, also known as Unit 1A, which is covered by that

statutory declaration. And this was the unit, if you recall, we went to in towards the end of our

site visit and we went up one set of stairs, we walked along the top of that unit, or the

mezzanine floor of that unit, and then came down a different set of stairs, if you recall.

So that's what this image is showing but obviously it looks a bit different today because more

mesonines have been put in since then but this is that unit.

And then just moving on to the following page, again I can provide more detail on this if

necessary but I think there was a little bit of confusion in Mr. Weir's evidence as to

which unit this was referring to.

So I think the best way to explain it is, so this is the unit B4D2, so if you turn to

page 79 of my proof of evidence and sort of have one eye on the Creative Factories document

as well, we can see that both in the photo and if you scroll a bit further down to page

page 34 and 35 of the document. So in the creative factories document we see from the

photo that there's two levels of mezzanine there and then the plans below show the arrangement

of the unit where there's a ground level, two levels of mezzanine above that and that's

page 35. And then if we keep that in your mind and then move on to my proof of evidence

at page 79. It may help to have them side by side if that's possible, but I can try

and walk you through them nonetheless. That arrangement of that unit matches the B4, B2

unit and then if I can just ask you to scroll through to page 83 of my proof,

we can see that that's the only unit that has a second mezzanine. I mean there is a second

floor of Vittoria Wharf studio but it's clear that we're not talking about that

area of the plan. So yeah to me it was pretty clear that that is B4,

D2, that unit, and the document, the Creative Factories document, goes into a lot of detail

as to how that's used and the fact that it's a live -work use. So yeah, that covers B4, D2,

B4, D4, and the entirety of the Hackney Cup building. So if we just return to my proof

of evidence at page 79, because I'm trying to narrow down the areas for which we don't have

specific reference to in the statutory declarations or the creative factories document. The units

are unaccounted for so to speak are B4D1, so if you look at my plan that's sort of the

unit to the top left or the south west of the site, the plan isn't oriented north. And

I haven't provided documentary evidence of these, but I think from the way that this

the site is described in Core Document 7 .33, so the Creative Factories document,

I think it seems very unlikely that those spaces would have remained in this, an industrial use,

a B2 or a B8 use, while there's all this live work going on around it. And the same applies to

called document 7 .33 and the photograph on page 25. So this is a creative

factories document. So what we're looking at here when you've pulled that up... yeah

what we're looking at here is the internal yard space and we're essentially

at Hackney Cut and we're looking back towards block four here and so that door that you can

you can just see on the right edge of the photo that is the door to that B4 D3 unit and I feel

it's unlikely that there is some industrial use going on in that particular unit if the rest of

the site is in live work use. I think that the way that live work use has been talked about is that

there was previous industrial use on the site until 2009 and then that industrial occupier

left and as far as we've heard from other documents and I believe in Mrs Pack's evidence

that creative users then started to move into the site and it doesn't seem realistic to

me that there would still have remained an industrial user on that site. I believe that

on the evidence before me on those two units that they would also have been in a similar work use.

And the specific reference if it helps to the former occupier can be found in the HTVIA which is called document 5 .23.

So obviously this document is pretty authoritative on the history of the site and they describe

at paragraph 4 .4 that Byron and Byron, Kurt and Fixtures were the

last user premises for manufacturing before it was compulsory purchase by the Olympic Authority

as part of a large scale buy -up. In 2009, after the departure of Byron and Byron, the premises

were converted to around 70 small workspaces and artist studios along with Cafe and Gallery

known as Vittorio Wolf and Stour Space. So the latter reference there is to Stour Space which

is separate to this live -work point but to my mind what's happened I think on the

of probability is the only reasonable thing to conclude has happened is that there was

an industrial occupier that occupied the whole site until 2009 and then they left and these

creative uses came in and occupied the site for live -work use that we see has continued to this day.

And to my mind that is the combination of evidence that I've cited there is sufficient

to conclude on the balance of probability that live -work use is lawful.

Just as part of this I do want to return to Mr Weir's proof of evidence. So if we go

to paragraph 8 .25 of Mr Weir's evidence, and we did cover this a little bit when Mr

Weir gave his evidence, but I think it's important to just flag this again. This is

paragraph 8 .25, page 28.

And so here Mr. Weir is talking about the yard space,

but specifically I wanted to reference the fact

that he's looked at that core document 7 .33,

and he's acknowledged that the yard space is a community

space, work area, event space, loading space,

and material storage.

That's a direct quote from the creative factories document

that we were looking at earlier.

and that emphasises its function and importance to the site's existing employment use in live -work units.

So to me, I know Mr. Wiess' oral evidence and his position is still that the live -work use on site isn't lawful,

but I think it seems clear here that he's acknowledging that this live -work use has occurred on site and it has continued to this day.

Just to summarise, I feel like the site is, I've set out my position on what the site's

current and lawful uses are, which to me are one and the same, and I've done that in the

second addendum statement of Common Ground. And so the workspace uses on the site are

predominantly so generous, so I have my doubts about whether B1 truly applies, but I've conducted

an assessment against it nonetheless. To summarise the results of that assessment, the existing

capacity which, based on Core Documents 4 .2 and 4 .3, which are the employment force -based

drawings and the schedule, it's established that there's a GIA of 1 ,476 square metres

and importantly an NIA of 1 ,223. And I think it's important to flag here that some Mr.

Weah's figures have been given in GIA, but I think the relevant way to measure the site

in relation to policy B1 is to take the NIA because the policy seeks to establish employment

capacity. So I think it's important to consider the part of the floor space that contributes

to that aim of employment capacity. So yeah, my existing NIA figure there is 1223 and I should

note here that Mr. Wi is done a slightly different way of converting GIA to NIA and he's used

a 17 .5 % reduction to get from GIA to NIA. The upshot is not massively different from

the figures that I've given anyway but just a flag that there's a difference there.

So in terms of the apportionment of live work use on site and the way that I've arrived

at that 1223 NIA figure, I just want to take you back to the photos in my proof that Mr

So this is one of the spaces, so if you recall, that we went into on our site visit. This

photo was taken in June but it looked very similar to when we went on our site visit.

So to me this felt like a live space to be honest. There wasn't, I don't see evidence

on these photos that this is not a communal living space. For example, there's a pool table,

there's sofas set up, it feels more of a living room to me. And then just a specific point as

well that I wanted to flag, and this was something I pointed out on site, is that

Mr. Weir made reference to the fact that there's high floor to ceiling heights in various parts of

buildings but it should also be noted that the way that the residents of these units have chosen to

decorate their their units is that they've there's fixtures being put up that would inhibit the floor

to ceiling height so i don't think that this is a workspace that this should be considered a

workspace but even if it were the the use of this space wouldn't be utilising the full floor

ceiling height of this space because they put decorations in the way.

So now I'm going to turn to another one of the photos that Mr Weir took us to.

So page 245 of my proof.

So this is the unit that was in the Creative Factories document.

So we saw a version of this in 2013. Again, to me there isn't a specific evidence of work occurring

in this space and if I can contrast that with if we go back to Core Document 7 .33

and return to the photo of that unit that we can see on page 31 of the Creative Factories document.

So I think in this photo there is clearly more evidence of people working and it looks more obviously a workspace than the way the space is used now.

If you then cast your mind back to the photo that I just showed you on page 245.

And so, yeah, my sense was that if I had seen an image similar to the one on page 31 I might well have considered that to be a workspace.

but I think on the evidence of the photos in my proof it doesn't look like it's obviously being used as a workspace.

So moving on from that one if I can just turn you to page 160.

So we're back in Hackney Cut now and again this was a page that Mr Weir took us to in his Evidence in Chief.

And this was one of the spaces that Mr. Wir invited us to consider as being, I believe

it was half work space and on the basis that there is musical equipment and yeah, I think

it was just on that basis. But again, to me, this didn't feel like this was could be considered

anything other than a bedroom, because I think you could take a photo of any C3 bedroom as

a C3 residential use bedroom and it might well have a guitar or it might well have a keyboard

in it but that doesn't mean that it constitutes workspace it's still a bedroom and that was the

way I assessed this space that there wasn't enough evidence to me here that this should be considered

a workspace. Sorry what's the page? Oh sorry that is page 160.

So then if I can just take you to page 415. So this, we're back in Vittoria Wharf, so

block four here. And this was an example that Mr. Weir gave to say that this was a space

where I had attributed half of it to workspace, half of it to live space. And I did so on

the basis that it's a bigger unit and it felt like here there is a more clearly defined

work area. And I think the point here is that there is a threshold. I haven't just looked

at it and said, oh, that's a bedroom so it must all be live space. I have looked at each

individual space and assessed whether I think there's an area that should be designated

as workspace. So that was the basis I considered it. And Mr. Weir then took us to the next

door room, I believe so page 419, if you just scroll down, and invited a similar approach

to be taken to this room. But to me, this room didn't have the same characteristics.

it looked more of a live space without a formally designated work area and so that was my reasoning

for considering that to be a workspace, a live space sorry. And then I think the final

set of pictures that Mr Weir took us to if I'm not wrong was the living room for B4D1.

So yeah, that is page, that starts on page 188.

Well actually this room we split into two sections but I think it's important to kind

of consider it all.

So the first thing to note here on page 188 is the entrance to the unit which we did step

been to briefly on our site visit if you recall, this was the unit that we accessed from the

street and there were a few people coming into the unit as we went in and we sort of

followed them in. So the entrance to this unit, obviously there's a lower floor to ceiling

height so the first thing to note I guess is that if someone were to be producing something

that required a higher floor to ceiling height, they wouldn't be able to get it out of the

because that's where the exit has a lower floor to ceiling height. And then if you get into the

unit, again it's less clear from this photo, but again this was something I tried to point out to

you on our site visit, if you scroll down to 191 for example, the photo there, there's, you can,

it's not as clear to make out on this, but there's again, there's fixtures that have been put up at

the level of the first mezzanine that limit the ability for that full floor to ceiling height to

be utilised at least in a spatial sense. And then again I've separated out this room so

the little area with the sewing machine we'll have to scroll down a little bit further too,

I'll just take you to that room now though. So that is on page 211. And so here again

logic is that there is a threshold and where I've seen something that looks like it's a delineated

workspace where this creative production might occur I have categorised that as workspace so

that's the logic for including that area around the sewing machine to be workspace but again the

rest of the space is it seems more of a living space because there's sofas set up there's a

coffee table it just it has more characteristics of a live space to me than a workspace save for

sewing machine. So I'm not going to take you through any more site photos because I appreciate

there's more rooms that Mr. Weir and I disagree on but I wanted to just take you to the sample

of rooms that he showed us to then provide my response to that. But I would just say

as well that in the scenario that I appreciate isn't Mr. Weir's position, in the scenario

where there is a lawful of work use on the site. He's alleged, I believe it was a 428 square metre

loss in or reduction in from existing to proposed. Again, I think the measure we should be looking

at here is NIA rather than GIA, so I can quickly do the calculation, but it's around a 350 square

metre reduction in NIA if you were to use Mr. Ware's method of reducing it by 17 and a half

So I think in that scenario, the difference that we're talking about here is relatively small.

And I still stand by what I said about the categorization of each of these rooms.

But I think we'll appreciate that, at least in the scenario where the live work is lawful,

we're getting closer to an agreed, well, not that we're going to agree at this stage,

but the loss is relatively small.

I just wanted to take you, again, I've kind of touched on this throughout, but the point

about the floor to ceilings, there's other spaces in the work units I could take you

to where the floor to ceiling isn't being fully utilised. For example, in two more years,

I don't have photos of two more years in my proof, but if you can cast your mind back

to the site visit and there are areas where the floor to ceiling height there is higher,

but most of where the work goes on is in the mezzanines where there's a lower floor to

ceiling height. So whilst the headline is yes there are areas of I believe it's 8 .6

metres, something like that, in the highest point, the only place where you have the higher

floor to ceiling height is where the work going on is done at benches. So yes there

is a higher floor to ceiling height but it's not utilised in all areas of all buildings

of the site.

And then just turning to the proposed scheme, I think Ms Young's evidence, which we've returned

to a couple of times in her rebuttal and she gave evidence on this orally, I think the

design of the spaces is sufficient to accommodate the needs of the types of users that we want

to attract on the site, the kind of industrial maker users.

So I don't see any issue with that.

And I think there was also some discussion about the servicing

for those units and whether it might be better if there was

vehicle access up to all of the units.

But I just think you have to look

at these things in the round.

And Ms. Chung gave evidence and her view on the courtyard

is that it's over -programmed.

and whilst I don't agree with that point specifically,

I think we can all agree that if you had lorries

coming in there and driving onto site,

that would make that problem worse if there were to be one.

And so I think the approach taken where they were utilising

the loading bay that's just across the street,

I think that's appropriate and it balances

the other design considerations that are very important,

like the pedestrian access to the canal.

And I think if you were to have that alternative arrangement

where you've got cars in the courtyard,

I think that would seriously undermine other aspects of the design.

And so moving on to affordable workspaces is something that has moved on a little bit.

So we turn to this point in Mr. Weir's cross -examination and Mrs. Pack's

cross -examination yesterday that I think it's very clear when you read both the glossary

definition for the London plan and the LLDC local plan that the site as it exists at the moment

cannot be defined as affordable workspace, that there is no mechanism to maintain

the rent below the market rate. They might be lower in a general sense but that's because

that's the market rate for that type of space so I think for that reason the fact that what

we're now proposing and there's now the drafting is agreed between both parties

is that there would be a mechanism to secure that permanently that there would

be affordable workspace on the site and at the moment there's no such control

for that so I think that goes beyond the requirement of the policy because there

is no affordable workspace on the site at the moment and I think that's

relevant to return I'll return to this at the end but on the point of

significant additional public benefit if we're trying to think of ways that the proposal

goes beyond. I think it does exceed that threshold but this in particular is one of those points

where it's contributing to a significant additional public benefit.

And then just returning to the live work use briefly, I think I've set this out in my proof,

I've definitely set aside my proof that the adopted local plan and London plan has no

specific policy protection for live -work use, so the protection for that use and I believe Mr

Weir confirmed this in his evidence that is solely on the basis of the draught local plan,

which I describe limited weight to.

I'll just move on to the cultural uses point and I'll touch on this very briefly because

not much has changed on this front since I've written my proof and my rebuttal. With regard

to two more years, I've treated the space in its entirety as predominantly a workspace

I know that Mr. Weir has provided evidence that events have taken place, but I believe

that that's an ancillary use to the main workspace. Again, if you disagree and you feel that the

event use is the primary use, then I think a proportionate, you would then get that floor

space back on the employment calculations, because I don't think you can double count

both of those areas I think even if each of those uses is contributing some amount to cultural policies and some amount to employment space,

they can't both fully contribute to both of those policies at the same time.

So I leave that to your judgement as to what you feel the primary use is, but my position is that I think it's more of a workspace.

And then just moving on to the Vittoria War Studio, there's not much to say on this beyond

what I've said in my proof, which is that I accept that it does have a protection under

HC5 and HC6, although I will caveat that with the fact that HC5 does say...

So yeah, it talks about protecting existing cultural venues, facilities and uses where

appropriate. So it's not a definite, they must always be protected at all costs at all

times. But nonetheless, I do accept that there is a conflict with that policy and with HC6.

but I've assessed that in the round and given that it's a relatively small floor space,

amount of floor space and there's typically one event per day I've assessed that to be a minor

harm. But a point I just want to reiterate on Vittoria Wharf is again it's a similar point to

two more years but you can't equally count that as a workspace and derive job capacity from that

because I think it's very clear that if it's in a sugenerous cultural venue use then

it's not protected under B1 and it isn't required to contribute or to be factored into the calculation

of job density.

If I can now just turn to the MPPF again, I'm just going to take you to HC3 which Mr

So yeah, I think there is a material inconsistency here with the policy that we're looking at

here, HC3, and the policy we looked at in the local plan CI1. So the threshold for requiring

community infrastructure is different because in the local plan it talks about any major

proposal, whereas here it's just talking about those that give rise to a significant number

of additional people living or working in the area so there's an inconsistency there and

yeah in the the fact that if under the local plan you could have a scheme that has 10 units

and that constitutes a major scheme and that's required to or in theory is required to provide

community infrastructure whereas here the threshold is higher and the second point I

the way that community infrastructure is intended to be delivered or envisioned to be delivered is,

it may be through the seal payments where applicable.

So I think that there is a conflict with the way that the local plan works and the MPPF and its approach to community facilities,

and specifically in relation to policy ci1.

And then if I can just take you to the implications of there being a material inconsistency.

So sorry I'm trying to find the page in the MPPF.

Yes, if I can take you to page 101 in the MPPF, and specifically paragraph 2 in Annex

A, and it directs us to view that development plan policies, four parts of those policies

which are materially inconsistent with national decision making policies in the framework

should be given very limited weight. So to the extent that there is a conflict with CI1,

which I don't believe there is, it should be given very limited weight because it's

inconsistent with policy HC3 in the framework.

So yeah, now we've gone to community space. So again, there's not much more to say on

this beyond what I said in my proof anyway, and there's no adopted policy basis for a

particular amount of community space to be provided. We've delineated an area to show

that there is an area that could be used for community space and that that would be

satisfy the amount specified in draught policy 8, HF9 of the Talhamlet's local plan. But the key

point here is that there's no adopted policy basis for seeking a particular quantum and yeah on a

qualitative basis I think the spaces that the site will deliver would be excellent and the courtyard

is well designed and the pontoon spaces would also offer an area for people to go to, to have a place to rest and relax.

So I don't see any issue there.

And to specifically respond to the point that Mr Weir has raised, and I dealt with this in my rebuttal so I won't dwell too long on this,

but I don't feel that because there's a pedestrian route that goes through the courtyard that that

means it can't be counted as communal amenity space and likewise the fact that the refuse

would be temporarily held there for around an hour per week before collection, I don't think

that completely that means you have to downgrade the space of the quantum of community space.

So now just turning to the public benefits. So I've set these out in full in chapter 11 of my main proof, but I just wanted to touch on some areas where things have moved on a little bit since I wrote that proof.

So on the housing delivery point, I touched on this earlier that I think substantial weight

should be given to that and that's even more the case now that we have the HDT figures

which show 6000 homes were undelivered in the last three years in Tower Hamlets. In

addition to that, we've got policy H07 in the MPPF that if you turn to the second draught,

or sorry the first draught the first addendum statement common ground

because we did talk about this briefly and I think in the list of various evidence but

what I wanted to touch on was the table where we sort of copied out the the policies from the

previous MPPF and the current one so I'll just take you to where H** is which is page six of the document

So this is an area where we went through it with Mr. Weir about the substantial weight

that should be given to new homes, but there wasn't a particular policy that we agreed

had a direct comparison in the previous MPPS, so this is something that's new that national

policy is specifically directing substantial weight to that.

And then, so I've, yeah, substantial weight to brownfield regeneration, which we've touched

on and it's agreed by Mr Weir anyway. I think the provision for the creative industries,

the provision of workspace for creative industries, I already gave it substantial weight but that

weight is enhanced or you could even say there's a separate substantial weight for the affordable

workspace. That has been agreed since I drafted the proof and again I touched on it earlier

but I think that goes beyond the requirements of policy and that should be given substantial

weight. Then the public realm improvements and landscaping, again that should be given

substantial weight. I think the site does something that's very rare in that it connects

a really key pedestrian route from the road to the canal which you saw on site for yourself.

When you're on the roadside you wouldn't know that the canal is there necessarily or know

that the bridge is there. It's less difficult to feel that connexion. I think the design

is very high quality and it allows that connexion to be made.

Then just turning to the design and townscape benefits.

In my proof of evidence, if you turn to page 70 of my 7 -0.

zero that is. So the way I'd originally assessed the benefit arising from the design was to

apportion significant weight to it and I'd included in that design benefits, townscape

benefits and heritage benefits. And the way I would update that in light of the new MPPF

is the fact that policy DP3 which we looked at earlier asked decision makers to assign

substantial weight to good design. So where I've previously assessed that as being significant

weight I think it's right that that gets upgraded to substantial weight. And then as a distinct

benefit which where previously I'd kind of included heritage within the design and

So I believe we talked about this in the sense of weir's cross -examination but substantial

weight should be given to an asset's conservation and that's irrespective of whether any potential

effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm or total loss of significance.

So here I think there are beneficial heritage impacts and I'm sort of led by Dr Mealy on

those specific points but I think it's clear here that we can identify substantial weight

to a benefit here.

The other thing I just wanted to flag that is something that has evolved via the publication of the MPPF,

and it's a point that was put to Mr. Way yesterday in cross -examination,

is that Policy CC2 of the MPPF,

So that invites decision makers to assign substantial weight to the benefits of improving

energy efficiency of existing buildings and renewable and low -end carbon sources which

the proposal would deliver and it's not sustainability matters aren't in dispute and Mr. Weir accepted

that that would attract substantial weight so in my proof I'd only assigned that minor

weight but since the MPPF has been published and given a clear directive on that I've upgraded

to substantial. And then a couple of more minor points. So I assigned minor weight to

the delivery of construction jobs. Mr Weir at his proof of evidence paragraph 2 .11

gave that moderate weight, so slightly higher than I had, which I'm happy to accept.

And likewise I didn't identify a specific benefit for local spend but in the same paragraph

of Mr. Ware's proof, 8 .211, Mr. Ware gave that moderate weight and I'm happy to agree

to that.

So just to conclude on the overall balance, the proposal delivered 72 new homes including

3 in low cost rent tenure on a 5A, SAM 5A Brownfield site in the context of significant

under delivery in the last 3 years.

I think there's a significant amount of common ground between the parties and Ms Young and

Dr Miele both explained how well designed the scheme is and the fact that there would

be no harmful effects on heritage assets and a positive contribution to the local townscape.

I agree with both of them.

Both parties also agree that affordable housing is the maximum viable amount so there's no

policy conflict there.

Employment floor space and capacity is increased I believe and it's more functional and all

of the proposed workspace would be affordable to the key benefit of the scheme.

The community space I think is sufficient and of a high quality and overall there's

very weighty public benefits in favour of the scheme.

I have identified the minor harm through the loss of the Victoria Wharf studio but I think

that is not, it's clearly not enough to outweigh all those benefits I've just listed.

And I think refusing the application would prevent the site from being optimised.

I think this is a really good opportunity to deliver a great scheme on the site.

There's provision in the S106 to secure the relevant contributions,

which I'm sure we'll go through on Monday, including the affordable work space

and potential further affordable housing contributions or delivery

via early stage and late stage review mechanisms. The proposal would also deliver around £800 ,000

in still and that would contribute to local infrastructure improvements.

So yeah, overall and in accordance with section 38 .6 of the 2004 Act, my opinion is that the

schemes in general accordance with the development plan and no material considerations indicate

otherwise and hence I believe the scheme should be the appeal should be allowed and planning

permission granted and even in the event that general conflict with the development plan is

found the scheme has substantial public benefits to the extent that these material considerations

should have overriding weight and I think in the context of all of that it's even more acceptable

now that the MPPF has been published and the tilted balance applies via policy s4.

So that's all I have to say for now.

Thank you, Mr. Cheema.

So I can see it's one minute past five.

I just have two questions, if that's acceptable to you,

to deal with those now, and then we can draw

some presumably for the day.

The first question, Mr. Cheema, is in response

to Mr. Weir's oral evidence.

He referred a few times to the fact that parts of the site

hadn't been surveyed. What's your response to that point and in particular, you know,

what do you say as to whether anything turns on that into, because obviously both you and

Mr. Weir have gone to some trouble to set out quite precise floor space figures. So

what do you say the inspectors should do with this point about some of the site not having

been surveyed?

Well, first of all on that, I think it's important to distinguish which parts of the site weren't

surveyed. So if we go to paragraph 9 of the first addendum statement of Common Ground.

So there is a list of those spaces there. And I just wanted to flag that in the third

one down so D4, D4, F0, 0 .2 so the 78 .6 square metres that is the recording studio that if

you recall sir we did try and get into on site but we weren't able to access it and

I think there was a similar storey when we tried to do the measured survey in there but

as far as we're aware that is all workspace so I've counted that space in its entirety

as workspace with no, in reality that may not all be net workspace area but I've assumed

it to be so. Also the gatehouse, we know that the ground floor of that is a workspace so

45 of those square metres is already counted as workspace. So the area of the space that

isn't surveyed but we said is in live use is closer to what's less than 400 square metres

I'm not doing the, going to do the maths now, but of the spaces that remain, I've spoken to the site

manager. He's shown me on video calls these rooms where he can get access, so I've been able to see

most of these rooms and satisfy myself that they are live spaces as I've set out in my proof.

The one that I did just want to touch on a bit more is the largest area here, so the one that

I've labelled B4, D5, F1. So that area, if you recall we looked at the statutory declaration

for unit 1A and it might help actually to turn up the plan for the space that I'm talking

about here. So if we go to page 81 of my proof. So this is this area in the bottom left in

screen. So this area, we weren't able to survey but I know that's, or I'm aware from Mr Fletcher

that this is where he lives and he's showed me sort of via videos that aren't very easy

to translate into evidence for the purpose of my proof that this is where he lives and

And there is evidence in the staff deck, which I won't go to now because I didn't feel like

it was specific enough for me to rely on it, that this is a space that he occupies.

And incidentally, he also operates Vittoria Ward Studios, so I was in contact with him

about that.

But yeah, that space is where he lives.

And then, yeah, a few of these other spaces that we weren't able to survey or get in.

I've spoken to the site manager and on the information I have available to me,

those are all those spaces.

Thank you.

And let me just find the reference.

Yeah, 8 .13 of your proof, page 59. This is about Victoria Wharf studio. You say you're

by the appellant that there's typically one event per day and you'll recall that I discussed this

with Mr Weir and you've obviously seen the evidence that he's submitted in terms of the

events that are going on there. What's your response to what he said on that and

you say you've been advised by the appellant, having heard Mr Weir's evidence, to what extent

has that altered your view about the frequency of events in Victoria War Studio?

It hasn't really altered my view. So on this point in particular, I spoke to Mr Fletcher,

who operates this space, and he was the one that provided me with this list of events. So

yeah, I feel like this list I provided at 8 .12 in my proofs is an accurate sort of sample of the

types of uses that go on there and yeah he told me it's typically one per day

and then yeah occasional extra events here and there but that's typically one

event per day.

Good thank you very much Mr. Chima thank you sir that concludes the evidence in

Chief.

Okay, thank you.

Just further to our discussion earlier when I said we could maybe sit a bit longer tomorrow,

it occurs to me that that would actually only be useful if we didn't have a lunch break.

Because sitting an hour longer, we would just lose that time having lunch.

unless we are happy to have a later lunch.

I'd also briefly have that thought. I'm not sure about

a sort of lunch at half past three but I don't know if it's

acceptable to you or Mr Flanagan. We could shorten the lunch break slightly if

that would gain us back half an hour

or fifteen minutes or something.

Yes, so that seems sensible if we are

push for time then taking that cause of action. Pretty good idea.

OK, we'll do that then.

OK then, so until 9 .30 tomorrow morning, the inquiry's agenda.

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 - 03/09/26Thursday, 3rd September 2026 at 10:00am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 03/09/26
Thursday, 3rd September 2026 at 10:00am